Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.134.65.233 (talk) at 18:00, 16 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ARCHIVES 25 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE ARCHIVE IN 25 ONWARDS, BEFORE CREATING NEW ARCHIVE PAGES!

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

St. Kitts-Nevis editprotect - please add already we have consensus

{{editprotect}}

Please add to the UN Members subsection's table under states that do not recognize or have not decided:

|-|  Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[1]|||-

This is a noncontroversial edit --Mareklug talk 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ajbenj (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Though I've formatted it with the rest of them. Is there a pressing reason to have it formatted in a different way? (If there is, editprotect it again and I'll spot it). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I said beofre. that having two identically-titled sections would bite us sooner or later -- and it did now. Yes, there is a reason, Peter. The item should go under UN Members of the states that do not recognize or have not decided, not the UN Members of the states that have formally recognized. The former ones live in a table without ordinal numbering/ It is the states that have recognized that sport a table with ordinal numberng, but the order there is chronological by act of recognition, not alphabetical, so #34 for St. Kitts-Nevis would not be correct, even had we been adding St. Kitts-Nevis to the recognizing states. The nonrecognizing states or those still deciding are lodged in a section furhter down the page, and these are kept alphabetically, since they lack a time component. So, yes, this needs fixing. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Apologies again. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I want to get St. Kitts' reaction on this article. But with the system the way it is, it's really hard to make changes and once an entry is added it's almost there for good. So let's get this one right before we submit it. Now, I think that the editorializing from SKN is important and it belongs in the reaction. Also, I do not believe SKN speaks on behalf of other nations, so when they say no one else has made a statement, that is overstepping their bounds. It also doesn't help matters that they are factually incorrect as Cuba has made a statement. --Tocino 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Tocino Instead of beating down the opposition by repeating the same assertions, please direct your eyes slightly above, and do at last reply substantively. It looks like you're engaging in OR, as was the editor who included Cuba in the first place. But the place to discuss it is several inches north.
@Ajbenj I agree to the skeletal SKN entry you prepared last. We can reuse this source on Cuba under separate cover, or in a discussion that will remove Cuba altogether, or relegate it to there having been a notable individual reaction in Cuba. For St. Kitts-Nevis itself, what you proposed is sufficient, if incomplete. I support adding it like so, and took the liberty making the ref tag reusable: <ref name="SKN April 2008">. --Mareklug talk 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the ref tag reusable! =) Still as lot I need to remember or get better at when writing code... I don't think enough people have chimed in yet on this, so I will hold off on a new editrequest at this time. Ajbenj (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it is no mystery, I agree with the truncated proposal and vote accordingly. Ajbenj Ajbenj (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any more opinions on the last, shorter proposal above? We need a wider sampling of positions on this one. When (if) we get to something good, should I post it as a new editrequest, or go above and add on to my original one, to cancel out the first editrequest? Ajbenj (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I am happy with that short proposal. Bazonka (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Thank you Mareklug for submitting the edit request! Ajbenj (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}} Well, it looks like Wikipedia has gone and done an RTK and announced the recognition of Kosovo by St Kitts & Nevis! Marvellous. Hopefully no other media sources have picked up on this, or we'll look like right idiots.
This is just utterly wrong and needs to be put right immediately! It seems that this is a major cock-up by an admin.
Uncontroversial. (It's controversial to leave it where it is.)
Remove St Kitts & Nevis from the "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" section. Make the edit as proposed above (with the text about the consultative committee) in the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" section. Bazonka (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A big problem caused by a small error. I apologise for my mistake. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}}

Please change the current entry from:

|  Cuba[2] || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[2] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[3] || |-

to:

|  Cuba || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[4] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[5][6] ||

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Scottish National Party edit request

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

Please replace:

|- | Scottish National Party || Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament that congratulated Kosovo on its decision to separate from Serbia.[7] |}

with:

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

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

The motion was subsequently ammended as follows:

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

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

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

There is no information how the Parliament acted on these proposals (or otherwise) regarding Kosovo, if it acted at all.[8] |}

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

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

eg for the first motion

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

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

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

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

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

No it's not. A Google News search for Kosovo gets 7,066 results [1] , while Kosova only gets 90 results [2]. Kosovo is generally acceptable to both sides, while Kosova is not. Do you see me trying to put Kosovo and Metohija everywhere in the article, even though Kosovo and Metohija is the proper name of the Serbian province? --Tocino 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you meant to say was that "the Republic of Kosovo is the proper English name of the independent country". ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tocino, the only "province" that Serbia has is named Vojvodina; I hope you aren't still using 2007 maps considering that all atlases and maps of 2008 and up include Kosova; unless of course they are made in Belgrade. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Edit request - Politcal parties section - remove

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

{{editprotect}}

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Islamic Conference to discuss Kosovo

This is a little old, but according to these sources: [3] [4] [5] there will be a collective decision by the foreign ministers from the OIC on recognition. At the very least the meeting could be a greenlight for nations which haven't recognized Kosovo like Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia. All the same I think this would merit a mention. It seems likely several Islamic nations will decide following this meeting or decide at this meeting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


After looking at them sources, i think we have enough ot put in an edit request for the OIC. I don't think i can as ive had too much to drink :p
If someone puts in an edit request i'll most likey agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order - the OIC website says the meeting is 18-20 June, NOT July, as the Bangladeshi articles say [6]. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what your link says Canadian Bobby: "

16-18 June 2008

OIC Business Forum and 12th Private Sector

Meeting for the Promotion of Trade and Joint

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

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

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

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

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


Cyprus

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

Russia, Cyprus say Kosovo self-rule failing to improve stability[7]

14:51 | 09/ 06/ 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Request - Denmark

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

{{editprotect}}

please change Denmark from this

| 14 ||  Denmark[9] || 2008-02-21 || Ambassador of Denmark to Kosovo, subordinate to the Embassy in Vienna, Austria from 6 March 2008[10]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

to this

| 14 ||  Denmark[11] || 2008-02-21 || Ambassador of Denmark to Kosovo, subordinate to the Embassy in Vienna, Austria from 6 March 2008[12]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

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

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

Serbia's Reaction

This source kosova.com is reporting this:

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

Më shumë lajme nga Kosova"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request Latvia diplomatic relations with Kosovo

Latvia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations today 10th of June 2008 [8] BalkanInsight reports --Digitalpaper (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}}

please change Latvia from

| 10 ||  Latvia[13] || 2008-02-20 || || European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

to this

| 10 ||  Latvia[14] || 2008-02-20 ||Latvia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations on 10 June 2008[15]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

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

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

Interesting comments from Montenegrin leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Back to the European Parliament

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

Shouldn't we replace:

| Europe European Parliament || On 30 May 2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution.[16][17]

with something like:

| Europe European Parliament || During an inter-parliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the Kosovo assembly on 28 May 2008 the Kosovo delegation appeared under the flag of independent Kosovo. This has been interpreted by some, including Jelko Kacin, the EP reporter for Serbia, as the parliament's recognition of Kosovo's independence. However, there has been no official statement from the European Parliament itself.[18][19]

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

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

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

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

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

yeh not everyone agreed. But 66% on;y was needed 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Sierra Leone in group 2 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albana Beqiri -

Media adviser of minister Hyseni"

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

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

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

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


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

| 43 ||  Sierra Leone[20] || 2008-05-31 || || |-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kosova2008 (talk)

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

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

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

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

Tocino, this is a second warning

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

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

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

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

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

3) This is not a forum.

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia on map

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

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

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

edit request update

{{editprotect}}

please do the following.

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

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

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

Edit request +add reaction to Bangladesh

{{editprotect}}

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

Please replace:

|- |  Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[21] || |-

with the following addtion:

|- |  Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[22] On 14 June 2008 a Bangladeshi independent newspaper The New Nation reported that Salim Prodhan, chairman of the Japan-Bangladesh Group, urged the Bangladeshi governement to recognise Kosovo's independence for economic reasons while likening the liberation of Kosovo to Bangladesh's own liberation from Pakistan in 1971.[23]|| |-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution

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

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

Pristina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much can be written on this!

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

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

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

Seriously, I hope you appreciate the irony: complaining about how long the archives are, and at the same time coming in here to post a personal reflection not pertaining to the article. And as for there being 35 pages, so what, really, there are plenty of articles with long histories, that is not unusual.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo in the nearest future

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

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

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

The quotes we have are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is a fine proposal. Any comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this?

In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[25]

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

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

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

Edit request Vatican

Please change the Vatican from this

|  Vatican City[26] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [27][28] |-

to this

|  Vatican City[29] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [27][28] In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[30][31] |-

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

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ "The Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee Holds Its Inaugural Meeting". St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-03-27. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
  2. ^ a b "Ataques al "padre" de la secesión de Kosovo". Compañía Tipográfica Yucateca. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-03-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Raúl shares his seat with Fidel
  4. ^ "Castro diu que la independència de Kòsovo és un precedent per a Catalunya i Euskadi". COMRàdio. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Castro leaves Cuba stage to brother". TVNZ. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Raul Castro named Cuban president". Al Jazeera. 2008-02-24. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Salmond's Kosovo comments spark row". MidLothian Today. 2008-02-19. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
  8. ^ "Business Bulletin No. 32/2008: Monday 25 February 2008". Scottish Parliament. 2008-02-25. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  9. ^ "Denmark recognises Kosovo". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
  10. ^ "Denmark's relations with Kosovo (Danish)" ambwien.um.dk 06 March 2008 Link accessed 16/05/08
  11. ^ "DENMARK RECOGNISES KOSOVO" ambprag.um.dk 22 February 2008 Link accessed 22/02/08
  12. ^ "Denmark's relations with Kosovo (Danish)" ambwien.um.dk 06 March 2008 Link accessed 16/05/08
  13. ^ "Announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia on recognition of Kosovo's independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  14. ^ "Announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia on recognition of Kosovo's independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  15. ^ "Kosovo & Latvia Open Diplomatic Ties" balkaninsight.com 10 June 2008 Link accessed 10/06/08
  16. ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  17. ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  18. ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  19. ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  20. ^ "SIERRA LEONE RECOGNIZED KOSOVA" kosovapress.com 13 June 2008 Link accessed 13/06/08
  21. ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  22. ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  23. ^ "Japan-Bangladesh Group urges to recognise Kosovo". The New Nation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Mainul Hosein. 2008-06-14. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  24. ^ Ватикан не намерен признавать независимость Косово
  25. ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian) For the unofficial translation, click here
  26. ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
  27. ^ a b "Vatican calls for moderation in Kosovo and Serbia". Christian Today. 2008-02-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ a b "Vatican advises moderation in response to Kosovo independence". Catholic News Agency. 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
  30. ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian)
  31. ^ "Vatican Does Not Intend To Recognize Kosovo Soon, Casper", Tanjug, 16 June 2008 Link accessed 16/06/08

Andorra

What about Andorra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.65.233 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sock puppet who keeps deleting my comments and vandalizing my talk page. Take a look at his edit history or the edit history of my talk page. How can we get rid of this guy? --Tocino 17:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop these guy, this stupid friend of NIKOLiC AND mILOSEVIC; and who knows what people too.84.134.65.233 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=219741698"