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 84.134.110.159 (talk) at 09:44, 17 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ARCHIVES 27 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY A BOT IN 27 ONWARDS!

Template:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo Archive Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Russia could recognise Kosovo

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

You should read the words of Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin.... "I believe Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. They have a much stronger case". Link here: [1] --Tocino 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i read that too, but this is another politician. Also he didn't say Kosovo doesn't deserve independence, just that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this person say he is not sure ("maybe, I don't know") and Churkin responded that Russia will certainly not recognize due to UNSC 1244. Yes both the US and Russia are hypocrites and I am sure that they will not make their position consistent and recognize the other regions they haven't done so far.--Avala (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point made my Avala, the source i presented basically says that Russia might recognise Kosovo because they have already broken international law so they might recognise Kosovo too. However this is only up to the much respectful Dimitry Medvedev. Ijanderson (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's basically like saying that the US can recognise Ossetia. They can but they wont.--Avala (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia Close to Recognising Kosovo too

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

Ali Ahmeti plays no role in the Macedonian government. --Tocino 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he is still leader of the opposition in Macedonia and is a well respected and important political figure im Macedonian politics. Ijanderson (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the matter of days as Albanian leaders claim then we can be patient enough and wait.--Avala (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • imminent:
    1. likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
    2. projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.
[Origin: 1520–30; < L imminent- (s. of imminéns), prp. of imminére to overhang, equiv. to im- im-1 + -min- from a base meaning “jut out, project, rise” (cf. eminent, mount2) + -ent- -ent]

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

I really would like to see the other side of the Macedonian Coalition make a statement about Kosovo for once. Menduh Thaçi said the same thing as Ahmeti when he was part of the Government. And yet here we are. If Macedonian news reports something I'll update. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal again

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

Is there a statement or it's just German media copying BalkanInsight in guessing?--Avala (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No this is a statement made today "Thursday" (aka Donnerstag in German) saying that Portugal is expected to recognise in one, two, three weeks. Along them lines if im correct. Ijanderson (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran it through the translation. It only cites the New Alliance Party of Kosovo leader Behgjet Pacolli and spokesperson Ibrahim Gashi. They can't speak on behalf of Portugal, not just like that, if there was a meeting between them and some Portuguese official maybe but this way nope. It also says that they expect that to happen in two or three weeks. --Avala (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If they are to recognise soon i dare say there will be some english sources appearing in the media soon Ijanderson (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw these two can't speak even on behalf of Kosovo as they are opposition.--Avala (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Behgjet Pacolli is a very influential man. He is mega rich and has friends in high places. He was mates with Yelsin and co. He was also right about Malta and Colombia recognising. Ijanderson (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing bordering on vandalism

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

Yes ive noticed him. Ive warned him over the 3RR rule Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HE needs to be reported as a sockpuppet of User:Koov --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Response

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

Point of Order

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

Hmm, wouldn't it be more apt to move Kosovo, Abkhasia and South Ossetia to some "states" category in the other article? I still have misgivings about our classifying Palestinaina Authority as a "state", as it fails statehood criteria even according to its leaders we quote in the context of Kosovo, and listing PA as a a state seems more a wish than dispassionate reflection of reality. On the other hand, the idea that a state is whatever at least one state recognizes as such, seems most successful as far as strategies that cut through bickering while employing common sense, a Wikipedia guideline, after all. :) Not a flame or bitching at you, please note. --Mareklug talk 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. I asked Husond to reconsider International recognition of Kosovo as somehow inappropriate. The present title for Abhkazia and South Ossetia, after many adjustments, is just that. I'd move the Northern Cyprus recognition article to International recognition of Northern Cyprus. In all three cases, the only ones we have on Wikipedia at this point, I'm motivated by using the most common names and employing maximal succinctness in titling, with consistency.
TRNC, Abkhazia and (barely) South Ossetia do qualify as states (see Declarative theory of statehood); the key thing about them is that they are almost entirely unrecognised states. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent recognisers

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

I hate to keep banging on about this, but if you registered with Wikipedia, you could do it yourself! Bazonka (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And get promptly reverted. Both Macedonia and Portugal keep being discussed on this talk page ever so often, and the consensus so far has been to keep them where they are. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should ignore IP 84, hes, useless; hiding behind a changing ip he knows we can't block.--Jakezing (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sudan

Something about Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

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

More in this article, which I think is what's referred to in the first article: [4] Bazonka (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montenegro Recognition

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

Yeh, us Brits have been urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo soon[5][6] Ijanderson (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US is now urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo [7] Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I found particularly illuminating here, is the US Ambassador's stated claim, that Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999 and that although 1244's preamble may state that Kosovo is part of Serbia, the UN Charter (he cites the part of it) makes Security Council decisions binding for countries, and in absence of such, there is no law. Interesting. Shows USA thinks it has a legal basis in international law, other than the general principles of self-determination of nations, part of Helsinki Final Act, UN Declaration of Human Rights and other body of law. --Mareklug talk 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[8] Montenegro is coming under further pressure Ijanderson (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab recognition

Seem to coming after all.

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

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

Imminent recognisers

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

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

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

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

Macedonia again

Something about Macedonia again, sadly not from the goverment.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

I think that all the issues have been solved so that the tag can be removed. If anyone wants to put it back I think we should expect a thorough explanation and I think it will be hard to give one considering the fact this article is well sourced and knowing how both sides think it's POV of another side which is a sign that the article is actually neutral.--Avala (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I also think we should remove the "neutrality" banner. In essence almost all political articles are controversial therefore this comes along "with the packaging". No need to use it. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were just waiting for the idiots to come back and the the goverments to make things tough again. we could always re add the other version of the map and cause some havok.--Jakezing (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh you mean mean waiting for the government idiots to come back from vacation?--Avala (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You think Bosnia, Uruguay, Slovakia, Ukraine, China, India, Cuba, Libya statements are wrong/ POV in this article, how do you belive they should be written? Ijanderson (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he did show it on Slovakia when he erased the whole section and replaced it with one boilerplate statement of the Slovakia MFA from February. Then based on that he goes on to claim how Slovakia is in some kind of neutral position and still thinking despite the fact that their PM and FM reiterate their position every week or so with PM always adding a spicy comment and FM trying to be a bit more diplomatic. That is the issue, Mareklug is deliberately pushing for a chain POV edit. First he carves the article and then goes on to claim the reality he just created in other articles with citing this one (for an example EULEX article where he desperately tried to show Slovakia as neutral and what is better than pointing at this article where the uninformed readers would find a boiler plate statement and then believe all that miraculous world that Mareklug tries to create).
Also regarding Bosnia he claims no one reacted from there. Reality is that three out of three presidency members, prime minister, foreign minister and regional leaders reacted and all had the same statements, that Bosnia will not recognise Kosovo with some citing the reason to be international law and some the Serbian veto in the Council of Nations.
Then he refused to accept the existence of "joint statements" as such so therefore he contested the India and China entries, of course other editors provided videos, pictures, texts etc. to back up the existence of the meeting but they failed to see that he wasn't really contesting the meeting and the joint statement, he just hated the content of it so in the lack of any better argument he decided to attack the existence of the thing called joint statement by claiming `how could Lavrov speak for them? why don't they say it themselves?` - when asked did he ever see a joint statement (very often in the EU for an example) to be read out by all signatories he went silent. Of course we never saw 27 FMs of the EU reading the same statement over and over again. That's the reality.
Then he contested Libya because he couldn't comprehend that this article is about the International reaction which includes statements, media reports etc. not just official acts and documents adopted. He also contested why is the source from the Serbian media not the Libyan one. The answer was given in a link where we couldn't find anything because it was all Arabic. It didn't stop Mareklug to mention Libya for months in his attacks on me and this article. It just pops out in form of `oh yeah?! and what about the skewed statements from Libya?!`
We also went through Cuba million times (at least). We have the information that Fidel Castro is an elected advisor to the president of Cuba, whether anyone likes it or not. And he spoke in that capacity. Of course to Mareklug he is retired and having a rant. Well OK I could claim GWB is crazy and delusional but that would be my opinion and not a reason to tag the article with his quotes as POV.
It is sad how we allow for this user to go on with his destruction scheme over and over again. We should just maybe ignore it or reply with "Case closed." or "Been there, done that" instead of explaining these things every time Mareklug finds it appropriate to resurface them hoping it's the right time for him to get some support. But that kind of bumping up the old discussion for the sake of getting support the one didn't get previously is considered very rude and against Wiki etiquette.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:@Ian: Please don't be lazy, and don't make me recopy and paste what is already on this talkpage, albeit (wrongly) archived. Archives should only contain no longer live discussions. Isn't that so? --Mareklug talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just wanted to make the page neutral Ijanderson (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Avala: You know, your chutzpah amazes me. You falsiify reality consistently (i.e., with a bias to show off Serbia as more supported internationally than is the case, by states) in the matter of Kosovo recognition for months now, while employing every parliamentary subterfuge on Wikipedia to ostracize sanity-checking, objecting contributions of others who oppose your tendentious, non-encyclopedic activity. It is sad how we allow this user to go on with his destructive scheme, dear Avala, are your own words which most aptly apply to your edits and relative impotence of the community to effectively correct them. Why that is, I don't know. Case in pint, when Slovakia issues an official, measured state response, with a built-in out, it is "boilerplate from February", and one that you removed (with an edit summary: WP:NOTPAPER"!), not kept alongside with the content you restored (the content, I say, merely restating the official response, but which conveniently allows Avala to engage in OR and POV-crafted collages of individuals's reactions elsewhere in the article, misrepresented as state reactions, all done to his partisan cause's advantage). On the other hand, his installing and retaining in the article 17 February 2008 politician statements for Ukraine, after having blocked updating the entry for more the recent statements by Julia Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister, is all fine with Avala, and needs no revisiting. What do you say to that, Ian? Everybody else? Husond? ChrisO? What's wrong with you, people? --Mareklug talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the fact is, This article cannot be called nuetral. It is always POV in some way. The Fact is, were better off leaving that tag on.--Jakezing (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address any particular issue here. You just ask editors who don't agree with your personal attacks what is wrong with them. Is that the highest level of your contribution? You don't write anything about how you removed the whole detailed entry on Slovakia which gives us perfect insight of the position in that country. You keep mentioning "state reaction" but this article is called International reaction not state reaction. Horrible how you miss this since February, it's almost 6 months and you still can't even understand what is the title of this article. It includes all statements not just acts adopted in the parliament which could be considered a "state reaction" though statements of elected officials are very well a state reaction too. You just keep on with same (almost boiler plate as some MFA statements) statements about "What about Cuba" etc. but when someone brings arguments which prove you wrong you either go silent and wait until the discussion is archived so you can start it over or you resort to personal attacks. So if you can properly address any POV (yes POV not the content dispute) issues there might be with the countries you mentioned, do it or the tag has to go.--Avala (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we can remove the POV tag now after 3 days and no answer.--Avala (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You assume incorrectly. The collaborative effort underway has not yet fixed all the POV travesties in the write-ups of India, China nad Cuba, among others, but work is proceeding apace (Brazil, Slovakia, Ukraine, -Uruguay). You could of course lend a hand, and thus help shorten the amount of time the tag must remain in place... The article is not NPOV yet. Please look for non-Russian sources for the BRIC meeting, for example. I'm sure you can be of help, if you tried. --Mareklug talk 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborative effort does not equal your personal contribution. But anyway I will disregard your awkward commentary about travesties etc. and will go straight to the point. I have finally made a Slovakia section which includes both MFA and PM in reasonable size without old commentary about 4 month period. I have also removed some summarizations (first sentence in Bosnia which was trying to explain to the reader something he can find out himself if he reads the section), some speculations ("some Israelis" privately want to recognise Kosovo, or some official said and replaced it with a named statement), removed talk about economy and statements like "they didn't say anything about the recognition though" because that is the subject of this article and so on. So I am working and you are talking about travesties. And there are 4 sources for the RIC meeting (Brazil as you can see did not attend, at least not the ministerial day one).--Avala (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on User talk:Ijanderson977 and below: #Haiti and Uruguay. My own talk page, User talk:Mareklug, reflects more evidence of collaborative effort on Kosovo, and contains a link to a new subpage where some of us are working now. Everyone's welcome, including you, or more precisely, your editing that is nonpartisan and sourced to nonpartisan sources. The RIC meeting you sourced to 4 Russian sources. To say anymore here would be to only further repeat myself, and doing so is not strictly needed at the moment. --Mareklug talk 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia

South Ossetia don't recognize Kosovo.

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

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

Headings, revisited

Contents

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

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

Republika Srpska is a legal republic within Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's not a non-state such as Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or a disputed region such as Nagorno Karabakh. I will return the old title for that section.--Avala (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, why do you feel so, to coin a phrase, imperial, as to announce that you will return the old title, instead of discussing, as requested, the change first? In stark contrast, in a section below, an editor made such a request, and a discussion ensued -- there was a discussion, you know, a concensus-building -- which registered opposition by two other editors, with good reason.
In our case, I don't know what a "legal republic within Bosnia and Herzegovina" is supposed to signify, or why it would be significant -- are there illegal republics within Bosnia and Herzegovina that you wish to draw our attention to? Also, Sakha Republic is a legal republic within the Russian Federation, but what has that got to do with anything? Do we list for that reason Yakutia separately as recogning Abkhasia or something along those lines? I'm aware of Serbia's undermining Bosnia by negotiating directly with RS and entering into agreements with it, bu our own Wikipedia article Republika Srpska contains this telling characterization: "As it is not a state, the Republika Srpska does not have its own Internet domain name...". IMHO Non-states does a marvelously fine job of tersely covering this "legal republic" just fine, and the longer former heading does not change anthing, except multiplying bytes needlessly. Pending consensus, I restored the headings to the state shown above. You also changed another heading, this time without giving any notice; neither change carried an edit summary. Please edit more collaboratively, and please discuss potentially controversial changes when explicitly asked to do so. And please don't appear to conceal edits by leaving off edit summaries entirely. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you accuse me of doing against consensus when you were the one to change it all without discussion and no support whatsoever? If you want to change the existing scheme run a discussion here but until then you have no right to do it.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a systematic improvement as a candidate to be discussed and so far, you are the only one compelled to mess with it without getting others to agree. The fact that several other editors edited without overturning those changes or registering a ccomplaint tells me something -- and that you would trample it for no good reason. --Mareklug talk 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? I don't think it's an improvement so there you go, no consensus anymore as no one else has voiced their concerns yet. If you have a proposal you first put it here for discussion rather than "shoot then ask".--Avala (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia yet again

a draft parliamentary resolution demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence has been filed by the DPA, main opposition party. They said "Now is the real moment for this to happen. It is about time that Macedonia joins pro- western states". [12] Worth adding to the article? Ijanderson (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would we add, exactly? The DPA walked out of the Assembly after the elections, so what they do is only tangentially important right now. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should add that they have filed a draft parliamentary resolution demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence Ijanderson (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but look how much we have on the DPA already, let alone after this is added. That, combined with the Ahmeti thing, means that we have two non-government figures, who have been wrong before, equated with official statements from people who actually hold some weight. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our entire Macedonia entry is a sorry sight. Balkan Fever, pretty please, would you singlehandedly make it a lucid, fair and informative entry? It does not have to be the history of Macedonia. It only has to tell the reader where they are re: recognizing Kosovo as of today in an NPOV fashion. --Mareklug talk 12:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab countries

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

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

request for change - Non-UN member states

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

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

Oppose Partially recognised states and completely unrecognised Stated should be kept separate. Ijanderson (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same grounds as Ian.--Jakezing (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then the headings should be changed to "paritially recognised" and "completely unrecognised", because of the oddness of current headings ("non-un" and "non states"). Anyway besides recognition NKR and Transinistria ar as much states as South Ossetia and it is strange to lump them with Kashmir ("Liberation Front" organization), Chechen Republic (government in exile), Tamil Eelam (secessionist), Republika Srpska (fully-recognised sub-state entity), etc., e.g. a very diverse group of realy "non states" entities - in contrast to the much more coherent group of paritialy/fully unrecognised countries (where the only exception is the fully recognised Vatican City - but it also is covered by the "Non-UN" heading). So IMHO it is better to separate the "diverse group" as it is and just move NKR and Traninistria to the de-facto states group. Alinor (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, there are many ways to skin the cat, and, as you yourself noted, Vatican does not fit either of the categories you champion. Plus, elaborated headings tend to get out of hand and grow to ridiculous, ungainly lengths. There is something to be said for brevity. As this article deals with recognition, grouping states on the basis of recognitiion is self-evident. Viewed that way, Non-UN, Non-states captures this salient distinction nicely. As Ian already noted, there is a sea of difference between having Russia recognize you, or Turkey, with no one else, and having no one recognize your statehood at all. As the reworked headings are correct, I suggest we sit on them for a bit to see how well they work out in practice. Maybe Transnitria will gain Russia's recognition in the interim, or mabe we will jetison the Non-states altogether. Stay tuned. Best, --Mareklug talk 09:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is importance if a entity is recognised by Russia/Turkey/etc. or nobody. But what about Transinistia recognition by Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Anyway, the current lumping of NKR and Transitria, whose situation on the ground is much similar to South Ossetia (espicialy Transitria) not with it, but with some totaly different and diverse group - this is very strange and wrong IMHO. OK, they are not recognised, but their situation is totaly different than that of Tatar Mejlis or West Papua advocate groups.
Current headings are simply wrong - what are NKR and Transinistia if not states? What is the difference between Transinistia and South Ossetia (besides Russian recognition)? The simple act of recognition does not make a entity "state" - that is why we have unrecognised and recognised states. To be a state does not require outside recognition- please see Montevideo Convention: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." (both NKR and Transinistia cover all requirements - Transinistia even has diplomatic relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia), and then: " The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." That is why I oppose lumping NKR and Traninistia with the diverse group of clearly non-state entities. Lets move them to Non-UN category? Alinor (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, it is not the current headings that are simply wrong, as you say up front, but only that two states are categorized, in your view, under the wrong heading. Furthermore, you are using declarative theory of statehood to buttress your argument, in an article describing the competing constitutive theory of statehood notion of "recognition by other states". Fine, but let's be clear on what's at play. Personally, if you were to move the two "non-states" to "other states->non-UN members", I would not object, because, as you pointed out, their non-statehood is debatable, and we might as well give them the benefit of the doubt. But that's just my take on it, and two editors have objected. --Mareklug talk 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Name

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

We can easily add "2008" back into the title. [done] kwami (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would rather have International recognition of Kosovo. I believe on reconsideration it would pass, too. When can we have another RM under the rules? --Mareklug talk 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
International recognition of Kosovo is best and its much shorter and better and thats what the article is about Ijanderson (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a set time, though it's considered POV-pushing to request a move again when you lose the first time. But I agree per Ijanderson. kwami (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i suggest you do move it now to International recognition of Kosovo. Look at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo#Requested_move and you will see overwhelming support for it. So please move the article name Ijanderson (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was closed because there was no consensus so the status quo has to remain for a reasonable time now. A few months.--Avala (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was for a different name. I think, Kwami, that you can't in good faith equate the two proposed names, the one that actually failed and the shorter one never subjected to an RM and advocated in this thread by three editors (myself, Ian and yourself). Plus, the situation is continually evolving, and, dare I say, the editor who is opposing here, and is claming the status quo must remain in place "a few months" (!) made a meal of the proceedings, injecting a proposed split and making claims of all sorts about how other articles are being renamed to "reaction"... but the fact is, after the dust cleared, that a) they aren't -- they are all at "recognition", and b) as Ian noted, it is the most apt name for the article. So, aren't we allowed to suggest it formally under an RM procedure for the first time ever? I want some experienced admin opinions in the matter, please, no partisan voices on either side (and I consider myself one -- as far as the move goes; I consider myself nonpartisan on article content). --Mareklug talk 06:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't only about recognition, but other reactions aswell... Don't see the need to move. — chandler — 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. After content changes, this article is strictly about recognition, or lack of it, or cases where extending recognition is unclear or a matter of interpretation. For starters, the article ascribes reactions to states, and in diplomacy, that equates with recognition. Yes, there is a lot of POV content debauching from the true and narrow, but we are fixing it. We also included the recognitions or lack of it from several non-states (dubious) and organisations of states, with the sole exception being UNPO, an organisation of peoples denied statehood, yet who pursue it. Ergo, the article is strictly supposed to reveal international recognition. But I asked for neutral admins's opinions, Chandler. With all due respect, your edits on the map legend over many months and your user page show you to be neither. --Mareklug talk 07:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...What on my user page makes me not neutral? What "map legend" edits over many months are you even talking about? You can see my edits too this article here [14][15][16] If you're referring to discussions about removing albanian names from maps shown in infoboxes, I should inform you that I'm for removing not only albanian names, but english, serbian or any language as that's the standard for every other country/region what ever you want to call it. So I don't see what you're coming from. — chandler — 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I accept that. The ref. to your user page meant only to indicate that you are not an administrator. :) This could have been stated more directly. And I did misremember your edits, attributing to you someone else's repeated switching "Other states" to some unwieldy text emphasizing the gray-marked worlds as being against Kosovo. I'm sorry for that. --Mareklug talk 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia

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

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

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

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

Macedonia to recognise on 23rd Sept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmm. Macedonian media says that Priština sources say that it will happen on the 25th this month, but Deputy Prime Minister (for EU integration - I think) Ivica Bocevski apparently replied that recognition will come if it suits national interest. No direct quote though. [18] Probably best to wait. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 00:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech MFA web page listing the embassy in Pristina: [24], [25]. — Emil J. 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

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

Change reference 53 with [1] --Avala (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change reference 88 with [2] --Avala (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after achieving consensus.  Sandstein  19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to it, also Sandstein didn't wait long enough Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, the editprotect request is unnecessarily onerous: it should have been done as a text pattern-for-text pattern replacement. Whether a reference is 53th or 88th is lost on anyone editing. To figure out what to replace from this relative reference numbering, which is not visible when editing, invites a difficult to correct mistake. --Mareklug talk 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Declined. Please make the request more specific, as per Mareklug above, and do not strike out my comments.  Sandstein  19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Switzerland and Czech R. - edit request

{{editprotected}}

  • "xinhua embassies" ref: [3]

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

| 19 ||  Switzerland[4] || 2008-02-27 || Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina from 28 March 2008[5]
Embassy of Kosovo in Bern (to open)[3]||

with

| 19 ||  Switzerland[6] || 2008-02-27 || Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina from 28 March 2008[7][8]
Embassy of Kosovo in Bern (to open)[3]||

and replace

| 41 ||  Czech Republic[9] || 2008-05-21 || Embassy of the Czech Republic in Pristina from 16 July 2008[10][11]
For details see: Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence || European Union EU member state
NATO member state

with

| 41 ||  Czech Republic[12] || 2008-05-21 || Embassy of the Czech Republic in Pristina from 16 July 2008[13][14]
For details see: Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence || European Union EU member state
NATO member state

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

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

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

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

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

Haiti and Uruguay

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

Your two edits (and the minor edit by somebody else that followed) are a revert of activity of user:Avala.
Upon further examination of his hidden massive changes made by Avala, I was forced to roll back the article to an earlier state before his latest edits. Contrary to egregious editing practices by Avala, I clearly marked my edit so that it is readily apparent what I did by inspecting the history.
Avala only uses edit summaries sporadically, when it suits him, and then, often misleadingly, as in the case of his latest Brazil edit, where he quoted the Brazilian title from the Brazilian source (a minor website), while attributing this content (in a paraphrase) to the Foreign Minister. But it is not anything the minister said himself. This edit is a reprise of a longstanding fabrication by the same user in the same Brazil write-up, using the same minor Brazilian source (as opposed to English statements from the Brazilian MFA readinly available on its web page). This particular source has been translated in full into English by the native speaker/admin Husond and argued to death (see the archives). This recidivism makes it very difficult to assume good faith. I am rather inclined to assume intransignet partisanship as chronically demonstrated, and an apparent inability to edit Wikipedia reliably and neutrally in the matter of Kosovo by this user. Perhpaps he should avail himself of other articles in need of his expertise and leave this one to persons not engaged emotionally in the topic.
For the latest example of his editorial damage, consider his obliteration of statements ascribed to an Israeli Foreign Ministry official. He replaced them with a more pro-Serbia sounding quote, attributed to a mere parliamentarian, member of the Israeli parliament, while sourcing her say to a ...Russian domain source (Russia is a partisan country in this dispute). This is simply outrageous behavior, and I call everybody's attention to it.
Other changes made by Avala included removing Haiti altogether, because Uruguay was removed. ??? He also removed in these edits the new NPOV characterization of Slovakia arrived by editors working off-article, claiming that the new summary was somehow constituting WP:OR (the entire encyclopedia consists of texts written by wikipedians -- and this does not make them automatically "original research"). He then proceeded to abridge and paraphrase this Slovakia MFA statement, which was deliberately cited by Ian and myself in full, precisely because it is short yet nuanced and complex, and admiting Slovakia certain outs from its initial position, characterized by the MFA as pertaining to the basis of the declaration only, what with other factors implied to be considered when they happen. Above all, it is a monolithic, official state reaction, and Avala altered its meaning while paraphrasing it, his POV, and returned media snippets by individual politicians that he himself crafted into a collage, again, to reflect his POV. And this is editing of Avala is not OR?
I am, again, disgusted by how Avala is editing for Serbia, and not for Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen you just vandalised the article big way and could be a reason for a permanent block. Just take a look at things you destroyed from various wikification corrections etc. You know what you did and you very well know you wouldn't like an admin to see that but they will. I think everyone had it with your little destructions.

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

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

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

I cant be bothered saying why each or your edits are POV. But you are selectively choosing quotes to suit your POV, you have removed parts which don't suit your POV and you have silly reasonings for your POV edits to make them seem NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No broad comments please. How is it POV from my side to remove a nonworking reference and find a new one or to wikify a name or to expand an outdated section which Mareklug tried to forcefully look like it is the last information we have or to find a source or to add a fact template where its missing or to fix the sentence which has no meaning because the dot is at the wrong spot or reorder to have the statement by the president above the we took note statement from the spokesman etc.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but since I reverted your massive edit, I have corrected some of the reference keeping parts, which i accidentally removed. I was not referring to the reference edits been POV, I was on about your POV Slovakia, BiH, Iran, Mozambic, removing parts of Armenia and removal of Bahrain edits. Ijanderson (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you put the "We took note and will decide soon" in countries which have done so afterwards I will be tempted to re-add the "George W. Bush took note of the independence of Kosovo" because that is how much sense it makes.--Avala (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Mozambique? I wikified it, removed summarization and put the statement into one block instead of the journalistic break.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it fun to make it harder for us to remove POV, by adding in NPOV with the same edit as the POV? Makes it so we can't undo the edits without it being vandalism.--Jakezing (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jakezing touched the essence, here. The rollback was necessary each time it occured (by me and Ian), because Avala intermixed some NPOV edits and harmful POVizations in a sequence of edits without helpful edit summaries. (he has been cautioned on his talk page by other editors not involved on Kosovo for doing the same thing.) Now, here, he disingenously lists his good work, having enshrined since baseless accusations of "malicious" "vandalism" in two edit summaries that occured before the proection imposed by user:Husond. The upshot is, we, the bad editors, threw away good edits. If he is doing such good work, why is it being protested for months now? --Mareklug talk 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV edit request - Cuba

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

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

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

|- |  Cuba || Cuba has not issued an official position regarding the independence of Kosovo[15] [16] [17]. 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.[18] No Caribbean state has gone on record officially to embrace, oppose or even react to Kosovo's independence, according to a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement made in April.[19] ||

Thanks. I now fully support the amendment. You're probably right that St Kitts referred to Cuba in their statement - my point being that we don't know that for certain. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support/oppose - remove the OR "Cuba has not issued an official position regarding the independence of Kosovo." which has no reference next to it and I will support.--Avala (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NO. That description is the central truth, and a necesary correction to your OR. Please recolor Cuba away from red to something else on your Commons maps, rather. We can certainly substantiate this description of realiy with a link to theh Cuban MFA website (maintanined in Spanish and English), which would source it. In general, all characterizations summarizing the actual, true situation re: state recogition of Kosovo by these countries is exactly what is needed, and their absence is what is wrong with the present content -- which you authored. Your demand to remove them as OR is ridiculous. It is obviously not shared by any other editor (so far), and they are all nonpartisan editors AFAIK. --Mareklug talk 11:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that sentence is not OR I assume you can provide a normal reference to support the claim instead of a hysterical "NO."?--Avala (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. DiplomacyMonitor.com shows zero Cuban traffic with "Kosovo" string searches. The same data base shows also zero traffic in the subject matter of Kosovo with "Cuba" searches. The MFA for Cuba shows no Kosovo statements in either English or Spanish dating after the declaration of independence. Several official statements, including ones by Castro, about Kosovo, exist from 2007 and earlier. The website is continually updated in both languages. How would you source the Wikipedian text: "The earth is not flat."? Is that OR as well? --Mareklug talk 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well your references would work in a version like this:

|- |  Cuba || Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba has not issued an official statement regarding the independence of Kosovo[20] [21] [22], however in a newspaper article, Fidel Castro, ex-President and the current foreign policy advisor to Raul Castro, writing unofficially, attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[18] ||

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{editprotect}}

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


☒N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after achieving consensus. Such consensus is not yet apparent below.  Sandstein  19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When questioned, the administrator Sandstein explained::The problem is that you made the request too early. What you should do is first propose an edit, second wait a few days for objections to appear or consensus to be established, and third make an {{editprotected}} request. If you make the request too early, it may be rejected. Please try again.  Sandstein  11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Therefore, editors, please continue to respond and we will resubmit this, if consensus becomes more pronounced. --Mareklug talk 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
new content is

|- |  People's Republic of China || People's Republic of China has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favorable conditions for that".[23][24] On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since: "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[25][26][27][28] || United Nations permanent member of the UNSC

  • Support --Mareklug talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marek Ijanderson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - let alone that even the spelling in this proposal is wrong but "read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" doesn't mean anything. Did you ever see a EU 27 ministers reading the same statement one by one in their language? No it's only the presiding one that reads, today Bernard Kouchner. Also oppose "People's Republic of China has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo." because it must have the Template:who next to it - who says that? what is "final" position? --Avala (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know -- and several other ediors made this point already (this discussion is archived): Neither China nor India have ever officially referred to Kosovo as "Serbian territory", after Kosovo's declaration of independence (17 Feb 2008). This fact should raise a red flag in the mind of any observer or encyclopedia writer. This curious document, purportedly reflecting the official policy of three countries, reads more and more with the passage of time as a Russian propaganda document, merely endured in silence by the two other countries. And since then, ignored. Because, neither China nor India have produced official traffic congruent with the terminology used in this curious document. It is out of character for the Chinese, who are nototriously cautious and gravely concerned. The Indians tend to remain silent. Their MFA traffic on Kosovo is muted, cautious and ambivalent.
    And here is further evidence of recognition-related dissonace arising between the rough Russians and the crafty Chinese, as the diplomatic situation radically changes, in wake of the Russo-Georgian war and its diplomatic aftermath:

    China also objected to Russia's attempt to use a Chinese-dominated regional body, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to endorse its recognition of the rebel Georgian regions, Tsang said. Beijing has always insisted the grouping, which met last week in Tajikistan, is not a political alliance and doesn't pose a threat to any other nation or multilateral institution.

    "It's not meant to rebuke Russia as much as it is to show the world that the SCO under Chinese stewardship is a constructive force," Tsang said.

    -- from: International Herald Tribune (a respected neutral world press newspaper, "China could gain from Russian moves on Georgia", 3 September 2008.
    In sum, your opposition, POV-based as it is and defending your own edits which the community wishes to overturn, consists of you giving undue weight to a singular, outdated communique issued at a conference. It violates WP:VER and Common Sense, also a Wikipedia guideline (WP:COMMON). Your opposition to the proposed NPOV improvements is not a roadblock to the demonstrated consensus, per those Wikipedia policies. I am turning on the editprotect request. --Mareklug talk 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh you just gave "evidence" regarding Abkhazia and Ossetia, not Kosovo. Look further, we wont accept that as a source for this. Also they were not silent, they actually made a statement - [26] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. I wonder how many time this needs to be repeated? --Avala (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events shown, including the recently made statement quoted above re: Abkhasia/South Ossetia (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), the demostrated reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically since the RIC statement, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt, more NPOV China

Please replace China with this version.

|- |  People's Republic of China || The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favorable conditions for that".[29][30] On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position: "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[25][26][27][28] || United Nations permanent member of the UNSC

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

  • Support - and remove "purportedy" which is dragging through all proposals, I can't find that in a dict. and purportedly which is the intended word I suppose is kind of POV. I think we should put "At a press conference the host minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the media with what he presented as a joint statement" --Avala (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Must you be obtuse? Fix the typo and be done with it. Purportedly is exactly right, because this joint statement has never been sourced to the official issue by Chinese People's Republic or India. So we don't really have any collaboration that it is what you claim it is. And, neither China or India has ever, ever on its own called Kosovo "Serbian territory", as the Russian Minister did. Which is why we have a reason to think that this allegedly joint communique is somewhat less representative of the norm you so harp on. I fixed the typo.--Mareklug talk 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This makes no sense. The central NEED is to state unequivocally that China has not yet issued a recognition or denial of recognition of Kosovo's independence, unlike Russia. That's the gist of it. And that is also what Avala lies about on his commons maps, whre India and China are shown as having offically rejected Kosovo just like Russia and Serbia have. For that matter, he has many other countries represented that way, so don't be surprised that he is objecting here. We threw out (several editors did; Avala was reverting this) Uruguay as worthless information, but on the basis of this information, even now (I looked), Avala has painted Uruguay red (officially rejected Kosovo independence) on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png. So -- I ask all editor and readers to take a correction on all the claims being put forth here by Avala and examine his use of this article -- off article, in other Wikimedia constructs. --Mareklug talk 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? They made a statement - [27] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. And stop talking about the map which is not used here. It's turning into an obsession but is also off topic.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If i remember, China never actuly did say they didn't recognize, or i haven't read the article for a while... China is part of that group who is just not wanting to say they didn't, trying to be "neutral", a 3rd door, in a 2-door-only problem. Oppose. --Jakezing (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NPOV edit request - India

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

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

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

|- |  India || India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. Official communique of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is cautious and ambiguous: "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[31] On the other hand, statements ascribed by the Serbian media over the months to the Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby are pro-Serbia:

  • "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."
  • 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".[32]
  • 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".[33]

On 15 May 2008 foreign ministers of India, Russia and China met in Ekaterinburg in Russia. The host minister, Sergey Lavrov read a statement purportedly reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since: "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[25][26][27][28] ||

  • Support --Mareklug talk 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Marek Ijanderson (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - let alone that even the spelling in this proposal is wrong but "read a statement purportedy reflecting their joint position, phrased in language not used by India or China elsewhere before or since" doesn't mean anything. Did you ever see a EU 27 ministers reading the same statement one by one in their language? No it's only the presiding one that reads, today Bernard Kouchner. Also oppose "India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo.." because it must have the Template:who next to it - who says that? what is "final" position? Do we know that they are going for some kind of finalization in this case I suppose recognition? And with the ambassador statement remove "On the other hand" and "are pro-Serbia" and just write "Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby made following statements" --Avala (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spelling fixed. Fixing spelling is least of all requiring opposing, and can be and should be done automatically without comment. You are not displahying good faith. As noted under China, India never called officially in its own words Kosovo "Serbian territory". We have good reasons to discount the genuine value of this communique -- made on Russian terms, in Russia and not ever replicated officially by China or India, from what we can detect in the internet -- as being good evidence of Chinese or Indian policy. --Mareklug talk 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They made a statement - [28] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. So you saying that they didn't is OR because you can't provide a single source to back up you claim and all the sources including a video show them making this statement together but indeed only one of them, the host minister, reads it instead of them reading it in a choir or one by one which is never seen.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt, more NPOV India

Please replace India with this version.

|- |  India || India has yet to come up with a final position regarding the independence of Kosovo. Official communique of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is cautious and ambiguous: "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[34] However Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby has said the following; "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."; On 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".[35] and on the 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".[36]

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

How about this:

|- |  India | Official communique of the Foreign Ministrz issued in February said "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation. It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[37] In later months Indian Ambassador in Serbia Ajay Swarupby has said the following; "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries."; On 19 June 2008: "Kosovo can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".[38] and on the 31 July 2008: "India abides by the principles of international law and does not recognise Kosovo's secession".[39]

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

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

    • They made a statement - [29] - "In our statement ..." - OUR statement, not MY statement. So you saying that they didn't is OR because you can't provide a single source to back up you claim and all the sources including a video show them making this statement together but indeed only one of them, the host minister, reads it instead of them reading it in a choir or one by one which is never seen.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one, and no proposed edit, denies, that a statment in the name of China/India etc. has been made at that conference in Russia. However, subsequent events (including a complete lack of similar language -- "this Russian territory: -- being issued by India or China since), and events in the world demonstrating reluctance of either China or India to follow Russian suit diplomatically, all call for caution in assessing importance of this singular communique for either the Chinese or Indian reaction in the long run. It should be Chinese official sources and Indian official sources that are given most weight. The proposed NPOVisation for either country does not eliminate reporting this event, it just seeks to remove the undue weight per WP:VER and WP:NPOV that YOU attached to it. And your sourcing of only the Russian sources for this communique is further cause for reticence in giving it so much weight. Your opposition to balancing the weight given in the article to this event is therefore without merit. --Mareklug talk 14:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Arab League

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

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

Here is a link. [[30]] 84.134.97.116 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article Title

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

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

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

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

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

So do I, Robert. Let's start a formal WP:RM. Your turn. :) This name was never proposed formally, so I don't see it as trying twice. --Mareklug talk 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a vote, what kind of formality did you want?--Avala (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a vote concerning a move to some other name. There has never been a vote concerning renaming in particular to International recognition of Kosovo. I don't recall any implied restriction, that there shall never be another vote to move the article under any name whatsoever containing the word "recognition". This is the formal vote I and Robert want to see: Should this article be best retitled: international recognition of Kosovo? --Mareklug talk 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an eminently sensible title to me. Bazonka (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mareklug, this was your proposal which you put on vote (you called it a survey): "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence → International recognition of Kosovo independence". It did not get enough support even including some variations. That vote was so recent that it is still on this page, it's not archived. I seriously don't understand what are you proposing here today? I hope it has got nothing to do with inability to accept the fact that the proposal did not get sufficient support. Obviously if there was no support for change so recently (whatever of the variations) it's rude to put it on vote again now. --Avala (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avala, you interfered in that vote, first of all, by creating chaos, making claims about us having to wait for the other article being renamed, or having all of these articles under a common name, and what not. You then proceeeded to muddy the issue by proposing an article split in during the vote, as a subvote. In all, you made a meal of it. And meanwhile, the other article in question (A. and SO.) happens to have settled on the short form proposed here for Kosovo. So, by your logic, we should change ours to match it.
Furthermore, the title Robert proposed and Bazonka just now endorsed (in addition to me, Kwami and other editors) is the best title, and should be considered on its own merits by all editors.
"I hope it has got nothing to do with inability to accept the fact that the states you keep marked on Commons maps as having officially rejected independent Kosovo, in reality haven't.
Obviously, it hurts Wikipedia to keep the best title from being voted on. --Mareklug talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, we don't all agree. The difference between "...2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and "...2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo" is practically nothing. What's the point of changing that? We should either leave it as it is, or change it to the succinct "International recognition of Kosovo". Don't waste our time with pettiness. Bazonka (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original title "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" is grammatically incorrect, that's why it was changed. Kosovo is not an adjective. — Emil J. 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greece to recognize Kosovo

See [31]. M.M.S. (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We can't really add anything because this source is from Thaçi, not Greece. However this source is useful for Kosovo passports. Maybe Greece will recognise. US recently said it supports Greece over the MKD naming dispute, so this might be Greece returning the favor. But until we get s source quoting Greek officials or from Greek Govt sites, we can't really add this information. Ijanderson (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to Kosovo, but when did the US say it supports Greece? BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 12:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an older source on Greece [32] Ijanderson (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful thinking on Thaci's part. The Greek foreign ministry has said: "There is the basic principle of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states. Based on this principle – which is of long-standing importance to, and is a fundamental constant of, the Greek foreign policy of all Greek governments – Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." Link here =[33] . --Tocino 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source which Tocino has kindly provided for us, is older than that current Thaçi source. Also since then Greece has decided to recognise Kosovo passports. Tocino, you will have to keep up to date with things mate Ijanderson (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thaci also said that 100 countries would recognize within a month of the declaration. He seems delusional, and besides he does not speak on behalf of Greece.--Tocino 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know he was rather optimistic, its a bit like the Abkhazian President saying he expects all the nations which have recognised Kosovo to recognise Abkhazia lol. Also I have already pointed out that he does not speak on the behalf of Greece. Ijanderson (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After all the tiptoeing for months, a few weeks ago Greek MFA has finally said that they will not recognise Kosovo. Not that anyone expected them to but it only took them a while to say it openly. Also their FM has recently said that Greek participation in EULEX is regarding regional stability and security and that it certainly does not imply recognition.
Regarding Thaci and his internal populist statements that get translated to the wider audience - "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" (8 Feb)[34] or "in a not so distant future our neighboring state Serbia will recognize Kosovo" (19 Aug)[35] --Avala (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Greece is a traditional ally of Serbia, especially Milosevic's regime, so no surprise there. However, the fact that it took them so long to say something, and only in a quiet way means that they're not really for it, but are kind of waiting for the right moment, so to speak. Essentially and especially if the UN forces Macedonia to finally accept a name-resolution. Greece will not recognize immediately, but it will certainly not veto any EU role in Kosovo. Like Slovakia, or Spain or any of these 'international law defenders' that have oppressed and repressed minorities that don't want to live with them. --alchaemia (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had oppressed and repressed our minorities? Stop talking about somthing you don´t know nothing about. You´ll hardly find any country that gave bigger or equal right its minorities than Slovakia.
What kind of disinformation is that, Avala? You recently told us that Macedonia was not proceeding with Kosovo border demarcation according to the Ahtisaari Plan, but to some treaty from 1974 instead, and that prooved to be just a lie which I debunked with a quote from Macedonian MFA official printed by Macedonian press.
And here is the latest on Serbian FM meeting with the Greek FM in Athens before they all congregate at the UN in New York ...and nothing on Kosovo being Serbian came out of it. Instead, a very noncommital Greek position, suitable for recognizing Kosovo at a drop of a hat, was delineated by the FM. The Greek FM said today, that the Greek policy does not at all depend on which regime governs Kosovo. Very telling. There was no statement of support by Greece for Serbia on Kosovo. Only on helping getting Serbia to join EU: "Serbian FM in Athens", ANA.gr, 11 September 2008. --Mareklug talk 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I expect an apology for saying that I lied. I did not lie, it was the Kosovo press which wrote about it and Macedonian MFA refuted it later - [36]. Secondly of all I expect an apology for saying that what I wrote is a misinformation because Greek MFA issued a statement saying "Greece >did not< recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia." and their FM today said that Greek involvement in EULEX ">certainly does not< imply recognition" and that they want their presence to "contribute to stability and security in the region." So please check the facts before you go on a rampage of accusations, you have already been warned against personal attacks and refactoring comments of other users on talk pages.--22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovar press certainly did report that; no less than the national television, RTK itself. --alchaemia (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? That Serbia is recognising, that 100 countries will do it in February or that Greece is doing it? Thaci said a lot of things so I am not sure which one are you referring to.--Avala (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avala, first of all, below is a bloquote of what you wrote, with the surrponding context, and you never reacted when challenged, until now:

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

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

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

A lie is a lie. Maybe we should thank you for spreading them without any attribution? This is disinformation, plain and simple. Next time, source your "they", esp. when asked to do so.
I checked my facts, and you still haven't sourced your Greek MFA statement, whereas I gave a link to ANA.gr of TODAY. So, unless you are prepared to give us verbatim Greek or English from the Greek MFA, where they claim supporting Serbian Kosovo, you still are just making partisan claims.
You are the only user who is hellbent on beautifying my talk page with your warnings (in an attempt to have me banned as a result of accrued warnings), and running to admin Husond to have me blocked/banned. I suppose such Wikilove is to be endured. I must be a thorn in your propagandistic activities in matters Kosovo. Else you wouldn't bother. Fellow editors and readers of this page, please take note of Avala's activity to rid Wikipedia of opposition to his edits. --Mareklug talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a lie but misinformation by Kosovo media. Stop with your personal attacks already. Oh the source for the Greek MFA statement is there and it's official, not some ANA.grs and TODAYs. You just need to click on it. Your idea that I completely made up those quotes in my previous comment is ludicrous.--Avala (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give my neutrality on this dispute, I will give my opinion later once when this discussion has developed further, I kind of agree with both arguments. Regards. Ijanderson (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ian. Avala is repeating lies and working on removing opposition on one hand, and Kosovan media are spreading disinformation. Even I am neutral in that dispute. :)
Avala says: "It's not a lie, it's misinformation". Hah hah hah ahahhaahhah. Listen, Avala. How on God's green earth is the reader to know that Kosovan media made this particular lie up, and not you, when it is you who wrote it on this page, not the Kosovoan media, and it is you, who made it seem like something THE MACEDONIANS HAVE CLAIMED -- see the context, quoted above. You didn't provide a source, as to who said it, you just wrote "They". When asked, you did nothing for more than a week! And, now, instead of giving us the asked for link to the Greek MFA allegedly supporting Serbian Kosovo, you engage in WP:POINT by linking Point-and-click and piping that to the word "click". What kind of editing is that?
And, to be precise, it is not my idea that you made up those quotes, only, that you disinformed us on their basis, without giving links when asked. Which you continue to do even right now in the matter of Greek support for Serbian Kosovo!
Since you imply as ludicrous the very idea of you ever making anything up, why did you make up the international fact of Uruguay having officially rejected Kosovo's independence? You persist in representing this fiction to this day. Clearly, on this basis, you are not above making things up on Wikimedia projects. You have a track record of making things up. Which, to be frank, boggles the mind, as you are an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia. I would think that the Serbian Wikipedia WP:bureaucrat or steward would be upset to learn that his admin uploads time and time again a map with Uruguay marked falsely (as having already officially rejected Kosovo), after first spreading a rumor about the purported unlikeliness of Kosovo recognition by Uruguay according to anonymous sources. And parking that on the English Wikipedia in a visible place. A rumor, which other editors have finally removed over Avala's reverts! Surely, introducing and sticking by bogus content, even after the bogosity was pointed out by editors -- by an admin -- is grounds for desysopping him, as causing detriment of Wikimedia projects? What do you think? Should we find out? Here is evidence of your, forgive me, lies: your last upload of this map was performed on 5 September 2008, and Uruguay is still red, and you even managed to color Greece ALREADY the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg How can we trust any of your edits in this article, if you do lie about Kosovo recognition elsewhere? --Mareklug talk 00:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know that map is not called "official rejections" and there is a source to backup that Uruguayan media were told in the Government, that Uruguay will not recognise because of some pillars of recognition they follow. Simple as that. You still insist that this article and that map are not about the various reactions from all over the world but specifically and only about officials acts adopted regarding Kosovo which is wrong. This article is not about it OK, it's about any reaction not only official documents regarding Kosovo because it would only have one section then - the one about countries that recognise.--Avala (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's a news report by ANA.gr which says "Eulex did not imply recognition for any regime." but reading the transcripts the Greek FM actually said that "does not imply recognition". So the journalist completely made up the part "for any regime", the Greek FM didn't even use the word regime at all in any part of the conference.--Avala (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Precisely the link (and information) I gave. The reports of Greece having ALREADY officially rejected Kosovo's independence AFAIK comprise Serbian propaganda and Serbian media reports (what have I been saying about sticking to WP:VER and WP:NPOV in sourcing for this article?), locally propagated as fact by Avala. This is a major loss of credibility, my friends. Coloring Greece (among several other states without any basis) as having already rejected Kosovo is flagrant OR and a lie. --Mareklug talk 04:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's so hysterical that you have now even called the quote from the Greek MFA "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia" - OR and lie. But it's not, it was really said by their MFA spokesperson last week or so when he was asked about the Russian recognition of Georgian breakaway regions. He said that they have consistent policy of respect for the territorial integrity and independence of states and that based on that principle "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia". I want your apology for implicating how I made up this quote, how it is a flagrant lie and what not.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't color Greece anything. I personally think it is almost to the point where I think no sources from Serbia or Kosovo should be used in order to figure out who said what. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's only Mareklug who is making these claims. In reality there is a perfectly fine Greek source for that quote, official source that is.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow this proposal (banning Serbian and Kosovo Albanian sources) then we need to get rid of Sierra Leone, Belize, Bangladesh, and Haiti because all of their sources are Kosovo Albanian. --Tocino 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And those are part of the nations that people keep on having issues with their statements, so the sooner the article is rid of those, the better. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should also get rid of Libya, Angola, etc., because those either have a Serb source or are are direct quotes from Jeremic who certainly has a dog in the race. And Avala, to answer your question, RTK reported that the demarcation is going according to the 1974 cadastre and borders, not the Macedonia-Serbia agreement which I think is correct as the previously unsatisfied villagers on the Kosovo side are pretty satisfied with how demarcation is going on. I think Macedonia is just putting a spin on it, as it wants it done ASAP but does not want its people to know that it's making concessions. --80.80.170.114 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do not remove anything. Neither Sierra Leone or Libya. Work on finding better sources if you wish but keep these as they are.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally won't remove anything, since my opinion is going to run this article. I just still personally feel we should get our statements either from papers outside of both Serbia and Kosovo and use statements from the government's themselves. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we already agreed to try to find 3rd party sources but if there are no 3rd party sources then we are certainly not going to ignore the ones that we have. For an example in situation that Nauru recognises Kosovo, world media doesn't find it interesting and Nauru media is not very developed so we will use Kosovo media which reported on it. Case to case basis, simple as that. I've already told Ijanderson that this article is far from complete because countries that have a position didn't really report on it. For an example Kuwait has Arabic only MFA website and even if they had a reaction apart from that of Ambassadors we missed it for that reason.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the case of Nauru, even http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ sources Nauru with a link to the replicated text of the official letter from the Nauru UN Mission in New York to the President of Kosovo, as displayed by the President of Kosovo's official web page. It is not an opinion or assessment by the MFA of Kosovo, or an opinion of the President, just a copy of the letter as it apparently was written. But we link instead to http://www.kosovopresss.com/ . Perhaps it is convenient for some editors to have the article use bogus Kosovo press links as its sources, because these editors can then point to them, when NPOV editors question bogus Serbian press sources: http://www.B92.net or Tanjung (the former often simply reprints dispatches of the latter), and others like it. There is absolutely no reason to keep kosovopress.com sourcing a thing in this article! Ditto for the Serbian press as it relates to third countries. And the propagandistic spew of the Serbian Foreign Ministry and its propagandizing Minister -- c'mon, one would have to be blinded by partisanship to think it acceptable in light of WP:VER, especially in an article about who rejected Kosovo indepenence -- as sole sourcing! Will the Serbian MFA present the world with this information neutrally and professionally? Who here thinks so? Wikipedia rules are clear on this score: bogus content and content with bogus sources must be removed. That an admin would tell us otherwise tells us something valuable about the admin... and the believability of this article. Instead of fixing hte artile, we were subjected to a campaign to remove the POV template and unmarked reverts of attempted NPOVization, directly causing the article to be locked. --Mareklug talk 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should be a bit more constructive, you know. And regarding Nauru, I most sincerely doubt that they made a recognition decree in Albanian language. But you present it as an original letter. According to the logic from your last sentence - why should we trust the Kosovo President that this letter is real anyway? I mean Nauru press of MFA never published this information so it's bogus right? And I am still waiting for you to apologize or explain why did you call a quote I presented regarding Greece a lie and OR.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I called your quoted-in-context-it-was written bit about Macednia a lie (I believe the original is still unarchived and sits on this page, above), and I called a lie your coloring Greece and Uruguay (among others) red as allegedly having rejected Kosovo independence (that meaning of red is given by the map legend, not me) on the maps you authored and update: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png. And, I pointed out your useless linking in contravention of WP:POINT the word "click" to the article Point-and-click, instead of what I asked you to link: the official Greek MFA statement (in Greek or English) puportedly recognizing Kosovo as Serbian. Still waiting... And now you speculate that the President of Kosovo's official website falsifies offical letters addressed to him: These letters may have translated from English dispatches, or, as we know in the case of a Catalonian letter written and sourced on the Catalonian page, it may have been written in the original in Albanian as a matter of courtesy. However, you don't question the Serbian MFA and his MFA site, actively campaigning and agitating, not informing impartially of content of texts received. Since you can't tell the difference between one activity and the other, I agree that expecting neutral editing from you is optimistic. But, perhaps my continued showcasing of your partisan edits, and of your inaccurate account of the content of the discussion -- as in your claims of what I called a lie -- might change your ways. You see, I am assuming good faith. --Mareklug talk 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all your assumption of the Serbian MFA is wrong. They often publish counter statements, even by Kosovo president. For an example SEJDIU REJECTS SOME OSCE CRITICISM or SEJDIU: MEETING WITH TADIC ONLY WITH MEDIATORS and so on. But I assume you didn't know their policy to publish all news so I don't mind your comments. But what I do mind is that you object the Greek MFA quote "Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia" without any grounds as if you were right and everyone else was crazy. If Mareklug says Greeks didn't say that then it's gotta be true, they've got to revert that statement because Mareklug didn't like it? Now that is a fiction forum material but we here deal with facts and the only verifiable fact is not the POV of users but sources and the source says that they did indeed say that they didn't recognise Kosovo and even cited reason for not doing it and made their position clear on other separatist regions as well. I really don't see why do you keep objecting facts. Maybe you dislike their essence but they are still here and they are still facts. --Avala (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Herew's another source for Belize:

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

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

Has Macedonia already recognised???

Whilst looking for a Greek source on their potential recognition, I across the following article: [37]. This states that "The recognition of Kosovo by FYROM should make Pristina act similarly and recognise FYROM’s constitutional name, the FYROM President said Wednesday". This is a bit ambiguous, but could be interpreted as that they've already recognised Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, not sure yet if it's Branko or Nikola, said that first Kosovo would have to recognise Macedonia's constitutional name before recognition could possibly come. Fatmir and Hashim are apparently angry. Source is Macedonian, sorry. A1 BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is in English: MKRTV. This site is a good source if you're looking for developments. That is, when it isn't down, which is quite often. Still working on putting a name to the quote. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia hasn't recognised yet. Here is a source saying there will be no pre-conditions for Kosovo in return for recognition. Ijanderson (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Ian, now we have quotes. However, I'm not really sure if we should take the Deputy's word over the President's...BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 12:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, if there's anything we could possibly add to the entry, it's Crvenkovski's quote, which affirms what he said about national interests. Either way, nothing has actually changed, since demarcation hasn't finished and the 23rd/25th hasn't arrived yet. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got any sources to prove this, but I read that Macedonia would recognise after the boarder things is 100% complete and that Montenegro would do a coordinated recognition with Macedonia, so that Belgrade won't focus its single attention on either of the nations, so it would make it easier for both nations to recognise together rather than separately. Also Montenegro has admitted that its coming under pressure from western European nations and the US to recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have a lot of sources saying that Macedonia intends to recognise Kosovo, so should we move Macedonia to "imminent recognisers"? Ijanderson (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonia to recognise Kosovo sources [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not the question of liking or disliking. It's the difference between facts and imagination.--Avala (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, i cant speak Macedonian, so I interpreted "Косово против условувањата од Македонија" wrong. But still "Kosovo against blackmailing by Macedonia" is referring to Kosovo recognising MKD's constitutional name instead of FYROM in return for recognition. So this still refers to MKD intending to recognise Kosovo. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well surely it's all related to the issue but when we talk about this article in particular it bears little significance.--Avala (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Косово против условувањата од Македонија" does not mean 'Kosovo against blackmailing by Macedonia.' It means 'Kosovo against conditions by Macedonia' or 'Kosovo against further conditions by Macedonia.' --alchaemia (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it bears significance to the article, it is about Macedonia wanting something from Kosovo in return for recognition Ijanderson (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but we still don't have the Macedonian officials coming out with this as a fully official proposal. It's all still too unofficial, rumours etc. Anyway 23 Sep is coming soon so we'll see. Perhaps if Macedonia really gets the new name on Sep 24 they will not impose this request on Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. its been rumored that Macedonia is to recognise between 23 and 25 Sept. So lets wait till then beofer updating Macedonia Ijanderson (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, definitely no recognition yet. The current entry adequately reflects the situation IMO (although I am a tad biased since I wrote it ;) ). Again, if anyone thinks Crvenkovski's quote about the constitutional name should go in, speak up. BTW, who is this anon? S/he is a bit annoying. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it is safe to assume that Macedonia has no final plan at this moment and that this is the reason of all the confusion and stalling.--Avala (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and now, IP 84 has surpassed tocino in how annoying he was on POv.--Jakezing (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Archive Boxes at the top are gone

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

I have noticed that too and I don't know what happened. I went through history and they can't be seen there either. It could be that someone messed up the template.--Avala (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeh that was what I was thinking too. I tried looking threw through the history and couldn't see it there either. So it must be the template. I don't know how to fix it though. We'll have to ask an admin. Ijanderson (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's a problem with MiszaBot which is used for archiving on this page. Other users are reporting troubles too.--Avala (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"other states"?

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

Yes the counter equivalent to "states that recognise" indeed is "states that don't recognise" but a certain user pushed for his POV "other states" very fiercely.--Avala (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree It should be renamed "States that currently don't recognise Kosovo as independent" or something along them lines. This will increase WP:NPOV on the article. Ijanderson (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It's not POV. It's factual state. Does Qatar recognise Kosovo? No. Do they want to? Maybe but atm they don't and that is the only truth. The article would further explain their position if there is anything recorded but regarding their position it is that they don't recognise (for the time being at least).
This is not my point. My point is that the fact that Qatar does not for now recognise Kosovo is not a reaction, the reaction of Qatar is that X minister says that, Y politician says this. On the other hand, the fact that UK recognises Kosovo is a reaction. If we have an article the title of which would be "Recognition of Kosovo", Qatar for sure should be in "States that have not recognise Kosovo". But, in this structure, Qatar has reacted, not by recognising Kosovo, but by saying that we will, or we think "this is the best option...", etc., i.e. it is (per this article sense) an "other state".balkanian (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we then separate those who recognised? We could then have one list which would have, for an example under the US - "GWB said that the US recognised Kosovo blahblah..." but I think that could turn out to be messy.--Avala (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im opposed to any new name article apart from "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" instead of "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo" Ijanderson (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I think I didn`t make myself clear. I am not advocating a new name for this article, I am saying that under this article`s name it would be inacquarate to have such division. Recognising a state is a reaction, because somebody puts his signature in a paper, in the name of a nation. Not recognising a state is not a reaction, until there is a law that condems the recognition of this state, or a legislative messure that does not accept such recognition. Thats why, under this name, a section called "states that recognises Kosovo" is a reaction (because there is a law) and "states that have not recognised Kosovo" is not a reaction, (because there is not any law and the "national reactions" situation, i.e. the sovereing`s decision, is as it was before Kosovo`s declaration of independence).balkanian (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

SVG map

I made an SVG version of Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png, which can be found at Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.svg, which was made using [46] as a template. As it is an SVG version, I am requesting that it be used in place of Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png. Alethiareg (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the original blank map provides a very handy feature which greatly simplifies coloring of individual countries: each country is assigned a class according to its two-letter ISO code, and then it suffices to apply a CSS rule to a list of countries, as exemplified in the beginning of the SVG file. This makes it easy to edit the file in any text editor without relying on Inkscape. In fact, editing with Inkscape breaks it. I've corrected it, and also fixed many omissions on the map. Shouldn't the map be uploaded to commons, so that other wikis can use it, too? — Emil J. 12:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

{{editprotect}} Please change Lithuania from this

| 39 ||  Lithuania[40] || 2008-05-06 || Diplomatic relations commenced 16 July 2008[41]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

to this please

| 39 ||  Lithuania[42] || 2008-05-06 || Diplomatic relations with Kosovo established on 1 September 2008[43]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

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

The link is not working for me. Otherwise it seems like an uncontroversial edit. --alchaemia (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because the reference list was above it, now ive moved it below Ijanderson (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link still does not work. It gives "Secure Connection Failed: www.urm.lt uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed. (Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)". — Emil J. 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The SSL is not really needed, the site works fine in plain http. Fixing that. — Emil J. 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh its working fine for me Ijanderson (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Samoa

Telegrafi.com reports that Samoa has recognised the independence of Kosovo. Please report other sources and that's act upon this news. If verified, we should add it asap. Here is the url: [47] Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting. Lets see what other sources we can get. their Govt site hasn't been updated since Jan 2008, they have a small internet presence. Ijanderson (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They did see here Kosovo Govt site says so Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So has Kosovothanksyou.com Ijanderson (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ijanderson, the report from Telegrafi.com states that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo has received a formal facsimile from Samoa, so the source must be the MFA of Kosovo, ie a reliable source. And, yes, Kosovothanksyou.com has added Samoa to the list, but I'm happy to wait more so that there is a consensus. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official Kosovo Govt site has said Samoa has recognised Kosovo, so I think thats all we need really. An English language source would be nice. Remember the US has huge influence over Samoa, so its probably true. Ijanderson (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovothanksyou has received conformation from the Samoan MOFA [48] Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NewKosovoReport too [49] Ijanderson (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}} I propose we add this

| 47 ||  Samoa[44][45] || 15 September 2008 || || |-

Agree?

Agree. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Kosovar (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also need to update the 2nd paragraph to read "47 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states", and similarly the UN section. Bazonka (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Agree but that is not a recognition text. It explains the history of Samoa in Albanian, like where in Pacific does Samoa lie, when did it become independent, how that is a 47th to recognise etc. so we should look for a real Samoan source or just use a media report. --Avala (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh i didnt use that Kosovothanksyou.com PDF source as a reference Ijanderson (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Another thing - it'll be tricky to find them in a world map, so everyone don't jump if it's not added immediately.--Avala (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive already added it Ijanderson (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That document is, indeed, a paper explaining that recognition has happened, quoting, verbatim, the words of the Samoan prime minister. --alchaemia (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samoan PM wrote something among these lines `we have recognised Kosovo. Samoa is a country in the South Pacific`? Why am I having troubles believing in that?--Avala (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have no knowledge of Albanian and can't actually read what it says? --alchaemia (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. forget kosovothanksyou.com, its a load of rubbish. Ijanderson (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Done Húsönd 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date should be changed to 15 September 2008. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. Samoa is rock solid. Kosovo is recognized by Samoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out what Bobby said, the "As of August 21" needs to be changed to "As of September 15" I can't seem to be able to edit the article myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the article is protected. --alchaemia (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

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

Agree. This is utterly uncontroversial. Bazonka (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ijanderson (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Húsönd 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina
  2. ^ Kosovo - Embassy of the Czech Republic in Kosovo
  3. ^ a b c Kosovo president signs decree for nine diplomatic missions - Xinhua xinhuanet.com 19 June 2008 Link accessed 19/06/08
  4. ^ "Bundesrat anerkennt Kosovo" (in German). Tages-Anzeiger. 2008-02-27. Retrieved 2008-02-27.
  5. ^ "Switzerland set to open embassy in Kosovo". Swissinfo. 2008-03-28. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  6. ^ "Bundesrat anerkennt Kosovo" (in German). Tages-Anzeiger. 2008-02-27. Retrieved 2008-02-27.
  7. ^ "Switzerland set to open embassy in Kosovo". Swissinfo. 2008-03-28. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  8. ^ "Embassy of Switzerland in Pristina". Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation. Retrieved 2008-09-10.
  9. ^ "The Czech Republic has recognized independence of Kosovo". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. 2008-05-21. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
  10. ^ "Česko otevřelo své velvyslanectví v Kosovu" (in Czech). iDNES.cz. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  11. ^ "Czech Republic opens its embassy to Pristina". Kosovapress. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  12. ^ "The Czech Republic has recognized independence of Kosovo". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. 2008-05-21. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
  13. ^ "Czech Republic opens its embassy to Pristina". Kosovapress. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  14. ^ "Embassy of the Czech Republic in Kosovo". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Retrieved 2008-09-10.
  15. ^ Cuba MFA (English version)
  16. ^ Cua MFA Template:Es icon
  17. ^ DiplomacyMonitor.com: all diplomatic traffic re:/from:/about: Cuba
  18. ^ a b "I hope I never have reason to be ashamed". Radio Rebelde. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "cuba" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ [Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence By the St. Kitts-Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence By the St. Kitts-Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs], St. Kitts and Nevis MFA, April 2008, accessed 2008-08-07.
  20. ^ Cuba MFA (English version)
  21. ^ Cua MFA Template:Es icon
  22. ^ DiplomacyMonitor.com: all diplomatic traffic re:/from:/about: Cuba
  23. ^ "China 'deeply concerned' over Kosovo independence: govt". AFP. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  24. ^ "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Jianchao's Remarks on Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  25. ^ a b c "Russia, China & India insist Kosovo and Serbia resume talks". Russia Today. 2008-05-15. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ a b c "Russia, India, China urge resumption of Kosovo talks". Xinhua. 2008-05-15. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ a b c "Russia, China, India in Kosovo Talks Push". BalkanInsight. 2008-05-15. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ a b c "Russia, China & India insist Kosovo and Serbia resume talks". Russia Today Video. 2008-05-15. Retrieved 2008-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ "China 'deeply concerned' over Kosovo independence: govt". AFP. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  30. ^ "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Jianchao's Remarks on Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  31. ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
  32. ^ "Ambassador: India's Kosovo stand consistent". B92. 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
  33. ^ "India to back Serbian UN GA bid". B92. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  34. ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
  35. ^ "Ambassador: India's Kosovo stand consistent". B92. 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
  36. ^ "India to back Serbian UN GA bid". B92. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  37. ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
  38. ^ "Ambassador: India's Kosovo stand consistent". B92. 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
  39. ^ "India to back Serbian UN GA bid". B92. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
  40. ^ "Seimas nutarė pripažinti Kosovo Respublikos nepriklausomybę (Seimas recognizes Republic of Kosovo's independence)". Parliament (Seimas) official proceedings (in Lithuanian). 2008-05-06. Retrieved 2008-05-06.
  41. ^ "Vyriausybė užmegs diplomatinius santykius su Kosovu". lrt.lt (in Lithuanian). Vilnius, Lithuania: Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas ir televizija. (Lithuanian national radio and television).
  42. ^ "Seimas nutarė pripažinti Kosovo Respublikos nepriklausomybę (Seimas recognizes Republic of Kosovo's independence)". Parliament (Seimas) official proceedings (in Lithuanian). 2008-05-06. Retrieved 2008-05-06.
  43. ^ "LITHUANIA ESTABLISHES DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO" urm.lt 12 September 2008 Link accessed 15/09/08
  44. ^ "Samoa njeh pavarësinë e Kosovës" telegrafi.com 15 September 2008 Link accessed 15/09/08
  45. ^ "Samoa recognizes indepedent Kosovo" newkosovareport.com 15 September 2008 Link accessed 15/09/08

Kuwait ,Jordan and Lebanon

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

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

need something more official than that, with quotes or Govt sites Ijanderson (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not very reliable. They just say those things internally to boost moral or divert the public from other issues. For an example this is what Kosovo PM said (and he has a name unlike "Kosovar diplomatic sources" mentioned in your link): "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" (8 Feb)[50] or "in a not so distant future our neighboring state Serbia will recognize Kosovo" (19 Aug)[51]. --Avala (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please see

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

date

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

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

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

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

More 'rumors' on Macedonia

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

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

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

I think its best to wait for 23rd September. "Elefteros Typos" newspaper can not really speak on the behalf of the Republic of Macedonia. So its best to wait unless we get something more official, no harm waiting a few days Ijanderson (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. BalkanFever 11:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Montenegro prepares to recognise Kosovo?

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

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

I found the quote in English:

"That is within the government’s purview, but I’m convinced that it is a good thing that parliament is preparing to debate that issue, to state the pros and cons, to hear arguments from both sides, and to bring parliament’s view on the issue into the public eye,” Vujanović said.
He reiterated that three dimensions were important for Montenegro when it came to the Kosovo issue—the country’s stability, relations with Belgrade and Priština, and respecting the opinion of the international community, above all the opinions of EU and NATO member states.
"I think that caution and a responsible attitude by the Montenegrin government, which has so far shown a very high level of sensitivity towards the issue, will be the model according to which it will decide on that issue,” Vujanović said.

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

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

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

Momentum seems to be building up, and some steps have been taken, but dude, let's not rush with moving it to imminent recognizers. No need for that right now. If the issue becomes clearer in the up-coming days, we'll move them. Let's stay put right now even though it appears that both Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize, possibly together. --alchaemia (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You never move a country to imminent based one one source, unless the source is so trustworthy we'de be better off just putting it on already recognised with the date it said.--Jakezing (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for repeating what I just said. --alchaemia (talk) 22:56, 16 September

2008 (UTC)


Monenegro to recognize on on October 3rd

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

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

Macedonia again

Daily: Macedonia to recognize Kosovo

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=238990762"