Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

edit request Estonia (diplomatic relations est.)

{{editprotect}}

Please replace in the first table in the article:

|- | 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || || EU member state
NATO member state |-

with:

|- | 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

This is a noncontroversial update. --Mareklug ^talk 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "on the embassy level": Your source states, that "Estonia has no plan to establish an embassy there yet". They might want to accredit a non-resident ambassador, however the source doesn't support that. Thus, I think it's better not to mention this part. Gugganij (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Estonia Foreign Ministry has not updated its Foreign relations -> Bilateral relations subpage for today (Latvia's entry was updated yesterday), so there's no source to back that up, and the press release does not say. So I struck that part. This is the link to watch: [1]. --Mareklug ^talk 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The citation says absolutely nothing about Estonia or Kosovo establishing embassies. --Tocino 23:04, 24 April 2088 (UTC)
• Oppose - hopefully you just provided a wrong link...--Avala (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this Avala, [2] ? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better.--Avala (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcomed. So now what are we doing with Estonia? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Still nothing about embassies. --Tocino 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just say, "established diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level." Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed the edit request says nothing about embassies, just that Estonia has established a diplomatic mission. Which is true therefor should be added Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will obviously agree if the edit request is updated by the correct source.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How is the proposed source incorrect? --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

| 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

how about now with the correct source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree--Avala (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Looks like consensus is on its way, but it's not here yet. Happy‑melon 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. How is this source any more correct than the originally proposed one? It's not even a source for the done deal but a source for it being in the future! I demand some answers here, because your oppositions and corrections look unnecessary and unexplained, and the new proposed source is worse. --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the small NATO template next to every NATO member state in the list

With the EU and UN having small logos next to every countries that is affiliated with the issue, should NATO have the same as well? The template for the flag next to every NATO members could be Image:Flag of NATO.svg (found on the Yugoslav wars page). Thanks. AeonicOmega (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you click on that image and read what's written on its article page in the table titled "Non-free / fair use media rationale for NATO". You'll discover shortly that this image may only be used to illustrate the NATO article itself, and noen other, because it is not a free image, but an image whose copyright holder is NATO, and very strict about its use. Unlike all the other flags, we use, which are free to use, the NATO flag is restricted to the public.

Another problematic flag is the Olympic rings flag, , which appears to be similarly restricted, although the compounded licencing templates on Wikipedia for that image refer to such abstruse legalese, that it is difficult to figure out for sure. Apparently, it is far from obvious even for the local free image police :), because it has been allowed into our article and no one ever removed it, while NATO thingees have come and gone. Since the olympic rings image is not allowed into Wikipedia competitor biographies' Olympic medal tables, if that policy is any indication, we are overstepping the bounds of allowed use in that case. --Mareklug ^talk 06:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mareklug. We can't use the flag as we dont have permision Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree on the NATO flag. However, I am puzzled by Mareklug's words about . I do not see any "abstruse legalese" there, but "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired" (which is perfectly consistent with Coubertin having died in 1937 = 2007 − 70). What's the problem then? — EJ (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please direct your eyes below that. There are all sorts of notices indicating that the IOC regulates how its flag is used, referencing sections and articles to which I have not easy access. Looks like apart from Coubertin's author rights, the symbol is subject to IOC's monopoly. They are pretty vicious about it too, as they are about anyone using the word "olympic" in commerce. --Mareklug ^talk 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that IOC cannot regulate the usage of the symbol unless the right to do so is granted to them by applicable law. After its copyright has expired, the copyright law does not grant them any right to make claims to the symbol. They could have enforced such restrictions until September 2007, but they have no legal power to do so now, irrespective of whatever they choose to write in their charter (which is, by the way, linked as PDF from the notice). IANAL though. — EJ (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Applicable law, you say. I read the relevant portions of the PDF charter (it states that it applies since summer 2007), and I am not any wiser, as it mentions law protection for "Olympic properties" other than copyright. You did not address those: there is a warning template pertaining to "official insignia" use being restriced in some countries, and one for "trademark" use, telling us we are responsible for making sure our use is noninfringing. Neither template links to any image-specific information, so I stand by my characterization of "abstruse legalese" in my way. Am I legally prevented from using the image of these rings in this article, or not? Copyright perhaps is irrelevant, but other pointy instruments appear pointed at us here. Neither discussion page (Commons or English Wikipedia) exists to shed light on the issue. This image's licensing info taken together sends a mixed, in fact, incoherent, message. --Mareklug ^talk 11:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The "official insignia" template is almost certainly bogus. AFAICS, it is supposed to cover situations where country X prohibits by law dishonesting or commercial or whatnot usage of state insignia of country X. It is not applicable to IOC, as IOC is not a sovereign country issuing its own laws. As for trademark, it would be a trademark infringement to market our own products marked with the IOC logo, but it is not an infringement to mark IOC or its products with its own logo. The latter is, in fact, the expected use of a trademark, which is not restricted by law but encouraged. I don't think there are any more instruments to be pointed: the logo cannot be patented, and that's about it for intellectual property.

But looking at the discussion I guess I sort of proved your point, there is indeed a lot of legalese going on, what I'm saying is just that we appear to be in compliance with it. — EJ (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting references

Anyone who is willing to perform the basic housekeeping task of checking all the references and citing them properly using citation templates, would earn themselves a generous helping of cookies :D Happy‑melon 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went threw all the references. references 4; 6; 14; 16; 20; 36; (fixes submitted --Mareklug ^talk 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ) 96; 112; 118; 123; 124; 132; 141; 142; 152; 168; 186; 189; 202; 204; 207; 211; 213; 217; 233 (decremented by 3, since the changes shifted 99 to 96, etc. #112 works (Iraqi meeting the Serbian ambassador in Baghdad on 14 Feb 2008). Um, this is not a reaction, and what the Iraqi said is misrepresented. --Mareklug ^talk 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC) )

Are either broke, error, can not be found or lead to home page of a site Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Many websites are poorly designed so that they are in basic htm and they delete older data or the same link works for a different article every week etc.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some documents were moved (or, we linked to a temporary location highlighted at the time, like a front page of a ministry). For example, reference currently number 16, Turkey's MFA's statement of recognition from 18 February 2008, is a broken link in the article but the documenet is available at http://www.mfa.gov.tr/statement-of-h_e_-mr_-ali-babacan_-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-republic--of-turkey_-regarding-the-recognition-of-kosovo.en.mfa That site is a bit confusing, with Speeches of the Foreign Minister and Press Releases of the minstry organized in separate hierarchies, and in this case, the item is labeled as "Statement" but appears under Speeches. I found it easily enough searching Google restricting with the site attribute like this: site:http://www.mfa.gov.tr kosovo

Some other sites are self-identified as temporarily not available (Macedonian MRT.com.mk used in reference presently at #4 to source the last sentence in the article lead - can be replaced with another Macedonian source http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/novina/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=106226&NrIssue=617&NrSection=10 ) and some, like Yahoo News or Associated Press (#14 - can be simply dropped, as it is only used as one of 3 sources for France; #20 - ditto, one of three sources used for United Kingdom), we should never link to, as they are temporary and don't pretend to be archival. In fact, there are no other Yahoo News links, and the best way to link Associated Press content seems to be linking to a news outlet that publishes AP content (International Herald Tribune or ABC News (American) or ABC News (Australian) are good examples that seem to persist).

I suggest that we use this to re-source wherever possible to the individual reacting countries' foreign ministries, and where such references are unavailable, neutral world press quotes of their relevant officials.

Submit each as an individual editprotect request showing plainly which article fragment to replace with what. Keep the References section on this talk page at the bottom, so that the results of your work can be easily inspected and the link itself followed. --Mareklug ^talk 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Link maintenance: Turkey

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

|- | 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || || NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || || NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

This is a maintenance request fixing a broken link without changing any sourcing, template use, or information. (The ref tag name was altered to make this request transparent.) Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - United Kingdom

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 7 || United Kingdom || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Great Britain in Prishtina from 5 March 2008|| permanent member of the UNSC
EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 7 || United Kingdom || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Great Britain in Prishtina from 5 March 2008|| permanent member of the UNSC
EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

This is a link maintenance and resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Replacing a table row (UK entry). Broken link to Associated Press aggregate removed. Generic country information from the UK Foreign & Commenwealth Office removed (it is one of main sublinks from the UK Embassy in Kosovo link that follows). New York Times press dispatch retained but its author(s), date and title corrected (same URL; ref tag renamed to make this edit comparable). Official UK Prime Minister's website information added (includes in full the statement by the UK Prime Minister made on 18 February 2008).

Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - France

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 4 || France || 2008-02-18 || || permanent member of the UNSC
European Union (EU) member state
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 4 || France || 2008-02-18 || || permanent member of the UNSC
European Union (EU) member state
NATO member state |-

---

This is a maintenance and resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Broken Yahoo News aggregate link removed. Reused NY Times source tag renamed per its name change at United Kingdom. Balkan Insight press source replaced with the official France Diplomatie (official website of the French MFA) highlight page in its Kosovo section containing the Foreign Minister's statement on 18 February 2008.

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I played with the title of one of the references a little, but nothing serious. Happy‑melon 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - article lead, Kosovo-Macedonia border

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

The Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation began operating on 25 March 2008 in Skopje.

---

with the following:

---

The Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation began operating on 25 March 2008 in Skopje.

---

This is a broken link fix, replacing the unavailable Macedonian press source with another contemporary Macedomnian press source, and upgrading to cite news template. This action is sufficient to source the statement in question (newer information with newer sourcing is available).

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Link maintenance: Afghanistan

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 1 || Afghanistan || 2008-02-18 || ||First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 1 || Afghanistan || 2008-02-18 || ||First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC |-

---

This is a broken link maintenance request. The broken link is being removed and not replaced, since the other citation is an official government statement in English and suffices (the citation was verified, expanded and updated).

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - Peru, Belgium

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 16 || Peru || 2008-02-22 || || |- | 17 || Belgium || 2008-02-24 || Liaison Office of Belgium in Prishtina|| EU member state
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 16 || Peru || 2008-02-22 || || |- | 17 || Belgium || 2008-02-24 || Liaison Office of Belgium in Prishtina|| EU member state
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
NATO member state |-

---

This is a maintenance broken link replacement/resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Focus press agency (Bulgarian) link about Serbia recalling its ambassadors to Belgium and Peru is broken; was sourcing Belgium. Replace with a DiplomacyMonitor.com link to Serbian Ministry's English language note (same info) as 2nd source for Peru and Belgium, now sourced in Spanish (Peru MFA) and Dutch (Belgian press). No Belgian document indicating recognition on 24 February 2008 has been found yet, in any language, only press reports.

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The official text of the Belgian recognition can be found in the Belgian State Gazette (Dutch and French) of 29 February 2008 http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2008/02/29_1.pdf MaartenVidal (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Georgia

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[102][103][104]

---

With:

---

Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[102][103][104] On 9 May 2008, President Mikheil Saakashvili reiterated his nation's opposition to recognition, telling Russian media that "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future." Saakashvili added that Serbs should have been given more time for negotiations.

---

Thanks. --Tocino 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Fix it. This request is wrong on several levels. First of all, didn't we have a reaction from Georgia a bit ago, by its Prime Minister no less (head of the government), strongly implying eventual recognition (on grounds that Georgia will do as its friends have done)? Wasn't there a link to a long Estonian audio interview, ruling out any misquoting? Did he ever recant, or was he ever quoted saying the opposite, since that time? I don't believe so. A government spokesman claimed shortly afterwards that the Prime Minister was misinterpreted. Far be it for me to interpret -- I just want the audio linked to from this reaction write-up for Georgia. Now, with that Prime Minister's reaction ignored, we open ourselves to charges of selective reaction reporting. So, regardless of what anyone personally may think of Georgia's prospects for eventually recognizing Kosovo, and quite apart from what the President may have just said to the Russians, it behooves the article to report all those reactions for Georgia in turn, what was said to Georgians, to Estonians and toe Russians. :) And please source this latest bit to something less controversial than http://www.B92.net -- some source, any source, that no one has documented on this talk page yet as having produced biased, bad journalism on the subject of Kosovo. I'm sure there are Georgian and Russian sources. After all, the paraphrase refers to the Russian media. Find them. And, on a technical note, please don't propose edits that, taken verbatim, will corrupt the web page, and otherwise, make it onerous for the administrator to actually perform the update. Go to "View source" (where "Edit" usually is) and copy and paste here the verbatim code to be replaced, then prepare verbatim code to be put in instead. I just did a series of editprotect requests, carried out with just one minor title edit by Happy melon, so you have several good examples immediately above. --Mareklug ^talk 07:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian government immediately rebuked what the Prime Minister had said to the Estonian journalist, and so far the government has not reacted negatively to the President's comments. We use websites such as www.kosovothanksyou.com and www.newkosovoreport.com as sources and I don't see you complaining about their bias. Despite B92 being preceived as pro-Western in Serbia itself, it is not an acceptable source to you purely because it is a Serb outlet. This is outrageous racism. --Tocino 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't use http://www.kosovothanksyou.com at all, and we use http://www.kosovareport.com/ because it is an impartial and valuable news source not located in Serbia or Kosovo and no one has ever documented that they shanked a story on Kosovo, but B92.net, unfortunately has (the story on Kosovo being the drug capital of the Balkans accourding to a UN report, so said their headline, but even the body of the article failed to back that up -- it was all made of whole cloth by splicing sources and references to among other things, Albania proper and generic UN agency reports which did not even mention Kosovo or mentioned it as a place where assistance was granted -- I read all the reports and I investigated and documented on this page the B92.net shoddy journalism. Search the archives of this talk page. I also commend to you the WP:NPOV/WP:VER guidelines on sourcing without inducing an appearance of conflict of interest (locality-based, in this case), and in this case, sourcing with a Serbian source a Russian media event, as opposed to souring the Russian media themselves, is going out of one's way to create such an appearance if not outright conflict of interest. Also, I would caution you against flinging unsubstantiated and malapropist charges of racism against fellow editors in any Kosovo discussion, lest you find yourself topic-banned for inflamatory behavior under the Arbitration Committee's article probation for Macedonia/Kosovo/Balkans which is in force. Such behavior in any context though would be considered a personal attack. Furthermore, it is obvious that there is nothing racist in objecting to a source with a documented history of defects on the subject in question, whatever the subject. --Mareklug ^talk 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have got to say that Mareklug has made a good pint there. Its only fair to include this, if we are to include that B92 reference as well. This will make Georgia NPOV by including both. So for the time being its a disagree until we can update it including both sources. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also i fail to see what was racist about what Mareklug said. If i remember correctly you called Mareklug a Polack once, so i don't think you are in the position to call anyone racist, as that would be rather hypocritical Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17528 --Tocino 17:58. 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good work: You found a Georgian source mentioning and linking the whole Prime Minister thing. Now incorporate it into a proper editprotect request, please, with yet another link to the audio itself. --Mareklug ^talk 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, How about this...

Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[102][103][104] In an interview with an Estonian journalist Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze said, "in due course we of course will recognize Kosovo." However less than 24 hours later a government spokesman told reporters, "The Georgian government's position is clear for everyone: the Georgian government does not intend to recognise Kosovo's independence." On 9 May 2008, President Mikheil Saakashvili reiterated his nation's opposition to recognition, telling Russian media that "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future." Saakashvili added that Serbs should have been given more time for negotiations.

--Tocino 03:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a start, but not yet ready for prime time. :)

1. You didn't obtain page source code from View Source, as you were asked to do, and so 3 references have placeholders, not actual links which could be followed, checked, compared against the article text and evaluated taken together with the other references. Sticking the above into the article would break it.
2. Way too selective, biased paraphrasing and/or quoting: the President is amply, exhaustively quoted and paraphrased (well, he is mouthing a pro-Serbia position), while the Prime Minister's say is severely reduced, and the spokesman is selectively quoted, omitting the sentence where he claims the PM was misinterpreted, and what he really meant was that... Likewise, the Foreign Minister is sourced THREE TIMES for his spiel, and allowed to expaund on the topic at length. He, too, just happens to be mouthing Serbia-friendly content. Don't you see the bias of all of it taken part by part and considered as a whole? Try to combine news impartially, without lending undue weight, prominence or sources to a point of view.
3. You ignored opposition to sourcing with http://www.B92.net/ (which you inaccurately portrayed as B92, the radio station, which we do not know for a fact are equivalent. The unscrupulous headline use documented before and mentioned above implies that political hacks are writing or altering the web content, possibly post-processing reasonably impartial dispatch copy prepared and submitted by legitimate journalists. Whatever, this source is no longer reliable.
4. Had you sourced the Russian media directly -- the ones about whom you reparaphrased the Belgrade website, which in turn paraphrased the Russian sources, you'd be getting the news more reliably and directly, without possibly injecting Serbian take on it. This is elementary common sense and entails fair and safe practices. I am assuming your good faith, and that you are biasing this edit request because you are not an experienced journalist or news editor.
5. Sourcing more directly, be it Georgian President's official communications, or, once removed, a Russian or Georgian news source is likelier to produce pure quotes for all info, eliminating potentially biasing paraphrasing. --Mareklug ^talk 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal included both pro and anti-recognition information, but as has been stressed by the government on three seperate occasions, Georgia will not recognize and that is the bottom line. The article in its present form accurately explains to the reader, short and sweet, that Georgia won't recognize so that is good enough. BTW, B92 is a reliable source, we use it in this article numerous times and we will continue to use it despite your racism. B92 is not perfect, like any other source for that matter, as it tends to side against the Radicals and DSS a bit too much for my liking. --Tocino 11:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Tocino -- "your racism"

I object to being called a racist by User:Tocino for a second time in short succession in this section. User:Tocino alledges racism on my part, because, having documented on this page a now archived case of journalistic malpractice by the Belgrade website http://www.B92.net/ where they slandered Kosovo as the drug capital of the Balkans per a United Nations report on drug trafficing -- in the website headling -- but when you analyzed the article text, there was nothing there to substantiate the accusation made in the headline. The whole article was a propaganda attack, with Albania-related references used in a bait-and-switch tactic, while the cited UN Report did not even mention Kosovo, except to say that help was extended to UNMiK. After that, I refusse to source Kosovo-related matters with this website. That's all, as far as my "racism". If you wish ot monitor actual broadcasts of B92 and use those directly, I have no opinion, except that it would be hard to do. :) But this website is discredited and of no use to us.

The twice repeated slur is only the latest in an ongoing series of personal attacks made on me by user:Tocino, all on this talk page:

1. "the "Polish fascist Mareklug". (earlier, archived)
2. "Mareklug is a Polack Fascist" (earlier, archived)
3. "We use websites such as www.kosovothanksyou.com and www.newkosovoreport.com as sources and I don't see you complaining about their bias. Despite B92 being preceived as pro-Western in Serbia itself, it is not an acceptable source to you purely because it is a Serb outlet. This is outrageous racism. --Tocino 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"
4. "B92 is a reliable source, we use it in this article numerous times and we will continue to use it despite your racism. B92 is not perfect, like any other source for that matter, as it tends to side against the Radicals and DSS a bit too much for my liking. --Tocino 11:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)"

Look. Ongoing abuse of my person is pointless. It won't make using http://www.B92.net as more credible source for this article. Editors who wish to move this article along need to be willing to modify what they are proposing, if they are being opposed on merit, which they are.

Ask yourselves: Why insist on a Serbian website to source its paraphrases of what some president told the Russian media? Why not source that president's office instead, or the Russian media? Why not look for sources in the president's home press? I mean, if he said anything important, it won't vanish, only magically preserved on the servers in Belgrade or Prishtina. --Mareklug ^talk 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your dark red is so pretty. See, I can write in pretty colors too. Too bad writing in colors gives your words no more meaning than they have in good old fashioned black. The fact is that your objection to B92 is down to race/nationality of the publication. This kind of intolerant attitude, the thought that a certain race of people cannot have any say over a matter, is not welcome on WP. --Tocino 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Being told that I am a racist twice was bad enough, but now I learn that I have an intolerant attitude to whole ethnicities and races or nations. which is unwelcome on Wikipedia -- all because I documented shoddy journalism practices by the concrete web page some folks are pushing like hotcakes. Furthermore, no one bothered to justify sourcing a Serb website in orther to source what Georgian President said to Russian media -- where are those Russian media accounts? Why are we not sourcing them? Is ther a reason I am unaware of, why Russian sources or the office of President of Georgia are tabu sources? Is there a reason why linking directly to audio with Georgia Prime Minister forecasting eventual recognition of Kosovo is anohter tabu? --Mareklug ^talk 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

B92 is a very good place for reliable sources and reports a lot of article related news, therefore we should use it Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tocino's proposal

I agree with Tocino's proposal. it seems to be neutral, valid, factual, reliable, well referenced, encyclopaedic and true Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a patently roundabout, conflict-of-interest sourcing and biased paraphrasing with non-working references and the continued absence of the requested/required direct audio link (so we may always have it available, not as long as some Georgian newspaper link is working) -- "neutral, valid, factual, reliable, well-referenced, encyclopedic and true"?

Please find nondisputed sources, add the missing stuff, make it all truly neutral. There's no reason to source Belgrade on what a Georgian said to the Russians, while avoiding to link directly the Georgian Prime Minister's recorded voice (an Estonian newspaper link). --Mareklug ^talk 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers 3 and 4 are not attacks and numbers 1 and 2 are rehashes. I do not object to Tocino's proposed edit. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Being told you're a racist on a ArbCom probation talk space is legit and not attacks? Hello? Are you the same person who was upset someone said "this is not a forum" when you posted commentary and demanded apologies? Just exactly what apologies would you seek to extract if you were accused on having intolerant attitudes towards whole ethnicities and nations, because you dissed -- with documentation, justification -- a website as unworthy, of being sourced, as untrustworthy? --Mareklug ^talk 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, just chill out Mareklug and go smoke a cigarete. You offended other users when they were making edits that were not to your liking, so what's the harm to offend you a little bit for a change? Top Gun

Iran and Iraq in wrong order in list of countries

Alphabetically the order is "N .. O .. P .. Q" so Iran should come before Iraq. This is part of the ongoing and usually unquestioned racist conspiracy on Wikipedia to make Iraq appear more important than Iran, at the instigation of G.W. Bush administration infiltrators who have now been banned. Note that by doing this, the ever-so "conciliatory" and "responsible" statements broadcast by their puppet government in Baghdad have been promoted to a position of undue importance, while it also serves to help hide further down the page the insights which unveil the real cause of the Kosovo conflict, as revealed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (one of perhaps only five men alive who can reasonably claim to be a World Historically-Important Level Genius, the other four being Albert Einstein's clones secretly installed by the Illuminati to run Clinton-Blair's New World Order from unprepossessing offices in Tel Aviv, Tora Bora, Slough, and Moscow, Idaho). This outrageous alphabetical racist conspiracy is being supported by Poles, Radio B92 and wiki-admins who have purposefully locked The Wrong Version to prevent sanity being restored! On top of this, what gullible members of the public can trust an "encyclopedia" whose editors do not even know their alphabets? Interviews by Azerbaijani politicians in Lithuanian newspapers that have not anyway been confirmed by the Azerbaijani goverment do not prove that "Q" is ordered before "N"! And are not in a reliable source anyway!! Stop the racism now!!! 87.114.155.91 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time i checked, there was no such thing as a Iraqi race or a Iranian race, therefore its not racist. However be sensible and put in an edit request. However i do believe there could be a NWO Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

edit request Iran and Iraq

{{editprotect}}

Please switch them around in the list, so that it is in alphabetical order. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - these elaborate racist schemes must be stopped. BalkanFever 05:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I don't understand what was racist about it before, but I've alphabetized it nonetheless. --CapitalR (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ghana

Not to recognise and that Africa would respect the territorial integrity of Serbia. [3] We should include this in the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That article doesn't quite say that. The new Serbian ambassador to Ghana hopes that Africa will respect Serbia's territorial integrity (obviously). The only stated position of Ghana is that it "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that they wish "the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". So the inference is that they'll probably refuse to recognise, but it doesn't say that for definite. Bazonka (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kofur didn't say anything beyond the typical bland diplomatic pleasantries and did not commit Ghana to a refusal to recognise. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh yeh i agree there. I propose we add this to the article

---

| Ghana || The position of Ghana is that it "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that they wish "the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". ||

---

agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a bit more precise:

{{editprotect}}

Add Ghana to "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" in its alphabetical place

---

| Ghana || Ghanaian president John Agyekum Kufuor stated that Ghana "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that he "wished the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". ||

---

Bazonka (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

sites with lists

http://kosovothanksyou.com/

What do you think of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.121.7 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its crap Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

why is it crap Ian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.81.223 (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

well this is because it is armature and the prediction lists are rather optimistic Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ian, they definitely are not armature, nor amateur. They have been accurate and the predictions are just that "predictions". The site only reports on what is in the news, or what news gets to them, I don't see how one can be "professional" in this, according to you.

Wow, thanks Ian. Here I was thinking that they're amateur... --alchaemia (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine Statement Update

The Ukraine position is selected with a statement from Member of Parliament, Oleh Bilorus, [4] dated 2008-02-20 which is outdated and not relevant to his position. Current Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko stated later on date: 16-04-2008 positive approach toward the Kosovo Independence in Council of Europe.

Yulia Tymoshenko: Ukraine will determine its stance concerning Kosovo independence after respective evaluation of international institutions [5]

Therefore I recommend we make an edit request to update the Ukraine reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence. --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i agree we should include this. Any proposals on how to include this? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading this new Ukrainian source given above, it would appear that it suffices. It basically says Ukraine has not made up its mind, and is actively making it up. I propose using exact quotes from this source. Here is how I'd do it:

---

Please replace:

---

|- | Ukraine || The President stated that Ukraine's position on the situation is first of all following national interests and international law. He emphasised that Ukraine's position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognising Kosovo or not requires timing for most of the world's countries. "We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted." The Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role." On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said: "Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo". || |-

---

With the following:

---

|- | Ukraine || On 16 April 2008, Office of mass media relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Secretariat issued the following statement on the Government Portal official website:

Ukraine will decide on its position concerning independence of Kosovo after corresponding assessment by international institutions. 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.

Yulia Tymoshenko stressed that Ukraine’s abuts on a lot of countries facing territorial problems. “That’s why before taking any decision Ukraine wishes to know whether Kosovo is already a norm, a common practice or a unique event the world should react on.”

Yulia Tymoshenko noted that on present stage Ukraine is holding multilateral diplomatic consultations with the aim to realize how this event is to be perceived and only in the aftermath will determine its stand in the issue. || |-

---

This is a potentially controversial edit request. It replaces old information that several editors now concluded is inadequate, misleading, irrelevant and not accurately depicting Ukraine's policy regarding Kosovo. The source used is governmental (Government Portal), and no paraphrase whatsoever was made by Wikipedia editors, choosing instead to quote the short material in full, with exact attribution. --Mareklug ^talk 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This proposal is not ready for prime time. User:Mareklug is deleting information he does not like (the words of Oleh Bilorus). Also losing out would be the words of the President as those words no longer have a place in User:Mareklug's dubious proposal. While User:Mareklug has no time for Oleh Bilorus and Viktor Yushchenko, he instead gives basically the entire entry to the Prime Minister, as according to User:Mareklug, Ms.Tymoshenko warrants three seperate paragraphs all to herself. User:Mareklug has also introduced biased paraphrasing that would violate the article's NPOV standards. The current entry for Ukraine is just fine and it accurately reflects Ukraine's cautious approach to the Kosovo question. --Tocino 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Agree--Digitalpaper (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Calm down Tocino, he is just updating out of date information. Lets see your propsal Tocino, including that new reference? As it is currently not fine as it it is out of date.Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tymoshenko is not the only person in Ukraine so we need statements by the President and the chairman of foreign affairs committee of Rada (who is member of the BYUT presidency btw) as well.--Avala (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  The President's statement, the Foreign Ministry's and the chairman's are from February, and that last one is misleading, as he was saying what Ukraine would do at a 21 February OSCE meeting only, yet he is portrayed as telling the world that Ukraine won't recognize Kosovo. Everyone can click on the references and verify this, that our article write-up for Ukraine is grossly out of date and misleading. If you want the President's and the chairman's separate opinions, please find them and source them, but the Prime Minister as quoted in the update says what the President and the Foreign Ministry said in February, except that she's saying it in April, while the chairman's statement is completely irrelevant, since we don't even know of any outcome relevant today from that OSCE February meeting, and it can't have any bearing on what Ukraine, undecided, will do with Kosovo in May or later. Doing nothing is keeping stale evidence of support for Serbia in the past just to create an impression. Meanwhile, Ukraine is evolving its position and the update reflects it. Augmenting it with other, competing current viewpoints is certainly a reasonable avenue to pursue, but let's remove cruft. --Mareklug ^talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal on Ukraine

its NPOV and should please all parties {{editprotect}} please edit Ukraine like so

---

|- | Ukraine || The President stated on 19 February 2008 that Ukraine's position on the situation is first of all following national interests and international law. He emphasised that Ukraine's position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognising Kosovo or not requires timing for most of the world's countries. "We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted." On 18 February 2008 the Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role." On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said on 20 February 2008 that Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo at a session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be held February 21-22 in Vienna. On 16 April 2008, Office of mass media relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Secretariat issued the following statement on the Government Portal official website:

Ukraine will decide on its position concerning independence of Kosovo after corresponding assessment by international institutions. 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. Yulia Tymoshenko stressed that Ukraine’s abuts on a lot of countries facing territorial problems. “That’s why before taking any decision Ukraine wishes to know whether Kosovo is already a norm, a common practice or a unique event the world should react on.” Yulia Tymoshenko noted that on present stage Ukraine is holding multilateral diplomatic consultations with the aim to realize how this event is to be perceived and only in the aftermath will determine its stand in the issue. || |-

---

nothing has been deleted, just more up to date information added to the original. Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:Agree. --Tocino 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes now, after having made further necessary additions (dates when statements were made in February, and complete news template citations, including reporting the full thing Bilorus said, according to how he is sourced (it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote, and he said more than was included in the manufactured quote). --Mareklug  Done --Mareklug ^talk 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good good Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I liked Ijanderson's proposal better. User:Mareklug puts too much emphasis on Tymoshenko's comments, while he tries to diminish the words of Bilorus. --Tocino 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opposition is baseless and lacks merit. All I did was:

1. Fully quoted the Bilorus paraphrase as given by the source used. What was there before was a lie introduced in a POV attempt to make it more than it is. Compare with similar lies introduced in the past for Armenia, where the source said "we are not going to recognize Kosovo yet. Discussions on the matter are under way." and the Wikipedia read: "we are not going to recognize Kosovo." Lies, misrepresentations, and false sourcing need correcting, whatever the POV, whatever the outcome of such corrections entails. Surely "diminishing" falsely created impression is nonnegotiable.
2. I added dates to contextualize when the reaction took place.
3. I added a blank line before the Tymoshenko text. Perhaps that can be construed as giving her say undue weight. Heaven help us. I think it makes the whole thing more readable, but I may be, you know, biased.

If you want to put more weight on Bilorus, I suggest you find and source him saying soemthing different than what we have sourced so far. Fair enough? --Mareklug ^talk 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with first version of Mareklug, positions has been changed, we need the last update, why we removed Malaysia because we went through the last information, we should remove the old content of Ukraine too and leave it only with last statement --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now - no consensus. Happy‑melon 11:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought consensus meant majority, not absolute agreement. The only one opposing the change is Tocino, and we all know how "objective" he is in these Kosovan discussions. --alchaemia (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus? We can not have only one user opposing and not making the change, Tocino showed also in the past that he is against every detail and indicator when it comes to Independence of Kosovo. That is why we have Wikipedia administrators not only to observe, but to see who has the right arguments. --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Digitalpaper, just becuase one editor disagrees doesn't mean the edit should not go ahead. Ok if more than one editor disagrees then i can understand. I mean the reason for disagreeing is not always valid. The edit request system needs to be changed, because it degrades the quality of the article, making this encyclopaedia not as good as it could be and thats a shame as it has a lot bigger potential. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you two well meaning editors don't entirely comprehend the meritocracy that is Wikipedia. We don't count how many voices or votes a position has, but consider everything on its merits. A reasoned objection by a single editor suffices to change the course of Wikipedia, even though it may be opposed by legions of other ediotrs. It's all in the evidence. In this particular case, we happen to have one editor whose reasons don't stand up to the light. They're bogus. The other editor's responsibility is to draw this to the attention of other editors, including administrators who assess consensus. I have done so in several sections of this talk page, and will continue to do so. Sometimes this process takes time, but Happy melon, for instance, has before performed a Malaysia editprotect request which was not 100% consensus, because the opposition was judged to lack merit. We have to persevere. In the end, reason and impartiality will win out. (If the bloody countries in questions don't happen to recognize first. :)). --Mareklug ^talk 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

San Marino

The San Marinese public broadcaster announced (look here: [6]) that San Marino government has recognized Kosovo's independence on May 11, 2008. User:Skafa/Sign 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The edit should be made.

Please add this to the list of states recognising:

| 40 || San Marino || 2008-05-11 ||

In addition, please change the first sentence of the second paragraph on the page to read: As of May 12, 2008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo and remove San Marino from the section on country positions (UN members, section: States which do not recognize or have yet to decide).

This is a non-controversial edit.

If I made a mistake, kindly correct it as I'm not so good at this coding stuff. Thanks! Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the broken citation. --Mareklug ^talk 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with conditions: For all the searching I did to get the first Sammarinese opinion, the cited source is a pretty good place to find their opinions. Otherwise I found dubious sites reprinting an original article which weren't worth anything except to Google the exact wording to find the media site they were quoting. I am fine with this source It is from the recognizing nation, not Serbia or Kosovo and should not be problematic. However, in order to avoid a Malaysia fiasco, we need to have an Italian speaker look at it and verify that it is: 1) An actual recognition decision, not a promise or scheduled for a parliament vote (or something similar) and 2) That it is not a "welcoming" From what I can follow it is recognition, but we ought to be 100% sure. If those are the case, go for it! Ajbenj (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree: To help understanding here is the translation done automatically using Google Translate [7] --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I speak Italian, the news report is very clear, since it speaks of a decision of the State Council to recognise Kosovo. Gugganij (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Someone please update the map. Thanks. Húsönd 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation for San Marino seems to suggest the announcement was dated May 6, but the site itself says May 11. Is this a typo in the citation? If so it should be corrected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Czech government will try to recognize Kosovo next week

“At one of the coming government meetings we will return to the question of Kosovo,” Czech Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vondra told daily Hospodarske Noviny. ... The next attempt could prove to be successful since Prime Minister Miroslav Topolanek’s Civic Democratic Party appears to be budging on the issue. ... “Not even the positive result of the Serbian elections changes my stance that recognizing Kosovo will be a great mistake for the international community. However, the Czech stance can no longer change the fact that the province is independent,” said Czech Labor Minister Petr Nečas.

Sources: B92 - http://www.b92.net/eng/news/in_focus.php?id=91 Emetko (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be included in the article, any proposals? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be sourced to something unquestionably respectable we can use, for example, http://ceskenoviny.cz/ or http://praguemonitor.com/ , both which publish Czech and English versions of important Czech news, or the Hospodarskie Noviny paraphrased by http://www/B92.net/, which is http://www.ihned.cz/ Just be aware that there is a Slovak paper of the same title, but not the same thing. Hospodarskie Noviny in CR is their equivalent of The Economist or The Wall Street Journal. It's time we sourced respectably not half-assedly. This is an encyclopedia. --Mareklug ^talk 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Hospodarskie Noviny story from today (13 May 2008), titled "Czechia will recogninize Kosovo, but with a heavy heart": http://ihned.cz/109-24717920-on-kosovo-000000_d-27 --Mareklug ^talk 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This information is not noteworthy. It is already well known that there are forces within the Czech Civic Democratic Party who want to recognize Kosovo, meanwhile part of the Civic Dems (including the President) and every other party in Czechia is opposed to recognition of Kosovo and Metohija. I suspect that Jeremić and Tadić will lobby their Slavic cousins in the upcoming days, telling them that if they decided to recognize then that will hurt the so-called pro-EU forces in Serbia. --Tocino 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We saw from the case of Bulgaria and Poland how much the "Slavic cousins" care for what Jeremic or Tadic have to say. --alchaemia (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

9 out of 13 Slavic nations recognize Kososo and Metohija as a Serbian province. Also in 2 of the 4 who've recognized there was signficant opposition to recognition (Bulgaria and Poland), with the Polish PM admitting that the only reason why they recognized is because USA, UK, Germany, and France told them to. Croatia and Slovenia, much like Kosovo Albanian separatists, are still bitter and have blind hatred of Serbia. --Tocino 01:00, 13 May 2008 9UTC)

Take your nausea-inducing ethnic ranting, slurring and putdowns off Wikipedia! You already more than once have said on this talk page that Tibetan separatists are too stupid to have a website, or claimed that opposing sourcing a Serbian source is racist and unwelcome on WP. Now you're saying that whole countries have blind hatred of Serbia. Enough of this inflamatory garbage! Just stop it. --Mareklug ^talk 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that had the Czech news been pro-Serbia, we'd see an editprotect request from you by now. As it is not, "the information is not noteworthy", even though three editors are already discussing how to frame its addition! If it is not noteworthy to you, then please make no notes. This news comes from previously unquoted ministers who may have been voting against recognition, and other government officials. It needs to be added to the reaction notes for the Czech Republic. Apparently, on this basis, CR needs to be moved back into States about to formally recognize Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. This is not news. It is already well known that there are factions within the Civic Democratic Party that want to recognize. This is nothing the reader doesn't already know. --Tocino 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is news -- news, that recognition will happen next week, and news, that minister we have not quoted before are predicting it. Your saying that it is no news is not persuasive and certainly no reason to block this update. --Mareklug ^talk 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinions have been changed, the same people who wanted to recognize still want to recognize. Now if the President and other Civil Democrats as well as every other party in Czechia suddenly have a change of heart and want to recognize - then that will be noteworthy. But I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation of a change of heart. --Tocino 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually several things have changed:
1) Now the Czech reaction will not have effect anymore on Serbian Elections and this is one of the reasons of postponement.
2) While before the prime minister's party was against recognition now they 'appear to be budging'.
3) We also have the quote of the Labor minister (who has been against recognition of Kosovo and still is) that they may be 'forced' by the reality to recognize Kosovo.
So indeed some of the main Political Actors (Main Government Party, Ministers) have had/are having a change of heart. Emetko (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, why not just wait a week and see if they actually do? I mean, this is an encyclopedia. This kind of minutiae about current politics gets irrelevant very quickly. Whereas, a recognition, if and when it happens, that is a permanent historical fact. So let's just wait and see. --SJK (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian President hints at Kosovo Recognition soon after the country's new elections.

“One of the top tasks of the new government will be to build a position on Kosovo’s independence. Any decision that will claim to be competent in this area will have to take into consideration the stand of most of the EU and NATO member states. Macedonia wants to build relations equally good with Belgrade and Pristina,” President Crvenkovski said.
(Macedonian Elections are scheduled for 1-st of June 2008.)
Source: Focus - http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n140554 Emetko (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included in the article just yet as there is not enough evidence, however due to the build up of the election and more evidence comes to play, we should include it then Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, just what evidence is missing or insufficient? We have here a complete verbatim quote by the President, a first, I believe, where Macedonians refer to a position of majority of NATO and EU states, not some unified NATO position or unified EU position. In fact, they have in the past pointedly noted that there isn't a unified position. Therefore, this newest quote is an important new reaction, and supersedes previous ones, indicating that their position has evolved. As for the source, it is a Bulgarian news agency website, which we have used before, and other than it going poof eventually (by which time we might be sourcing an official recognition statement from Skopje anyway), there's nothing disputed, insufficient, unclear, incomplete or otherwise iffy about it. We could look for Macedonian sources, to be closer to the action, but Focus is no worse than any we have, and no one has ever objected to it. --Mareklug ^talk 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times have there been rumors that Macedonia will recognize Kosovo? At least ten times since February 17 I would guess. Nothing ever happens though. Sorry, but this information does not warrant a place in the article. --Tocino 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You talk about rumors, but we're talking about updating the country's reaction. This is a new development, as I justified already. We're talking about quoting the country's President, for crying out loud. So relent already, and stop obstructing legitimate content updates! --Mareklug ^talk 02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More old news. The article in its present form shows that the President says...

"The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President Branko Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo,"

There is nothing new here. --Tocino 02:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several new things here: The new prospects for recognition/denial of recognition is situated in time and context (specifies Kosovo recognition decision as one of the top tasks of the new government, as opposed to pushing it off into some unfathomable future, which is what we have for Macedonia in the article presently) and:

• "the position of NATO and the European Union" has been importantly replaced in the President's own language by
• "most the EU and NATO member states".

Clearly these are huge changes. The full new quote as given by Bulgarian news agency Focus:

"One of the top tasks of the new government will be to build a position on Kosovo’s independence. Any decision that will claim to be competent in this area will have to take into consideration the stand of most of the EU and NATO member states. Macedonia wants to build relations equally good with Belgrade and Pristina," President Crvenkovski said. --Mareklug ^talk 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Equally good" will need a [sic] after it. BalkanFever 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. There is no point changing the wording when the meaning is still the same. --Tocino 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: what are you talking about? What's the same here? The fact that he said that one of the major tasks of the government is going to be the issue of recognition? That's not "the same" at all, as Macedonia never publicly said that it'll happen after the elections. Stop stalling news and updated information. --alchaemia (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we need this in Macedonian to determine the original wording. --Avala (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: OSCE (number of recognizing members)

Went through the membership roster on the Wiki article about OSCE and noticed nobody updated the member numbers since Lithuania and San Marino recognized. Just manually counted them up and found two missing...

{{editprotect}}

Please replace this column in the "International governmental organisations" table:

| OSCE || On February 18, 2008, Chairman Ilkka Kanerva stated that each of the 56 members of the OSCE will decide themselves whether or not to recognise Kosovo.[210] The next day, Kanerva and OSCE Minorities Commissioner Knut Vollebæk called for Kosovo's government to vigorously implement agreed-upon frameworks regarding minorities.[211] Serbia has vowed to oppose OSCE membership for Kosovo and is calling for the organisation to condemn the declaration of independence.[210]
Member states (28 / 56) |-

With:

| OSCE || On February 18, 2008, Chairman Ilkka Kanerva stated that each of the 56 members of the OSCE will decide themselves whether or not to recognise Kosovo.[210] The next day, Kanerva and OSCE Minorities Commissioner Knut Vollebæk called for Kosovo's government to vigorously implement agreed-upon frameworks regarding minorities.[211] Serbia has vowed to oppose OSCE membership for Kosovo and is calling for the organisation to condemn the declaration of independence.[210]
Member states (30 / 56) |-

I didn't quite get the citation links copied into the code, but all that needs to be done is change the number.

This is a non-controversial edit

Ajbenj (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed. But as a general rule edit requests should be done like so: Instead of copying and pasting the article as it appears, one should click on "View Source" (the "Edit" button disabled by protection becomes "View Source"), and copy and paste the code itself. Then, all the references and flags would be active, while the administrator could simply copy and paste the tweaked version. With a {{reflist}} below the edit request (best practice: move the References section to the end of this page), we can examine every aspect of the proposed change, including the original and the replacement, as well as follow the links to sources and examine the form of the references for completeness and if they are suitable and noncontroversial.

Comment 2: It is at the above-referenced OSCE meeting where the Ukrainian Verkovna Rada chairman O.B., whom we deign to "quote", vowed to support Serbia, and not support Serbia's position in general, as we falsely quote him. The Ukraine evidence contains the following discrepancies from the source used:

• O.B. is quoted (in the source he is only paraphrased); and
• O.B. according to Wikipedia says: "Ukraine will support Serbia's position" (this is falsely synthesized; the full extent of O.B.'s paraphrase in the source is: "Ukraine will support Serbia's position at the 22 February 2008 OSCE meeting").

Recently User:Tocino and User:Avala blocked the consensus effort to fix this problem and other problems at Ukraine. User:Tocino further blocked a watered-down compromise version that would have retained what we have, except in a corrected version true to the content of the source used. --Mareklug ^talk 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy

They chose an ambassador today. I don't think it's an "office" anymore. My source is in Albanian, someone find an english one. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

got a source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See List of diplomatic missions in Kosovo, where a nonresident Italian ambassador operating out of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, has been included, and this info was attributed to a source in Italian, since 19 March 2008. Is this a newer develoment? If so, does the Albanian source state that an independent embassy is being opened now in Prishtina? Or is this new ambassador just a replacement? --Mareklug ^talk 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source [8] --Digitalpaper (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This one is in italian and as far as I understand it does prove it. http://qn.quotidiano.net/esteri/2008/03/19/73660-italia_apre_ambasciata_pristina.shtml Jawohl (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This Italian source is the one from 19 March I mentioned is sourcing our list of missions in Kosovo article. And the name of the nonresident ambassador is the same as the fellow's who is mentioned meeting with Dr. Sejdu in the New Kosova Report article linked by Digitalpaper. No mention anywhere that the Italian office in Prishtina is being upgraded to a standalone embassy concurrently with the new appointment. --Mareklug ^talk 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Italian office has been present in Prishtina for at least 8 years now. Why would the Italians publish something about an office only on the 19th of March. I think the article should be translated. I read embassy there but my italian is to poor to make a sense of it. New Kosova report mentions that the new ambassador is Mr. Michael Louis Giffoni and this news was brought by Mr. Mura who was head of the office. Jawohl (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Translating the Itlian article is trivial; it's entire content is:

Roma, 19 marzo 2008 - Il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato, su proposta del Ministro degli affari esteri, Massimo D'Alema, l'istituzione di un'Ambasciata d'Italia a Pristina (Repubblica del Kosovo).

I think you can figure out that it says: Rome, 19 March 2008 - The Council of Ministers has approved, the proposal of the Foreign Affairs Minister Massimo D'Alema, of setting up an Embassy of Itally in Prishtina (Republic of Kosovo).

The trouble is that the news source just replaces the ambassador, but does not reveal upgrading the status of the satellite embassy which is run remotely from Skopje, or at least, has been since 19 March. --Mareklug ^talk 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this one. http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080515932/Politics/Italy-appoints-Ambassador-to-Kosovo.html Jawohl (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Argentina FM quote and other disputed sourcing

Article has Foreign Minister of Argentina Jorge Taiana quoted as saying: "if we were to recognise Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands" Source is B92.

I am concerned at whether B92 is quoting him accurately, simply because it would seem strange for an Argentinian government official to call them the Falkland Islands, as opposed to the Islas Malvinas. --SJK (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Argentinian government being quoted "Falkland Islands" is just another untrustworthy statement sourced to http://www.B92.net/ -- other instances have been pointed out already.

We need to stop sourcing this sensitive article using that website, which has been shown on this talk page to engage in shoddy journalism practices re: Kosvo. This affects documenting reactions of Argentina, Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece and Montenegro. In particular, Montenegro is not yet sourced to their governmental sources at all, or their own press, or established world press. Likewise, we should replace any sourcing of other countries' positions by http://kossovapress.com/ which operates from Prishtina (we use it only for Nauru; my eidtprotect to relace this sourcing with an international source was opposed as needless).

Also, we need to stop sourcing Serbia's Foreign Ministry, Serbia's official press agency Tanjug and Serbia's official Radio and Television RTS for reactions fo other countries, as that creates an appearance of conflict of interest. If we ditch partizan sourcing, Wikipedia's standing as an impartial source will be locally preserved. --Mareklug ^talk 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Foreign Minister was probably speaking in English to the Serbian press, as I doubt many Serbians would know the Spanish term for the Falkland Islands. --Tocino 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote of Taiana was reproduced in Clarín, one of the main Argentinean newspapers. Here says La Argentina no va a reconocer la independencia de Kosovo, pendiente como está la cuestión de Malvinas con Gran Bretaña. Hacerlo sería sentar un precedente peligroso en contra de la pretensión nacional de recuperar en la mesa de negociaciones la soberanía sobre las islas, estiman en el Gobierno. (Argentina won't recognize the independence of Kosovo, while there is still pending the issue of the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) with Great Britain. If we do that, it will set a dangerous precedent against the national pretention of recovering in a table of negotiations the soveraignity of the islands, says the government.) So I think that the quote of B92 is totally correct... of course, in an English website, they don't use the Malvinas word and it is translated usually. --B1mbo (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's then use the Clarin reference in preference to the B92 one? I would disagree that Malvinas vs. Falklands is simply an English vs Spanish language issue. Choice of term is used to associate with one political side or the other (which is while you'll find that the UN is always careful to use both). You'll find that Argentina (and pro-Argentine source) will call it Malvinas even in English. Its a comparable situation to the Kosovo v Kosova debate. So, from that perspective, the B92 translation is not particularly good (I'm not saying its inaccurate -- I'm just saying its stylistically poor). That is why I think we should prefer the Clarin reference. Also, it seems preferable to use an Argentinian source than a Serbian (or Albanian or Kosovar) one on this issue, simply because there will be less doubts about the source's neutrality then. --SJK (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian president

{{editprotected}}

The section on Russia mentions "President Putin" and "President-elect Medvedev". Since Putin no longer is the president, maybe that needs to be changed into "former President Putin" and "President Medvedev" respectively? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

If I'm reading this right, Putin was president at the time Kosovo declared independence, and probably should still be referred to as such. If they had already transferred power, though, I would agree that the change is warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Then-president Putin"? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

No, our Russian presidency references are all ok. Wikipedia refers to political officeholders with the title held at the described moment in history. I commented out the editprotect template. Putin was president until a few days ago. --Mareklug ^talk 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Putin was president at the time, obviously if any future edits are made to Russia, we should refer to the President as Medvedev. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If russia has a further reaction to or acts as a result of the Declaration, then I would agree. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia went to the moon

...more like opened the embassy in Rep of Kosova. No more of this "mission" but now officially an embassy in Prishtina, Kosovo. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Sorry my source is Shqip [Albanian]). Someone find an official statement.

Please specify the Albanian source when you make these revelations, as that will help me track down information in English. --Mareklug ^talk 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Source 1 [www.kosovapress.com Source 2] Kosova20008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Source 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.210 (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Big Three" weigh in on the "Kosovo question"

Big news out of Yekaterinburg... the foreign ministers of the three emerging superpowers, Russia, China, and India, have called for new negotiations between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanian separatists.

Article - http://www.itar-tass.com/level2.html?NewsID=12680892&PageNum=0 (Russian)

Surely this deserves a mention in the article. I think we should put the sentence below at the end of the entries of Russia, China, and India.

In a joint statement issued on May 15, 2008, the foreign ministers of China, India, and Russia said, "Russia, India and China advocate the resumption of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina within an international-legal framework, and believe an agreement should be reached between them regarding all the problems of that Serbian province."

--Tocino 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ja.--Jakezing (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That is a statement made by Lavrov and not by the other two FM. Jawohl (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose:These statements are full of hate and racism, Tocino consider the information before you post it. We have these kind of statements every single day and these statements wont stop countries in their process to recognize Independent Kosovo. --Digitalpaper (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there has been a clear statement of intent made in the communique as stated in the News article in a well recognised and reputed Newspaper in India. Here is the link for the site and below it is the excerpt from the article

http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/16/stories/2008051660351400.htm

On Kosovo, India for the first time joined Russia and China in stating categorically in the RIC communiqué that “the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo is contrary to the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244,” and calling for settling the issue “in accordance with norms of international law” and on the basis of “an agreement” and “through negotiations” between Belgrade and Pristina.

Earlier India only said it “takes note” of the declaration of independence of Kosovo and was “studying the evolving situation.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

US Rebuffs Calls For New Kosovo Talks: United States has rebuffed demands by China, India and Russia for resuming talks on Kosovo’s status, arguing it has already been settled.

I guess we have a news flash for everybody, the status of Kosovo has been resolved. It's an independent state,” Sean McCormack, the spokesman of U.S. State Department told reporters in Washington. [9] --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)