Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Possible New Recognitions

The following kinks indicate that more recognitions are coming soon.

• [1]
• [2]

84.134.90.188 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of the situation with Macedonia above it seems this means they will recognize and possibly Montenegro as well. Heck, maybe Greece will jump in too. However, this doesn't really have any specifics so it's not exactly relevant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. Please move Macedonia to the "Soon to recognize" section. 84.134.75.180 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting news, lets see how thing progress. We can't really add to countries as it isn't about specific countries ect. I don't know if we should add Macedonia to "Soon to recognise" Ijanderson (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this individual is referring to the above section on Macedonia as well. The leader of the Albanian party in the government coalition said it was a matter of days before Macedonia recognizes as soon as some technical problems on the border are worked out. However, it's not an official statement that Macedonia intends to recognize so I still don't think it should justify moving them to "soon to recognize" though I already included the party leader's statement in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go with that since the Albanian party is one of the current coalition parties in MKD. Ijanderson (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.84.134.111.103 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

B92 New Kosovo ReportArab States expected to "recognise very soon, again". Maybe they will, maybe they won't. How soon is soon. Saudi Arabia has been saying soon since April, surely the recognition reprocess can't take that long. What they waiting for? Ijanderson (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Kosovo president Arabic states now have doubts over this issue so they made a conference in Pristina for Arabic representatives in order to convince them. But I don't think that Kosovo has a bigger convincing potential than the US. Also another interesting thing is that Iraq hasn't recognized - I wonder if it is the US trying to show how Iraq has independent policies?--Avala (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a little bit more specifically.

• [3]

84.134.106.174 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Now (with Russian recognition) that Abkazia and South Ossetia meet the minimum de facto definition of a state, thier entires should be moved to 'other states' along with the Vatican, PA, SADR, and TRNC. 141.166.152.188 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, they are no less or more independent than TRNC.--Avala (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Fact is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia now have the same status as Kosovo does. --Tocino 17:44, 26 Auguts 2008 (UTC)

No they don't, they have the same status as TRNC. Kosovo is not as isolated and is recognised by many countries and several international organisations. Ijanderson (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I see to recall the reasoning, from both Avala and Tocino, being when Kosovo declared independence that it wasn't a "real" country because only "a few," "a handful," "Insert Number Here" countries recognised it. Since only Russia recognises Abkhazia/South Ossetia, they have exactly the same status as the TRNC, which means they get to have a * after their names with the note that they're only recognised by Russia.

Tocino, you have yet to answer the query I put to you over in the South Ossetia war thread: Why is it that Ossetian and Abkhaz separatists are "good" separatists, in your estimation, whereas Kosovar separatists are pure evil and in league with Satan?Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ij, Russia will not be the only country to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Many of the CIS nations, the BRIC countries, and traditional allies such as Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, and Vietnam may recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the near future. Also, if Georgia recognizes Kosovo to piss off Russia, then Serbia will be poised to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Tocino 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, why is it just the opposite for you? --Tocino 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming it's the opposite. You have no idea what I think about this issue. And you've once again avoided the question. Congratulations, you have no credibility. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simple really. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been nations in the past. It was Stalin who threw them in with Georgia. Kosovo has always been the heartland of Serbia meanwhile. --Tocino 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Russia has such wonderful allies, don't they Tocino? [read with utmost sarcasm] 141.166.241.22 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical Western arrogance. No wonder everyone else in the world hates us and the EuroSnobs --Tocino 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking nonsense again?84.134.121.122 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia wont recognise them, because that would mean giving up Kosovo. Also only 20 countries max will recognise them both, making them like Taiwan and TRNC so they will be internationally isolated, unlike Kosovo which is becoming more and more like any other UN state. Also Russia's position against Kosovo has been ruined by this. I think Canadian Bobby opposes them because they are "basically" Russian annexations. I have been watching the whole thing carefully on Russia Today, BBC, Euronews, France 24 and Al Jazera. Russia has made itself look hypocritical. Ijanderson (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a place to discuss Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Regardless of what you think of this situation it has no bearing on this article. I agree they should be put on the same level as Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, and Western Sahara. They are no longer unrecognized states.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They are all hypocritical. Those who recognized Kosovo now talk about international law, United Nations etc. and Russia well it's obvious. Serbia stated it is devoted to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. Serbia did not recognize Kurdistan to get back at Turkey or Casamance to Senegal so it wont recognize these two if Georgia recognizes Kosovo either. Some lower officials of the Serbian Government have condemned Georgia by saying that this is a result of their soft approach to Kosovo issue.--Avala (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala is correct they are all hypocritical. Ijanderson (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if the SRS and DSS and others win a majority in the next elections then Serbia's stance could very well change. --Tocino 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Template talk:Countries of Europe‎. For what it's worth, I very much doubt that any other state will recognize the breakaways - it's too much of a precedent for their own separatists and in the case of Russia's neighbours, they will be very conscious of the large ethnic Russian communities on their territories. They have too much to lose. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum.84.134.121.122 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia knows that even if it wants to recognize the new countries, it can't without destroying its own position. So really, this topic is over--Jakezing (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From judging by their statement on the new article, they pretty much knew it was going to happen. Frankly, the papers in the US (and me, personally, as a student of politics) knew this move was going to happen. I was hoping it was going to be the Transdniester area first and I didn't think a war was going to happen. My POV aside, we should treat the new article to the same standards as we have here. Still surprised to wake up in the morning, sip on the Pepsi that two new states were born. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I said thats not a forum. And Tocino should be reported to an admin.84.134.122.185 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New Recognitions are expected in the near future.

• [8]84.134.89.14 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

To be consistent, I would suggest that we change the name of this page to "International recognition of Kosovo."

Yea or nay?

Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this, makes more sense becuase this is what they page has become Ijanderson (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Think of Mozambique or Paraguay.--Avala (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It sure isn't stopping them over at the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence page from listing countries as we are here. We should emulate the page name, as documenting recognition is primarily what this page is concerned about. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Mozambique or Paraguay? Ijanderson (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well they just made a reaction but it's not a recognition or non recognition. The reason why we have International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence is because they declared independence in 1991 and it would maybe be silly to have international reaction article now.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of disagree Proposed name is rather ambiguous. Perhaps "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" or "International recognition of Kosovo independence" could be better choices. Húsönd 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Either of those sounds fine to me. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

yes Hussonds sounds better Ijanderson (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please move to International recognition of Kosovo independence, one of the 2 alternatives given by Húsönd.

I favor it over the other ("International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo") because it avoids the row over the exact phrasing of the country's official name (Kosova or Kosovo) and does not dovetail with the republic proclamed some years ago and recognized then by a few states. And such renaming would bring us closer to finally eliminating forced on us OR where non-recognition by states, even rumors what a state might do or not (example: Uruguay) have been misrepresented by partisan editors in this article and elsewhere on Wikimedia projects, so far successfully, as state recognition or non-recognition of independent Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 01:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad my suggestions drew positive feedback. :-) I must by the way remind that any proposed move of this article should go through WP:RM due to its likely controversial nature. Húsönd 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is now listed there under 26 August 2008, and this section has been renamed as "Requested move". The required {{move}} with a new name has been placed atop this discussion page as well. --Mareklug ^talk 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the date on WP:RM, request made on August 27, 2007 (UTC). :-) Also, I'll add a typical discussion area below, otherwise this one will become one of those messy move requests. Húsönd 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia could recognise Kosovo

B92 According to a senior Russian official. I can't really tell what the source is saying. What can we make of it? Ijanderson (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You should read the words of Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin.... "I believe Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. They have a much stronger case". Link here: [9] --Tocino 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i read that too, but this is another politician. Also he didn't say Kosovo doesn't deserve independence, just that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this person say he is not sure ("maybe, I don't know") and Churkin responded that Russia will certainly not recognize due to UNSC 1244. Yes both the US and Russia are hypocrites and I am sure that they will not make their position consistent and recognize the other regions they haven't done so far.--Avala (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point made my Avala, the source i presented basically says that Russia might recognise Kosovo because they have already broken international law so they might recognise Kosovo too. However this is only up to the much respectful Dimitry Medvedev. Ijanderson (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's basically like saying that the US can recognise Ossetia. They can but they wont.--Avala (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia Close to Recognising Kosovo too

[10] “Macedonia has already accepted Kosovo’s passports and soon it will officially recognise its independence,” According to Ali Ahmeti. How can we use this? Ijanderson (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ali Ahmeti plays no role in the Macedonian government. --Tocino 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So he is still leader of the opposition in Macedonia and is a well respected and important political figure im Macedonian politics. Ijanderson (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is the matter of days as Albanian leaders claim then we can be patient enough and wait.--Avala (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ali Ahmeti's part is in coalition with current Macedonian government. Macedonia actually has already taken the decision. The announcement is a matter of time;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.82.78 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

yeh yeh i heard Ijanderson (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Given what we know today, and developments in Macedonia, Kosovo and elsewhere, why should we not move Macedonia to immiment recognizers category and whittle down the ridiculous amount of hedging put in its write-up? I think it's difficult to contrue any reasons other than partisan. Please give me a reasonable argument (or just make the edit I'm suggesting). --Mareklug ^talk 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• imminent:
  1. likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
  2. projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.

[Origin: 1520–30; < L imminent- (s. of imminéns), prp. of imminére to overhang, equiv. to im- im-1 + -min- from a base meaning “jut out, project, rise” (cf. eminent, mount2) + -ent- -ent]

I think the category should simply be "Imminent recognizers" and leave it at that. --Mareklug ^talk 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC) And so it is. --Mareklug ^talk 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to see the other side of the Macedonian Coalition make a statement about Kosovo for once. Menduh Thaçi said the same thing as Ahmeti when he was part of the Government. And yet here we are. If Macedonian news reports something I'll update. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Portugal again

its in German They are to recognise soon Ijanderson (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a statement or it's just German media copying BalkanInsight in guessing?--Avala (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No this is a statement made today "Thursday" (aka Donnerstag in German) saying that Portugal is expected to recognise in one, two, three weeks. Along them lines if im correct. Ijanderson (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran it through the translation. It only cites the New Alliance Party of Kosovo leader Behgjet Pacolli and spokesperson Ibrahim Gashi. They can't speak on behalf of Portugal, not just like that, if there was a meeting between them and some Portuguese official maybe but this way nope. It also says that they expect that to happen in two or three weeks. --Avala (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If they are to recognise soon i dare say there will be some english sources appearing in the media soon Ijanderson (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw these two can't speak even on behalf of Kosovo as they are opposition.--Avala (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Behgjet Pacolli is a very influential man. He is mega rich and has friends in high places. He was mates with Yelsin and co. He was also right about Malta and Colombia recognising. Ijanderson (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing bordering on vandalism

Keep an eye on Dkis (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes ive noticed him. Ive warned him over the 3RR rule Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HE needs to be reported as a sockpuppet of User:Koov --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Haitian Response

The quote contained in the Haitian response isn't quite proper English, though close. Could someone clean that up please? Menrunningpast (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why are Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the TRNC listed in "Other States" along with the Vatican and Palestine? On the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia page, Kosovo, Hamas-Gaza and the TRNC are listed under "Other entities." This is unfair and biased. Kosovo has far more recognition than the TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Hamas is in an even more bizarre position, so to equate them all is to demean Kosovo. I would propose that the TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia be moved to the "Regions aspiring for more autonomy/independence" section, as that's essentially what they're doing, anyway. You may now bitch at me. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, wouldn't it be more apt to move Kosovo, Abkhasia and South Ossetia to some "states" category in the other article? I still have misgivings about our classifying Palestinaina Authority as a "state", as it fails statehood criteria even according to its leaders we quote in the context of Kosovo, and listing PA as a a state seems more a wish than dispassionate reflection of reality. On the other hand, the idea that a state is whatever at least one state recognizes as such, seems most successful as far as strategies that cut through bickering while employing common sense, a Wikipedia guideline, after all. :) Not a flame or bitching at you, please note. --Mareklug ^talk 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I asked Husond to reconsider International recognition of Kosovo as somehow inappropriate. The present title for Abhkazia and South Ossetia, after many adjustments, is just that. I'd move the Northern Cyprus recognition article to International recognition of Northern Cyprus. In all three cases, the only ones we have on Wikipedia at this point, I'm motivated by using the most common names and employing maximal succinctness in titling, with consistency.

TRNC, Abkhazia and (barely) South Ossetia do qualify as states (see Declarative theory of statehood); the key thing about them is that they are almost entirely unrecognised states. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Imminent recognisers

Please move Macedonia and Portugal to the imminent recognisers.84.134.87.92 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep banging on about this, but if you registered with Wikipedia, you could do it yourself! Bazonka (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And get promptly reverted. Both Macedonia and Portugal keep being discussed on this talk page ever so often, and the consensus so far has been to keep them where they are. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We should ignore IP 84, hes, useless; hiding behind a changing ip he knows we can't block.--Jakezing (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You should have more respect toward other people.84.134.68.247 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote this to Ijanderson : "Change your behavior. Its very stupid." and "Are you not in your right mind? Are you drunk? Or just mentally ill?". So you are the one who has no respect for others.--Avala (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I only wanted him to see how he is. Maybe I have made that the wrong way.84.134.63.65 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

well i was strongly offended by your comments. NOT! seriously, i think everyone should ignore IP.84.134.??.?? until he registers an account on English wikikpedia. He could be of use, for example we had a german source yesterday and he could have helped by translating it for us ect. Also he could add the information he provides to this talk page himself. IP.84.134.??.?? please reigister on wikipedia ;) Ijanderson (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is that rule? 84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no rule mention, now register to wikipedia at once IP.84.134.??.?? Ijanderson (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again: Why are you talking to me in that offensiv way? I meant there is no rule which demands that I must do that. Why are you want that from me? 84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it seems silly that you haven't since you spend so much time on wikipedia you might as well, also its annoying talking to anonymous IPs. Also please explain how i have been offensive Ijanderson (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are like my aunt everytime you say "do these, do that" no please, nothing. Being polite wouldn't hurt anyone.84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should listen to your aunt more.--Avala (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats that suposed to mean?84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It means your aunt is correct. Ok, I'll be polite. Please will you register on wikipedia. Ijanderson (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She is not correct. I have already done so.84.134.81.195 (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But you were blocked and now you have a problem.--Avala (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? What does that mean? I have done everything you wanted!84.134.73.75 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sudan

Something about Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

• [11]

84.134.87.92 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More in this article, which I think is what's referred to in the first article: [12] Bazonka (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll add that.--Avala (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro Recognition

Kevin Lajm (UK Ambassador to Mont.) believes that Mont. will recognize just before EU summit. Read here (in Albanian/Shqip). Ari 0384 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, us Brits have been urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo soon[13][14] Ijanderson (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

US is now urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo [15] Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What I found particularly illuminating here, is the US Ambassador's stated claim, that Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999 and that although 1244's preamble may state that Kosovo is part of Serbia, the UN Charter (he cites the part of it) makes Security Council decisions binding for countries, and in absence of such, there is no law. Interesting. Shows USA thinks it has a legal basis in international law, other than the general principles of self-determination of nations, part of Helsinki Final Act, UN Declaration of Human Rights and other body of law. --Mareklug ^talk 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[16] Montenegro is coming under further pressure Ijanderson (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arab recognition

Seem to coming after all.

• [17]

Max Mux (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it shows that relabeling the map from "Other states" to "States that do not recognize Kosovo independence" or some such is just POV wishful thinking pushed by known partisan editors, further showing off their true colors. Many of these other states are about to recognize. Very nice to see Husond revert this, after I reverted for the nth time with request to discuss it, but Avala reinstated it briefly. --Mareklug ^talk 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Imminent recognisers

Please add Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait in that section. Thank you. Max Mux (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to back it by a reliable source. Wishful thinking by Kosovar mufti won't do, we need statements from government representatives of Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 14:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully. It isn't just wishful thinking he has contact to officials of these countries.Max Mux (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read the article. He only makes a vague claim of having "frequent contacts" with the officials. He neither specifies names or positions of representatives of these countries he met, nor does he quote any explicit statements by these officials. There's nothing we can work with. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia again

Something about Macedonia again, sadly not from the goverment.

• [18]

Max Mux (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

your even more annoying with the editing as a user and not a IP... and DO WE HAVE to keep explaining, not from the goverment, not offical.--Jakezing (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But it belongs to the "International reaction".84.134.87.125 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a quote by an Albanian politician in Macedonia asking for everyone in Macedonia to sign a declaration of recognition of Kosovo. What do you think should we add to the article? What if every other party turns him down?--Avala (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jakezing WP:NPA Ijanderson (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But now i can insult him and he will actuly see it!--Jakezing (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jakezing WP:CIVIL Ijanderson (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milošoski was asked by a journalist today: "Will you recognise Kosovo?". He didn't answer. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Source? 84.134.100.171 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Today they said the demarcation is going per 1974 plan, not the Ahtisaari plan. They also need to sort out the gift of the Serbian government to Macedonian government of a large part of land in 2001.--Avala (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said that? The MFA spokesman for Macedonia directly contradicts this:

Macedonian Foreign Ministry expressed content with the hitherto progress of borderline demarcation process between Macedonia and Kosovo.

As they underlined, the process is being realised according to the established frameworks of Ahtisaari’s plan.

Pertaining to some media allegations, relying on statements by inhabitants from border village Debalde, the Foreign Ministry remarks that the official mixed Macedonian-Kosovo committee was in charge of the demarcation and its work progressed in accordance with the international agreements.

“The Foreign Ministry agrees with Kosovo Demarcation Committee Vice President Murat Meha’s statement for Pristina Agency Kosovapress where he underlines that no incident has been registered since the beginning of the demarcation of the borderline with Macedonia and we expect this condition to be maintained until the end of the demarcation process”, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Petar Culev stated.

See: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/3237/2/ --Mareklug ^talk 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? I believe it to be NPOV. If it isn't, that banner at the top should be removed. Also if the neutrality is still disputed, please specify and we can hep correct what is seen as POV. Ijanderson (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the issues have been solved so that the tag can be removed. If anyone wants to put it back I think we should expect a thorough explanation and I think it will be hard to give one considering the fact this article is well sourced and knowing how both sides think it's POV of another side which is a sign that the article is actually neutral.--Avala (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I also think we should remove the "neutrality" banner. In essence almost all political articles are controversial therefore this comes along "with the packaging". No need to use it. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Were just waiting for the idiots to come back and the the goverments to make things tough again. we could always re add the other version of the map and cause some havok.--Jakezing (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh you mean mean waiting for the government idiots to come back from vacation?--Avala (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the POV template there, and none of what motivated my adding it has been resolved. It's all detailed in the archives. The archiving, I suppose, is a great way to sweep unresolved complaints under the carpet. I'll just list the states grossly misrepresented: Bosnia, Uruguay, Slovakia, Ukraine, China, India, Cuba, Libya. Fix their state write-ups to NPOV, and I'll be the first to celebrate a truly NPOV article. --Mareklug ^talk 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You think Bosnia, Uruguay, Slovakia, Ukraine, China, India, Cuba, Libya statements are wrong/ POV in this article, how do you belive they should be written? Ijanderson (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he did show it on Slovakia when he erased the whole section and replaced it with one boilerplate statement of the Slovakia MFA from February. Then based on that he goes on to claim how Slovakia is in some kind of neutral position and still thinking despite the fact that their PM and FM reiterate their position every week or so with PM always adding a spicy comment and FM trying to be a bit more diplomatic. That is the issue, Mareklug is deliberately pushing for a chain POV edit. First he carves the article and then goes on to claim the reality he just created in other articles with citing this one (for an example EULEX article where he desperately tried to show Slovakia as neutral and what is better than pointing at this article where the uninformed readers would find a boiler plate statement and then believe all that miraculous world that Mareklug tries to create).

Also regarding Bosnia he claims no one reacted from there. Reality is that three out of three presidency members, prime minister, foreign minister and regional leaders reacted and all had the same statements, that Bosnia will not recognise Kosovo with some citing the reason to be international law and some the Serbian veto in the Council of Nations.

Then he refused to accept the existence of "joint statements" as such so therefore he contested the India and China entries, of course other editors provided videos, pictures, texts etc. to back up the existence of the meeting but they failed to see that he wasn't really contesting the meeting and the joint statement, he just hated the content of it so in the lack of any better argument he decided to attack the existence of the thing called joint statement by claiming `how could Lavrov speak for them? why don't they say it themselves?` - when asked did he ever see a joint statement (very often in the EU for an example) to be read out by all signatories he went silent. Of course we never saw 27 FMs of the EU reading the same statement over and over again. That's the reality.

Then he contested Libya because he couldn't comprehend that this article is about the International reaction which includes statements, media reports etc. not just official acts and documents adopted. He also contested why is the source from the Serbian media not the Libyan one. The answer was given in a link where we couldn't find anything because it was all Arabic. It didn't stop Mareklug to mention Libya for months in his attacks on me and this article. It just pops out in form of `oh yeah?! and what about the skewed statements from Libya?!`

We also went through Cuba million times (at least). We have the information that Fidel Castro is an elected advisor to the president of Cuba, whether anyone likes it or not. And he spoke in that capacity. Of course to Mareklug he is retired and having a rant. Well OK I could claim GWB is crazy and delusional but that would be my opinion and not a reason to tag the article with his quotes as POV.

It is sad how we allow for this user to go on with his destruction scheme over and over again. We should just maybe ignore it or reply with "Case closed." or "Been there, done that" instead of explaining these things every time Mareklug finds it appropriate to resurface them hoping it's the right time for him to get some support. But that kind of bumping up the old discussion for the sake of getting support the one didn't get previously is considered very rude and against Wiki etiquette.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:@Ian: Please don't be lazy, and don't make me recopy and paste what is already on this talkpage, albeit (wrongly) archived. Archives should only contain no longer live discussions. Isn't that so? --Mareklug ^talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to make the page neutral Ijanderson (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: You know, your chutzpah amazes me. You falsiify reality consistently (i.e., with a bias to show off Serbia as more supported internationally than is the case, by states) in the matter of Kosovo recognition for months now, while employing every parliamentary subterfuge on Wikipedia to ostracize sanity-checking, objecting contributions of others who oppose your tendentious, non-encyclopedic activity. It is sad how we allow this user to go on with his destructive scheme, dear Avala, are your own words which most aptly apply to your edits and relative impotence of the community to effectively correct them. Why that is, I don't know. Case in pint, when Slovakia issues an official, measured state response, with a built-in out, it is "boilerplate from February", and one that you removed (with an edit summary: WP:NOTPAPER"!), not kept alongside with the content you restored (the content, I say, merely restating the official response, but which conveniently allows Avala to engage in OR and POV-crafted collages of individuals's reactions elsewhere in the article, misrepresented as state reactions, all done to his partisan cause's advantage). On the other hand, his installing and retaining in the article 17 February 2008 politician statements for Ukraine, after having blocked updating the entry for more the recent statements by Julia Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister, is all fine with Avala, and needs no revisiting. What do you say to that, Ian? Everybody else? Husond? ChrisO? What's wrong with you, people? --Mareklug ^talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the fact is, This article cannot be called nuetral. It is always POV in some way. The Fact is, were better off leaving that tag on.--Jakezing (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address any particular issue here. You just ask editors who don't agree with your personal attacks what is wrong with them. Is that the highest level of your contribution? You don't write anything about how you removed the whole detailed entry on Slovakia which gives us perfect insight of the position in that country. You keep mentioning "state reaction" but this article is called International reaction not state reaction. Horrible how you miss this since February, it's almost 6 months and you still can't even understand what is the title of this article. It includes all statements not just acts adopted in the parliament which could be considered a "state reaction" though statements of elected officials are very well a state reaction too. You just keep on with same (almost boiler plate as some MFA statements) statements about "What about Cuba" etc. but when someone brings arguments which prove you wrong you either go silent and wait until the discussion is archived so you can start it over or you resort to personal attacks. So if you can properly address any POV (yes POV not the content dispute) issues there might be with the countries you mentioned, do it or the tag has to go.--Avala (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume we can remove the POV tag now after 3 days and no answer.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly. The collaborative effort underway has not yet fixed all the POV travesties in the write-ups of India, China nad Cuba, among others, but work is proceeding apace (Brazil, Slovakia, Ukraine, -Uruguay). You could of course lend a hand, and thus help shorten the amount of time the tag must remain in place... The article is not NPOV yet. Please look for non-Russian sources for the BRIC meeting, for example. I'm sure you can be of help, if you tried. --Mareklug ^talk 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative effort does not equal your personal contribution. But anyway I will disregard your awkward commentary about travesties etc. and will go straight to the point. I have finally made a Slovakia section which includes both MFA and PM in reasonable size without old commentary about 4 month period. I have also removed some summarizations (first sentence in Bosnia which was trying to explain to the reader something he can find out himself if he reads the section), some speculations ("some Israelis" privately want to recognise Kosovo, or some official said and replaced it with a named statement), removed talk about economy and statements like "they didn't say anything about the recognition though" because that is the subject of this article and so on. So I am working and you are talking about travesties. And there are 4 sources for the RIC meeting (Brazil as you can see did not attend, at least not the ministerial day one).--Avala (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded on User talk:Ijanderson977 and below: #Haiti and Uruguay. My own talk page, User talk:Mareklug, reflects more evidence of collaborative effort on Kosovo, and contains a link to a new subpage where some of us are working now. Everyone's welcome, including you, or more precisely, your editing that is nonpartisan and sourced to nonpartisan sources. The RIC meeting you sourced to 4 Russian sources. To say anymore here would be to only further repeat myself, and doing so is not strictly needed at the moment. --Mareklug ^talk 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

South Ossetia don't recognize Kosovo.

• [19]

Max Mux (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed what follows, because the conent was not germane :) to improving the article. Now, let's work together, people. There is a lot to fix. --Mareklug ^talk 05:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Headings, revisited

Contents

1 Serbia's non-recognition
2 States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent 
 2.1 UN member states
 2.2 Non-UN member states
 2.3 Imminent recognisers
3 Other states 
 3.1 UN member states
 3.2 Non-UN member states
4 Non-states
5 International organisations 
 5.1 Governmental organisations
 5.2 Non-governmental organisations
6 See also
7 Notes and references

As you can see above, I redid the headings, which were hurting. Now they agree with the map legend, which itself has been stable for months, so it's a good baseline, against which to organize our content. And we haven't redone the headings systematically, even though we got rid of a lot of content, and moved other content around. Please discuss the new headings nad propose changes if any, instead of edit warring. :) Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 05:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Republika Srpska is a legal republic within Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's not a non-state such as Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or a disputed region such as Nagorno Karabakh. I will return the old title for that section.--Avala (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, why do you feel so, to coin a phrase, imperial, as to announce that you will return the old title, instead of discussing, as requested, the change first? In stark contrast, in a section below, an editor made such a request, and a discussion ensued -- there was a discussion, you know, a concensus-building -- which registered opposition by two other editors, with good reason.

In our case, I don't know what a "legal republic within Bosnia and Herzegovina" is supposed to signify, or why it would be significant -- are there illegal republics within Bosnia and Herzegovina that you wish to draw our attention to? Also, Sakha Republic is a legal republic within the Russian Federation, but what has that got to do with anything? Do we list for that reason Yakutia separately as recogning Abkhasia or something along those lines? I'm aware of Serbia's undermining Bosnia by negotiating directly with RS and entering into agreements with it, bu our own Wikipedia article Republika Srpska contains this telling characterization: "As it is not a state, the Republika Srpska does not have its own Internet domain name...". IMHO Non-states does a marvelously fine job of tersely covering this "legal republic" just fine, and the longer former heading does not change anthing, except multiplying bytes needlessly. Pending consensus, I restored the headings to the state shown above. You also changed another heading, this time without giving any notice; neither change carried an edit summary. Please edit more collaboratively, and please discuss potentially controversial changes when explicitly asked to do so. And please don't appear to conceal edits by leaving off edit summaries entirely. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of doing against consensus when you were the one to change it all without discussion and no support whatsoever? If you want to change the existing scheme run a discussion here but until then you have no right to do it.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a systematic improvement as a candidate to be discussed and so far, you are the only one compelled to mess with it without getting others to agree. The fact that several other editors edited without overturning those changes or registering a ccomplaint tells me something -- and that you would trample it for no good reason. --Mareklug ^talk 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Says who? I don't think it's an improvement so there you go, no consensus anymore as no one else has voiced their concerns yet. If you have a proposal you first put it here for discussion rather than "shoot then ask".--Avala (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia yet again

a draft parliamentary resolution demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence has been filed by the DPA, main opposition party. They said "Now is the real moment for this to happen. It is about time that Macedonia joins pro- western states". [20] Worth adding to the article? Ijanderson (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What would we add, exactly? The DPA walked out of the Assembly after the elections, so what they do is only tangentially important right now. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We should add that they have filed a draft parliamentary resolution demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence Ijanderson (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but look how much we have on the DPA already, let alone after this is added. That, combined with the Ahmeti thing, means that we have two non-government figures, who have been wrong before, equated with official statements from people who actually hold some weight. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Our entire Macedonia entry is a sorry sight. Balkan Fever, pretty please, would you singlehandedly make it a lucid, fair and informative entry? It does not have to be the history of Macedonia. It only has to tell the reader where they are re: recognizing Kosovo as of today in an NPOV fashion. --Mareklug ^talk 12:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Arab countries

• [[21]]

Max Mux (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same article that is already being discussed in this section and this section. Why do you bring it up anew? Do you think people here cannot read, or did you forget what you wrote three days ago? This kind of behaviour is very annoying. Keep the discussion at one place, and do not pretend there is a new development when there is none. — Emil J. 16:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

request for change - Non-UN member states

Currently in the "other states" section there is "Non-UN member states" and then there is a "Non states" section. There is a mix-up here. In both sections are put entities from the List of unrecognized countries. As far as I understand in the "Non-UN member states" section should be put all entities from the List of unrecognized countries and in the "Non states" section all other entities like those from Government in exile and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements.

Thus "Transnistria" and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" should be moved FROM "Non states" TO "Non-UN member states" (or otherwise the whole of the "Non-UN member states" list should be moved TO "Non states" with the exception of "Holy See"). Alinor (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Partially recognised states and completely unrecognised Stated should be kept separate. Ijanderson (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Same grounds as Ian.--Jakezing (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But then the headings should be changed to "paritially recognised" and "completely unrecognised", because of the oddness of current headings ("non-un" and "non states"). Anyway besides recognition NKR and Transinistria ar as much states as South Ossetia and it is strange to lump them with Kashmir ("Liberation Front" organization), Chechen Republic (government in exile), Tamil Eelam (secessionist), Republika Srpska (fully-recognised sub-state entity), etc., e.g. a very diverse group of realy "non states" entities - in contrast to the much more coherent group of paritialy/fully unrecognised countries (where the only exception is the fully recognised Vatican City - but it also is covered by the "Non-UN" heading). So IMHO it is better to separate the "diverse group" as it is and just move NKR and Traninistria to the de-facto states group. Alinor (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alinor, there are many ways to skin the cat, and, as you yourself noted, Vatican does not fit either of the categories you champion. Plus, elaborated headings tend to get out of hand and grow to ridiculous, ungainly lengths. There is something to be said for brevity. As this article deals with recognition, grouping states on the basis of recognitiion is self-evident. Viewed that way, Non-UN, Non-states captures this salient distinction nicely. As Ian already noted, there is a sea of difference between having Russia recognize you, or Turkey, with no one else, and having no one recognize your statehood at all. As the reworked headings are correct, I suggest we sit on them for a bit to see how well they work out in practice. Maybe Transnitria will gain Russia's recognition in the interim, or mabe we will jetison the Non-states altogether. Stay tuned. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is importance if a entity is recognised by Russia/Turkey/etc. or nobody. But what about Transinistia recognition by Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Anyway, the current lumping of NKR and Transitria, whose situation on the ground is much similar to South Ossetia (espicialy Transitria) not with it, but with some totaly different and diverse group - this is very strange and wrong IMHO. OK, they are not recognised, but their situation is totaly different than that of Tatar Mejlis or West Papua advocate groups.

Current headings are simply wrong - what are NKR and Transinistia if not states? What is the difference between Transinistia and South Ossetia (besides Russian recognition)? The simple act of recognition does not make a entity "state" - that is why we have unrecognised and recognised states. To be a state does not require outside recognition- please see Montevideo Convention: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." (both NKR and Transinistia cover all requirements - Transinistia even has diplomatic relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia), and then: " The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." That is why I oppose lumping NKR and Traninistia with the diverse group of clearly non-state entities. Lets move them to Non-UN category? Alinor (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alinor, it is not the current headings that are simply wrong, as you say up front, but only that two states are categorized, in your view, under the wrong heading. Furthermore, you are using declarative theory of statehood to buttress your argument, in an article describing the competing constitutive theory of statehood notion of "recognition by other states". Fine, but let's be clear on what's at play. Personally, if you were to move the two "non-states" to "other states->non-UN members", I would not object, because, as you pointed out, their non-statehood is debatable, and we might as well give them the benefit of the doubt. But that's just my take on it, and two editors have objected. --Mareklug ^talk 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New Name

I am opposed to the new name, "International reaction to the declaration of independence of Kosovo". In 2008 it was the second time Kosovo declared independence, first time in 1990. So with this new name, we will have to include sources and information on the previous declaration of independence, so this completely changes the article. Also this controversial edit of changing the name was not done with a consensus or support. I demand for it to be reverted until a consensus is reached on a new name. Ijanderson (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Kwami, you really should not have lorded a move over the community, right after a controversially closed move request|. Although I fixed the lead so it matches now your new title, I second Ian's request. --Mareklug ^talk 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can easily add "2008" back into the title. [done] kwami (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather have International recognition of Kosovo. I believe on reconsideration it would pass, too. When can we have another RM under the rules? --Mareklug ^talk 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo is best and its much shorter and better and thats what the article is about Ijanderson (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a set time, though it's considered POV-pushing to request a move again when you lose the first time. But I agree per Ijanderson. kwami (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i suggest you do move it now to International recognition of Kosovo. Look at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo#Requested_move and you will see overwhelming support for it. So please move the article name Ijanderson (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was closed because there was no consensus so the status quo has to remain for a reasonable time now. A few months.--Avala (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was for a different name. I think, Kwami, that you can't in good faith equate the two proposed names, the one that actually failed and the shorter one never subjected to an RM and advocated in this thread by three editors (myself, Ian and yourself). Plus, the situation is continually evolving, and, dare I say, the editor who is opposing here, and is claming the status quo must remain in place "a few months" (!) made a meal of the proceedings, injecting a proposed split and making claims of all sorts about how other articles are being renamed to "reaction"... but the fact is, after the dust cleared, that a) they aren't -- they are all at "recognition", and b) as Ian noted, it is the most apt name for the article. So, aren't we allowed to suggest it formally under an RM procedure for the first time ever? I want some experienced admin opinions in the matter, please, no partisan voices on either side (and I consider myself one -- as far as the move goes; I consider myself nonpartisan on article content). --Mareklug ^talk 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't only about recognition, but other reactions aswell... Don't see the need to move. — chandler — 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. After content changes, this article is strictly about recognition, or lack of it, or cases where extending recognition is unclear or a matter of interpretation. For starters, the article ascribes reactions to states, and in diplomacy, that equates with recognition. Yes, there is a lot of POV content debauching from the true and narrow, but we are fixing it. We also included the recognitions or lack of it from several non-states (dubious) and organisations of states, with the sole exception being UNPO, an organisation of peoples denied statehood, yet who pursue it. Ergo, the article is strictly supposed to reveal international recognition. But I asked for neutral admins's opinions, Chandler. With all due respect, your edits on the map legend over many months and your user page show you to be neither. --Mareklug ^talk 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

...What on my user page makes me not neutral? What "map legend" edits over many months are you even talking about? You can see my edits too this article here [22][23][24] If you're referring to discussions about removing albanian names from maps shown in infoboxes, I should inform you that I'm for removing not only albanian names, but english, serbian or any language as that's the standard for every other country/region what ever you want to call it. So I don't see what you're coming from. — chandler — 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that. The ref. to your user page meant only to indicate that you are not an administrator. :) This could have been stated more directly. And I did misremember your edits, attributing to you someone else's repeated switching "Other states" to some unwieldy text emphasizing the gray-marked worlds as being against Kosovo. I'm sorry for that. --Mareklug ^talk 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Abkhazia will recognize Kosovo, if Kosovo recognized them in turn.

• [25]

Max Mux (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Ijanderson (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.84.134.110.159 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia to recognise on 23rd Sept

B92 source and focus-fen. It says all the conditions have been fulfilled for Macedonia to recognise Kosovo. Shall we add it to the article? Ijanderson (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Priština daily Zeri says that..." - I am not sure we can convert this into a quote. Maybe we should just wait for Sep 23. Some have mentioned that Macedonia will get a new name on Sep 24 and that this issue is somehow connected. --Avala (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its quite clear. Max Mux (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe BalkanFever can produce a Macedonian source of higher verifyiability, and if he does, then moving this to Imminent Recognisers will be the thing to do. --Mareklug ^talk 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about these above mentioned oones? What is wrong with them?84.134.118.155 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe waiting till 23rd is the best idea, like Avala said. Its best to classify these sources as "rumors". However if we can get a more official source, I agree with what Marek said. Ijanderson (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? I must repeat myself, the sources are clear enough in my opinion. What should be wrong?Max Mux (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not good quality sources. They are sources from Kosovo and Serbia. If they were sources from Serbia, saying the opposite, they would also be not good enough. Plus we are experienced: Macedonia has been rumored and declared by non-Macedonians as recognizing any moment now for all these months. Take a look at the freshly revised write-up. Logically, some official-based confirmation of these rumors, or an independent well-placed expert acting on insider information, but certainly not this. --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a rumour, perfectly normal thing and other media report on it but it simply has no place in this article.--Avala (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So far I'd say that Macedonia, Montenegro and Malaysia have been the most complicated and the most problematic by far. They give all these different statements every month. I don't know if it's something with the letter M or maybe they truly have no plan but it is annoying.--Avala (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. Macedonian media says that Priština sources say that it will happen on the 25th this month, but Deputy Prime Minister (for EU integration - I think) Ivica Bocevski apparently replied that recognition will come if it suits national interest. No direct quote though. [26] Probably best to wait. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 00:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Link maintenance for the section "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent - UN member states"

I have noticed we still use media reports for something (recognition) that requires an official document. Recognising is done through some kind of a decree, act etc. not a media statement and countries listed here are still not sourced to the official website and therefore we don't have an access to the recognition document. For an example regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia we have such Russia Nicaragua. We should try to fix this by finding permanent official sources with texts of the recognition not only reports on it.

• Belize
• Sierra Leone
• Liberia
• Burkina Faso
• Nauru
• Marshall Islands
• Bulgaria
• Monaco
• Senegal

We could also use MFA links for embassies/diplomatic relations of:

• Latvia
• Switzerland
• Austria
• Bulgaria
• Czech R.

--Avala (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Belize: [[27]]
• Sierra Leone:[[28]]
• Burkina Faso: [[29]]
• Nauru: [[30]]
• Bulgaria: [[31]]

Later I try to tell you the others.84.134.97.80 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstood. We are not looking for that, we are looking for official sources not kosovathanksyou.--Avala (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That are official sources.84.134.124.49 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovathanksyou is not an official source for Belize, Nauru etc.--Avala (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Czech MFA web page listing the embassy in Pristina: [32], [33]. — Emil J. 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

OK one by one change because they are the official MFA source, we can assume they are more permanent and official than media report. --Avala (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Change reference 53 with --Avala (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Change reference 88 with --Avala (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after achieving consensus.  Sandstein  19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to it, also Sandstein didn't wait long enough Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, however, the editprotect request is unnecessarily onerous: it should have been done as a text pattern-for-text pattern replacement. Whether a reference is 53th or 88th is lost on anyone editing. To figure out what to replace from this relative reference numbering, which is not visible when editing, invites a difficult to correct mistake. --Mareklug ^talk 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. Please make the request more specific, as per Mareklug above, and do not strike out my comments.  Sandstein  19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how much additional effort will this trivial maintenance request take. So, here's the third attempt.

Switzerland and Czech R. - edit request

{{editprotected}}

• "xinhua embassies" ref:

In section "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", please replace

| 19 || Switzerland || 2008-02-27 || Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina from 28 March 2008
Embassy of Kosovo in Bern (to open)||

with

| 19 || Switzerland || 2008-02-27 || Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina from 28 March 2008
Embassy of Kosovo in Bern (to open)||

and replace

| 41 || Czech Republic || 2008-05-21 || Embassy of the Czech Republic in Pristina from 16 July 2008
For details see: Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence || EU member state
NATO member state

with

| 41 || Czech Republic || 2008-05-21 || Embassy of the Czech Republic in Pristina from 16 July 2008
For details see: Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence || EU member state
NATO member state

— Emil J. 14:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Ijanderson (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - link maintenance is not contoversial. Thanks EmilJ for the effort to make the request in official tone.--Avala (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Haiti and Uruguay

Since it seems there is some dispute as to these it's best to be dealt within the talk page. I don't think the sourcing for Haiti is similar to that for Uruguay, which cites anonymous sources, but I also think anonymous government sources at least justify a mention in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your two edits (and the minor edit by somebody else that followed) are a revert of activity of user:Avala.

Upon further examination of his hidden massive changes made by Avala, I was forced to roll back the article to an earlier state before his latest edits. Contrary to egregious editing practices by Avala, I clearly marked my edit so that it is readily apparent what I did by inspecting the history.

Avala only uses edit summaries sporadically, when it suits him, and then, often misleadingly, as in the case of his latest Brazil edit, where he quoted the Brazilian title from the Brazilian source (a minor website), while attributing this content (in a paraphrase) to the Foreign Minister. But it is not anything the minister said himself. This edit is a reprise of a longstanding fabrication by the same user in the same Brazil write-up, using the same minor Brazilian source (as opposed to English statements from the Brazilian MFA readinly available on its web page). This particular source has been translated in full into English by the native speaker/admin Husond and argued to death (see the archives). This recidivism makes it very difficult to assume good faith. I am rather inclined to assume intransignet partisanship as chronically demonstrated, and an apparent inability to edit Wikipedia reliably and neutrally in the matter of Kosovo by this user. Perhpaps he should avail himself of other articles in need of his expertise and leave this one to persons not engaged emotionally in the topic.

For the latest example of his editorial damage, consider his obliteration of statements ascribed to an Israeli Foreign Ministry official. He replaced them with a more pro-Serbia sounding quote, attributed to a mere parliamentarian, member of the Israeli parliament, while sourcing her say to a ...Russian domain source (Russia is a partisan country in this dispute). This is simply outrageous behavior, and I call everybody's attention to it.

Other changes made by Avala included removing Haiti altogether, because Uruguay was removed. ??? He also removed in these edits the new NPOV characterization of Slovakia arrived by editors working off-article, claiming that the new summary was somehow constituting WP:OR (the entire encyclopedia consists of texts written by wikipedians -- and this does not make them automatically "original research"). He then proceeded to abridge and paraphrase this Slovakia MFA statement, which was deliberately cited by Ian and myself in full, precisely because it is short yet nuanced and complex, and admiting Slovakia certain outs from its initial position, characterized by the MFA as pertaining to the basis of the declaration only, what with other factors implied to be considered when they happen. Above all, it is a monolithic, official state reaction, and Avala altered its meaning while paraphrasing it, his POV, and returned media snippets by individual politicians that he himself crafted into a collage, again, to reflect his POV. And this is editing of Avala is not OR?

I am, again, disgusted by how Avala is editing for Serbia, and not for Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen you just vandalised the article big way and could be a reason for a permanent block. Just take a look at things you destroyed from various wikification corrections etc. You know what you did and you very well know you wouldn't like an admin to see that but they will. I think everyone had it with your little destructions.

This is the list of things you reverted which are block worthy

• Reference fix in Argentina
• Reordering in Armenia
• Wikification of Azerbaijan
• Readding Bahrain which doesn't correspond to the article subject "Since Kosovo's declaration of independence Bahrain has decided to financially support Kosovo, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but has not mentioned anything about recognition.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<"
• Reordering in Belarus and reference fix
• Adding OR summarization for Bosnia
• Cutting a sentence from Brazil entry which is even in the reference title
• Readding OR and unrelated comment in Cuba section "However, no Caribbean state has gone on record officially to embrace, oppose or even react to Kosovo's independence, >>>according to a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs<<<." ?!?!?!?!
• Removing reference in Egypt. WTF?!
• Reordering Iran to put the statement "we took note" over a final decision by the decision maker, the president
• Putting back the statement of the unnamed person for Israel. Adding the unverifiable "Foreign Ministry officials and politicians are privately voicing a general sympathy towards the Kosovar cause."
• Removing wikification for Laos
• Wikification and style removal for Mozambique
• Removal of reference and style fix in Pakistan
• Ref ordering in Romania
• Putting back the non working reference in Russia section. WTF!?
• Slovakia - lol. You put on only the boiler plate statement which was made BEFORE (YES BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE) 4 month period ("Only after evaluating the situation Slovakia will decide on its further steps.") which passed and removed the statements made AFTER (YES AFTER AFTER AFTER) that period. This is another joke like Egypt and Russia vandalism. You have by this added the outdated policy of Slovakia and removed, or better say tried to hide the real situation on this date. Is there an agenda here? To remove the information from this article which someone considers better not to be seen?
• Readded the broken reference in Spain.
• Ukraine - what exactly does this mean - "Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko announced during a joint briefing with PACE President Lluís Maria de Puig in Strasbourg in the framework of the visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe." What did she announce?!?! I fixed that but you replaced it with a version which has a dot at a wrong place.
• Venezuela - cohesion reverted.
• Vietnam - style fix reverted.
• Removing fact template from Palestine for a statement which has no source.

You've got issues, that's what I think. I mean no one would vandalise like this for fun, you are either on a mission to destroy this article or something else which I can't understand. Either way your edit was extremely malicious and will not go away unnoticed if you continue to pursue it.--Avala (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I cant be bothered saying why each or your edits are POV. But you are selectively choosing quotes to suit your POV, you have removed parts which don't suit your POV and you have silly reasonings for your POV edits to make them seem NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No broad comments please. How is it POV from my side to remove a nonworking reference and find a new one or to wikify a name or to expand an outdated section which Mareklug tried to forcefully look like it is the last information we have or to find a source or to add a fact template where its missing or to fix the sentence which has no meaning because the dot is at the wrong spot or reorder to have the statement by the president above the we took note statement from the spokesman etc.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but since I reverted your massive edit, I have corrected some of the reference keeping parts, which i accidentally removed. I was not referring to the reference edits been POV, I was on about your POV Slovakia, BiH, Iran, Mozambic, removing parts of Armenia and removal of Bahrain edits. Ijanderson (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you put the "We took note and will decide soon" in countries which have done so afterwards I will be tempted to re-add the "George W. Bush took note of the independence of Kosovo" because that is how much sense it makes.--Avala (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about Mozambique? I wikified it, removed summarization and put the statement into one block instead of the journalistic break.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it fun to make it harder for us to remove POV, by adding in NPOV with the same edit as the POV? Makes it so we can't undo the edits without it being vandalism.--Jakezing (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing touched the essence, here. The rollback was necessary each time it occured (by me and Ian), because Avala intermixed some NPOV edits and harmful POVizations in a sequence of edits without helpful edit summaries. (he has been cautioned on his talk page by other editors not involved on Kosovo for doing the same thing.) Now, here, he disingenously lists his good work, having enshrined since baseless accusations of "malicious" "vandalism" in two edit summaries that occured before the proection imposed by user:Husond. The upshot is, we, the bad editors, threw away good edits. If he is doing such good work, why is it being protested for months now? --Mareklug ^talk 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edit request - Cuba

The article has been protected again, right after user:Avala performed an unmarked revert of an NPOVed versioning of the Cuba, India, and China write-ups. He marked his edit summary: "rm OR". What he has done in fact, is to return the article to the OR/POV state for these three countries, that he himself has crafted.

Now, we, the editors working to make this article neutral and ubiased, must go through the {{[[Template:|]]|editprotect}} procedure in order to make improvements.

This section contains the write-up for Cuba that Avala reverted as OR. Please comment on it, and if and when we achieve consensus, the above editprotect template will activated, in order to attract an administrator:

|- | Cuba || Cuba has not issued an official position regarding the independence of Kosovo . 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. No Caribbean state has gone on record officially to embrace, oppose or even react to Kosovo's independence, according to a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement made in April. ||

• Support --Mareklug ^talk 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Marek Ijanderson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Partially support, but St Kitts' statement about other Caribbean countries is questionable and should not be included. It's unclear what they mean by Caribbean - Costa Rica and Mexico are Caribbean countries who've made statements. So perhaps St Kitts is only referring to CARICOM countries (i.e. not Cuba). We just don't know the scope; it's too woolly a statement to rely on. (See my fuller argument against this in Archive 25. This didn't get a response, so I suspect you didn't see it Mareklug.) Bazonka (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  All right. I struck it, as this information is tangential to the overall improvement in NPOVization, and I have to concede that there's an outside chance they the MFA not include Cuba, albeit geographically, doing so makes no sense - they are island neighbors. --Mareklug ^talk 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I now fully support the amendment. You're probably right that St Kitts referred to Cuba in their statement - my point being that we don't know that for certain. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Partial support/oppose - remove the OR "Cuba has not issued an official position regarding the independence of Kosovo." which has no reference next to it and I will support.--Avala (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  NO. That description is the central truth, and a necesary correction to your OR. Please recolor Cuba away from red to something else on your Commons maps, rather. We can certainly substantiate this description of realiy with a link to theh Cuban MFA website (maintanined in Spanish and English), which would source it. In general, all characterizations summarizing the actual, true situation re: state recogition of Kosovo by these countries is exactly what is needed, and their absence is what is wrong with the present content -- which you authored. Your demand to remove them as OR is ridiculous. It is obviously not shared by any other editor (so far), and they are all nonpartisan editors AFAIK. --Mareklug ^talk 11:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  If that sentence is not OR I assume you can provide a normal reference to support the claim instead of a hysterical "NO."?--Avala (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done. DiplomacyMonitor.com shows zero Cuban traffic with "Kosovo" string searches. The same data base shows also zero traffic in the subject matter of Kosovo with "Cuba" searches. The MFA for Cuba shows no Kosovo statements in either English or Spanish dating after the declaration of independence. Several official statements, including ones by Castro, about Kosovo, exist from 2007 and earlier. The website is continually updated in both languages. How would you source the Wikipedian text: "The earth is not flat."? Is that OR as well? --Mareklug ^talk 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well your references would work in a version like this:

|- | Cuba || Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba has not issued an official statement regarding the independence of Kosovo , however in a newspaper article, Fidel Castro, ex-President and the current foreign policy advisor to Raul Castro, writing unofficially, 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. ||

Do you agree? --Avala (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)--Avala (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

With the qualification I already inserted, that F. Castro wrote unofficially, yes. Still, not as clear and as what was agreed to by the community. Perhaps "writing unofficially" should be added as clarification to the original request. But that can be voted on separately. The important thing is to rmove false information, that Cuba acted as a state, which it has not. President of Czech Republic has also said and done a lot on Kosovo, but none of it is official Czech Republic policy in force. Ergo, no OR by extrapoloation in the case of Castro, please. --Mareklug ^talk 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Current Cuba entry is fine. It explains the role Fidel has Cuban politics during his post-presidency and why Cuba won't recognize. --Tocino 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edit request - Chinese People's Republic (this edit request is contested)

The article has been protected again, right after user:Avala performed an unmarked revert of an NPOVed versioning of the Cuba, India, and China write-ups. He marked his edit summary: "rm OR". What he has done in fact, is to return the article to the OR/POV state for these three countries, that he himself has crafted.

Now, we, the editors working to make this article neutral and ubiased, must go through the editprotect procedure in order to make improvements.

This section contains the write-up for China that Avala reverted as OR. Please comment on it, and if and when we achieve consensus, the above editprotect template will activated, in order to attract an administrator:

{{editprotect}}

Dear Administrator, please replace the China tabular entry under Other states>UN members. Consensus has been achieved. See below.

N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after achieving consensus. Such consensus is not yet apparent below.  Sandstein  19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When questioned, the administrator Sandstein explained::The problem is that you made the request too early. What you should do is first propose an edit, second wait a few days for objections to appear or consensus to be established, and third make an {{editprotected}} request. If you make the request too early, it may be rejected. Please try again.  Sandstein  11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Therefore, editors, please continue to respond and we will resubmit this, if consensus becomes more pronounced. --Mareklug ^talk 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

new content is

---

|- | People's Republic of China || People's Republic of China has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. 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 favorable conditions for that". On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since: "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". || permanent member of the UNSC

---

• Support --Mareklug ^talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Marek Ijanderson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - let alone that even the spelling in this proposal is wrong but "read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" doesn't mean anything. Did you ever see a EU 27 ministers reading the same statement one by one in their language? No it's only the presiding one that reads, today Bernard Kouchner. Also oppose "People's Republic of China has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo." because it must have the Template:who next to it - who says that? what is "final" position? --Avala (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  As far as I know -- and several other ediors made this point already (this discussion is archived): Neither China nor India have ever officially referred to Kosovo as "Serbian territory", after Kosovo's declaration of independence (17 Feb 2008). This fact should raise a red flag in the mind of any observer or encyclopedia writer. This curious document, purportedly reflecting the official policy of three countries, reads more and more with the passage of time as a Russian propaganda document, merely endured in silence by the two other countries. And since then, ignored. Because, neither China nor India have produced official traffic congruent with the terminology used in this curious document. It is out of character for the Chinese, who are nototriously cautious and gravely concerned. The Indians tend to remain silent. Their MFA traffic on Kosovo is muted, cautious and ambivalent.

  And here is further evidence of recognition-related dissonace arising between the rough Russians and the crafty Chinese, as the diplomatic situation radically changes, in wake of the Russo-Georgian war and its diplomatic aftermath:

  China also objected to Russia's attempt to use a Chinese-dominated regional body, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to endorse its recognition of the rebel Georgian regions, Tsang said. Beijing has always insisted the grouping, which met last week in Tajikistan, is not a political alliance and doesn't pose a threat to any other nation or multilateral institution.
  
  "It's not meant to rebuke Russia as much as it is to show the world that the SCO under Chinese stewardship is a constructive force," Tsang said.

  -- from: International Herald Tribune (a respected neutral world press newspaper, "China could gain from Russian moves on Georgia", 3 September 2008.

  In sum, your opposition, POV-based as it is and defending your own edits which the community wishes to overturn, consists of you giving undue weight to a singular, outdated communique issued at a conference. It violates WP:VER and Common Sense, also a Wikipedia guideline (WP:COMMON). Your opposition to the proposed NPOV improvements is not a roadblock to the demonstrated consensus, per those Wikipedia policies. I am turning on the editprotect request. --Mareklug ^talk 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  Heh you just gave "evidence" regarding Abkhazia and Ossetia, not Kosovo. Look further, we wont accept that as a source for this. Also they were not silent, they actually made a statement - [34] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. I wonder how many time this needs to be repeated? --Avala (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events shown, including the recently made statement quoted above re: Abkhasia/South Ossetia (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), the demostrated reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically since the RIC statement, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug ^talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • • • How is it balancing when you change a raw quote with commentary on languages and what not?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Second attempt, more NPOV China

Please replace China with this version.

---

|- | 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 favorable conditions for that". On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position: "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". || permanent member of the UNSC

---

Removed WP:OR and the language thing. Agree we should add it? Ijanderson (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - and remove "purportedy" which is dragging through all proposals, I can't find that in a dict. and purportedly which is the intended word I suppose is kind of POV. I think we should put "At a press conference the host minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the media with what he presented as a joint statement" --Avala (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  Must you be obtuse? Fix the typo and be done with it. Purportedly is exactly right, because this joint statement has never been sourced to the official issue by Chinese People's Republic or India. So we don't really have any collaboration that it is what you claim it is. And, neither China or India has ever, ever on its own called Kosovo "Serbian territory", as the Russian Minister did. Which is why we have a reason to think that this allegedly joint communique is somewhat less representative of the norm you so harp on. I fixed the typo.--Mareklug ^talk 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This makes no sense. The central NEED is to state unequivocally that China has not yet issued a recognition or denial of recognition of Kosovo's independence, unlike Russia. That's the gist of it. And that is also what Avala lies about on his commons maps, whre India and China are shown as having offically rejected Kosovo just like Russia and Serbia have. For that matter, he has many other countries represented that way, so don't be surprised that he is objecting here. We threw out (several editors did; Avala was reverting this) Uruguay as worthless information, but on the basis of this information, even now (I looked), Avala has painted Uruguay red (officially rejected Kosovo independence) on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png. So -- I ask all editor and readers to take a correction on all the claims being put forth here by Avala and examine his use of this article -- off article, in other Wikimedia constructs. --Mareklug ^talk 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? They made a statement - [35] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. And stop talking about the map which is not used here. It's turning into an obsession but is also off topic.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • If i remember, China never actuly did say they didn't recognize, or i haven't read the article for a while... China is part of that group who is just not wanting to say they didn't, trying to be "neutral", a 3rd door, in a 2-door-only problem. Oppose. --Jakezing (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug ^talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it balancing when you change a raw quote with commentary on languages and what not?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Current entry for China is fine. It lists the two responses they've made - one through the Foreign Ministry and the other a joint statement China made with India and Russia. --Tocino 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edit request - India

The article has been protected again, right after user:Avala performed an unmarked revert of an NPOVed versioning of the Cuba, India, and China write-ups. He marked his edit summary: "rm OR". What he has done in fact, is to return the article to the OR/POV state for these three countries, that he himself has crafted.

Now, we, the editors working to make this article neutral and ubiased, must go through the {{[[Template:|]]|editprotect}} procedure in order to make improvements.

This section contains the write-up for India that Avala reverted as OR. Please comment on it, and if and when we achieve consensus, the above editprotect template will activated, in order to attract an administrator:

|- | India || India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. Official communique of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is cautious and ambiguous: "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." On the other hand, statements ascribed by the Serbian media over the months to the Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby are pro-Serbia:

• "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."
  
• 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".
  
• 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".

On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since: "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". ||

• Support --Mareklug ^talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Marek Ijanderson (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - let alone that even the spelling in this proposal is wrong but "read a statement purportedy reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" doesn't mean anything. Did you ever see a EU 27 ministers reading the same statement one by one in their language? No it's only the presiding one that reads, today Bernard Kouchner. Also oppose "India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo.." because it must have the Template:who next to it - who says that? what is "final" position? Do we know that they are going for some kind of finalization in this case I suppose recognition? And with the ambassador statement remove "On the other hand" and "are pro-Serbia" and just write "Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby made following statements" --Avala (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  Spelling fixed. Fixing spelling is least of all requiring opposing, and can be and should be done automatically without comment. You are not displahying good faith. As noted under China, India never called officially in its own words Kosovo "Serbian territory". We have good reasons to discount the genuine value of this communique -- made on Russian terms, in Russia and not ever replicated officially by China or India, from what we can detect in the internet -- as being good evidence of Chinese or Indian policy. --Mareklug ^talk 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • They made a statement - [36] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. So you saying that they didn't is OR because you can't provide a single source to back up you claim and all the sources including a video show them making this statement together but indeed only one of them, the host minister, reads it instead of them reading it in a choir or one by one which is never seen.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug ^talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it balancing when you change a raw quote with commentary on languages and what not?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Second attempt, more NPOV India

Please replace India with this version.

---

|- | India || India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. Official communique of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is cautious and ambiguous: "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." However Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby has said the following; "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."; On 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world". and on the 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".

---

Removed WP:OR, WP:POV parts and the language thing. Agree we should add it? Ijanderson (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

---

|- | India | Official communique of the Foreign Ministrz issued in February 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." In later months Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby has said the following; "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."; On 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world". and on the 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".

---

It has no summarizations just sheer quotes and let the readers decide.--Avala (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Ian you are mistaken here, going with the flow with Avala and letting his contention that what you removed is OR or POV. It is the absence of true information and POV impression created by selective choice of quoted material by Avala -- with exclusive use of Russian sources where he should be avoiding them, because Russian is partisan and so are Russian sources -- that is OR. Is this so hard to grasp? We got in this mess precisely because of the potential for abuse in carefully, progagandistically tailoring choice of evidence -- in the form of quotes -- and stitching them into wholes, purportedly representing state positions. That is both OR and crafty partisan activity. Please be savvy. We are being manipulated here, as is reality. A good, well-sourced summary informing the reader without bias as to the true current state of affairs is the essence of encyclopedic writing. Sheer quotes, as demonstrated by Avala, are no cure for sheer distortion and do just fine to spread lies. --Mareklug ^talk 12:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • They made a statement - [37] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. So you saying that they didn't is OR because you can't provide a single source to back up you claim and all the sources including a video show them making this statement together but indeed only one of them, the host minister, reads it instead of them reading it in a choir or one by one which is never seen.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug ^talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How is it balancing when you change a raw quote with commentary on languages and what not?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Current India entry is fine and has all of the information without the spin. To leave off the joint statement India, China, and Russia made in Sverdlovsk would be criminal. --Tocino 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Criminal? I don't think so!Max Mux (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arab League

Any news from that meeting today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.190.77 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They said their main issue is Palestine.--Avala (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link. [[38]] 84.134.97.116 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a translation by FoNet. Anyway it was made before the meetings, just Serbian FM saying how he will meet some other ministers. --Avala (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Shouldn't this article be moved to International reaction to Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence?

It would make more sense, you know. -- 92.16.151.24 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ijanderson (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The current title is simply a more formal form of language, there is no need to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.90.28.194 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer "International recognition of Kosovo." Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So do I, Robert. Let's start a formal WP:RM. Your turn. :) This name was never proposed formally, so I don't see it as trying twice. --Mareklug ^talk 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a vote, what kind of formality did you want?--Avala (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a vote concerning a move to some other name. There has never been a vote concerning renaming in particular to International recognition of Kosovo. I don't recall any implied restriction, that there shall never be another vote to move the article under any name whatsoever containing the word "recognition". This is the formal vote I and Robert want to see: Should this article be best retitled: international recognition of Kosovo? --Mareklug ^talk 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an eminently sensible title to me. Bazonka (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, this was your proposal which you put on vote (you called it a survey): "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence → International recognition of Kosovo independence". It did not get enough support even including some variations. That vote was so recent that it is still on this page, it's not archived. I seriously don't understand what are you proposing here today? I hope it has got nothing to do with inability to accept the fact that the proposal did not get sufficient support. Obviously if there was no support for change so recently (whatever of the variations) it's rude to put it on vote again now. --Avala (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala, you interfered in that vote, first of all, by creating chaos, making claims about us having to wait for the other article being renamed, or having all of these articles under a common name, and what not. You then proceeeded to muddy the issue by proposing an article split in during the vote, as a subvote. In all, you made a meal of it. And meanwhile, the other article in question (A. and SO.) happens to have settled on the short form proposed here for Kosovo. So, by your logic, we should change ours to match it.

Furthermore, the title Robert proposed and Bazonka just now endorsed (in addition to me, Kwami and other editors) is the best title, and should be considered on its own merits by all editors.

"I hope it has got nothing to do with inability to accept the fact that the states you keep marked on Commons maps as having officially rejected independent Kosovo, in reality haven't.

Obviously, it hurts Wikipedia to keep the best title from being voted on. --Mareklug ^talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Husond (talk · contribs) is a total weirdo! He protected this page without consensus. I have urged him to unprotect this page so you won't have to wait for a SYSOP to add an entry for you. Anyway, I agree with the article title being changed. Maybe back to the original title: International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Don't you all agree? -- 92.0.197.9 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't all agree. The difference between "...2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and "...2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo" is practically nothing. What's the point of changing that? We should either leave it as it is, or change it to the succinct "International recognition of Kosovo". Don't waste our time with pettiness. Bazonka (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The original title "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" is grammatically incorrect, that's why it was changed. Kosovo is not an adjective. — Emil J. 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece to recognize Kosovo

See [39]. M.M.S. (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. We can't really add anything because this source is from Thaçi, not Greece. However this source is useful for Kosovo passports. Maybe Greece will recognise. US recently said it supports Greece over the MKD naming dispute, so this might be Greece returning the favor. But until we get s source quoting Greek officials or from Greek Govt sites, we can't really add this information. Ijanderson (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to Kosovo, but when did the US say it supports Greece? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an older source on Greece [40] Ijanderson (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wishful thinking on Thaci's part. The Greek foreign ministry has said: "There is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." Link here =[41] . --Tocino 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This source which Tocino has kindly provided for us, is older than that current Thaçi source. Also since then Greece has decided to recognise Kosovo passports. Tocino, you will have to keep up to date with things mate Ijanderson (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thaci also said that 100 countries would recognize within a month of the declaration. He seems delusional, and besides he does not speak on behalf of Greece.--Tocino 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know he was rather optimistic, its a bit like the Abkhazian President saying he expects all the nations which have recognised Kosovo to recognise Abkhazia lol. Also I have already pointed out that he does not speak on the behalf of Greece. Ijanderson (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After all the tiptoeing for months, a few weeks ago Greek MFA has finally said that they will not recognise Kosovo. Not that anyone expected them to but it only took them a while to say it openly. Also their FM has recently said that Greek participation in EULEX is regarding regional stability and security and that it certainly does not imply recognition.

Regarding Thaci and his internal populist statements that get translated to the wider audience - "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" (8 Feb)[42] or "in a not so distant future our neighboring state Serbia will recognize Kosovo" (19 Aug)[43] --Avala (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Greece is a traditional ally of Serbia, especially Milosevic's regime, so no surprise there. However, the fact that it took them so long to say something, and only in a quiet way means that they're not really for it, but are kind of waiting for the right moment, so to speak. Essentially and especially if the UN forces Macedonia to finally accept a name-resolution. Greece will not recognize immediately, but it will certainly not veto any EU role in Kosovo. Like Slovakia, or Spain or any of these 'international law defenders' that have oppressed and repressed minorities that don't want to live with them. --alchaemia (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We had oppressed and repressed our minorities? Stop talking about somthing you don´t know nothing about. You´ll hardly find any country that gave bigger or equal right its minorities than Slovakia.

What kind of disinformation is that, Avala? You recently told us that Macedonia was not proceeding with Kosovo border demarcation according to the Ahtisaari Plan, but to some treaty from 1974 instead, and that prooved to be just a lie which I debunked with a quote from Macedonian MFA official printed by Macedonian press.

And here is the latest on Serbian FM meeting with the Greek FM in Athens before they all congregate at the UN in New York ...and nothing on Kosovo being Serbian came out of it. Instead, a very noncommital Greek position, suitable for recognizing Kosovo at a drop of a hat, was delineated by the FM. The Greek FM said today, that the Greek policy does not at all depend on which regime governs Kosovo. Very telling. There was no statement of support by Greece for Serbia on Kosovo. Only on helping getting Serbia to join EU: "Serbian FM in Athens", ANA.gr, 11 September 2008. --Mareklug ^talk 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all I expect an apology for saying that I lied. I did not lie, it was the Kosovo press which wrote about it and Macedonian MFA refuted it later - [44]. Secondly of all I expect an apology for saying that what I wrote is a misinformation because Greek MFA issued a statement saying "Greece >did not< recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." and their FM today said that Greek involvement in EULEX ">certainly does not< imply recognition" and that they want their presence to "contribute to stability and security in the region." So please check the facts before you go on a rampage of accusations, you have already been warned against personal attacks and refactoring comments of other users on talk pages.--22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovar press certainly did report that; no less than the national television, RTK itself. --alchaemia (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one? That Serbia is recognising, that 100 countries will do it in February or that Greece is doing it? Thaci said a lot of things so I am not sure which one are you referring to.--Avala (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala, first of all, below is a bloquote of what you wrote, with the surrponding context, and you never reacted when challenged, until now:

---

Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milošoski was asked by a journalist today: "Will you recognise Kosovo?". He didn't answer. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)<br /
Source? 84.134.100.171 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Today they said the demarcation is going per 1974 plan, not the Ahtisaari plan. They also need to sort out the gift of the Serbian government to Macedonian government of a large part of land in 2001.--Avala (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said that? The MFA spokesman for Macedonia directly contradicts this: ...a quote with an external link to Macedonian MFA official speaking...'

---

A lie is a lie. Maybe we should thank you for spreading them without any attribution? This is disinformation, plain and simple. Next time, source your "they", esp. when asked to do so.

I checked my facts, and you still haven't sourced your Greek MFA statement, whereas I gave a link to ANA.gr of TODAY. So, unless you are prepared to give us verbatim Greek or English from the Greek MFA, where they claim supporting Serbian Kosovo, you still are just making partisan claims.

You are the only user who is hellbent on beautifying my talk page with your warnings (in an attempt to have me banned as a result of accrued warnings), and running to admin Husond to have me blocked/banned. I suppose such Wikilove is to be endured. I must be a thorn in your propagandistic activities in matters Kosovo. Else you wouldn't bother. Fellow editors and readers of this page, please take note of Avala's activity to rid Wikipedia of opposition to his edits. --Mareklug ^talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a lie but misinformation by Kosovo media. Stop with your personal attacks already. Oh the source for the Greek MFA statement is there and it's official, not some ANA.grs and TODAYs. You just need to click on it. Your idea that I completely made up those quotes in my previous comment is ludicrous.--Avala (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I give my neutrality on this dispute, I will give my opinion later once when this discussion has developed further, I kind of agree with both arguments. Regards. Ijanderson (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ian. Avala is repeating lies and working on removing opposition on one hand, and Kosovan media are spreading disinformation. Even I am neutral in that dispute. :)

Avala says: "It's not a lie, it's misinformation". Hah hah hah ahahhaahhah. Listen, Avala. How on God's green earth is the reader to know that Kosovan media made this particular lie up, and not you, when it is you who wrote it on this page, not the Kosovoan media, and it is you, who made it seem like something THE MACEDONIANS HAVE CLAIMED -- see the context, quoted above. You didn't provide a source, as to who said it, you just wrote "They". When asked, you did nothing for more than a week! And, now, instead of giving us the asked for link to the Greek MFA allegedly supporting Serbian Kosovo, you engage in WP:POINT by linking Point-and-click and piping that to the word "click". What kind of editing is that?

And, to be precise, it is not my idea that you made up those quotes, only, that you disinformed us on their basis, without giving links when asked. Which you continue to do even right now in the matter of Greek support for Serbian Kosovo!

Since you imply as ludicrous the very idea of you ever making anything up, why did you make up the international fact of Uruguay having officially rejected Kosovo's independence? You persist in representing this fiction to this day. Clearly, on this basis, you are not above making things up on Wikimedia projects. You have a track record of making things up. Which, to be frank, boggles the mind, as you are an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia. I would think that the Serbian Wikipedia WP:bureaucrat or steward would be upset to learn that his admin uploads time and time again a map with Uruguay marked falsely (as having already officially rejected Kosovo), after first spreading a rumor about the purported unlikeliness of Kosovo recognition by Uruguay according to anonymous sources. And parking that on the English Wikipedia in a visible place. A rumor, which other editors have finally removed over Avala's reverts! Surely, introducing and sticking by bogus content, even after the bogosity was pointed out by editors -- by an admin -- is grounds for desysopping him, as causing detriment of Wikimedia projects? What do you think? Should we find out? Here is evidence of your, forgive me, lies: your last upload of this map was performed on 5 September 2008, and Uruguay is still red, and you even managed to color Greece ALREADY the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg How can we trust any of your edits in this article, if you do lie about Kosovo recognition elsewhere? --Mareklug ^talk 00:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know that map is not called "official rejections" and there is a source to backup that Uruguayan media were told in the Government, that Uruguay will not recognise because of some pillars of recognition they follow. Simple as that. You still insist that this article and that map are not about the various reactions from all over the world but specifically and only about officials acts adopted regarding Kosovo which is wrong. This article is not about it OK, it's about any reaction not only official documents regarding Kosovo because it would only have one section then - the one about countries that recognise.--Avala (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I found from a Greek source is that Greece wants stability and the protection of minorities in Kosovo. The Greek official said that there is no specific support for either Serbia or Kosovo on the recognition issue. Greece also took note of Serbia's move to go to the ICJ about Kosovo, but didn't imply explicit endorsement of the move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a news report by ANA.gr which says "Eulex did not imply recognition for any regime." but reading the transcripts the Greek FM actually said that "does not imply recognition". So the journalist completely made up the part "for any regime", the Greek FM didn't even use the word regime at all in any part of the conference.--Avala (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Precisely the link (and information) I gave. The reports of Greece having ALREADY officially rejected Kosovo's independence AFAIK comprise Serbian propaganda and Serbian media reports (what have I been saying about sticking to WP:VER and WP:NPOV in sourcing for this article?), locally propagated as fact by Avala. This is a major loss of credibility, my friends. Coloring Greece (among several other states without any basis) as having already rejected Kosovo is flagrant OR and a lie. --Mareklug ^talk 04:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's so hysterical that you have now even called the quote from the Greek MFA "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia" - OR and lie. But it's not, it was really said by their MFA spokesperson last week or so when he was asked about the Russian recognition of Georgian breakaway regions. He said that they have consistent policy of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states and that based on that principle "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia". I want your apology for implicating how I made up this quote, how it is a flagrant lie and what not.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just don't color Greece anything. I personally think it is almost to the point where I think no sources from Serbia or Kosovo should be used in order to figure out who said what. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's only Mareklug who is making these claims. In reality there is a perfectly fine Greek source for that quote, official source that is.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If we follow this proposal (banning Serbian and Kosovo Albanian sources) then we need to get rid of Sierra Leone, Belize, Bangladesh, and Haiti because all of their sources are Kosovo Albanian. --Tocino 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And those are part of the nations that people keep on having issues with their statements, so the sooner the article is rid of those, the better. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we should also get rid of Libya, Angola, etc., because those either have a Serb source or are are direct quotes from Jeremic who certainly has a dog in the race. And Avala, to answer your question, RTK reported that the demarcation is going according to the 1974 cadastre and borders, not the Macedonia-Serbia agreement which I think is correct as the previously unsatisfied villagers on the Kosovo side are pretty satisfied with how demarcation is going on. I think Macedonia is just putting a spin on it, as it wants it done ASAP but does not want its people to know that it's making concessions. --80.80.170.114 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.58.146 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove anything. Neither Sierra Leone or Libya. Work on finding better sources if you wish but keep these as they are.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally won't remove anything, since my opinion is going to run this article. I just still personally feel we should get our statements either from papers outside of both Serbia and Kosovo and use statements from the government's themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we already agreed to try to find 3rd party sources but if there are no 3rd party sources then we are certainly not going to ignore the ones that we have. For an example in situation that Nauru recognises Kosovo, world media doesn't find it interesting and Nauru media is not very developed so we will use Kosovo media which reported on it. Case to case basis, simple as that. I've already told Ijanderson that this article is far from complete because countries that have a position didn't really report on it. For an example Kuwait has Arabic only MFA website and even if they had a reaction apart from that of Ambassadors we missed it for that reason.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Nauru, even http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ sources Nauru with a link to the replicated text of the official letter from the Nauru UN Mission in New York to the President of Kosovo, as displayed by the President of Kosovo's official web page. It is not an opinion or assessment by the MFA of Kosovo, or an opinion of the President, just a copy of the letter as it apparently was written. But we link instead to http://www.kosovopresss.com/ . Perhaps it is convenient for some editors to have the article use bogus Kosovo press links as its sources, because these editors can then point to them, when NPOV editors question bogus Serbian press sources: http://www.B92.net or Tanjung (the former often simply reprints dispatches of the latter), and others like it. There is absolutely no reason to keep kosovopress.com sourcing a thing in this article! Ditto for the Serbian press as it relates to third countries. And the propagandistic spew of the Serbian Foreign Ministry and its propagandizing Minister -- c'mon, one would have to be blinded by partisanship to think it acceptable in light of WP:VER, especially in an article about who rejected Kosovo indepenence -- as sole sourcing! Will the Serbian MFA present the world with this information neutrally and professionally? Who here thinks so? Wikipedia rules are clear on this score: bogus content and content with bogus sources must be removed. That an admin would tell us otherwise tells us something valuable about the admin... and the believability of this article. Instead of fixing hte artile, we were subjected to a campaign to remove the POV template and unmarked reverts of attempted NPOVization, directly causing the article to be locked. --Mareklug ^talk 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You should be a bit more constructive, you know. And regarding Nauru, I most sincerely doubt that they made a recognition decree in Albanian language. But you present it as an original letter. According to the logic from your last sentence - why should we trust the Kosovo President that this letter is real anyway? I mean Nauru press of MFA never published this information so it's bogus right? And I am still waiting for you to apologize or explain why did you call a quote I presented regarding Greece a lie and OR.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I called your quoted-in-context-it-was written bit about Macednia a lie (I believe the original is still unarchived and sits on this page, above), and I called a lie your coloring Greece and Uruguay (among others) red as allegedly having rejected Kosovo independence (that meaning of red is given by the map legend, not me) on the maps you authored and update: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png. And, I pointed out your useless linking in contravention of WP:POINT the word "click" to the article Point-and-click, instead of what I asked you to link: the official Greek MFA statement (in Greek or English) puportedly recognizing Kosovo as Serbian. Still waiting... And now you speculate that the President of Kosovo's official website falsifies offical letters addressed to him: These letters may have translated from English dispatches, or, as we know in the case of a Catalonian letter written and sourced on the Catalonian page, it may have been written in the original in Albanian as a matter of courtesy. However, you don't question the Serbian MFA and his MFA site, actively campaigning and agitating, not informing impartially of content of texts received. Since you can't tell the difference between one activity and the other, I agree that expecting neutral editing from you is optimistic. But, perhaps my continued showcasing of your partisan edits, and of your inaccurate account of the content of the discussion -- as in your claims of what I called a lie -- might change your ways. You see, I am assuming good faith. --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all your assumption of the Serbian MFA is wrong. They often publish counter statements, even by Kosovo president. For an example SEJDIU REJECTS SOME OSCE CRITICISM or SEJDIU: MEETING WITH TADIC ONLY WITH MEDIATORS and so on. But I assume you didn't know their policy to publish all news so I don't mind your comments. But what I do mind is that you object the Greek MFA quote "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia" without any grounds as if you were right and everyone else was crazy. If Mareklug says Greeks didn't say that then it's gotta be true, they've got to revert that statement because Mareklug didn't like it? Now that is a fiction forum material but we here deal with facts and the only verifiable fact is not the POV of users but sources and the source says that they did indeed say that they didn't recognise Kosovo and even cited reason for not doing it and made their position clear on other separatist regions as well. I really don't see why do you keep objecting facts. Maybe you dislike their essence but they are still here and they are still facts. --Avala (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Avala, enough of your sophistry and fancy dancin'. A link to a the official issue of the Greek MFA (in either Greek or English) stating what you keep claiming it said would do wonders. I'm sure you would nave produced by now, if it existed. But all you have is partisan media accounts. It doesn't exist as a source, and coloring Greece red on your maps is blatant lying and reality distortion. So. Please stop already your campaign of Selling Serbia (Propaganda) by the Pound. If Greece ever rejects Kosovo indepen dence, I'm sure you'll have no trouble linking to its MFA. It hasn't and you can't. Enough already. --Mareklug ^talk 06:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. I am not going to link to their MFA and that statement every day. You can click on it yourself, it only takes one press on your computer mouse. But you go into some fantastical claims how that source doesn't exist and you even proudly announce "It hasn't and you can't.", claim based solely on your strong will that Greek MFA officials never said that. But that's the main problem. Wikipedia cares about facts, not feelings and views of its users. Maybe tomorrow you will want that the US hasn't recognised but it wont change the reality that they did. Maybe tomorrow you will want that Russia has recognised but it wont change the reality that they didn't. The same goes for Greece. They were very clear in their statement that they didn't do it, they thoroughly explained why they don't recognise Kosovo and made their position clear and consistent on such issues by also commenting on Abkhazia and Ossetia. Then you introduce some story on "partisan media accounts" and I don't see any relation of that to the official MFA. And finally your claims of "sophistry and fancy dancin'" (?!), propaganda selling and "blatant lying and reality distortion" are insulting and unfounded personal attacks.--Avala (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Herew's another source for Belize:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6469070.html

84.134.58.146 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Macedonia already recognised???

Whilst looking for a Greek source on their potential recognition, I across the following article: [45]. This states that "The recognition of Kosovo by FYROM should make Pristina act similarly and recognise FYROM’s constitutional name, the FYROM President said Wednesday". This is a bit ambiguous, but could be interpreted as that they've already recognised Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone, not sure yet if it's Branko or Nikola, said that first Kosovo would have to recognise Macedonia's constitutional name before recognition could possibly come. Fatmir and Hashim are apparently angry. Source is Macedonian, sorry. A1 BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is in English: MKRTV. This site is a good source if you're looking for developments. That is, when it isn't down, which is quite often. Still working on putting a name to the quote. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia hasn't recognised yet. Here is a source saying there will be no pre-conditions for Kosovo in return for recognition. Ijanderson (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Ian, now we have quotes. However, I'm not really sure if we should take the Deputy's word over the President's...BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if there's anything we could possibly add to the entry, it's Crvenkovski's quote, which affirms what he said about national interests. Either way, nothing has actually changed, since demarcation hasn't finished and the 23rd/25th hasn't arrived yet. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got any sources to prove this, but I read that Macedonia would recognise after the boarder things is 100% complete and that Montenegro would do a coordinated recognition with Macedonia, so that Belgrade won't focus its single attention on either of the nations, so it would make it easier for both nations to recognise together rather than separately. Also Montenegro has admitted that its coming under pressure from western European nations and the US to recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also we have a lot of sources saying that Macedonia intends to recognise Kosovo, so should we move Macedonia to "imminent recognisers"? Ijanderson (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia to recognise Kosovo sources [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]

have we got any more? Ijanderson (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that not enough?84.134.123.166 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

IP84 is trying to fool us here or what? For an example source 38 says how Kosovo officials told Macedonians they don't want to be blackmailed. How does that mean "Macedonia is recognising Kosovo"?--Avala (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't come back with your pro-serbian propaganda.84.134.114.64 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So you still resort to personal attacks? Anyway, other editors I think there was an agreement to ignore IP84.--Avala (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, just a fact.Max Mux (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No the fact is that "Косово против условувањата од Македонија" means "Kosovo against blackmailing by Macedonia". Another fact is that you tried to present it as a piece of evidence that Macedonia is about to recognise Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking false things. The most of sources clearly indicates that Macedonia is going to recognize Kosovo. If you like that or not.84.134.114.64 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the question of liking or disliking. It's the difference between facts and imagination.--Avala (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, i cant speak Macedonian, so I interpreted "Косово против условувањата од Македонија" wrong. But still "Kosovo against blackmailing by Macedonia" is referring to Kosovo recognising MKD's constitutional name instead of FYROM in return for recognition. So this still refers to MKD intending to recognise Kosovo. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well surely it's all related to the issue but when we talk about this article in particular it bears little significance.--Avala (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Косово против условувањата од Македонија" does not mean 'Kosovo against blackmailing by Macedonia.' It means 'Kosovo against conditions by Macedonia' or 'Kosovo against further conditions by Macedonia.' --alchaemia (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it bears significance to the article, it is about Macedonia wanting something from Kosovo in return for recognition Ijanderson (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we still don't have the Macedonian officials coming out with this as a fully official proposal. It's all still too unofficial, rumours etc. Anyway 23 Sep is coming soon so we'll see. Perhaps if Macedonia really gets the new name on Sep 24 they will not impose this request on Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. its been rumored that Macedonia is to recognise between 23 and 25 Sept. So lets wait till then beofer updating Macedonia Ijanderson (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, definitely no recognition yet. The current entry adequately reflects the situation IMO (although I am a tad biased since I wrote it ;) ). Again, if anyone thinks Crvenkovski's quote about the constitutional name should go in, speak up. BTW, who is this anon? S/he is a bit annoying. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is safe to assume that Macedonia has no final plan at this moment and that this is the reason of all the confusion and stalling.--Avala (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and now, IP 84 has surpassed tocino in how annoying he was on POv.--Jakezing (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not annoying. Please stop your useless attacks.84.134.124.81 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. "Please don't come back with your pro-serbian propaganda." = attack. "You are talking false things. The most of sources clearly indicates that Macedonia is going to recognize Kosovo. If you like that or not." = wrong. Well, almost every entry on Macedonia we've had on this talk page since this article was created (check the archives) has brought a source saying Macedonia will recognise (albeit "imminently"), so you may technically be right with "most sources", but when it comes down to verifying it all and cross-checking, we end up with confusion. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive Boxes at the top are gone

Can someone please restore them. Cheers Ijanderson (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that too and I don't know what happened. I went through history and they can't be seen there either. It could be that someone messed up the template.--Avala (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

yeh that was what I was thinking too. I tried looking threw through the history and couldn't see it there either. So it must be the template. I don't know how to fix it though. We'll have to ask an admin. Ijanderson (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's a problem with MiszaBot which is used for archiving on this page. Other users are reporting troubles too.--Avala (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"other states"?

Noting states that recognise Kosovo and then reffering to states that do not as simply "other states" is a shocking breach of neutrality. An admin should fix this section title immediately to make clear that these states do not recognise Kosovo. ʄ!•¿talk? 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the counter equivalent to "states that recognise" indeed is "states that don't recognise" but a certain user pushed for his POV "other states" very fiercely.--Avala (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree It should be renamed "States that currently don't recognise Kosovo as independent" or something along them lines. This will increase WP:NPOV on the article. Ijanderson (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I motivated changing the heading to Other states to follow the usage engrained on the page courtesy of the map legend, which has been stable and referencing the gray-marked portion of the world as other states since, what is it, March? Somehow this consequence of adopting a map that only shows recognitions by states and treats every other state as "other" wasn't a burning issue all this time. Now that the article headings actually reflect the terminology of the map and its legend used all along, we mysteriously acquired an issue worthy of immediate correction by an admin!

Once the article finally is allowd to be titled properly as international recognition of Kosovo (for that is what it is about, just as the corresponding articles on Wikipedia about Abkhasia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus), this dissonance will dissapear and the headings will be 100% coherent and congruent with the article title. And again, a non-issue. The present dissoance -- "a shocking breach of neutrality" -- is only apparent and not real -- unlike official recognition, the other states comprises a spectrum of reaction, ranging from about to recognize any day now to over our dead Serbian bodies (if one is to believe the propaganda coming out of the Serbia MFA). The shocking breach, is the actual shocking breach of accuracy and verifiability, an ongoing travesty also since March or even before, a compendium of POV edits, OR, and edit warring carried out by certain partisan nationalistically-minded editors. --Mareklug ^talk 06:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Other states is poor wording and isn't definitive enough. "States that do not recognize" is much more descriptive. --Tocino 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dissagree under this articles name. The articles name is "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo", so this article contains ifnormation about the International reaction in general, which includes: states which have recognised Kosovo, states which are willing to do so, states which will do so in the near future, states which will do so in the future, states which support more dialogue between Prishtina and Beograd, states which will not recognise Kosovo, until their regime will change, states which will not recognise Kosovo until US recognises S. Osettia :-), states which will never recognise Kosovo (doubious statment), etc. SO, grouping all of states` (exept of them who recognise) reaction in a group which says "states that do not recognise Kosovo" is certainly POV.
Agree under another name If the name of the article was "Recognition of Kosovo", than the proposed change would be normal and needed.balkanian (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's factual state. Does Qatar recognise Kosovo? No. Do they want to? Maybe but atm they don't and that is the only truth. The article would further explain their position if there is anything recorded but regarding their position it is that they don't recognise (for the time being at least).

This is not my point. My point is that the fact that Qatar does not for now recognise Kosovo is not a reaction, the reaction of Qatar is that X minister says that, Y politician says this. On the other hand, the fact that UK recognises Kosovo is a reaction. If we have an article the title of which would be "Recognition of Kosovo", Qatar for sure should be in "States that have not recognise Kosovo". But, in this structure, Qatar has reacted, not by recognising Kosovo, but by saying that we will, or we think "this is the best option...", etc., i.e. it is (per this article sense) an "other state".balkanian (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But why do we then separate those who recognised? We could then have one list which would have, for an example under the US - "GWB said that the US recognised Kosovo blahblah..." but I think that could turn out to be messy.--Avala (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Im opposed to any new name article apart from "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" instead of "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo" Ijanderson (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I think I didn`t make myself clear. I am not advocating a new name for this article, I am saying that under this article`s name it would be inacquarate to have such division. Recognising a state is a reaction, because somebody puts his signature in a paper, in the name of a nation. Not recognising a state is not a reaction, until there is a law that condems the recognition of this state, or a legislative messure that does not accept such recognition. Thats why, under this name, a section called "states that recognises Kosovo" is a reaction (because there is a law) and "states that have not recognised Kosovo" is not a reaction, (because there is not any law and the "national reactions" situation, i.e. the sovereing`s decision, is as it was before Kosovo`s declaration of independence).balkanian (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:balkanian(and possibly to a much lesser extent user:Mareklug), if I understand you correctly you seem to be advocating WP:POINT. ʄ!•¿talk? 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no problem, if there is a page called "Abkhazia`s recognition of independence", or whatever. I just say, that in this articles page, a section called "states that have not recognised Kosovo is inacquarate. Read my last discussion, I think I was more clear in it.balkanian (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that's user:Arditbido who uses the signature "balkanian". The actual user:balkanian is an indef-blocked sock of user:Kaltsef. BalkanFever 10:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I got lost reading through this. What are you all arguing over? Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania Establishes Diplomatic Relations with the Republic of Kosovo - edit request

Source: Lithuania Foreign Ministry The official date of the establishment of diplomatic relations is the 1st September 2008. --Digitalpaper (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please change Lithuania from this

---

| 39 || Lithuania || 2008-05-06 || Diplomatic relations commenced 16 July 2008|| EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

to this please

---

| 39 || Lithuania || 2008-05-06 || Diplomatic relations with Kosovo established on 1 September 2008|| EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

This is an uncontroversial edit request, it uses the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania as its reference to prove diplomatic relations have been established. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The link is not working for me. Otherwise it seems like an uncontroversial edit. --alchaemia (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats because the reference list was above it, now ive moved it below Ijanderson (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The link still does not work. It gives "Secure Connection Failed: www.urm.lt uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed. (Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)". — Emil J. 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The SSL is not really needed, the site works fine in plain http. Fixing that. — Emil J. 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh its working fine for me Ijanderson (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/https://www.urm.lt/index.php?-767438118 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Húsönd 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Samoa

Telegrafi.com reports that Samoa has recognised the independence of Kosovo. Please report other sources and that's act upon this news. If verified, we should add it asap. Here is the url: [54] Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. Lets see what other sources we can get. their Govt site hasn't been updated since Jan 2008, they have a small internet presence. Ijanderson (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They did see here Kosovo Govt site says so Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So has Kosovothanksyou.com Ijanderson (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson, the report from Telegrafi.com states that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo has received a formal facsimile from Samoa, so the source must be the MFA of Kosovo, ie a reliable source. And, yes, Kosovothanksyou.com has added Samoa to the list, but I'm happy to wait more so that there is a consensus. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Official Kosovo Govt site has said Samoa has recognised Kosovo, so I think thats all we need really. An English language source would be nice. Remember the US has huge influence over Samoa, so its probably true. Ijanderson (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou has received conformation from the Samoan MOFA [55] Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NewKosovoReport too [56] Ijanderson (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} I propose we add this

---

| 47 || Samoa || 15 September 2008 || || |-

---

Agree?

Agree. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Kosovar (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also need to update the 2nd paragraph to read "47 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states", and similarly the UN section. Bazonka (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The source is indeed the Kosovo Government (MFA) as is described in the PDF linked here. --alchaemia (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree but that is not a recognition text. It explains the history of Samoa in Albanian, like where in Pacific does Samoa lie, when did it become independent, how that is a 47th to recognise etc. so we should look for a real Samoan source or just use a media report. --Avala (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i didnt use that Kosovothanksyou.com PDF source as a reference Ijanderson (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Another thing - it'll be tricky to find them in a world map, so everyone don't jump if it's not added immediately.--Avala (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ive already added it Ijanderson (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That document is, indeed, a paper explaining that recognition has happened, quoting, verbatim, the words of the Samoan prime minister. --alchaemia (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Samoan PM wrote something among these lines `we have recognised Kosovo. Samoa is a country in the South Pacific`? Why am I having troubles believing in that?--Avala (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you have no knowledge of Albanian and can't actually read what it says? --alchaemia (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. forget kosovothanksyou.com, its a load of rubbish. Ijanderson (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbs will never stop trying to stop it. It's official. Samoa has recognized Kosovo as independent and sovereign state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Húsönd 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The date should be changed to 15 September 2008. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Samoa is rock solid. Kosovo is recognized by Samoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out what Bobby said, the "As of August 21" needs to be changed to "As of September 15" I can't seem to be able to edit the article myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because the article is protected. --alchaemia (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For all of you aren't native to the Albanian language, I have provided an adequate translation:

In the office of Minsitry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo, today at 19.30 arrived the official recognition of Republic of Kosovo from the state Samoa via fax. In the note writen to the President of Republic of Kosovo, sir Fatmir Sejdiu reads: "Dear President, I am referring to the note you sent on the date of February 17 2008 in which you declare Kosovo an independent country and ask for diplomatic recogntion of the Republic of Kosovo as a soverign power. I would like to inform you that the Government of the Samoas has decided to recognize the independence of Kosovo. We hope that the independence of Kosovo will bring close relations, it will close the conflicts of the '90s that damaged Western Balkan and bring stability in your region. I wish you and your people of Kosovo success in the building of your own country". The official note of recogition is signed by the Prime of Samoas, sir Tuilaepa Lupesoliai Sailele Malielegaoi. ETC ETC. 68.187.140.5 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Now that Samoa is listed as recognizing Kosovar independence, please update the date at the beginning of the second paragraph to read "As of 15 September 2008" -- comment added by User:Benjamin22b (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2008

Agree. This is utterly uncontroversial. Bazonka (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Ijanderson (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kuwait ,Jordan and Lebanon

Kosovar diplomatic sources have stated that they have indications that Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar will join the list of countries that have recognized Kosovo soon

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200809151219/Politics/Samoa-recognizes-indepedent-Kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

need something more official than that, with quotes or Govt sites Ijanderson (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not very reliable. They just say those things internally to boost moral or divert the public from other issues. For an example this is what Kosovo PM said (and he has a name unlike "Kosovar diplomatic sources" mentioned in your link): "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" (8 Feb)[57] or "in a not so distant future our neighboring state Serbia will recognize Kosovo" (19 Aug)[58]. --Avala (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true. 84.134.81.173 (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Click on these links and you will see if it is true or not.--Avala (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Its from diplomat sources, we can use that. Please move

• Lebanon
• Kuwait
• Jordan

to the imminent recognizers.Max Mux (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) They will do it despite what Avala would hope.Max Mux (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

date

Please correct the date.Max Mux (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What date? Bazonka (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

" As of 21 August 2008, 47 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised.." 84.134.81.173 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be 15 September 2008, ....".84.134.59.188 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More 'rumors' on Macedonia

"It is a matter of days Skopje to recognize Kosovo, Greek Elefteros Typos newspaper reports citing information according to which there has been a strong support of US George Bush administration in the frames of the negotiations around the attempts the name dispute between Athens and Skopje to be resolved. Skopje’s decision will be announced on September 23 at the session of the UN General Assembly in New York, which will be attended by the Greece Minister of Foreign Affairs Dora Bakoyannis and representatives of FYROM."

Considering that the "rumors" are becoming more frequent and from many sources maybe it's time to add Macedonia to Imminent recognisers. - what do you think?
Source: http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n152918 Emetko (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.Max Mux (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to wait for 23rd September. "Elefteros Typos" newspaper can not really speak on the behalf of the Republic of Macedonia. So its best to wait unless we get something more official, no harm waiting a few days Ijanderson (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. BalkanFever 11:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

B92 Reports about daily Danas which writes that Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski has had informal meetings with representatives of Albanian parliamentary parties, and that he has agreed to recognize Kosovo’s independence for the “sake of the country’s stability,”
Here is the link to article http://www.danas.co.rs/vesti/politika/skoplje_priznaje_kosovo_22_septembra.56.html?news_id=139421 but it is in a Slavic Language. Maybe someone can help to translate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.255.42 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would try, but I can't be arsed reading Serbian right now. Waiting for Avala, although I suspect it's just another one of those rumours. Anyway, all comments should go to our newest section on Macedonia below. BalkanFever 09:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro prepares to recognise Kosovo?

The ruling party in the government Socialist Democratic Party of Montenegro has introduced the request to speaker of the montengro parliament ranku krivokapicu, The resolution includes the process of integration of montengro into european union, euro atlantic structures, The resolution also includes the discussion for the recognition of Kosovo. Source I think thats what it says, Avala can help check if its been translated correctly Ijanderson (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing about that article bothers me "Radio Antena M finds out that ... blahblah" and that this article by Free Europe is actually a report on that rumor. But what I do know is that the Montenegrin president said today that even though it is per constitution on the Government to decide, the issue will be diverted to the parliament for discussion because it's so important, touchy etc.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the quote in English:

"That is within the government’s purview, but I’m convinced that it is a good thing that parliament is preparing to debate that issue, to state the pros and cons, to hear arguments from both sides, and to bring parliament’s view on the issue into the public eye,” Vujanović said.

He reiterated that three dimensions were important for Montenegro when it came to the Kosovo issue—the country’s stability, relations with Belgrade and Priština, and respecting the opinion of the international community, above all the opinions of EU and NATO member states.

"I think that caution and a responsible attitude by the Montenegrin government, which has so far shown a very high level of sensitivity towards the issue, will be the model according to which it will decide on that issue,” Vujanović said.

--Avala (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Then lets move Montenegro to "Imminent recognisers".84.134.116.136 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Its from the government. Its clear enough to move it.84.134.116.136 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Momentum seems to be building up, and some steps have been taken, but dude, let's not rush with moving it to imminent recognizers. No need for that right now. If the issue becomes clearer in the up-coming days, we'll move them. Let's stay put right now even though it appears that both Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize, possibly together. --alchaemia (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You never move a country to imminent based one one source, unless the source is so trustworthy we'de be better off just putting it on already recognised with the date it said.--Jakezing (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for repeating what I just said. --alchaemia (talk) 22:56, 16 September

2008 (UTC)

Monenegro to recognize on on October 3rd

http://rtklive.com/?newsId=26267

This one pretty much seals the deal. The deputies have signed the resolution and it takes effect on October 3rd, making the recognition official at that time. Exo (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It says Montenero will discuss on October 3, not recognise on October 3.--Avala (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.top-channel.tv/new/artikull.php?id=130165 Article here is quoting Montenegrin media saying that the recognition will happen on October 3rd because the 41 MPs of the ruling coalition have already signed the project. We'd have to see what the Montenegrin papers are saying as well. That's your task lol. Exo (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They have signed a proposal to discuss the issue at parliament (with all other issues). It's nothing new really, actually that is exactly what the President of Montenegro said would happen in a quote I posted earlier.--Avala (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well of course it is something new. Before this, there was no sign of any discussion over this issue. Now the majority of the MPs have forwarded a proposal for parliament. The project-resolution signed by the MPs of the ruling coalition says that "Montenegro is ready to accept the reality that the countries of EU and NATO have considered important for the stability in the region and this way Montenegro follows the politics of European and Euro-Atlantic integration." Exo (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing new. Anyone can read the quote by the president few lines up. The proposal is simply about Kosovo. It doesn't say "recognition of Kosovo" or "attack Kosovo", it's neutral diverting of the issue to the parliament instead for the Government to decide.--Avala (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ready to accept the reality that the countries of EU and NATO have considered for the stability of the region seems like pretty new to me. Before that, Montenegro was being extremely cautious. Now, it's openly aligning itself with EU and NATO. That is not neutral, that is pro-Kosovo. Exo (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OR.--Avala (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

? Exo (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OR = WP:Original Research. Anyway, why is everyone jumping at a couple of media articles and rushing to make decisions. If Montenegro is to discuss Kosovo on 3 October, lets wait and see what happens then instead of guessing what the outcome will be. We don't want to add false information; speculations; guesses or rumors to the article as this will give readers an incorrect view on Montenegro's position on Kosovo. Lets wait until we have established facts on Montenegro, then we can update the article.

I dont have a problem with bringing up news like this, but lets not rush to make decisions. Facts will make the article WP:NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The only problem that I have is that we've been through this rodeo before. We don't put countries in the imminent recognizers list until they actually recognize, even though we might have had healthy indicators that it would actually be happening. Let's remember the back-and-forth trips of the Czech Republic... But whatever, I don't really really mind, I just think there's a reluctance every time we discuss moving countries in the imminent list, and it shouldn't be this frustrating. Exo (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not OR when the majority of the MPs sign a project-resolution that states Montenegro will follow EU and NATO. There needs to be something in Montenegro's box stating the intent of the majority of the MP's. How could this proposed resolution be ignored? Exo (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem has been, and this is especially true of Montenegro and Macedonia, that if our criteria for "imminent recognisers" was as you (Exo) suggest then they would have been put in that section when the article was created and would still be there today. BalkanFever 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not delusional. If Macedonia is awaiting for the demarcation, then of course I have no grounds to ask for it to be put in the imminent recognizers. If Montenegro's Prime Minister makes comments all the way back in July that Montenegro will recognize, then in July I would've put Montenegro in the imminent recognizers list. However, because it is a tough pill to swallow for the pro-Serb camp, the article has remained uncyclopedic with a VERY outdated description on Montenegro. The ruling coalition in Montenegro has signed a proposed resolution stating that they WILL join the EU and NATO countries. But, what does the Montenegro box say in this wiki article? It quotes funny pro-Serbian resistance stuffs from the stone age. So careful with the perhapses and maybes and get down to real business. Exo (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Balkan Insight There is a quote in that source from diplomatic sources in Montenegro, which says "Montenegro is ready to recognise the political reality created in Kosovo". So even after my earlier comment (a little hypocritical of me), I propose now that we move Montenegro to "Imminent recognises" because we have a quote from an official Montenegrin diplomatic source, instead of media speculation. Also this is already in the article "On 7 July 2008 Montenegrin Minister of Foreign Affairs told Podgorica media that his government will recognise Kosovo’s independence. He did not, however, say when the government would make such an announcement." So this suggests that Montenegro is an imminent recogniser. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

update for Montenegro

I propose we add this line to Montenegro in the article.

---

In September 2008, Official diplomatic sources from Montenegro stated that "Montenegro is ready to recognise the political reality created in Kosovo". The Montenegro Parliament is scheduled to discuss Kosovo further in October.

---

Making Montenegro look like this in the article.

---

| Montenegro || On 24 June, Prime Minister Milo Đukanović said "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. We are acting rather cautiously for two reasons. The first is that we are a neighbour of both Kosovo and Serbia, so we should help rather than feed fuel to the fire by making rush moves. The second is that we have been independent for only two years now and we have achieved this independence by leaving the Union with Serbia. Our independence has left some traumas on the Serbia-Montenegro relationship." Three days later an official with the governing DPS party said that recognising Kosovo "is not currently on the agenda of national priorities." On 7 July 2008 Montenegrin Minister of Foreign Affairs told Podgorica media that his government will recognise Kosovo’s independence. He did not, however, say when the government would make such an announcement. When he asked whether it will be sooner or later he responded with "Neither I nor anyone else can say at this moment. It shall happen as soon as we conclude that it is politically best for Montenegro." However, on 15 July, in an interview with a Russian radio station, Prime Minister Đukanović said that his nation has not yet taken a position on recognition, adding that this "restraint" was caused by the need to contribute, as a neighbor, to stability in the region and improve relations with Serbia. In September 2008, Official diplomatic sources from Montenegro stated that ""Montenegro is ready to recognise the political reality created in Kosovo". The Montenegro Parliament is scheduled to discuss Kosovo further in October 2008.|| |-

---

Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree because it says "report diplomatic sources in Montenegro." not "official diplomatic sources". It is actually even worse than Uruguay because this time it's possibly even foreign diplomats not Montenegrins saying it.--Avala (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not right, Avala. I agree with Ijanderson84.134.56.213 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok copy/paste from the BI article: “Montenegro is ready to recognise the political reality created in Kosovo,” which the European Union and NATO argue is important for the stability of the region, report diplomatic sources in Montenegro.

So where am I not right?--Avala (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The PM says Montenegro will recognize Kosovo. The ruling coalition signs a project-resolution to aling it's policy with NATO and EU. And we're still discussing whether Montenegro should move to the imminent recognizers list? I don't know what logic is working behind that but someone please explain what's going on. Exo (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all that quote is not by the PM but by "diplomatic sources" and second Serbia also has the policy to do the same as the EU and PfP. How is that related to Kosovo?--Avala (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if there's a resolution proposed to aling the recognition with EU/NATO, then it concerns Kosovo. Playing dumb on Wikipedia won't help Belgrade, I don't know if you realise that. This is a website, not a MOFA. I've never seen such a consistent bending of information even in my wildest dreams. Exo (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No you are bending it. They are proposing closer relations with EU/NATO in general not on Kosovo issue as you are trying to imply. Kosovo issue will be another point of discussion in parliament that day.--Avala (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Avala must see that he should face the truce.84.134.56.213 (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bending anything. A resolution has been signed by the MPs of the ruling coalition in Montenegro, stating that Montenegro is ready to accept the political reality in Kosovo and align itself with EU and NATO as part of it's strategy for euro-atlantic integration. The resolution will be put to vote on October 3rd. And since the ruling coalition MPs were the ones to propose it, then I don't see what could possibly stall it. This is a clear intent to recognize and you might twist the words around here all you want, but there's nothing that can stop time. Or maybe you don't recognize Time either? Exo (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah with that "and" you explained very well that these two are not connected. Also read what Montenegrin President said (not some insiders, unnamed sources etc. to which you refer) about this issue. He said that it will be a discussion in parliament about what to do not putting a signature on the done deal of recognition or whatever you interpreted it.--Avala (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah with that "yeah" you just tried another twist. Too bad it doesn't fly with me. When referring to the Kosovo recognition proposal, the explanation for it is that it is being done in the context of Montenegro's euro-atlantic aspirations. Obviously the 41 MPs of the ruling coalition that have signed this proposal are linking the two things together. And indeed they are, they have ears, they've heard what UK and USA recommended to them recently. So on October 3rd they will vote on the resolution that they proposed. Now you are trying to act as if this proposed resolution, the 41 signatures, and it's contents don't even exist. Well, guess what. They do. Go take it up with them if you don't like it, don't tarnish this article. Exo (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a nice story, unfortunately it's only imagination. They have signed a "Proposed resolution on need for a faster accession process to European and Euroatlantic structures" (Predlog rezolucije o neophodnosti ubrzanja procesa integrisanja Crne Gore u evropske i evroatlantske strukture) and not what you are saying.--Avala (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then go take it up with the media for what they're saying, because I didn't just get a rabbit out of a hat one September Wednesday. Look, I have no problem with waiting until October 3rd. The problem is you trying to twist words around, creating a fake reality. Montenegro's description box does not reflect reality because of your imaginary world. Exo (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - with the proposal to edit btw. Exo (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Montenegro will announce its decision at the UNGA.[59]--Avala (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia, again

Daily: Macedonia to recognize Kosovo

Daily: Macedonia to recognize Kosovo 17 September 2008 | 09:03 | Source: Danas BELGRADE -- Macedonia will recognize Kosovo’s independence on September 22, writes daily Danas.

Danas writes that Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski has had informal meetings with representatives of Albanian parliamentary parties, and that he has agreed to recognize Kosovo’s independence for the “sake of the country’s stability,” sources from the Albanian parties claim.

Gruevski believes that recognition of Kosovo, reportedly scheduled for September 22, might solve the parliamentary crisis in Macedonia.

The daily’s sources in Skople claim that the key factor was the decision of former Deputy Prime Minister Imer Selmani from a breakaway faction of Menduh Thaci’s Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) to suspend his “obedience” to Gruevski’s cabinet.

http://b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=17&nav_id=53531 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh there has been many sources speculating about Macedonian recognition between 22-24th. Wait till then Ijanderson (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a fact. Can't anyone see that? 84.134.110.159 (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact. It's simply another news report citing a source that cites a rumour. What possible harm could waiting do? BalkanFever 09:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not even new. It is an English version of the Serbian source mentioned in the section above. — Emil J. 10:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It hasnt happened yet, therefore it can not be a fact. Lets just wait 5-7 days and see what happens. Ijanderson (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reliable source:

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13187/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[60] and heres another source saying 23rd Ijanderson (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

can we start calling this spam? Better solution then having the IP's make an ew topic for us to shoo down and them not listen, when we get a source saying recognize, we put it up, and unless they change liek the date they said, we never talk bout it again til they recognize, simple, right?--Jakezing (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats nonsense and you know that. Please answer my question.Max Mux (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No 84, it isn't nonsence, its the easiest way to curbbe this stupidity we keep getting about macedonia and all the other countries. i cna look and see several sections on the same thing bassicly, why? because guests wont listen to us and wait.--Jakezing (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia should be removed from the "Other Countries" list, since it is already in the "Imminent Recognizers" list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.213 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(UPDATE) TURKEY

[61] Turkey has OPENED its' embassy in Pristina, Kosovo. Please change on the page from TO OPEN ---> OPENED (DATE).

Ari 0384 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Their MFA has nothing on their website yet so we can't use a better source.--Avala (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Source is accurate. Reliable and independent. I am currently in Kosovo and I attended the inauguration of the opening of the Turkish Embassy.

Fantastic, we are so glad for you mr. anonymous, that you will attent the ceremony.--Avala (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add. Avala's excuses are bogus, purely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.6 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I agreed.--Avala (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree to the update Ijanderson (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkey Edit request (done)

{{editprotect}} Above is the consensus required for an edit request. Please change Turkey from this

---

| 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Turkey in Pristina (to open)
Embassy of Kosovo in Ankara (to open)|| NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

to this

---

| 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Turkey in Pristina
Embassy of Kosovo in Ankara (to open)|| NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree.--Avala (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did it after I got user:Husond to unprotect the page. --Mareklug ^talk 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

UNGA referral to ICJ

Can I suggest this link: [62] be added to reference 12. 87.114.39.80 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That file can't be opened.--Avala (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

lets create a sister article regarding countries who voted for and against ICJ ruling

I think this would be an important encyclopedic article to have. Any name suggestions? Ijanderson (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Here are some suggestions:

• 1. Spain
• 2. Egypt
• 3. Argentina

Source [[63]]84.134.100.17 (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words... wed have albania voting saying kosovo is legal, along with the US, and we'de have serbia saying no, along with russia. Basicly, i'd be thje same countries in the same places.--Jakezing (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should be there. Its important to know. By the way what about answering my question? 84.134.100.17 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this just the approval to get the Serbian resolution in the general assembly? I think the actual vote will happen next week or smth, this was just a vote on whether to put the issue up for a vote or not. Exo (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jakezing. Over half of the EU have voted in favour for ICJ, so has Costa Rica. A lot of countries who recognise Kosovo have voted in favour of it. However the Arab states have not voted against it even though they do not recognise Kosovo. Its completely different to this article Ijanderson (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How have "over half of EU states" voted for something that is not up for vote yet? This is not the actual voting, this just a decision by the committee TO PUT IT UP FOR VOTE. --alchaemia (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, are to vote for in favour of it Ijanderson (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on what information? --alchaemia (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson is slightly wrong here. They didn't vote yet, they just expressed their opinion on how they will vote. Greek FM said that they could vote for but that there is a chance for EU countries not to vote. Also Sweden doesn't object it but France doesn't like the initiative at all though they added how Serbia has right for it so whatever that means. Arab countries have decided at Arab League to vote separately, something unusual for them. Also Serbian minister Rasim Ljajić is in NYC to convince IOC countries to vote in the name of Muslims from Serbia. Simple majority is needed and if EU countries abstain that leaves it with 1/2 of countries that recognised and the US didn't object it in the committee.--Avala (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree for the time being. In the committee everyone voted for even though some wanted not to but Spain, Argentina and Egypt were really eager so it went through by acclamation. We should wait for the UNGA vote and then if it passes create an article similar to International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. There is some name that Serbia gave to this initiative, I forgot it but will try to find it.--Avala (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Now that vote has been moved to the general assembly, the article can be made, as countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have already made public statements about the ICJ. The new article might help us keep this one a little more concise. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but let's wait till the actual vote takes place.--Avala (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A new page should be opened, however the information on that page will pretty much have to appear here as well, since the way each country will vote is a relevant piece of information for this article also. Exo (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think so? A state may vote for referring the case to ICJ, in hopes that this will help Serbia save face and accept Kosovo independence. The two are rather disjoint: recognition of UDI and being for or against referring Serbia's initiative to ICJ. USA does not even recognize ICJ rulings. --Mareklug ^talk 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This one in particular, if the General Assembly refers it to, will be merely an 'advisory' ruling, not an obligatory and legal-binding ruling. It will have indirect consequences on the recognition process perhaps, as some states that were thinking about it may have doubts after this, but it won't have any other effect. It won't, for example, and can't, tell states to rescind their act. No state, especially the US, would allow any court or other entity to tell it who to recognize and when. Recognition is the prerogative of states, and there's no court or international organization that can change that. Now, one may argue that it may hinder further recognitions, and that may be part of it, but at the end of the day, whomever wants to recognize Kosovo will do so anyway, I'm sure. Now, the reason why this opinion is not binding is two-fold: first, both parties would have to agree with it, which is impossible as Kosovo would not agree to go ahead with it. Second, because such rulings can only come if both states are members of the UN and recognize each other. As that is not a condition Serbia is prepared to fulfil, it has resorted to this advisory ruling to try to save some face and have some kind of "moral victory." Nothing on the ground will change. It will only make the already bad relationship between Kosovo and Serbia even worse. --alchaemia (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think for alot of countries we don't have any information at all. At least with this GA vote we might gather some information on countries that don't have their own box yet. Like let's say United Arab Emirates votes against the ICJ initiative. Since UAE has no box here, we could write that UAE voted this way at the GA. Exo (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But on the other hand if the initiative gets expanded to cover Ossetia/Abkhazia and Basque Republic, countries that have recognised Kosovo might vote for the initiative. That is why we should have a separate article but just not yet.--Avala (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What the Greek MFA *really* has said

Here's a bit of quoting from the horse's mouth, the Greek FM as displayed on the Greek MFA site in English:

• Aug 26: Statement of FM Ms. Bakoyannis regarding recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (quoted in full):

“From the very first moments of the crisis in South Ossetia, Greece has conducted itself in accordance with the fundamental principles that have always guided its foreign policy through the years.

Paramount among these principles is respect for the independence and territorial integrity of states. We have implemented this policy of principles and respect for international law consistently with regard to a number of issues.

Regarding the matter of the crisis in Georgia, in both the Council of the European Union and the NATO Council, Greece gave its full support to the need for immediate implementation of the 6-point peace plan to end the crisis – which was signed by both Moscow and Tbilisi – and we gave our full support to the need to respect Georgia’s territorial integrity.

We express our dismay at today’s developments and we subscribe to the French Presidency’s statement condemning the decision to recognise the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in their secession from Georgia.”

• • Wrong talk page. Please post to Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia --Avala (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sep 11: Statements of FM Ms. Bakoyannis and her Serbian counterpart, Mr. Jeremic, following their meeting (only the Kosovo related passage, but without editing it):

We had a very useful discussion with the Minister. You are very familiar with Greece’s positions on and relations with Serbia.

Our steps, our stance, have been very cautious through to today. That is how we will continue.

Regardless of Kosovo’s status, what is of vital importance to Greece is the improvement of the day-to-day lives of those living in Kosovo – particularly the minorities.

This is a significant parameter of the task of the European Force in Kosovo (EULEX). We believe that its presence will contribute to stability and security in the region.

It’s presence must not be linked to the issue of Kosovo’s status. Greece’s participation certainly does not imply recognition.

Vuk and I had an extensive discussion of Serbia’s EU accession course. Greece has a leading role in this effort.

We are satisfied with the developments on the issue of Serbia’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court. We believe that these developments open the way to a further strengthening of EU-Serbian relations.

A further step in this process will be the submission – at some point – of an application for accession to the Union. This particular moment in time – with the Irish referendum – may not be ideal. But Greece is prepared to support Serbia when Serbia decides to take this step.

The strengthening of NATO-Serbian relations cannot be left out of the equation, of course. This will strengthen the peace and stability of the wider region.

I don’t need to say much about our bilateral relations. Our cooperation is excellent and we are constantly looking for new fields in which to strengthen it.

• • And I see this among else "Greece’s participation certainly does not imply recognition.".--Avala (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sept 15, posted September 18: Statements of Foreign Minister Ms. Dora Bakoyannis following the General Affairs and External Relations Council (Brussels, 15/09/2008) (quoted in full):

“Today’s Council dealt principally with the issue of Georgia; with the discussions and decisions taken regarding the observation mission in Georgia based, as you know, on the agreement between President Sarkozy, President Barroso, Javier Solana and President Medvedev following their recent meeting in Russia. The Greek position is well known. Let me repeat it, we strongly support the initiatives of the French Presidency. We believe that these initiatives led the European Union – “maybe” for the first time – to make such an intervention in an international crisis. All of us are, of course, fully aware that we are at the beginning of a very difficult course, but we think it is of crucial importance for European observers to go to Georgia in the coming month, to be followed, of course, by a second OSCE observation mission. Greece will take part in this European effort. First of all, we’ve said we will send eight Greek military personnel and two vehicles and, at the same time, put our Centre in Piraeus at their disposal in order to facilitate their naval transfer.

The second issue that was discussed over lunch and took up a lot of our time was the issue of Serbia. As you know, the issue of unfreezing the interim agreement with Serbia has been raised following the arrest of R. Karadzic. There was a very intense discussion on this issue over lunch. Our position was – and we were the first who spoke and put forward these arguments – that the agreement with Serbia must absolutely move forward, that it is extremely important to send a positive signal to the Serbian people, i.e. a message that Europe keeps its promises and that we see that it is the Serbian government’s sincere wish to cooperate closely with the International Court of Justice. Despite the efforts made, there is still one country that maintains its objections. I hope that in October, a decision on this issue could be taken in Luxembourg that will move in the right direction. I must say that the support which we were given – which Serbia was given – was very strong within the Council. There were many countries that took a favourable position. But we still haven’t been able to overcome the objections in order to reach unanimity on this issue. I hope that we will be ready to do that in October.

As you know, Serbia has submitted a request for a referral of the Kosovo issue to the ICJ in The Hague seeking the Court’s opinion. In terms of positions of principle, Greece could not oppose a referral to the Court. But the effort we are making – and we will continue to make within the next ten days – is to reach a common European position on this issue. Europe remained united on the very difficult management of the crisis in Georgia. It is very important for us to have a single position on this issue as well, on the issue of the International Court of Justice. There was also a discussion on that. We are not there yet, but I hope that we will be able to reach a position – which could also be to abstain – before the UN General Assembly. But it should be a common and single position of all Europeans.”

• • "In terms of positions of principle, Greece could not oppose a referral to the Court. But the effort we are making – and we will continue to make within the next ten days – is to reach a common European position on this issue." - So they are trying to convince others not to oppose as well?--Avala (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In closing, we can always rely on the excellent website of Greek MFA to learn their true position wrt recognition of Kosovo. The link is http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/

I hope these texts puts in perspective the partisan disinformation spread on this talk page by parties, without whose editing, this article would never have been locked and made to contain content misstating reality (such as the Montenegro or Bosnia write-ups, to name two, and as it happens, Greece as well). --Mareklug ^talk 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Want to re-write Greece then? And we can discuss further Ijanderson (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece has announced it will recognize Kosovo passports. Judging from the mood of Greece's description box in this article, it sounds as if that had no chance of happening. Obviously a thick layer of BS has been written in Greece's description box that occults the actual reality. And now the passport recognition sounds like such a huge shocker, even though in reality Greece has not been as opposed to Kosovo as this wiki article makes it sound. I agree with Mareklug 100%, this is becoming ridiculous beyond belief. It's like some editors are making edits from their kindergarten computers. Exo (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what Greece said regarding Kosovo and other "secessionist regions"

There is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – >>>Greece did not recognise Kosovo<<< and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Now please stop. You are very well aware of this. You called this quote "sophistry and fancy dancin'" (?!), propaganda selling and "blatant lying and reality distortion" in an attempt to discredit it but regardless you know about it and not even a megabyte of text posted by you can bury this quote.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the link to it in the Greek MFA? Until then, the Greek MFA supersedes it. And it seems that today's announcement that Greece will recognize Kosovan passports has dampened your rhetoric. Remember when you were quoting Thaci and saying it won't happen? Yeah, sure. Show us your source in the Greek MFA, or make room for some realistic editing. --alchaemia (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a quote by a Greek MFA so saying "the Greek MFA supersedes it" makes no sense. And to which of the Mareklug posts do you refer to - the one where Greek FM has said that Greek involvement in Eulex certainly doesn't imply recognition or the one that says how Greece can't oppose the Serbian initiative in the UN?--Avala (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if someone wishes to be twisty with words Avala-style, then one could claim that the word "did" makes the alleged quote outdated and might imply a change of tone. This is what happens when editors try to interpret (or mis) legal chit chat by politicians. We're here te report what's being said in the respectable media outlets and/or the legal government entities, not spin words around. Exo (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Twisty with words Avala" posted a quote in full. So please stop your personal attacks. And regarding passports, not all who recognised Kosovo recognise passports for an example. Japan did it only last week.--Avala (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link that supersedes what the Greek MFA is saying? No? Somehow I knew it. --alchaemia (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Avala (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that when you bring a quote, you should also bring the source with it, for example, a link. Where is your link to the Greek MFA making the statement you claim it made? --alchaemia (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So just because certain users ignored this quote prior I am supposed to copy/paste it every day? I am not doing it on purpose because I don't vote to play that game where several users ignore what other users add here and force them to post it over and over again for no reason.--Avala (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote I see. I'm talking about the link to it that leads to Greece's MFA. --alchaemia (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You got me there. I thought that this thing that I made up sounded so official. Damn. Of course that mfa.gr link that I gave in edit summary before, the one that Mareklug ignored even though he made the most noise about that particular edit, hmm who knows what was that all about.--Avala (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. You gave this link [64] and that's not the Greek MFA, that's Ria Novosti, in Russian Cyrillic no less. Who translated this, you? What's the authenticity of this translation? Have you provided an official translation for all to see or did you add it as soon as you found it? Again, the Greek foreign ministry contains no such quote, and the government is actually doing things that go quite contrary to that quote (recognition of passports, diplomatic ties, etc.) One thing is clear: there is no official recognition yet, and that's a fact. However, there is no need for you or anyone else to make the situation appear a lot more negative than it actually is. --alchaemia (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Again, the Greek foreign ministry contains no such quote" - just because I refuse to post the same thing over and over again due to ignorance of a certain editor doesn't mean you should make such conclusions which are wrong. And "diplomatic ties" are hardly made by opening an office. Sealand could open an office in Athens, no one could stop them but not an embassy. Even Taiwan has an office in Athens.--Avala (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet you don't refuse to write the same thing over and over again. Any more RIA Novosti articles in Russian Cyrillic that only you and Tocino can read? That's some great editing there, I tell ya. --alchaemia (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was written by the Greek MFA not by me.--Avala (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An article in RIA Novosti was written by Greek MFA... hmmm... --alchaemia (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That joke is not productive.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither are your claims that this was written by the Greek MFA when your only source is a) in Russian Cyrillic, b) RIA Novosti, a news agency from Russia, c) Not sourced by way of an http link to the Greek MFA's website. --alchaemia (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The link is even as far as I can see in the article but it was posted before a lot.[65]--Avala (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo to open diplomatic mission in Greece

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office in London

It seems that Greece has supported Kosovo's desire to open a diplomatic mission in Greece. Here's the source [66]. How should be proceed about adding this to Greece's box? --alchaemia (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece already has a diplomatic office in Pristina (so called Liaison office). Considering the fact that is not a reaction to the declaration of independence, information about that is supposed to be in this article - Diplomatic missions of Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe you should read better. This is a Kosovan diplomatic office in Greece we're talking about here. Kosovo has not had one, so the fact that it will open one and Greece will be a gratious host is an international reaction. --alchaemia (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Read what better? How is an action by Kosovo regarding Kosovo an international reaction? Or you are proposing a section in this article about Kosovo reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo?--Avala (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because no action by Kosovo can be taken with regard to embassies/offices without the prior approval of the host country, in this case, Greece. Since Greece doesn't officially recognize Kosovo, this is a reaction to the declaration of independence the same way that Slovakia refusing entry to Kosovans with Kosovan passports was an international reaction. It's a change to the prior relationship, and should be noted. --alchaemia (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is why it should go to an article about this specific issue called Diplomatic missions of Kosovo. I don't understand why do you object that? Hopefully not for the sake of it.--Avala (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing pro-Kosovo must go on this article as far as Serbia's sweethearts are concerned, right? Exo (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Serbia's sweethearts"? What is that all about? This article as far as I can see has a whole section about countries that recognise it, and the section about imminent recognisers. Only paranoid POV pushers see it as non-neutral and the proof for that is that redlink and IP users from both Kosovo and Serbia have called this article to be a POV of the opposite side.--Avala (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala, then we should also move Slovakia's rejection of Kosovan passports to the "Kosovan Passport" article we have. I find it noteworthy that a country not officially recognizing Kosovo is establishing direct diplomatic ties with it, and, quite frankly, more so than what Slovakia says about passports. Yet you'd like to add anything anti-Kosovo to the article, but dispute anything pro-Kosovo. Your bias is showing, and it ain't a good one. --alchaemia (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening an office is not "establishing diplomatic ties". You are again trying to teach diplomacy here, a thing you know little about. Many countries that don't recognise Kosovo have such offices in Pristina including Russia. And then you have Quebec which has offices all over the world. Or for an example many countries that have offices in Taiwan but don't recognise it. Check Diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus, only Turkey recognises them, yet they have offices in many countries which is in no way diplomatic relations. And regarding Slovakia and passports, that decision was made officially by them and is therefore their reaction. If the Greek MFA officially recognises passports that should be added.--Avala (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any office Kosovo open will be diplomatic, in charge of consular/diplomatic issues. Greece, for example, has such an office in Kosovo and it deals with all of your regular consular things; including the issuance of visas, as announced today. Many countries have offices around the world as they are smaller, and easier/cheaper to maintain. One can't compare Northern Cyprus, a country with only 1 diplomatic recognition, to Kosovo a country with 47 such recognitions and recognitions from international organizations (IMF, World Bank, various sports organizations). To do that is to be disingenious. Regarding Slovakia, it is also disingenous to claim that their reaction to passport issuance is an international reaction to the declaration of independence, as the two are not the same. Yet you hurried to put that there the day it was announced but you hold diplomacy leasons here putting up pictures and giving out links to the wrong articles. I now know what Mareklug says when he says you twist things to show your bias. --alchaemia (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: First it was IP users who were bad. Now it's red-link users that are bad. You don't need to have a blue-link to be a diplomacy expert like you're trying to establish yourself with your continuous bending of quotes and convenient omissions like in the case of Greece and Montenegro. Ever since you said that Cuba does not recognize because the brother of the father of the cousin of Castro made a statement against it, and he's elected and approved by the blah blah blah blah blah...yeah that was it. We all know about your NPOV ways. Exo (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, people from Serbia or Kosovo that register only to spread their POV are not useful here. And I still haven't got an answer how come TRNC has an office in London? And how come Russia has it in Kosovo? And how is that related to this article?--Avala (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you talk about people who register from Kosovo and Serbia, yet you are engaged in a discussion with me, a user from the US. How come Russia has an office in Kosovo? Well, first of all, Russia maintains a diplomatic office accredited to UNMIK, not Kosovo authorities (unlike the rest of the Embassies/Offices). For example, Belgium recognizes Kosovo yet it simply has an office, not an Embassy. Does that mean that there are no relations? As for Kosovo and Greece, the link clearly states that it's a "diplomatic office" and not an office to sell insurance. Nice try, though. --alchaemia (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala, as far as anyone with eyes can see, you have been the only one that has spread POV through crafty wording in the country description boxes. Brazil, India, China, Cuba etc etc... And I don't think people from either Serbia or Kosovo are any different than people from any other country in the world when it comes to POV. There could be people from Greece or Slovakia who come and spread POV. Why would they be any different from Serbia or Kosovo? Obviously when Greece recognizes passports and allows a diplomatic mission from The Republic of Kosovo to be opened in it's own country, that is relevant. Because this diplomatic mission will not be from UNMIK Kosovo, it will be from The Rep of Kosovo. Obviously that is to be noted and very relevant when describing Greece's attitude towards Kosovo and it's independence. It does not recognize the independence, but it does recognize it's passports and it allows Kosovo to have a diplomatic mission in it's country. Exo (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations are established with an act on establishing diplomatic relations not by opening an office, I don't know how to make it more simpler.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the traditional way that is true. But in practice, countries have relations even with they don't have official diplomatic relations. For example, Greece's office in Kosovo is not a place to have tea and reminisce about life, but to conduct official diplomatic and consular business. Likewise will be with Kosovo's office in Athens. I'm not sure what's not clear here. --alchaemia (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you are talking about de facto relations but that opens door for original research so we should stick with de jure relations and that is that they are on "unofficial" office level or liaison office level, not ambassadorial. So that is why we should add only that Kosovo has an office in Athens and that Greece has a liaison office in Pristina but within Diplomatic missions of Kosovo/List of diplomatic missions in Kosovo. There is no reason to double information from specific articles here nor to expand the story over to what this might mean or not. For an example TRNC has an office in London and the United Kingdom has an office in TRNC, yet they have no de jure relations and there is no need to imply that they do.--Avala (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no we shouldn't. Greece opened its office back when Kosovo was still not an independent country, so there's a difference between the two. The Kosovo diplomatic office will represent the government of the Republic of Kosovo so it is, indeed, an international reaction. Please cease trying to block anything that doesn't suit you. --alchaemia (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an action not a reaction because it was done by the same people to whose action there was international reaction (what this article is all about).--Avala (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

...what does that mean? --alchaemia (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an action (opening an office) not a reaction because it was done by the same people (Pristina) to whose action (declaration of independence) there was international reaction (what this article is all about). In other words Kosovo can't react to declaration of independence by Kosovo, they can only make further actions. --Avala (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So Greece's reaction to the independence of Kosovo is recognizing the passports of the independent Republic of Kosovo and the diplomatic mission of the Republic of Kosovo. Exo (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is official - passports yes. Office no, because like I said it is not a Greek reaction but Kosovo action.--Avala (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a Greek reaction. Greece had to give the green light to the diplomatic mission of a country that has declared itself independent. Kosovo will be representing it's interests as an independent country from a diplomatic office in Greece, and Greece has declared that it approves it in today's conference. By this, Greece is no longer strongly opposed to the independence of Kosovo. It's basically a de-facto recognition. There is no reason why to occult this reality from the readers. All it will do is cause a shocker when Greece formally recognizes. At least now everyone can be informed of the "small and diligent" steps that the president of Greece talked about. Passport recognition and allowance of diplomatic mission is part of the package. Exo (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of green light are you referring to? The head officer of this office will not present his credentials to the Greek president because of the nature of his job. He will be a director of the office, not an official diplomat. He will not enjoy diplomatic status etc. He will be treated as a representative of any foreign company for an example.--Avala (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not indenting anymore. Yes, basically I agree with Exo. The consent of the host state is required when opening diplomatic offices and that in and of itself constitutes a reaction. --alchaemia (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did Greece have to consent? Greece is what you would call a free country - any organisation/nation/quasi-nation would be permitted to open an office there for any purpose (excluding criminal). They don't need consent. The question isn't whether Greece permitted the office to open, but rather whether it will co-operate with it. From the BalkanInsight article it looks like it probably will, but this is not recognition, although it is a significant step on the way there. Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please start reading and stop preaching? It was quite clearly said, by both sides that this is a diplomatic office and no diplomatic office can be opened in a state without its approval. What, you think you can open a diplomatic office of the United States of Bazonka in Athens and start doing official diplomatic business without the approval of Greece? There's a fundamental lack of information here on what diplomatic offices are and how they function and it's not helping your argument. Additionaly, no-one here suggested that this amounts to official recognition; quite to the contrary, I've noted that it wasn't in at least 3 ocassions. What it does suggest is that the situation is not as negative as Avala and few others would like to present it and it must be acknowledged as such. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Diplomatic credentials are presented only by embassy officials. Kosovo can open an office in Serbia if they want to, it's just the question how smoothly would that go.--Avala (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between an 'office' and 'diplomatic office.' The fact that you keep overlooking that and stating the opposite on purpose leads me to believe that your agenda here is to push your pro-Serbia POV. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the passports thing should be added. I read it in Macedonian news, but that shouldn't be used as a source for this if it doesn't need to. Somebody, if they haven't already, should look at Greek news and government sites. BalkanFever 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is an English-source on the passport issue and it's just fine. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Greece is allowing this office and is making joint statements about it with Thaci is part of the "small and diligent steps" that the Greek president talked about. This is part of how Greece's stance is evolving. There are much more irrelevant pieces of info in other country boxes that don't even compare to this crucial info. This is the closest step to recognition that there could be. What else is there? If Russia were to allow such an office from Kosovo, that would also be a huge step forward worthy of a mention. Why shouldn't it appear here? Afterall it is part of the interaction of Kosovo and other countries after the declaration of independence and how everyone is adjusting to the new reality. Exo (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/110908_alp_1619.htm

There's no chance Greece officially recognizing Kosovan passports, at least for the time being, they will be allowed entry as Serbian citizens. My personal opinion is that you should be very carefull analyzing any relative source, the political cost of a significant step towards recognition is enough reason, especially for this government with an electoral base that contains an important number of nationalists. The Greek press can easily portray such a movement as a "betrayal" of Greek-Serbian friendship. Let alone not serving national interests regarding Cyprus for example. Of course all things in life have a price, for this matter it would be very high to consider it probable.--Zakronian (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That link is from September 10th. Today the date is September 19th. Therefore, your information is old and thus, irrelevant. Here are two sources confirming this. Link [67] and Link [68]. You can also go to Google News and type "Greece Kosovo Passports" and you'll get the same information - and more. And one final note: where was this "Greek-Serbian friendship" when Serbia recognized Macedonia by its constitutional name? --alchaemia (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

http://portal.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_kathbreak_1_19/08/2008_244927

A Greek newspaper article about the recognition of the passports from RoM, if these news are considered worth mentioning in Greece than the fact that i can't find anything about the alleged Greek recognition might mean only two things, either we are talking about a nationwide censorship scandal or there hasn't been any recognition of any form. This is added as an extra arguement for everyone who thinks that the only recent relevant mention that can be found in the official MFA site (the most credible source presented in this discussion untill now) is old news. As for the rest of your comment, this is my personal opinion and i made it clear before, the friendship between the two nations still exists, we could talk about the recognition of RoM, about the reasons and the consequences, but it would be again a conversation on personal views with the difference that it would be completely irrelevant this time, the only important fact is that the special relation between Greeks and Serbians is still alive, you can believe me and take it into consideration or disregard it, i certaintly know better than you how the people in my country think. I said enough already about this.--Zakronian (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with political issues, it matters very little "how the people in my country think." What matters is how states act, and while the Greek governments in the nineties tried to help Serbia as much as they could, they still allowed for NATO trucks and equipment to pass through during the bombing and they never objected to it in an efficient manner. Likewise, on the Serbian side, there was a reconsideration of this "friendship" between "the peoples" and the-then FR of Yugoslavia sued Greece for damages and other stuff. Hardly a friendly relationship between two governments, all the noise notwithstanding. As for other sources, here's one from the official website of the Government of Kosovo, documenting today's meeting between PM Thaci and the head of the Greek Liaison Office in Pristina, Dimitris Moschopoulos where it was announced, by both of them, that Greece has decided to recognize the passports. [69] --alchaemia (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with political issues the political cost of a decision matters and is taken into consideration, end of story. The two sources can be intepreted without bias as to not contradict eachother. Untill a press release from the Greek MFA or a certain coverage from Greek media of the alleged recognition is put forth there is nothing to mention in this article. --Zakronian (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, because we all know that nothing actually happened until Greek media printed it. Be realistic. B92 (a Serbian news agency) wouldn't publish something that didn't take place; it, obviously, did and there's not much more to it. You can keep you friendship though... --alchaemia (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbia recognises Macedonia under constitutional name, not in spite to Greece but because Mitsotakis and Milosevic had that insane plan to invade Macedonia and divide it in half after the good cop-bad cop game where Serbia was supposed to lure Macedonia back to FR Yugoslavia.--Avala (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia (Presidency disagrees on Kosovo)

• [[70]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.66.58 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah it will be all added to a future article on ICJ.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Crowded description boxes with useless or presumed info

Sometimes, like in the vague case of Kuwait, we do need to specify who made a statement. In that example, the ambassador to Russia, because it is in the context of discussions between Kuwait and Russia, not Kuwait and the world. However, when the statement is made by a PRIME MINISTER or a PRESIDENT or a MOFA personel, why do we have to specify every single time who it was? I propose we use the name of the country as a default in order to save the boxes from overcrowding and TMI. Like for example:

• KOSOVO PRIME MINISTER HASHIM THACI SAID >>> replaced with >>>> KOSOVO SAID

• INDIAN AMBASSODOR TO CHINA (INSERT NAME HERE) SAID >>> replaced with >>> INDIAN AMBASSADOR TO CHINA SAID

If people wanna look up the names, they should click the reference link or use the search box in the left. We don't have to overcrowd the country description boxes with so much information that sometimes it's so stuffy, it diverts the reader from what the actual stance of the country is! I used Greece as an example because with all the names and cluttered quotes, you can't even make out a clear position. It's just a bunch of names and titles back and forthing extra-long quotes. Exo (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. at first blush, I don't favor the idea, because, as in the case of Greece, the statement Avala was selling us all along via Russian cyrylic sourcing, was made impromptu by a low level official, a mere spokesman, and recorded for posterity in a form of a transcript during a question and answer session, when he was impromptu phrasing a verbal answer to a question by a reporter, a question not even on Kosovo! Compare that against decidedly different in tone and content prepared statements of the Foreign Minister herself, prepared ahead of time, and only then released. I think there is a quantum level jump in importance between the two. --Mareklug ^talk 11:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - You're right, Greek FM statement completely overrides that spokeman's Q&A in a Russian magazine.

As far as the crowded descriptions, I wanna know what editors think about it. I've noticed there's alot of presumed, useless or repetitive information that clutters up the boxes and the actual position of a country becomes very confusing. Like of example, in the case of high leveled officials: "Greek foreign minister Dora Bokoyannis said during a visit in Tirana that..." That's pretty much summed up with: "Greece said that..." Exo (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - It should be noted who said what and when. WP is not a paper encyclopedia so we would have to cut it. --Avala (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But you do have a commitment to make it as clear as possible, which is starting to become an issue with the long and complicated description boxes. If I read India's stance right now, I'm completely lost. Exo (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I consider "detailed" to be the clearest. Those who have troubles comprehending should read this article in their mother-tongue Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of native language, it's a matter of clean-cut descriptions. There's a difference between writting details all over the place and being professional while doing so. Exo (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it was agreed a long time ago not to summarize but to post raw quotes and let the readers decide. I agree it could look nicer, that's not disputable but the thing is by making it nicer you open doors for interpretations.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'm merely pointing out a major flaw to it now that time has gone by. If in 200 days we have boxes that look like novels, I can only imagine how the long term boxes will look like. Probably soap opera status. So much for the details. Exo (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well address it to those countries that are unable to say their position clearly but do it like you said in "soap opera" manner with a new chunk of their position revealed every few months, not us.--Avala (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine that they give out new statements, but the way certain editors write them in is unprofessional. Super long titles and names, extra long quotes, locations irrelevant to the matter at hand...just to name a few unnecessary extras that overcrowd. Exo (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Greece will recognize Kosovo passports / Kosovo will open diplomatic mission in Athens

Let's have CONSENSUS VOTE on whether we should include the following information in Greece's description box after the following announcement: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13285/
A) Greece to recognize Kosovo passports
B) Kosovo to open diplomatic mission in Athens

A) Agree - Recognition of passports is a reaction from Greece towards the travel documents which were issued as a result of the declaration of independence
B) Agree - Kosovo will represent it's interests as an independent country through a diplomatic office in Athens, and Greece has given it permission to do so. Exo (talk)

A) Agree
B) Agree --alchaemia (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A) Agree
B) Agree Just calmly identify the sources in the text, analogously to Avala having kept Tanjung (http://www.B92.net ) report in the Greece section, as well as his attributing expresly the The Kosova Report one, both rather unoffically quoting the *ceremonial powers only* President of Greece and his assessments concerning independent Kosovo. It was not strictly correct for us to have written (my fault for letting it creep in) that Greece announced these things. But they were announced as sourced to a named Greek government official in Pristina, and that is far more substantive sourcing than some anonymous sources in Uruguay reported on one minor Spanish-language website, based on which Avala colored Uruguay as having already officially rejected Kosovo's independence. :) IMHO this content can be returned to the article in a properly modified form even right now, and will not constitue edit warring, only a further refinement of objected to attribution. --Mareklug ^talk 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this has been argumented before (first one is waiting for the official source and will be added after it has been confirmed and the second one is useless in this article but is intended for Diplomatic missions of Kosovo and as we have seen it's not a diplomatic office which needs to present credentials but just a representative office like that one of Taiwan in Athens) I issue you this:

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! --Avala (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a Serb veto on Kosovo information, Avala. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you telling me that the policy now is to "wait for official source" ? You gotta be kidding, right? How many pro-Serbia sources have you personally added that are not official, but based on newspaper reports? You want me to go ahead and post them here for you? The official website of the Prime Minister of Kosovo (you can find the link in the discussion above) posted an article confirming the recognition of passports and the opening of a diplomatic office. If that's not official, I don't know what is. Regarding that little thing you posted at the bottom, I've told you once and I'll tell you again: maybe you yourself should read those first before you start waving them around randomly. Your behavior here has been nothing but obstructive and you have been called on it several times. Again, STRONG AGREE --alchaemia (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such things as pro-Serbia or pro-Kosovo, there is only verifiable things and those which are not. Statements and reactions given to media will obviously need a media source not an official act due to their "unofficial" nature and things like recognising passports or unusual things like receiving credentials from an office of any kind need an official source due to their "official" nature. Not recognising doesn't require official act for that but recognising does because the situation changes factually and legally (those who don't recognise independence continue to recognise the state of affairs as it was before as if nothing happened). And I am warning you not to wave with personal attacks, animosity and defamation declarations which have no base whatsoever. Please try to show some arguments here.--Avala (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Well can I see some official source on the matter of Slovakia rejecting Kosovan passports? Do you, perhaps, have a link to an article published by official Slovak sources supporting your edit? I know you hurriedly put that as well as Egypt in there, so I'd like to see some official sources please. Otherwise you're engaging in double standards, not that we didn't know that anyway. I'm waiting. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

100% consensus has been proven impossible with obstructive and double standarded users roaming around. The only way to measure the pulse is through knowing how many people agree and disagree. Allowing users like Avala to have a veto on every single edit is out of the question. Show me a rule where it says that we need 100% majority.

Show me the rule which allows a certain user to call 100 other users on a certain talk page to vote for his cause, cause not backed up by arguments?--Avala (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Go read all the zillion arguments I and others have given in this page as to why Greece's passport recognition and allowance of the diplomatic mission are AN INTERNATIONAL REACTION TO THE 2008 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY KOSOVO. You've been the only vocal opposer, and the other guy doesn't recognize any press but Greek but that's his problem, not ours. Exo (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we make an edit on this matter, when Avala keeps reverting edits under the pretext that a consensus hasn't been reached because he keeps twisting words around? Who is Avala to deem the quality of his arguments stronger than ours? Exo (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't show any arguments. You just throw a link and yell agree, strong agree several times but that is not an argument of any kind. You also make dubious claims like "and Greece has given it permission to do so" which is not true. Offices like those of Taiwan and Kosovo are simple offices like any other and they do not enjoy diplomatic status nor do they present diplomatic credentials. Address this issue for starts.--Avala (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are LYING. I have given tons of arguments as to why Greece's recognition of passports and allowance of a diplomatic mission constitute a reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. It's you who's giving ridiculous arguments. The media reports CLEARLY say that KOSOVO WILL OPEN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION IN ATHENS. Obviously for that to happen, the Greek government has to facilitate everything. Why don't you go to Greece and open the AVALA DIPLOMATIC OFFICE and see if the Greek government will or won't allow it? Exo (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with both, at least we can agree to wait for the Greek press reaction, even a delayed one, if the position of the MFA has changed (before it was actually implemented, even for a week) from "visas to another piece of paper" to an act of recognition by putting visas on Kosovan passports there is going to be a political crucifixion orgy by the opposition and media. If we accept it as a fact then the "silence" so far in Greece, even by the communist party, is scandalous, do you understand that ? --Zakronian (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys are laughable, man. There are at least five sources [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] yet you keep yelling and screaming that "there are no arguments." Are you in denial Avala and Zakronian? It doesn't help change reality, that's for sure. As M. Twain said: "denial ain't just a river in Egypt." Keep it up. --alchaemia (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We have all these sources having declared that Greece recognizes Kosovo passports. So Zakronian, Greek press is not the only press we cite here in Wikiland. And as far as Avala's "Greece did not have to give permission", are you meaning to tell us that Kosovo is going to open a diplomatic mission in the middle of Athens without Greek government approval? Because the articles we're quoting are saying clearly that it will be a diplomatic mission, not a watermellon bazar. There's nothing you can do to change the reality on the ground and censuring Wiki articles will not change the mind of the Greek gov't. Exo (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greeks would have to issue official/diplomatic visas to the staff, they'd have to issue an exequatur for the office to have consular functions, etc. It's not like the Kosovars are going to show up with a moving van and have their own handpainted "Kosovo Diplomatic Mission" sign hanging on a rusty nail out front. The Greek government will be heavily involved in this every step of the way. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is useless, save your breaths or keep on chatting with eachother about denial and other unnecessary personal comments. I you don't like my position go ask help .--Zakronian (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need some help with your spelling. --alchaemia (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A) Agree
B) Agree----Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is on a tangent. I agree with Avala that opening a laison office does NOT constitute diplomatic relations, for the same reason that the US Special Interests Section in Havanna does not constitute diplomatic relations between that country and Cuba. But, that is not the issue; Greece allowing Kosovo to open an office representing its national interests DOES constitute an international reaction, so it should be included.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet, surprisingly, noone claimed that this amounts to diplomatic relations! What was claimed was this: passports were recognized, and Kosovo will open a 'diplomatic office in Athens' (direct quote), supported by many sources, including the website of the Prime Minister of the R. of Kosovo. What Avala and Zakronian are doing is called obstruction in the name of POV. --alchaemia (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

agree to them both but it doesn't mean Greece will recognise soon, so we shouldn't imply this. Include it neutrally. Ijanderson (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the line that would appear and that Zakronian editted out because he doesn't recognize any press but Greek press:

On 19 September 2008 Greece announced through its liason office in Pristina, Kosovo, that it would recognize the new Kosovo passports and issue visas for their holders. It was also announced then and there that Kosovo would open a diplomatic office in Athens. Exo (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Untill a reasonable explanation is given as to why since the Greek goevernment has announced something like that there is no reaction whatsoever from inside Greece i will remove it again. As simple as that.--Zakronian (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the obligation of this article or its editors to explain "why" the Greek government would do this, only to report the documented facts. Go ask the Greek government if you want to know. You are threatening to ignore everyone and to engage in edit war over an arbitrary philosophical requirement you have invented.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

...sigh. Exo, relent already with this metonymic use of "Greece". It only obfuscates and gets the hackles up of people who oppose this edit, with some reasonable cause, I'd say. Let's try this version:

---

On 19 September 2008, after a meeting between Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and Dimitris Moschopoulos, Head of the Greek Liaison Office in Pristina, the two announced that Kosovo will open a diplomatic office in Athens, and that Greece will recognize the new Kosovo passports, and issue visas for their holders in Pristina.

---

If this is ok with everyone, I suggest it be added to the article at the end of the Greece writeup. Zakronian, why don't you ask Mr. Moschopoulos, why. Ours is not to reason why, but to report verified information from trustworthy sources. This one fits the definition. --Mareklug ^talk 10:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, reporting reliable information. There is no way you are adding this without a source that guotes the governments anouncement and not the Albanian or Kosovan media interpretations. If we are interested in reliability we should wait, even the most convinced editor must agree with me that reactions from Greece will occure in the next days. And when that happens you will be free to publish it. Since many here feel so confident about the recognition being true they have nothing to worry about, they should accept my request. --Zakronian (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The source used is from Bosnia, which I identified readily in the citation. Please click on the link and avail yourself of who writes and edits Balkan Insight dispatches, and where their offices are. I don't think even Avala has ever disputed BI as a reliable neutral source, and in fact has used it to put up equal, if opposite in tenor, information about Slovakia and its nonrecognition of Kosovo passports. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, surely? If you insist on blocking this information, we will removed wholesale equivalent content Avala has put up for India, China, Uruguay, Cuba and tens of other countries... So pick your poison. I myself have found BI to confuse Slovakia with Slovenia :), but in this case, I don't see any room for them to mess up. Plus their dispatch is corroborated all over the internet by other agencies, including partisan Serbian ones. You really have not given us any good reason for stalling this update, other than your nationalistic sense of oneness of Serbs and Greeks and whatnot. Be that as it may, we are not construing reality, merely relating it impartially. Or at least, all of us should be. --Mareklug ^talk 12:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie, the liaison office of Greece is not speaking from Mars. Ms. Dora's signature is all over it. And there's nothing to wait about, the sources are overwhelming. You're obstructing perfectly valid information from appearing, and that's called denial, not reliability. Exo (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment.--Zakronian (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Mareklugs proposal. He isn't denying anything Ijanderson (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support Mareklugs proposal. Although reluctantly since I really don't see the point in all the ceremonies with specifying names in such a scenario since Greece is the one who recognizes the passports and the diplomatic office will be opened in Greece. But sure, if you wanna make the soap opera 1 hour long instead of 30 minutes, I'll watch it. It's still the same ending. Exo (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the original edit request, as it is more factual and to the point. I think Mareklug's proposal contains controversial wording, namely "diplomatic office," which will only generate more opposition than before. The claim being made by Avala that a country can somehow open a liaison office without the host government's permission is simply incorrect. Some editors appear to be arguing this point based on the false assumption that to give permission is equivalent to establishing diplomatic relations, a point of indignation, which is not true. The official status of diplomatic recognition is not based on the level of actual dialogue; that is strictly a de jure political decision, and no degree of cooperation automatically confers a diplomatic status. The only relevant fact here is, according to international law, no foreign government can establish a presence on another country's territory without the express permission of the host country. This applies equally to recognized governments and to entities claiming to be governments, the latter being particularly illegal on multiple levels sans permission. The opening of a Kosovo government office anywhere in Greece clearly requires the official permission of the Greek government (unless, of course, Greece were doing it clandestinely, under cover of being something other than a liaison office for the Kosovo government, and using it for secret unofficial meetings and cooperations, without flying the Kosovo flag, and without telling anyone outside of high government circles what is really going on--which is obviously not the case here). All we need, for now, is legitimate sourcing to establish the fact that an office is being opened. We also need not answer the question "why" would Greece do this. I won't even go into the passport issue.

Whether this permission constitutes a step towards recognition, whether it is contradicting official Greek foreign policy, whether it was a dumb or enlightened move by Greece, whether it was a noble or an offensive gesture, whether you or I are personally pissed off or happy about it, and other prosaic, moral, philosophical, theoretical, existential questions are not pertinent to this article, and are being posed here in an effort to obstruct simple facts. --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Supersexyspacemonkey:

1. Both the original (the Exo's version; actually, it's a version Exo and I worked out off-page) and the version called here Mareklug's version, contain the phrase: "diplomatic office".
2. The source used contains it: After a meeting between Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and Dimitris Moschopoulos, Head of the Greek Liaison Office in Pristina, the two announced that Kosovo will open a diplomatic office in Athens.
3. That's verbatim from the source, Balkan Insight. Both versions ("Exo" and "Mareklug") use this source. As does the source reprinted below, a portal from Yugoslavia, to judge by its domain address. :)
4. How does my version, which clearly attributes who said what be less "factual" (your word)?
5. The "Exo" version is faulty, as I already pointed out. Other editors opposed it for this reason: it claims that Greece announced this or that. But Greece didn't announce anything. A Greek official quietly let on about it, while his MFA keeps radio silence on the subject.
6. Many dispatches, including Serbian ones, reported that a highest Greek authority stationed in Pristina, identified by name, told the press on behalf of the Greek government things such as "diplomatic office" and "honoring Kosovo passports". Omitting his name is more to the point?
7. I added another dispatch,, below, re: Greece recognizing Kosovo passports: http://B92.net/ . And curiously enough, B92 skips the inflammable news about the new diplomatic office in Athens. :)
8. You advocate waiting for better sources. But what if Greece will just keep silent? What if Greece goes on de facto recognizing the Kosovo passports, without ever making an official announcement? These passports are to be used in Greece very soon -- next week. Your support for the less precise, objected to "Exo" version, will not get this crucial info into our article any sooner. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mareklug:

1. I'm refering to the first version that appears, which states: A) Greece to recognize Kosovo passports, B) Kosovo to open diplomatic mission in Athens Yes, your version is verbatim. They spoke those words, and it is legitimate to quote them as such, since we are reporting the fact of what they said, and not the fact of what "is"; however, I propose not quoting them all at, and simply reporting what we know: Kosovo is opening a liaison office in Athens. Whether or not that office can be called a "diplomatic" one is debatable on numerous grounds, some of which I already adressed, and is the POV of the officials. But, like I said, there is nothing wrong with presenting their statements as they were, if we should decide to go ahead and quote them. I'm just looking for the most neutral and objective way to report the facts in this article without sparking an edit war.
2. I meant let's stick to the bare fact that Greece is hosting a Kosovar liaison office, and not resort to quoting individuals. Though factual, I consider your quotes extraneous, for reasons explained in the next point:
3. Yes, you are correct, Greece didn't announce anything. The announcements came from individuals. The action being described, however, is being taken by the Greek government, and not by the individuals announcing it. No person is hosting a foreign office on Greek soil, the sovereign entity of Greece is doing that, by permission and authority of the Greek government. It can be no other way.
4. We don't need to explicitely source government officials in the article text itself, just link to the appropriate article, which already quotes them. We don't need to legitimize the move by quoting those who endorse or authorize it, we need only show that it is actually taking place.
5. No, I don't advocate waiting for better sources, I support the existing ones. I was simply iterating the main point: in order to make an edit that says Kosovo is opening an office in Greece, we need a reliable source stating that Kosovo is opening an office in Greece. Since I support making an edit to that effect, I obviously believe that requirement has been met. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
6. All of these points are merely suggestions. I prefer the wording I pointed out, but I SUPPORT the edit in general :)--189.156.194.116 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

And here is a dispatch from a .yu (Yugoslavia :)) domain, on this subject. It includies a picture of the two named gentlemen:

Greece recognizes Kosovo passport

20. September 2008. | 09:22

Source: EMportal

Greece will recognise Kosovo’s passports even though it has not yet recognised Kosovo’s independence.

The Greek government decided to recognize the passports of citizens from Kosovo and to start issuing visas in the Greek office in Pristina.

This was said by the Head of the office Dimitris Moskopoulos, cited by the Serbian Tanjug news agency.

After a meeting with the Kosovo PM Hasim Thaci, Moskopoulos noted that Thaci introduced him to the decision of the Greek Government to recognize Kosovo passports even though it hasn't recognized the independence of Kosovo.

Starting from next week, Kosovars will be able travel to Greece on new passports issued by the Republic of Kosovo.

After a meeting between Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and Dimitris Moschopoulos, Head of the Greek Liaison Office in Pristina, the two announced that Kosovo will open a diplomatic office in Athens.

Until now Kosovar citizens could travel to Greece on former Yugoslavian passports and travel documents issued by the UN mission in Kosovo, UNMIK.

• link: http://www.emportal.co.yu/en/news/serbia/63300.html

Since travelers going to Greece start using Kosovan passports next week, we can't delay, waiting for the Greek media and the Greek MFA who may well remain silent, a kind of tabu. The Serbian FM was told of this development ahead of time. Let us serve the Wikipedia readers. Somebody, please put this in the article already. Let's not have any pointless edit wars over this. Clearly these offices -- the Greek one in Prishtina, and the Kosovan one in Athens, are de facto consular offices dispensing visas. --Mareklug ^talk 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

---

And here is the complete dispatch from http://B92.net/ dated 19 September 2008. I wikified some names for emphasis:

Greece to recognize Kosovo passports

19 September 2008 | 14:47 | Source: Tanjug

PRIŠTINA -- The Greek govt. has decided to recognize Kosovo passports, says head of the Greek office in Priština Dimitris Mokopoulos.

After a meeting with Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, Mokopoulos said that he had informed Thaci of the Greek government’s decision to accept the new Kosovo passports, even though Greece has not recognized the province’s independence.This will allow Kosovo citizens to obtain visas at the Greek office in Priština.

Montenegro and Macedonia have also recognized the Kosovo passports, even though they have not recognized Kosovo independence.

• link: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=19&nav_id=53613 --Mareklug ^talk 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle I don't disagree with adding it but I find it extremely odd that no Greek media made a report on this. Also as far as I can see it is all copies of the same news article, though I am not sure who was the original publisher.--Avala (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And you have to be very smart to see this, cause no one else thinks it's important. Of course it's almost the same article everywhere. This is an encyclopedia not a newsroom, we do not care if the information added should be fresh. Tha MFA source i presented clearly said that tha there is no recognition. Since no serious arguement is provided over this, except that it's "old news" and since no one cares to give the explanation i asked above, i will wait for an official anouncement of the Greek MFA, even if the press and the opposition stays silent, the official position was expressed 10 days ago and cannot be overlooked. Wait or expect your work to be removed.--Zakronian (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not have the power to discredit the content of valid sources, you can only use it as it appears from the credible source. Exo (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian, just because Greece doesn't recognise Kosovo it doesn't mean that they do not recognise Kosovo passports. But the fact that Greek media stayed completely silent on this while media in Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia copy/pasted the same news report makes me wonder about the validity of the original press article.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Avala not even you have read it ? It is a specific answer to a question about Kosovo's passports, the spokeperson said they are not recognized but there is a process of putting the visa to a different piece of paper. And it's not for practical reasons like when travelling to Israel and then to some Arab country or Nagorno Karabakh and then to Azerbaijan. It is a decision of political motive not to put a Greek visa stamp on the Kosovan passports. If they have changed their position they have to give an official anouncement to the press. The other governmental link fron Kosovo that is used as source doesn't say anything about recognition of passports, it is a media intepretation.--Zakronian (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an official government article confirming passport recognition be "media interpretation" ? Are you even aware of what you're reading and writing? --alchaemia (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"it (the recognition) is a media intepretation", not the government article.--Zakronian (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your article dates to September 10th. The news of passport recognition and diplomatic office from credible valid sources came out after an announcement on September 19th. Your source is outdated. Exo (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha sorry I didn't read it indeed. This is the only official thing that we have. Apparently they don't recognise passports but have some process (to my knowning it could be the same as with Macedonian passports where at the border they don't look at passports because they don't recognise them, they look at a special document including visa that is issued in the embassy):

Ms. Antoniou: With regard to the new passports issued by Kosovo, does Greece recognise them or not?

Mr. G. Koumoutsakos: Kosovo passports are not recognised. There is, however, a specific process where the visa is on a separate piece of paper.

And obviously it can't be outdated in the same week. Greek MFA if they talked about passports before would certainly talk about them again if the situation changes. My guess is that the officer in Pristina talked about this specific process. --Avala (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This way we can easily explain why the Greek media haven't made a fuss about it. If all these don't derive a reasonable doubt so as to wait then "i'm burning my degrees" as we say in Greece. --Zakronian (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQs from the Greek MFA site, look a the answer in the question No5 "How and how often is the site updated ?".--Zakronian (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it's clear

"In particular the News topic of this site, which features news and official announcements, is updated daily by the Public Information Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

--Avala (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You can spin anything but you can't spin date. SEPTEMBER 10TH comes before SEPTEMBER 19TH in the calendar. A source from September 10th is outdated compared to a source from September 19th. Period! If you don't like that, go change the planet's rotational forces. Exo (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet the MFA website is updated daily so why is there no news? I doubt that their position changed so much, he would have announced it when asked because surely he would have known. I think that the representative in Pristina referred to a "special process" but it is irrelevant. Officially Greece does not recognise Kosovo passports. --Avala (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the head of the Greek Office in Prishtina, together with PM Yhaci were lying when they announced at a press conference, filmed by at least 10 television stations, that Greece has recognized the Kosovan passports, as reported on a dozen of websites already? --alchaemia (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he was misinterpreted by the media and then 10 other media stations copy/pasted that.--Avala (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's establish what we believe. @Avala, @Zakronian, as of today, 22 September 2008, based on what we know:

1. Say you have only one passport, recognized by Greece. Can you travel on it to Greece, and enter the country, assuming you have a visa, if one is required? (Skip the answer for those who are citizens of UE or another Schengen Agreement country)
2. Say you don't have any passport. Or documents equivalent to a passport. Can you travel to Greece, and enter the country? Can you get a Greek visa?
3. Say you only have the Kosovo passport and no other passport-like document. Can you enter Greece and travel in Greece? Can you be issued a visa (we don't care how, on what piece of paper if any)?
4. Has this istuation changed at all as a result of the Greece reaction to the independence of Kosovo?

--Mareklug ^talk 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is my first comment in this talk page :

http://www.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/Articles/en-US/110908_alp_1619.htm

There's no chance Greece officially recognizing Kosovan passports, at least for the time being, they will be allowed entry as Serbian citizens. My personal opinion is that you should be very carefull analyzing any relative source, the political cost of a significant step towards recognition is enough reason, especially for this government with an electoral base that contains an important number of nationalists. The Greek press can easily portray such a movement as a "betrayal" of Greek-Serbian friendship. Let alone not serving national interests regarding Cyprus for example. Of course all things in life have a price, for this matter it would be very high to consider it probable.

Next to "as Serbian citizens" i can speculate to add "as people from the disputed territory of Kosovo with special travelling documents prepared by the Greek liaison office due to lack of a Serbian passport issuing authority presence" or whatever biased or non-biased speculation. A visa is a travelling document by itself, it can contain photos and other information, it's like an identity card made for you by another country sometimes. There is also a procedure in which Greek and Turkish identity card holders can travel for a limited time in the other country, it's applied for example in Chios where boats link with Cesme, it's like a special visa that's issued in the port of each city. We can hypothesize whatever we want, for example that the Greek government doesn't want any part of the entry process of Kosovans into the country to be exploited thus showing a clear political motive apart from the clear statement of non-recognition whatsoever. We can also focus on how Kosovan passports are accepted as an information source to issue a visa, the Greek government might accept their reliability as a primary identity source as a continuation of the reliability the UN authority documents had and still have, f*ck we can even speculate that they first check a previous UN registry they have at their disposal so that they can accept any new passport, we still don't know where the visas will be issued, if this is done at the border or not has an importance also. The questions you pose don't help to decide the notability or the wording because they can only be answered with OR, but if we were to mention it now we can't use "recognition". You can add a neutral wording untill (and if) i find some official information as to the purpose and the details of the agreement, and the funny thing is that for a neutral mention we can use the Greek MFA source where it is stated clearly they will be allowed entry, didn't anyone noticed my link the first time (not referring to you, Exo and Alchaemia, i'm talking about less biased editors) ??? --Zakronian (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a reaction not to the independence but the declaration of independence might even be that a Greek official visited and had a talk about the weather with Thaci.--Zakronian (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian, you may think me biased, but it has been my sustained effort to rid this article of bias and covert it in name and substance to en encyclopedic treatment of the international recognition of Kosovo.

For starters, I asked if you believe that individuals can now, as a result of Greek policy changes, travel to Greece as citizens of Kosovo. Not citizens of Serbia. And, the long transcript of a Q&A session you trucked out as evidence is

• a) a transcirpt containing a verbal question and an impromptu short answer by a low-level official performing an omnibus daily press briefing,
• b) it dates from 9 days before the reported news of a Kosovo diplomatic office having been graciously invited by the Greek Foreign Minister to open in Athens, with a simultaneous announcement made by a higher-ranking Greek official to the media, that Greek visas will be issued the holders of Kosovo passports on location in Prishtina.
• c) it is not a published document defining policy.

Second, none of the above pertains to any person's travel as citizens of Serbia. Why are you discussing it? Perhaps some Kosovans can travel as citizens of Nauru. What of it?

Isn't Greece enabling the citizens of a new country a de facto entry to Greece as the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo? Would they be deportable to Serbia, should they misbehave?

The forthcoming office in Athens was invited by the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis.

I wish to add this fact, and a mention of the newly available means of travel extended by Greece to the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo. So do all the other editors (quite a number!) who wrote in this section on this issue. All in unison, that is, except for you and and the one editor you think unbiased. :) May I, at long last? --Mareklug ^talk 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to say ? repeat myself ? there is no recognition of passports, so you can't write that. As for the credibility of the MFA page this is the only thing we've got from Greece and it's official as hell. Wikipedia is not a place for info games. I don't care if you are biased, you seem at least a person i can say a few words, unlike other editors who behave like freaks and create a negative atmosphere. There is no gracious invitation or anything like that, it would have been published in the ministry's site. What we know is that Kosovan passport holders can be issued visas and that there seems to be an agreement about the opening of a liaison office in Athens, which of cource the Kosovan media have every interest to say it is a diplomatic office. Compile something with that in mind, if you can't understand me then i'm too tired to hope for anything better, seek some kind of mediation. Oh, and the my answers to your specific questions would be either "no" or "we don't know".--Zakronian (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're making progress after all. I too, wish to state, that I have my doubts and am worried by the radio silence from the Greek MFA, dating from the 19 September 2008 through today, on this score. Be that as it may, I will add the following, which is essentially your words, sourced now to the New Kosova Report dispatch from 20 September 2008 that explicitly quotes the Kosovan PM mentioning Dora Bakoyannis's invitation, but I will refrain from mentioning her. :)

---

From 22 September 2008 Kosovan passport holders can be issued visas in Pristina and there seems to be an agreement about the opening of a Kosovan liaison office in Athens.

---

I hope this is finally aceptable to all reasonable people, for now. The passports are being accepted already by Greece. Shame that we are only now mentioning it in the Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 03:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Accepted by me. I don't know about others, i wouldn't have a problem even if you change the wording, as long a you don't mention the disputable terms or a definite description of their meaning. --Zakronian (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine but I clarified that visas are not issued to Kosovo passport holders but citizens of Kosovo in a specific visa ID form as passports are not recognised. Also the thing about office was announced by Thaci.--Avala (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro/Macedonia

I updated Montenegro with their announcement that the position will be revealed by President Vujanovic at UNGA. And I am waiting for BalkanFever to update the article on Macedonia. Their PM spoke about recognition rumors today. [76] --Avala (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Montenegro recognizing Kosovo passports already? See B92 dispatch quoted above, please. Montenegoro needs a complete makeover. What is there now is fiction. Its update remains on the talk page, blocked by you AFAIR. Montenegro might well recognize Kosovo before we neutrally describe it. :) --Mareklug ^talk 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am fine with passports addition so I don't see what is the problem and how is it my fault.--Avala (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Gruevski's comments to Macedonia. I'll work on shortening some of the section later. BalkanFever 23:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

India

• [[77]]

84.134.117.252 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody has the right to unilaterally declare independence and seek exemption from international law," said Jeremic. (quoted in Times of India)

Nobody could have produced a more Serbian propaganda peace than this Times of India dispatch does. Everything in it is Jeremic this, Jeremic that. No Indian official is ever quoted. All we have is the the words of dear old Mr. Jeremic (Foreign Minister of Serbia) who came ot India.

Mr. Jeremic: back to Harvard for you. You're shaming the Old Maroon with this shameless nonsense. You obviously need to retake basic international law and human rights. Self-determination of peoples is enshrined in it. It is a basic human right. Nothing trumps it.

Deear 84.134.117.252: This talk page is for article improvement. A little bit of critical reading and judicious selection is expected. --Mareklug ^talk 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Minister Jeremic who has beaten the USA/EU/NATO efforts > User:Mareklug from Wikipedia. --Tocino 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please spare this talk page of your lessons to the Foreign Minister of Serbia. It is what fails to anyhow improve this article, not the Times of India article.--Avala (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your unequivocal defense of Jeremic and Serbia in light of some pretty strong argument against is what fails to anyhow improve this article. And you still haven't provided me with an official source for Slovakia's and Egypt' refusal of passports. --alchaemia (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you consider "unequivocal defense" to be when I try to get things like "Mr. Jeremic: back to Harvard for you." off this talk page then fine but my intention was different from what you perceived. And here you go again with your (para)legal assumptions. There is no such thing as an "official" refusal of passports as the Government simply doesn't recognise passports. That is why we had separate news reports on Croatia, Italy, Japan, Germany etc. recognising passports after they recognised Kosovo and that is why for an example Serbia had to send specimen of the new passport to every country in the world etc.--Avala (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You require official sources for Greece and its recognition of Kosovan passports; I say you need to do the same when you say that a country has refused to recognize them. There is a difference between a country which has not issued a formal statement (it may, for example, still be in the process of recognizing them) and a country which has explicitly refused to do so. Egypt, you claim, is a country which has explicitly refused to do so. And I now ask for an official source confirming this since that seems to be the standard you follow for recognition. --alchaemia (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Again recognising something new, passport or a country, requires a new act saying so. Not recognising means considering the situation unchanged and therefor not adopting any acts.--Avala (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, not saying anything (staying neutral) is not the same as officially rejecting it. If the latter occurred, as you claimed in the case of Slovakia and Egypt vis-a-vis passports, you should provide an official source for it. I'm only asking you to be consistent, as you require such official sources even in the face of at least a dozen third-party sources. You can't have your cake and eat it too. --alchaemia (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actully, it really is. Theres no such thing as "nuetral" in this, either you recognize or you don't.--Jakezing (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For most of the countries legally there is no difference between staying silent on the issue and attacking Kosovo passports in the media.--Avala (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuba, rewritten, attributed precisely (please comment)

I invite editors to read the Castro editorial that is the basis of our original Cuba entry. Then tell me, if my rewrite is accurate or not. See the articles Radio Rebelde and Granma (newspaper). Note how Granma's content is characterized:

Granma regularly features:

• Speeches by Fidel Castro and other leaders of the Cuban government
• Official announcements of the Cuban government
• Popular sketches highlighting the history of Cuba's revolutionary struggle, from the 19th to the 21st century
• Developments in Latin America and world politics
• Steps by Cuba's workers and farmers to defend and advance the socialist revolution
• Developments in industry, agriculture, science, the arts, and sports in Cuba today
• TV listings for that day

Entity	Evidence	Notes
Cuba	Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba has not issued an official statement regarding the independence of Kosovo. On 29 February 2008, writing in his personal "Reflections of Fidel" column, which is published in the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, Granma Internacional (and since translated into English and archived on the Radio Rebelde website), Fidel Castro, the ex-President and the current foreign policy advisor to Raúl Castro, attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's "independence", and by doing so, putting at risk the ethnic cohesion and the very state integrity of Spain or The United Kingdom, both of which experience separatist movements of their own. Referring to Kosovo "independence" (in quotes), Catro made no identifiable statement concerning Cuba possibly witholding its recognition of Kosovo, or granting it.

Thoughts? I put it in the article. If it is not there, it was reverted, instead of objected to here. --Mareklug ^talk 05:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Strechy, don't ya think?--Jakezing (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stretchy&x=0&y=0 Which definition did you have in mind? Or something else? --Mareklug ^talk 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree to this:

Entity	Evidence	Notes
Cuba	On 29 February 2008, writing in his personal "Reflections of Fidel" column, which is published in the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, Granma Internacional, Fidel Castro, the ex-President and the current foreign policy advisor to President Raúl Castro, attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's "independence", and by doing so, putting at risk the ethnic cohesion and the very state integrity of Spain or The United Kingdom, both of which experience separatist movements of their own.. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba has not issued an official statement regarding the independence of Kosovo.

--Avala (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable feat of concision, I must say, but isn't replacing with a single period the sentence "Referring to Kosovo "independence" (in quotes), Catro made no identifiable statement concerning Cuba possibly witholding its recognition of Kosovo, or granting it." – a bit cryptic? :)

Seriously, why move the most important information to the bottom, and why conceal, that Castro said nothing about recognition. He disapproves of independent Kosovo, that much is certain. But his editorial is agnostic with respect to Cuba's policy towards the new entity. Isn't that on topic for our article? This lack of official position should be noted. Else, we distort its importance, by giving the editorial undue weight. It would be better to remove any description of it and just state that he wrote an editorial on Kosovo, reference it, and leave it at that. --Mareklug ^talk 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know why didn't he use the word "recognition" but it comes to my mind that he never even consider the recognition. It's Fidel after all. He wrote at least a dozen anti-Kosovo editorials in the past years or every time something would happen there. This one came after the independence declaration and so it is a reaction to it. Also notice that Fidel put the word independence under quotation marks (similar to what Hugo Chávez did).--Avala (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

General observation

The Castro editorial is now referenced in English, and at the time the Cuba entry created, it was referenced in Spanish, and later, to a summary in Catalan. For the first time, dare I say, we can revise our (misleading) entry for Cuba while all editors who read English can verify that we are truthful. If editors think we are saying too much, let's really say even less, without creating an impression, that Cuba officially rejected Kosovo, which is what is at issue both here and elsewhere, where this entry is used as basis: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png --Mareklug ^talk 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove that OR nonsense about Castro being a foreign policy advisor then. He has no official advisory position let alone any specific role as a foreign policy adviser. This was an OR and POV effort by Avala to paint Fidel's statement as an official statement of Cuba when it wasn't. As I understand it he still has a lead position in the Party, that would be accurate and notable to include.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article Fidel Castro#Retirement and its sources appear to substantiate The Devil's Advocate claim of OR. --Mareklug ^talk 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

After removing the whole reference to his election to a post of a foreign policy advisor in Cuban parliament a few months ago now you are claiming it must be some OR and POV effort by Avala to claim that he is holding such a position. Remarkable spin!--Avala (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OR because not even that says he was chosen for any position. It says he would be consulted and the assembly approved of that, there is no mention of him holding an official position. I fail to see why you can not just have his position as leader of the Communist Party. You're only inserting this stuff about him being an adviser to make it seem like an official position because you have nothing else to suggest Cuba opposes or supports Kosovo's independence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if parliament voted for such a proposal he is on that position as an elected official.--Avala (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

• [[78]]

84.134.94.141 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have that. Don't spam. (President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has stated that Armenia will not recognise either Kosovo or Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He said that Armenia cannot recognise another entity in the same situation as long as it has not recognised the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.)--Avala (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not spaming. Please no personal attacks!84.134.94.141 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Max... STAY LOGGED IN, second, yes, you are. We've discussed this before.--Jakezing (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I should do. Better tell me why do you hate me!84.134.123.39 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a soap opera and more importantly into a talk page abuse. If you believe that you are hated by other people take it to your shrink not on this talk page.--Avala (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Say that to Jakezing. For days now I'm trying to solve the problem but I does not even tell me why he is angry with me.84.134.123.39 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to topic. Second, don't have to, freedom of choice :D. --Jakezing (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to tread a colleague that way.EOD on this page!84.134.63.1 (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia NPOVed (shown both versions)

gee, I don't know. Maybe some editors should apologize to Max Mux a.k.a IP.84.134.*.*... Do you think that our Armenia write-up, even though it was using the same quote, was really saying the same thing? IMHO MM could have genuinely thought he was reporting a change in position by Armenia, after he read what was there.

Mareklug-installed version, just now

Armenia

On 3 September 2008 President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan stated: "Today one is wondering from time to time why Armenia is not recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The answer is simple: for the same reason that it did not recognize Kosovo’s independence. Having the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia can not recognize another entity in the same situation as long as it has not recognized the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." A nation’s right to self-determination "takes times", requiring the understanding of "all interested parties". Accordingly, Armenia is trying to "convince" Azerbaijan to accept the loss of Karabakh, stated the president.

What Armenia was set to recently (then, on this basis I suppose, Armenia was recolored to red on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg)

Armenia

Despite expressing his support for the right to self-determination and that any "possible recognition of Kosovo's independence will not strain the Armenian-Russian relations", President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has stated that Armenia will not recognise either Kosovo or Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He said that Armenia cannot recognise another entity in the same situation as long as it has not recognised the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

When we put in those 2 refs, we did not use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}, which admins asked for on this page. Should anyone feel inclined to make further improvements here, I now myself use full citations all the time. I also consistently use (accurate, truthful) edit summaries, too. When I am forced to revert, I reveal this unambiguously. --Mareklug ^talk 10:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if "Armenia can not recognize another entity in the same situation as long as it has not recognized the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." means that he can't recognise them before he recognised N-K or that he can't recognise those who didn't recognise N-K?--Avala (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's wonderfully double-meaning, :) But I don't suspect the President of this subtlety, only a happy accident of translation. He was likely speaking in Armenian, as this was an Armenian gathering. It's likely that we are being edified by a careless use of "it" by the journalist. Another reason to quote officials from their websites.

Whatever lipstick you care to put on this pig, I calls it like I sees it this: "Armenia will recognize Kosovo, because it deserves to be recognized. Just recognize (our) Nagorno-Karabach first, everybody, thank you very much, And if you are another Somaliland or Northern Cyprus, that goes for you double." Avala, you have no reason to color this particular country red. You know that. It could easily be a light blue. They are telegraphing their own demands in return for playing nice, dickering, as we say in Kentucky. But they regard Kosovo recognition as legit, They are just taking their sweet time and naming their price, before they make it stick, so help me Jesus. --Mareklug ^talk 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it could be but we are depicting the current state and if they say that they don't recognise it, despite the possibility that they might, we show them as not recognising.--Avala (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am losing patience with you. Please consider reading the map legend and marking maps faithfully, accurately, as long as this legend is what it is:

  Kosovo

  States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States which have stated they intend to formally recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States which have delayed or have expressed neutrality on recognition of Kosovo's independence.

  States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations.

  States which have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States with no reported position at present.

Please specifically note the HAVE STATED in the red and light blue cases. From our corrected write-up, Armenia would fall according to this legend under: States which have stated they intend to formally recognise Kosovo as independent.. In their case, as soon as other countries recognize the independence of Nagorno Karabakh. What color is that, to your eyes? To mine, that color is light blue. Is what I am saying somehow not true? Do you still say that Armenians have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent. Against Wikipedia-used sources? --Mareklug ^talk 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)