Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
International recognition of Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
|-
| 13 || Estonia[2] || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April2008[3] || EU member state NATO member state
|-
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)[reply]
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]. --Mareklugtalk23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
| 13 || Estonia[4] || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April2008[5] || EU member state NATO member state
|-
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. --Mareklugtalk20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The Ukraine position is selected with a statement from Member of Parliament, Oleh Bilorus, [3] 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 [4]
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."[6] The Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[7] 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".[8]
||
|-
With the following:
|-
| Ukraine || On 16 April2008, 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.[9]
||
|-
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. --Mareklugtalk00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Proposal on Ukraine
its NPOV and should please all parties
{{editprotect}}
please edit Ukraine like so
|-
| Ukraine || The President stated on 19 February2008 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."[10] On 18 February2008 the Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[11] On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said on 20 February2008 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.[12] On 16 April2008, 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.[13]
||
|-
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 --Mareklugtalk15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition is baseless and lacks merit. All I did was:
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.
I added dates to contextualize when the reaction took place.
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? --Mareklugtalk21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. :)). --Mareklugtalk23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
San Marino
The San Marinese public broadcaster announced (look here: [5]) 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:
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. --Mareklugtalk22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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=n140554Emetko (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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! --Mareklugtalk02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. --Mareklugtalk04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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...
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.
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. --Mareklugtalk15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Mareklugtalk19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I meant by "news report". It doesn't say anything about the status of the embassy, whereas we already knew about the status of the representative as an ambassador. Now the personnel is being exchanged, but we still need an unequivocable source for the status of the mission. Is it a standalone embassy yet? --Mareklugtalk15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tocino18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...more like opened the embassy in Rep of Kosova. No more of this "mission" but now officially an embassy in Prishtina, Kosovo. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Sorry my source is Shqip [Albanian]). Someone find an official statement.[reply]
Please specify the Albanian source when you make these revelations, as that will help me track down information in English. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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."[15]
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)[reply]
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
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.
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.[8] --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rude cowboy comments by Sean McCormack are the only thing I can see to fall under your negative comments about the news from China.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the update on India. This is the official confirmation of what India's ambassador said a few weeks ago but which was blocked by some editors.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Just because they were sitting there does not mean that they were a party to the statement, especially with such biased wording as "...of this Serbian province" which is something you hear exclusively Serbian/Russian diplomats use. --alchaemia (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. India and China, as Tocino pointed out, are BIG enough to make their own statements. Or were they maybe put under pressure? Jawohl (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caution What no one has mentioned in this section or anywhere on this talk page yet, is that this is a BIRC meeting (Brazil, India, Russia, China), and that the cited statement was issued before the Brazil representation arrivived at this meeting, which makes the timing of the announcement highly interesting in and of itself.
Furthermore, as editors already pointed out, the phrasing, attributed in several sources personally to the Russian Foreign Minister Lavarov, is a great departure in tone from either China's or India's official governmental pronouncements. Be that as it may, on the strength of what is claimed here and how it is phrased, it would suffice to color China and India (and even Russian) orange on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png reaction maps, as advocating negotiations on the basis of UN Resolution 1244, but User:Avala has already colored India (and Brazil) red, as officially having rejected independence of Kosovo. The Indian ambassador's remarks in Serbia were perceived by administrator User:Happy-melon as merely restating the careful Indian sourcing we have already in place from India's foreign ministry website, yet User:Avala at the same time on the same basis changed the coloring of India on Commons maps to red while insisting on this talk page and lobbying Happy melon on his talk page that we make this change, all the while without expressly denying Happy melon's assessment that it is a restatement. This, too, is irregular and not transparent -- how can the same update be just a restatement on English Wikipedia, yet be used by the same editor on Wikimedia Commons to materially change a country's reaction?
Given the rampant biases and skew, to be neutral and report verified information, we need to seek official statements from India's government to source India, official statements of Brazil to source Brazil, and official statements of China to source China, as we naturally should use official statements of Russia to source Russia, and not what Lavarov says in press conferences. The potential for misrepresentation is just too great, especially given the current Russian Foreign Minister's predisposition for grandstanding and using undiplomatic, coarse langauge, which when picked up by the Russian media and attributed, as it is here, to other countries, paints a false picture. An extreme example of that was Wikipedia at one time having in an edit by User:Tocino create an entry for Free Tibet reaction to Kosovo, complete with a Free Tibet! flag that is forbidden to fly in China, solely annotated with the same Russian Foreign Minister's inflamatory rhetoric about how the Kosovars declaring independence are responsible for Tibetans being shot in the street. This rhetoric has since been moved to sit under Russia.
Does he have the authority to do so though? Did the Indian and Chinese Goverment's say that what he said is they're postion and words also? What we are asking is, did the Russian have the authority and postion/backing to say what he did for all 3 countries?--Jakezing (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the quote, "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." Here is video if you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPa5dxU7hMA --Tocino23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you understand that such language is only used by Russia or its satellites (Serbia, Belarus, etc.) "Of that Serbian province..." is a statement that Jeremic or Lavrov make; not China or India. Find me one such prior statement from China or India and then I'll agree. So far; disagree. --alchaemia (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Commenting on recognizing Kosovo, the foreign ministry source said, Dhaka will actively consider the matter in according recognition to this new Muslim state in Europe as part of its commitment in strengthening relations with global community."
"Foreign relations experts in Dhaka feel that, for the sake of showing Dhaka’s commitment in improving relations with the global community as well as upholding the image of Bangladesh being a nation having its own foreign policy, it is important for Dhaka to extend recognition to Kosovo."
It also states that US is actively pushing other states (in this case Bangladesh) to Recognize the Kosovo Independence. Emetko (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what other sources we can find first. When there are others, we should think about moving Bangladesh with Saudi Arabia. But lets look for other sources first, such as MOFA. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bangladesh MOFA site doesnt work well, I have heard Kosovar technology brains will do the Bangladesh MOFA site for free in return of recognition :) --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenia (Again)
Why doesn't the Slovenian entry say embassy? Here is another source from the Kosovar government.
"Republika e Sllovenisë hap ambasadën e saj në Kosovë
Shef i Zyrës së deritashme Ndërlidhëse të Sllovenisë në Prishtinë, z. Vojko Volk, gjatë një takimi të mbajtur sot, e njoftoi Presidentin Sejdiu se homologu i tij slloven, Presidenti z. Danilo Türk, ka vendosur që Sllovenia të hapë ambasadën e saj në Republikën e Kosovës.
(Rep. of Slovenia has opened its' embassy in Kosova. Vojko Volk (head office of Liason office in Prishtine) during his meeting today announced to President Sejdiu..... Get the point?
| 25 ||Slovenia[16] || 2008-03-05 ||Mission of Slovenia in Prishtina[17] Slovenia and the Kosovar Government began diplomatic relations at embassy level on 8 April2008.[18] || EU member state President country of Council of the European Union at the time of declaration NATO member state
|-
Italian Embassy in Kosovo, we should change it from
| 13 || Italy[21][22] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Office in Prishtina[23] || EU member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence NATO member state
|-
to this
| 13 || Italy[24][25] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Embassy in Pristina from 15 May2008[26]|| EU member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence NATO member state
|-
I am probably getting this wrong, however: Are you saying that Vienna is in Italy? If so, it would appear highly controversial to me. Tomeasytalk17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only (tangential) source for Morocco reaction went away -- a broken link (2nd page of a New York Sun newspaper web story. It used to mention that Morocco was worried. There is no other information for Morocco available in the internet -- I looked. And this source was far from satisfactory, as it did not claim to represent any official, even anonymously.
Please remove from UN members in the section States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide:
|-
| Morocco || Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March2008.[30]||
If anyonone can source Morocco please do, and remove the editprotect template. Otherwise, this is a noncontroversial edit. --Mareklugtalk13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the link was broken, only the second page is no longer available, and that is where the Morocco info was lodged. Can you read the SECOND PAGE? If so, please paste what INFORMATION you see for MOROCCO. I can't access the 2nd page in any browser on any computer. The link paints the main portal page. And I read this article several times when it was complete, and I already said that it was inferior information even when it was available. --Mareklugtalk14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second page??? This appears to be one complete article - and it does mention Morocco.
"Many people in the Arab and Muslim world identify with the fight of Muslims in Kosovo against the rule of a Christian country, and some Arab fighters joined the Balkan wars out of such solidarity. But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories."
I do agree that this isn't really worth mentioning though - it's more general opinion than an official statement. Bazonka (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just rechecked and you are both right -- the webmaster fixed it in the last two days since I did the checking (maybe my hits did it :)). The article is now on one single page. The Morocco passage is as before: "But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories" -- this is, as Bazonka says, insufficient. I stand by my editprotect request. Thank you. --Mareklugtalk14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article clearly states that Morocco is worried about ethnic tensions. There is no reason to doubt the source as far as I know. --Tocino15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard Opposition as Groundless. This is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not consititute Morocco's reaction. Morocco is worried about ethnic tensions and teenage pregnancy, for all we bloody care, since 1960s. --Mareklugtalk15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a quote of a quote of an indirect quote. It's just a general statement made by a journalist, and the same could be said for many countries. If he'd written "The United Kingdom is concerned about secession of ethinic groups within its own territory" then would that be worth mentioning in this article? Of course not. Bazonka (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree I think that every country will be "worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory". If Morocco says something on Kosovo, than we should include it to the article. Morocco's entry does not relate to "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". Morocco was worried about sepratists before Kosovo declared independence. I can understand why Morocco does not want to recognise Kosovo btw. We need article related sources for Morocco please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - While the sentiment reflected in the article is probably accurate, it is nowhere near an official position or statement, it's nothing more than a comment by a journalist.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YDone. This is not actually a statement by Morocco on Kosovo. If there is a sourceable statement by the Moroccan government, please provide it. - Revolving Bugbear14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request - remove Iraq (unsourced; no REACTION information available)
The source for Iraq turns out to descirbe a "Thursday 14 February2008 meeting" in Bagdad. It is not a reaction (declaration took place 3 days later) -- this information was inserted into the article in a lying attempt to misrepresent Iraq's reaction, concealing the date (it is not in the Wikipedia writeup or in the source information visible to the naked eye). No information for Iraq's REACTION is available in the internet -- I looked. Furhtermore, Iraqi Undersecretary's statement was selectively quoted, making it look more pro-Serbian than it is. Note the reference (skipped) to nations having a right to determine their future. IN any case, this is not a reaction. Delete as irrelevant.
Please remove from UN members in the section States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide:
|-
| Iraq || During a visit with the Serbian Ambassador, Iraqi Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Labeed Abbawi stated Iraq's support for UN principles regarding non-interference in internal affairs and the rights of minorities.[31] ||
If anyonone can source Iraq reaction, please do, and remove the editprotect template. Otherwise, this is a noncontroversial edit. --Mareklugtalk14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The website is tricky. To read the source you have to click on the link which will take you to choose language page. Then you have to choose English. Then you have to hit back in your browser and click the link again. It will then take you to the source. --Mareklugtalk14:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - For those having trouble seeing the article the text reads:
"Mr. Abbawi stated that Iraq respects the principles of the United Nations concerning the nation's right to decide their fate, non-interference in the internal affairs, and the right of minorities to demand respect of their rights and their future."
I'm not convinced that this was really "selectively quoted" or just paraphrased for brevity - however that's largely irrelevant since it predates the declaration of independence. Delete because not a reaction.Bazonka (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We use pre-February 17 information for Macedonia so we can also use pre-Feb 17 info for Iraq. Abbawi is really not taking a side here although he does seem weary of the unilateral aspect of the declaration. --Tocino15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard Opposition as Groundless. We only include Macedonia's 2007 statement in tandem with new reaction to make sense what their ongoing position is -- support for the Ahtisaari Plan. We do not source pre-17 Feb Macedonia as such. The Iraqi info is not a reaction. Delete. --Mareklugtalk15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a huge oversight. I know that I have thought the reference is wrong but the information was there. I will try to find it, hopefully information will be restored.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This used to be a huge oversight, I agree, and a little lie of misphrasing and incomplete citation to boot favoring Serbia, but we managed to get this monkey off our back, and Morocco. Next time, source correctly and truthfully. And we don't include evidence on the basis of promises. Find sources or suffer deletion. I wish you and Tocino weren't blocking proper updates to Ukraine and Macedonia, which continue to show lies, the second one through omission. Nothing like stalling: "we have to have this in Macedonian". Well, find it in Macedonian, if you think the Bulgarian news agency lied. I don't think there is a reason to think that. When I mentioned problems of wording in translation int he Iranian president's pff the cuff remark printed in English on an Iranian website, you blew a fuse. Now you are doing the same, quietly. Pot, kettle, black. --Mareklugtalk20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reactions?
There are some coutries that apparently hasn't commented officialy yet.
And I gather without looking just sounding it out that Elfenbeinküste is Côte d'Ivoire. They haven't reacted as a country, but their official press has published essays about Kosovo independence and its meaning for Africa. But no official reaction. --Mareklugtalk15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have no information on what their position is, or perhaps they do not even have a position. If you discover anything, then please let us know! Bazonka (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they make a statement on Kosovo, we will include it to the article, until then there is no point including pointless information saying they haven't made a comment. They don't need to make a comment, they can continue like normal and recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia with out publishing or saying a single thing, which is most likely. for now. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this forward from an archived talk page as no consensus was reached. The only real opposition was from Ijanderson who said that it wasn't relevant, but I utterly disagree - these are clear international reactions.
Something must be done as some information is clearly out of date - particularly the table tennis bit (Kosovo is not currently participating in the world championships).
I propose that we:
add the following details for FIBA to the Internation Sports Federations section. (This is clearly an international reaction, and no matter what Ijanderson says, recognition by a major sports federation is important to the status of a nation, both politically and culturally. Basketball is big in the Balkans.)
remove the details from the table for the ski, table-tennis and handball federations. (These are not reactions.)
add text below the table: "Prior to its declaration of independence, Kosovo was already a member of the International Table Tennis Federation (2003) and of the International Handball Federation (2004). Kosovo also already had observer status in the International Ski Federation.[32]"
Disagree. This is all very confusing because some of the Kosovo sport federations have joined international ones even before there was a declaration of independence. This only shows how politicized sports has become. The chairman of OIC has declared "that no one should boycott the olympics in Bejing because of politics" and yet politics is the reason of the rejection made to the Kosovar sport federations. Jawohl (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Memberships in International sports institutions is a process that many countries went through, they did not react to the declaration of independence, but some criterias has to be matched to be granted a membership, currently Basketball and Football is in process. London would not organise the Olympics if the criteria and olympics standards wouldn't match, it was not a reaction to grant or not but they got selected since they were best prepared. I agree to separate sports from politics in this article. --Digitalpaper (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Agree: Ijanderson is quick to point out that this isn't a paper encyclopedia --- I'm sure he doesn't mind us adding this. There is no limit to how much information to include. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Bazonka, please do not make changes to your request after we have supplied you with our opinion. Your link to the FIBA statement is dead. Also, what do you mean by "remove the details from the table for the ski, table-tennis and handball federations. (These are not reactions.) " I thought this was about reactions and sport institutions are not political bodies therefore they can only react by accepting or rejecting someone. Surely you do not accept any of the federations to say : We recognize Kosovos independence and based on that they are also a member of our federation. You do know the IOC has more mebers that UN has? I think that the whole sport table should be removed and if someone finds it worthy they can make a proper article about it. Jawohl (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? What have I changed ??? Jawohl, check the history of this page and explain exactly what you're accusing me of!
You are right - the link does not work. Here's an alternative Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). (it's a cached page - not sure how admissable that is).
What I meant by removing the details for handball etc. is that these state the opinion of the federations before the declaration of independence (i.e. "Member since 2004"). Therefore, NOT reactions. The table tennis section should at the very least be edited as it states that Kosovo is currently participating in the world championships - this is surely no longer the case.
And you are right that sport federations are not policital bodies per se, but you cannot divorce sport from politics. The two are (rightly or wrongly) inextricably linked, and sport plays a massive cultural role in how nations are perceived by others. I do not understand the opposition to including this sort of information. You can argue that it's marginally irrelevant - others will argue that it's very relevant, but what harm does it do by including it? None. Bazonka (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm to include them, it is only misleading because these federations do not react to the declaration of the independence. They will only react to formal membership request made by Kosovar federations. These requests do not include the "recognize the political status of our country" sentence, because in that case Palestine, Scotland and many other countries would not be able to compete. This article is about the international reaction to the DI. Do you really expect that any of the federations will react specifically on the DI. I doubt. That is why I think that the table is misleading and confusing as well as credits the sports with something that clearly is not in their domain. Again, two federations were accepted before there was any DI, which clearly proves that keeping this column is misleading. Jawohl (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that admission to a sports federation is not identical to a recognition of independence, but it gives an indication of support, and can affect public opinion. The more federations to which Kosovo is admitted, the more it will be treated like a true country, even amongst the population of countries that haven't recognised it (probably not Serbs though). Conversely, a lack of membership has the opposite effect. The bigger and more popular the sport, the more significant this will be - many people's only interest in international relations is through sport. If FIFA or UEFA were to make a ruling, should we ignore that? I strongly feel that we should not. Bazonka (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The reactions of international sports federations are noteworthy. Basketball is particularly popular in the Balkans, so this decision will have made headlines there. --Tocino19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need some guidance here - is it worth putting an Editprotect request on this section? (Last time I used one I got told off because there wasn't a consensus.)
Here most people seem to be in agreement with the proposal. Jawohl disagreed, but then said that there was no harm in including the information, and I'm not really sure I follow Digitalpaper's argument - you cannot seperate sport and politics (although in an ideal world you would). Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping tabs
I found a website that is dedicated to verifying states that recognize Kosovo. It has plenty of useful information and should be helpful for keeping that map up to spec.
Although we don't really trust the Kosovothanksyou site, would it be worth referencing it in the article to dissuade well-meaning people from mentioning it here? Perhaps in the See Also section with a caveat. Or maybe it's too POV even for a reference??? Bazonka (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really reliable as a reference. They even copy what we include in this article. We have found out that a country has recognised before them sometimes, then use our references as their "Recognition Text". They have even taken part in discussions on this talk page. Therefore it is defiantly not a reliable third party source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeh lol. I emailed them telling them to update their site with a source. They replied to me saying "Thats not what you said on the wiki talk page". They caught me bitching about their site. Lol. www.kosovothanksyou.com/howpovisthissite Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ijanderson977, kosovothanksyou.com is not in itself a reliable source and we shouldn't add them in the references section. If once in a while a well-intentioned user "points" us at that site, I think it's not to much work just to thank them and tell them that we already know about it. Gugganij (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine under pressure but position unchanged
Note: this is not an edit request. It is news posted for the purpose of gathering information in the case of a possible later edit requests.
Serbia: Ukraine Faces Pressure over Kosovo
19 May 2008 Belgrade - Ukraine is facing huge international pressure to recognise Kosovo’s independence, Serbia’s outgoing deputy Premier said in Kiev.
"I believe we can count of Ukrainian support in our struggle to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia," Bozidar Djelic said after meetings with Ukrainian officials held on the margins of the annual session of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.[33]
Just like how Mini-USA (UK, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO sheep, as well as Costa Rica, Peru, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Burkina Faso) will do whatever its Mother says... even if Mother tells her children to defy international law! --Tocino18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Slovakia, Czechia are these EU/ (Some NATO) Sheep too? Also is Genocide classed as defying international law by any chance? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are notable exceptions and these proud nations should be praised for their independent-minded decision making. However, overall the EU/NATO is an organization which is dominated by three countries (Germany, France, and UK) and these three countries currently happen to agree with the USA on 95% of foreign policy issues, so basically the USA is running the EU/NATO behind the scenes. It is no coincidence that the EU/NATO wants to create a puppet-state within the borders of Serbia, a traditional ally of Russia, while at the same time this organization is looking to expand East, all the way to the borders of the Russian Federation. For whatever reason the U.S. government and EU/NATO is stuck in a Cold War mindset, obsessed with defeating Russia and enslaving the Slavic people. As for international law, UN SC resolution 1244 clearly states that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Also you should be aware that the Kosovo Albanian side is not squeaky clean. The KLA terrorized Serbs and burned down Orthodox churches, yet despite this no KLA leaders have prosecution by international authorities, in fact some of the KLA terrorists are now leading the separatist government. Hashim Thaci, called The Snake, was one of the leaders of the KLA and is now the Prime Minister of the separatist government. --Tocino 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC) A bit like Israel running the USA behind the scenes at the UN then Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to give you a C-
What you should do in your next essay is evaluate both sides of the argument, then come up with a conclusion. Better luck next time. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just telling the cold hard facts. I know you don't get this side of the story because the Western media is particularly good at parroting the talking points of Western governments (coughBBCcough) :). --Tocino 21:01, 19 May 2008 9UTC)
I take the BBC with a grain of salt because of the way it blends news with commentary. The BBC seems as though it has been trying to start a war with Russia and China in the past few years with the never-ending amount of negative stories it publishes about those two countries. And no I have not studied media and hjournalism, but as User:Mareklug would say, I know "bullshit" when I see "bullshit". --Tocino21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have confused me, why would a British Public Corporation start a war with Russia and China? This would seem very foolish, i think you must be wrong there. The BBC is a highly respected all over the world. I admit the BBC is not the best source of news, that is why I look for a wide variation of news from all back grounds. I try as much as i can to be Media literate as i can. Yes it is hard trying to spot the subliminal messages in media, but i feel i get along ok. The thing you have to remember with all news is that is for profit, even the BBC. The BBC can not be running at a loss. Since all news is for profit, they have to produce news which appeals to their audiences, otherwise they would loose market share. For example American News stations are a good example for that. So is B92, people say that it is rather pro American. I would have to disagree there, if B92 was producing American garbage, Serbian audiences would generally not like it, therefore B92 would soon go out of business. B92 seems to be rather pro Serbian, which you can understand from a news company, that is based in Serbia. Then you have Balkan Insight, which seems to be rather good and neutral as it has to appeal to all the Balkan countries. When the BBC is reporting for all these other countries (which i have listed), do you think it will be producing lots of pro-British garbage? no it won't as it would last, as audiences would dislike it. Trust me Tocino, the BBC have been in the game since the beginning. They are not as bad as you make them out to be.
Also you have got me worked out all wrong. Just because i support Kosovo doesn't mean i dislike Serbia and Russia ect. I'd love to visit them countries. And just because i support Kosovo doesnt mean i support the US. I generally don't approve of the US. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't approve of U.S. ? Gasp! I love my country and I support it but the State Department has a completely backwards policy towards the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union (I would also not have invaded Iraq for what it's worth). You seem like a good bloke but on this issue you are misguided. Ohh and why are you re-posting monarchist crap on the 2008 article? On your profile it says you, like me , are anti-monarchy, but then you re-post some garabage about Lizzy Windsor's grandchildren. --Tocino17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Tocino. I also disapprove of the Iraq war, Afghanistan and the wests view of former soviet countries and former Yugoslavia too. I do take separatism seriously and the reason for me supporting Kosovo and is not due western media at all. A Kosovar refugee family stayed with my family in the UK during the Kosovo war. I do sympathize for Serbia sometimes, they have been given a hard time over the years. Tadic i believe to be doing the right thing over Kosovo. Obviously he has to oppose Kosovo's independence as he is the leader of Serbia, so has to react in the way which will suit his people best. Therefore i believe him to be a good leader. much better than most western politicians. he actually does what his people want him to do and he knows whats best for his people too. It emotionally hurt me re-adding that of Peter Phillips, but it did seem Notable as he is royal and more of him is expected in the future, therefore it did seem kinda the right thing to do. To be fair i hate the Queen, she a medieval tradition and the monarchy should have ended hundreds of years ago. I too think your a cool guy, i just disagree with you on some things. But not everything, such as the correct spelling of Pristina, monarchy, Iraq war and the wests view of former USSR and Yugoslavia. Got to admit, it'd be boring if everyone agreed on everything. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map
The Map only highlights the States that have recognised the independence of Kosovo but dose not highlight any other states political status towards Kosovo. on the other language pages this one is used: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg - this does need a bit of editing yet it shows the statuses (if that is a word) in more clarity.
--Lemonade100 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That map is incredibly POV. We use a NPOV map based purely on facts. We had that map once, but it caused lots of arguments/ disputes. It makes Kosovo seem to have less/ more support than it does have. We decided in the end to use a map which shows the countries which recognise Kosovo and which dont. So facts instead of someones interpretation on a countries position. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And not on all other langauge pages, either. On Polish Wikipedia we use this the version I maintain. Actually, other users maintain both versions, keeping to obvious updates, and leaving the iffy ones for Avala and me to color. User:Mareklug-generated map. I once suggested adding *both* to these article, in a fair and balanced approach of showing competing viewpoints. What's so wrong with that? User:Tocino prevented this by only deleting my version peristently in 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, after I found that the article only included the Avala-generated map, and not even the neutral green one we now use. So I prepared an informative display of all three, even with Avala's map on top of mine, and explained the rationale on the article talk page. :) But Tocino wouldn't let it be. Again, why this strong intolerance of divergent interpretations?. --Mareklugtalk20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Both them maps are just different users interpretations. We would never reach consensus on one map, apart from the current one. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many egregious errors on the second map (positions of India, Iran, Uruguay, Cuba, Mexico, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovakia, Macedonia just to name a few) that it deserves to thrown in the dustbin. --Tocino 21:10, 19 may 2008 (UTC)
edit request - majority that recognized and elections in Serbia
In paragraph 2 it is listed how many countries recognized Kosovo. Also how many EU states. I think that there should be also the most important group of countries that recognized it. It is NATO states. Added text should go like this: 20 NATO member states + 2 candidates (79%) out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also there is additional detail regarding international reaction that should be added. On May 11, 2008 elections for Serbian parlament were also held on Kosovo. UNMIK had no objections against this, but it was also not supporting it.
Igor I know you are Serb because your page says so --- please don't make information up. The most shocking thing you said is that UNMIK had no objections. UNMIK had total and severe objections. Kosova200872.161.253.240 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that Kosova2008 is not doubting that 20+2 NATO states have recognized Kosovo, so I would provide you only with evidences on 2nd part - the elections. Here are Al Jazzera [10] article quoting Kosovo prime minister and Bulgarian Focus [11] quoting UNMIK chief. Mr.Ruecker says that UNMIK finds local elections illegal, but they never commented parliament elections. They also did nothing to prevent them. But still, it does not change the fact that Serbian elections were held at Kosovo and UNMIK (not) reacting is important for this article. So my suggestion is to add this two sentences:
20 NATO member states + 2 candidates (79%) out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo (or 55% of total states that recognized Kosovo)
On May 11, 2008 elections for local authorities and for Serbian parliament were also held on Kosovo. UNMIK stated that it finds local election illegal, but they conducted no action to prevent neither local, neither parliament elections.
First sentence should be added in 2nd paragraph, and the other should be added at the end.
P.S. @Kosova2008: Yes, I am a Serb, but I see no reason for pointing that out in this discussion. Do you have any source on "UNMIK having total and severe objections" on Serbian parliament elections held in Kosovo?
Yes I have proof but it is so COMMON SENSE that I feel like I am re-discovering gravity. Just by reading your Serbian news (BLIC, b92, etc) I do remember reading something the line of "we (UNMIK) will not communicate or cooperate with the new representatives of the Serbs from May 11 elections...furthermor only UNMIK has the power to call elections in Kosova mandated by Res 1244". UNMIK has sever reactions and sees this as a step back because Serbia broke an international law...1244. Also who cares about how many NATO countries recognized? Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the NATo Alliance is the most important group to recognize, consdiering the EU is much more powerful in europe. and the fact he is serbian should have no reason to make his edit unusablle kosova.. i'll support if the majority supports.--Jakezing (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think elections should be in the serbian reaction article and other appropriate articles since they are not a reaction to the declaration per se. As for NATO, we do mention in the tables who is a member of what so we should either remove NATO from the tables or add the sentence as suggested by Igor. Jawohl (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the elections conducted by Serbia that is relevant for the article, but UNMIK's reaction is. Also, NATO is much, much more involved in Kosovo problem than EU is, starting from bombing of the Serbia in 1999. EU was never involved before EULEX mission.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. One seems relevant to the article, but they are both acceding member states not candidate member states. Proposal two is not relevant to the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comprosmise suggestion: Let's include a corrected summary sentence re: NATO per Igor's request (see below for exact text) and let's forego mentioning the elections, since neither are they a reaction to the declaration (they would have taken place in Kosovo even without independence being proclaimed) nor is the reaction of UNMiK relevant as a reaction to the declaration. In this article we confine ourselves with the international recognition of Kosovo or lack of consent for same, or other international reaction. Proposed 3-part edit:
1. Please replace:
As of May 122008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight.
with the following:
As of May 202008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight. Significantly, 20 NATO member states + 2 acceding member states out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also, please update the NATO membership characterization of two Albania and Croatia:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[41]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [42] ||EU candidate country NATO candidate country non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
with the following:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[43]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [44] ||EU candidate country NATO acceding member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
I left out the parenthetical percentages, since the article does not employ them elsewhere (also, when counting "states", do they include Taiwan?). I added the leading "significantly" to emphasize the points made by Igor in the discussion, but perhaps it should be struck. --Mareklugtalk18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Igor Also, NATO is much, much more involved in Kosovo problem than EU is. You should do your homework better. EU was the biggest financial donor in Kosovo the past 9 years. EU always chose the SRSG and held the main UNMIK pillars. And now we also know why you want to have NATO mentioned. They bomb they recognize. Thats the logic. Jawohl (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I also agree on compromise. I will no more comment on this, since some anonymous users are trying to heat up this debate. I had no intentions like that. It's just that since I am from that corner of the world, I wanted to point out to some facts that I think are important.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I object to using "Prishtina" when it has been agreed elsewhere that WP:English now uses "Pristina" as the name of the largest city of Kosovo. --Tocino19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard Opposition as Groundless This edit request makes no change in spelling of Prishtina. It is completely agnostic with regard to that issue. The editor is blocking a needed edit, acting disruptively, as in the case of carried out Iraq and Morocco editprotect requests. The issue of Prishtina deserves separate discussion, which already is underway in a different section of this talk page. --Mareklugtalk19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support Tocino's opposition. its not groundless Mareklug we need to sort out this spelling problem before we edit the page, therefore Tocinos opposition is not groundless. We should use the most common English version "Pristina". I too will disagree untill this spelling error is corrected. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to get anything done. Everything in its right place. Why is this so hard to get? I oppose changing to Pristina and made my merit-based arguments peruasively in the approprite section, where they benefit from the proximity of related content. This is just throwing the monkey wrench into a difficult enough process of changing things that we can and should change because there's no controversy there. Are you saying, no edits to the page unless this issue is addressed? Are you holding the page hostage? --Mareklugtalk19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard Opposition to Opposition as Groundless. If anyone is holding this article hostage it is User:Mareklug. This edit request does not go far enough. We need to correct the mistakes and it is a mistake to have the incorrect, non-English spelling of Prishtina in this article. Editors elsewhere have agreed that the common English spelling is Pristina. To insist on having the Albanian spelling is to spite the decisions of the WP community. --Tocino 20:13, 20 may 2008 (UTC)
There are three accepted English spellings of Prishtina, which is stated immediately at the beginning of the Wikipedia article about this city, and is now finally acknowledgd in the Kosovo article's lead and first infobox, per consensus. The Prishtina spelling is the variant used by the government of Republic of Kosovo, specifically, all the official websites and official correspondence of the President, who is a scholar and university professor. We are using the normative contextually correct variant when discussin the Republic of Kosovo. Other contexts will demand other variants. There is no community decision to only spell "Pristina". You are mirepresenting an RfC about locating the article itself with such a decision. Specifically, the Kosovo naming guideline addtion to the Manual of Style is still being discussed (and it advocates Prishtina in Republic of Kosovo contexts). --Mareklugtalk20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is only one spelling which is common throughout the English language and it is Pristina. WP editors have decided to name the article of the city Pristina and we should respect the decisions of these editors. In the interest of uniformity it is not acceptable to use a foreign spelling on this particular page while WP policy prefers Pristina. --Tocino20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true, and links showing that have abound and have been shown in relevant discussions, and in actual references for University of Prishtina. The Prishtina spelling is commonly found in the American acdemia, and I trust this use more than popular press accounts or the ideologically-driven US Government usage, or the BBC, which never uses diacritics at all. And the NGOs working in Prishtina use Prishtina, an obvious case of that being "A.I. Prishtina". --Mareklugtalk20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another blatent falsehood. Academia, like the vast majority of English speakers, prefer Pristina. A quick search for Pristina on Amazon.com reveals 2,051 results, while a similar search for "Prishtina" only yields 195 results. "Prishtina" is so rarely used in the English language that the Kovoso Albanian separatist government refers to the city as Pristina in its own English language constitution. --Tocino23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Academia prefers, singular. Blatant, misspelling. This claim would be funny, if it weren't a sad display of lack of scholarship: "pristina" is a common Latin word, in feminine singular, quite unrelated from Kosovan capital, often appearing in biological taxononomy. I'm sure lots of books and papers will have it in its titles. And the actual university page references that use Prishtina are represented in the University of Prishtina, as far as the main article space use goes. They include Dartmouth College, University of Iowa and so on. As for the goverment use, the Republic of Kosovo government, be it Office of the President, his own official letters to other heads of state, Office of the Prime Minister, or the Kosovo Government Portal, uniformly use Prishtina. The government itself never uses Pristina. We don't know who wrote the constitution, and American advisers and scientists were involved, and it only mentions the city once, and for all we know, this will be fixed before it becomes law on 15 June 2008. --Mareklugtalk01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to the immigrant to point out my typos. Newsflash... I've forgotten more English than you'll ever know. Should I translate that into Polish for you? BTW, cities are always capitalized so you are showing off your ignorance by leaving the "P" in Pristina uncapitalized. Meanwhile you've named two universites who use the Albanian spelling for Pristina... how impressive. I can give you over three million links that use Pristina. --Tocino01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mareklug you are forgetting that wikipedia is a meritocracy. We are not in a rush to add to the article. Its best to get things correct in the fist place. There is no time limit. We will get things done eventually. Time will prevail in the end. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably standardizing the spelling of Prishtina, either to the spelling of "Prishtina" which is used exclusively by all the government websites, and the usage in the proposed consitution, where it occurs only once, and as "Pristina". Certainly we can hope, and this siutation is far from resolved on the ground. Meanwhile, we have other edits to implement, and you too are being disruptive, not letting them be implemented. This Pristina-thing is your pet peave, and you are losing the forest for the trees, letting your personal agenda override the good of carrying out agreed upon improvements. --Mareklugtalk20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Disagree: Tocino you can't be prosecutor and judge. If you or Ijanderson want to change aceeding to w/e you can but you can't change the name of the city. Until that consensus is reached at its' proper place we will continue with de jure spelling. Stop holding the page hostage. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is far from universal, as yo conveniently overlook. And the government of the country in question -- which after all is what sets up the context of this article -- disagrees with you in English, as does the official webpage of the City/Municipality of Prishtina. --Mareklugtalk20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to argue with you over the name. You are just repeating the same rubbish over and over again. A consensus was reached, now accepted it. Otherwise you are the one keeping the page hostage. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have just argued (re: de jure, above) in this section no less, so your lack of willingness and memory appear highly selective, not to mention, changing position serveral times in the same editprotect request. It would be better for you to think things through and then spout -- it would surely make for easier reading. And I'm not the one blocking adding/changing information about which everyone agrees, explicitly or tacitly, but you are. So saying that I am holding this article hostage, while it is you and Tocino -- in this edit -- is hypocrisy. --Mareklugtalk21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The correct term is personal attacks, as detailed in the Wikipedia policy forbidding them and discussing what is a personal attack and what is not: WP:NOP.
"Personnel attacks", which you have written on this talk page consistently, sounds like a noun and a verb in the phrase "workers unite". :) And, if I may point out, telling other editors that they appear hostile is a personal attack, and you have volunteered this opinion at me twice now. It is a personal attack per Wikipedia policy, as it makes no effort to address the content and merit of discussed information -- edits on Wikipedia, but instead characterizes offputtingly a person, a fellow editor.
As for me, far from making personal attacks, I questioned your edits themselves: their content and the frequent changes of position in the same discussion thread, suggesting you only take one position, after considering the issue thoroghly, as that would improve general readability and discussion flow.
I also pointed out that I am not blocking any edits where the community is of one mind, but that, on the other hand, you are. Given this fact, your having accused me of holding the article hostage was accusing me of doing something you yourself are doing as we speak. Again, I addressed your edit, not how hostile you may be. Please be precise and use the English language appropriately and correctly. --Mareklugtalk22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NNot done – {{editprotected}} is for use once everyone agrees on changes to be made to the article. Add another editprotected once there's consensus for a particular change. Cheers, Nihiltres{t.l}22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the editor who put the {{editprotect}} here is the same one who decided to oppose the edit, after initially opposing, then strongly supporting, then supporting conditionally. I think that's pretty funny, except for how it hinders the process of Wikipedia and just creates runaround and multiplies talk page bytes. --Mareklugtalk00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an editor in any way, but I'm speaking up here because I'm a frequent user of this article. As a person interested in this matter, it's helpful with a page like this that's supposed to be up to date and reliable.
Reading the editing debates on this discussion page, it seems to me like several editors totally are missing the point. It seems to be more important to have the article stating whatever someone's wishful thinking regarding the situation of Kosovo is, rather than the actual facts.
You should realise that reality out there won't be affected by what is stated in this article. If The Ukrainian Prime Minister for example has made a relevant statement about Kosovo independece, not mentioning it in the article won't change the fact that the statement actually has been made and is for real. This is only one of many examples of weaknesses in the article, where people seem to be trying to hide reality for the readers because it goes against their personal views on the matter.
With too many cases like this, the whole article won't be as reliable and as trustworthy as it should.
I will also say that obstructing uncontroversial updates because of a disagreement over spelling seems very childish, as that is a totally different case. People should start to be thinking of what the purpose of Wikipedia really is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.54.68 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise-Compromise: This is just Markelug's proposal above, with "Prishtina" changed to "Pristina". These edits are orthogonal to the whole Prishtina-Pristina debate, so just because I'm submitting a version based on the Pristina spelling, that's not because I necessarily agree with that spelling -- I'm just trying to find a compromise that more people can agree to. I have no personal interest in the spelling debate, and either spelling is fine with me. I suspect that if the Kosovo government pushes "Prishtina", then in the long run that will be adopted in English -- witness Beijing, Mumbai, Cote d'Ivoire. English in this regard is a bit of a different language than French, which seems a bit more resistant to contemporary reborrowings, witness Peking. That said, at the moment the majority usage in English is still Pristina, so that seems like an argument for sticking with the most common usage for now, and then changing later when the common usage changes. But the whole point of this, as I said, is to try to decouple Markelug's proposals (which seemed to be widely supported in-and-of themselves) from the spelling issue.
See Markelug's rationale above for below changes.
Proposed 3-part edit:
1. Please replace:
As of May 122008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight.
with the following:
As of May 202008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight. Significantly, 20 NATO member states + 2 acceding member states out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also, please update the NATO membership characterization of two Albania and Croatia:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[49]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Pristina [50] ||EU candidate country NATO candidate country non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
with the following:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[51]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Pristina [52] ||EU candidate country NATO acceding member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
Agree - the Wikipedia article for the city is now called Pristina, therefore this article should use that spelling throughout. However, as SJK says, that issue is not directly relevant to this update. Bazonka (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should change the map, the number of UN/EU/NATO/OSCE/etc., countries recognizing as well. Finally this issue with the Czech Republic is behind us! :) --alchaemia (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to the list of "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent",
update the two sentences
As of May 212008, 41 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (20 out of 27);
in the second paragraph of the lead section,
section "International governmental organisations": in the UN entry, update the statement
The Czech Republic has recognized independence of Kosovo
ollowing the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government expressed on 21st May 2008 its agreement with the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Kosovo, by which the Czech Republic recognized the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state.
The policy of the Czech Republic proceeds from the conviction that the recognition of independence of Kosovo will provide for the strengthening of the overall stability in the region and for realistic way out of the untenable situation and will direct the efforts of the countries of the Western Balkans on to the challenges arising from their future membership in the European and Euroatlantic institutions.
The recognition of Kosovo and the establishment of diplomatic relations will be part of the reply of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a letter from the President and the Prime Minister of Kosovo. By recognizing Kosovo and establishing diplomatic relations, the Czech Republic will confirm its active policy in the region of Western Balkans and its work for its stabilization and democratic development in the long run.
The Czech Republic will transform its UNMIK Liaison Office in Pristina into the Embassy of the Czech Republic in the Republic of Kosovo.
May 21, 2008
Source: Ministry of foreign affairs Czech Republic
Yes, that's already been pointed out two times already. Today the Czech Civil Democrats have disgraced themselves and have perhaps set the stage for the opposition to take over parliament. The Czech people are opposed to recognition due to solidarity with the Serb nation which has always been a staunch ally. Many Czech and Slovak politicians have commented on the similarities between the decision of the small minority of nations who've recognized unilateral independence of the Kosovo Albanian separatist state and the infamous Munich Agreement. Both decisions carve up and violate the sovereignty and integrity of proud nations, Czechoslovakia and Serbia in this case. Just like how the Munich Agreement was not the end of the Germans' demands, this unilateral declaration is not the end of the Albanians' demands. Only a few days ago a former KLA terrorist set up an organization in Pristina which has a main goal of creating Greater Albania. Thankfully, though, the vast majority of nations are opposed to recognition, including Czechia's neighbors, Slovakia. Despite the actions from a few reckless nations, there will be no appeasement from the international community in this case as it will stand strong with Serbia. --Tocino17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia[1] || 2008-02-21 || ||
EU member state
Not done Looks like consensus is on its way, but it's not here yet. Happy‑melon 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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."[6] The Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[7] 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".[8]
||
|-
Done --Mareklug talk 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
San Marino[14] || 2008-05-11 ||
Done. Someone please update the map. Thanks. Húsönd 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Slovenia[16] || 2008-03-05 ||Mission of Slovenia in Prishtina[17]
Done. Uncontroversial. Please note here if you disagree. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 13:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Italy[21][22] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Office in Prishtina[23] || 
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence 
Denmark[27] || 2008-02-21 || || 
Morocco || Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March 2008.[30]||
Iraq || During a visit with the Serbian Ambassador, Iraqi Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Labeed Abbawi stated Iraq's support for UN principles regarding non-interference in internal affairs and the rights of minorities.[31] ||
Albania[34][35][36] || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Albania in Prishtina from 19 February 2008[37]
Croatia[41]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [42] ||EU candidate country
Czech Republic[53] || 2008-05-21 || ||