Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

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

Republica Srpska

Is it really correct to put the Serbian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the group "Unrecognised states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence" along regions such as Karabakh and Transdnistria? Shouldn't it rather be included within Bosnia and Herzegovina? --Camptown (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Their entity parliament passed a motion advocating proclaiming independence, should Kosovo be recognized internationally, and they always want more autonomy at the cost of further impairing the functioning of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it would seem to be the right place for them. Incidentally, under the article section reorganization, this section was titled simply "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence (recognizing or not)", but User:Tocino keeps reverting that. You yourself just used the word "regions". As I pointed out, a state is not a state, until some state recognizes it, which ends all disputes about which states are legit. --Mareklug ^talk 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

"Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said he will recognise Kosovo in due course but only after consultations with his country's leaders and the president."

[1]

The description currently is not NPOV, Portugal is saying the DOI was a little ordinary BUT Portugal will recognize Kosova in the near future. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the Portugal description to make it less of a reality denial that it was, including the above reference. --Mareklug ^talk 06:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about the president of Portugal. He virtually has no role in the Portuguese decision making and he's famous for his empty declarations, such as "crime is worrisome", "education is important" and "unemployment is bad". So when the prime-minister says he will consult with the president, he means that he'll have tea with the president and Kosovo will be among the uncompromising chit-chat. I don't know if the Portuguese government will recognize Kosovo's independence anytime soon, but the president certainly has little say on the matter. Húsönd 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tanjug put out a piece today on Portugal's position. It's Serbian state media, so you can take it however you like

JEREMIC: PORTUGAL ABSTAINS ON KOSOVO ISSUE

LISBON, Apr 2 (Tanjug) - After his meeting with Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado in Lisbon on Wednesday, Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic told Tanjug that Portugal continues to abstain in regards to the issue of recognition of unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. "Portugal does not join those countries that had decided to recognize this illegal act. I informed my counterpart that we highly appreciate Portugal's refraining and I informed him about our intentions to request legal opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through the U.N. General Assembly in September," said Jeremic, who made a brief visit to Lisbon on his way back from Brasil. Jeremic underscored that a legal opinion of the ICJ would be an important reference that would help all those countries that have yet to decide how to approach the illegal declaration of independence in a way that would be legally correct. During his meeting with Jeremic, Amado said that the Portuguese government "highly appreciates the degree of refrain that Serbian had demonstrated so far under such difficult circumstances" relating to Kosovo and Metohija. "They believes that Serbia had responded on the issue in an adequate way and that it would continue to be engaged diplomatically, politically and every other way aiming at establishing peace and stability in our southern province," said Jeremic.[2]

Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already colored khaki on my maps (Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations2.png) as "delaying recognition". On Avala's maps (Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png) already orange (was red). An interesting source, Robert, but completely unsuitable for citing in the article as non-neutral. --Mareklug ^talk 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Date format in table inconsistent

The format of the date in the table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#UN_member_states is inconsistent, therefore the sorting by date does not work properly. --Tubesship (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. New form: 2008-02-18 will render according to how the logged-in users have specified date formatting in their preferences, and sorts correctly. --Mareklug ^talk 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

I know there has been disputes over it. But can anyone find any English references on Brazil. The current reference is in Portuguese and the majority of users on here can not speak/ read Portuguese, therefore however we do not know what anybody rights about brazil is true or not as there is not an English reference is true or not. So having an English reference for Brazil would making editing Brazil a lot easier and end disputes, as we would defiantly Brazil's position is with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be the first one to include it. And I had incuded one already (linked in this discussion, possibly archived), an official source, the latest official pronouncement on the matter in English, a press release on the Ministry of External Relations website re: attacks on embasies in Belgrade, where Brazil official position is succintly summarized, and which is also quoted from by the Portuguese website we are now sourcing. You are free to re-include this official link in the article. However, even though in Portuguese, the basic reference used all along is clear on the subject of Brazil's official position (i.e., it is deferred to a future UN SC ruling), and has additionally been fully translated by a native speaker/admin of unquestionable integrity, Husond, and posted on this talk page. There are other talk page sections (some archived), which clearly portray the problems with the former Brazil description, since corrected. This has been discussed repeatedly, and so far, no dispute on the merits of what the reference actually says has ever surfaced. The fabrication of a quote ascribed to the Foreign Affaris Minister by User:Avala is evident and has been removed, replaced with an accurate synopis. Anything else is posturing or disruptive reverts by User:Tocino. --Mareklug ^talk 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More lies from User:Mareklug....

Here is the source: http://www.clicrbs.com.br/diariocatarinense/jsp/default.jsp?uf=1&local=1&newsID=a1774669.xml (Portugese)

Rough translation via FreeTranslation.com...

"The Brazilian government does not support the independence of the Kosovo by to have occurred of unilateral way and only it will recognize when will go the result of a political agreement with the Serbia, under the conduction of the Organizations of the United Nations (UN). That interpretation of recent statements of the chancellor Celso Amorim and of an official note divulged in this Friday, in the which the Itamaraty expressed his worry with the wave of violence in the Serbia and with the attacks to the embassy of the United States in Belgrade, was confirmed by diplomats.

Of the viewpoint of the Itamaraty, upon declaring the independent country, the leaders of the Kosovo ignored the Resolution 1244 of the Advice of Security (CS) of the UN, of 1999. The text foresees the commitment of the United Nations with the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the Yugoslavia (present Serbia) and also determines, in his Annex 2, that a possible sovereign government of the Kosovo be the result of a political agreement.

"The Brazilian government reiterates appeal to the moderation and reaffirms his conviction of that a peaceful solution for the question of the Kosovo should continue it to be sought by means of the dialogue and of the negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and in the lawful landmark of the resolution 1244 of the Advice of Security", informs the note.

The Itamaraty concerns-itself mainly with the effect in waterfall that the independence of the Kosovo can have outside, in agreement world indicated Amorim in the last day 18, in Brasilia. In special, in the countries with population fragmented. In his recent statements, the chancellor defends that Brazil expect a decision of the CS before of defined its official position about the subject. For him, the countries that already recognized the independence of the Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place"."

It's pretty clear that Brazil will not recognize without consent from Serbia and the U.N. But this does not suit User:Mareklug's radical POV so he tries to diminish the source as much as possible. --Tocino 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets reach a consensus on Brazil once and for all

Lets just get the correct position of Brazil sorted out and put properly into this article with NPOV yeh? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem with what is currently listed under the Brazil entry? Which is... "The Brazilian government does not support the independence of Kosovo and would only recognise if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations. The Brazilian government reaffirms its belief that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and the legal framework of Resolution 1244 of the Council Security" was stated by Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, in statement regarding protests against Kosovo independence in Serbia. He also said that countries that have recognised the independence of Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place." Brazil previously expressed concern that the independence of Kosovo may have worldwide cascade effect. In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on the matter of Kosovo's independence. However, according to the same source, unnamed diplomats are confirming that Brazil would only recognise Kosovo if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations." --Tocino 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You just called me a liar (explicitly, in the section above), yet while doing so, you posted a machine translation which completely confirms all my objecitons and Husond's translation. Read what you posted, in particular: "That interpretation of recent statements of the chancellor Celso Amorim and of an official note divulged in this Friday, in the which the Itamaraty expressed his worry with the wave of violence in the Serbia and with the attacks to the embassy of the United States in Belgrade, was confirmed by diplomats." This passage clearly is a paraphrase, attributed to unnamed diplomats. Nowhere is here a direct quote by the Minister, which is what I removed. The current description of Brazil in our article succintly expresses all this information. So, please stop baselessly calling me names: it's been "Polish fascist Mareklug", "Polack fascist" and now editor who writes "lies". I submit, that it is your edits and their crediblity, which are questionable. --Mareklug ^talk 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, if someone would dare to call me "Polack fascist" I probably would insist that this one would be blocked or warned at least! I am really shocked about this rude attitude against Mareklug! Unbelievable! --Tubesship (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the same user who constantly abuses Avala, even comparing him to a horse, whatever that was supposed to mean. There is no reason to doubt this source and it is clear in its opposition... Brazil will not recognize without consent of Serbia and under the conduct of the United Nations. I know this information hurts you since you are viciously anti-Serbia, but facts are facts, Brazil is opposed unless you can find sources that prove otherwise. Meanwhile it looks like you've found a friend to do your dirty work for you. --Tocino 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact "horses" quote you allude to is reproduced below intact, in context. It is archived here), and was made in a Bosnia thread, where User:Avala, like you, Tocino, called me a liar, also groundlessly: he claimed that the term "neutral" in my quote from a news article in NewKerala.com does not exist in that source, yet it clearly does. Avala never apologized for his mistake and false accusation of lying.

The reference in question: "Kosovo's independence to be monitored by Bosnia-Herzegovina", NewKerala.com, by Zdravko Ljubas in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, 17 February 2008. Link accessed 2008-03-11.).

IMHO, given that Avala failed to see the word "neutral" which is there and has been all along, my colorful expression was at least justified, considering that he just explictly accused me of lying and had no reason to.

---

Begin quote from archive.

Um what? You did not copy paste this - "The official neutrality of Bosnia as a state is underscored by the absence of any recent press realeases on this issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." - from a source but you wrote it so it is OR. And I searched the Sri Lanka source for word "neutral" and found nothing so you are lying again. I am disgusted. --Avala (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, another false accusation of Mareklug by Avala. Next will come Mr. Tocino and for a third time call me a fascist, and a Polack (on this talk page).

As for you, maybe, if you took off those eye shades they put on horses and POV-pushing editors, you'd notice this paragraph: As to the political aspect of Kosovo's looming independence, Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to some of the reactions of its officials so far, will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country.. As to the text I wrote, I remind you, that editors are actually encouraged to write articles, not just paste quotes. :) --Mareklug ^talk 16:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

End of quote from archive. --Mareklug ^talk 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Stop your dirty talk please! And stop getting personal, nobody can now how anybody feels. Stop your accusations about being "vicious anti-serb". Stop all of this now, please! --Tubesship (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a very long edit history of this article and it demonstrates User:Mareklug's systematic abuse of facts and the quality of the article, and it shows his insults towards Avala, Top Gun, me, and anyone else who doesn't hate Serbia. --Tocino 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about the past and I do not care about it but that you dare to say to me that I do the dirty work is... unbelievable! --Tubesship (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: Therefore I complained about you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#User:Tocino_-_international_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence

I blocked Tocino for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What Tocino is stating is simply not true. It is him and Avala who have proven very difficult on these pages. And every time when arguments were against them TopGun would fly to rescue. They simply turned this article onto a mess. Jawohl (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP policy

What is with the campaign to change the correct spelling of Priština to the Albanian version of Prishtina? Prishtina (see link: [3]) is a re-direct. Using Prishtina in this article goes directly against WP policy. If you want to change WP policy go to the Priština talkpage. This would be like me going around to all of the articles that link to Burma and changing the links to Myanmar. --Tocino 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here I found the WP-Rule, that contradicts you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pri%C5%A1tina#REGULATION_NO._2000.2F45 So it must be "Prishtina". --Tubesship (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule there. Here are the requested moves [4][5]... both wanted to move Priština to Prishtina, but both votes failed to reach a consensus for the move, therefore it has been decided that on English WP the name of the article will be Priština. --Tocino 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a rule Tocino, wether you like that rule or not. We have discussed this issue here and elsewhere. All the WP articles about Kosovo will be changed according to the manual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles).

85.144.179.57 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For not having an ongoing struggle here on naming, simply "Pristina" - a good English international spelling - would be a good compromise for the time being, but again this should be discussed in the article on the city itself, not here. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Tocino has proven as a very difficult person to discuss with. We do not need to reinvent the wheel again. The naming conventions exists. They should be applied. Jawohl (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your talking of existing "naming conventions". The relevant proposal is under discussion, and it states explicitry: "Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". Sometimes people just don't bother to read. I would really like that this stuff should be discussed where it belongs. Once, it's decided, we will adapt to it. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what Jawohl is alluding to. Apart from the proposed Kosovo naming policy, which both of you quote from, we have long-standing naming conventions that take into account generic considerations. One of these is how a place represents itself ("Prishtina", in its English-language publications) and using common English names. Unfortunately, there is no common English name, such as "Hanover" for "Hannover", and the form often quoted from English usage is the Serb form albeit in inferior typesetting, namely, without its diacritic indicating hte "sh" sound. Give this, even before the Kosovo naming policy becomes formally a Wikipedia policy, we have enough evidence and Wikipedia guidelines to consistently refer to the capital of the Republic of Kosovo as Prishtina. Historical Serb contexts require, for the same reasons, Priština. I am sure we can all agree on which of these two valid names should be applied in this article. Pointing to bad/anachronistic situation elsewhere on Wikipedia does not jusify using the wrong name. --Mareklug ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, therefore let us change to "Prishtina", please. --Tubesship (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your link from the second reply links to a talk page and not to an official Wikipedia rule as you say.--Avala (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Somaliland & Puntland?

Anyone heard anything from Somaliland or Puntland about their reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence? 141.166.241.20 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Somaliland you may find something here [6], though it's not much. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are mad autonomous Somali rebellion groups consider international? Are they even important to this article? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Any group that has de facto control over their territory is much more relevant than you make it seem. It's not as if they are just rebels hiding in the jungle, they are an unrecognized state.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In the "African" link I included under UNPO's entry there is a reference to a website on behalf of Somaliland rejoicing, but I was unable to source a governmental position yet. I think, without looking to check, that DaQuirin's link is exactly what I included.

@Ijanderson977: Read Somaliland. You are mistaking a very stable democracy, albeit yet unrecognized, for another part of the Somali puzzle. And AU is about to recognize it, or at least Etiopia, which uses its port. UA's delegation spoke highly about the situation in Somaliland after visiting. --Mareklug ^talk 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We have no info at the time to note on behalf of AU or African countries. There are only speculations and we don't have any official positions, except Serbian FM claims that South Africa refuses to recognize Rep of Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, the reactions of Somaliland and Puntland have as much right to be in this article as the reactions of South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Regardless of their legitimacy or lack thereof, they control territory and, except for their unrecognized status, act as states. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The Czech Christian Democratic Party has reservations regarding the recognition of Kosovo. The leader of the Christian Democratic Party, Jiri Cunek, has called on urgent talks with the Civic Democratic Party and Green Party, according to a Czech radio station. [7] --Avala (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've already read that. It also suggests that recognition will probably go forward, anyway. From the article: Cunek, however, said that his party’s stance on Kosovo was “more reserved than negative.” Avala, I know you're ecstatically wanting to remove the Czech Republic from the column of states that are going to recognise, but I think it would be premature to do so. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am so "ecstatically wanting to remove the Czech Republic from the column of states that are going to recognise" that I just posted this in talk page without even adding it as a note next to the Czech R. entry in the article. --Avala (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making me smile :-) Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that :). --Avala (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[8] - recognition is postponed until further notice as there is no political support, PM admitted today. --Avala (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it says, "lack of consensus," not "no political support." Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems he said that there is not enough support in the government to recognize at this moment so that would be it. Interesting thing is that Topolanek seems to support independence but his party doesn't including Vaclav Klaus. --Avala (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hospodářské noviny have published the list of ministers for, against and neutral. 4 are in favour, 8 are against and 2 are neutral.--Avala (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On Wednesday the Czech government could take a decision, see here. --DaQuirin (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Czech foreign minister calls for recognition on April 2

( CeskeNoviny )- Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg will propose that the government recognise independent Kosovo on April 2, he told today's issue of the daily Pravo. Source Kosova2008 talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

[9] How did no one see this? Could someone move Czech to the first list with Lithuania? Kosova2008 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, again. Let's see if it gets reverted. User:Nightstallion already put the ref in there, and a note that the FA Minister insists. --Mareklug ^talk 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug can you please make the description shorter? I have no idea who these people are. Can you just leave it at, "recognition is speculated to be at April 2nd"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like all these people were trucked out to make a case, that the Czech Republic is far from being of one mind on Kosovo. I suggest waiting a day or two, and the problem will clear itself (when they officially do recognize Kosovo). --Mareklug ^talk 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The incorporation of Czechia among the imminent recognizers is a bizarre speculation. The prime minister wants Kosovo to be recognized but Schwarzenberg, the minister of foreign affairs, thinks that there is no reason to hurry and most of the government opposes our support of the independence. The independence is also opposed by the whole left-wing opposition, the social democratic party and the communists (because of our traditional friendship with Serbia supported by some pan-Slavonic feelings), as well as by the Green Party [10]. The president disagrees with the recognition and so does the Christian Democratic Party and portions of the main coalition partner, the Civic Democratic Party - so pretty much all parties disagree to one extent or another. I would bet that a non-recognition on Wednesday is more likely than recognition on Wednesday. At any rate, the statement that "we are about to recognize Kosovo" is deeply exaggerated and can't be justified by reality. Lumidek --90.176.185.73 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality is that for reasons of state, despite the documented opposition you cite, the prime minister and the foreign minster, who are tasked with carrying out foreign policy, may well prevail in having the recognition become official. EU and NATO, and bilateral relations with the USA, are all a factor, and if anything, the trend is for EU to cohere as one, recognizing and dealing with Kosovo as an independent entity. National sympathies are rather irrelevant. --Mareklug ^talk 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize but the reality is that these things certainly do matter, at least in the Czech Republic. The government agreed with the Christian Democratic position that this is a very sensitive question that needs a lot of time and won't recognize Kosovo today, on April 2nd [11], and I ask an admin to erase the Czech Republic from the list of countries "about to recognize Kosovo" where it was only included because someone is trying to promote a certain POV in this Wikipedia article. The Czech Republic, its citizens (70%), its politicial parties (at least 5/6), and its official representatives are not supporting Kosovo independence. And even the exceptions such as the prime ministers are extremely far from being enthusiastic about the independence, realizing that Kosovo is an unviable state created by criminals. --Lumidek (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well! You certainly went a long way towards winning our respect as a reliable, impartial reporter with that closing sentiment: "Kosovo is an unviable state created by criminals". If you feel the urge, go write in a blog. This is an encyclopedia, and we already have a surfeit of hell-bent POV pushers. A nice impartial news dispatch with some factual information as to when will they be deciding again, or if they will be possibly deciding against would have been preferred, but discrediting your own say is information too, I suppose. As we say in America, just the facts, ma'am. Kisses and hugs or their inverse are not germane to reporting what CR will do or not do as a state, which is the only thing we care to know on this talk page. --Mareklug ^talk 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your 70% appear to be either pulled out of thin air, or obtained by misleading interpretation of data. There are actual poll results here[12]: 36% against independence, 34% for independence, 30% undecided. That means roughly a 50-50 split among those who care enough to have an opinion. Having said that, I agree that it is perfectly clear by now that Czech Republic is not "about to formally recognise Kosovo". — EJ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Level of protection

As the article isn't actually fully protected, the full protection template seems rather misleading. The article is therefore again marked as semi-protected. --Camptown (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it locked up this time? Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A POV edit was made yet again by User:Avala, removing the sentence has been added several times now, about no official Foreign Ministry traffic having been sourced from Cuba. But the article was to be locked by User:Philippe last night, just as I was saving my updates regarding Macedonia, having been asked to do so by Kosova2008 on my talk page who documented his request with a new official this time reference, but User:Philippe apparently has defective locking controls -- another admin locked today all of User:Philippe' last night's lock attempts without apparently examining each one. User:Philippe reacted to a noticeboard request for full protection: [13]. When requesting an explanation on his talk page, that is where I noticed a note from the other admin mopping up.

Meanwhile, just before the actual locking, while User:Tocino is out serving his 24-hour ban imposed by User:Zscout370, another completely new User:Absolutadam802 has appeared, carrying out similar edits (reverted by User:Camptown). Perhaps the new participant was asked to act as a proxy, or his edits may be completely conicidental and entirely his own.

Undeniably, there are localized edit wars going on in multiple loci of this article, sad to say. Worse, the parties for the most part do not provide edit summaries, and some, like Tocino, falsify them with inocuous ones such as "fixing spelling" or perform edits not described in the edit summary. Many reverts are masked by observations or other comments that do not acknowledge that a revert was just made. These practices are abominable and have to stop. --Mareklug ^talk 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of slapfights are rather stunning in their churlishness. This isn't rocket science. Either there's a source that confirms something or a quote from somebody who'd know what's going on, or there's nothing. Why is that so difficult for some of our honourable editors to follow? I have no agenda or POV on the subject matter at hand. I'm just a big nerd that likes foreign relations and history. Again, I note that there are a few emphatically pro-Serbian editors who seem to take pleasure in causing problems here and will go to any length to diminish Kosovo in whatever petty way that can be done. Instead of locking the page and punishing all of us, can't we deal more with those whom we know are the source of bias? Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you blame the editor who decided to close this article? It's a sorry state of affairs here. We have one user who's installed himself as dictator of the article... he makes all of the final decisions, and anything that does not please his POV gets a quick revert. Then there is the clique that supports this tyrant. They consist of Albanians and Westerners who are naively and enthusiastically supporting their cause. If you even have the slightest of disagreements with this gang's POV you are immediately silenced and not welcome here. It's perfectly fine for these people to have years old sources as long as it supports the separatist cause, meanwhile citations which prove nations' opposition are removed or manipulated to suit the gang's POV (see Brazil, Slovakia, Czech Rep, Macedonia for starters). A temporary halt to this madness is the least we can do. Once the article is re-opened I will correct many of the mistakes that are ruining the article and the fine reputation of Wikipedia. No doubt though, that as soon as I make a productive edit, one of the henchmen or the dictator himself will revert. All you can do is keeping doing what is right and hope that more neutrals will see what is going on here. As Brutus once said, "Sic semper tyrannis." --Tocino 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that announcing intent to edit-war as soon as the article is unprotected, and expressly to make forcible reverts reassures the administrators about either unprotecting or, for that matter, the soundness of letting you edit anything. Wikipedia is a collaboration and an exercise in persuadiing on merit of things. If you are unable to do both, and instead demonize fellow editors, I will be the fist to say goodbye to you, because that is where you are heading -- into the read-only land. --Mareklug ^talk 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not announced that I am going to engage in edit wars, I have announced my intention to correct the numorous mistakes that currently populate the article. Whether you decide to revert is not up to me. And I am fully aware of the double standards on here. It doesn't matter if you have thousands of edits on other articles, as long as you aren't anti-Serbia, you are unwelcome. But this is why I'm rooting for Koštunica's party, the Serbian Radical Party, and the Socialist Party in the upcoming elections, because they are willing to stand up and do what's right even in the toughest of times. --Tocino 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You realize that openly declaring a bias is not helpful for your cause, right? Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows Mareklug's bias but that hasn't stopped him from dominating this article. Also you are displaying a bias on your userpage where you say that you support the ROC, so that leaves readers to assume that you support other separatist causes. --Tocino 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not denying my statement and trying to flip this around on me won't help anything. I am not biased in regards to Kosovo. I like the ROC. So what? You'll note that during the debate over how to list the ROC I said nothing. It would stand to reason that if I had a bias I would've been all over it. I have no wish to engage in a tit-for-tat ad hominem fight, so I would just urge restraint on everybody and hope that we will continue to seek consensus on changes to the text. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia Again - Formal Intent

I would like to note that the original title of section 1.3 was "States that have declared formal intent to recognize Kosovo." Someone changed this headline to "States that are about to recognize Kosovo" and later to "States that are about to formally recognize Kosovo" in order to be able to include Macedonia on that list.

The fact is that Macedonia has not declared formal intent to recognize Kosovo (Like the two other countries in that group, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, have). Macedonia is using the possibility that it may eventually recognize Kosovo in international forums as leverage in its border demarcation talks with Kosovo, but that does not mean it has recognized Kosovo yet. And it may well renege on its promise.

Lastly, the citation that gives credence to Macedonia's position as "about to formally recognize Kosovo" is completely irrelevant. A quick reading of the web page it links to reveals that it was a memorandum written ONE YEAR AGO on March 30, 2007 in response to last year's informal meeting of EU foreign ministers. It simply states that Macedonia wished the (then ongoing) negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo to continue. Now that Kosovo has declared independence, it does not make any sense to cite Macedonia's position on negotiations that have now ended.

I wish this page was not fully protected so I could edit it myself. Alas, however, it is. Any takers on fixing Macedonia's position on this list? (Absolutadam802 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Looking again at the date, indeed it does say 2007, not 2008, and it is I who made this edit, in belief that it is the 1-day recent news, since we just had a meeting of the sort described. This is a mistake, and should be corrected. At the very least, the reference and other dates in text referencing it should be changed to reflect the correct year. However, looking at this even more closely, and searching the Macedonia MFA site, there is no superseding statement of this position, which admits this reference as having continued pertinence. Furthermore, the last press release on this official website, with the dateline (and I am copying and pasting, to avoid any mishaps): Skopje, 27 Febryary 2008 year, contains the following passage re: Kosovo. Plese note the same language, consistently referencing the Ahtisaari plan (which mandates supervised independence for Kosovo):

In welcoming the constructive position of the Republic of Macedonia concerning Kosovo, the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament has expressed concern because of delay in the technical demarcation of the Republic of Macedonia-Kosovo borderline and has asked that this issue be solved in accordance with the Ahtisaari proposal.'"Press release: THE COMMISSION ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN BRUSSELS ADOPTS THE 2007 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA", Ministry of the Foreign Affairs:Media Center, 27 March 2008. Link accessed 2008-03-31.

Given the fact that these are offcial sources, not press quotes, and lack superseding ones, and given that the press traffic of quotes from Macedonia's leaders and the on-going formal border demarcation, our current representation of Macedonia's position is justified. As to the section title (heading) in question, it should plainly read, without any "formally": States about to recognize Kosovo, as that is the meaning of this table, and that is how editors have been consistently refereing to it on the talk page, as the imminent list. The phrase "declare formal intent" is bullshit, and impossible to verify, since there are no formal procedures of intent -- this is not a betrothal, with bans nailed to the church door :) -- and was ostensibly put there by User:Tocino to limit the listing of countries which are about to recognize. --Mareklug ^talk 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Information regarded from the MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MFA) is more important than what news agencies are reporting. The source is a year old but look at the GOALS AND PRIORITES (Current) ([14]). Here is a short excert, "Kosovo

The Republic of Macedonia has been continually supporting the efforts of the international community in the Kosovo status process. As the overwhelming majority of states, we supported the Ahtisaari’s proposal as a solid basis for the settlement of the Kosovo issue b..."

It seems Macedonia from last year has been a strong supporter of the Ahtisaari Plan and that is what should be NOTED. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Regardless of Macedonia's support for the Ahtisaari plan, the press release is mis-cited as being from March 30, 2008, not 2007. That is the most pressing issue that needs to be changed. I would also propose a change of the subsection title to States Likely to Recognize Kosovo in the Near Future if we are going to include Macedonia on the list. (Absolutadam802 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I am having troubles with WP. Is anyone getting WP errors? I agree with you Aboslutla, and when I was in the MFA I searched and then that just popped in my screen and I saw March 30 and I thought it was that day. I didn't ask Mareklug to put Macedonia in the "about to" section just to update the summary for Macedonia. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mareklug that the bar has been set too high for listing states that are going to recognize. Many states prefer not to clearly telegraph their intentions on controversial issues such as this because it oftentimes causes complications - they'll just do it. As you'll recall most of our previous news listings about imminent recognitions came from news articles - the foreign ministries usually don't announce it beforehand. We should change the nomenclature for this particular section. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll put in an {{editprotected}} request to change the subsection title to States Likely to Recognize Kosovo in the Near Future and the Macedonia citation to change its dating from March 30, 2008 to March 30, 2007. (Absolutadam802 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Against. Sorry, but the subsection title as proposed does not meet requirements of proper capitalization. Personally, i would simply strike the formally from the current headling, otherwise retaining it. States about to recognize Kosovo is clear and simple. The uncontested balance of this editprotect request is restated in a section below with exact directions. --Mareklug ^talk 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

editprotect request - fix important date error

Resolved

Correction is required in two places to fix one factual error of date -- 2007 instead of 2008.

• 1. Replace at the bottom of the article lead:

30 March 2008, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center published a press release with the following content concerning Kosovo: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue."

With:

30 March 2007, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center published a press release with the following content concerning Kosovo: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue."

• 2. Make the above replacement also in the table in the section States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo under Macedonia.

The only change is correcting the year in text and in the reference citation, everything else remains the same. This request is supported by consensus on the talk page in the section above. --Mareklug ^talk 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mareklug. I also apologize for making the edit on Macedonia yesterday without consulting the talk page, for I didn't know there was a POV issue going on with that section at the time. I, like Canadian Bobby, am just a big history and international relations nerd and my main issue was with the citation date. Any consensus, by the way, on when we can unprotect this page and simply deal with the offending editors? (Absolutadam802 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree prolongued full protection is harmful. We should change to semiprotection and clamp down on pov pushers as necessary. dab (𒁳) 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Macedonia

How can a statement from 12 months ago be a reaction to something that happened now? Erase it altogether then. I could dig a statement by the US officials from a few years ago saying that independence for Kosovo is not a solution but it's just a historical statement not a reaction to an event from 2008. --Avala (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we cite the "Press release: THE COMMISSION ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN BRUSSELS ADOPTS THE 2007 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA", Ministry of the Foreign Affairs:Media Center, 27 March 2008, mentioned earlier? (Absolutadam802 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Adding it won't hurt, both in the lead and in the table. Taken together they work well. @Avala: Leaving it in place without replacemeent for a year, even though the situation has changed, and using the same language in a press release referencing its content from just 4 days ago does constitute a reaction. It has not been contradicted by any source we have, and sources Macedonia authoritatively, without manipulating media quotes. --Mareklug ^talk 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't seem like a declaration of intent. If it was, I'm pretty sure Macedonian news would have reported something. BalkanFever 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara or SADR?

The entry for Western Sahara should be titled for the Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) or the Polisario Front. This would be more accurate, sicne the statement does not epr se come from Western Sahara, most of which is controlled by Morocco. 141.166.227.172 (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completly. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references number 213 dead

I could not believe that an IOC spokeswoman specifing the requirements that Kosovo needs to meet before being recognised by the IOC, was saying Kosova has to be recognised by the United Nations as independent first, because this condition is not imposed on some Olympic participants such as Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) and Palestine. The unreachable reference number 213 is titled: "IOC: Kosovo Olympic Team 'Unlikely'", Associated Press, 18 February 2008. Retrieved on 20 February 2008. If it should be an hoax it should be removed from the reference list. --Tubesship (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article dating from Feb 18, 2008, copyrighted by Associated Press. I suppose that's the same one. Gugganij (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbia To Recognise After All

According to this source, Serbia has decided to accept Kosovo as a state not a province. The negotiations are expected to take place soon. Serbia will recognise Kosovo within the next Month. [15] Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaha , good one. Sure fooled me --Cradel 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL 141.166.241.20 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia

Russia just recognized. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont know why people bother writing comments like this, who do you think you were going to fool anyway ? --Cradel 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a pathetic attempt at and Aprils fools joke. The jokes on you mate. Your the fool! Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to insult me, for the Aprils joke. I expect an apology. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok im sorry. Now i look the fool. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the UN is not only going to admit Kosovo, but will also make it the 6th permanent member of the Security Council.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian PM on Kosovo

Interesting interview: Serbian PM Vojislav Koštunica says to the New York Times that he wont rule out the possiblility of establishing friendly relations with "the new sovereign state" of Kosovo. (The New York Times) --Camptown (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That news article says that Vojislav Koštunica met with US high officials today and signed recognition of Kosovo independence but under the clause that he becomes the PM of Kosovo to which George W. Bush agreed calling Vojislav Koštunica 'a beacon of democracy'. He added that Koštunica was misunderestimated by the West. Bush also said that "All childrens know this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Grecians is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --Avala (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
• File:Secretary Rice with His Excellency Vojislav Kostunica, Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia after their bilateral on July 12, 2006.jpg

Latest from CNN: Kosovo Refuses to Recognize Itself... Hashim Thaçi, former Prime Minister of the Former Republic of Kosovo recently attended an unofficial dinner in Zagreb, and was quoted on live television as saying, "Because we will never endorse the evil policies of our oppressor, Belgrade, their untimely recognition comes as a slap in the face. We will not tolerate it, they have no right!" When press agents repeatedly asked him questions, refering to him as a "Government Spokesman for the Republic of Kosovo," he became visibly agitated and insisted he worked for the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Earlier that day the Republic of Serbia sent a diplomatic housewarming gift to the government offices in Pristina, but the package, which was labelled "Republic of Kosovo," was returned to sender by Kosovar postal authorities, stamped "No Such Country," and "Domestic Mail Only."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

hehehe
This stuff is good enough for Uncuclopedia --Cradel 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to augment information

Ok, to set the April Fool's tomfoolery aside for the moment, I've been busy emailing and seeking comment from various governments on Kosovo and their intentions regarding recognition. I emailed either the embassies of ministries of foreign affairs of (in no particular order): Lesotho, Palau, Belize, Honduras, Turkmenistan, Andorra, Bahamas, Saint Christopher, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mauritius, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Marshall Islands, Maldives, Congo-Brazzaville, Sao Tome and Principe, Namibia, Benin, Ghana, Cape Verde and Togo.

Have any of you been pursuing information similarly? Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that sounds like a good idea, especially after that one user managed to break the news on Liechtenstein by simply asking. Who knows what interesting answers this might provide, I'm going to try the same. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was that one user ;) Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nice. ;)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if you do get a reply it won't justify an edit. I tried with few that were mentioned as recognizing or not recognizing but without quotes. In some news articles some of these countries were mentioned. I tried with Rwanda and they replied Rwanda has no position on this issue but I haven't added that to the article. Talking about this, Indian ambassador has said 2 days ago that there is high level of India's support to Serbia on this issue because they respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country. He also said they are afraid of precedents and that they believe there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue. This should be added after the page gets unprotected. --Avala (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If I get a response, I will add the information and will cite the email as proof. I believe I have adequate precedent and support for this position. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't cite an email as a proof. This would be an awful precedent for users who will start making things up. We may trust you but it's not enough to prevent chaos that will happen. --Avala (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby - this is in answer to your querry at the RS noticeboard. Personal emails, even those that come from an "offical source" are not considered reliable. More importantly, adding information gained from such correspondence is a violation of WP:No original research. You need a published statement. What I would suggest is emailing the embassy or ministry and asking if they could point you to a press release or some other public statement that you can site. Sorry if this makes things more difficult, but "thems the rules". Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar for that clarification. This being the case, if nobody objects, I would still like to pass on any information that I do receive on this talk page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that will help us where to look more at. Though I doubt Liechtenstein will repeat. It's just an isolated case of a tiny state. --Avala (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I might go do some hunting myself. TheLastDJ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise over the largest city of Kosovo

Google news hits.... Pristina has 1,527 hits [16], while Prishtina has only 52 hits [17]. When you do a search for Priština [18] you get the same results that you get for Pristina, but I will admit that the vast majority of the results show up as Pristina and not Priština. Using Google is a good way of seeing what English speakers prefer, and it's pretty clear in this case that English speakers prefer Pristina. --Tocino 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

True but some users have pointed at talk page discussion calling that an official WP policy to justify their edits. Hoax edits have succeeded as no one obviously ever opens any links so they believed it is an official WP policy behind the link. Sad but true. --Avala (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I add that if the proposed policy becomes policy, before important articles such as Priština are moved, you must get a consensus through a WP:RM. --Tocino 16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a WP policy saying that the number of Google hits is irrelevant when deciding which name to use in English. When I do a Google search and restrict the search to only English hits, I still often get hits in other languages (presumably because of wrong or nonexisting language tags on web pages). Maybe that's why Google shouldn't be used: we should use the name most commonly used in English. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It is not irrelevant because it shows that English speaking media overwhemingly use Pristina. --Tocino 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and it employes correct usage, not the most indexed one in Google. On the merits of the issue, Prisitina is just a bastardization, typografically, of hte Serb name. It is not a common English name, the likes of "Moscow", "Hanover", "Capetown", "Warsaw", "Belgrade". There simply never has been a common English name established, and only the Serb one used, a direct quote from Yugoslavian maps. This has been repeated several times by learned editors in various discussions. Trucking out Google now is like saying "Natalie Portman naked" or "Jessica Alba nude" is proof she these actresses have posed in porn, because I can google it. --Mareklug ^talk

So we should use Moskva instead of Moscow? For an example even CIA uses Pristina as an English version. --Avala (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in... but shouldn't this argument be going on on the Priština article instead of here? This article should use whatever that one uses (currently with the š). And if you don't like it... argue there. Personally, I don't care what it's called, as long as it's consistent. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is consistent. I made it so. It used 3 different string before my unifying edit. It properly pipes the links to the article, using its current name. The name visible to the user is consistent with generic Wikipedia guidelines, about using commong names and names used by the entities themselves in their English publications. All that is per regulations. The name also anticipates the proposed nameling guideline for Kosovo. And the article has usess in other contexts than Kosovan, such as Serbian history. Where it resides has no bearing on the correct use of the Kosovan name in Kosovo-related articles. Especially as three names are listed int he definition, wihouth passing judgmenton their correctness, merely describing the fact of their use. --Mareklug ^talk 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wiki. We don't use š in English. Do I have to change it? Beam 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs)

Position of the Philippines

We may need to rewrite the section listing the position of the Philippines. Firstly, the link is broken. Secondly, it doesn't reflect the official position in its entirety:

The Philippines reiterates its position that the settlement of the issue should be in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which upholds the internationally accepted principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Philippines believes that a lasting solution, including that of independence, should be based on a negotiated solution mutually acceptable to all parties. Considering the existing sensibilities in the region, continued dialogue should be encouraged among all the parties concerned to ensure regional stability.[19] Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good find. So is that a "no" by Philippines? They want a solution reached by dialogue in accordance with UN principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It looks like a copy of Serbian position that says that only further dialogue under UNSC 1244 is an acceptable solution that will bring stability. --Avala (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would read the reference you would see that it says "The Philippines believes that a lasting solution, including that of independence", so this suggests that the Philippines wants Kosovo to be independant. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a proper interpretation, Ian. They're just stating that any solution, which could include independence, should be negotiated and mutually accepted. Avala - it sure sounds like a 'no,' although it could also possibly be an endorsement of the pre-independence status quo. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia made the same statement actually. If the negotiated solution is independence, so be it we agree - but it must be negotiated. --Avala (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the same position as RPA's, that of calling on both sides to keep on negotiating under the old negotiation regime, concerned with unilateral moves, without passing judgment on the merits of the declaration of independence. Position marked in orange on the Commons maps (when they aren't being adulturated.) Contrast and compare with Serbia's and Russia's (declaration illegal, position marked in red). I think some editors are recoloring hte world all-red, because it suits them, not because the states in question altered their official positions. The original gradated Commons map legends serve a purpose. Orange is not red. --Mareklug ^talk 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

May I have a link to the commons map, please? Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the old map Kosovo relations.svg which was removed due to POV possibilities. Anyway Russia did say it's illegal but not with full stop, they said it's illegal for as long as it's unilateral. And Philippines of course doesn't use Putin rhetorics but the point is the same. --Avala (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kosovo_relations2.png, Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg are the current best-faith maps showing these gradations of positions. Other map versions are pointed to from the "Other versions" rubric in their summaries. I don't vouch for those other versions, esp. after PaxE's overwriting Kosovo_relations.png with colors and information now inconsistent with the rest of the information on that page, such as the links sourcing each country's position or even the map legend itself. I left him a note on his Commons and English Wikipedia talk pages, but so far no reaction. The point is not the same. Phillipines and Russia are not, at least today, of the same mind as Kosovo's independence goes. Making it seem that way is propagating untruths. --Mareklug ^talk

That map is hilarious. Sorry. Not even Kosovo thanks you lists some of those countries as neutral. For an example all high officials of Libya were very clear in their talks with Serbian minister but paranoia doesn't allow you to trust Serbian government (as if Serbian government was a banana government which fabricates things, still without being accused of such actions from anyone). I on the other hand don't mind using Kosovo government as a source. Neither government is run by imbeciles who will make up a visit of a MFA and statements and photoshop images of the meeting. All we need is a proper translation but that's it. --Avala (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's laughable is your sourcing some state's position to Serbian TV and Serbian Foreign Ministry. If you dont' see that as laughable, that's really sad. Produce a Libyan official rejecting Kosovo on his webpage, on a libyan ministry's page, or just quoted by mainstream world press (AP, Agence France Press, CNN, BBC, the Times of London, New York Times, Deutsche Welle, CBS, Radio Netherlands, etc.) and we will have evidence suitable for inclusion. Your disregard for WP:VER is appalling. Even common sense shoudl have told you that Serbian sources do not represent in this topic a suitable reference. Basic tenets of neutral sourcing apply. Neither do I think that you are an imbecile, or that the Serbian MFA is run by such. Crafty misrepresentation is clearly a skill signifying intelligence. --Mareklug ^talk 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC) P.s. One such constant misrepresentation is your making khaki mean neutral. The legend for khaki is far more complex and inclusive. --Mareklug ^talk 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. If "Abdulhati Al Obeidi, Secretary for European Affairs of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, after meeting with the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremić on 17 March 2008, stated that Libya will not recognise a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. Al Obeidi said that Libya strongly supports the position of Serbia regarding Kosovo, despite the pressure from the European Union and some Islamic nations to recognise, and that Libya considers the unilateral declaration of independence illegal. Al Obeidi stated that Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi considers the UN Security Council to be the only place where the Kosovo problem can be solved the right way." is an undecided, unclear or ambiguous position so be it but I see nothing unclear about it. --Avala (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced only by Serb TV and Serbia's Foreign Ministry. Decidedly unclear. One might think Libya to be a province of Serbia, with Belgrade speaking for it. Is independent verification possible? Libyan? Not yet? So, true to WP:VER, we stay khaki, as in ambiguous. Wikipedia includes verified information, not all true information. It's in the Wikipedia guidelines; I did not invent that. --Mareklug ^talk 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say as I see a red link. Anyway those sources are verifiable and correct as they haven't been accused of fabricating by anyone except for you. But you accused us all of skewing quotes so it's no wonder how you can't believe the government then. These news were even used by others who use only verified sources like diplomacy monitor.--Avala (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Being obtuse does not speak well of you. You could have fixed the link. This is furhter evidence that you really are not cooperative. And diplomacy monitor is not a source, but a reprint service of various sources, such as Serbian MFA, which spouts prodigious traffic. Your sourcing to "diplomacy monitor" instead of the source of the information is another case of willful misrepresentation, yes, skew. --Mareklug ^talk 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obtuse- a.Lacking quickness of perception or intellect. b.Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark. c. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain. So are you saying I am stupid or that I am not distinctly felt?--Avala (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"I can't say as I see a red link" (in reaction to: "So, true to WP:WER, we stay khaki, as in ambiguous. Wikipedia includes verified information, not all true information. It's in the Wikipedia guidelines;") What, you want a Nobel in Cleverness & Sensitivity for that? It was not the most intelligent or sensitive or even useful response available to a Wikipedia administrator. It only reaffirmed your working to hinder Wikipedia, the project you were tasked with protecting and caretaking, albeit in Serbian language version. This speaks very ill of your edits and discussion. --Mareklug ^talk 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"WP:XYZ - go and guess what I meant" attitude is wrong and ignorant. That's all I have to say. Also I am not going to comment on unfounded accusations which you spread left and right.--Avala (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates of recognition

To me the new way of expressing dates of recognition (for example now it looks like this: 2008-02-18... instead of what it used to be for over a month when it looked like this: 18 February 2008) isn't as professional as the original way. There is no reason to shorten the date into a less formal form. Once the page is unlocked this is one of the things I'm planning to change back unless there are reasonable objections. --Tocino 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They were changed to this form to enable correct sorting by date. The other format caused idiotic results, sorting alphabetically, with all "1"'s together, followed by "2"'s, and so on, without regard for chronology, mixing up months. All logged in users can set their preferences to override idiosyncratically the apprearance of properly wikilinked full dates, so if you setyours to the [[18 February]] [[2008]] setting, that is what you will see for all wikilinked dates on Wikipedia, whatever format they may be cast in text. Or one of several other variants. Doing what you suggest is yet another bad idea. --Mareklug ^talk 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you set it to see it as February 18 2008? Kosova2008 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Click on "my preference", select the "Date and Time" tab. Select one of radio button choices with date formats (usually it's "No preference" to begin with). Save settings. I just tested it and it works as advertised, including our table's dates. --Mareklug ^talk 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo

The new title for this section, "States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo", is less encyclopedic and definite than the original title. The new title leaves positions of countries open to the interpretation of different editors. While they may be leaning in a certain direction, ultimately the Czech Republic and Macedonia have not yet decided to formally recognize so they really belong under the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" category. Lithuania meanwhile is in the process of recognizing and there is no interpretation there... they belong in the "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo" section. The title of, "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo", which was in place for over a month, is more definite and it makes it easier to decide where certain countries belong. --Tocino 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tocino, "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo" is a better title. As with the current title suggests defiantly that the country will recognise. However with "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo" suggests that they are planning on recognition but its not 100% which is true and is NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it suggests, it is bullshit, an obfuscating phrase, without a shred of possible verifiability and in fact, opening us up to POV conflicts. There are not procedures of declaring formal intent, and this was already discussed above. What does it mean to "declare formal intent"? When the prime minister of Portugal Jose Socrates is quoted that he will recognize Kosovo in due course, as he was, is that formal intent? So Portugal should be on this list? I don't think so, because Portugal is not about to recognize. Simple as that.

This list is used as an imminent recognition list, and often we had countries fool us and recognize from out of the blue. Other times, countries have been moved off this list. Call a spade a spade, and don't pretend rigor with language qualifications that are completely subjective and unusable, such as "declaring formal intent". This bit of verbiage was inserted by Tocino at one time IMHO to exclude likely imminent recognizers. --Mareklug ^talk 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point actually. I didn't look at it like that. I withdraw my previous comment. Keep it as current. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Before you call it bs, let me explain you what is the declaration of formal intent. I will explain it on the example of Lithuania:

• On 18 February 2008 the President initiated parliamentary proceedings at the Seimas. - declaring formal intent to recognize
• Parliament (Seimas): Foreign relations committee unanimous approval on 22 February 2008.[78] - initiating formal process
• Parliament decision: Pending - concluding formal process or recognition

--Avala (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One swallow does not a spring make. I'm sure this is not just a proverb; it makes sense here, too. While Lithuania may fit your Cinderella's shoe, the notion of testing for declaring formal intent can't be generalized worldwide, as shown already on the counterexample of Portugal, which, I believe, had we left it to your describing, would still sport a misleading indication of what its Assembly passed or didn't pass (the Assembly does not set Portugal's foreign policy, and neither does its figurehead President -- the prime minister does, as user:Husond already observed on this page). In fact, you now passively consent to Portugal having been colored red (officially rejected indopendence)(reverted today 2008-4-1 to "orange", still unupported by what the prime miniter has said) on one of the 2 Commons maps you continue to maintain, the same, which you instantly overwrote whenever I had colored anything differently than the Serb government would have us believe. I see a credibility and consistency problem here. See Image:Kosovo_relations.png. --Mareklug ^talk 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well haven't you realized I am Vojislav Kostunica, technical PM, who in lack of other things to do spreads propaganda? :D I must admit you can make us all laugh. Where do you think Portugal's PM gets power from? It's from the parliament and I can't believe his MPs voted twice against recognition before UN and EU consensus and that he has some very different position. It's his party members, they work together - it's very, very rare in Europe for your own MPs to vote against you. It's not like in the US when Republicans could vote against Republican proposal. --Avala (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I am not a political scientist such as yourself, but verified information indicates the prime minister of Portugal will eventually recognize Kosovo's independence. Please report verified information, not obfuscate with dissertations on how European politics work. --Mareklug ^talk 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Got to admit, i agree with Mareklug there. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that statement was made before parliamentary meetings and president's statement (I remember it was there before these news). He said he will consult the President and the president is against. And parliament discussed and voted twice against. So I think he will listen to them and only recognize after the EU and UN do so. But as WP is not a crystal ball we define the current situation. Maybe LDP will win elections in Serbia and will recognize Kosovo but it only might happen, at the moment it's not the reality. --Avala (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala the article is good the way it is. A reaction isn't a simple "yes" and "no". It is true what you say, but I am leaning towards ljanderson977 here. Also look at this article [20]. It talks about how Czech Rep. will recognize Kosova even against the will of others. I assume a similar scenario will appear with Portugal. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Prime minister's designs on recognizing Kosovo "in due course" are sourced from the same source as the President's remark about the declaration being "abnormal", and is a news dispatch from the latest EU meeting. That's current situation. And User:Husond, who is Portuguese and an administrator held in high regard and evidently neutral in matters of Kosovo/Serbia, already posted his characterization on this talk page, in a section on Portugal above, describing the irrelevancy of the Portuguese President to foreign policy and governmental policy in general. So, again, we have here misrepresentation, contrary to best available evidence, including latest press article from EUbusiness.com and our own knowledgable and trusted Wikipedia editor reporting from Portugal. --Mareklug ^talk 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is irrelevant but it's PMs decision to listen to him even though he is by no means obliged to do it. Maybe Saudi King will say I am going to consult Allah which you may find irrelevant but he might think it's the best idea. And it is there as a repeating of the statement by PM not as a quote from a meeting he, it seems, did not attend or at least did not give a new statement. And I honestly don't see why are you complaining about it, if it's already in the article? Do you want us to put PM's statement in bold so it would stick out better? I don't get it. --Avala (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If the section is causing so much trouble, why not ditch it? Just go with those who have recognized and those who haven't. As Mareklug says above, "formal intent to recognize" isn't really a meaningful term. But I think "about to recognize" seems to leave the category far too open to interpretation. Hasn't Macedonia been "recognizing tomorrow!" three or four times now? We got rid of all the shades of recognition on the map, and went with the two definite categories, and I don't think that's significantly set back the cause of Kosovar independence. Just think of how much better everyone would get along without edit wars over this category. 130.245.197.71 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it gone, but it is useful to know which countries are about to recognize. Qubbling with quasi-precise "African swallow"-type Monty Pythonesque designations about their formal declarations of intent is just a way to limit this number. We move the countries in or out of this category, as circumstances warrant. That it its membership changes is no detriment. Think of it as a computer memory. Its a reading and comprehension aid after all, not an annointment. --Mareklug ^talk 01:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

Needs to be REWRITTEN. The source given states "has not" not "will not". Also "According to unnamed governmental sources quoted" does not constitute a SOURCE. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better if they said - MFA source Rodolfo Sanchez said....? Yes. But would it change anything? No. And there is no need for caps. There is no such thing as "will not recognize" in future form. We will not doesn't mean "we are about not to recognize" but "we don't recognize" as formal nonrecognition is legally not required at all. Only countries to vote a document with such content in the parliament are Serbia, Romania and Slovakia. --Avala (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kosova2008. Re-write it with the correct wording. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala is the author of this mistranslation, yet again (see Brazil's MFA Minister's quote which never was), and has defended his Uruguayian official position's characterization, going as far as coloring Uruguay red (as having rejected oficicially Kosovo's declaration of independence) on the Commons maps only on this basis: Image:Kosovo_relations.png, Image:Kosovo_relations.svg. Compare against my maps: Image:Kosovo_relations2.png, Image:Kosovo_relations.svg. Yet another bit of evidence of who is harming Wikpedia's credibility by inaccurately reporting the state of the world. And please no more misrepresenting -- New Zealand, speaking in plain English of Prime Minister Helen Clark, said they will not recognize (or recognize, for that matter). Laughable attempt at clumsy sophistry. Caught red-handed again: equating anonymous rumors, mistranslated with benefit to Serbian cause, with a state's nonexistent official position! --Mareklug ^talk 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Caught red-handed? Are you being serious? Anyway I was the first one to paint S.Korea blue after we had news saying "sources say Korea will recognize to enhance relations with the US". But you didn't catch me red-handed then, neither did you catch yourself when you added a statement from 2007 for Macedonia's >reaction<.--Avala (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala, sir, it is hard to give constructive criticism when you are holding this article for ransom. The article is saying that "Uruguay has not recognize Rep of Kosova because: reason A, B, and C" it doesn't say "Uruguay will not recognize Rep of Kosova." The difference between the two is that the first description gives arguments why Uruguay hasn't recognized the new republic like the other 37 countries whereas the other description implies that Uruguay will never recognize the democratic Republic of Kosova. If WP is to remain neutral it should report facts, I don't speak Uruguay or Spanish, a quick look up in FoxLingo (Mozilla extension) tells me that the article reads "has not" instead of "will not". Better yet, whomever created the description knew this information very well but wanted to add some of their opinion. The quote isn't even translated correct to begin with, and "unnamed sources" aren't sources. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And Russia did the same. Russia has not recognized because of international law blah blah but if intl law changes we will. Search for Putin's quote when he said that. I did paste it in some talk before. Does it really change anything considering their pillars are "the principle of territorial integrity of states, achieving a solution through dialogue and consensus, and recognition by international organizations.". It means Serbia has to agree to this so it wouldn't be breaking of territorial integrity and so it would be a solution reached through dialogue. Also UN would have to recognize in order to meet the third pillar.

Now don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that they will not recognize Kosovo independence. Maybe they will, but it's maybe and this article deals with today, what we have today not what might happen.--Avala (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You threw a fit because the date on Macedonia was '07 not 08 and yet you are trying to brush a POV statement by "but it's maybe and this article deals with today, what we have today not what might happen" ---fyi, that makes NO SENSE. The source leads to an ARCHIEVE section under the date 19 de Febrero not today, and my 'constructive criticism' is to change the statement but you are refusing. Again, you are holding the progress of this article ransom by not allowing other users to present a more neutral point of you. There seems to be a lot of work in these descriptions that are in nature personal POV, and we are finding more and more that the information presented is questionable. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against that info in let's say - Foreign relations of Kosovo or Kosovo status process but this is about the reaction to the act of declaring independence which something that was said a year ago is not. Simple as that. You don't need to throw accusations at the other side before hearing if it was a misunderstanding. --Avala (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Got any evidence that shows that the source in question is wrong or lying? --Tocino 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article reads,

"According to unnamed governmental sources quoted in Uruguayan press, Uruguay will not recognise Kosovo's declaration of independence, because doing so would not be in accordance with its required three pillars of recognition: the principle of territorial integrity of states, achieving a solution through dialogue and consensus, and recognition by international organizations"

Translation [21] reads "the government has not recognized the independence of Kosovo"

I am calling for either a correction or this to be deleted because the source given is not valid. This source is as valid as that politician who was speaking on behalf of another country. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the translation supports what is currently stated in the article... Uruguay will not recognize it says. I ask again... got any evidence that shows that the source in question is wrong or lying? --Tocino 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to trim it. I don't mind the part "According to unnamed governmental sources" even though it implies it was a rumour from the government, and not just a person who stated that without giving out his name. There is no need to trim it to just "the government has not recognized the independence of Kosovo" as this is not a paper encyclopedia. Information about the source as well the explanation of their decision should stay. --Avala (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a RUMOR, this is an article by some daily X. If you could back this up by a press statement or a statement from the Uruguay government than this should stay. Using this is a source is as much "populating the list" as Kosovathanksyou.com does. I see no reason why the whole entry shouldn't be deleted. Kosova2008 (talk)

You keep dodging the question... Do you have any evidence that shows that the source in question is wrong or lying? --Tocino 23:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only ones who are obliged to react with an official document and not just a statement or even nothing are those who decided to recognize. So there might not be an official document from the Government at all. Take this for an example, some parties in Slovakia didn't want any statement to be made because they believe that just by making a statement that mentions words "Kosovo" and "independence" they would acknowledge independence. --Avala (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree. You are saying that only ones that obliged to react are those who decided to recognize, these are your own words---in light of that this article should be named "Countries which recognized the DOI of Kosova 2008" and be exclusively be ONLY about those that decided to recognize and everyone else needs to be gone or deleted. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...No. Just because they don't have to react doesn't mean they don't. All of these countries want to be seen as active diplomatic players so they react. They react on Tibet issues, they react on Kosovo, they react on Zimbabwe elections and so on.--Avala (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Recognition is yes or no. Do you recognize? Yes or no. Beam 02:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs)

Troll

< User:Grsz11 removed due to repeated personal attacks, etc. between User:Tocino and User:Mareklug. This talk page isn't for your discussion of who may or may not be a troll. If you insist on talking about it, do so on a User talk: > Grsz 11 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks, but participated here, forced to define what I meant when I declared the phrase "declare formal intent to recognize" to be an example of bullshit. I had to defend this, and my reputation, being unfairly characterized as having been blocked here before, and to illustrate what bullshit can and does mean, and to properly source this. This section, titled "Mareklug is a troll", was, however, started as a personal attack on me. I'd appreciate you learning first how to mediate and correctly remove personal attacks, if they are to be removed at all. You have botched this operation here, among other things, removing without justification substantial amount of meritorious ontopic discussion, as well as orphaning as anonymous the original section heading, which was a personal attack, so that it became impossible to see who made this personal attack. Now, many hours later, you come back and unfairly and ineptly characterize your earlier edit. None of this was terribly adroit of you, or fair, including your follow-up call on the Administration Noticboard for admins to "dish out punishment". I don't think I could vote for your Request for Administratorship, given these crude edits. Clearly you need to hone your skills, because this intervention of yours brings more harm than good and is more incendiary than the offending text itself. And personal attacks are not between users, but made by one user on another. However, meddling and mishandling them, while removing relevant discussion, definitely constitutes an in-betweenness of the most undersirable kind, not to mention, suppression of speech. Undesirable speech should be confronted with more speech. --Mareklug ^talk 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The above post is yet another example of User:Mareklug's lack of respect for his fellow editors. --Tocino 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran

How did we miss this? And I must comment that I am assured he didn't consider anything, he just opposes Bush.

Ahmadinejad also said that Iran had not recognized the independence of Kosovo after considering the "region's issues and conditions of the region." - March 14, 2008.

--Avala (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you the person who said that a country does not need to make a comment whether they recognize or not because no comment meant that they do not recognize? Kosova2008 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I said they are not required to publish an official document saying so. This is the proof as he made the position of Iran clear on a press conference. They consider the situation legally unchanged. If he made a decision after such thorough consideration that Iran recognizes he would have had to publish a gov document about it. You could see it regarding Croatia. They published their recognition document (not just a press statement) online which says something like "in accordance with law xyz123 of RH, Croatia recognizes Republic of Kosovo and will establish diplomatic relations...". It doesn't mean we should stop following news now, because some of the countries that don't recognize might do it. For an example S.Arabia. At the moment they don't but there is a great chance that they will so we should follow that.--Avala (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be a reaction then? This is called "International REACTION..". Make up your mind. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The only ones who are obliged to react with an official document and not just a statement or even nothing are those who decided to recognize. So there might not be an official document from the Government at all. Take this for an example, some parties in Slovakia didn't want any statement to be made because they believe that just by making a statement that mentions words "Kosovo" and "independence" they would acknowledge independence. --Avala (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So what if he is only concerned with opposing Bush? All that matters is Iran made the right choice by respecting the soverignty of Serbia. :) --Tocino 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

and that is not trolling? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of talk page abusing, but it was done by others before (everywhere you see me saying this is not a forum).--Avala (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Greece (new stance))

The independence of Kosovo has created a new reality Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence has raised fears for the future of the Balkan region. How has Greece reacted, and what has Athens suggested to prevent trouble after Serbia’s threats of retaliation? Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence has created a particularly delicate new reality in the Western Balkans. The position of Greece has been determined by respect for the principle of a peaceful solution of differences, a solution obtained through dialogue and negotiation, not as the result of unilateral initiatives and accomplished facts. For the moment, the stability and security of the region are the principal objectives to be guaranteed at all cost. Greece calls on all the parties involved to abstain from any action likely to stir up tension. The active presence of the European Union and its collaboration with NATO’s KFOR force are necessary. Athens intends to make its own contribution to it. In regard to recognition of the new order of things -- which in any case does not constitute a precedent -- Greece will adopt its stand only at a later stage, after examining in depth all the developments and their dimensions and their impact on the security of the region, and on its own interests. [22]

This was an interview between a Greek ambassador and this magizine/newspaper. I am trying to find a Greek Government website but I can't find one. This is from some daily X but it comes from a Greek Ambassador which in my opinion is much more important and valid than "an unnamed source". Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see anything new. It is all already there in MFA and Deputy MFA and President statements. --Avala (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The last few lines mention "does not constitute a precedent" and that Greece will adopt a stand at a later time. This is much shorter than the descriptions (5 of them) we have starting from Feb 18th and ending on March 31st). We've got to shorten these descriptions, they are too long. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all we are not going to erase statements by the minister and her deputy and the president to change it with a statement of an ambassador. Secondly we are not going to trim it because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Avala (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Content

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." That's why it needs to be trimmed. Kosova2008 (talk)

Not if it means loosing valuable info. Please try to find some information on 100 countries which have no information on, rather than insisting on erasing current content. --Avala (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not insisting we delete it because I feel like it, I just think we should present very recent statements than 5 different statements ranging from Feb 18th. Also an ambassador's statements is just as important as the presidents or PM's. Many countries recognized Kosova's DOI through ambassadors -- hope this helped. Kosova2008 (talk)

Macedonia article

My biggest problem with the current article in regards to Macedonia is that it sites a source which is over a year old. Now this is either a typo, or a bad source to use, because, as we all know, a lot changes in a year.

I recomend finding a more up-to-date statement, or removing all together. As it stands, it is just misleading and not very helpful. TheLastDJ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing to the 2007 MFA statement was a mistake. We thought we were sourcing a day old press release, since exactly the same meeting of EU ministers took place on both occasions. However, later, examining the entire content of the MFA website shows, that it this is still the most current position document on the subject of independent Kosovo, and coupled with another press release, this time really from 4 days ago, it does form an authoritative representation of the current position of the government, as published by the government. We will add the other, newer press release, so the two will work together. Other than that, we only have guarded statements in the press by the President and rumors, as well as statements by all the ruling politicians in Kosovo, president and prime minister included, to the effect that it's all taken care of and recognition will happen. Which source is more useful in the encyclopedia? See sections #Macedonia Again - Formal Intent and #Sourcing Macedonia, above. --Mareklug ^talk

Marek, it is completely and utterly out of context to include anything from 2007 in this article. They may have reiterated it, but really it's more dodging the question than anything. Please revert back to "as of 19 March, unsettled". BalkanFever 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me (your suggestion). However, since we are bound by duty to annotate all country entries with references to sources, how exactly should we source that? Perhaps, with the 2007 statement combined with the 2008 reiteration of it? :) --Mareklug ^talk

It had all the sources before you edited it ;). We could mention the reiteration of support for the Aatisari (whatever his name is) proposal, but I still see that as a dodge by the ministry. BalkanFever 09:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodge or ford ("Shove me in the shallow water before I get too deep", Edie Brickell, a former river waif from Dallas & Mrs. Paul Simon :)), it's the official governmental position, the only one we have, and it is the government's reaction that we are documenting, not any one politician's. --Mareklug ^talk 10:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But this is not the article about government position but about the reaction. Add positions to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or Foreign relations of Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map

Should this be included in the article? Image:Serbia_relations.PNG. It shows things from a Serbian perspective. --Tocino 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are fine. It shouldn't feature Kosovo or Serbia perspective but a NPOV. And the current map in the article is so technical that there can't possibly be any POV additions. --Avala (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice POV map you have created there. basically same as the current map, but it doesn't show Kosovo and it shows countries that have recognised Kosovo in red, which makes them look bad. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with adding this map I don't see how can a red color make these countries look bad.--Avala (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Red is a colour always associated with bad and evil. Nazi, communists, the devil and hell, even darth vader has red light saber. red quite obviously red is not the colour to use. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, red means danger, red is a signal colour, you stop at red lights, in German we say "rot sehen" if someone feels like an angry bull in front of a red flag waved by the torero, when you are shown the red card at soccer, you are disqualified, and so on. Red is definitely not a neutral colour. --Tubesship (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Red is definitely not a neutral colour." - and those countries are not neutral either. --Avala (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not the creator of that map. Secondly, what you've just written is OR. I am a Red.... as in a Manchester United supporter. It's also my favorite color. But if red supposedly makes the nations look bad as you say, then why aren't you complaining about the map which is currently on this article which shows nations that oppose recognition as red countries? Hmmm. Like I said earlier, one of the reasons why I think some of these Westerners are so pro-Kosovo is because they think the Cold War is still going and they feel the need to oppose Russia, Serbia, and other evil, red nations. --Tocino 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the colors but the KEY (its' description) it seriously made me laugh. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The key, i didnt even read that. Probably the most Neutral thing i have ever read. NOT! This is a good example of Tocino trolling again. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So Albania and Montenegro are evil as they have red flags? I don't think so. For me it's more of a no colour. Green being a yes colour. I find it only logically wrong but I have no further associations. --Avala (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I doesnt really count on flags. Funny how you didnt mention a country such as serbia or germany having red on them though ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens who have a red stripe. I forgot China and Vietnam actually. --Avala (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All maps are personal POV because they either are showing countries which recognize or don't. We need to tackle this problem different, I propose we make a new map like [A chronology] Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The current map is fine, and easy to read because of soft tones. As Avala points out, green seems to indicate more that those countries said "yes" to independence than indicate they are "good countries." And if there is any True Evil in this world, it's not the color red, it's a chronological gif map!--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this map was created as an April Fools joke! 141.166.241.20 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current map shows countries which recognise Kosovo and countries which don't. There is nothing wrong with the current map. It is NPOV unlike the other maps. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So according to Tocino's proposed map and description, Serbia could soon become a partially recognized State.  :) 85.144.179.57 (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! according to Tocino's map 36 UN member states do not recognise Serbia. That includes 3/5 security council, majority of EU and all G7 nations do not recognise Serbia. Therefore making Serbia a partially recognised state according to Tocino. I think we should include the map if we are to include that legend to go with the map. Who would of thought, Tocino making Serbia look insignificant. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This request/idea is a great example of those boomerang effects that Serbia never understood or wanted to understand. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the map again: Hilarious! 141.166.241.20 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also why is Svalbard the islands belonging to Norway coloured in blue? Did they declare independence too and are now refusing to recognise Kosovo? Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right. Also notice that the map does not mark Taiwan in red either. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to say something about RED MEANS DANGER. That's laughable and a desperate show of the lengths some people will go to look victimized if it helps their POV. Anyway, just use a map that shows them both. Beam 02:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs)

Kosovo

The state infobox has been removed (again) by admin Dbachmann (talk · contribs) according to a so called "Abkhazia solution" the editor invented, but, of course, never got any consensus for.... --Camptown (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it's got nothing to do with this article.--Avala (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it back? --Camptown (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That unstable article gets reverted every other minute. But if it's true what you say that the admin made that edit then I don't see why should I change it. Obviously he made that edit because of some consensus, not necessarily on that article but as a general policy (that's why Abkhazia is mentioned I guess). --Avala (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you guys know there was definitely a consensus. Go look at the talk page. Beam 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Czechia undecided again

The Czech Republic is currently the #1 country listed as "about to recognize" Kosovo. This has clearly nothing to do with reality. The date announced as the recognition date is today, April 2nd. The government has interrupted and postponed discussions about Kosovo [23], agreeing that it is a subtle question that needs time to be studied and being afraid about the good relations between Czechia and Serbia.

I urge administrators to return the Czech Republic among the undecided and/or negative countries with respect to the new proposed state, with a fairer description of reality, something like:

On April 2nd, the Czech government has agreed to postpone the sensitive question of Kosovo. Most citizens, all parliamentary parties with the exception of a part of the Civic Democratic Party and except for the government portion of the Green Party, the president, and the whole opposition (social democrats and communists) are negative about the Kosovo independence. Prime minister Topolanek, foreign minister Schwarzenberg, and the European affairs minister Vondra are the only three senior politicians who support the independence, mostly in order to keep the Czech Republic among the majority of Western countries, but they are ready for a compromise. --Lumidek (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason it was #1 was due to it been in alphabetical order. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Czechia plan to recognise today, even though there is opposition from social democrats and communists. [24]. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, those are not the news from today. It says there will be voting in the government and the news Lumidek posted is showing the outcome. --Avala (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Czech. R. now needs to be moved from that list to the list of other countries as there is obviously no consensus in their government (this proves that the PM himself is NOT enough in any country to make any decision if parties and president disagree). This page lock is now seriously damaging the article as we are getting more and more content that needs to be added but it can't be added.--Avala (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough do it then. But we should have an english reference. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977 completely misunderstood the article [25] he or she mentioned. It was written on March 30th and it said that Schwarzenberg was planning to propose the recognition today, April 2nd. This is something very different than recognition that would have to be supported by a majority of the government and such a result of the vote was always unlikely and the Czech Press Agency never indicated otherwise.

Finally, on April 2nd, i.e. today, Schwarzenberg didn't propose the recognition plan at all because everyone agreed with the Christian Democrats (who oppose the recognition) that more time for this sensitive question is needed. I supported this news by a super-fresh article written 1 hour ago, [26], that says that the government has postponed the discussion. Moreover, many Czech politicians want to avoid any influence on the May elections in Serbia - the influence from a recognition means that it throws Serbia to the East which most of us don't want - so please don't expect a decision of the Czech Republic before May and even afterwards, please try to accept that the opinion of our non-critical country may be against the independence.

The social democrats, communists, Christian democrats, and most greens, and a significant part of the Civic Democratic Party are, much like the president and 70+ percent of the population, against the independence, and it would be nice to avoid further biased speculations about the Czech Republic vote in the future. The Czech Republic is undecided. --Lumidek (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

English-written news from Czechia are postponed. The newest thing written in English I can offer you, from the morning, is that the government is split and may postpone vote [27]. --Lumidek (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush. This article is locked until some time on the 3rd, and the admins will sure as hell not release it before then, if they will release it at all, given the talk page traffic and a lack of consensus-building to-date, since the locking. If I were an admin, I'd keep it locked, servicing it strictly through {{editprotect}} only as absolutely necessary, and explicitly consensus-backed. I'm sure we'll have an English-language source for CR's latest position before that earliest available unlock time.

And let me explain to you, Lumidek, why the CR is listed where it is: Based on best available evidence, sourced right in the article, CR was a likely "about to recognize" state. As situation develops, so does Wikipedia, and states that are no longer about to recognize, are removed. And that's that. However, your writing above in the section #Czech foreign minister calls for recognition on April 2, about how Kosovo is unviable and run by criminals, is not welcome here. This is not a forum. I suppose I should be grateful for your frankness, allowing us to make an adjustment for your bias, but an impartial relating of facts is what we want, and what helps edit Wikipedia content the most. Keep that in mind, please.--Mareklug ^talk 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Iran

{{editprotected}}

Instead of the current Iran content (previous statements by minister and ambassador) we need this:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Iran, after considering the region's issues and conditions of the region, decided not to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

Original news content is: "Ahmadinejad also said that Iran had not recognized the independence of Kosovo after considering the "region's issues and conditions of the region."

--Avala (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The quote is clearly at odds with the proposed synopsis: "said that Iran has not recognized" leaves room for all sorts of interpretations, including, that it is is still considering recognition, should "the region's issues and conditions of the region" change. The paraphrase imputes to Iran having decided not to recognize, a completed and officially declared decision-making. Also, the source is Iranian, so nuances of tense and meaning could conceivably not have survived intact the translation from Persian. And, such an in-passing press reference in an article about other topics hardly suffices to source a country's official position, when in the past, the same country's professional diplomats have been sourced by us already, as carefully studying the situation. Accordingly, a careful explication of Iran's position is expected, and needs to be sourced here when available, not a fuzzy news quote in English by an Iranian website. --Mareklug ^talk 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Typos fixed and my statement made more carefully. --Mareklug ^talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This opposition is invalid. Having doubts if the translators of the news agency know their job is either a joke or an intentional disruption of this article. Claiming we shouldn't add news from Iran because it must be a poor translation by journalists (without giving anything but your personal POV about Iranian news agency as a reason) is invalid. --Avala (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Let the readers interpret it then as they wish but you can't oppose adding this to the article. And who are you to decide if the translation is good or not? This is the most unbelievable thing I've seen so far - let's hide the information because one user suspects translators of the press agency. Based on what? Who cares! --Avala (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But I assure you, I oppose it in good faith, and edited my statement to make it more precise and remove typos. I am a translator and a reader/speaker of languages and a careful Wikipedia editor, and I believe, the points I am making, are reasonable, and I make them, as I said, in good faith, reflecting the WP:VER advice on how to source. --Mareklug ^talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hear you have good faith concerns but it doesn't mean we shouldn't add this to the article. Your concerns are your private thing but there is no reason for Wikipedia to believe you, that Iranians don't know how to translate. Thanks for your concern but unless you can provide solid proof that Iranians don't know their business we have to add this. It's again your POV this is fuzzy news not something that relates to Wikipedia policies. And this article is about the international reaction and if the statement by Iranian president is not the international reaction, what is? --Avala (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Avala, stop and read what I wrote, instead of what you wrote. I explicitly find your paraphrase to be unaccebtably at odds with the source. The source's possible infidelities as to translation are an additional concern, and stated as such. We want to source the official, careful staement of the government, as we have done to-date. Let's wait until we have a high quality source to use, not a passing reference in a website article demonizing USA and President Bush and only referencing Kosovo in passing and, as I already pointed out, unclearly. And this editprotect IS contested, and your repeated removal of this indicator from the section heading only speaks of your intransigence and belittling of fellow editor's considered input. --Mareklug ^talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you didn't mind any of this in the prediscussion - Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Iran. Anyway what is your suggestion. Are you just going to complain and oppose or can you be constructive now? Just to make it clear forgetting about this statement is out of question. But we can discuss the wording. Let us see your proposals. Also keep in mind that I have posted original news content so false paraphrasing accusations cannot be made. --Avala (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The exact wording is contested, but the addition of Ahmadinejad's comment appears not to be. Let's work on other possibilities, and do so in a civil manner. - Ev (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How about simply adding Ahmadinejad's comment (with the wording closely following that of Al-Alam News) to the ones of Mottaki and Ansari, including the dates in which each one was issued? The readers will then draw their own conclusions.

So, my proposed text (additions in green):

On February 24, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that Iran is studying the situation and would make a decision in due course.¹ In early March, Golamreza Ansari, Iranian Ambassador to Russia, said that "this question has very important aspects. Frankly speaking, the United Nations divided one of its members into two parts, though Article 1244 confirms the territorial integrity of Serbia. This is a very strange event. We think that some countries try to weaken international organisations. Presently, Iran is studying the question of Kosovo's future. Iran expresses its concern over the weakening of international organizations".²

On March 13, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran, after considering the region's issues and conditions, had not recognized the independence of Kosovo.³

Here ends the proposed text. Sources:

1 - "Iran will release copy of agreement with IAEA", Islamic Republic News Agency, Tehran, February 24, 2008.

2 - "Golamreza Ansari, Iran's Ambassador to Russia: "We don't have such missiles"", by Yuri Plutenko, The Moscow News N° 10 2008, March 13, 2008.

3 - "Ahmadinejad: US 'Enemies of All Humanity'", Al-Alam News Network, Dakar, March 14, 2008.

And with this we patiently wait for sources of better quality to appear... So, what do you think ? - Ev (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. By adding a nearly literal paraphrase, without replacing what we have, an by putting the lot of it in a timeline, we're not hurting the Iran content, but enhancing it. Would you please hang around some more? We need your sort of careful, delicate editing. --Mareklug ^talk 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes please add it.--Avala (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Czech Republic

{{editprotected}}
Needs to be moved into International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#UN member states 2 and text replaced with this:

On April 2, Czech Government has postponed a decision on Kosovo. Recognition is supported by the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and the European Affairs Minister Alexandr Vondra but President Václav Klaus, a part of the ruling Civic Democratic Party party, coalition partners Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, the opposition Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the Czech Social Democratic Party oppose it.

--Avala (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's great except that "ruling Civic Democratic Party" must be replaced by "a part of the ruling...". For example, there are some ministers for this party who are orthodox Christians. ;-) --Lumidek (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited it into "a part of the ruling". Hopefully the admin can now add it. --Avala (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Mr. Schwarzenberg's formal proposal to recognise Kosovo as independent. Will that happen today? --Camptown (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It happened today and it seems he withdrew the proposal as he received support by Topolanek and Vondra only. So they made a decision to postpone a decision. --Avala (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It won't. There won't be any vote about it today (or in coming days). The ministers agreed it is too subtle a question and they will read the documents more carefully to have a more supported position later. --Lumidek (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the first English-written report about Prague making no decision on Kosovo on April 2nd (and/or probably the following days and weeks): [28]. I believe it is enough for a wise admin to make the edit hinted above with Czechia moved back to undecided countries and with the appropriate information and links. Thanks in advance, Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A new and more complete English-written report about Czechia that has shelved the Kosovo debate and whose position is ambiguous is here: [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumidek (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I have given two references: ČT24 in Czech & the Prague Monitor in English (diff.) - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it looks accurate and informative right now and will look so until new events come to the scene again. --Lumidek (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request India (this request is contested - Issues: Can Indian ambassador make a reaction on behalf of India or not? Is Indian ambassador working for the host MFA or his employer Indian MFA?)

Please add this to India next to the existing text:

On March 31, Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup, said that "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. We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue."

Original content is: Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup confirmed his country's stance on Kosovo in an interview published today. "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," Swarup told the daily Večernje Novosti. "We believed that the Kosovo issue could be resolved in a peaceful manner, by way of dialogue and consultations, and our stand has remained unchanged ever since 1999, when India upheld UN Resolution 1244, which ended the war," the ambassador continued. "We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue," Swarup insisted. He added that a "high level of India's support to Serbia" can be seen from the comments and articles which appeared in the Indian press following the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence. Swarup also pointed out that Kosovo "can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".

--Avala (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: And the source comes from (drumroll please) "B92 is a radio and television station in Belgrade, Serbia. I will not oppose if you can find a non-Alb/Ser article or from an Indian Govt Website. [[30]]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Solution: - http://www.embassyofindiabelgrade.org/ - ssindemb@eunet.yu and Indemb@eunet.yu +381 11 2664127, 266 1034, 266 1029 Or the ambassador himself - +381113674208.

Only if they tell you this source is all made up propaganda by evil Serbs and that ambassador didn't say that I will consider your opposition valid. Until then it's not. --Avala (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

B92 is in itself a source which may be used to back up claims. Just because its Serbian doesn't mean that it is not trustworthy. Otherwise we have to kick out all references to Kosovar media as well. Although I have to admit that I'd prefer to include only (not just in the case of India) statements by government officials, such as government ministers, presidents etc. Gugganij (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

B92 is accused of being anti-Serbian in Serbia but in here you say it can't be used because it's from Serbia? What kind of discrimination is that? Let's than remove all sources from Kosovo press. Or maybe not? And what do you expect? Indian ambassador to Belgrade to give an interview to Dominican daily? It's an interview - it's never going to be found on the website of Indian government. --Avala (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, India is a nation (sic) and Indians know how to run websites (sic) and we have sourced the Foreign Ministry's in particular. There's no reason not do so again. It should dawn on you by now, that statements made by foreign politicians/ambassadors in Serbia, or in consultations/press conferences with Serbian Foreign Minister, etcetera, are out of plain diplomatic courtesy colored with Serbian this and that. Let's just wait for India to announce its reaction on its website, as it obviously is capable od doing. As is Cuba, incidentally. Thinking these powers incapable of communicating unambiguously is presumptious in the worst way. Sourcing Macedonia's reaction by Kosovar president or prime minister's statements is just as unsaviory. So, relent already, will you? We can do, and should do, without either Serbian and Kosovar sourcing, other than the positions of Kosovo and Serbia themselves. --Mareklug ^talk 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

P.s. You made these edit-requests without consulting with anyone, rather arrogantly, whereas their boilerplate expressly states that they are to be used for obvious or noncontested edits. You should remove them now, as they won't be fulfilled by any sane administrator, and only cause annoyance by populating a category and by doing so, crying wolf, reducing the likelihood that noncontested editprotects from this talk page will be serviced, and interfereing with edit protects elsewhere on Wikipedia. That I have to instruct an administrator of these obvious administrative basics is frankly galling... --Mareklug ^talk 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you oppose it doesn't mean it wont be added. Opposing always needs to be valid and making impossible requests is not a valid opposition.--Avala (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian ambassador to Belgrade gave an interview to a Belgrade daily. Now I don't think I am the only one puzzled by your idea to wait for an interview he will give to his own government. I have never seen an ambassador giving interview to his own government. We are waiting for the first such interview in recent history I guess.

"that statements made by politicians/ambassadors in Serbia, in consultations with Serbian Foreign Minister, etcetera, are out of plain courtesy colored with Serbian this and that" - ambassadors make statements in consultations with their Foreign Minister not Serbian. Do you think of India as a banana state where ambassadors act outside of the scope of their own ministry? And I haven't seen much courtesy from German, US etc. ambassadors. I am sorry but what you wrote is nonsense. Foreign Ambassadors don't make statements after consulting the host minister. It just doesn't go that way.

And I said add this next to the current content of India. Not replace it.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't want ambassador's statements made in Serbia. We want the MFA's careful official webpage statement, of the sort we have now. When they produce a change of position, we will be sure to source it. This editprotect request is contested and your removal of the notice from the section heading does not change that fact, and only speaks poorly of your treatment of fellow editors' considered input. --Mareklug ^talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is this article name "official statetements by MFA webpages" or the "international reaction". This is a valid reaction so please stop abusing your edit powers.--Avala (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request, Croatia and Macedonia

Could somebody please change the candidacy of Croatia in EU and NATO from "country" to "state". Somebody please add Macedonia as a EU candidate and NATO candidate. --PG-Rated (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

EU potential candidate states

Maybe, this should be added: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognised as potential candidates.[31] Kosovo has been granted similar status.[32] --Camptown (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its an idea, but I think its going into rather deep detail there. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to go into details then only Albania, Croatia and Macedonia should be mentioned since they are the ones that have the MSA signed. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago some editors were complaining that the article is getting too cluttered and so that was one of the main reasons why OIC status was removed from nations. --Tocino 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are fully capable of browsing through the archive and understanding why OIC was removed. No need to be cynical here, EU candidate countries need not be mentioned. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but we don't need to add EU potential candidate status either, especially when one of the main reasons why OIC was removed was because the article was supposedly getting too cluttered. --Tocino 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to read what I just posted above: EU candidate countries need not be mentioned. And no, OIC was NOT removed only because the article was getting cluttered. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article deals with "international reaction of the DOI" therefor it should mention countries/states reaction. If we add OIC/potential X member than we are showing importance --- which means the reaction of one country is more important than the others. If that is the case than this article should only include European countries, America, and Russia. We should completely remove all the "member of ..." and just leave the evidence of the current nation's stance. Also, this article is getting cluttered and too confusing. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Kosovo (International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence)

1.1 - States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo - Lithuania Insert after "Pending": The parliament decided on 2 April not to approve or reject the recognition of Kosovo resolution, but instead to return the project requesting the text to be improved. Jakro64 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not seem to work. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's about Kosovo but in Lithuanian and I have no idea what does it say. I must admit I am a bit puzzled by actions of Lithuania.--Avala (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we wait for confirmation of this information before changing anything? Like Avala, I have no idea why Lithuania hasn't moved forward with recognition. Everything seems to be in alignment for it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it says just what Jakro told us: The ... text needs to be improved. We will wait and see. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop asking why and just wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The link should work, but there is no English translation. Yesterday most parliamentarians in Vilnius were busy (in a 50th anniversary party somewhere else in the city) and it seems that those 62 left in the parliament did not really know what to do but to return the one-sentence resolution proposal text which essensially said something like "Lithuania recognizes Kosovo as an independent and sovereign country". It is quite embarrasing and President Adamkus is quite furious ... It is now expected the recognition will come on 17 April and that the text will include a request to the government to initiate diplomatic relations with Kosovo. Jakro64 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

People! Monaco and Liechtenstein have recognized. San Marino is staying neutral. But what about the mighty Principality of Andorra?

After all, France has recognized while Spain apparently refuses to. Andorra is kinda in the middle there. Yet, Andorra is also Catalan and the Republican Left of Catalonia appears to be pro-recognition.

So does anyone know anything about Andorra's reaction? 141.166.241.20 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the Andorran Embassy in Brussels on Monday enquiring about their position on Kosovo. When I receive a reply I will pass it on. I've communicated with them in the past so I'm confident in receiving a reply. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

The source for the evidence, can that be from the Kosovar Government websites for countries which have yet themselves made little to no comment on their reaction to the Kosova's DOI? EX: Kosovar Govt website reads, "Mongolia which has been quiet, we have learned that they will recognize, the Mongolian govt has stated that they will not make a press statement until after the recognition." Would that be enough to put that Mongolia will recognize?

We should come up with a guideline to constitute what classifies as a reaction and what does not. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there can be too much wishful thinking in the claims of the Kosovar Government. International and local media are more reliable sources. Zello (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the Serbian Government and their wishful thinking. I found here another questionable evidence. This country is based on Serbian govt "source" and the other source comes from a Serbian tv station which is known for its' propaganda. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If such a press release was made after a meeting with Mongolian officials then yes, otherwise no. --Avala (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian website (govt) doesn't make sense. It's all DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSDDDDDD, I think I have the right font. Mongolia has no press release, no news, nothing. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Well where did they come up with Mongolia's position? They couldn't just make it up, especially consider Mongolia being sandwiched between China and Russia. There should be a great reason to believe that they are about to recognize. --Avala (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Click Me Kosova2008 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a link to the Mongolia info that you refered to in your first entry?Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using mongolia as an example. I am opposed to a lot of stances stated here in WP based on the Serbian website..like LIBYA. Libya has 2 sources. One source is the Serbian website which is biased. The title reads "does not" but in the middle it is skewed and says "will not" --- point is that it's not reliable. The second source leads to RTV-Serbia. Anyone who knows anything about this place is that RTV-Serbia is the biggest propaganda channel (in Serbia). I even found this information on the WP page. What's even more bothering is that I can't find any place to translate the Serbian text. So both sources are invalid and can't be used. Whomever added the stance of Libya was doing a little part-time POV editing. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. It's not a propaganda channel (even though it was during Milosevic, 10 years ago). Today it's a respected EBU member. Unless you have a counterproof I suggest you don't ever open such sections again. Making up these things about Mongolia was rude and puts all your edits under a shade. And I gave you an instruction how to avoid error page on that website but why would you read that? No, it's just better to repost the same problem over and over again. So I will repost it three times, maybe you will bother to read it - Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. --Avala (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request Brazil (contested)

Original: "The Brazilian government will recognise the independence of Kosovo only if Serbia does. The Brazilian government reaffirms its belief that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and the legal framework of Resolution 1244 of the Council Security. In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on the matter of Kosovo's independence.[97]"

Proposing:Brazil's is not ready to recognize.

Reason:This was given yesterday in a meeting between Serbian FM and Brazilian FM. It is the most recent and ends all disputes about the position of Brazil. The new statement mentions no resolution, no dialogue, or anything just that Brazil is not ready yet to recognize the newly democratic Republic.

Source: Serbian Official Website

Kosova2008 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If the Serbian Foreign Ministry now titles its press release "Brazil not ready to acknowledge unilateral independence of Kosovo", that is a marked change in position from what Wikipedia article represents based on a older Portuguese sources. It remains to be seen, how this is cast by an independent source, or an official Brazilian one. I oppose sourcing any country's of any non-Kosovo/Serbia entity's position or reaction in the Wikipedia to either the Kosovar or Serbian Ministry as blatantly disregarding the principles of neutral sourcing (WP:VER). Just the same, this points out yet another country User:Avala has painted red (meaning, the country has already officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence) on Commons Image:Kosovo_relations.png/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg which even by Serbian government MFA press release IS NOT. More skew. --Mareklug ^talk 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but you must make up your mind. Is Serbian government a reliable source or not? And yes, I believe if we have a statement from Brazil itself there is no need to use Serbian sources. Use them only if we can't find any others. So can you spot a difference between these two; Brazil says "we are not ready to recognize if Serbia doesn't" and Serbia says "We appreciate Brazil's position - that they are not ready to recognize". It seems more like a statement coming onto the previous one than a difference.--Avala (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT, disregard of WP:VER, POV reality adjustment (Brazil is on record as having deferred its official position until UN SC takes up its position -- we even source this now in the article!), and certainly a rather depressing absence of any WikiLove. :) --Mareklug ^talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that I have finally reached to you. Don't abuse this space by caps lock and bold if it's not some kind of final conclusion. I will now remove it as you've realized your mistakes. --Avala (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, seamlessly, surgically removing your own example of WP:POINT from the discussion, without leaving behind even a marker, and making the thread look like the WP:POINT never happened, while orphaning the reply to it, so that now it looks completely irrelevant and disorienting and makes no sense -- because the thing it was commenting on is no longer there' -- is not exactly the most ethical edit. Neither is putting words in my mouth, about me realizing my mistakes. Such sophistry is unworthy of an administrator on any Wikipedia. Surely such tricks is not what passes for transparent, archived discourse over yon? --18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding conflict issues requiring consensus -- please answer these questions and add new ones as need be

This text was before under the last section on Czechia/Czech Repubic. I'm moving it to a separate section at the bottom of the page, as the most pressing item for disucssion, expressly requesting users who took part in contested edits, including User:Tocino --Mareklug ^talk 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: I'm not so worried about adding material that is stacking up, but rather about the likley rash of removals and forcible obliterations that awaits us, along the lines of your removal of information for Cuba without so much as an edit summary, just before the article was locked. This is edit-warring. This article is locked because of edit-warring. Just something to think about. Even in the clear-cut case of falsified data for Uruguay, you have been uncompromising and we have no reason to expect any give-and-take, only plowing on. And the issue of fabricated Brazil, which version Tocino keeps forcibly reverting to, is still a thorn. All these issues need discussing and forming an explicit consensus, and the admins would be fools to unlock now, without any consensus-building having taken place yet. I somehow doubt that posting a section "Mareklug is a troll" went a long way towards satisfying the conditions stipulated by the boilerplate of the lock template displayed over the article now. Perhaps some people should read that text carefully and ponder it. Unless, of course, the admins are simply silently readying to ban future reverters en masse, which is another way to stabilize "content exchange". :/ --Mareklug ^talk 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think more has yet to be discussed before everyone rushes and starts editing again. Its be locked for a reason. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this (previous news on Czech R, Lumidek's personal opinion and Cuba) have to do with recent developments in Czech Government? And I don't see how can you be asking for dialogue when you called proposals by editors "a bullshit". Let's not abuse this space for the release of personal frustrations, OK? --Avala (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't weasel your way away from answering on conrete issues: Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay, headline content, date format in table, Prishtina, on a technicality, that we are discussing in the wrong section. Cut and paste to a new one, if you like. But do talk. If you are explicitly refusing to discuss this, I guess that tells the world we are deadlocked. --Mareklug ^talk 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered them enough times already. It's just that you can't accept an answer which is different to your opinion as an answer. If you describe the official of another country as a retired person having a rant I can't think of it as a good will for dialogue. --Avala (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Avala. I think it is important that you have a good read of WP:AGF before you take part in future discussions on Wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith if someone proposes dialogue but disses all proposals by others calling them bullshit at the some time.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult not to get exasperated at your misrepresentations and your refusal to address concrete issues squarely. Point: The only thing I called bullshit is the phrase "declare formal intent". We have been through this already, since you asked whether I considered somebody's edit bullshit, and I explained precisely what I meant. However, my having done so is of no consequence to you, and you prefer to distort and misrepresent. Be that as it may, the following issues have been contentious and require agreement:

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Uruguay is presently falsely sourced as already officially rejecting recognition? Do you agree that the source does not contain "Uruguay will not recognize" but instead "Uruguay has not recognized", which puts it in among states with ambiguous or unclear status (khaki-colored)? Do you agree that this entry's content is attributed currently only to unnamed sources? --Mareklug ^talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Do you agree that the current description of Brazil is factual and correct? Do you concede3 that the version being forcibly reverted to that contains a long direct quote attributed to the Foreign Affairs Minister is not in the Portuguese source, and therefore, should not be brought back? --Mareklug ^talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Do you agree that dates of the form "2008-02-12" are fine because they can be sorted correctly, for the sortable table column of officially recognizing countries, and do you agree not to revert them to another format that won't sort correctly?
4. Do you agree to keep the name of the Kosovan capital written as "Prishtina" throughout this article? --Mareklug ^talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Do you agree to return the sentence you removed from Cuba's description in the table, re: Cuban Foreign Ministry not having issued any official traffic re: Kosovo yet?
6. Do you agree to not have "declare formal extent" appear in the headline of the section where we list states which are about to recognize? --Mareklug ^talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is the section on Czechia and not other things I will respond:

1. I don't agree it's falsely sourced as the article clearly explains what is the source and what did it say. There is nothing unclear about it, except for the fact we don't know the name of the person from Uruguayan government who made this statement but that is well noted in the article.
2. Yes I agree that the current description of Brazil is factual and correct. Actually I said I don't see the reason for all the reverts considering there is little difference between two versions. The current one can stay, I have no complaints.
3. I have no opinion on date sorting as I never made any edits regarding this issue. It's a technical issue and I agree to whatever is a Wikipedia official style.
4. No. The article on the capital is named Priština not Prishtina. But as a part of a compromise I suggested using alternative English spelling Pristina which is neither Albanian (Prishtina) nor Serbian (Priština).
5. As there is no source for this sentence I can't agree to it. Fidel Castro is a foreign policy advisor to the President so there is no need for MFA to act as well especially knowing it's Cuba and that chances that MFA will disagree with Castro brothers is 0. And they might have made a statement but their website gets news once a year so we can't really know.
6. I explained my opinion on the example of Lithuania.

• On 18 February 2008 the President initiated parliamentary proceedings at the Seimas. (declaring formal intent to recognize)
• Parliament (Seimas): Foreign relations committee unanimous approval on 22 February 2008.[78] (initiating formal process)
• Parliament decision: ... (concluding formal process or recognition)

--Avala (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week submitted his regular report on the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK.

In his report he writes Mitrovicë / Mitrovica for the capital city the word is Prishtinë / Priština. The Albaniani comes first because it is what 95% (19/20) speak. When I read "kosovska mitrovica" that is incorrect. I have time and again pointed at you that UNMIK clearly uses diff names than in wikipedia. We need to change it from Priština --> Prishtina. How are you reporting an article about RoK and not report the name that the government uses which is PRISHTINA? The report can be read here (PDF)68.114.197.88 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO

Has said that "A stable and multi-ethnical Kosovo is another objective of NATO" [33] Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

When is the page going to be unblocked? have disputes been resolved yet? Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is almost no chance that the disputes on this article will be resolved. Compared to other Kosovo related articles, this one is really unimportant and still no agreement. I suggest to send this discussion page to all those countries which prefer/urge further discussion on the status and let them see the results. I think Wikipedia needs to change its policies when it comes to disputable articles, and there are plenty. Jawohl (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But should we request for this page to be unblocked? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? I understand that the latest blocking was introduced by an admin who were not so familiar with the article anyway. --Camptown (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's why not: we are to expect reverts in a number of areas, as soon as editing is possible, and out of 6 asked questions on contested topics, 4 are deadlocked, 1 is agreed to, and 1 is a don't care. And that's with User:Tocino ignoring the questions altogether, and he is on record as fixing to, well, fix all six to not what they currently are. Also, most of the outstanding editprotect requests are contested (by the editprotect template instructions, that invalidates them on the spot). All this, unlike the first time the article was locked for long, shows little consensus. And there's motion afoot to chuck all non-neutral sourcing, such as the ministries of the Kosovo and Serbia or the media from these countries. A number of positions are sourced that way. And the admins familiar with this article actually appear to have distanced themselves from it. --Mareklug ^talk 11:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There should not be any unblocking until everything is sorted out and that might take a very long time. Jawohl (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The anti-Kosovar or anti-independence camp has been using QUESTIONABLE sources coming from a)serbian media b)serbian govt. Sources from B92, RTV-Serbija, and Serbianna aren't valid, reliable, and I am severely against it. If the reactions are "formal" they should come from MFA or the country's govt website. I know in the beginning we sourced everything, no matter what it was, but then we started to re-source the same quotes from different articles. How can I trust India's reaction when it comes from B92? I can't find any webpage which backs up the claims coming out the Belgrade run B92. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should anyone believe what you say? Even your user name shouts bias from the start. There is no evidence to suggest that these sources are lying. Just because you don't like the fact that your province is only recognized as independent by less than 1/4ths of U.N. member states does not mean you can come on WP and try to hide these facts. --Tocino 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You just turned a discussion into an insult. Also you are wrong these so called "sources" are lying because B92, tanjung, Serbianna.com are propaganda websites, and any Belgrade based propaganda machine is full of inaccuracies and biasness. I will not tolerate Serbian Propaganda here to call my country a "province", last time I checked serbia was a partially recognized piece of territory. "U.N. member states does not mean you can come on WP and try to hide these facts." What facts? Those are LIES, blatantly lies that are being presented as facts. I will not respond to your trolling..buh bye. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008 will not tolerate Serbian Propaganda here to call my country a "province", last time I checked serbia was a partially recognized piece of territory. It may be that you are too biased to work on Wiki articles dealing with Kosovo. Serbia is a recognized country, and we can represent its point of view. How can you not tolerate that? Beam 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbs in Kosovo let down - by Serbia

Suspended Serb prison workers from Lipljan are continuing their blockade of the Coordination Center in Gračanica. They claim that Belgrade, the Kosovo Ministry specifically, has not paid them money promised for leaving the Kosovo institutions.[34]. If this is true, it may be included in the Serbian reaction. --Camptown (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, you can make that edit even now, as I managed to migrate Serbia's reaction to its own article, Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, leaving here only a synopsis and links to articles, and those aren't edit warred. --Mareklug ^talk 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian govt submits plan to UNMIK suggesting its division into cantons

• Serbian Minister on Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic has submitted to UNMIK a plan suggesting Kosovo's division into cantons along ethnic lines. [35]. This is the second time in a few weeks the minister submits formal applications of Kosovo's division to the UN... --Camptown (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the same plan but tanjung (serbian media agency) just worded it different. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see... Tanjug also exclusively reported about the massacre in Timisoara 1989 that never occurred... --Camptown (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

local theater of absurd

Just how far we are from having a functional body of editors editing here is shown by the following: not only has an editor made editprotect requests entirely on his own without considering that they may be contested, when they were contested, he instigated a campaign of discrediting the opposing editors on talk pages of various admins and noticeboards; declared their objections invalid; misrepresented their objections, and is now waging a ludicrous campaign of writing all that nonsense into lengthy section headings of this talk page.

So, not only is it ok to mistranslate, misquote, misparaphrase, fabricate quotes, or even represent a sovereign country's position by pronouncements made by the Serbia's Foreign Ministry or the Serbian State TV, but it is also not allowed to object to any of this, because any such objections are "invalid". And the opposing considerations will be misrepresented as something else, because, words of editors themselves are insufficient; they have to be interpreted for them to the world. :) --Mareklug ^talk 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but pity it's another poor attempt to fool other editors and release personal frustrations. You didn't care to make your edit here - Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Iran but when I opened an edit request for the same thing you made a problem out of it (ridiculous one saying that Iranians must have poor translators but still) and now you claim "an editor made editprotect requests entirely on his own without considering that they may be contested". Do you ever feel ashamed for just making things up like that?

Claiming we shouldn't add news from Iran because it must be a poor translation by journalists (without giving anything but your personal POV about Iranian news agency as a reason) in the news agency is invalid.

--Avala (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The objection is in the main to your inaccurate and unnecessary paraphrase, dear Avala. No amount of misrepresenting that, short of blanking my actual objection, will change the evidence. Lucky for me, our administrators can read with comprehension. --Mareklug ^talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Also, the source is Iranian, so nuances of tense and meaning could conceivably not have survived intact the translation from Persian." - yes they can read this statement of yours. And they can also read how you falsely accuse of making edit request without previous discussion. I am waiting for your apology on this one. --Avala (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to one of your talk pages, guys. We don't need this here. BalkanFever 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree but I have to respond to unfounded accusations which pop out from Mareklug all the time. It seems that because he makes extremely lengthy posts no admin ever cares to deal with him.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request for Macedonia

Please move Macedonia to the list of UN member states that have not granted recognition yet, with this text

| North Macedonia || "The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President Branko Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo, but he pointed out that nations in the two organizations have to yet to assume a common stance. The Democratic Party of Albanians left the government coalition on March 13 after it failed to meet their six demands, recognizing Kosovo's independence being one of them. However, it returned on 24 March after demanding the recognition of Kosovo. The various politicians involved are busy conducting negotiations and their outcome remains unsettled as of 19 March 2008.||EU candidate country
NATO candidate country

Also, in the intro, please remove

"and on 30 March 2007, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center published a press release with the following content concerning Kosovo: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue."[5]"

as it is quite obviously out of context. BalkanFever 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to your agreeing to source the MFA's pro-Ahtisaari plan language from two press releases, 2007 and 2008, taken together as additional information? The ones included on the talk page, upstairs? This was in the previous discussion of Macedonia, where you said that it might be a dodge on part of the ministry, but you did not mind including it. Why is it not tacked on to the end of the above editprotect request? Woulnd't sourcing current MFA position be an asset? --Mareklug ^talk 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Something from 2007 does not fit into a category of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.--Avala (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have insisted on sourcing the Greek President's speech in Romania on the day before the independence declaration. And the "something from 2007" happens to be continually displayed today, not in any archive but in the main webspace of the foreign ministry of the government of Macedonia, and its language is echoed and alluded to in a 5-day-old "something from 2008". I propose adding that evidence, taken as a unit, to the sourcing for Macedonia, as it is a) current, b) official, c) unambiguous, and d) says things which the other assembled description glosses over. In fact, it is a strong implication of recognizing Kosovo's independence. I submit that the information displayed on the MFA's website belongs as pertinent documentation. --Mareklug ^talk 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Day before he spoke about the independence declaration and not year before about Ahtisaari plan. This is not the article called International reaction to the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo. Please I hope you can see the difference. --Avala (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If we go by years old statements, then back in 2006 the head of the EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, said that Kosovo independence would create a precedent and it could have a negative impact on Georgia's territorial integrity. Can we add this to the EU's entry? --Tocino 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is what I propose to add to the tail end of the above editprotect request:

As for the official publications, the latest on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center addressing Kosovo's independence is this year-old 30 March 2007 press release: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue." The Ahtisaari plan continues to be invoked today, in the 27 March 2008 press release:"In welcoming the constructive position of the Republic of Macedonia concerning Kosovo, the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament has expressed concern because of delay in the technical demarcation of the Republic of Macedonia-Kosovo borderline and has asked that this issue be solved in accordance with the Ahtisaari proposal."

--Mareklug ^talk 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Marek, you asked for sourcing of my proposal to revert back to "unsettled as of 19 March" and I have. Maybe we should add "on [insert date], the Macedonian foreign ministry reiterated its support for the Ahtisaari proposal for peace in Kosovo" or something to that effect. But of paramount importance is what was said after February 2008 - not reiteration, but an actual reaction. Macedonia has not recognised Kosovo independence, and is not "about to" either. The outcome is unsettled as of today, but sticking to the sources, it is unsettled as of 19 March. BalkanFever 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you're saying that there is nothing from the ministry since last year, and they haven't reiterated anything after the declaration of independence, it definitely should not be included. It simply does not count. BalkanFever 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request for Albania and Croatia

I believe these two countries are NATO members now, as opposed to candidates BalkanFever 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The don't become NATO members until next year some time. They have just been invited to become members. Im gutted about Macedonia though :-( Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Yeah, I'm a bit pissed off, but what can you do :(. BalkanFever 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh Greece needs to grow up. I thought they were meant to be inviting countries based on criteria for NATO membership, not based on what the countries name is. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a stain on Greece's reputation. Greeks seem unable to understand that their petty dispute is earning them nothing but a bad image. Does anyone know when exactly will Croatia and Albania become NATO members? Húsönd 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not been decided yet, they are still working on a date. Its sometime in 2009 Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop being pov... Greece is a Greek War of Independence since 1832 and can do whatever they feel like, how is greece being immature?--Jakezing (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change for Albania and Croatia? Are you trying to add "potential NATO members"? Jakezing, ljanderson, that's a great discussion to be made in a talk page. Let's refrain from taking anymore space on this page. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Czech Repuiblic

...needs updating. The Foreign Minister proposed recognition of independence of Kosovo - yesterday (the text says he will do it yesterday), and it was rejected by the Government. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit request, and not even the most creative trolls could come up with an opposing claim, but no admin has reacted so far. --Avala (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Your continued reference to opposing viewpoints as trolling nad those editors as trolls constitues a personal attack. (WP:ATTACK Keep this up, and the reaction of the admins you will invoke might leave you locally ineffable. --Mareklug ^talk 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to intentional disruptions not opposing viewpoints.--Avala (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want? An unintentional disruption? An opposing viewpoint is blocking your edit. Get over it. You can't keep forcing your way on Wikipedia. This is a meritocracy, not stubborn-o-cracy, where the last forcible revert wins. Calling others trolls not in the program. --Mareklug ^talk 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I want your response. I've asked you to make your proposal and not just come in and oppose and leave. Of course I haven't seen any proposal so far because your intention doesn't seem to be to improve the article but to oppose left and right just for the sake of opposing without giving any suggestions at all. I'd be glad to see you proving me wrong on this one. --Avala (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My considered recommendation re: Iran and India is not to modify our descriptions at this time, for lack of comparable quality sourcing to what we have in place. IMHO these edits will damage the quality of the presented information. For Macedonia, I prepared an addition to the proposed editprotect, that augments the revert (for that is what this editprotect request is), by sourcing the Macedonian MFA website, which continues to be the right thing to do, even if the original edit was made mistaking the year. As described already, a thorough review of the MFA published and current traffic shows there's information there pertinent to recognizing Kosovo. On the Czech Republic and Croatia/Albania editprotect requests (the latter needs the template added), I support both, except that the Czech Republic one should be sourced to the Prague Monitor article, not B92. I support Kosova2008's contention to stay away from Kosovar and Serbian media when sourcing states other than Kosovo and Serbia. Am I forgetting anything? Oh yes, Tocino has yet to address the 6 points you already addressed in the seeking consensus section. --Mareklug ^talk 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that shows that B92 is lying or making stuff up? --Tocino 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that shows that the Kosovar prime minister or president is lying or making stuff up? You woudn't source Macdenia's recognition of Kosovo to their statements, even though you might want to read them, and neither should you source a Serbian radiostation in equivalent transactions of providing neutral reference devoid of even an appearance of conflict of interest. Please read WP:VER and the guideline pages linked from it, which taken together show how to properly source on Wikipedia. The central point is that often context determines the suitability or lack of it of a source. WP:REDFLAG in particular cautions that extraordinary claims require using extraordinary sources, and any Serbian claim of no recognition of a part of Serbia falling off is certainly extraordinary, and must be sourced neutrally, with utmost care, and avoiding even an appearance of bias. --Mareklug ^talk 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So you don't have any evidence that shows B92 is lying then. --Tocino 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I said that proposing hiding information is out of question. Now propose how are we going to add information on Iran and India. --Avala (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"You can't keep forcing your way on Wikipedia." - Mareklug. This is hilarious coming from you of all people. You are the one who is holding this article hostage. You have no intentions to compromise and you are the main reason why this article is currently blocked. Congratulations. -- Tocino 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are the one who is holding this article hostage." - Tocino. This is hilarious coming from you of all people. You are the main reason why this article is currently blocked. Congratulations. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say that all you want and he won;'t listen to the truth...--Jakezing (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility enforcement

It seems that many users are progressively getting too carried away here and incivility is a constant, so I suggest that this talk page be placed under strict civility probation to prevent continued attacks from part to part. Any user could be promptly blocked for 24 hours for directing an attack at other user, whatever its nature. Please comment on whether such measure would be adequate or draconian. Thanks. Húsönd 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You would still not be able to solve the problems. The users which caused trouble should have been warned and banned long time ago. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes an attack? It seems rather relative with our particular group. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An attack would be an aggressive comment directed at other user(s). Húsönd 20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to any change in the status quo. The standard procedures should be maintained. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: is this an attack? discussing Brazil

"User:X fabricated the Brazil entry. The Portuguese source he uses does not contain the quote he ascribed to the Minister. In turn, the Minister did not say any of this in any press statement re: any protests, as the fabrication has him say it. A lot of information here has been recombined and formed into quotes with wrong attribution. User:X has not acknowledged this problem to this day. Another User:Y keeps forcibly reverting to this version. User:Y does not acknowledge the fabrication either, but this version repeates itself, becaue User:Y, reacting to the allegation of fabrication, spliced the content and added it to the fabrication, never copyedited the result, and only keeps on reverting to it." <-- Would this be an attack on users X and Y? Or an admissible discussion on merits?

| Brazil || "The Brazilian government does not support the independence of Kosovo and would only recognise if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations. The Brazilian government reaffirms its belief that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and the legal framework of Resolution 1244 of the Council Security" was stated by Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, in statement regarding protests against Kosovo independence in Serbia. He also said that countries that have recognised the independence of Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place." Brazil previously expressed concern that the independence of Kosovo may have worldwide cascade effect. In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on the matter of Kosovo's independence. However, according to the same source, unnamed diplomats are confirming that Brazil would only recognise Kosovo if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations.||

--Mareklug ^talk 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it could be an attack if we were to be strict about no attacks of any sort. Users would be obliged to respect WP:AGF and therefore could not accuse others of deliberate misconduct as e.g. to enforce an agenda. The user accusing user X of fabricating the Brazil entry should instead explain why he disagrees with user X's actions rather than make a bad assumption about him or her (which would lead to an escalating conflict and so on). Húsönd 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Explain why he disagrees with user C's actions". But the hypothetical example above is cast as a series of facts that explain why the narrator disagreees with the user:X (and user:Y) edits. Fabrication is a fact, verifiable by any reader. Would it be any different if instead of "fabrication" the words used were his creation", "created from whole cloth"? I must say, your verdict saddens me, because it means that truth couldn't be told, if the merit of content can't be described. How are good edits to be differentiated from bad edits? Good propositions from bad propositions? It would mean that there would be no longer freedom to compare work and proposed work on merit.

Perhaps a more effective remedy would be just to draw lots, say "Mareklug/Kosova2008/Ijanderson977" vs "Avala/Tocino/Top Gun", and the loser team loses the right to edit this article for hte next 6 months? Complete randomness is preferrable to injustice. --Mareklug ^talk 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a verdict, it's an opinion. I tried to come up with a solution that I recall one of my teachers back in high school once used because we were quite an uncivil class, students were always calling names to each other. So one day that teacher got sick of that behavior and said that from that day on, whenever a student were uncivil towards another, he or she would be expelled from the class that day. Reasons for expulsion would include saying things like "shut up!" or "don't be stupid". So during the first week there was a lot of people being ordered out of the class. So during the second. But from the third week on, everyone was nice and polite. The end. So you see, I just tried to come up with a solution. But it's fine with me if you guys want things to remain as they are. Just don't be surprised when discussions get unpleasant. Húsönd 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And Brazil was not the only issue we had, India and Canada to name few but worst of all was the Tibet case. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me ask this question: In an environment where you have to assume good faith or be banned for 24 hours, how do you comment on edits such as listing Tibet with its Free Tibet! Flag next to information quoting the Russian Foreign Minister, blaming indepenent Kosovo for the Chinese soldiers shooting to kill Tibetan monks and other people on the street? The same user twice on this page asserted that Tibet is not a nation, and that, like Kosovo in Serbia, it is only a province of China. And that Tibetan separatists are too stupid to have a web site. I can understand not commenting at all on the outrageous statements, but what do you do about the outrageous edits? Why is that not being considered as immediate grounds for at least a formal warning on the user's page, under the already established Arbitration Committee probation alledgedly formally enforced on this talk page? --Mareklug ^talk 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the opposite side not trying to take constructive criticism. I cannot stress this enough, there are sources in this article which com from Belgrade run websites..which are used for Propaganda Machines. The best way I can prove that they are propaganda-run by nature is that the information that they represent can't be found anywhere. The most cited I have found is B92. Then comes Serbian Govt Website and RTV-Serbija. These sources need to be replaced since they present "facts" which can't be verified by other sources (see Wikipedia:VER):

#27

#77

#102

#108

#132

#157

#189

I ask everyone who was in charge of editing and whom put these sources forward to either find other articles which state the same facts or remove them. Husond, I did ask you to review this page so I am asking you to look at all these countries being sourced from B92. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Could someone please revert the edit in which all the dates were changed to the current 2008-08-02 format, which is fine for users with preferences, but for those without and more importantly for non-users (i.e. the majority of people viewing it most likely), they see this unsightly and confusing format. This is certainly not in form with the MoS, and I ask that the dates been changed back to the euro date format they were in before. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check

I know this article is titled "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence," but the majority of reactions are so vague as to be completely meaningless for all practical purposes. What this article really comes down to is this: countries that formally recognize Kosovo vs. countries that don't. All other issues and discussions and disputes regarding who might or might not or wants to or refuses to or probably will or won't recognize Kosovo as an independent state are, in the end, mooted by whatever official events actually transpire. At the end of the day, a given country either will or will not issue its official declaration of diplomatic relations with Kosovo. If a country does recognize, all of the preceeding discussion becomes irrelevant; if it does not, all of the preceeding discussion becomes irrelevant. In this context, I see such vehement, hostile argumentation and personal feuding as a big waste of time and effort.--165.95.228.4 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)