Alphabetically the order is "N .. O .. P .. Q" so Iran should come before Iraq. This is part of the ongoing and usually unquestioned racist conspiracy on Wikipedia to make Iraq appear more important than Iran, at the instigation of G.W. Bush administration infiltrators who have now been banned. Note that by doing this, the ever-so "conciliatory" and "responsible" statements broadcast by their puppet government in Baghdad have been promoted to a position of undue importance, while it also serves to help hide further down the page the insights which unveil the real cause of the Kosovo conflict, as revealed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (one of perhaps only five men alive who can reasonably claim to be a World Historically-Important Level Genius, the other four being Albert Einstein's clones secretly installed by the Illuminati to run Clinton-Blair's New World Order from unprepossessing offices in Tel Aviv, Tora Bora, Slough, and Moscow, Idaho). This outrageous alphabetical racist conspiracy is being supported by Poles, Radio B92 and wiki-admins who have purposefully locked The Wrong Version to prevent sanity being restored! On top of this, what gullible members of the public can trust an "encyclopedia" whose editors do not even know their alphabets? Interviews by Azerbaijani politicians in Lithuanian newspapers that have not anyway been confirmed by the Azerbaijani goverment do not prove that "Q" is ordered before "N"! And are not in a reliable source anyway!! Stop the racism now!!!87.114.155.91 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Last time i checked, there was no such thing as a Iraqi race or a Iranian race, therefore its not racist. However be sensible and put in an edit request. However i do believe there could be a NWO Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That article doesn't quite say that. The new Serbian ambassador to Ghana hopes that Africa will respect Serbia's territorial integrity (obviously). The only stated position of Ghana is that it "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that they wish "the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". So the inference is that they'll probably refuse to recognise, but it doesn't say that for definite. Bazonka (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Kofur didn't say anything beyond the typical bland diplomatic pleasantries and did not commit Ghana to a refusal to recognise. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeh yeh i agree there.
I propose we add this to the article
| Ghana || The position of Ghana is that it "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that they wish "the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". [1]||
Add Ghana to "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" in its alphabetical place
| Ghana || Ghanaian president John Agyekum Kufuor stated that Ghana "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that he "wished the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". [2]||
The Ukraine position is selected with a statement from Member of Parliament, Oleh Bilorus, [2] dated 2008-02-20 which is outdated and not relevant to his position. Current Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko stated later on date: 16-04-2008 positive approach toward the Kosovo Independence in Council of Europe.
Yulia Tymoshenko: Ukraine will determine its stance concerning Kosovo independence after respective evaluation of international institutions [3]
Therefore I recommend we make an edit request to update the Ukraine reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence. --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
After reading this new Ukrainian source given above, it would appear that it suffices. It basically says Ukraine has not made up its mind, and is actively making it up. I propose using exact quotes from this source. Here is how I'd do it:
Please replace:
|-
| Ukraine || The President stated that Ukraine's position on the situation is first of all following national interests and international law. He emphasised that Ukraine's position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognising Kosovo or not requires timing for most of the world's countries. "We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted."[1] The Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[2] On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said: "Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo".[3]
||
|-
With the following:
|-
| Ukraine || On 16 April2008, Office of mass media relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Secretariat issued the following statement on the Government Portal official website:
Ukraine will decide on its position concerning independence of Kosovo after corresponding assessment by international institutions. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko announced during a joint briefing with PACE President Lluís Maria de Puig in Strasbourg in the framework of the visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Yulia Tymoshenko stressed that Ukraine’s abuts on a lot of countries facing territorial problems. “That’s why before taking any decision Ukraine wishes to know whether Kosovo is already a norm, a common practice or a unique event the world should react on.”
Yulia Tymoshenko noted that on present stage Ukraine is holding multilateral diplomatic consultations with the aim to realize how this event is to be perceived and only in the aftermath will determine its stand in the issue.[4]
||
|-
This is a potentially controversial edit request. It replaces old information that several editors now concluded is inadequate, misleading, irrelevant and not accurately depicting Ukraine's policy regarding Kosovo. The source used is governmental (Government Portal), and no paraphrase whatsoever was made by Wikipedia editors, choosing instead to quote the short material in full, with exact attribution. --Mareklugtalk00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This proposal is not ready for prime time. User:Mareklug is deleting information he does not like (the words of Oleh Bilorus). Also losing out would be the words of the President as those words no longer have a place in User:Mareklug's dubious proposal. While User:Mareklug has no time for Oleh Bilorus and Viktor Yushchenko, he instead gives basically the entire entry to the Prime Minister, as according to User:Mareklug, Ms.Tymoshenko warrants three seperate paragraphs all to herself. User:Mareklug has also introduced biased paraphrasing that would violate the article's NPOV standards. The current entry for Ukraine is just fine and it accurately reflects Ukraine's cautious approach to the Kosovo question. --Tocino04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Calm down Tocino, he is just updating out of date information. Lets see your propsal Tocino, including that new reference? As it is currently not fine as it it is out of date.Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Tymoshenko is not the only person in Ukraine so we need statements by the President and the chairman of foreign affairs committee of Rada (who is member of the BYUT presidency btw) as well.--Avala (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The President's statement, the Foreign Ministry's and the chairman's are from February, and that last one is misleading, as he was saying what Ukraine would do at a 21 February OSCE meeting only, yet he is portrayed as telling the world that Ukraine won't recognize Kosovo. Everyone can click on the references and verify this, that our article write-up for Ukraine is grossly out of date and misleading. If you want the President's and the chairman's separate opinions, please find them and source them, but the Prime Minister as quoted in the update says what the President and the Foreign Ministry said in February, except that she's saying it in April, while the chairman's statement is completely irrelevant, since we don't even know of any outcome relevant today from that OSCE February meeting, and it can't have any bearing on what Ukraine, undecided, will do with Kosovo in May or later. Doing nothing is keeping stale evidence of support for Serbia in the past just to create an impression. Meanwhile, Ukraine is evolving its position and the update reflects it. Augmenting it with other, competing current viewpoints is certainly a reasonable avenue to pursue, but let's remove cruft. --Mareklugtalk16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
New Proposal on Ukraine
its NPOV and should please all parties
{{editprotect}}
please edit Ukraine like so
|-
| Ukraine || The President stated on 19 February2008 that Ukraine's position on the situation is first of all following national interests and international law. He emphasised that Ukraine's position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognising Kosovo or not requires timing for most of the world's countries. "We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted."[5] On 18 February2008 the Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[6] On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said on 20 February2008 that Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo at a session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be held February 21-22 in Vienna.[7] On 16 April2008, Office of mass media relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Secretariat issued the following statement on the Government Portal official website:
Ukraine will decide on its position concerning independence of Kosovo after corresponding assessment by international institutions. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko announced during a joint briefing with PACE President Lluís Maria de Puig in Strasbourg in the framework of the visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Yulia Tymoshenko stressed that Ukraine’s abuts on a lot of countries facing territorial problems. “That’s why before taking any decision Ukraine wishes to know whether Kosovo is already a norm, a common practice or a unique event the world should react on.” Yulia Tymoshenko noted that on present stage Ukraine is holding multilateral diplomatic consultations with the aim to realize how this event is to be perceived and only in the aftermath will determine its stand in the issue.[8]
||
|-
Yes now, after having made further necessary additions (dates when statements were made in February, and complete news template citations, including reporting the full thing Bilorus said, according to how he is sourced (it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote, and he said more than was included in the manufactured quote). --Mareklug Done --Mareklugtalk15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I liked Ijanderson's proposal better. User:Mareklug puts too much emphasis on Tymoshenko's comments, while he tries to diminish the words of Bilorus. --Tocino18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opposition is baseless and lacks merit. All I did was:
Fully quoted the Bilorus paraphrase as given by the source used. What was there before was a lie introduced in a POV attempt to make it more than it is. Compare with similar lies introduced in the past for Armenia, where the source said "we are not going to recognize Kosovo yet. Discussions on the matter are under way." and the Wikipedia read: "we are not going to recognize Kosovo." Lies, misrepresentations, and false sourcing need correcting, whatever the POV, whatever the outcome of such corrections entails. Surely "diminishing" falsely created impression is nonnegotiable.
I added dates to contextualize when the reaction took place.
I added a blank line before the Tymoshenko text. Perhaps that can be construed as giving her say undue weight. Heaven help us. I think it makes the whole thing more readable, but I may be, you know, biased.
If you want to put more weight on Bilorus, I suggest you find and source him saying soemthing different than what we have sourced so far. Fair enough? --Mareklugtalk21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with first version of Mareklug, positions has been changed, we need the last update, why we removed Malaysia because we went through the last information, we should remove the old content of Ukraine too and leave it only with last statement --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought consensus meant majority, not absolute agreement. The only one opposing the change is Tocino, and we all know how "objective" he is in these Kosovan discussions. --alchaemia (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No Consensus? We can not have only one user opposing and not making the change, Tocino showed also in the past that he is against every detail and indicator when it comes to Independence of Kosovo. That is why we have Wikipedia administrators not only to observe, but to see who has the right arguments. --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Digitalpaper, just becuase one editor disagrees doesn't mean the edit should not go ahead. Ok if more than one editor disagrees then i can understand. I mean the reason for disagreeing is not always valid. The edit request system needs to be changed, because it degrades the quality of the article, making this encyclopaedia not as good as it could be and thats a shame as it has a lot bigger potential. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you two well meaning editors don't entirely comprehend the meritocracy that is Wikipedia. We don't count how many voices or votes a position has, but consider everything on its merits. A reasoned objection by a single editor suffices to change the course of Wikipedia, even though it may be opposed by legions of other ediotrs. It's all in the evidence. In this particular case, we happen to have one editor whose reasons don't stand up to the light. They're bogus. The other editor's responsibility is to draw this to the attention of other editors, including administrators who assess consensus. I have done so in several sections of this talk page, and will continue to do so. Sometimes this process takes time, but Happy melon, for instance, has before performed a Malaysia editprotect request which was not 100% consensus, because the opposition was judged to lack merit. We have to persevere. In the end, reason and impartiality will win out. (If the bloody countries in questions don't happen to recognize first. :)). --Mareklugtalk23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit request: OSCE (number of recognizing members)
Went through the membership roster on the Wiki article about OSCE and noticed nobody updated the member numbers since Lithuania and San Marino recognized. Just manually counted them up and found two missing...
Please replace this column in the "International governmental organisations" table:
| OSCE || On February 18, 2008, Chairman Ilkka Kanerva stated that each of the 56 members of the OSCE will decide themselves whether or not to recognise Kosovo.[210] The next day, Kanerva and OSCE Minorities Commissioner Knut Vollebæk called for Kosovo's government to vigorously implement agreed-upon frameworks regarding minorities.[211] Serbia has vowed to oppose OSCE membership for Kosovo and is calling for the organisation to condemn the declaration of independence.[210] Member states (28 / 56)
|-
With:
| OSCE || On February 18, 2008, Chairman Ilkka Kanerva stated that each of the 56 members of the OSCE will decide themselves whether or not to recognise Kosovo.[210] The next day, Kanerva and OSCE Minorities Commissioner Knut Vollebæk called for Kosovo's government to vigorously implement agreed-upon frameworks regarding minorities.[211] Serbia has vowed to oppose OSCE membership for Kosovo and is calling for the organisation to condemn the declaration of independence.[210] Member states (30 / 56)
|-
I didn't quite get the citation links copied into the code, but all that needs to be done is change the number.
Comment: Indeed. But as a general rule edit requests should be done like so: Instead of copying and pasting the article as it appears, one should click on "View Source" (the "Edit" button disabled by protection becomes "View Source"), and copy and paste the code itself. Then, all the references and flags would be active, while the administrator could simply copy and paste the tweaked version. With a {{reflist}} below the edit request (best practice: move the References section to the end of this page), we can examine every aspect of the proposed change, including the original and the replacement, as well as follow the links to sources and examine the form of the references for completeness and if they are suitable and noncontroversial.
Comment 2: It is at the above-referenced OSCE meeting where the Ukrainian Verkovna Rada chairman O.B., whom we deign to "quote", vowed to support Serbia, and not support Serbia's position in general, as we falsely quote him. The Ukraine evidence contains the following discrepancies from the source used:
O.B. is quoted (in the source he is only paraphrased); and
O.B. according to Wikipedia says: "Ukraine will support Serbia's position" (this is falsely synthesized; the full extent of O.B.'s paraphrase in the source is: "Ukraine will support Serbia's position at the 22 February 2008 OSCE meeting").
Recently User:Tocino and User:Avala blocked the consensus effort to fix this problem and other problems at Ukraine. User:Tocino further blocked a watered-down compromise version that would have retained what we have, except in a corrected version true to the content of the source used. --Mareklugtalk15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Czech government will try to recognize Kosovo next week
“At one of the coming government meetings we will return to the question of Kosovo,” Czech Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vondra told daily Hospodarske Noviny.
...
The next attempt could prove to be successful since Prime Minister Miroslav Topolanek’s Civic Democratic Party appears to be budging on the issue.
...
“Not even the positive result of the Serbian elections changes my stance that recognizing Kosovo will be a great mistake for the international community. However, the Czech stance can no longer change the fact that the province is independent,” said Czech Labor Minister Petr Nečas.
This information is not noteworthy. It is already well known that there are forces within the Czech Civic Democratic Party who want to recognize Kosovo, meanwhile part of the Civic Dems (including the President) and every other party in Czechia is opposed to recognition of Kosovo and Metohija. I suspect that Jeremić and Tadić will lobby their Slavic cousins in the upcoming days, telling them that if they decided to recognize then that will hurt the so-called pro-EU forces in Serbia. --Tocino22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We saw from the case of Bulgaria and Poland how much the "Slavic cousins" care for what Jeremic or Tadic have to say. --alchaemia (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
9 out of 13 Slavic nations recognize Kososo and Metohija as a Serbian province. Also in 2 of the 4 who've recognized there was signficant opposition to recognition (Bulgaria and Poland), with the Polish PM admitting that the only reason why they recognized is because USA, UK, Germany, and France told them to. Croatia and Slovenia, much like Kosovo Albanian separatists, are still bitter and have blind hatred of Serbia. --Tocino 01:00, 13 May 2008 9UTC)
Take your nausea-inducing ethnic ranting, slurring and putdowns off Wikipedia! You already more than once have said on this talk page that Tibetan separatists are too stupid to have a website, or claimed that opposing sourcing a Serbian source is racist and unwelcome on WP. Now you're saying that whole countries have blind hatred of Serbia. Enough of this inflamatory garbage! Just stop it. --Mareklugtalk02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that had the Czech news been pro-Serbia, we'd see an editprotect request from you by now. As it is not, "the information is not noteworthy", even though three editors are already discussing how to frame its addition! If it is not noteworthy to you, then please make no notes. This news comes from previously unquoted ministers who may have been voting against recognition, and other government officials. It needs to be added to the reaction notes for the Czech Republic. Apparently, on this basis, CR needs to be moved back into States about to formally recognize Kosovo. --Mareklugtalk02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. This is not news. It is already well known that there are factions within the Civic Democratic Party that want to recognize. This is nothing the reader doesn't already know. --Tocino02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is news -- news, that recognition will happen next week, and news, that minister we have not quoted before are predicting it. Your saying that it is no news is not persuasive and certainly no reason to block this update. --Mareklugtalk04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No opinions have been changed, the same people who wanted to recognize still want to recognize. Now if the President and other Civil Democrats as well as every other party in Czechia suddenly have a change of heart and want to recognize - then that will be noteworthy. But I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation of a change of heart. --Tocino04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually several things have changed:
1) Now the Czech reaction will not have effect anymore on Serbian Elections and this is one of the reasons of postponement.
2) While before the prime minister's party was against recognition now they 'appear to be budging'.
3) We also have the quote of the Labor minister (who has been against recognition of Kosovo and still is) that they may be 'forced' by the reality to recognize Kosovo. So indeed some of the main Political Actors (Main Government Party, Ministers) have had/are having a change of heart. Emetko (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think, why not just wait a week and see if they actually do? I mean, this is an encyclopedia. This kind of minutiae about current politics gets irrelevant very quickly. Whereas, a recognition, if and when it happens, that is a permanent historical fact. So let's just wait and see. --SJK (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Macedonian President hints at Kosovo Recognition soon after the country's new elections.
“One of the top tasks of the new government will be to build a position on Kosovo’s independence. Any decision that will claim to be competent in this area will have to take into consideration the stand of most of the EU and NATO member states. Macedonia wants to build relations equally good with Belgrade and Pristina,” President Crvenkovski said.
(Macedonian Elections are scheduled for 1-st of June 2008.)
Source: Focus - http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n140554Emetko (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this should be included in the article just yet as there is not enough evidence, however due to the build up of the election and more evidence comes to play, we should include it then Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, just what evidence is missing or insufficient? We have here a complete verbatim quote by the President, a first, I believe, where Macedonians refer to a position of majority of NATO and EU states, not some unified NATO position or unified EU position. In fact, they have in the past pointedly noted that there isn't a unified position. Therefore, this newest quote is an important new reaction, and supersedes previous ones, indicating that their position has evolved. As for the source, it is a Bulgarian news agency website, which we have used before, and other than it going poof eventually (by which time we might be sourcing an official recognition statement from Skopje anyway), there's nothing disputed, insufficient, unclear, incomplete or otherwise iffy about it. We could look for Macedonian sources, to be closer to the action, but Focus is no worse than any we have, and no one has ever objected to it. --Mareklugtalk02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How many times have there been rumors that Macedonia will recognize Kosovo? At least ten times since February 17 I would guess. Nothing ever happens though. Sorry, but this information does not warrant a place in the article. --Tocino22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You talk about rumors, but we're talking about updating the country's reaction. This is a new development, as I justified already. We're talking about quoting the country's President, for crying out loud. So relent already, and stop obstructing legitimate content updates! --Mareklugtalk02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
More old news. The article in its present form shows that the President says...
"The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President Branko Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo,"
There are several new things here: The new prospects for recognition/denial of recognition is situated in time and context (specifies Kosovo recognition decision as one of the top tasks of the new government, as opposed to pushing it off into some unfathomable future, which is what we have for Macedonia in the article presently) and:
"the position of NATO and the European Union" has been importantly replaced in the President's own language by
"most the EU and NATO member states".
Clearly these are huge changes. The full new quote as given by Bulgarian news agency Focus:
"One of the top tasks of the new government will be to build a position on Kosovo’s independence. Any decision that will claim to be competent in this area will have to take into consideration the stand of most of the EU and NATO member states. Macedonia wants to build relations equally good with Belgrade and Pristina," President Crvenkovski said. --Mareklugtalk04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
@Tocino: what are you talking about? What's the same here? The fact that he said that one of the major tasks of the government is going to be the issue of recognition? That's not "the same" at all, as Macedonia never publicly said that it'll happen after the elections. Stop stalling news and updated information. --alchaemia (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Article has Foreign Minister of Argentina Jorge Taiana quoted as saying: "if we were to recognise Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands" Source is B92.
I am concerned at whether B92 is quoting him accurately, simply because it would seem strange for an Argentinian government official to call them the Falkland Islands, as opposed to the Islas Malvinas. --SJK (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Argentinian government being quoted "Falkland Islands" is just another untrustworthy statement sourced to http://www.B92.net/ -- other instances have been pointed out already.
We need to stop sourcing this sensitive article using that website, which has been shown on this talk page to engage in shoddy journalism practices re: Kosvo. This affects documenting reactions of Argentina, Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece and Montenegro. In particular, Montenegro is not yet sourced to their governmental sources at all, or their own press, or established world press. Likewise, we should replace any sourcing of other countries' positions by http://kossovapress.com/ which operates from Prishtina (we use it only for Nauru; my eidtprotect to relace this sourcing with an international source was opposed as needless).
Also, we need to stop sourcing Serbia's Foreign Ministry, Serbia's official press agency Tanjug and Serbia's official Radio and Television RTS for reactions fo other countries, as that creates an appearance of conflict of interest. If we ditch partizan sourcing, Wikipedia's standing as an impartial source will be locally preserved. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Foreign Minister was probably speaking in English to the Serbian press, as I doubt many Serbians would know the Spanish term for the Falkland Islands. --Tocino18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote of Taiana was reproduced in Clarín, one of the main Argentinean newspapers. Here says La Argentina no va a reconocer la independencia de Kosovo, pendiente como está la cuestión de Malvinas con Gran Bretaña. Hacerlo sería sentar un precedente peligroso en contra de la pretensión nacional de recuperar en la mesa de negociaciones la soberanía sobre las islas, estiman en el Gobierno. (Argentina won't recognize the independence of Kosovo, while there is still pending the issue of the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) with Great Britain. If we do that, it will set a dangerous precedent against the national pretention of recovering in a table of negotiations the soveraignity of the islands, says the government.) So I think that the quote of B92 is totally correct... of course, in an English website, they don't use the Malvinas word and it is translated usually. --B1mbo (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's then use the Clarin reference in preference to the B92 one? I would disagree that Malvinas vs. Falklands is simply an English vs Spanish language issue. Choice of term is used to associate with one political side or the other (which is while you'll find that the UN is always careful to use both). You'll find that Argentina (and pro-Argentine source) will call it Malvinas even in English. Its a comparable situation to the Kosovo v Kosova debate. So, from that perspective, the B92 translation is not particularly good (I'm not saying its inaccurate -- I'm just saying its stylistically poor). That is why I think we should prefer the Clarin reference. Also, it seems preferable to use an Argentinian source than a Serbian (or Albanian or Kosovar) one on this issue, simply because there will be less doubts about the source's neutrality then. --SJK (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on Russia mentions "President Putin" and "President-elect Medvedev". Since Putin no longer is the president, maybe that needs to be changed into "former President Putin" and "President Medvedev" respectively? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
If I'm reading this right, Putin was president at the time Kosovo declared independence, and probably should still be referred to as such. If they had already transferred power, though, I would agree that the change is warranted. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, our Russian presidency references are all ok. Wikipedia refers to political officeholders with the title held at the described moment in history. I commented out the editprotect template. Putin was president until a few days ago. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, Putin was president at the time, obviously if any future edits are made to Russia, we should refer to the President as Medvedev. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
...more like opened the embassy in Rep of Kosova. No more of this "mission" but now officially an embassy in Prishtina, Kosovo. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Sorry my source is Shqip [Albanian]). Someone find an official statement.
Please specify the Albanian source when you make these revelations, as that will help me track down information in English. --Mareklugtalk13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
They chose an ambassador today. I don't think it's an "office" anymore. My source is in Albanian, someone find an english one. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
See List of diplomatic missions in Kosovo, where a nonresident Italian ambassador operating out of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, has been included, and this info was attributed to a source in Italian, since 19 March 2008. Is this a newer develoment? If so, does the Albanian source state that an independent embassy is being opened now in Prishtina? Or is this new ambassador just a replacement? --Mareklugtalk19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This Italian source is the one from 19 March I mentioned is sourcing our list of missions in Kosovo article. And the name of the nonresident ambassador is the same as the fellow's who is mentioned meeting with Dr. Sejdu in the New Kosova Report article linked by Digitalpaper. No mention anywhere that the Italian office in Prishtina is being upgraded to a standalone embassy concurrently with the new appointment. --Mareklugtalk16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the Italian office has been present in Prishtina for at least 8 years now. Why would the Italians publish something about an office only on the 19th of March. I think the article should be translated. I read embassy there but my italian is to poor to make a sense of it. New Kosova report mentions that the new ambassador is Mr. Michael Louis Giffoni and this news was brought by Mr. Mura who was head of the office. Jawohl (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Translating the Itlian article is trivial; it's entire content is:
Roma, 19 marzo 2008 - Il Consiglio dei Ministri ha approvato, su proposta del Ministro degli affari esteri, Massimo D'Alema, l'istituzione di un'Ambasciata d'Italia a Pristina (Repubblica del Kosovo).
I think you can figure out that it says: Rome, 19 March 2008 - The Council of Ministers has approved, the proposal of the Foreign Affairs Minister Massimo D'Alema, of setting up an Embassy of Itally in Prishtina (Republic of Kosovo).
The trouble is that the news source just replaces the ambassador, but does not reveal upgrading the status of the satellite embassy which is run remotely from Skopje, or at least, has been since 19 March. --Mareklugtalk18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the one I meant by "news report". It doesn't say anything about the status of the embassy, whereas we already knew about the status of the representative as an ambassador. Now the personnel is being exchanged, but we still need an unequivocable source for the status of the mission. Is it a standalone embassy yet? --Mareklugtalk15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Commenting on recognizing Kosovo, the foreign ministry source said, Dhaka will actively consider the matter in according recognition to this new Muslim state in Europe as part of its commitment in strengthening relations with global community."
"Foreign relations experts in Dhaka feel that, for the sake of showing Dhaka’s commitment in improving relations with the global community as well as upholding the image of Bangladesh being a nation having its own foreign policy, it is important for Dhaka to extend recognition to Kosovo."
It also states that US is actively pushing other states (in this case Bangladesh) to Recognize the Kosovo Independence. Emetko (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets see what other sources we can find first. When there are others, we should think about moving Bangladesh with Saudi Arabia. But lets look for other sources first, such as MOFA. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Bangladesh MOFA site doesnt work well, I have heard Kosovar technology brains will do the Bangladesh MOFA site for free in return of recognition :) --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ian, they definitely are not armature, nor amateur. They have been accurate and the predictions are just that "predictions". The site only reports on what is in the news, or what news gets to them, I don't see how one can be "professional" in this, according to you.
Nobody is telling you to use it. It is not meant to be used. It is not trying to be a source of information for you. If you do your homework you don't need sources of information but you pick up the phone and call the Foreign Ministries, Missions, Embassies, like Kosovothanksyou does. But calling the site shit is quite childish. Reading your writing is really disappointing.
The "Big Three" weigh in on the "Kosovo question"
Big news out of Yekaterinburg... the foreign ministers of the three emerging superpowers, Russia, China, and India, have called for new negotiations between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanian separatists.
Surely this deserves a mention in the article. I think we should put the sentence below at the end of the entries of Russia, China, and India.
In a joint statement issued on May 15, 2008, the foreign ministers of China, India, and Russia said, "Russia, India and China advocate the resumption of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina within an international-legal framework, and believe an agreement should be reached between them regarding all the problems of that Serbian province."[1]
Strong Oppose:These statements are full of hate and racism, Tocino consider the information before you post it. We have these kind of statements every single day and these statements wont stop countries in their process to recognize Independent Kosovo. --Digitalpaper (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there has been a clear statement of intent made in the communique as stated in the News article in a well recognised and reputed Newspaper in India. Here is the link for the site and below it is the excerpt from the article
On Kosovo, India for the first time joined Russia and China in stating categorically in the RIC communiqué that “the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo is contrary to the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244,” and calling for settling the issue “in accordance with norms of international law” and on the basis of “an agreement” and “through negotiations” between Belgrade and Pristina.
Earlier India only said it “takes note” of the declaration of independence of Kosovo and was “studying the evolving situation.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
US Rebuffs Calls For New Kosovo Talks: United States has rebuffed demands by China, India and Russia for resuming talks on Kosovo’s status, arguing it has already been settled.
I guess we have a news flash for everybody, the status of Kosovo has been resolved. It's an independent state,” Sean McCormack, the spokesman of U.S. State Department told reporters in Washington.[6] --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Rude cowboy comments by Sean McCormack are the only thing I can see to fall under your negative comments about the news from China.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Support the update on India. This is the official confirmation of what India's ambassador said a few weeks ago but which was blocked by some editors.--Avala (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Just because they were sitting there does not mean that they were a party to the statement, especially with such biased wording as "...of this Serbian province" which is something you hear exclusively Serbian/Russian diplomats use. --alchaemia (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. India and China, as Tocino pointed out, are BIG enough to make their own statements. Or were they maybe put under pressure? Jawohl (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Caution What no one has mentioned in this section or anywhere on this talk page yet, is that this is a BIRC meeting (Brazil, India, Russia, China), and that the cited statement was issued before the Brazil representation arrivived at this meeting, which makes the timing of the announcement highly interesting in and of itself.
Furthermore, as editors already pointed out, the phrasing, attributed in several sources personally to the Russian Foreign Minister Lavarov, is a great departure in tone from either China's or India's official governmental pronouncements. Be that as it may, on the strength of what is claimed here and how it is phrased, it would suffice to color China and India (and even Russian) orange on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png reaction maps, as advocating negotiations on the basis of UN Resolution 1244, but User:Avala has already colored India (and Brazil) red, as officially having rejected independence of Kosovo. The Indian ambassador's remarks in Serbia were perceived by administrator User:Happy-melon as merely restating the careful Indian sourcing we have already in place from India's foreign ministry website, yet User:Avala at the same time on the same basis changed the coloring of India on Commons maps to red while insisting on this talk page and lobbying Happy melon on his talk page that we make this change, all the while without expressly denying Happy melon's assessment that it is a restatement. This, too, is irregular and not transparent -- how can the same update be just a restatement on English Wikipedia, yet be used by the same editor on Wikimedia Commons to materially change a country's reaction?
Given the rampant biases and skew, to be neutral and report verified information, we need to seek official statements from India's government to source India, official statements of Brazil to source Brazil, and official statements of China to source China, as we naturally should use official statements of Russia to source Russia, and not what Lavarov says in press conferences. The potential for misrepresentation is just too great, especially given the current Russian Foreign Minister's predisposition for grandstanding and using undiplomatic, coarse langauge, which when picked up by the Russian media and attributed, as it is here, to other countries, paints a false picture. An extreme example of that was Wikipedia at one time having in an edit by User:Tocino create an entry for Free Tibet reaction to Kosovo, complete with a Free Tibet! flag that is forbidden to fly in China, solely annotated with the same Russian Foreign Minister's inflamatory rhetoric about how the Kosovars declaring independence are responsible for Tibetans being shot in the street. This rhetoric has since been moved to sit under Russia.
Does he have the authority to do so though? Did the Indian and Chinese Goverment's say that what he said is they're postion and words also? What we are asking is, did the Russian have the authority and postion/backing to say what he did for all 3 countries?--Jakezing (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the quote, "Russia, India and China advocate the resumption of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina within an international-legal framework, and believe an agreement should be reached between them regarding all the problems of that Serbian province." Here is video if you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPa5dxU7hMA --Tocino23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And you understand that such language is only used by Russia or its satellites (Serbia, Belarus, etc.) "Of that Serbian province..." is a statement that Jeremic or Lavrov make; not China or India. Find me one such prior statement from China or India and then I'll agree. So far; disagree. --alchaemia (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Slovenian entry say embassy? Here is another source from the Kosovar government.
"Republika e Sllovenisë hap ambasadën e saj në Kosovë
Shef i Zyrës së deritashme Ndërlidhëse të Sllovenisë në Prishtinë, z. Vojko Volk, gjatë një takimi të mbajtur sot, e njoftoi Presidentin Sejdiu se homologu i tij slloven, Presidenti z. Danilo Türk, ka vendosur që Sllovenia të hapë ambasadën e saj në Republikën e Kosovës.
(Rep. of Slovenia has opened its' embassy in Kosova. Vojko Volk (head office of Liason office in Prishtine) during his meeting today announced to President Sejdiu..... Get the point?
| 25 ||Slovenia[1] || 2008-03-05 ||Mission of Slovenia in Prishtina[2] Slovenia and the Kosovar Government began diplomatic relations at embassy level on 8 April2008.[3] || EU member state President country of Council of the European Union at the time of declaration NATO member state
|-
Italian Embassy in Kosovo, we should change it from
| 13 || Italy[1][2] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Office in Prishtina[3] || EU member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence NATO member state
|-
to this
| 13 || Italy[4][5] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Embassy in Pristina from 15 May2008[6]|| EU member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence NATO member state
|-
I am probably getting this wrong, however: Are you saying that Vienna is in Italy? If so, it would appear highly controversial to me. Tomeasytalk17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The only (tangential) source for Morocco reaction went away -- a broken link (2nd page of a New York Sun newspaper web story. It used to mention that Morocco was worried. There is no other information for Morocco available in the internet -- I looked. And this source was far from satisfactory, as it did not claim to represent any official, even anonymously.
Please remove from UN members in the section States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide:
|-
| Morocco || Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March2008.[1]||
If anyonone can source Morocco please do, and remove the editprotect template. Otherwise, this is a noncontroversial edit. --Mareklugtalk13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not say the link was broken, only the second page is no longer available, and that is where the Morocco info was lodged. Can you read the SECOND PAGE? If so, please paste what INFORMATION you see for MOROCCO. I can't access the 2nd page in any browser on any computer. The link paints the main portal page. And I read this article several times when it was complete, and I already said that it was inferior information even when it was available. --Mareklugtalk14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Second page??? This appears to be one complete article - and it does mention Morocco.
"Many people in the Arab and Muslim world identify with the fight of Muslims in Kosovo against the rule of a Christian country, and some Arab fighters joined the Balkan wars out of such solidarity. But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories."
I do agree that this isn't really worth mentioning though - it's more general opinion than an official statement. Bazonka (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I just rechecked and you are both right -- the webmaster fixed it in the last two days since I did the checking (maybe my hits did it :)). The article is now on one single page. The Morocco passage is as before: "But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories" -- this is, as Bazonka says, insufficient. I stand by my editprotect request. Thank you. --Mareklugtalk14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The article clearly states that Morocco is worried about ethnic tensions. There is no reason to doubt the source as far as I know. --Tocino15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition as Groundless. This is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not consititute Morocco's reaction. Morocco is worried about ethnic tensions and teenage pregnancy, for all we bloody care, since 1960s. --Mareklugtalk15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not even a quote of a quote of an indirect quote. It's just a general statement made by a journalist, and the same could be said for many countries. If he'd written "The United Kingdom is concerned about secession of ethinic groups within its own territory" then would that be worth mentioning in this article? Of course not. Bazonka (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
agree I think that every country will be "worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory". If Morocco says something on Kosovo, than we should include it to the article. Morocco's entry does not relate to "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". Morocco was worried about sepratists before Kosovo declared independence. I can understand why Morocco does not want to recognise Kosovo btw. We need article related sources for Morocco please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree - While the sentiment reflected in the article is probably accurate, it is nowhere near an official position or statement, it's nothing more than a comment by a journalist.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
YDone. This is not actually a statement by Morocco on Kosovo. If there is a sourceable statement by the Moroccan government, please provide it. - Revolving Bugbear14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The source for Iraq turns out to descirbe a "Thursday 14 February2008 meeting" in Bagdad. It is not a reaction (declaration took place 3 days later) -- this information was inserted into the article in a lying attempt to misrepresent Iraq's reaction, concealing the date (it is not in the Wikipedia writeup or in the source information visible to the naked eye). No information for Iraq's REACTION is available in the internet -- I looked. Furhtermore, Iraqi Undersecretary's statement was selectively quoted, making it look more pro-Serbian than it is. Note the reference (skipped) to nations having a right to determine their future. IN any case, this is not a reaction. Delete as irrelevant.
Please remove from UN members in the section States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide:
|-
| Iraq || During a visit with the Serbian Ambassador, Iraqi Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Labeed Abbawi stated Iraq's support for UN principles regarding non-interference in internal affairs and the rights of minorities.[1] ||
If anyonone can source Iraq reaction, please do, and remove the editprotect template. Otherwise, this is a noncontroversial edit. --Mareklugtalk14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: The website is tricky. To read the source you have to click on the link which will take you to choose language page. Then you have to choose English. Then you have to hit back in your browser and click the link again. It will then take you to the source. --Mareklugtalk14:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree - For those having trouble seeing the article the text reads:
"Mr. Abbawi stated that Iraq respects the principles of the United Nations concerning the nation's right to decide their fate, non-interference in the internal affairs, and the right of minorities to demand respect of their rights and their future."
I'm not convinced that this was really "selectively quoted" or just paraphrased for brevity - however that's largely irrelevant since it predates the declaration of independence. Delete because not a reaction.Bazonka (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. We use pre-February 17 information for Macedonia so we can also use pre-Feb 17 info for Iraq. Abbawi is really not taking a side here although he does seem weary of the unilateral aspect of the declaration. --Tocino15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition as Groundless. We only include Macedonia's 2007 statement in tandem with new reaction to make sense what their ongoing position is -- support for the Ahtisaari Plan. We do not source pre-17 Feb Macedonia as such. The Iraqi info is not a reaction. Delete. --Mareklugtalk15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a huge oversight. I know that I have thought the reference is wrong but the information was there. I will try to find it, hopefully information will be restored.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This used to be a huge oversight, I agree, and a little lie of misphrasing and incomplete citation to boot favoring Serbia, but we managed to get this monkey off our back, and Morocco. Next time, source correctly and truthfully. And we don't include evidence on the basis of promises. Find sources or suffer deletion. I wish you and Tocino weren't blocking proper updates to Ukraine and Macedonia, which continue to show lies, the second one through omission. Nothing like stalling: "we have to have this in Macedonian". Well, find it in Macedonian, if you think the Bulgarian news agency lied. I don't think there is a reason to think that. When I mentioned problems of wording in translation int he Iranian president's pff the cuff remark printed in English on an Iranian website, you blew a fuse. Now you are doing the same, quietly. Pot, kettle, black. --Mareklugtalk20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And I gather without looking just sounding it out that Elfenbeinküste is Côte d'Ivoire. They haven't reacted as a country, but their official press has published essays about Kosovo independence and its meaning for Africa. But no official reaction. --Mareklugtalk15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We have no information on what their position is, or perhaps they do not even have a position. If you discover anything, then please let us know! Bazonka (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If they make a statement on Kosovo, we will include it to the article, until then there is no point including pointless information saying they haven't made a comment. They don't need to make a comment, they can continue like normal and recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia with out publishing or saying a single thing, which is most likely. for now. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I found a website that is dedicated to verifying states that recognize Kosovo. It has plenty of useful information and should be helpful for keeping that map up to spec.
Ijanderson977, don't you think that if people want to help, we should abstain from ridiculing them? And that we should rather cherish their good intension? Gugganij (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although we don't really trust the Kosovothanksyou site, would it be worth referencing it in the article to dissuade well-meaning people from mentioning it here? Perhaps in the See Also section with a caveat. Or maybe it's too POV even for a reference??? Bazonka (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not really reliable as a reference. They even copy what we include in this article. We have found out that a country has recognised before them sometimes, then use our references as their "Recognition Text". They have even taken part in discussions on this talk page. Therefore it is defiantly not a reliable third party source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
yeh lol. I emailed them telling them to update their site with a source. They replied to me saying "Thats not what you said on the wiki talk page". They caught me bitching about their site. Lol. www.kosovothanksyou.com/howpovisthissite Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ijanderson977, kosovothanksyou.com is not in itself a reliable source and we shouldn't add them in the references section. If once in a while a well-intentioned user "points" us at that site, I think it's not to much work just to thank them and tell them that we already know about it. Gugganij (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
San Marino
The San Marinese public broadcaster announced (look here: [7]) that San Marino government has recognized Kosovo's independence on May 11, 2008. User:Skafa/Sign 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The edit should be made.
Please add this to the list of states recognising:
In addition, please change the first sentence of the second paragraph on the page to read: As of May 12, 2008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo and remove San Marino from the section on country positions (UN members, section: States which do not recognize or have yet to decide).
Agree, with conditions: For all the searching I did to get the first Sammarinese opinion, the cited source is a pretty good place to find their opinions. Otherwise I found dubious sites reprinting an original article which weren't worth anything except to Google the exact wording to find the media site they were quoting. I am fine with this source It is from the recognizing nation, not Serbia or Kosovo and should not be problematic. However, in order to avoid a Malaysia fiasco, we need to have an Italian speaker look at it and verify that it is: 1) An actual recognition decision, not a promise or scheduled for a parliament vote (or something similar) and 2) That it is not a "welcoming" From what I can follow it is recognition, but we ought to be 100% sure. If those are the case, go for it! Ajbenj (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I speak Italian, the news report is very clear, since it speaks of a decision of the State Council to recognise Kosovo. Gugganij (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The citation for San Marino seems to suggest the announcement was dated May 6, but the site itself says May 11. Is this a typo in the citation? If so it should be corrected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've brought this forward from an archived talk page as no consensus was reached. The only real opposition was from Ijanderson who said that it wasn't relevant, but I utterly disagree - these are clear international reactions.
Something must be done as some information is clearly out of date - particularly the table tennis bit (Kosovo is not currently participating in the world championships).
I propose that we:
add the following details for FIBA to the Internation Sports Federations section. (This is clearly an international reaction, and no matter what Ijanderson says, recognition by a major sports federation is important to the status of a nation, both politically and culturally. Basketball is big in the Balkans.)
remove the details from the table for the ski, table-tennis and handball federations. (These are not reactions.)
add text below the table: "Prior to its declaration of independence, Kosovo was already a member of the International Table Tennis Federation (2003) and of the International Handball Federation (2004). Kosovo also already had observer status in the International Ski Federation.[1]"
Disagree. This is all very confusing because some of the Kosovo sport federations have joined international ones even before there was a declaration of independence. This only shows how politicized sports has become. The chairman of OIC has declared "that no one should boycott the olympics in Bejing because of politics" and yet politics is the reason of the rejection made to the Kosovar sport federations. Jawohl (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Memberships in International sports institutions is a process that many countries went through, they did not react to the declaration of independence, but some criterias has to be matched to be granted a membership, currently Basketball and Football is in process. London would not organise the Olympics if the criteria and olympics standards wouldn't match, it was not a reaction to grant or not but they got selected since they were best prepared. I agree to separate sports from politics in this article. --Digitalpaper (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree: Ijanderson is quick to point out that this isn't a paper encyclopedia --- I'm sure he doesn't mind us adding this. There is no limit to how much information to include. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
@ Bazonka, please do not make changes to your request after we have supplied you with our opinion. Your link to the FIBA statement is dead. Also, what do you mean by "remove the details from the table for the ski, table-tennis and handball federations. (These are not reactions.) " I thought this was about reactions and sport institutions are not political bodies therefore they can only react by accepting or rejecting someone. Surely you do not accept any of the federations to say : We recognize Kosovos independence and based on that they are also a member of our federation. You do know the IOC has more mebers that UN has? I think that the whole sport table should be removed and if someone finds it worthy they can make a proper article about it. Jawohl (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
??? What have I changed ??? Jawohl, check the history of this page and explain exactly what you're accusing me of!
You are right - the link does not work. Here's an alternative Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). (it's a cached page - not sure how admissable that is).
What I meant by removing the details for handball etc. is that these state the opinion of the federations before the declaration of independence (i.e. "Member since 2004"). Therefore, NOT reactions. The table tennis section should at the very least be edited as it states that Kosovo is currently participating in the world championships - this is surely no longer the case.
And you are right that sport federations are not policital bodies per se, but you cannot divorce sport from politics. The two are (rightly or wrongly) inextricably linked, and sport plays a massive cultural role in how nations are perceived by others. I do not understand the opposition to including this sort of information. You can argue that it's marginally irrelevant - others will argue that it's very relevant, but what harm does it do by including it? None. Bazonka (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no harm to include them, it is only misleading because these federations do not react to the declaration of the independence. They will only react to formal membership request made by Kosovar federations. These requests do not include the "recognize the political status of our country" sentence, because in that case Palestine, Scotland and many other countries would not be able to compete. This article is about the international reaction to the DI. Do you really expect that any of the federations will react specifically on the DI. I doubt. That is why I think that the table is misleading and confusing as well as credits the sports with something that clearly is not in their domain. Again, two federations were accepted before there was any DI, which clearly proves that keeping this column is misleading. Jawohl (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that admission to a sports federation is not identical to a recognition of independence, but it gives an indication of support, and can affect public opinion. The more federations to which Kosovo is admitted, the more it will be treated like a true country, even amongst the population of countries that haven't recognised it (probably not Serbs though). Conversely, a lack of membership has the opposite effect. The bigger and more popular the sport, the more significant this will be - many people's only interest in international relations is through sport. If FIFA or UEFA were to make a ruling, should we ignore that? I strongly feel that we should not. Bazonka (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The reactions of international sports federations are noteworthy. Basketball is particularly popular in the Balkans, so this decision will have made headlines there. --Tocino19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I need some guidance here - is it worth putting an Editprotect request on this section? (Last time I used one I got told off because there wasn't a consensus.)
Here most people seem to be in agreement with the proposal. Jawohl disagreed, but then said that there was no harm in including the information, and I'm not really sure I follow Digitalpaper's argument - you cannot seperate sport and politics (although in an ideal world you would). Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: this is not an edit request. It is news posted for the purpose of gathering information in the case of a possible later edit requests.
Serbia: Ukraine Faces Pressure over Kosovo
19 May 2008 Belgrade - Ukraine is facing huge international pressure to recognise Kosovo’s independence, Serbia’s outgoing deputy Premier said in Kiev.
"I believe we can count of Ukrainian support in our struggle to protect the territorial integrity of Serbia," Bozidar Djelic said after meetings with Ukrainian officials held on the margins of the annual session of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.[1]
Just like how Mini-USA (UK, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO sheep, as well as Costa Rica, Peru, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Burkina Faso) will do whatever its Mother says... even if Mother tells her children to defy international law! --Tocino18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Slovakia, Czechia are these EU/ (Some NATO) Sheep too? Also is Genocide classed as defying international law by any chance? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are notable exceptions and these proud nations should be praised for their independent-minded decision making. However, overall the EU/NATO is an organization which is dominated by three countries (Germany, France, and UK) and these three countries currently happen to agree with the USA on 95% of foreign policy issues, so basically the USA is running the EU/NATO behind the scenes. It is no coincidence that the EU/NATO wants to create a puppet-state within the borders of Serbia, a traditional ally of Russia, while at the same time this organization is looking to expand East, all the way to the borders of the Russian Federation. For whatever reason the U.S. government and EU/NATO is stuck in a Cold War mindset, obsessed with defeating Russia and enslaving the Slavic people. As for international law, UN SC resolution 1244 clearly states that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Also you should be aware that the Kosovo Albanian side is not squeaky clean. The KLA terrorized Serbs and burned down Orthodox churches, yet despite this no KLA leaders have prosecution by international authorities, in fact some of the KLA terrorists are now leading the separatist government. Hashim Thaci, called The Snake, was one of the leaders of the KLA and is now the Prime Minister of the separatist government. --Tocino 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC) A bit like Israel running the USA behind the scenes at the UN then Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Im going to give you a C-
What you should do in your next essay is evaluate both sides of the argument, then come up with a conclusion. Better luck next time. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Just telling the cold hard facts. I know you don't get this side of the story because the Western media is particularly good at parroting the talking points of Western governments (coughBBCcough) :). --Tocino 21:01, 19 May 2008 9UTC)
I take the BBC with a grain of salt because of the way it blends news with commentary. The BBC seems as though it has been trying to start a war with Russia and China in the past few years with the never-ending amount of negative stories it publishes about those two countries. And no I have not studied media and hjournalism, but as User:Mareklug would say, I know "bullshit" when I see "bullshit". --Tocino21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You have confused me, why would a British Public Corporation start a war with Russia and China? This would seem very foolish, i think you must be wrong there. The BBC is a highly respected all over the world. I admit the BBC is not the best source of news, that is why I look for a wide variation of news from all back grounds. I try as much as i can to be Media literate as i can. Yes it is hard trying to spot the subliminal messages in media, but i feel i get along ok. The thing you have to remember with all news is that is for profit, even the BBC. The BBC can not be running at a loss. Since all news is for profit, they have to produce news which appeals to their audiences, otherwise they would loose market share. For example American News stations are a good example for that. So is B92, people say that it is rather pro American. I would have to disagree there, if B92 was producing American garbage, Serbian audiences would generally not like it, therefore B92 would soon go out of business. B92 seems to be rather pro Serbian, which you can understand from a news company, that is based in Serbia. Then you have Balkan Insight, which seems to be rather good and neutral as it has to appeal to all the Balkan countries. When the BBC is reporting for all these other countries (which i have listed), do you think it will be producing lots of pro-British garbage? no it won't as it would last, as audiences would dislike it. Trust me Tocino, the BBC have been in the game since the beginning. They are not as bad as you make them out to be.
Also you have got me worked out all wrong. Just because i support Kosovo doesn't mean i dislike Serbia and Russia ect. I'd love to visit them countries. And just because i support Kosovo doesnt mean i support the US. I generally don't approve of the US. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't approve of U.S. ? Gasp! I love my country and I support it but the State Department has a completely backwards policy towards the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union (I would also not have invaded Iraq for what it's worth). You seem like a good bloke but on this issue you are misguided. Ohh and why are you re-posting monarchist crap on the 2008 article? On your profile it says you, like me , are anti-monarchy, but then you re-post some garabage about Lizzy Windsor's grandchildren. --Tocino17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
@ Tocino. I also disapprove of the Iraq war, Afghanistan and the wests view of former soviet countries and former Yugoslavia too. I do take separatism seriously and the reason for me supporting Kosovo and is not due western media at all. A Kosovar refugee family stayed with my family in the UK during the Kosovo war. I do sympathize for Serbia sometimes, they have been given a hard time over the years. Tadic i believe to be doing the right thing over Kosovo. Obviously he has to oppose Kosovo's independence as he is the leader of Serbia, so has to react in the way which will suit his people best. Therefore i believe him to be a good leader. much better than most western politicians. he actually does what his people want him to do and he knows whats best for his people too. It emotionally hurt me re-adding that of Peter Phillips, but it did seem Notable as he is royal and more of him is expected in the future, therefore it did seem kinda the right thing to do. To be fair i hate the Queen, she a medieval tradition and the monarchy should have ended hundreds of years ago. I too think your a cool guy, i just disagree with you on some things. But not everything, such as the correct spelling of Pristina, monarchy, Iraq war and the wests view of former USSR and Yugoslavia. Got to admit, it'd be boring if everyone agreed on everything. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
edit request - majority that recognized and elections in Serbia
In paragraph 2 it is listed how many countries recognized Kosovo. Also how many EU states. I think that there should be also the most important group of countries that recognized it. It is NATO states. Added text should go like this: 20 NATO member states + 2 candidates (79%) out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also there is additional detail regarding international reaction that should be added. On May 11, 2008 elections for Serbian parlament were also held on Kosovo. UNMIK had no objections against this, but it was also not supporting it.
Igor I know you are Serb because your page says so --- please don't make information up. The most shocking thing you said is that UNMIK had no objections. UNMIK had total and severe objections. Kosova200872.161.253.240 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope that Kosova2008 is not doubting that 20+2 NATO states have recognized Kosovo, so I would provide you only with evidences on 2nd part - the elections. Here are Al Jazzera [9] article quoting Kosovo prime minister and Bulgarian Focus [10] quoting UNMIK chief. Mr.Ruecker says that UNMIK finds local elections illegal, but they never commented parliament elections. They also did nothing to prevent them. But still, it does not change the fact that Serbian elections were held at Kosovo and UNMIK (not) reacting is important for this article. So my suggestion is to add this two sentences:
20 NATO member states + 2 candidates (79%) out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo (or 55% of total states that recognized Kosovo)
On May 11, 2008 elections for local authorities and for Serbian parliament were also held on Kosovo. UNMIK stated that it finds local election illegal, but they conducted no action to prevent neither local, neither parliament elections.
First sentence should be added in 2nd paragraph, and the other should be added at the end.
P.S. @Kosova2008: Yes, I am a Serb, but I see no reason for pointing that out in this discussion. Do you have any source on "UNMIK having total and severe objections" on Serbian parliament elections held in Kosovo?
Yes I have proof but it is so COMMON SENSE that I feel like I am re-discovering gravity. Just by reading your Serbian news (BLIC, b92, etc) I do remember reading something the line of "we (UNMIK) will not communicate or cooperate with the new representatives of the Serbs from May 11 elections...furthermor only UNMIK has the power to call elections in Kosova mandated by Res 1244". UNMIK has sever reactions and sees this as a step back because Serbia broke an international law...1244. Also who cares about how many NATO countries recognized? Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the NATo Alliance is the most important group to recognize, consdiering the EU is much more powerful in europe. and the fact he is serbian should have no reason to make his edit unusablle kosova.. i'll support if the majority supports.--Jakezing (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think elections should be in the serbian reaction article and other appropriate articles since they are not a reaction to the declaration per se. As for NATO, we do mention in the tables who is a member of what so we should either remove NATO from the tables or add the sentence as suggested by Igor. Jawohl (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the elections conducted by Serbia that is relevant for the article, but UNMIK's reaction is. Also, NATO is much, much more involved in Kosovo problem than EU is, starting from bombing of the Serbia in 1999. EU was never involved before EULEX mission.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
disagree. One seems relevant to the article, but they are both acceding member states not candidate member states. Proposal two is not relevant to the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comprosmise suggestion: Let's include a corrected summary sentence re: NATO per Igor's request (see below for exact text) and let's forego mentioning the elections, since neither are they a reaction to the declaration (they would have taken place in Kosovo even without independence being proclaimed) nor is the reaction of UNMiK relevant as a reaction to the declaration. In this article we confine ourselves with the international recognition of Kosovo or lack of consent for same, or other international reaction. Proposed 3-part edit:
1. Please replace:
As of May 122008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight.
with the following:
As of May 202008, 40 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (19 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight. Significantly, 20 NATO member states + 2 acceding member states out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also, please update the NATO membership characterization of two Albania and Croatia:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[8]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [9] ||EU candidate country NATO candidate country non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
with the following:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[10]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [11] ||EU candidate country NATO acceding member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
I left out the parenthetical percentages, since the article does not employ them elsewhere (also, when counting "states", do they include Taiwan?). I added the leading "significantly" to emphasize the points made by Igor in the discussion, but perhaps it should be struck. --Mareklugtalk18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
@ Igor Also, NATO is much, much more involved in Kosovo problem than EU is. You should do your homework better. EU was the biggest financial donor in Kosovo the past 9 years. EU always chose the SRSG and held the main UNMIK pillars. And now we also know why you want to have NATO mentioned. They bomb they recognize. Thats the logic. Jawohl (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree I also agree on compromise. I will no more comment on this, since some anonymous users are trying to heat up this debate. I had no intentions like that. It's just that since I am from that corner of the world, I wanted to point out to some facts that I think are important.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I object to using "Prishtina" when it has been agreed elsewhere that WP:English now uses "Pristina" as the name of the largest city of Kosovo. --Tocino19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition as Groundless This edit request makes no change in spelling of Prishtina. It is completely agnostic with regard to that issue. The editor is blocking a needed edit, acting disruptively, as in the case of carried out Iraq and Morocco editprotect requests. The issue of Prishtina deserves separate discussion, which already is underway in a different section of this talk page. --Mareklugtalk19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I support Tocino's opposition. its not groundless Mareklug we need to sort out this spelling problem before we edit the page, therefore Tocinos opposition is not groundless. We should use the most common English version "Pristina". I too will disagree untill this spelling error is corrected. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to get anything done. Everything in its right place. Why is this so hard to get? I oppose changing to Pristina and made my merit-based arguments peruasively in the approprite section, where they benefit from the proximity of related content. This is just throwing the monkey wrench into a difficult enough process of changing things that we can and should change because there's no controversy there. Are you saying, no edits to the page unless this issue is addressed? Are you holding the page hostage? --Mareklugtalk19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition to Opposition as Groundless. If anyone is holding this article hostage it is User:Mareklug. This edit request does not go far enough. We need to correct the mistakes and it is a mistake to have the incorrect, non-English spelling of Prishtina in this article. Editors elsewhere have agreed that the common English spelling is Pristina. To insist on having the Albanian spelling is to spite the decisions of the WP community. --Tocino 20:13, 20 may 2008 (UTC)
There are three accepted English spellings of Prishtina, which is stated immediately at the beginning of the Wikipedia article about this city, and is now finally acknowledgd in the Kosovo article's lead and first infobox, per consensus. The Prishtina spelling is the variant used by the government of Republic of Kosovo, specifically, all the official websites and official correspondence of the President, who is a scholar and university professor. We are using the normative contextually correct variant when discussin the Republic of Kosovo. Other contexts will demand other variants. There is no community decision to only spell "Pristina". You are mirepresenting an RfC about locating the article itself with such a decision. Specifically, the Kosovo naming guideline addtion to the Manual of Style is still being discussed (and it advocates Prishtina in Republic of Kosovo contexts). --Mareklugtalk20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is only one spelling which is common throughout the English language and it is Pristina. WP editors have decided to name the article of the city Pristina and we should respect the decisions of these editors. In the interest of uniformity it is not acceptable to use a foreign spelling on this particular page while WP policy prefers Pristina. --Tocino20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just not true, and links showing that have abound and have been shown in relevant discussions, and in actual references for University of Prishtina. The Prishtina spelling is commonly found in the American acdemia, and I trust this use more than popular press accounts or the ideologically-driven US Government usage, or the BBC, which never uses diacritics at all. And the NGOs working in Prishtina use Prishtina, an obvious case of that being "A.I. Prishtina". --Mareklugtalk20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Another blatent falsehood. Academia, like the vast majority of English speakers, prefer Pristina. A quick search for Pristina on Amazon.com reveals 2,051 results, while a similar search for "Prishtina" only yields 195 results. "Prishtina" is so rarely used in the English language that the Kovoso Albanian separatist government refers to the city as Pristina in its own English language constitution. --Tocino23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Academia prefers, singular. Blatant, misspelling. This claim would be funny, if it weren't a sad display of lack of scholarship: "pristina" is a common Latin word, in feminine singular, quite unrelated from Kosovan capital, often appearing in biological taxononomy. I'm sure lots of books and papers will have it in its titles. And the actual university page references that use Prishtina are represented in the University of Prishtina, as far as the main article space use goes. They include Dartmouth College, University of Iowa and so on. As for the goverment use, the Republic of Kosovo government, be it Office of the President, his own official letters to other heads of state, Office of the Prime Minister, or the Kosovo Government Portal, uniformly use Prishtina. The government itself never uses Pristina. We don't know who wrote the constitution, and American advisers and scientists were involved, and it only mentions the city once, and for all we know, this will be fixed before it becomes law on 15 June 2008. --Mareklugtalk01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Leave it to the immigrant to point out my typos. Newsflash... I've forgotten more English than you'll ever know. Should I translate that into Polish for you? BTW, cities are always capitalized so you are showing off your ignorance by leaving the "P" in Pristina uncapitalized. Meanwhile you've named two universites who use the Albanian spelling for Pristina... how impressive. I can give you over three million links that use Pristina. --Tocino01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug you are forgetting that wikipedia is a meritocracy. We are not in a rush to add to the article. Its best to get things correct in the fist place. There is no time limit. We will get things done eventually. Time will prevail in the end. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Presumably standardizing the spelling of Prishtina, either to the spelling of "Prishtina" which is used exclusively by all the government websites, and the usage in the proposed consitution, where it occurs only once, and as "Pristina". Certainly we can hope, and this siutation is far from resolved on the ground. Meanwhile, we have other edits to implement, and you too are being disruptive, not letting them be implemented. This Pristina-thing is your pet peave, and you are losing the forest for the trees, letting your personal agenda override the good of carrying out agreed upon improvements. --Mareklugtalk20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree: Tocino you can't be prosecutor and judge. If you or Ijanderson want to change aceeding to w/e you can but you can't change the name of the city. Until that consensus is reached at its' proper place we will continue with de jure spelling. Stop holding the page hostage. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is far from universal, as yo conveniently overlook. And the government of the country in question -- which after all is what sets up the context of this article -- disagrees with you in English, as does the official webpage of the City/Municipality of Prishtina. --Mareklugtalk20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not willing to argue with you over the name. You are just repeating the same rubbish over and over again. A consensus was reached, now accepted it. Otherwise you are the one keeping the page hostage. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You have just argued (re: de jure, above) in this section no less, so your lack of willingness and memory appear highly selective, not to mention, changing position serveral times in the same editprotect request. It would be better for you to think things through and then spout -- it would surely make for easier reading. And I'm not the one blocking adding/changing information about which everyone agrees, explicitly or tacitly, but you are. So saying that I am holding this article hostage, while it is you and Tocino -- in this edit -- is hypocrisy. --Mareklugtalk21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The correct term is personal attacks, as detailed in the Wikipedia policy forbidding them and discussing what is a personal attack and what is not: WP:NOP.
"Personnel attacks", which you have written on this talk page consistently, sounds like a noun and a verb in the phrase "workers unite". :) And, if I may point out, telling other editors that they appear hostile is a personal attack, and you have volunteered this opinion at me twice now. It is a personal attack per Wikipedia policy, as it makes no effort to address the content and merit of discussed information -- edits on Wikipedia, but instead characterizes offputtingly a person, a fellow editor.
As for me, far from making personal attacks, I questioned your edits themselves: their content and the frequent changes of position in the same discussion thread, suggesting you only take one position, after considering the issue thoroghly, as that would improve general readability and discussion flow.
I also pointed out that I am not blocking any edits where the community is of one mind, but that, on the other hand, you are. Given this fact, your having accused me of holding the article hostage was accusing me of doing something you yourself are doing as we speak. Again, I addressed your edit, not how hostile you may be. Please be precise and use the English language appropriately and correctly. --Mareklugtalk22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NNot done – {{editprotected}} is for use once everyone agrees on changes to be made to the article. Add another editprotected once there's consensus for a particular change. Cheers, Nihiltres{t.l}22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the editor who put the {{editprotect}} here is the same one who decided to oppose the edit, after initially opposing, then strongly supporting, then supporting conditionally. I think that's pretty funny, except for how it hinders the process of Wikipedia and just creates runaround and multiplies talk page bytes. --Mareklugtalk00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an editor in any way, but I'm speaking up here because I'm a frequent user of this article. As a person interested in this matter, it's helpful with a page like this that's supposed to be up to date and reliable.
Reading the editing debates on this discussion page, it seems to me like several editors totally are missing the point. It seems to be more important to have the article stating whatever someone's wishful thinking regarding the situation of Kosovo is, rather than the actual facts.
You should realise that reality out there won't be affected by what is stated in this article. If The Ukrainian Prime Minister for example has made a relevant statement about Kosovo independece, not mentioning it in the article won't change the fact that the statement actually has been made and is for real. This is only one of many examples of weaknesses in the article, where people seem to be trying to hide reality for the readers because it goes against their personal views on the matter.
With too many cases like this, the whole article won't be as reliable and as trustworthy as it should.
I will also say that obstructing uncontroversial updates because of a disagreement over spelling seems very childish, as that is a totally different case. People should start to be thinking of what the purpose of Wikipedia really is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.54.68 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Compromise-Compromise: This is just Markelug's proposal above, with "Prishtina" changed to "Pristina". These edits are orthogonal to the whole Prishtina-Pristina debate, so just because I'm submitting a version based on the Pristina spelling, that's not because I necessarily agree with that spelling -- I'm just trying to find a compromise that more people can agree to. I have no personal interest in the spelling debate, and either spelling is fine with me. I suspect that if the Kosovo government pushes "Prishtina", then in the long run that will be adopted in English -- witness Beijing, Mumbai, Cote d'Ivoire. English in this regard is a bit of a different language than French, which seems a bit more resistant to contemporary reborrowings, witness Peking. That said, at the moment the majority usage in English is still Pristina, so that seems like an argument for sticking with the most common usage for now, and then changing later when the common usage changes. But the whole point of this, as I said, is to try to decouple Markelug's proposals (which seemed to be widely supported in-and-of themselves) from the spelling issue.
See Markelug's rationale above for below changes.
Proposed 3-part edit:
1. Please replace:
As of May 122008, 41 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (20 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight.
with the following:
As of May 202008, 41 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (20 out of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight. Significantly, 21 NATO member states + 2 acceding member states out of 26+2 recognized Kosovo.
Also, please update the NATO membership characterization of two Albania and Croatia:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[8]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Pristina [9] ||EU candidate country NATO candidate country non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
with the following:
|-
| 31 || Croatia[10]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Pristina [11] ||EU candidate country NATO acceding member state non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
|-
Agree - the Wikipedia article for the city is now called Pristina, therefore this article should use that spelling throughout. However, as SJK says, that issue is not directly relevant to this update. Bazonka (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We should change the map, the number of UN/EU/NATO/OSCE/etc., countries recognizing as well. Finally this issue with the Czech Republic is behind us! :) --alchaemia (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
to the list of "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent",
update the two sentences
As of May 212008, 41 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (20 out of 27);
in the second paragraph of the lead section,
section "International governmental organisations": in the UN entry, update the statement
The Czech Republic has recognized independence of Kosovo 1
ollowing the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Government expressed on 21st May 2008 its agreement with the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Kosovo, by which the Czech Republic recognized the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state.
The policy of the Czech Republic proceeds from the conviction that the recognition of independence of Kosovo will provide for the strengthening of the overall stability in the region and for realistic way out of the untenable situation and will direct the efforts of the countries of the Western Balkans on to the challenges arising from their future membership in the European and Euroatlantic institutions.
The recognition of Kosovo and the establishment of diplomatic relations will be part of the reply of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a letter from the President and the Prime Minister of Kosovo. By recognizing Kosovo and establishing diplomatic relations, the Czech Republic will confirm its active policy in the region of Western Balkans and its work for its stabilization and democratic development in the long run.
The Czech Republic will transform its UNMIK Liaison Office in Pristina into the Embassy of the Czech Republic in the Republic of Kosovo.
May 21, 2008
Source: Ministry of foreign affairs Czech Republic
The Map only highlights the States that have recognised the independence of Kosovo but dose not highlight any other states political status towards Kosovo. on the other language pages this one is used: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg - this does need a bit of editing yet it shows the statuses (if that is a word) in more clarity.
--Lemonade100 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That map is incredibly POV. We use a NPOV map based purely on facts. We had that map once, but it caused lots of arguments/ disputes. It makes Kosovo seem to have less/ more support than it does have. We decided in the end to use a map which shows the countries which recognise Kosovo and which dont. So facts instead of someones interpretation on a countries position. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And not on all other langauge pages, either. On Polish Wikipedia we use this the version I maintain. Actually, other users maintain both versions, keeping to obvious updates, and leaving the iffy ones for Avala and me to color. User:Mareklug-generated map. I once suggested adding *both* to these article, in a fair and balanced approach of showing competing viewpoints. What's so wrong with that? User:Tocino prevented this by only deleting my version peristently in 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, after I found that the article only included the Avala-generated map, and not even the neutral green one we now use. So I prepared an informative display of all three, even with Avala's map on top of mine, and explained the rationale on the article talk page. :) But Tocino wouldn't let it be. Again, why this strong intolerance of divergent interpretations?. --Mareklugtalk20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Both them maps are just different users interpretations. We would never reach consensus on one map, apart from the current one. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many egregious errors on the second map (positions of India, Iran, Uruguay, Cuba, Mexico, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovakia, Macedonia just to name a few) that it deserves to thrown in the dustbin. --Tocino 21:10, 19 may 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's already been pointed out two times already. Today the Czech Civil Democrats have disgraced themselves and have perhaps set the stage for the opposition to take over parliament. The Czech people are opposed to recognition due to solidarity with the Serb nation which has always been a staunch ally. Many Czech and Slovak politicians have commented on the similarities between the decision of the small minority of nations who've recognized unilateral independence of the Kosovo Albanian separatist state and the infamous Munich Agreement. Both decisions carve up and violate the sovereignty and integrity of proud nations, Czechoslovakia and Serbia in this case. Just like how the Munich Agreement was not the end of the Germans' demands, this unilateral declaration is not the end of the Albanians' demands. Only a few days ago a former KLA terrorist set up an organization in Pristina which has a main goal of creating Greater Albania. Thankfully, though, the vast majority of nations are opposed to recognition, including Czechia's neighbors, Slovakia. Despite the actions from a few reckless nations, there will be no appeasement from the international community in this case as it will stand strong with Serbia. --Tocino17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, what are you talking about? 3 of 4 neighbors of Czechia recognized Kosova: Germany, Poland and Austria. And no, the vast majority of nations are not opposed to recognition as they are neutral. --Tubesship (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You either recognize or don't recognize and currently 151 out of 192 U.N. member states don't recognize the Kosovo Albanian separatist state. I suspect that this number will go up in the future as countries will realize their grave mistakes, similar to the way countries rescinded their recognition of the Republic of China in favor of the People's Republic of China. --Tocino02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You cannot compare Republic of China aka Taiwan and Kosova as the problem with Taiwan is that it is claiming to speak not only for itself but for even the much bigger People's Republic of China and in reverse do not recognize it. Kosova has no problem to recognize Serbia and do not claim to be the one and only Serbian state like Taiwan does regarding China. Do you now see the difference in politics of Taiwan and Kosova or do you still think both problems are the same? And no, you cannot force any nation to make a decision if they do not want to make a decision whether to recognize or not. --Tubesship (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, do you have any evidence to back up the widespread but apparently bogus legend that "The Czech people are opposed to recognition (due to solidarity with the Serb nation)"? The only real data I have seen is this poll[12] (done by one of the most reputable Czech opinion research companies), the result of which was that
36% of respondents think that the Czech Rep. should recognize independence of Kosovo, 34% think it should not, and 30% are undecided,
34% personally agree with Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, 36% are against, and 30% are undecided.
The United Nations-sponsored Brussels-based International Association of Democratic Lawyers yesterday issued its newest resolution in Tokyo. It condemned the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo and its recognition by a number of Countries, deeming it in contrast to the Charter of the United Nations and the Helsinki Final Act.
Just because a group of lawyers may be sponsored by the UN, it does not mean that it represents the views of the UN. As far as I'm aware, only three UN bodies/offices are in such a position: the Security Council, the General Assembly and the UN head. Not a single one of them has issued any such statement. This association of lawyers is not a supranational actors in the international political scene and has no bearing at all on the situation. This article is about supranational actors or bodies; not about associations of lawyers whose website bears the disclaimer: "Copyright 2002." That alone should tell you how serious of a group we're talking about here. A strong disagree from myself. --alchaemia (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not "a group of lawyers", but an international non-governmental organization founded by the UN in 1946. The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is neither the Security Council, nor the General Assembly, nor even the Secretary General. It is a totally different thing - not a UN body, but a UN NGO. From your post it is depicted a if you are trying to personally degrade them just because of their attitude. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. There are hundreds of expert groups with an opinion on the subject. Mentioning one of them would open up the flood gates. Jawohl (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not an expert group, but an international non-governmental organization. And we have already introduced one (UNPO). Mentioning only it seems as if we're just depicting those which support independence of Kosovo, and not those who do not. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Agree. The more reactions the better I say. This particular group is important because it's association with the UN. --Tocino17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-PaxEquilibrium: Maybe I'm missing it, but IADL has not been founded by the UN at all - the UN does not found NGOs in any way, shape or form. It's an NGO, one of millions around the world. Disagree, again. --alchaemia (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - I don't think any NGOs should be in this article, except possibly for the sporting groups. The opinions of NGOs on an issue like this just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. What counts, from a political and legal perspective, is the opinions of states, and the fora through which states act (i.e. international organizations like the EU & UN). Whether some NGO agrees or disagrees with it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the legal/political outcome of this dispute, whereas the acts of states do have such an impact. (Major sporting events like the Olympics I'd make an exception for because over the years they have become so politicised anyway.) And, I'd remove UNPO as well (a group which no one cares about except for a small group of independence/separatism activists) -- I removed it a while ago, but then someone else reverted my change, so I relented. --SJK (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It was you and I, who agreed in a compromise to break up international organizations into governmental and nongovernmental. So calling on deleting it now seems like a breach of that compromise. The marginality of UNPO is undisputable, but neither is that a sentence of exclusion as nonnotable. The peoples represented by UNPO are disenfranchised and not represented through the UN-based world order, and we know from the experience of Taiwan (ROC), that might makes right in there, sometimes, and that UN-based is not normative, either. We should use common sense to discern which international organizations merit mentioning. UNPO does, as it reflects many nations and the information in the article serves to expose those people and their reactions to the Kosovo declaration of independence. Ours is not to decide who or how many people care about an issue. Viewed in that light, let's just skip mentioning Icelandic literature, as hardly anyone cares about that. At least, when compared to how many people care about the Spice Girls or the Eurovision Song Contest or American professional baseball. --Mareklugtalk22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does the Albanian source say? I could not find confirmation in any other source, be it Czech or international media, or Czech MoFA. Sure enough, the government declared that it will transform its Liason Office in Pristina into an Embassy, and Janina Hřebíčková is expected to become the first Ambassador,[13][14] but I have seen no evidence that this already happened. In fact, any new Ambassador must be officially appointed by the President, and I'm fairly certain this has not yet happened in her case. — EJ (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Shqip: Pas njohjes së pavarësisë, Republika Çeke e ka ngritur nivelin e përfaqësimit të saj diplomatik në nivel ambasade në Republikën e Kosovës, thuhet në një deklaratë të Ministrisë së Jashtme çeke. Shefja e gjertanishme e Zyrës çeke në Prishtinë, Janina Hrebickova është emëruar ambasadore e parë e Çekisë në Republikën e Kosovës.
English: After the recognition of independence, Republic of Czech has raised the level of diplomatic representation to embassy in the Republic of Kosova, reads a declaration by the Minstry of Foreign Affairs of Czech. The head-admin of the now office of Czech in Prishtina. Janina Hrebickova has been enumerated (?) the first ambassador of Czech Rep. to Republic of Kosova.
update: I found a conflicting report from the MFA of Czech that says "will" as in it has not happened. Whereas the Albanian media is reporting that it has already happened. Source MFAKosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation. So, as I understand it, the words "reads a declaration by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs" clearly imply that the media report is only based on the declaration by the MFA (which is, by the way, already linked from our article), not any other source of information. As the actual statement by the Ministry does not confirm the information, it seems that the whole thing is just a result of careless misinterpretation by the journalist. I thus oppose the edit request, and I suggest to use more care when relying on media. — EJ (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, from, gack, B92.net, which settles the issue with clear evidence against the edit:
The Czech government's decision to recognize the unilateral independence, which Serbia rejects as illegal, has caused a storm in the local political scene, which continues unabated for the third day.
The decision will have to be justified in parliament at the start of June, but the jurisdiction to make the recognition remains with the cabinet.
The leader of the Czech communists, Vojteh Filip, said last night that his party will propose a law that will in the future make the parliament the institution with this jurisdiction.
"Legally, the Czech decision to recognize Kosovo will be finalized once the presidents appoints the Czech ambassador to Priština. We have asked Vaclav Klaus to block the appointment of Janjina Hžebičkova," Filip explained.
Disagree. President Klaus, who recently said he felt ashamed that the Czech government decided to recognize, may block the appointment of an ambassador. Also the opposition is looking to pass a law that would annul recognition, so Czechia having an ambassador, let alone simple recogniton of Kosovo, is far from a done deal. --Tocino21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The opposition is not able to pass laws, that's why it's the opposition. And we'll see if it's 'far from a done deal' or not.
Actually the coalition partner of the Czech Civil Democrats, the Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, is generally opposed to recognition and so are some Civil Democrats, such as the President, so combine those forces with the opposition Social Democrats and Communists and you have a majority, able to pass this one law which would annul recognition. --Tocino18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
...a law that willin the futuremake the parliament the institution with this jurisdiction. If this proposed law gets a majority it will not, by itself, annul past recognitions. Gugganij (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it is also possible that parliaments can annul recognitions. I am not sure that this is what the parties are currently discussing but it is an option. Anyway, I am confident that once the Social Democrats and/or Communists win a majority after the next Czech elections that the new government will correct policy, annul recognition of the NATO/EU puppet state, and support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. --Tocino22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We will see if Klaus goes ahead and appoints the ambassador or if he is going to block the appointment. So there is no ambassador just yet.--Avala (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, the Czech government website very clearly states that as of now the Czech Republic formally and fully recognizes Kosovo. There is no legal ambiguity whatsoever. If for whatever legal reason they recind their recognition, that is a future matter to be seen.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Czech Republic will now establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo. "The Czech Republic's policies are the result of a conviction that the recognition of the independence of Kosovo will strengthen stability in the region," the Foreign Ministry stated in a press release.
The Foreign Ministry also announced that the office of the European UNMIK mission in Pristina will become the Embassy of the Czech Republic in the Republic of Kosovo.Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to write about this exact thing this morning before I headed to work but WP was crashing on me. I have a SHQIP source that says that Arabia is soon on the list from a meeting between Alb President and someone from the Saudi's. I read it at Kosova.com Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well first off, post the link on this page. then we will get it translated, because i dont even know which link your on about Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
IJANDERSON don't play good cop bad cop around here. WE are discussing this because we believe its' important and we need to keep an eye on it. The link is this. I told you what it says that S.Arabia is going to recognize 'soon'. Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, everybody. Arabia will recognize soon. And a lot of other countries in that region will follow. --Tubesship (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody please take a breather. This is obviously a very important issue to some of you, understandably. However, we need to focus on facts here. If/when Saudi Arabia recognizes Kosovo, the information can go in as soon as a reliable source is provided. Until then, try to focus on what we do have, and everything will go a lot smoother.
"Kosovo Seeks Arab Recognition" => "Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon"
"Kosovo Seeks Arab Recognition", BalkanInsight.com, 27 May2008. Link accessed 2008-05-27. Today's BalkanInsight.com article, containing among others the following info:
"Foreign Minister Hyseni met with the ambassadors of Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates accredited to the United Nations office in Vienna, and briefed them on developments following Kosovo's declaration of independence on February 17."
"None of the Arab countries has recognised the move, although some, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have indicated that they have begun the recognition process."
"The Charge d’Affaires of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Vienna, Abdulrahman Al-Suahibani, told Hyseni that he has been instructed by his government to communicate to Kosovo’s Foreign Minister that “Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon”."
Nothing particularly new about Saudi there, but some new info about Qatar. We should mention this, but do we need to find something from a Qatari source first? Bazonka (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing on Qatar's Foreign Ministry's website. But we have sourced countries on less evidence than that (Morocco, Iraq, Kuweit). I suggest we do so for Qatar. ANd the Saudi Arabia info vindicates keeping it where it is, in the about to recognize bin.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has promised that his country will recognise Kosovo. He confirmed this stance in early April, during a meeting he held in Riyadh with Albania's parliament speaker, Jozefina Topalli.[2] Abdulrahman Al-Suahibani, the chargé d'affaires at Saudi Arabia's embassy in Vienna, is reported to have told Kosovo's Foreign Minister that "Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon".[3]
This appears to be a good request, but I will wait until a couple more users confirm that there is no opposition to this before I enter it in the article. - Revolving Bugbear16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a third party source and does not site any evidence that Qatar government officials have said anything about Kosovo and Metohija. Under the precedent set by the edit request to remove Morocco from list of states which do not recognize, third party sources with vague wording is not acceptable and we have to get citations from government websites instead. --Tocino18:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition as Groundless Third party sources are allowed. Qatar are hardy going to mention that they are beginning the process of recognition on their MOFA site, only that they have recognised when they do it. The reliable source says Skender Hyseni met with Qatar Foreign Minister and this is what was said. I highly doubt the neutral Balkan Insight would lie. Third party sources are acceptable according to wikipedia. Morocco was removed because the notes and its source had nothing to do with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition to Opposition as Groundless. Third party sources are allowed when they have quotes from government officials, but they aren't allowed, under the Morocco precedent, when they just have a random statement by the journalist. Read User:Mareklug's statement in the Morocco section, "This is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not consititute Morocco's reaction." As far as I am concerned this sentence from BalkanInsight is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not constititute Qatar's reaction. --Tocino18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Morocco precedent" is utterly different. I agree that in the "Qatar situation" the source is not particularly informative, but it does refer to the opinion of the Qatari government - it's certainly not a "drive-by" comment. The Morroco source only gave a general indication of the mood of the country, and in such a wishy-washy way that it could also be applied to any other country. I'm sure a better Qatari source will appear in two or three days, in which case we can replace this one. Bazonka (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying we shouldn't believe the journalist with no quotes of the Morocco source, but we should believe the journalist with no quotes from the Qatar source. I do not support this kind of selective processing. --Tocino18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely believe the journalist who said "countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories". It's obviously true... and irrelevant. And in the Qatari case I have no reason to disbelieve the journalist, and what he said is certainly not something to ignore as it indicates direct action by the Qatari government - very different from the Morocco quote which should be put to bed. Bazonka (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as we know the journalist from the Morocco source could've spoke with the Moroccan and Sudanese governments and he is just repeating their words. Yet certain editors decided that we could not assume good faith of the journalist, and his words were not enough. I am saying the same thing here. We don't know how the BalkanInsight journalist got that information and since he was unable to provide any evidence or quotes to support his statement, assuming good faith is not enough, we need more. --Tocino19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
N Qatar not done -- without any commitment as to whether or not I agree, there is a strenuous, concrete objection. Discuss further if you like, or revive this proposal when a new source is available.
Would saying something like "Sources indicate that Qatar has begun the process of recognising Kosovo" be more acceptable? I don't think information like this is something we should ignore - and if necessary we should include caveats about its provenance. I agree that the source we have is not ideal, but the difference between it and the Morocco case is immense - this one is about Kosovo, that one wasn't. Now let's never talk about that Morocco article ever again... I think in the case of Saudi Arabia, the source is good enough as it quotes a Saudi diplomat passing on a message from his government. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would only support putting Qatar in the states which are about to recognize category (which, BTW, title is terrible and it needs to be corrected to something more concrete such as "States which have declared formal intent to recognize") if Morocco is put back on the states which do not recognize list. Also the Qatar entry would have to have a disclaimer at the end like how the Moroccan entry did, something to the effect of "As of May 2008 no statement on Kosovo has been sourced by the Qatar Foreign Ministry." --Tocino20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, the Morocco source may mostly be about Kosovo, but the contentious sentence within it ("countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories") is not about Kosovo. It's about Morocco and Sudan. Irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Saudi Arabia done. I've tl'ed the template out until consensus can be reached on the Qatar issue. Please do not dismiss legitimate concerns of other editors -- an objection to a single third-party source with no direct attribution is a legitimate objection, since this situation could cut either way. And please assume good faith and speak civilly. - Revolving Bugbear20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This source [1] indicates that Bulgaria has established an embassy in Pristina. The Bulgaria section should be updated accordingly. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC){{editprotect}}
please change as so
| 32 || Bulgaria[2]|| 2008-03-20 || Bulgarian Embassy in Pristina from 27 May[3] || EU member state NATO member state
|-
This shouldn't say "from 27 May" because the likelihood is that the embassy existed before that date. 27 May is simply the date when we found out about it. Bazonka (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Uncontroversial. Remove "from 27 May" from the Bulgaria item. We have no evidence that this was the date that the embassy was established - it is much more likely that it already existed at this time. Bazonka (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Per administrator's characterization above as to what constitutes valid objection, I object to our continuing display of Uruguay in the article, as basically unsourced to WIkipedia standards, and mistranslated to boot, without English-language or any language official governmental informotion (say, in Spanish) provided.
Please remove:
|-
| Uruguay || 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.[1]
||
|-
As users already indicated on this talk page before (archived), the Spanish phrase "has not recognized", attributed in the Spanish-language source to anonymous sources in early March 2008, we are citing and actually misrepresenting as "will not recognize". This fact alone is cause to remove this entry. Another is absence of any attribution to a named governmental official or document. Ideally, we should be sourcing Uruguayan government in this matter, even if quoted in world press and not direclty from a Uruguayan official website, such as Foreign Ministry's, which exists and is continually updated. If Uruguay chooses to be officially silent on Kosovo, we should reflect that -- by not including it as reacting. After all, this is about international reaction, and we don't have entries of the sort "has not reacted". Yet, on the basis of this entry, editors have represented Uruguay on Commons maps in red, as having officially rejected Kosovo's independence, which is remarkably not true even on the basis of our write-up as it exists with all its faults.
Strongly disagree. The fact that you don't like one phrase doesn't mean it has to be removed altogether. If you want you can propose swapping "has not recognized" with "will not recognize" but that's it. And the fact that the name of the spokesperson is not revelaed is not a reason for deletion. It's still information and it's still a statement.--Avala (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The above editor, strongly disagreeing, is the one who a) mistranslated the text and never fixed it, b) injected the above code into the article, c) continues to represent Uruguay on Commons as officially having rejected Kosovo's independence. d) fails to address that Uruguay has officially not acted at all. e) removes content from this talk section header, suppressing information and another editor's voice. --Mareklugtalk22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Without making any comment on this proposal, where, exactly, did I make a "characterization as to what constitutes valid objection" on this page? Please don't put words in my mouth. These proposals should be based on your understandings of policy and an effort to work towards bringing this article up to a high standard while keeping in line with policies. Those are the parameters within which I am judging these requests, not by any precedent I set further up the page. If you disagree with a judgment call of mine, you are free to dispute it, and you are free to ask for other opinions. (Indeed, I am processing these requests simply because I have this page on my watchlist and it is easy and convenient for me to do so.)
I would once again like to suggest that everyone lower their intensity levels by a few ticks and have a long and careful read of WP:PROT before continuing with these discussions.
I believe Marek refers to your sustaining Tocino's objection to the inclusion of Qatar. Since Qatar was not included because the source was a journalist referring to what he/she found out, it would seem to set a new precedent for the inclusion/exclusion of information. Thus, since the Uruguay information consists of a journalist referring to what an anonymous government source said, it would seem that it does not pass muster (as hearsay). Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what he's referring to, but I didn't actually say what he's making it sound like I said. I said Tocino had a concrete objection. But I would like to avoid letting that set a precedent and discuss each case individually. - Revolving Bugbear23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Revolving Bugbear, you wrote: "Please do not dismiss legitimate concerns of other editors -- an objection to a single third-party source with no direct attribution is a legitimate objection, since this situation could cut either way." Your own words characterize what "is a legitimate objection", and I wrote "Per administrator's characterization above as to what constitutes valid objection, I object to..."'. How did I put words in your mouth, mistate you advice to us, or otherwise transgressed? As to the merit of the issue i flagged, it is a chronic problem, and I was motivated to relist it (as it was raised in the past already) by your lucid advice, which I acknowledged in what I still think is a correct and accurate fashion. Are you perchance saying that "a legitimate objection" is not the same as "constitutes valid objection"? This is the only thing I can identify, on reexamination, and it still eludes me. Please indeed assume good faith, and please advise. --Mareklugtalk23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I appeared to be assuming bad faith -- what I mean with this is that I am not setting up a framework of standards for these edits. My summary of Tocino's objection was just that -- a demonstrative, not prescriptive, summary. (Note, by the way, that by journalistic standards these situations are not analogous -- the Uruguay source is attributed, as an anonymous attribution is different from a lack of attribution.) I want to avoid have a set of standards that are carried from case to case, as this can only cause problems. (You surely noticed this in your objection to using the Morocco request as a benchmark for the Qatar request.) As I said, please assess each request on its own merits and not on my words. Sorry for any offense. Thanks - Revolving Bugbear16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the Uruguay source is quoting unnamed government sources, while the Morocco and Qatar sources are quoting no one. --Tocino23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree. I see no reason to doubt the validity of the source. According to FreeTranslation.com the words of the statement are very clear and that Kosovo does not meat standards of recognition. Uruguay's neighbours are also opposed to recognition, so the position of Uruguay comes as no surprise. --Tocino23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In Spanish, the information is clear. Uruguay don't recognize the independence of Kosovo because it isn't in accordance with the principle of territorial integrity and the use of present perfect tense is used because Uruguay would recognize Kosovo if the three named pillars are fulfilled by them and, according to the Uruguayan government, none has been fulfilled. --B1mbo (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Another example of biased news reporting by www.B92.net
A direct quote from the Serbian website that many editors advocate using to source this article [15]:
24 May 2008 | 21:08 | Source: Tanjug
ATHENS -- Greece confirmed that Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis did meet with a man the authorities in Priština appointed as their foreign minister.
Would we blink at: "did meetwith a man the authorities in Belgrade appointed as their foreign minister"? I suggest that we would. This kind of language goes out of the way to distort news, not simply report it.
Another issue, is that nearly all B92 dispatches on Kosovo are sourced to "Tanjug", a Serbian news agency located in Belgrade, according to our flagged-as-unsourced 2.5-year old stub about it on Wikedia. B92 website could source Agence France Press or Al-Jazirra or, most directly, Greek media in this case, but their choice is invariably partizan, as is their phrasing. Stands to reason, their information is conveyed with partizan bias on the whole, and not suitable to source our neutral ecyclopedic account, which must strive to avoid even an appearance of conflict of interest, let alone demonstrated serious conflicts of interest. --Mareklugtalk23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe B92 to be a good source. yeh it is slightly POV. But then isnt all media. It is good to have a wide range of media. no need to pick on the pro Serbian media instead of pro Kosovo media. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A neutral source is in first order one that unfailingly writes "Foreign Minster So and So met with Foreign Minister So and So Number 2". Does this really need motivation? Does avoiding conflicts of interest in sourcing also need motivating? A neutral source is one that reports neutrally and has no obvious geographical dependencies on the protagonists. In this case, the news agency should not worry that it will be torched by the locals if it reports neutrally. This discredits B92.net as it does kosovopress.com and I have maintained this assiduously, without singling out the Serbian media. --Mareklugtalk00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, folks, if I may clarify something. I am not saying, don't read B92.net cuz its pernicious, or don't discuss it and cite its dispatches on this talk page. Far from it, I have recently cited it myself. All I am saying is, it is clearly not a neutral source in the matters of Kosovo, and its geographical location futher disqualifies it, as it does Kosovan media, from sourcing positions of other countries. Why is this so hard to abide by? It follows best practices for Wikipedia as stated in numerous policies, guidelines, especially one called "Common sense". :) --Mareklugtalk00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I read B92 everyday..it's very biased, but still it is an interesting place to read the Serbian POV on current events. Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's so biased indeed. They should have said "the extraterrestrial that was appointed as Foreign minister". Then it would have been perfect! But in your world, not in reality.--Avala (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just admit once in a while that white is white and black is black. It will only enhance your edits' credibility. It is undeniable that B92.net went out of its way to edit the news to imbue it with a point of view, distorting and weirding the language, and even employing lower case for "foreign minister" in the case of the Kosovan Foreign Minister -- and skipping his name entirely -- while properly capitalizing and referencing the Greek one. Such telltale signs of rabid partizanship grossly disqualify this source for us, and your sarcasm is highly misplaced and amounts to another reality-denial. And reality-denial while editing sensitive Wikipedia content is highly uncalled for. Just so we are in the clear, that I am questioning the impartiality of your edits, the whole sum of them, in this article. This commentary of yours does not alleviate the situation in the least, and represents further ridiculing and belittling of legitimate editor concerns for keeping this article fair and accurate, including, impeccably sourced beyond accusations fo partiality. --Mareklugtalk10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the report. To refer to the man the authorities in Pristina appointed as their foreign minister as "Kosovo Foreign Minister" would be pushing a POV as well, a POV which believes that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government is a legitimate state when 151 out of 192 UN member states don't recognize it. --Tocino17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"This is what the analysis of the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies /IFIMES/ in Ljubljana states". So this IFIMES is some institute which analyses things in the Balkans. Focus is reporting on a report from IFIMES. First of all, the IFIMES report needs to be found. Second, the report is linking Kosovo recognition with the Macedonia naming dispute and recognition of the Macedonian language, which are completely different issues. Third, it says the elections will be communists versus anti-communists, which isn't the case. BalkanFever07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
They are not completely different issues, Kosovo recognition is Macedonia's bagaining chip in both the naming issue and NATO membership, and these are intricately linked. The moment the naming dispute is solved, Macedonia will recognize.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The latest Macedonia-related report on their website is from 30.04.2008: GRUEVSKI AND THAÇI MOST POPULAR PARTY LEADERS!. I don't think it's the one the Focus news agency talks about, as it does not mention any communists and only mentions Kosovo recognition as a problem to contend with for Gruevski after he is elected. :/ But, at least I showed which space to watch, and the report I'm linking contains a lot of sampled public opinion that might be of interest to Macedonia-watchers. --Mareklugtalk08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is incredible how many times it has been said "Macedonia will recognize soon" and then we wait, and wait, and nothing happens. This is just more USA/EU/NATO pressure behind the scenes and does not warrant a place on the article. --Tocino17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Macedonia will recognise, once it has established boarders with Kosovo, which suit Skopje officials. They aren't exactly going to have boarder negotiations with a country which they have no intentions of recognising. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment, yet I also agree with Tocino in the sense that it's not happening any time soon, and all of these reports we read about some "imminent" development should be taken with a grain of salt.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Especially since most of the statements come from Albanian politicians in Macedonia, like Thaçi (Menduh, not Hashim). Essentially, wishful thinking and/or votegetting techniques among the Albanian minority. Alas, that is my OR, but this is the situation. Oh, and Ij, I'm not so sure about your demarcation hypothesis, since President Crvenkovski stated around a month ago that he doesn't care which government (RoK, Serbia, UNMIK) he talks to about demarcation, he just wants it done. BalkanFever08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not going to stick unless his government recognizes RoK. You can sign deals all you want (even that is questionable) but you can't expect the other party to comply with them if you haven't even recognized them. If they're looking to have their cake and eat it too, it's gonna be tough luck for them. --alchaemia (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a head's up, that FIFA's Executive Committee acknowledged formally receiving Kosovo's application for membership in the world football (soccer) body,[1] and that the consideration of this application will be on the agenda for tomorrow's 57th FIFA Congress meeting in Sydney, where it will be voted on by individual national federations represented in person. The Congress starts 12 hours from right now, and considering new membership applications is point 11 of the 2-day agenda.[2] Unlike the FIBA situation (basketball), FIFA membership is voted on democratically by all the physically present member federations, each having one vote, whereas in FIBA, the membership decision is up to a Central Board (several little known individuals), a situation that is not at all transparent to outside scrutiny and far more succeptible to behind-the-scenes pressure by influential national federations with an agenda.
Some information is provided in our article about Kosovo national football team, but its editors failed to mention the FIFA Congress vote as the mechanism, making it seem instead that some monolithic FIFA will make a decision sort of like FIBA went about it in basketball.
Incidentally, the one-person opposed editrequest to include FIBA's denial of membership to Kosovo should be revisited, IMHO, as it was opposed solely on the grounds that sports should not be mentioned at all, which has nothing to do with maintaining and updating the sports that we already have included. Again, editors are just not keeping issues modular when making and processing edit requests, which makes small localized updates unnecessarily problematic, unnecessarily linking localized maintenance to broad shifts in policy that probably won't get consensus. --Mareklugtalk10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I will be surprised if Kosovo are granted membership of FIFA as they are not yet members of UEFA, which as a prerequisite needs teams to be members of the UN. (This is an interesting article on the subject[3]) Either way, definitely worth a mention. Note that the sports section was updated yesterday. Bazonka (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Scotland's (and the other Home Nations') membership of UEFA predates the membership criteria. They are a special case, and they certainly wouldn't be admitted nowadays. Bazonka (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering that just recently Spain successfully lobbied enough nations to vote against admission of Gibraltar national team into UEFA, Kosovo admission is just as likely to fail if you take into account that Russia, Portugal, Greece, Romania, and other nations would be strongly opposed. --Tocino17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a sad story when people vote against your participation in sports events because of political views, and it's even worse to see people on this page get happy about that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets do this properly. We have this source [16]. What shall we write?
its says this about Qatar "Foreign Minister Hyseni met with the ambassadors of Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates accredited to the United Nations office in Vienna, and briefed them on developments following Kosovo's declaration of independence on February 17."
and
"None of the Arab countries has recognised the move, although some, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have indicated that they have begun the recognition process."
In the absence of other information, I suggest "Sources indicate that Qatar has begun the process of recognising Kosovo.[1] As of May 2008 no statement on Kosovo has been sourced by the Qatar Foreign Ministry." Bazonka (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would support adding Qatar only if Morocco is re-added. The two cases are very similar and I will not accept one source being favored over the other. --Tocino17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK then, how about, I will support this proposal if we can get a better source which has quotes and evidence to back up the claim. However, I would consider supporting this lone source if we are able to hold other sources up to the same standard, in assuming good faith in the journalist. So this means a possible reverse in the decision to eliminate Morocco's entry from the article. Better? :) --Tocino17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Morocco entry was primarily deleted because it was irrelevant, not because the source was a bit iffy. (In what way is "countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories" about their government's position on Kosovo?) On the other hand, the Qatar source directly talks about the Qatari government preparing for recognition. Admittedly the source is a bit vague, but if we give enough caveats it should be acceptable. It's utterly, utterly different to the Morocco case. Bazonka (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the reasoning in the Morocco section... comments by different editors... Editor 1) "Agree with removal. It is not an official statement." Editor 2) "While the sentiment reflected in the article is probably accurate, it is nowhere near an official position or statement, it's nothing more than a comment by a journalist." Editor 3) "I do agree that this isn't really worth mentioning though - it's more general opinion than an official statement. "
Well for the Qatar source we have the same circumstances. The Qatar government has said nothing about Kosovo as far as we know, but some journalist has made a statement about Qatar and Kosovo with no quotes or evidence to support it. It is exactly like the Morocco source where the journalist is making a statement without support about the countries' positions on recognition of Kosovo.
Saying that you are worried about separatists in your own borders constitutes a serious reason to oppose recognition of Kosovo. We don't know if these are the exact words of the Moroccan government, but if we assume good faith in the journalist then we should believe that these are the words of Morocco and that is their reasoning for not recognizing. This is plausible reaction for a nation which is dealing with its possession of Western Sahara. --Tocino18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Tbf Morocco should be re-added as the source is 100% about Kosovo and we all know that Morocco is not going to recognise Kosovo due to their Western Sahara problem. Not to mention that it is a reliable source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Morocco should only be added if one can get any information on record as to its reaction, not to be confused with some journalist's stated speculation mentioning Morocco's plausible reasons, or that of Sudan, for possibly reacting or not. --Mareklugtalk23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If Qatar has indicated that recognition procedures have begun and we have a source for it from a high rank meeting report, then I don't see what the problem is. Just write "Qatar has indicated it has begun recognition procedures". Also, Morocco's entry was something like "Morocco will probably not recognize because of the W. Sahara problem". It can't get more POV than that. Wikipedia doesn't deal with probability, it deals with sources. And the sources are saying that Qatar is in the process of recognizing Kosovo. Exo (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But the journalist for the Qatar source has no evidence or quotes to support his claim that Qatar have promised recognition. He states it like it is a well known fact, when in reality no one else has heard anything about Kosovo from the Qatar government.
The Moroccan entry read: "Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March 2008." The Moroccan source said the following: "But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories." This is very similar to the proposed Qatar entry in where a journalist is making a statement with no support to back it up. We don't know if the journalist from the Qatar citation contacted the Qatar government and if he did he should have said so. We also don't know if the journalist from the Morocco citation contacted the Moroccan government and if he did he should have said so. Assuming good faith in both journalists means that we should assume both reporters did their homework and contacted the respective governments. However it seems assuming good faith in the journalists is not enough for some. --Tocino23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No.
Morocco/Sudan evidence = speculation, no reactions are being reported.
Qatar evidence = Qatar recognition underway is being reported.
Exactly the problem, thank you for stating it succintly: written as fact (without, in fact, constituting reported facts). This sticky way of creating virtual reality in the matter of reactions to Kosovo independence is rampant:
Offcial act of nonrecognition has been written as fact for the following governments which have yet to act officially, often by their officials' own words (Foreign Minister of Slovakia): Bosnia, Slovakia, Cuba, Brazil, Uruguay, India, Libya, Algeria, Portugal -- and until I reverted it, Armenia.
Reaction has been written as fact for countries which no one has to date been able to source as in fact having reacted at all: Morocco, Iraq, Uruguay.
Definitely, factless written as fact is a rampant virutal reality creation device, employed by editors in the matter of Kosovo on English Wikipedia and on that basis, sourcing Commons maps. That's why pruning this article of any such is of highest priority, and has cascading consequences.
But it so happens that Qatar is a case of sourcing a report of fact, a position of a secretive state whose high officials attended a meeting on recognizing Kosovo, where the reporter himself was physically present. This is not one of those wikipedian-fabricated written-as-facts pressed into flesh from Frankensteined quotes and other assembled "source material", much like fast food is made out of garbage.
So the Qatar info satisfies the criterion of verified content -- it is plausible, it was reported on location, it is contextualized by concrete events, and the reporting agency is nonpartizan and not co-located to either Kosovo or Serbia, and it just happened. A journalistic essay by a New York desk-sitting columnist, painting a broad picture and speculating on what countries might do while aggregating other countries' actual reactions -- and doing so in March -- is hardly equivalent, now, (almost) in June. --Mareklugtalk02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Bosnia, Slovakia, Cuba, Brazil, Uruguay, India, Libya, Algeria, Portugal, and Uruguay all oppose recognition and their positions are accurately displayed on this article. As for the Qatar source, it is filed from Pristina and not from Vienna where the meetings of the FMs took place. So you are making an assumption that the Balkan Insight journalist was in Vienna and then returned to Pristina to type the report. While you are willing to believe the journalist from the Qatar source was embedded with the separatist government delegation in Vienna and then for whatever reason had to travel back to Pristina in order to publish the article, you are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to the journalist of the Moroccan source. You know these journalists have telephones, internet, e-mail, and such these days. The "New York desk-sitting columnist" as you put it could've easily e-mailed the Moroccan embassy in Washington and gathered their response, that they are worried about separatism, and put it in his informative column. Bottom line is that both journalists made a mistake in failing to tell their readers how they got their information and ultimately that is what is keeping their words from entering our article. -- Tocino03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors, when will you put an end to Tocino's offensive words like these: "the separatist government delegation..." ? --alchaemia (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree as this would be a users interpretation on the sources weather or not a country has not recognised or has yet to decide. It is easy to decide for some such as Russia, but harder for other such as Cuba. At the end of the day both category's do not recognise Kosovo and this works out the most NPOV, unlike the POV system which you suggest. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree as well. This issue was also discussed in previous archives. Ijanderson is 100% right. Exo (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - The table is fine as it is. Splitting it further would make it cluttered, not clean. The difference between not recognizing and yet to decide is highly POV and is even more difficult to source, and more prone to controversy. All that really matters is recognize and don't recognize, because that is objective and doesn't assume intentions or political sympathies, which are open to interpretation.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The map we use is based 100% on fact rather than the opinionated. The lists are in the sections them headings because they are fact based lists, not opinionated. Making this article more NPOV than POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Though when you think about it, the fact we only show a map with supporters is showing more favour to the recognizers ina way. Total NPOV with maps would to have none.--Jakezing (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the map shows every country in the world. ;-) It depends on what you want to read into it. One could just as easily argue that the map is biased against non-supporters because it only shows those with official diplomatic relations, and not those who are thinking about or might recognize, making the number seem smaller. The map reflects a fact, just like the map of the European Union members reflects a fact.
But, I do see your point: non-recognition is just as relevant as recognition, because the article title is "international reaction," so, perhaps it would be better if the rest of the world was some other color instead of neutral grey? Past maps were rejected because they presented multiple pov "reactions" in multiple colors, and this compromise map tries to neutralize things. But, perhaps it would be appropriate to change the color scheme so both sides are shown just as vividly--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought the map showed countries which recognise Kosovo and countries which don't. Some countries may support Kosovo but not recognise. For example Slovakia has announced that it supports Kosovo but it won't recognise it. Just like how the US supports Taiwan but doesn't recognise it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Serbian officials met with Rep of Kosovo officials for first time
Serbian officials met with Rep of Kosovo officials today. This is the first time officials from both countries met, sat down and discussed things. This should be added to Serbia's entry. [17]Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I migrated Serbia's reaction to its own article, precisely because it's an ongoing ever expanding story, with new deatils arising all the time. Just follow the link and update the article (which is not locked from editing, and probably needs some loving attention). This detail belongs there. Its importance will be automatically contextualized by the progressioin of events. When Serbia recognizes Kosovo, we'll alter this article. :) --Mareklugtalk00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bust your pipe dream but Serbia and the vast majority of nations will never recognize Kosovo. :) --Tocino 01;12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a strong anti-Serb editoral POV from BalkanInsight, BTW. For example it called Vojislav Koštunica the "out-going Prime Minister" when in fact it is very likely that Koštunica will still be PM after the SRS-DSS-SPS alliance forms. Also it says in another article that Serbia is "bitterly opposed" to Kosovo's secession. Calling Serbs "bitter" is not exactly embracing NPOV. It would not surprise me that, like B92, BalkanInsight is funded by the USA/EU/NATO. --Tocino01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Koštunica is out-going because his term formally expires. If he emerges as a coalition leader of the new government or not, his out-goingness is not altered. The characterization is true and exact. In your own example concerning calling Serbs bitter, nothing like that was evidenced even in your paraphrase: The phrase "Serbia is bitterly opposed" pertains, by employing the the common and perfectly understood by the reader device of metonymy to the Government of Serbia, where the world "bitterly" idiomatically modifies the verb indicating "being against", indicating the high degree of this opposition. This canny usage does not indicate even that the Government of Serbia is bitter, let alone that Serbs as a nation or group are, as Serbs happen to also live in Bosnia, where BalkanInsight.com is headquartered, and certainly there are Serbs on staff. Spreading FUD and misinformation as you did here only makes this page more difficult to use for editors improving this article's factuality. Please desist already. This skit with BalkanInsight is clearly a back-atcha for my substantive portrayal of transgresssions of B92.net, including truly weird and unequal language. The wild insinuation about who may be funding BalkanInsight.com is just inflammatory rhetoric without any topicality on this talk page, or basis, and probably borders on violating the article's (and your own) terms of probation. Consider this a friendly warning, which might save you from crossing the line (again). --Mareklugtalk02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. If the deal is reached between the parties, Koštunica will still be PM and he would have never have left office. He never would've left for anywhere so he was never out-going. BalkanInsight could've used better wording than bitterly. Why don't they say that the USA/EU/NATO is "bitterly opposed" to Serbian sovereignty and terroritial integrity then? Of course only the Serbs can be bitter. Yeah right. I've just read another article from this BalkanInsight and it labels one side of Serbian politics "pro-European" and the other "nationalist". You can still be nationalist and be "pro-European" at the same time you know. Last time I checked Serbia was in Europe and for one side to be nationalist and therefore not "pro-European" would mean that that half of Serbian politics are self-loathing Europeans. Make no mistake about it, what BalkanInsight is doing here is substituting "pro-European" in place of "pro-EU" as if the EU had some right the proclaim itself the rulers of all of Europe. --Tocino 03:25, 29 may 2008 (UTC)
Bangladeshi recognition soon; Muslim nations to act jointly at conf. in Uganda?
Here's a Bangladeshi newspaper account from 16 May after a meeting with a US ambassador in Dhaka with some info not reported yet on this talk page:[1]
...Foreign Adviser Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury told reporters after a meeting with US Ambassador in Dhaka James F Moriarty.
During an hour-long meeting, the US Ambassador sought Bangladesh's support to woo the Myanmar government to receive the world aid for the cyclone victims as well as independence of Kosovo, two aircraft for Darfur and US candidature for IOM leadership. On Kosovo, the Adviser said Bangladesh always support the cause of Muslim brothers in Kosovo and is contemplating about Kosovo's recognition.
He said Muslim countries would be able to take collective decision at the Islamic Foreign Minister Conference (ICFM) to be held in Uganda in July.
Right. It says that Bangladesh is contemplating recognition. That is a big difference from your title "Bangladesh recognition soon". --Tocino01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Kinda have to agree with my Serbian friend here. But it's still worth following as Tocino will learn that America has a way of
June 16 has been frequently mentioned as a possible date for eventual decision by Montenegro to recognize Kosovo's independence. Media in Podgorica say June 16 was mentioned during regular contacts between Montenegrin officials and the Euro-Atlantic allies. [18]--Digitalpaper (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and every speculation out there. I am sick of Montenegro and Macedonia since they are the ones that always some "high official" says recognition will happen soon or w/e and it never does. I see no reason why this speculation should be included. Kosova200868.187.142.80 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
European Parlament says it recognises Kosovo Independence
Jelko Kacin, European Parliament Reporter about Serbia said in Brussels yesterday that the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament in Brussels have marked recognition of Kosovo independence. The flag of ‘independent Kosovo’ was raised on the mast.
Kacin confirmed that to be recognition of Kosovo by the European Parliament.
source: http://www.blic.co.yu/news.php?id=2236 Also:
Brussels: The European Parliament (EP) in Brussels on Wednesday witnessed the Kosovo delegation appearing in EP under the flag of “independent Kosovo”. This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions.
(Doris) Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.”
source: http://eyugoslavia.com/kosovo/28/kosovo-delegation-appears-in-european-parliament-with-independent-kosovo-flag-22300/Emetko (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Please add this to "International governmental organisations". This is an uncontroversial edit.
| European Parliament || Jelko Kacin, reporter of the European Parliament announced on 30 May2008 that the European Parliament recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. He added "‘Kosovo, too, has its place in the EU and I am against that any country, including Serbia, has the right to obstruct Kosovo on its way to the EU". This was the first time Kosovo's flag was official hoisted at an EU institution.[1][2]
|-
Disagree. It's the statement of a biased person Jelko Kacin not the decision of EP. His statement was denied from the EU whose officials said that the EU has no legal rights to recognize countries and that it is decided by the individual member states.--Avala (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree Jelko Kacin represents EP as he is the official spokes person, EP is not a voluntary club, but is high Europe Institution especially when it comes to press releases, every statement is clearly monitored before it gets in the media, they have a public relation policy. I agree for the edit to take place. --Tubesship (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.
a Request From Greek & Serb MPs to remove the Kosovo Flag From the Session Was turned down by the EP. Emetko (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no serbian Member of Parliament in the European Parliament as serbia is no member of the European Union. --Tubesship (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Avala et al: perhaps reading the article wouldn't hurt? He's not saying the EU recognized; he's saying the European Parliament did (EP, not EU). --alchaemia (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about the European Parliament, not the European Union - these are slightly different (although related). I think we need to mention this statement by Kacin, although it is worth stating that the EP (and indeed EU) has no authority to recognise. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree: Jelko Kacin represents EP, EP is not a voluntary club, but is high Europe Institution especially when it comes to press releases, every statement is clearly monitored before it gets in the media, they have a public relation policy. I agree for the edit to take place --Digitalpaper (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How about we add a line or two to the end of the EU part, mentioning that the European Parliament has recognised Kosovo? Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes they did. They adopted, with a two-thirds majority, the Ahtisaari plan which stipulates independence. Some things just make logical sense. --alchaemia (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they shouldn't be able to recognise, yet seem to have done so anyway definitely makes it worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you bothered to read it you would see that Ahtisaari Plan needs to be adopted by Security Council. Anyway Rehn reacted [22] and Serbian Government wants Jelko Kacin to be removed [23]. --Avala (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually think they're going to dissolve parliament now - Government of Serbia reacted... Your link is broken, by the way, like much of the material on that page - "Грешка" --alchaemia (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry. But that second link say
"The page you requested cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
• If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
• Use the navigation bar on the left to find the link you are looking for.
• Click the Back button to try another link.
• Enter a term in the search form below to look for information on this site."
What has that got to do with the EP. also why should we trust B92? I thought we were not using it. That B92 source is just Rehns view. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The EU does not decide as a whole to recognize, as it is up to the individual states. This session was nothing more than a propaganda rally for vicious anti-Serbia politicians trying to show their strength, despite objections by those who are reasonable. --Tocino17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Tocino you have just disagreed for the sake of it. If you would have bothered reading the proposal you would see that its the "European Parliament" not the "European Union", so i suggest you revise your comment. No one is suggesting the EU has recognised Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just about to say the same thing. It may well be outside the powers of the EP, but it would certainly seem that they have made a de facto recognition, if not a de jure one. Therefore, certainly worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, the European Parliament does recognize Kosovo at this point, as it only needs a 2/3 majority. That does not mean the EU recognizes Kosovo, but the European Parliament. This should be noted. Exo (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the list and map should be updated too. My comment was a response to Ijanderson's comment "Please update all the other numbers such as UN". Sorry if I was ambiguous. Bazonka (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words: it is pointless to ask for map changes in an edit request. The map is on commons, and it is not protected, unlike this article, so ordinary users like you and me can edit it directly. — EJ (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
|-
| International Basketball Federation (FIBA) || On 26 April2008FIBA declined to admit Basketball Federation of Kosova to membership. Reason: "Kosovo has not fulfilled all necessary conditions".Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).
|-
| International Ski Federation (FIS) || On 30 May] 2008FIS through the 46th International Ski Congress meeting in Cape Town made the following membership decisions: "Affiliation of Montenegro, Serbia, Lesotho and Malta as Associated Members bringing the total FIS membership to 110 members. Kosovo’s affiliation is pending recognition of the state by the United Nations. In the meantime, participation of their skiers is permitted at FIS/level and children’s races."Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).
|}
This edit would fix a broken link for international basketball by replacing it with identical information sourced officially, and adds a reaction for international skiing. --Mareklugtalk03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There was some talk about biased maps, showing some Wikipedia users' interpretations of statements made by various countries. I just noticed that there's a map at European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo showing interpretations of different EU countries' opinions. Isn't that map biased too? Should it be replaced by something different? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
At the moment, that map appears to be factual. The EU countries as are a much less "interpretable" set, so that map is reasonable. Spain, Cyprus, Romania indeed have officially refused to recognize, for now anyway. And Greece, Slovakia, Malta and Portugal have indeed delayed making their position official. All the other marked countries have recognized officially. Presumably one could make the map correspond to this one by setting the countries other than those that have recognized officially, but then the EU vs. non-EU states would need to be distinguished. --Mareklugtalk11:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how the map is biased. If an EU country has recognised Kosovo, that is fact. As we would have not added otherwise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sierra Leone has recognized Kosovo
Sierra Leone Recognizes Kosovo PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 31 May 2008
ImageSierra Leone recognized Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state, reported today Kosovo's public broadcaster RTK.
Sierra Leone becomes the 43nd state to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. A country of 5 million with a total area of 71,740 sq km is located in West Africa, Sierra Leone became indepedent in 1961 from the United Kingdom.
Sierra Leone is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Union. After Senegal, Burkina Faso and Liberia, Sierra Leone is the fourth African country to recognize the Republic of Kosovo.
|-
| 13 || Estonia[2] || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April2008[3] || EU member state NATO member state
|-
Concerning "on the embassy level": Your source states, that "Estonia has no plan to establish an embassy there yet". They might want to accredit a non-resident ambassador, however the source doesn't support that. Thus, I think it's better not to mention this part. Gugganij (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The Estonia Foreign Ministry has not updated its Foreign relations -> Bilateral relations subpage for today (Latvia's entry was updated yesterday), so there's no source to back that up, and the press release does not say. So I struck that part. This is the link to watch: [25]. --Mareklugtalk23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed the edit request says nothing about embassies, just that Estonia has established a diplomatic mission. Which is true therefor should be added Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
| 13 || Estonia[4] || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April2008[5] || EU member state NATO member state
|-
Oppose. How is this source any more correct than the originally proposed one? It's not even a source for the done deal but a source for it being in the future! I demand some answers here, because your oppositions and corrections look unnecessary and unexplained, and the new proposed source is worse. --Mareklugtalk20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed that both spellings for this city are spread throughout the article. For the sake of consistency, we should have only one. I haven't been following any discussions about this issue lately, so I don't know if there has been any agreement about which form to use. But if there's no consensus on what name to be used, then usage should default to "Pristina", which is the name of the article about the city. Unless a consensus is created for moving that article to Prishtina, then the current usage of Pristina as the main title of that article should affect the rest of Wikipedia. Húsönd20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out to Húsönd, that the article was absolutely uniform in its use of Prishtina prior to his carrying out a bogus editprotect request which altered this for exactly 2 instances -- in Albania's and Croatia's write-ups, and that only, because of opposition on grounds of spelling this city name, raised at the initial editprotect request which was agnostic with regard to this issue and preserved congruency and uniformity of the article intact.
So, instead of putting it as "both spellings for this city are spread throughout the article", which is a skewed account of what happened, maybe you should just fix your edit? And leave the changing of the spelling of Prishtina to an outcome of real consensus building based on merit? Right now, this makes it look like a slimy parliamentary manouver of slippery slope. Nudge, nudge, fait accompli in a series of small displacements. I think such transformations are against the spirit of the Wikipedia process, where rationale for content changes should be explicit, and survive scrutiny. Likewise, there is a lot of demagogy on this page about how "Pristina" is the only admissible or prohibitively exclusive rendering in English. This is a lie, and it is being spread in bad faith, without any scholarly backing, but often in capital letters and as enboldened text. Likewise, the consensus aledgedly achieved on this issue is illusory, as the issue is being contested. For instance, User:Evlekis, who is quite knowledgable, was away for the duration of this RfC, and having come back, made pointed commentary on talk:Pristina. There are other knowledgable users whose opinions are recorded on that talk page from days of yore, or experts who chose to remain silent (User:ChrisO) while authoring MoS material on this issue. Finally, no one has addressed the question: Is uniformity of spelling a city name that is different depending on its historical and political context is really a virtue? In fact, it may be a bad idea.
I think all of the above should be discussed in scholarly, neutral terms, instead of making it look like there is a mess in the article that needs correcting to an undisputable, scholarly standard. I would particularly like it considered, that spelling the city ina Serbian way in Serbian-related context such as historical articles about Serbia or Orthodox Christianity etc., while spelling it "Prishtina" in contemporary Kosovan political settings -- and possibly spelling it Pristina when there is no overriding specific context -- may be the right thing to do. This issue was raised during the purportedly consensual RfC, but was never addressed. Consensus arrived at while ignoring meritorious dissent is no consensus, and neither is it true consensus, when important points go unaddressed. Respectfully, --Mareklugtalk22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, fix my edit? What is there to fix? Mareklug, it is totally true that this name issue should be discussed in scholarly, neutral terms. But that's hardly for here. I just pointed out that the existence of two variants of the same name in this article makes it inconsistent. And on Wikipedia, when divided between different spellings of a name, we usually apply the name used as the title of its article (in this case, "Pristina"). It's quite standard. The entire discussion that ensued below has been repeated several times for sure, probably with the same arguments. It should be occurring at Talk:Pristina, which is the main article about the city. As for the name here, and edit request asking for an admin to change all instances of "Prishtina" to "Pristina" would probably be accepted. It wouldn't be me to perform it though. Húsönd00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, dear Húsönd, restoring uniformity in syntactical matters to status quo ante your edit, please correct me if I am mistaken, would surely qualify as fixing your edit? Such intervention would be consistent with administrative tiding up. Especially so, since things were entirely tidy in this regard before your edit. Meanwhile, we trudge on establishing true, scholarly consensus on the matter, albeit all over the Wikipedia, which unfortunately can't be helped it seems. The matter of usage in a context-driven way has not been squarely addressed. I.e., I don't think your "we usually apply" quite plumbs the depths of the possible arguments. :) This case is not usual, and persuassive arguments exist for a different, customized course of action. --Mareklugtalk01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no. Firstly, as an admin performing a requested edit to a protected page, I am to either approve or decline the request, not to approve and make my own modifications. That was not what was requested. Then, there's no such thing as a status quo established for this article as "Prishtina". I recall seeing "Pristina" around ever since I visited this article for the first time. And I reiterate that Pristina is still titled "Pristina", so that pretty much seems to indicate the form to be used on Wikipedia. The only thing to be fixed is probably the remaining "Prishtinas". Húsönd16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be more precisely, not some but all Albanians spell it that way as a matter of fact. This has nothing to do with aggressiveness. I hope sooner or later (better sooner) the Serbs will accept that this is none of their business any longer how people spell their own capital. We are patient. :-) --Tubesship (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there, but that does not change the spelling of the city in English, regardless of Kosovos status. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
ijanderson, the city's name is Prishtina, no matter how many time you write it in the serbian manner it still doesn't change the fact that 99% of Prishtina's residence are Kosovar - Albanian. You can also try to change Kosovar to Kosovan but it is clear to see that in English or Albanian or even Norwegian the term "Kosovar" is exclusively used. Live with it. Also who is saying that Kosova = Albania? Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is great that citizens of Pristina refer to their city as Prishtina, just like how citizens of Belgrade refer to their city as Beograd, but the bottom line is that English speakers use Pristina and so does Wikipedia. -- Tocino05:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
All references to the city in this article must be chnged to Pristina - because (rightly or wrongly) that is the Wikipedia standard. And if you don't like it, take your argument to the Manual of Style page - this is not the place. Bazonka (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Use Pristina, per Húsönd's rationale. — Keep in mind that the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names states clearly that "[t]he same name as in the [main article's] title should be used consistently [in other articles using the name in question]." The ideas behind this guideline is to aim for some consistency throughout Wikipedia, and to centralize naming discussions in one talk page instead of having to repeat the same discussion ad nauseam in every individual article (like it's happening here). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Plese see my reply lodged above, under Húsönd's section-starting rationale (and your secoding it). In particular, please address the claim that context-sensitive naming for entities with contested or multiple names is a good thing, and does not degrade desirable consistency, but reflects scholarly considerations and context. --Mareklugtalk23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I see your points, Mareklug. But I think that the issue should be discussed and decided either at Talk:Pristina or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). The current consensus may be considered as fragile and poorly thought through, but disregarding it altogether and arguing against it in individual articles will only lead us back to having parallel discussions in multiple talk pages with the same arguments being repeated over and over again... Let's stick to "Pristina" for now, at least as a temporary solution, please.
Now, regarding that particular claim: at least certain types of consistent context-sensitive naming are very desirable, and the naming conventions for geographic names stress the importance of historical context: "The same name as in the [main article's] title should be used consistently [in other articles using the name in question]. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." (This exception is more clearly expressed in the convention's introduction: "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context").
However, in using different forms in different historic contexts we're merely applying our core criterion of reflecting the usage of most reputable English-language publications. We limit ourselves to follow the editorial choices made by those publications (and scholars). We thus peg Wikipedia usages to common English ones, and avoid the many, many problems that establishing our own ones would entail with our current decision-making process.
To apply this already enshrined principle to Kosovo's capital, we would need to establish that English-language publications do refer to the city using different names in different historic contexts. Once such an usage is apparent, we should reflect it. — But, as far as I'm aware of, this is not the case here. So far our sources seem to use one form or another irrespective of context.
I'm afraid that to go further and decide by ourselves, independently from what our sources do, to use different names for different political and cultural contexts would lead us to move away from the impeccable neutrality of our core criterion of following common English usage, and into the slippery slope of prescribing what names should be used (at which point all hell may break loose :-)
Having said that, I do see the logic behind your proposals, Mareklug, and I have kept them in mind since I first saw you mentioning it, in late March or early April. The idea should be discussed at Talk:Pristina and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)... calmly and remembering that there is no deadline. In any case, time is still needed to allow for the publication of new sources showing naming usages for Kosovo after the events of early 2008. - I hope this helps, at least a little. Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Quickly made map to help explain language differences
@ Kosova2008 You have it all wrong. Pristina is English not Serbian. The Serbian equivalent is Priština. Therefore you argument is invalid. We are not interested in what the residents of Pristina spell the name of they city or what language they speak. As this does not matter as we are on English Wikipedia.
Let me make it easy for you to understand.
I live in the United Kingdom. The capital of the the United Kingdom is London (as you will know). The Albanian translation for London is "Londër". Now if we were on Albanian Wikipedia, I'm sure you would agree that we would spell the name of the city in Albanian, which is "Londër". Obviously we would not spell it in English as we are on Albanian Wikipedia not English Wikipedia, so by spelling it in English on Albanian wikipedia would just be confusing and wrong, even though the city is English and the residents speak English, we should still spell it in Albanian as Albanian Wikipedia is an Albanian language site not English.
So what i don't understand is, why should we spell Pristina in Albanian, when English wikipedia is and English Language site, not Albanian. Do you see my point?
Does this image make it easier for you to understand? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I didnt put London in the exact point. Well done for noticing that. I made it in a rush. Im not going to spend hours making a map, so that i can help explain to a confused user understand language differences. i have better things to do. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting MAPS. Prishtina is on the other side. I can't say I agree but I am willing to support this "pristina" after June 15th when the constitution takes affect. Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.210 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
K2008, for the specific purpose of naming articles in the English-language Wikipedia, the forms used in any constitution is meaningless. We don't rely on official documents; instead, we merely reflect common English usage, especially that of publications from the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia & NZ. - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So, is anything going to get done about this? Suggest changing all references to "Prishtina" to "Pristina" in line with Wikipedia style policy, except where in a direct quote. Bazonka (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? Which Wikipedia style policy are you referring to? I'm not aware of one. Not only is there no Wikipedia style policy to appeal to, there is no Wikipedia reality to back such a change. Consider (these are all actual article naames, not redirects, and they have all been forcibly restored by various admins within a month to their present titles. Some of these admins are in favor of "Pristina", to make it all very untidy. :/
University of Priština (its official name is "University of Prishtina -- see the article content and URLs from USA universities that mention it in the article)
Priština International Airport (its official name is "Prishtina International Airport -- see its webpage; it is run by a company whose name contains "Prishtina International Airport" -- that's a fact, not negotiable convention of Wikipedia.)
District of Priština (no move to change it or even discuss changing it to "District of Pristina".
So, kindly, what is your hurry? A case could be made that all of the above and this article's own use are most scholarly and authentically pertaining to "Prishtina". Vocal opinions based on majorities and popularity polls only occluded the scholarship of the issue, and the reality of who uses these names. I remind you that this article is about the Republic of Kosovo government's standing in the world, and this government unequivocally spells its capital one way. --Mareklugtalk11:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Have just realised that that "policy" is proposed. My mistake. However, it looks likely that "Pristina" will be the outcome. Bazonka (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been extremely bold and moved the three articles listed above to use "Pristina", and I have standardised all instances of the capital name in this article as "Pristina", all per the RfC. Happy‑melon16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Foreign Minister Olubanke King-Akerele
MONROVIA, The Government of Liberia has joined several European Union countries and the United States of America in recognizing Kosovo, formerly a province of Serbia until February 17 this year when its inhabitants voted for independence.
Ijanderson, when you guys made that edit request you had only a report from a Liberian paper, now we have OFFICIAL proof. 68.114.196.137 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have an official proof, why not post it here? The link provided by 64.9.52.78 is the same report from a Liberia paper which we already source in the article. It would be better to have a government source, but as far as I can see, Liberian MoFA did not yet publish anything on the matter. — EJ (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree at present - need better sources, preferably English Language. I can't find anything on any SL or Africa news sites. Kosovothanksyou.com (and you'd assume they can speak Albanian) have so far only put SL into their "Recognition procedure has been initiated" section, so there must still be some doubt. However, I suspect that following on from Liberia, the West African dominoes are now starting to fall - we shall see... Bazonka (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sierra Leone recognized Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state.
Sierra Leone becomes the 43nd state to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. A country of 5 million with a total area of 71,740 sq km is located in West Africa, Sierra Leone became indepedent in 1961 from the United Kingdom. Sierra Leone is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Union. After Senegal, Burkina Faso and Liberia, Sierra Leone is the fourth African country to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree - Nobody will be able to officially confirm it until Monday. Reading the comments on the link provided to Telegrafi, one of the posters states, "plus sierra leone= 43," so I'm inferring the information states recognition by Sierra Leone. I ran the word "njohur" through this [30] online Albanian-English dictionary and it translates to (among other things), "recognize." Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, please update the map and change the text to read that 43 states recognise as of 31 May 2008. Further, please correct any coding errors I may have made.
They've not misled us yet. The former, in particular, was not wrong about the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Liberia, Czech Republic, etc etc. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, we're always going to have problems with sources reagarding recognition from many underdeveloped countries and we will have to go with the best we have. Regarding Tocino's comment that "NewKosovaReport" and "Telegrafi" are not reputable sources, he has no basis for that statement whatsoever. Exo (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree
Newkosovareport is a very reputable news agency. Many prestigious newspapers such as New York Times, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph and magazines (Newsweek, Times, Economist) quote it. Even serbian and many balkan news agencies quote it such as beta, blic, javno, ina, etc. Torcino is misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Agree, Need Confirmation - After thoroughly googling "Sierra Leone Kosovo," and reading through all of the official Sierra Leone government websites, I could find nothing on this. Apparently only Newkosovareport and a couple of Albanian-language sites ar reporting it. Let's give it a couple of days, and see if other international media confirm this report, in a language other than Albanian. After all, everyone wants to avoid a false report that leads to undoing a country edit, as happened with Malaysia.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the SL websites haven't been updated in quite awhile, so let's not hold it against them for not doing so on a Saturday. I'd complain further about delay in listing the information, but it would be futile to do so. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll concede to that. Still, it feels odd making an edit based on something that hasn't broken beyond a Kosovo-based source, and I don't see much of an issue to wait till monday, or at least till other sources pop up. I have yet to understand why so many editors here, on both sides of the argument, insit on making important updates without even waiting so much as a day to study them and make sure they are accurate. :) --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Newkosovareport has never quote malaysia. As a matter of fact, NewKosovareport was the first one to bring to attention the Malaysia incident. So, your claims are biased and lacking of facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My recollection might be wrong. I distinctly remember it from one of the Kosovo-based websites often quoted here, and I thought it was NKR, but if it wasn't, then I guess it is more reliable than I thought.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hold off on adding: It is best that we wait for other sources to verify this. Monday is not that far away for those not in the Pacific time zone. While waiting, we could look at news agencies and press sources in Africa or in SL's neighbors. I don't know what we could find, but it is worth a shot. The local source for that Liberia's recognition may monitor developments next door. Another thing is that KosovaLive ([31]), a Kosovar news outlet, hasn't shouted it from the rooftops yet. I have found that KosovaLive works like a regular morning newspaper though, showing yesterday's news today. But that may be my perception due to the big time difference.
And notably Kosovothanksyou.com is adding SL to their list, but cautiously adding it into the "Recognition procedure has been initiated (or an official confirmation is needed)" category. I have noticed lately that they verified with the Permanent UN Mission of a nation in question before adding it into the "recognized" column, done with Liberia, Nauru, and the Marshall Islands. So maybe one of us can see if the Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in New York has published something or even has a website? Bottom line is that if even Kosovothanksyou.com isn't going to go and put SL on the done deal list yet, we shouldn't either. Ajbenj (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummmmm. Because there is nothing wrong with sources and the users opposing are quite clearly are anti Kosovo and pro Serbia. So they are opposing because they don't like the new news, therefore they are breaching WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you as an administrator should discard users who oppose per that. Ok? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am opposing, yet I am resolutely pro-Kosovo, and personally wish to see as many countries recognize as possible. I also think it fair and wise, given the nature of discussions that normally take place, to wait for confirmation. Pro-Kosovo editors demand no less whenever pro-Serbian editors quote a Serbian source. This article has established a precedent for favoring official government statments, and whenever this is circumvented, there tends to be great controversy. Waiting a day or two is not the end of the world--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll paraphrase the writer Westbrook Pegler and intimate that there seems to be a prevailing attitude that nobody here would commit theirself to the time of day from an atomic clock. We have Albanian language sources, which not many of us can read, but that doesn't delegitimize them. To argue that non-English sources are somehow inherently flawed is biased and ethnocentrist.
This continuing obsession with the rather novel definition of "balance" that permeates everything here, which consist of 'I don't like it, so it's not balanced,' is obstructing and is not doing any good. The only "gotcha!" moment ever, which everybody keeps bringing up, was Malaysia and that was something that the Malaysians themselves bungled - and they admitted it - and cannot be ascribed to bad faith on the part of the media. The New Kosova Report has not ever deliberately misled anybody and simply because it happens to be Kosovar (although I believe physically located in Sweden) does not mean that they're insidious agents of evil, as some of you repeatedly imply.
If the President of Kosovo comes out and says that the grass is green, are some of you going to demand that we get non-Kosovar sources to confirm this stunning piece of information? This constant handwringing and embarrassingly timid approach is rather stunning and causes undue delays and prevents progress. Instead the page is updated at an agonizingly slow pace in the format of a very dysfunctional committee where saboteurs are immediately legitimzed and sustained as the gallant saviours of "balance."
Regardless of whether Sierra Leone recognised or not, which it almost certainly did, by the way, this obsession with a "balance" of sources in which nothing is to be believed unless you can come up with a mountain of sources ranging from The Baltic Times to the Cabbage Lovers' Monthly, creates a rather Schizophrenic environment that is unwarranted, wasteful and repetitive.
As shocking as it may be, sometimes you have to go with one source. In a perfect world, we'd have dozens. Sierra Leone does not exactly have a crackling Internet presence. They may never post anything online about Kosovo. Kosovothanksyou.com will undoubtedly be ringing their UN mission on Monday and will confirm the news that way. Then at least one of you will object that kosovothanksyou.com is biased. Bah! Seeing as this is an issue that is important to Kosovo, it's only logical that the Kosovar media would cover it. It is biased to cast aspersions of bias on Kosovar media, if you think about it!
The fact that it's so absurdly simple is exactly my point. There are 3 Albanian language sources (that work) and one English confirming and that's still not good enough. If it were Britney Spears news, everybody would be rushing to catch up.Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a long history in this article of people claiming recognitions or impending recognitions from one source, which turn out to be false. We also have a long history of people from both sides accusing each other of having "biased" sources whether they are in Albanian or in Serbian, and it inevitably comes down to third party sources before consensus is ever reached, so let's not be hypocritical here. We have managed to find official government sources for just about every country, even the "unimportant" ones, and we're not even asking that, just that we get a source from a different country. Keep it real guys, let's cut the drama, let's just confirm what we all know will very probably get confirmed if it is true.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been claims of impending recognitions, but nobody has ever tried to get them added to 'the list' of countries that have recognised. Macedonia and Montenegro are the most notorious for this, as you know, but it's never made it past this stage. I'm not accusin anybody of bias per se. I'm saying that constant accusations of bias are rather silly and pointless. We do not have official governmental sources for several countries, including Liberia, Nauru, the Marshall Islands and San Marino - we got those from kosovothanksyou.com or a tv station website in the case of San Marino. I am keeping it real - no tripping here - and drama seems to be what we do here. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't care if they've "only" been wrong about impending recognitions, they still report those quite frequently as facts and make me generally suspicious of their reliability. I said "almost" every country has a government statement, and I explicitely said that one was, in my opinion, not necessary for Sierra Leone. I just want another national media. No, they are not sourced from kosovothanksyou.com, Liberia is sourced from a Liberian paper, and San Marino is sourced fom a Sanmarinese radio, which makes those stories unlikely to be biased. Only Marshall Islands and Nauru were partially sourced from kosovothanksyou.com, in conjunction with your emails as supporting evidence, which I myself supported as credible. If any Kosovan, Albanian, or Serbian website, by itself and without confirmation, has sufficed for consensus and inclusion in the article before, it is news to me and I stand corrected (btw thank you for reminding me of Kosovathanksyou, which I was earlier confusing with Newkosovareport). I do not think accusations of bias (towards media, not towards users) are silly at all, if they go both ways, and not just toward our political opponent. I believe that, as a matter of responsible reporting, we should always confirm stories with sources from different countries than the affected nations. I'm not the one who wrote a long belittling diatribe about how absurd and intolerable people who disagree are (and I don't mean to single you out personally, many here do the same, on both sides), I've made a polite and very reasonable request to wait until monday, and I'm not the only one who disagrees with the sourcing. Any rate though, I am changing my position, because I will not have access to internet for a while, and I have no reason to oppose the inclusion of Sierra Leone, if it really turns out to be a fact.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
After more consideration, I just want to aknowledge and emphasize my mistake in confusing New Kosova Report with Kosova Thanks You, because that was really the biggest source of my contention.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You make it sound as if there has always been consensus on that. he reality is, there has always been prolonged and heated squabble, and edits only made after more sources were found. I am saying let's be reasonable and skip to the confirmation.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, I am an Albanian-speaking Kosovar citizen. I have read all the news stories that have reported that Sierra Leone has recognised the Republic of Kosova, however all non-RTK (Radio Television of Kosova) media have quoted RTK as reporting the news. In other words, there is only one news source that stands behind this story and they seem to have withdrawn the story. Now, it's not Telegrafi or NewKosovarReport's fault that they quoted RTK -- so, regardless of whether this news story turns out to be true of false they cannot be described as unreliable or not trustworthy. RTV 21 is also reporting the recognition, but again they fail to mention a single source for the story. I must add that the local media in Kosovo do not normally set out to misinform and I can't see any reason why they would do that in this case. For this reason I suggest that we wait for a more formal confirmation or denial because I am sure that in the next couple of days someone, somewhere from the Government of Sierra Leone will come forward and make a formal statement. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, RTK (Radio Televisioni i Kosoves) is very accurate. They put the news 12min on their website (after reported) and you can stream it --- it's the only news agency that does this. It's nice to be able to watch the 5 o'clock (Kosovar Time) news 12 mins after its' been aired online. I also oppose of the change until we get more sources. Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
@Supersexyspacemonkey: As far as I can remember we added one of those tiny islands in the pacific to the recognition table, after one user provided newkosovareport as a source. Therefore, I still agree with adding Sierra Leone to the countries recognizing Kosovo. However, I have no problem to wait a few days for other sources (e.g. waiting till the website of the Kosovo president update their list). Gugganij (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I'm seeing a lot of talking going on here, but not a whole lot of discussion. Voting and then explaining at length why everyone should agree with your vote or disregard the votes of people who disagree with it does not count as discussion and will as such not lead to consensus. The object here should be to discuss these things and try to reach some common ground. - Revolving Bugbear11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the urgency? I think the sensible thing to do is to wait a couple of days for a better source of information. If we get one, we add SL. If we don't, then we continue to discuss. But in the meantime - let's just chill out. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want a good workover, log in, and I will gladly leave you some pointed advice on your talk page, with concrete links to resources leading to enlightment, on how to edit Wikipedia well. --Mareklugtalk14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If 11 people who had the right to vote boycotted the resolution, then the Kosovan parliament was not "of one mind"/unanimous. I would suggest that unanimous in line 2 be replaced by unopposed (nobody voted contrary to the majority), or simply deleted: the reader can clearly see from the voting figures that there were no votes against the proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Unopposed is more appropriate wording, as unanimous could imply that Serbs would've supported had they attended the session. --Tocino18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - the 11 MPs who boycotted were not physically present, which means that technically they did not form part of that parliamentary session's quarum, and therefore it was a unanimous vote of all the participating members. Simply being an elected minister does not make your opinion count, unless you are actually on the job and fully representing your constituency at a parliamentary session. This is very different from abstaining, which means that you are physically present, and fully entitled and capable of voting if you so desire. Analogy: if you hold a popular vote, and candidate "x" receives a 51% "majority," in reality, that's only 51% of the voters who went to the polls, not 51% of all eligible voters, but those who didn't bother to go don't count. But, there is also a slight possibility they are misusing the term "boycott." If it can be shown that they actually abstained rather than boycotted, then I'd agree to change the article to read "unopposed."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree: It was unanimous, everyone voted for it, the Albanians, Bosniacs, Roma, Egyptians...unopposed = not opposed, that means unanimous. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. No modification is needed. As explained by Suerpsexyspacemonkey, the content of the article properly states the facts. The fact of the 11 Serbian minority representatives boycotting the vote is duly noted, but the vote by those who wished to be counted was unanimous. --Mareklugtalk23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not see that the absence of the Serbian representatives makes any difference. It is not as though they happened to all be unwell that day: the article states that they boycotted the vote. That means that they were not of one mind with the majority in the parliament, and that means that the membership of the parliament was not unanimous. Not opposed does not mean unanimous: that is simply erroneous. As regards SSSM's argument by analogy to a plebiscite, this adequately proves why the word unopposed is appropriate (nobody actively opposed the motion in the voting chamber), but no serious commentator would state that in such a case as he/she proposed that candidate X received an absolute majority of the electorate. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a different take on this, but in my way of seeing, I agree that the absence of the Serbian representatives makes no difference. Their reasons for boycotting may be transparent, or not -- it is not ours to infer and conjecture. We only report. But, for sake of elucidating, perhaps the Serbian representatives rejected the entire institution of a Kosovan parliament, once the political events took the course they did. In any case, a quorum was attained, and that quorum voted unanimously. I think parliamentary definition of "unanimously" means exactly that. --Mareklugtalk02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
One part of the wording I do not like is "with all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotting the proceedings". Serbs are not a minority in Serbia. "Minority" should be replaced with "community". --Tocino00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Under the proportional representation scheme of the Parliament, 100 seats are at-large with no profile attached to them, 10 seats are reserved for the Serbian minority representatives, and 10 for other minorities' representatives. Quite aside from whether Serbians are a minority in Serbia or not, the representational profile sketched here is fact of Kosovan law under which the parliament operates. The representatives elected to represent the Serbian minority through those designated seats conceivably might be Kosovo-naturalized Cape Breton Island-born Canadian Gaelic speakers who happen to have at least 1/16 Mi'kmaq bloodlines. But individuals of such admittedly unlikely ethninicty in principle could be elected by the Serbian Kosovan constituency to the Kosovo parliament. The fact of representing Serbian minority is written into the local law, but that's as far as the law goes: it does not take DNA samples or probe geneologies. It just sets aside 20 seats for specified voter communities, minorities in Kosovo. --Mareklugtalk02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Serbs may not be a minority in Serbia, but we're talking about Kosovo here, a separate, independent state. --alchaemia (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Far too early to claim that. Kosovo still lacks any broader international recognition, and in such terms, so are Palestine, North Cyprus and Western Sahara separate and independent states. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo's status is irrelevant. Serbs are a minority in both the province of Kosovo and in the Republic of Kosovo, and we are discussing that particular region's parliament. Serbs were/are a minority in both the local government of, and in the administrative territory of, Kosovo. This is true before, and after, the declaration of independence.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you should've noticed to what post was my answer. :) He said that Kosovo is a separate, independent state.
Noth Kosovo is not an official political subdivision or administrative region, either in the Serbian Province of Kosovo, or in the Republic of Kosovo, so that interpretation is not really as relevant as the issue of who is a majority/minority in all of Kosovo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually we are talking about 10 Serbs and 1 Gorani PM that were not present. Thus they did not object, technically speaking they were simply not present. The other minorities voted for the declaration. So it was voted not only by the Albanians as the article implies. That is also misleading. Jawohl (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We sourced it the way it was given Chicago Tribune. But, just checking right now, that page is gone, the link broken. Conceivably they moved it to their archive, but while searching the archive is free, access to its content is not. We should take this opportunity to find a free, reliable English-language source that states explicitly this 10 Serbian minority representatives + 1 Gorani minority representative breakdown of the boycott. --Mareklugtalk
There are two interpretations. One is minority - whomever is not majority, that is whomever is not ethnic Albanian. The Albanians are a minority in North Kosovo.
Another is a legal interpretation. In that manner the Serbs' status is questionable as that of a national minority, and might be considered more of that of a constituent nation. This in the end draws the very scrupulous controversy, inevitably leading to Kosovo's status - and the matter that an ethnic group in its own nation-state is not a minority on a part of it.
This thread has become seriously forked. Can I ask that those who wish to debate the appropriateness of the term minority start a separate thread, so that we can clarify the issues around the definition of unanimous here without being diverted. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. Re. "unanimous", it's clearly quite a contentious issue. "Unopposed", on the other hand, doesn't seem to be problematic. Let's just cut the crap and say "unopposed". Bazonka (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Unopposed" doesn't seem to be problematic? Wrong. This thread is about changing it to say "unopposed," and that is clearly a contentious issue. So, as far as "cutting the crap" is concerned, you can clearly see the "disagrees" to the term "unopposed" before anyone diverted the topic--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you on about??? Nobody has said that "unopposed" is an inappropriate word - the only argument against it is that it's not worth changing from "unanimous". And that's the word that's causing the contention. "Unanimous" is obviously problematic and so it should be replaced with something that isn't; although it may not be their first choice, not one person has said that "unopposed" is inappropriate. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I just find it rather convenient to argue that, where disagreement exists over an edit suggestion, only the original text is "clearly contentious," while the suggested edit is not, despite there being opposition to it. I find it even more convenient argue that going ahead and making the edit, over voiced disagreements, somehow constitutes "cutting the crap." ;) I also think that expressing disagreement with the term "unopposed," as several people have, is, by definition, stating that the term is inappropriate in that context. For a word to be "inappropriate," in a discussion of linguistic accuracy, it does not have to be outlandishly bad, it only means that one term is more accurate than another.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say the point is that it was not opposed in Parliamentary session, though it was opposed by alternate means, and by mentioning the boycott in the article, we simultaneoulsy remove the ambiguity (there was moral opposition even if it was not expressed in a vote), and we preserve the technicaly accurate term.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will seccond that point, and say "unopposed" would be more problematic. In defense of speaking/writing precisely, a conjecture could be made, that the vote, while unanimous, was in fact opposed by the Serbian minority representatives (and the only Gorani representative), who boycotted the proceedings. Given the boycott, for us to write that the vote was unopposed would be misleading. On the other hand, voting unanimously denotes a precise parliametary outcome. But being in opposition can include all kinds of manifestations, including not taking part in convening the parliament. By just reporting the boycott, we avoid having to source something that states that these 11 people actually opposed. Opposition by these people is a matter of conjecture, and that should be left for the reader to infer. --Mareklugtalk00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Mareklug & Kevin McE - I would say you have just demonstrated why it is best to leave the text as is. "Unanimous," as you say, denotes a precise parliamentary outcome, and I believe it is not misleading so long as we simultaneously report the boycott, and therefore allow the reader to infer just how much opposition exists. In this case, we are talking about moral opposition, which is clearly extant, even though there was no parliamentary opposition. It would be unencyclopedic, inaccurate, and POV, to write a technically less accurate term for the sake of insinuating the level of moral opposition, which is, as you say, conjecture, even though we know it exists because of the boycott. Because of this, I find the use of the term "unopposed" more problematic than "unanimous," in this context.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So if both unanimous and unopposed are problematic, is there any need at all for an adjective to be attached to the vote. The voting "scores" are displayed for people to interpret as they will, and so there is no need, and to judge from this discussion, there is a possibility of inferring a POV that I do not believe the article intends, so is it not best to use neither word, and let the voting figures speak for themselves, without a commentary. Kevin McE (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it depends how the voting system in the Kosovo parliament works. If abstention is counted as a no vote, then I'll agree that there was opposition. If, however, the delegates needed to actively vote against the resolution in order to have their opinion counted, then it was unopposed. I belive that the latter case is more common. Bazonka (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Bazonka that if abstaining is considered equivalent to voting in contrary, then unopposed is inappropriate, but if that is the case, then the 109-0 voting figures are also a misrepresentation. I agree entirely with SSSM that we should not use a term which favours any particular POV, nor one which is technically inaccurate. Indeed, technical accuracy is why I started the thread. There is, at least in UK English, technical language attached to voting and in that usage unanimous means that the entire body charged with making a decision or a statement is of one mind, that there is no dissension from the majority viewpoint, while unopposed means that the majority viewpoint was not actively opposed by voting in contrary, or that a vote was rendered unnecessary by the futility of opposition, but does not imply the support of every person with a right to vote. Strictly speaking, it is a body of people that can be described as unanimous, and a proposal as unopposed: it is sloppy, but widespread, use to apply either description to a vote (the only way a vote can be literally unopposed is if nobody objects to the movement to vote). By these definitions, I believe that it is clear that the vote of the Kosovan Parliament in February could be said to be unopposed, but not unanimous. However, if these terms are still of uncertain interpretation, or if the use of either of them would appear to support a particular interpretation of events, then I repeat that the sentence makes perfect sense without either. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Remove the word "unanimous" from the first sentence. No need to replace it with anything (although I like "unopposed" it is unnecessary). This should be uncontroversial (famous last words...) Bazonka (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Done but the first sentence of the article now reads awfully, and needs to be reworded more significantly than that. I was on the verge of instituting the wording below, but baulked: how does it sound as a new phrasing? Happy‑melon18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
“
The international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence follows Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on 17 February2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour, 0 in opposition; all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings.
”
Agree with minor alteration - I would change "followed" to "follows" as the reaction is still ongoing. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The language used in the constitution about to become into law on 15 June 2008 implies "minority" through its reference to "representation of communities that are not in the majority in Kosovo" and going on to describe the details of this representation, including Serbian community's:
Article 64 [Structure of Assembly]
1. The Assembly has one hundred twenty (120) deputies elected by secret ballot on the basis of open lists. The seats in the Assembly are distributed amongst all parties, coalitions, citizens’ initiatives and independent candidates in proportion to the number of valid votes received by them in the election to the Assembly.
2. In the framework of this distribution, twenty (20) of the one hundred twenty (120) seats are guaranteed for representation of communities that are not in the majority in Kosovo as follows:
(1) Parties, coalitions, citizens' initiatives and independent candidates having declared themselves representing the Kosovo Serb Community shall have the total number of seats won through the open election, with a minimum ten (10) seats guaranteed if the number of seats won is less than ten (10);
(2) Parties, coalitions, citizens' initiatives and independent candidates having declared themselves representing the other Communities shall have the total number of seats won through the open election, with a minimum number of seats in the Assembly guaranteed as follows: the Roma community, one (1) seat; the Ashkali community, one (1) seat; the Egyptian community, one (1) seat; and one (1) additional seat will be awarded to either the Roma, the Ashkali or the Egyptian community with the highest overall votes; the Bosnian community, three (3) seats; the Turkish community, two (2) seats; and the Gorani community, one (1) seat if the number of seats won by each community is less than the number guaranteed.
I don't know the wording of the law in force at the time (I conjecture that it is very similar), but the Constitution text reflects the current way of looking. --Mareklugtalk00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Regions striving for more autonomy or independence(Chechen Republic of Ichkeria)
"welcome the declaration of state independence by Kosovo and do not question the right of the people of Kosovo to distance themselves from the state that terrorised it"
The quote is from a known terroist and does not even represent many people nor the citizens of Chechnya. I did not know wikipedia takes the side of radical terroism and uses there quotes to support a opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mescovic (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. See, the problem is not with the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria being listed, the problem is with the title of the section that Ichkeria is listed under. Shortly before the article was locked User:Mareklug changed the title to its current name of Regions striving for more autonomy or independence. Beforehand the title was Unrecognized states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence. Chechnya no longer strives for independence as evidenced by the Chechen people voting in favor of the United Russia party with 99% of the votes in the recent Duma election. The leadership of Chechnya are former rebels but they no longer demand independence and they currently support Chechnya's membership in the Russian Federation. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, meanwhile, is a government-in-exile based in London with no sovereignty over the Chechen land, therefore CR of Ichkeria is not a "region striving for more autonomy or independence". It IS however an unrecognized state and so under the original and legit title of Unrecognized states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence CR of Ichkeria's place in the category is well deserved. It is not only the CR of Ichkeria that seems out of place in category that User:Mareklug has imposed on the article, but Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh also do not fit well in this artificial title. The aformentioned are not just "regions striving for more autonomy or independence" but they are also "unrecognized states" becuase they have all already declared independence only for the international community to respond by ignoring their declarations. Having Unrecognized states in the title gives it more weight as it allows CR of Ichkeria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh to be in the category with an intellectually honest description. --Tocino01:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Mesovic, a "well know terroist"? In every instance that you spelled the word terrorist/terrorism you misspelled it. Who is this "well known" person? User Tocino what position do you hold to speak in behalf of the Chechen people? Can you provide us a link that shows for whom the majority voted for? Also what is an "aformentioned"? Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
United Russia wins over 99% of the vote in recent Chechen elections... Link here = [33]
The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not function inside Chechnya, rather they are based in other countries. This is called a government-in-exile.
Aforementioned means something previously mentioned or refered to. In the context I was using I was referring to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh. --Tocino05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, never heard of that word before. So who is this terrorist person that the user Mesovic was talking about? Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not leave comments calling me stupid or insulting my english skills. That quote is from Usman Ferzauli.He also is not the Foreign Minister of the Chechen government in exile, but somone who styles him self as one, Which is what the link says your quoting from. He is a wanted Terrorist and is responsible for death of my family and village on the Chechen border. I could give the link to the kavkaz center website with footage of his Terrorist attacks and news reports he publish. (Mescovic (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
The commies won 100% of the votes too, but we all know how democratic that was. Same with Putin and his clique. --alchaemia (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a foolish and biased Opinion which you can tell by your use of commies. You could ask how president Bush is still in power? While he has poor support and many believe he is the worst President in America history. While United Russia is very popular and has majority of the support and I voted for United Russia along with many.(Mescovic (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)).
@Kosova2008 We are not here to criticize other users spelling. You yourself have made spelling mistakes on this talk page. I have made many mistakes too. We are here to discuss improvement of this article. Mescovic brought up a good point. We need to sort this out Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
@ijanderson977: I can criticize anyone I want...especially people whom claim facts used on this article are by "known terroist" who NO ONE can back up with a simple name. There can be no discussions if one side is unhappy because they don't like the article. What good point was brought up? I still don't understand why we had to change "Regions striving..." to "Unrecognised states", it makes no difference. Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.70.177 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Or the site in other languages( Russian,Turkic) is shows far worst information. Which has many quotes of his heroic killing( and support)of Infidel in the name of Allah and the holy Jihad. I have no interest in Kosovo, just merely the fact you using this person quote. Which you seem to care so clearly about. With no no regard if the person is monster and kills children as long as he supports your kind.(75.118.148.170 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)).
You can't expect me to be polite or civil? Okay...this person, "Usman Ferzauli" is in 'no' wanted list...you claim he is a terrorist...but he's not, this is your own personal view. There, I just poked a huge whole in your logic. On the other hand Putin is a terrorist because his government and previous governments have terrorised minorities such as Chechens because of their personal beliefs and this has led to "seperatists" forming to defend their lives (a Kosova-like scenenerio). I quote, "Teps said federal troops are terrorizing the Chechen population, and that the separatists are acting only in response to their aggression. In this way, he said, Basaev's return to the government will strengthen their efforts.
Putin controls everything, I am not surprised he got 99% of the votes. Vote otherwise and you will feel Russian love. Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk)
I fail to see how any of these regions - especially Republika Srpska - are important at all. This is the page about international reaction and these places have no done so - at least not in an international level. It can be argued that they have reacted through their own websites or news agencies, but those are not all that important - especially for places that have no diplomatic relations with other nations whatsoever - the likes of South Ossetia or whatever. I think they should all be removed. --alchaemia (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It may give their position, but I don't agree that they're "other separatists" as this means that Kosovan leaders were separatists as well. The situation in Kosova/o is much more complex than pure separatism. --alchaemia (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with edit request but not with the way that was changed immediately, what happened to the European Parliament, Ukraine edits all they were uncontroversial edits but they were not done because from all editors 1 opposed and it was not changed same with Ukraine new statement they are just staying in archive for the moment, anyone thinks that we need to get these issues back? Lets digg the archive while we are waiting for SL and other states to recognize it. --Digitalpaper (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this. It was a minor detail compared to the actions of European Parliament and supposed recognition by certain countries. --Tocino16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Saakashvili reiterated position of Georgia
Here is the statement of Georgian president made on May 8: "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future,"[34]
This news article also mentions that Montenegro government will run opinion surveys before it makes it's decision whether to recognize or not.--Avala (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
These sources says that Montenegro might recognise on 16th June and is more up to date than your source [35][36]. So we can't really do much with it on Montenegro. However feel free to put in a edit request for Georgia. I will support it with you.
Quick example.
Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this" On the 8th May Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognise Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future,"
I'd take anything that the DSS-financed KosovoCompromise.com website says with a grain of salt. It's obviously a propaganda-mouth of the Kostunica-run DSS, and is, more than likely, financed by the official state coffers of Serbia. Thanks, but I'll wait for a more credible source. --alchaemia (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is another source with the same words of Saakashvili: [37]
What is wrong with KosovoCompromise.com? We use USA/EU/NATO financed websites such as Newkosovoreport.com and BalkanInsight.com. Are we only not allowed to use Serbian sources? --Tocino17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino i agree with you that we should use KosovoCompromise.com. But Newkosovoreport.com is not financed by USA/EU/NATO. It went offline for a few days once because it wasn't paying to stay online. Its just some pro-Kosovo kids from Sweden who run that site. Very armature i must say. But i understand what you mean about the other source. Put in an edit request on Georgia Tocino. I'll support it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Georgia || Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[1][2][3]
to:
Georgia || Foreign Minister of Georgia, David Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[1][4][5] Almost three months later President Mikheil Saakashvili told reporters: "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognise Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future."[6][7]
Strongly Oppose - this is an incomplete, biased account of Georgia's reaction to date, blatantly ignoring older discussions on this very item and other, conflicting news on Georgia's reaction -- already discussed on this talk page. Missing: voice recording of Georgia's Prime Minister speaking at length in fluent English, interviewed in Estonia, letting on that eventually Georgia will recognize because its friends have done so).
Georgia's President is quoted speaking in Russia -- it is clearly a politically motivated utterance, aimed at its audience, which is ok, but it should be sourced to Russian or Georgian media, or best, to the Georgian government, is own office.
Also, sourcing in this proposed edit is highly partizan, exactly the kind to avoid -- cursory inspection will show that KosovoCompromise.com is not a neutral news source but an a website with a political anti-Kosovo independence agenda, And, the other source,given here, http://www.B92.net/, also Belgrade-based, has also proved nonneutral in its accounts regarding Kosovo. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on this talk page and was confirmed by adminstrator User:Ev on his own talk page, when I asked him to fact-check a particularly egregious example of B92.net outrageous reporting on Kosovo. Common sense tells us that Georgia's reaction should be sourced to Georgia's official publications and media, not to Serbian media or Serbian political circles, or at least to evidently neutral world media, such as the Estonian radio/tv mentioned above. Partizan sourcing, be it Kosovan or Serbian, is inadmissible for maintaining neutrality of the encyclopedic account of the subject, and would harm the credibility of the Wikipedia process. --Mareklugtalk19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Disregard Opposition as Groundless. The Prime Minister's bizarre statement to the Estonian journalist was retracted within 24 hours by the government... link = [38]. As for this edit request, User:Mareklug is objecting to both sources because they are Serbian. This kind of discrimination is not welcome on WP. --Tocino19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Your own source shows to anyone who will read it, that the government spun the Prime Minieter's say, while the opposition demanded an investigation and even his resignation. All of that is highly significant and merits mentioning. Not mentionig it is hiding reaction. And the dear Prime Minister never recanted. He simply never has. Produce a source that shows otherwise. Furhtermore, he most likely was speaking the very real truth. --Mareklugtalk20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Prime Minister, not President. And doing so would not address the horribly biased sourcing, absolutely inadmissible. Please find neutral sources, as has been done for earlier Georgian reaction, preferrably official Georgian sources. Sourcing what a Georgian said about Kosovo in Russia -- by means of a politicized website advocating one side of the Kosovo dilemma is not even worthy discussing, be it Kosovan or Serbian politicized website. This edit does not merit support, because it is extremely deficient by Wikipedia standards of verifiability, avoidance of any appearance of conflict of interest, as well as the general need for maintaining unimpeachable, neutral sourcing in controversies. This edit is a mirror image of the proposed edit to add Sierra Leone to the list of nations that recognized independent Kosovo, based solely on a report by RTK (Radio and Television Kosovo) and only replicated by all the other produced sources, ergo, by no source, except the one that initially reported and swiftly withdrew its report without so much as a comment). --Mareklugtalk20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well for all you know there could have been one media reporter there when he announced "Georgia will not recognize Kosovo". Therefore other media stations are bound to copy. Same with SL. I think everyone is taking "reliable sourcing" to the extreme here. It didn't bother us before. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember how I said you can't just disregard someone's opinion? Well, I meant it. From here on in I will skip and not read any post that starts with "Disregard opposition as groundless". Seriously, I'm not kidding. Enough is enough, guys. Discuss, don't bicker. - Revolving Bugbear20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit request isn't that important to me because the current entry for Georgia is short and sweet and it clearly states the fact that Georgia will not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. Adding Saakashvili's words just reinforces this fact, but the article will survive without it. --Tocino21:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are happy that the article as it currently stands, fails to include important informationa concerning the dissenting opinion of the Prime Minister, and that your maneouver of proposing this particular edit was an attempt to further lead us away from presenting a balanced view, and that no harm ensued, because indeed, the depiction remains unbalanced? --Mareklugtalk22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you don't understand. The Prime Minister's bizarre comments were a one-off situation, which forced the government to retract less than 24 hours later after the opposition pounced on the comments demanding an explanation. The fact that Saakashvili and other government officials continue to reiterate Georgia's support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia means that the Prime Minister's comments were erroneous and an embarrassment to the government. So a careful look at the circumstances will make one realize that the conversation the PM had with an obscure Estonian journalist is not worth mentioning in this article. --Tocino05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The message coming from this country is ambiguous at best. We had the President or PM saying in clear english that his country will recognize Kosova "as our European partners did" and the FM saying they never will. Are we jumping the gun to the first reaction we can get, are we being hasty? Nonetheless I have no objection if the WP community decides to base this one incident or public remark as the official position of Georgia. Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I know this is not a forum. But i think Georgia will eventually recognise. Lets say in 20 years or so. But never is a strong word. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What is escaping public condemnation on this talk page, is that one editor has successfully blocked updating Ukraine and Georgia and is happy that the latter's writeup remains unbalanced as far as reporting all the the reaction of that country, whereas the former, apart from not reporting the latest statements of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, falsely attribute a blanket statement of support of Serbia to Oleg B., member of parliament, who spoke, as the source itself clearly indicates, strictly in the context of a 22 February 2008 OSCE meeting. Surgical and creative quoting made him look quite a spokesman for Serbia, however. Please examine what is in the article for Ukraine against the sources used. --Mareklugtalk
The two archived editprotect requests that were blocked: Ukraine and Georgia (the one before this one). And what is in the sources we are quoting and what is in the Ukraine writeup attributed to these sources. Please check and see. --Mareklugtalk11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This source is creating the recognition of whole cloth -- it's obvious from the story, if you read it carefully. This source has been discussed already on the talk page (archived). As it is a mouthpiece of the local separatist regime that itself proclimed an independent state that no state has recognized to date, and seeks self-validation through Kosovo's independence, it is not exactly the most neutral news cource on the subject. Northern Cyprus has to date not formally recognized Kosovo's independence, and what is being referred to here is by its own account only a welcoming letter written by the Northern Cyprus President. --Mareklugtalk18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus has been recognized by Turkey. It's not a state that hasn't been recognized by anyone; one state ain't much, but it's better than zero. --alchaemia (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I was referring by "local separatist regime" to Transnistria, where the source hails from, and which not only is not recognized by any state, but is presently being herded back to reintegrate itself into Moldova under newly set-up negotiations, by Mother Russia. --Mareklugtalk09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I cant find it. I thought they would have been influenced by the UK. But they havent been. Also Malta has very good relations with Cyprus, who are anti Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Malta said that they will follow what Greece and Cyprus, not Spain and Cyprus, do and that their decision will be based on that.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources
I think user are taking reliable sourcing to the extreme. For example we can't use non-english sources now and sources which are based in Belgrade. Come on. This is over-the-top. B92 is a good source. Yes it is slightly POV. But then so is all media. If we can not use B92 we should not be allowed to user any news-business as a source. From CNN to balkaninsight to Baghdad Weekly. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing, as I wrote previously, has devolved more into an issue of personal tastes and tendentious preferences rather than operating against a consistent standard. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be because no one can agree on a reliable standard. I see each 'side' objecting to 'the other side's' sources pretty consistently. This is why I have been encouraging some real dialogue and discouraging getting technical about what is and isn't the same situation as a previous example ... what this article really needs is some mutual understanding, not a fight over what sources are good and which ones aren't. - Revolving Bugbear23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
B92 has a history of biasness...why would we put our sole trust on such a media station? There are over 15,000 media agencies that publish news online and when I read some quote that sounds fishy and that ONLY b92 is reporting...it's purely bs. Note, that B92 as a source has been allowed before here when you had other sources that backed up similar information presented by B92....but make changes based on one POV Belgrade outlet...that's a big NO NO. Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about using sources which are based in Pristina or Tirana? --Tocino 03:26, 4 June 2008 9UTC)
When I provide Prishtina based sources I provide MULTIPLE sources. If you can back up b92 with tanjug, Blic, etc than I am okay with it. --Kosova2008 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I second what Kosova2008 said. With Serbia, they tend to get their point across pretty well. Their Government and FM sites pretty much confirm Serbian domestic news reports. Once Kosovo has a FM, I am sure they and domestic Kosovo sources will be as predictable with Kosovo news as Serbian outlets are with Serb news. Basicly, if the FM/Government sources track with the news, then 9 times out of 10, it works. We must verify information using as many diverse sources as possible when possible. One source is not enough. So far as B92 concerns me, I do not consult it unless to find new info to verify against other sources or to check and see if it verifies another source. Ajbenj (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did though in the Georgia edit request. I used two Serbian sources instead of one, yet two different editors objected anyway, strictly because the sources were Serbian. --Tocino05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to object anything, honestly, I just don't have 100% trust in B92 even though it's on my top bookmarks and B) I check their news over 3 times a day. I just find it odd that sometimes they report some fishy facts / news that no one else is reporting. I have never objected to B92 being sourced as long as you get another source to support it. I don't think this is POV of me. --Kosova2008 (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am looking for one, but it will be difficult to find because Georgia doesn't have as big of a web presence as Serbia does. Also, keep in mind that there are other reasons why the Goergia edit request will not go through. However adding to the Georgia entry is not the reason why I am involved in this particular thread. What I am wondering is it OK to use Serbian sources at all? What about Kosovo Albanian sources? Are they OK? -- Tocino06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That is the $500,000 question. However I am open to either side saying whatever so long as the sources in Serbia or Kosovo (depending on the item) mesh with sources in the country in question or a source states that the nation-in-question's UN Mission/embassy says something. Then there are cases where the country in question just says its position, verified by not only government sources but news outlets in said nation. Then there are places where no Kosovo or Serb or nation-in-question sources have little info, or don't agree, or one side has info or the other doesn't. I think I will add a new topic about criteria for verifying info soon that takes into consideration the issues that those posting here have raised. But that is a work in progress. Just because I don't post all the time doesn't mean that I am not reading this page. :) I think we're going to have problems with this issue, especially as nations that are less developed chime in about this. I notice Montenegro keeps a copy of their recognition letters on their MFA site, as referenced by looking at the Wiki page on Montenegrin foreign affairs. Kosovo ought to do so as well when they get their MFA going. Ajbenj (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino and Ijanderson977 why are you taking this so personally? B92 has a way of distorting facts and only reporting Albanian related incidents. It's okay to use Serbian media as long as you have more than 1. If Tanjug is reporting it as well, than okay..maybe Blic (another Belgrade media) okay...but I can understand why people object to putting the sole trust on B92. Now please let's get over this. I'm not replying anymore, it's becoming a chatterbox in here. --69.29.70.177 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment (EU parliament)
Isn't this important, "I think that Serbia shall have to accept that this was not a false meeting, but a real one, a historical meeting’, Kacin said." [40]
This is the first time post-independence that representatives of Rep. of Serbia and Rep. of Kosova have sat on a table without any of Rep. of Serbia people walking out, it's why this is a "historical meeting". --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you will find that this was the first time post-independence that representatives of Rep. of Serbia and Rep. of Kosova have sat on a table without any of Rep. of Serbia people walking out. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We both are talking about the same incident just with different sources, and your source says that they both are "willing".
"28 May 2008 Pristina _ Politicians from Kosovo and Serbia said they were willing to" .... Still is this important to include in the EU Parliament entry? --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It can go in Serbia's reaction. That "the Rep of Serb was willing to sit a discuss things with the Rep of Kos..." Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And the introduction paragraph, even in the Kosova article. Even though Rep. of Serbia does not recognize Rep. of Kosova they still were willing to discuss...etc. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we have established that Sierra Leone has recognised, but can anyone else find sources saying Sierra Leone recognised Kosovo? Its important to get this encyclopedic information on the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for summarising. The RTKlive article is no longer there, and I suspect that this was used as the source for the other sources. And I think we can discount the Xhakli site as it's someone's blog, and not at all informative. As all the other sources are in Albanian (and hence probably POV), we should wait for more - preferably something African or Serbian. Of course we can't wait for ever, but let's give it a day or two.
I think it's interesting that POVtastic Kosovothanksyou still only have SL in the "Recognition procedure has been initiated" section - you'd expect them to put it straight into their "Formally recognized" bit. What do they know that we don't? Bazonka (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
i removed the two you mentioned. Kosovothanksyou.com are either waiting for a recognition text or are waiting for someone at an embassy to answer the phone. There will most likely be more sources tomorrow as many media sites don't operate at the weekend. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ian, I will be more blunt. What you just did above is a clinic in skew, in how not to source. Not only is this sourced from ONE SOURCE -- RTV, and replicated by others, but there's doubt about its verifiability, with sources disappearing, rather than becoming more numerous. Your characterization of the "Non English Source" as such is gratuitous and misleading -- they are all Albanian-langauge sources quoting RTV eplicitly, all from Kosovo (maybe one from Albania). Given the context of this article, and what has already been aired about avoiding conflict of interest in sourcing, and the discussion where Kosovar Wikipedians argued to hold off with including this information, I am extremely dissapointed in your lack on judgment in pushing a dubious piece of wikipedistic merchandise, and ever more so how you went about it, to the point of annoyance. --Mareklugtalk14:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought they were in Albanian, but i was not too sure as i don't speak the language. All i was doing was asking for other sources? I knew that we were not to use them sources. I was just trying to gather all the information together that we have. Then maybe perform an edit request. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"I think we have established that Sierra Leone has recognised" -- you really do? Please take a moment to think coolly about what I said and note how you can improve your editing. --Mareklugtalk14:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the RTK article is precisely why I have concerns about these sources. All the listed sources either cite RTK or are RTK. Some other Kosovo English-language media sources are not reporting anything at all about SL recognition. The first RTK links shows a very short news item (I apparently do not have a specific font pack installed so it comes out garbled) and the last is the removed article itself. Normally, I have no problem with New Kosovo Report, they are good at citing their sources, so I check into it. If it is another source than RTK, or RTK gives us some more info then we should proceed. I did see at the end of the Balkanweb link that the story is credited to something called "A.S", RTK, and Balkanweb. This will likely be resolved tomorrow when the SL UN Mission or other Embassy picks up the phone and talks to RTK, KosovaThanksYou, or New Kosovo Report. No matter if someone at RTK got a good jump on a breaking story or it is a misunderstanding, some SL or Kosovo official will have to comment on this eventually. Ajbenj (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any news and ive been looking on Google news, B92, Balkan Insight ect. It seems to be a mistake made by RTK and other news companies followed and made the same mistake. Please carry on looking though. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing on any SL media sites, although I guess it wouldn't be headline news there.
If nothing appears in the next day or two, it may be worth adding an entry for SL into the "States which do not recognise Kosovo" section saying something like: "On 31 May 2008, Kosovar media reported that Sierra Leone had recognised Kosovo's independence. No other sources were known to have reported this, and the media reports were later withdrawn. It therefore seems likely that no recognition was made by Sierra Leone." This may help to reduce confusion in the future. Just a thought... Bazonka (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't appear to have produced a non-RTK mention of this recognition claim. It looks more and more with the passing of time and no independent confirmation appearing, that someone at RTK simply confused Liberia with Sierra Leone -- they do border on one another, and both have somewhat similar-looking names (more so than Tanganyika and Zanzibar do, anyway :)).
We should not address rumors, especially flash-in-the-pan rumors that its own source has promptly removed without a trace or comment, something that I find highly questionable as journalistic practice: a correction notice should have been provided, or some prominent annotation explaining its appearance.
As for documenting this faux-recognition in the Wikipedia article in order to help prevent future confusion on this score, I think that such is the role of this talk page, even though I concede that its ongoing archiving and the lack of easy search facilities for examining just this archive, together conspire to hide the evidence of this topic having been aired. Just the same, no change to the article for Sierra Leone (i.e., leaving it unmentioned) seems to me to be the best course of action, in my opinion. --Mareklugtalk01:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still hoping to hear something, one way or another. I know that some of us have been banging away trying to get somebody to tell us something and that the kosovothanksyou.com people are trying to get an official comment as well. We'll see. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wild idea: Why not have an Albanian-speaker contact RTK and find out what is going on, where RTK got the lead for the story, why it disappeared, etc? Also they could contact the Kosovo President's office and see if anyone knows anything about SL recognition. Ajbenj (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
New statement from www.kosovothanksyou.com about this:
"After numerous communications with the The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of Sierra Leone, the Missions of Sierra Leone in London, New York and Brussels, an official at MOFA has responded to KosovaThanksYou inquiries by saying they are observing the issue and cannot disclose more information at this point. An official at MOFA was unable to confirm to us the reports in the media and has claimed there was no official communication with Kosovar media. To date, there has been no explanation by the local media about this issue.
The governing For a Better Macedonia coalition won an absolute majority in the recent election. Today, the returning PM Nikola Grueski has said that Macedonia will not bow down to pressure from USA/EU/NATO and will make its own decision over recognition. He also said that there is no deadline for a decision on recognition. Link = [46]. Should this be included in Macedonia's entry? --Tocino19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
He didn't say that at all: "pressure from USA/EU/NATO", he only alluded to pressure as such, wich equally well could be (and likley is) pressure from Serbia. Furthermore, he expressly is quoted in this source that Macedomia has an Atlantic-European orientation and wishes to integrate in the NATO and EU structures. On top of that, the source, http://www.B92.net/, is unacceptable for reasons already patinently presented by more than one editor, many times already on this talk page. Repeatedly offering it won't make it gain appropriateness. And, after al is said and read, nothing has changed with regard to Macedonia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, the subject of our article. So, in a word, no. It should not be inluded. The headline for this section does match out the content sourced, even to a biased Belgrade source. I wonder what Macedonian media are reporting. Let's source Macedonia to Macedonians, not Serbs or Kosovans. --Mareklugtalk20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well we certainly know that recognition is far from certain and Macedonia definitely does not belong in the category of "States that are about to recognize" which is the way it is colored in on this absurd map: [47]. --Tocino21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We make quantum changes based on verified sources. No one has produced a source yet, counterclaiming tht Montenegro and Macedonia are about to recognize, all rhetoric of politicians aside. However, the Macedonia's government has not issued an official position statement at all, and if they choose to do so, the map will certainly take that into account. That "absurd" map does not contain outright absurdities/misrepresentations of the caliber of Brazil, Cuba, Bosnia, Uruguay, India or Slovakia as having gone on record as ALREADY officially refututing as STATES the independence of Kosovo, which of course none of them have, and in several cases, their Foreign ministers have expressly stated that they are delaying for one reason (United Nations Security Council = Brazil) or another (4 months to make up the official position = Slovakia), all miscolored on the far more absurd map you have repeatedly claimed reflects consensus: [48] --Mareklugtalk22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Brazil, Cuba, Bosnia, Uruguay, India and Slovakia all oppose recognition and their positions are accurately displayed on this article and the consensus supported map that you've just linked. Meanwhile, there has been no statements indicating that Macedonia are "about to recognize". I'm grateful that the map you've created is linked nowhere but this talk page because not only is the position of Macedonia completely misrepresented in your map, but also Iran (Ahmadinejad himself has said that his nation will not recognize but on your map they are proclaimed as having a neutral stance) and Montenegro (once again there has been no indication that this country will recognize), to name just a few, are being served an injustice as your absurd map is giving them a position that they do not accept. --Tocino01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How can we hope to evolve the mutual undertanding as editors that eludes us, when simple to check facts continue to be presented in a way that conceals them?
Brazil, Cuba, Bosnia, India and Slovakia have not, as states, officially acted to refute Kosovo's independence. Had each one done so, we would be awash in links to their foreign ministries or ministers stating so, not just the Serbian Foreign Ministry editorializing, for example, how important it is that Brazil has not yet explicitly recognized Kosovo. Instead, we have frankestein-quotes sewn up often from mistranslated foreign language sources or selectively edited, laboring to construe this claimed state opposition. As for the governments themselves, none has acted. The famous recent BIRC meeting in Russia (Brazil, India, Russia, China), with a Kosovo-related statement mouthed by the Russian Foreign Minister but attributed by some wikipedians to the last three (Brazil was careful not to be yet present), amply shows this.
NeitherImage:Kosovo_relations.svgnorImage:Kosovo_relations2.svg map is linked from article space on the English Wikipedia, although both are used on other langauge versions. When I made attempts to include both maps in a joint display, to represent a range of views as it were, User:Tocino reverted my edits, always by removing my map while calling User:Avala-generated one "consensus-based", like in the comment above. As a result, both maps are linked only from some talk pages locally, showing despite claims otherwise that there is no consensus in the matter of their use.
In the case of Macedonia and Montenegro, both countries have consistently and on record aspired to joining the "Atlantic-European framework", as the Macedonian Prime Minister put, quoted in the very source -- http://www.B92.net/ -- used to support the claim that Macedonia is far from actually recognizing Kosovo. The overwhelming majority position within both the EU and NATO is "we have already recognized; let's move on to absorb Kosovo and Serbia into EU", so much so, that the European Parliament acted officially on its own to at least symbolically hoist and fly the flag of independent Kosovo. Does the European Parliament hoist and fly flags of unrecognized states?
Furthermore, the EU and NATO that Macedonia and Montenegro intend to join are preparing to operate together in Kosovo, some would say uncharitably, operate Kosovo, while the EU has been infusing huge sums of money into and exerting concentrated planning effort on Kosovo, preparing its accession to its structures. The aim of all the NATO and EU, including the member states Slovakia and Spain, which have yet to recognize its independence, is to eventaully fuse Kosovo -- as well as the rest of the conflict-prone Balkan countries -- into an expanded, internally borderless European Union. That is a political goal, one shared by Macedonia and Montenegro, under whatever government.
Give the context, representing Macedonia and Montenegro in light blue makes sense, and mirrors representing Czech Republic in light blue until CR recognized, and turned dark blue on the map. The Czech Republic mirrors Macedonia and Montenegro, with much of its politicial leadership, and population, historically and culturally aligned with Serbia, yet the Czech Republic's government felt compelled to recognize Kosovo's independence for international cooperation's sake and as recognition of a fait accompli. The remaining few not-recognizing EU and NATO members are also likely to evolve their nonrecognitions into recognition.
It may help to contextualize the map colors by naming countries:
red, officially on record as not recognizing (Russia, Serbia, Spain, Romania);
orange, calling on continued negotiations in the Serbia vs. province of Serbia framework (Brazil, Indonesia, Algeria, South Africa);
khaki, ambiguous, neutral or delaying recognition (Slovakia, Greece, India, New Zealand);
light blue, about to recognize (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Macedonia, Montenegro);
dark blue, having already recognized officially (Liberia, United States, Bulgaria, Peru), and
gray, no information (Morocco, Malta, Paraguay, Iraq).
Granted, the light blue of Macedonia seems perhaps slightly khakier today, after the election, but we won't know that subjecct to WP:VER, until the new government actually acts and new sources appear for those actions, not Belgrade sources, not Prishtina sources (those were proposed and rejected in this space before, without prejudice to either partizan country) but a official or unassailably neutral, most likely Macedonian sources.
As for Iran, it is represented in khaki as ambiguous not neutral (another misrepresentation of fact -- the map legend remains unchanged and expllicitly covers by khaki: ambiguous, neutral, and delaying recognition). Iran's government sources (not its Presiden's asides) have not produced an unambiguous reaction, while its President, quoted in passing while colorfully denouncing America, is not an encyclopedic alpha and omega of Iranian reaction, which governmentally has entailed cautious pronouncements, while the real power in Iran rests with its religious leaders, who appear to have maintained a mysterious silence in the matter of a first Moslem-majority state appearing on the map of Europe, wholly contained on the continent. --Mareklugtalk06:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
yeh Macedonia has already said it wont recognise until it has finalized the boarder negotiations and Macedonia said the boarder negotiations will take a long time. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. Macedonia & Montenegro are a package. I don't think I've read a statement from a top Macedonian official that has stated "demarcations or no recognition" as some of you here make it out so bluntly. I believe the PM in B92 talks about not being pressured neither from Kosova side or Serbia side. Let's wait this out for another month, ride out all the speculations. --Kosova2008 (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Enough with speculation on Mac's and Mont's recognition. They will recognize when or if they do. And if they refuse to do so, given their location and current/former ties to Serbia, we will be sure to know if they don't recognize. Reports are just rumors unless someone, using their full name and position in the government, mentioned as a source says anything. Even then they may be rebuked by someone higher up. I'll believe that Mac or Mont recognize when I see them do it. We've been through tons of speculation about these two countries so far. When it happens, either way, they'll let everyone know. Hold on people, we'll know what's what eventually. Ajbenj (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is used explicitly as the source for both maps, so discussing them at the source is only logical. It is all the same discussion, involving the same people, the same Wikipedia content. Consider this article a big fat legend, in mapmaking sense of the word, although a legend it also is in places, unfortunately, in terms of facts. This discussion means to expose that and, one hopes, correct it. --Mareklugtalk13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
St. Kitts and Nevis FM Commentary
It is sometimes strange how some in the foreign services worldwide can say something about a topic and say almost nearly nothing at all. From an opinion piece that the St. Kitts and Nevis Foreign Ministry posted on SKN Vives, which states in their browser title bar header that they are the official site of the islands [49]:
"No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."
"But the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans."
Most of the article talks just about what happened, but those are two nuggets show the Carribean reaction so far vis a vis Kosovo. Secondly, a vague opinion of St. Kitts/Nevis MFA about the situation appears, although the context makes the statement quite vague (is it about the intervention in the late 90's or the present situation re:the UDI?).
I am not sure if anything is useable from this piece, but it is the only thing that I have found where a Carribean nation has said anything about the Kosovo situation since the UDI of 17 February. If anyone finds something usable, please make a proposal. I am mixed on this. Ajbenj (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reaction thus far out of the Carribean community is from Cuba. Fidel Castro, who's a foreign policy advisor to his brother Raul, has wrote negatively about the impact of the declaration and is also highly critical of one of the declaration's supporters, Javier Solana. --Tocino06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ack! Forgot about Cuba! Thanks Tocino! Perhaps I should have worded that as "minor Carribean states" or "commonwealth Carribean states", but then the source doesn't make the exception of Cuba. It doesn't give a date on the article, but does state the date of the Kosovo UDI. Still other than Cuba (and Fidel is the ultimate say on what Cuban foreign policy does as verified by Raul and by vote of the National Assembly), and an op-eds from Barbados and Guyana (which aren't the MFA's and just politically active citizens writing to a news media source), all I have found so far is this from a Carribean MFA. Ajbenj (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ajbenj, I know that searching the archives is prohibitive and difficult, but this very St. Kitts and Nevis Foreign Ministry missive I already cited onthis talk page, when it was published, and we had a big discussion precisely about how Cuba is one of the Carribean communities included in its sweep, and how obviously this is a confirmation that Cuba has not acted as a state, whatever its prominents may have perpetrated journalistically. If I recall correctly, without looking, User:Tocino participated then as well, saying exactly the same things.
It is obviously a reliable, governmental statement, by obviously in the know people, and it should be used to counter-source Cuba. Or perhaps, used in and editprotect request to remove Cuba altogether, like we removed Morocco. It definitely is evidence. --Mareklugtalk09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug, Cuba is quite tricky as Fidel, despite stepping down, appears to still be the final word in any policy the Cuban nation decides to embark upon. I am not saying that as a US citizen against the Castro dynasty, and I can see the reasons why Cuba should be removed. However evidence is clear that Fidel still has sway over the nation's policy. I think that should the Cuban MFA state that they were opposed to Kosovo's independence based on Fidel's comments, then that'd be a slam-dunk, for-sure statement on policy. Perhaps it is another topic we ought to discuss in a new discussion thread. I think you'd be the best person to bring that up. :) Debates get quite lively here, but in the end if we do the right thing, that is what matters. Ajbenj (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Not every word of Mr. F. Castro is official state policy, certainly not today. There is a time-honored practice in ideology called paying lip service. I think that way portraying official Cuba policy as synonymous with an op-ed piece, a country, which has a highly active and visible Foreign Ministry, engaged diplomatically across the world, is a bit convenient, if not, in fact, disparaging to Cuba. User:Avala pointed to Cuban MFA website's sparsely updated English-language Statemnets subpage, as proof that Cuba neglects policy publications, but anyone can view the Spanish-language version of the same thing, and readily see it bubbling with recent activity. Cuba has important reasons to keep mum, including financing from European Union. Wikiepdians ignoring sources from the reigion -- an official foreign ministry of a neighboring state, no less -- are complicit in falsifying the real picture. The St. Kitts-Nevis statement fulfills Wikipedia's ideas of what consitutes verified, plausible information. Whereas the inference that Fidel Castro's editorial is Cuban policy is OR. There's no need to discuss it. Please give me a break and do an editprotect yourself -- I have a lot of editing stacked up ahead of me on two wikipedias. :) --Mareklugtalk10:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, I didn't mean to dump more in your to-do bin, Mareklug! :P Well, let me sleep on some ideas and when I awake refreshed, I shall do so. However I must say removing Cuba is going to be tough, as I can see both arguments. Pro keeping: "Well of course they will do what Fidel says, it's either do his bidding or the end of their political careers (at the least)" Anti-keeping: "Lip service, helloooo! Unless the MFA says otherwise formally, it isn't so". Both are valid to me and warrants a new discussion; but not in this topic. But that's Cuba, not St Kitts. I am willing to bring forth a new editrequest on St. Kitts with wording subject to consensus. I plan upon introducing two proposals using both St. Kitts statements that I found could relate to Kosovo and its UDI, or just the second stating what may be a MFA opinion:
Option 1: Both sourced statements:
Under States Which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide> UN Member States, add:
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the official website of St. Kitts and Nevis, "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence.... But the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [1] ||
Option 2: Statement on situation only:
Under States Which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide> UN Member States, add:
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the official website of St. Kitts and Nevis, "(T)he feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [2] ||
We already had this information. SKN PM can't speak on behalf of other countries, this article is about reaction of states on independence declaration and apparently SKN has no reaction. They just took note and then he said a few things to show how he has knowledge of what is going on.--Avala (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either is necessary. We don't have a statement of SKN's position - only that they are aware of tensions in the Balkans. Surely this also applies to every country on Earth. Bazonka (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There is also this article [3] on SKN's MOFA site. It describes a meeting of their Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee on 27th March. Kosovo's independence was discussed, and is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings". So no real news yet, but I wouldn't expect SKN to stay quiet for too long. (NB they are one of the countries that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan) Bazonka (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[4] According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [5] ||
Or this? (Option 4)
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[6]||
I'll agree to either 3 or 4 What every the majority is. Im not fussed. The both seem perfectly fine to me. I just hope other users will compromise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
More editing is needed. The reaction of St. Kitts-Nevis captured in these two sources contains two authoritative pieces of information: 1) St. Kitts-Nevis government has considered the 2008 Kosovo UDI in historical context, but has delayed making a formal statement either for or against recognizing independent Kosovo; 2) no Carribean state has made a formal statement in this matter, either. Both items are hard news from an expert, neutral source, and should be included. Rest is fluff. St. Kitts-Nevis MFA is not speaking on behalf of other countries but rather informing about their actions. And they, being a regional MFA would know, and being neutral, their information would be encyclopedically sourceable. Please consider updating the article accordingly. --Mareklugtalk02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit Request: St. Kitts and Nevis
Looks like the 3rd option has the most support, so I now formally propose it to be added to the article:
Under States Which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide> UN Member States, add:
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[7] According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [8] ||
Premature editprotect - Sorry to be late, but please consider what I just added above under More editing needed. Thank you. --Mareklugtalk02:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoever said the 3th option has most support needs to learn how to count. Me, Kosova2008 and CD prefer the 4th; whereas only Tocino and Avala prefer the 3rd. I'm not really sure what Mareklug wants... Bazonka (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This re-added or at least the quote itself: According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the official website of St. Kitts and Nevis, "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence".
The little school essay on the history of the Balkan conflicts is gratuitous. This is not the place for it. Substitute with "considered the declaration in historical context" or "alluded to centuries-old Balkan conflicts", if you will. --Mareklugtalk09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's dissect the item by the three parts that people seem to have divided it up into:
Carribean reaction: Most controversial aspect. Will likely sink any edit request it is added into, as it has been stated that it looks like SK-N is speaking for the rest of the Carribean region. I no longer support keeping this as part of the proposal. We may be able to work it in in some way stating a "lack of response by the Carribean" or something like that.
Balkan History "School Lesson": Best case is to have it summarized as per Mareklug's last point above. Will also likely sink any edit request as-is.
27 March MFA Consultation meeting: Probably the most useable, agreed-upon statement in the proposal. The most important thing is that it has a date on it.
Try this on for size, this may need some fine-tuning:
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[1]The St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has authored an opinion piece on the islands' official website considering the historical context, world reaction, and lack of official Carribean reaction to this issue.[2] ||
If this is unacceptable, we should go with the minimal statement which would allow for the greatest consensus. This means just the first sentence and reference detailing the meeting at the SK-N MFA. Will be busy the next couple of days, so plenty of time before I would make the edit request. I am in favor of a statement at the minimum or something as worded above. If consensus is reached before Sunday, please post a new edit request for me.
Could you please justify the obfuscation you employed? What exactly is the reason for your "no longer supporting" quoting the MFA verbatim, for maximum transparency? The editor who asserted that St. Kitts-Nevis speaks for other countries did so sloppily (he referred to a "PM" -- no Prime Minister is in evidence anywhere -- and this characterization simply went unexamined. I wish to see it discussed. As I already wrote, the MFA is reporting, not standing in for, other regional diplomatic traffic. Their opinion, since we have no reason to doubt their impartiality or, gack, integrity, should be straightforwardly used as any other high-grade expert source subject to verifiability policies of WIkipedia. The self-censorship going on here simply puzzles me. --Mareklugtalk16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the fine tuning it obviously needed:
|-
| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[3]The St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has authored an opinion piece on the islands' official website considering the historical context, world reaction, and significantly asserted: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."[4] ||
|-
There you go. Any selective censoring of what they said in order to alter the meaning or its significance (to appease partizan editors?) would be WP:OR and worse. Please! Let's not tinker with evidence. --Mareklugtalk16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm I am thinking that we perhaps ought to go with the most basic statement and continue to debate the rest of this. We can always go in and add it later. It is quite important to show a reaction from SK-N, and just saying that it has been discussed by the MFA is fine enough for me. Something is better than nothing. I justify leaving out the Carribean recognition statement because we must reach consensus, and that will undoubtedly hold up obtaining one at this time. Ajbenj (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
We're not on a deadline -- this reasoning has been invoked across the aisle, so to speak. Plus, admin User:Happy-mellon has exhibited a track record of truly warp-speed bold edits. Perhaps we shall see another one in that series, in this case, as well. --Mareklugtalk18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with compromise. The so-called compromise leaves out this crucial bit of wording from the St. Kitts & Nevis Foreign Ministry: ""the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." Also I do not believe that this: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence." is worth mentioning because it's false information as Cuba, a Caribbean state, has voiced their opinion on Kosovo. --Tocino17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please back up your extraordinary claim that St. Kitts-Nevis has disseminated "false information". We only know of a journalistic endeavor, authored by Fidel Castro, on the subject of Kosovo's independence, but no "formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo's declaration of independence" by Cuba. However, perhaps you have some sources that have not been presented yet? Please present them, so that we can examine your claim on its merits. --Mareklugtalk18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fidel is a foreign policy advisor and his essay constitutes a formal statement, therefore St. Kitts-Nevis's claim that no Caribbean state has made a formal statement on Kosovo is incorrect. --Tocino18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not backing up your extraordinary claim of "false information". It is merely original research on your part. You are making an inference not supported by any verifiable means. You have yet to produce a single source that suggests this. In fact, no source suggests it, of the sources you have inserted just now by means of an editprotect. One of them is in, I think, Catalan, but I can't say for sure. I can vaguely make out some of its content. Can you please tell me what it says? Does it say that Castro's essay constitutes a fromal statement (of Cuba)? If so, I will have to concede. If not, OR content needs to be removed from the article, and replaced with content that is actually supported by sources. But first you need to tell us what the strange language source you used says. The plain English ones only let on that Castro will be providing guidance and write articles and continue to head the Communist party, I looked. And this: "The national assembly gave Raul permission to consult Fidel on major state matt\
Disagree with sliced version missing information that was here before which now also includes SKN "reaction" on behalf of other states.--Avala (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"On behalf of other states" is a misrepresentation of what SKN did. SNK, apart from providing its reaction, also served regional news, and as a center of diplomacy in the Carribean, its news should be regarded as expert and authoritative, therefore, reliable, and citable. Whereas missing information can be added, but in this case, it is completely pointless, since it constitutes a mini-essay on the history of the Balkans, and not a reaction. We are not posting essays by Slovenian minstry or Zambian government on the history of Balkan conflicts, so why should we start with St. Kitts-Nevis? Such passages are irrelevant content, lobbying for their presence, I suggest, is being used by editors to obfuscate dropping the real hard news: that no Carribean state as of the time of writing that SKN report recognized or rejected independent Kosovo. And you had no qualms about making Serbia's Foreign Ministry REALLY SPEAK ON BEHALF OF Libya. That edit of yous continues to shame our article in its locked form, while you use it to justify coloring Libya red on Commons maps, without any other source for Libya ever uncovered. So, the inconsistency of your edit justifications and edits themselves is galling in the extreme and reveals a profound lack of impartiality. --Mareklugtalk22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you both want something neither side will accept. Perhaps this would be sufficient:
European Parliament recognises Kosovo, but the EU doesn't - edit request
New proposal, its more clear, the European Parliament recognises Kosovo. However the EU doesn't. The European Parliment needed a 2/3 majority to recognise, which it has. The EU does not recognise Kosovo yet as 7 of its members currently don't recognise Kosovo. So here is my new proposal
| European Parliament || On 30 May2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution.[1][2]
|-
European Parliament has no authority to recognize any state, only EU members can recognize states. [3] Same story like with EU. Also in those links we can only see opinion of couple of Parliament members, not the official statement of parliament. I would suggest some kind of compromise to be inserted.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Igor, you seem not to understand that European states in the European Union are independend in their foreign politics unlike American states in the United States of America. So there is no contradiction that some European states in the European Union do not recognize but the European parliament does. And the European parliament did as a matter of fact! --Tubesship (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Tubesship is correct. We are not talking about the EU but the European Parliament. EU would require unanimous consent, EP only requires 2/3 majority, which has been achieved and the EP has recognized Kosovo. That means that when the European Parliament deals with Kosovo, it will deal with it in the capacity of an independent state. Any opposition from countries in the minority, like Greece or Spain, would be overturned because 2/3 majority dictates the policy of EP. Exo (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If the EU states are independent in foreign politics, and EU has no formal constitution, so EU cannot have a foreign politics of its own. IMO some "survey" on a current "roll-call" of self-proclaimed "European" Parliament (which doesn't include all European countries nor has a constition) shouldn't have even any importance in this article, not to say jurisdiction on recognizing a country. But then again the inclusions on statements of various sports associations, in this article are disputable also.
Further, the sources provided state that 2/3 majority supports the plan, no wording about recognition. As far as I have found this eYugoslavia exists since July 2007 - are they notable and trustworthy enough for even such claims? Who counted this votes (if there were votes), are there any other confimrations of this votings?
And moreover, as far the Kacin's words are concerned, it is his interpretation that raising flags means recognition. Is there any document, transcript or such from the meeting of EP MPs and Kosovo MPs for recognition"? Does raising flags necessarilly mean recognition of independent state? IMHO, these are only interpretations from some politicians. --Biblbroks's talk23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the "INTERNATIONAL REACTION..." and the EU parliament falls under this category whether it has a constitution or not, it is a supernatural union of states. The EP is a directly elected parliament, you guess who elects the beuracrats. The sport section should be included because WP is not a paper encyclepedia and therefore we are not in a limit, we have seen not just Kosova but other sporting events (Olympics) where sports have been used as a political tool...some international sports such as FIFA are not allowing Kosova to compete just because of political reasons; this constitutes a reaction. Furthermore the EP with a 2/3 vote recognized Rep. of Kosova and they hoisted the flag of Kosovo, another reaction. Now, since this source is neither pro-Kosovar or pro-Serb we have to assume good faith. This is why I am for this change. Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that Kosova2008. The fact the EP does not cover all of Europe is utterly irrelevant; neither does the EU, and that's mentioned in the article. The fact that it doesn't have a constitution is utterly irrelevant; neither does the United Kingdom, and that's mentioned in the article. Bazonka (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I will abstain from deciding this edit request as I have an opinion about this matter. The European Parliament does have the power to recognize a country's independence (and this is obvious as otherwise it wouldn't have been able to recognize Kosovo's). Now the effects of this recognition are definitely not like a sovereign state's recognition and will probably only affect the European Parliament itself and its actions. But still, it will result in some implications. For example, the European Parliament will from now on allow the prime minister of the Republic of Kosovo to address the plenary and be effectively recognized by the parliament as the prime minister of that republic. Also, from now on, whenever the European Parliament refers to Serbia it won't be including Kosovo anymore. Etc. This edit request is necessary and thus I agree with it. Húsönd02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement and the good reason you gave for your decision. I am stunned about the arguments of the opposers as if it makes reality undone by claiming that the reality is not supposed to be, like the parliament is not supposed/allowed to recognize. Whether they are allowed/authorized or not, they did it! And it should be mentioned that they did it as it is a matter of fact that they did it. What some people seems not to understand is the role of the legislative: They make the rules as they make the laws! This is, what a legislation does! And exactly this is the European parliament! --Tubesship (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree This is because over two thirds of the European Unions elected MEPs (Member of European Parliament) voted to recognise Kosovo. This has nothing to do with which EU states recognised Kosovo, but how the MEPs voted. Since 2/3s voted to recognise, this is notable information, which should be added. This was a democratically done. The result was to recognise Kosovo, Greece and Spain opposed, but there was nothing they could do as it was democratically conducted in the Parliament.
Here is another example of the European Parliament recognising a country with out each individual member doing so themselves, the same happened when Montenegro became independent, the Parliament recognised it before every member did. See this hereIjanderson977 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I would be far more confident in the encyclopedic quality of this edit, if we could source it to European Parliament's own news release. Then we would have the benefit of it coming from the horse's mouth, with important details, such as how many voted for and how many against. For example, this news release in the matter of Kosovo from March of last year does this: "MEPs strongly back Martti Ahtisaari's proposal on Kosovo, call for it to be put under "supervised sovereignty"", European Parliament, 28 March2007. Link accessed 2008-05-31. As is, we are sourcing it to only the http://eyugoslavia.yu/ and http://blic.co.yu/ . We could do better. Also, European Commissioner from Finland has spoken on the matter of EP acting vs. EU policy, and that quote should probably be condensed and included for fair and contextualized complete reporting's sake:
“
European Commissioner Olli Rehn said Thursday that he does not agree with European Parliament members who have said the body recognized Kosovo as an independent state by displaying the flag of the self-proclaimed "independent Kosovo," Beta reported Friday.
Rehn said the European Commission "is working on the basis of joint decisions by the European Union" and the commission has "no authority to recognize any state." He said recognizing states is a matter to be decided by EU member countries.
However, he said the European Parliament can act "at its own discretion" within its own structures, such as the display of the Kosovo flag at a meeting between European Parliament representatives and the Kosovo Assembly.
Mareklug, the only solution would be to write a short letter with a simple question regarding European Parliaments position towards Kosova. I would do it but my english is not good enough so I propose you do it. I thank you in advance in the name of all Wikipedians. --Tubesship (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Tubesship, if, as you say, this is the only solution, then there is no confirmation for the recognition of Kosovo by European Parliament. Furthermore, if my words are read carefully, it can be concluded that I haven't said that EP voting shouldn't be included in the article's entries. My words, however, could be understood as if I questioned EP's jurisdiction on such matter as the Kosovo's independence is. Yet this can be regarded as my own perspective of such matters (as it probably is), but this is the consequence of readability and encyclopedic value of this article, since it appears to me that this is becoming more and more as some kind of a scoreboard. What I wanted to say is what some editors came to understand while others refuse or can't. And that is that the credibility of EP's recognition is questionable. All the provide sources have said on this issue, is that the flag was raised and the 2/3 majority supported a plan, not recognition. As it can be understood, these sources aren't official documents of the EP. Although the title of the news excerpts could induce such a conclusion (We have recognized independence), this is referred to raising flags at the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament, and again this is regarded only as Kacin's interpretation. Further in the article is said somethin different though, Podimata said, “It is not in our jurisdiction to decide on the status of Kosovo as an independent state.” and ..deputies of European Parliament and representatives of Kosovo Parliament requested that ‘the EULEX authority is deployed in the whole territory of Kosovo’ and distanced themselves from the deputies of the EP that disputed unilaterally proclaimed Kosovo independence..
I propose that the wording for this news should be different (if any inclusion should be done) - something like: Raising of Kosovo's flag at the meeting of ... has been interpreted by some politicians as a step towards recognition of Kosovo's independence by the European parliament. --213.198.219.189 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) --Biblbroks's talk15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree - EP Recognized Kosovo. We are not here to discuss the legaliy of actions, just to report them, as long as they come from governmental or intergovernmental bodies. It doesn't matter whether or not the EP's decision carries any legal weight in the EU or elsewhere, that is irrelevant. The article has many sourced reactions from things like sports and religious oganizations, so I don't see what is wrong with quoting a high governmental body in Europe, it´s not as if anyone is trying to imply the EU recognized or that this action somehow settles the Kosovo issue once and for all. No, this is just a legitimate story pertinent to the article. If an intergovernmental oganization rejected Kosovo independence, I would support quoting them also.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that EP even did not discussed this issue. Officially they only putted flag. EP is not a body that would do such action as recognize some country when it is out of their jurisdiction. We only have interpretation of flag action by some EP members. There was no voting on recognition of Kosovo, like some are suggesting. Plus giving some 2/3 results. I agree that this event is important and should be in article, but it should be putted properly.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As requested by Tubesship, I wrote a letter of inquiry to PE via their web interface for Correspondence with Citizens. I told them who and why is asking, and told them of this discussion and requested official info as to any vote and ramifications of this PE event for PE activity. In view of claims that there was no vote, we should probaly remove the editprotect template as hopeless and seek better sourcing, monitoring the PE website, while we await any contact from them. -Mareklugtalk17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
@ -Biblbroks there was voting. My MER took part and voted for recognition of Kosovo. Therefore your opposition is groundless. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, sources on voting for recognition aren't yet provided. Neither is any source for recognition by the European Parliament provided. My opposing vote is based purely on that. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done If and when primary sources from the European Parliament are found or become available, they should be added; however the secondary sources provided are acceptable, and there appears to be sensible consensus for this edit. Happy‑melon16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a bad joke! There are no news on the official homepage of the european parliament for recognition of kosovo. And you have just 2 secendary sources which are from further Yugoslavia. If I understood right it was just a voting needed to put this unconfirmed and probably not true news online in the wiki. I think its absolutely wrong to put it in as long there is no officially confirmation. Seader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.209.51 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you, but im not going to argue with you as i am not willing to waste my time on an anonymous user, who doesn't even bother to sign his comments. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I signed it with Seader, tahts my name. I am not a registered user of the english wiki. So I am not anonymous. But you still dont habe to argue because I see here are too many people which believe almost everything without an officiall confirmation. On the officiall Homepage of the european parliament is no confirmation for this. And dont you think that if the european parliament would decide something like that, there would be a press release? Of course there would be, but there is nothing like that. Seader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.249.106 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
| European Parliament || On 30 May2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution.[4][5]
with
| European Parliament || During an inter-parliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the Kosovo assembly on 28 May2008 the Kosovo delegation appeared under the flag of independent Kosovo. This has been interpreted by some, including Jelko Kacin, the EP reporter for Serbia, as the parliament's recognition of Kosovo's independence. However, there has been no official statement from the European Parliament itself.[6][7]
I believe these secondary sources are not acceptable, at least not as the entry currently reads. We can't say the EP recognized independence without any real, official sources or statements or something from the EP as a whole and not a few of it's members or officials. As i get it there was no vote, it was just a joint interparliamentary session or something, not a full session of the EP. There was a vote on Ahtisaari's plan some time ago and it passed, but that's something wholly different, whatever Doris Pack says. The plan didn't mention unilateral independence, i'm sure.
Further, are we sure the EP can even 'recognize' the independence in the real meaning of it? Not 'treat Kosovo as a independent state in it's dealings' (maybe 'de facto recognition') but officially recognize? I believe those are rather different things and we should distinguish them. Is the EP technically even a international organisation? I would rather say it's an institution of an another organisation, the EU. Can individual institutions recognize a state? Even if they can, should we use the term 'recognize'? Neozeks (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not done This sort of thing requires the consensus of other editors. Please make the request again when there is consensus to change the references. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)13:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Despite what that article says, I am pretty sure that Montenegro is recognized by every country in the world. Once they got into the UN all of those African, Asian, and South American nations recognized, but it just didn't make the news. --Tocino18:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that article is that when it was created/ edited, not all the recognitions made it to the article as a lot of the recognition texts were in Montenegrin and the editors couldn't read Montenegrin so this made things hard. Also it was harder to find media sources too as they didn't make a big fuss about a country recognising Montenegro like the media has with Kosovo. So the number of recognitions is much higher than 96. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just saw that article (first time), it looks sloppy. Tocino you mentioned that once you join UN you get full recognition, that's not quite exactly true. Even though Montenegro is a UN member State it doesn't talk to a lot of member States at all, their foreign relations are only those 96 countries and at best 20 embassies (continued contact).--Kosova2008 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are members of the UN, yet it is painfully clear that S. Arabia doesn't recognize Israel. So no, you don't become automatically recognized when you join the UN. alchaemia (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and I never said that every country automatically gets recognized by everyone else whenever they first enter the UN. I said that Montenegro probably got recognized by every country when they entered because their membership is not controversial. --Tocino17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no "probably" about it - states don't get automatically recognized by their membership in the UN. Otherwise Palestine would be recognized by all, and Israel wouldn't have any problems with Arab recognition. --alchaemia (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me try to explain again. Montenegro probably is recognized by every country because their membership is not controversial. Serbia does not object, no one objects to Montnegrin independence. Israel is controversial on the other hand because... well, we all know the history there in the Middle East. Kosovo is controversial because Serbia and vast majority of nations object. You must evaluate each case on its own merits and the evaluation on Montenegro is that it's not controversial therefore there is no reason not to recognize it upon its entrance into the U.N. --Tocino05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh again because you have it all wrong. The "vast majority of nations [DONT] object" to the liberalization of Kosova from the Serbian occupators because they simply don't care. The main players who actually care to even bother to prick their opinion are Serbian ally (mainly Russia); they are a handful at best. The real controversy is that the independence of Kosova was spearheaded by America which has a lot of heat with Muslim and non-democratic nations, and Serbia's arrogance to move on, therefore, [Serbia] causing mayhem just to "prove" to the world that "independence will lead to destabilization in the world and will open pandora's box" (quote from FM of serbia). Honestly, Kosova does not need all 192 UN member States, it just needs plentiful of close allies...for example, why would a Kosovar care about Zimbabwe or Mongolia? Whether we join the UN today, tomorrow, or in five years is irrelevant to our interests...our goals are united in the quest for EU membership, the IMF, and other international institutions that can bring positive change towards our economy and living standards. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So you didn't care when Burkina Faso and Marshall Islands recognized? Anyway, this section is about Montenegro, a fully-recognized, independent nation with U.N. membership that, along with the vast majority of nations, does not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. --Tocino 06:27, 7 June 2008 9UTC)
I understand there was motion (editprotect) to change "unanimous" to "unopossed" --- if you follow the discussion neither option reached a consensus was reached...why was this deleted?
Secondly, whomever edited the "unanimous" felt the need to rewrite the introduction and also felt obliged to right "Kosovan" --- the word used for the people of Kosova (Rep. of Kosovo) is Kosovar. All these changes took place under no voting or discussions, I can't say I agree with this.--Kosova2008 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
First, consensus is required to make a change, not to keep the article the same. There was not consensus to change it, so it remains as is. Second, my understanding, and I might be wrong, is, "Kosovar" is a noun, "Kosovan" is an adjective. A Kosovan person is a Kosovar. Also, "Kosovar" refers specifically to a person from Kosovo, whilst "Kosovan" is anything in general having to do with Kosovo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me be of technical assistance. The last diffs where the edit was opposed at the time it was made are chronologically as follows (and Ari can indicate which ones are galling him):
After that comes your own (Revolving Bugbear) edit and its self-revert. That's it, as of the time of this writing. Hope this helps. --Mareklugtalk08:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposed'. It is completely unclear why this new source is being used, as it says diametrically opposed content. The only place in the omnibus listing of parliamentary motions that the source represents, where "Kosovo" occurs under search, is this:
S3M-1373 George Foulkes: Kosovo—That the Parliament believes that Kosovo is now safe and stable because of the NATO-led campaign in 1999 after aggressions there resulted in the death of around 10,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 ethnic Serbians; remembers that Alex Salmond described this action as "misguided policy" and "unpardonable folly"; believes that the conclusive action of the Labour-led UK Government helped to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the Balkans, further loss of life and a humanitarian crisis; considers that it is in part because of this decisive action in stark contrast to the SNP’s defeatist approach at the time that we see Kosovans celebrating independence in the streets of Pristina waving Union Jacks and American flags; further believes that the international intervention took place because of the atrocities against an ethnic minority within Serbia, not in order to free an oppressed nation from occupation; accepts that unilateral independence for Kosovo was not the ideal solution, and considers that the celebratory tone of Aileen Campbell’s motion, S3M-1363, is misguided at best and political opportunism in the extreme.
Please justify, why we should source with the above the Wikipedia content of:
After actually examining this noncontroversial edit, I find it to be rather bewilderingly false. The actual item needs to be sourced properly, or removed. Sourcing the claim to something completely opposite is irresponsible editing, perhaps even vandalism. And assenting to it blindly is negligence. --Mareklugtalk21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear Mareklug, in your quest to oppose every single edit request of mine, you've completely missed the section in the new proposed source which reads:
S3M-1363 Aileen Campbell: Kosovan Independence—That the Parliament congratulates Kosova on achieving her independence; notes that the will of the people of Kosova has prevailed; fully recognises Kosova as a member of the international community; believes that independence in Europe is the normal state for European nations, and further believes that there should to be a future for both Kosova and Serbia within the European Union.
Supported by: Christine Grahame, Bill Wilson, Christina McKelvie, Kenneth Gibson, Sandra White, Robin Harper, Rob Gibson, Bill Kidd, Alex Neil, Dave Thompson, Alasdair Allan, Bashir Ahmad, Jamie Hepburn, Gil Paterson, Michael Matheson*
Thank you for identifying another part (not containing the string "Kosovo") of a huge text file you used as source. This helps. Namely, it shows that there are two Scottish parliament acts, one for (S3M-1363), and one criticizing (S3M-1373). I suggest that your editprotect request, which indeed would replace a source that is no longer accessible, be augmented to reflect this complex reality. Also, the two numbered motions should be so numbered in the Wikipedia write-up, so that readers have a prayer of a chance of finding them in the unwieldy swath of legislative agenda reprinted in the news source. Which as you can see, is nontrivial. The Scottish reaction is more complex than what Wikipedia portrays. Weren't you the editor who added this item in the first place? Please craft an edit request that relfects both motions, or at least acknowledges the second one. Are there others? --Mareklugtalk22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ever heard of control + F before? You know this obstructing of yours is not helping the article any. Now we just have a bunch of rotten links thanks to you. Congratulations, you have now blocked three straight edit requests! --Tocino23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
On my computer control-F advances the cursor one character forward. It does so on millions of computers. What are you trying to say? Perhaps you should fix the editprotect already, and in the future, desist from misleading editors and administrators with phrases such as "link maintenance" when you are pulling a switcheroo on sources. It matters. You have concealed reverts when this article was unprotected. Please refrain from covert/stealth/unobvious operations. Wikipedia values tranparency, and acting otherwise is simply inconsiderate and harms the project. Sourcing in other languages, incidentally, calls for describing the source's language. Another bit of required considerate behavior. --Mareklugtalk18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Control + F = Find option. Ohh and please read the words of Admin:Revolving Bugbear: "No condescending". This means no lectures about the virtues of WP. I am quite familiar with the rulebook. --Tocino05:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You've brought this up before, that we don't need to list the responses of political parties. But this edit request isn't about political parties and whether they belong or not, it's about fixing dead links. --Tocino00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Scottish, what does it mean to "lodge a motion"? Nonetheless if the sources contain similar information than this editprotect should be okay unless the new source does not concur with country entry. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Scottish languages sound very different from English and to "lodge a motion" is perfect English. Lodging a motion means to start a petition or to make a note of something, but the phrase ";lodge a motion" is almost always used in politics or a congressional setting. --Tocino16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I just read source 44, it doesn't say what the entry says. This isn't really "link maintenance" as the heading says. I can't say I agree until a better source is presented. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read enough.... copied word for word from source 44... S3M-1363 Aileen Campbell: Kosovan Independence—That the Parliament congratulates Kosova on achieving her independence; notes that the will of the people of Kosova has prevailed; fully recognises Kosova as a member of the international community; believes that independence in Europe is the normal state for European nations, and further believes that there should to be a future for both Kosova and Serbia within the European Union.
A short and sweet version of the above would be: Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament that congratulated Kosovo on its decision to separate from Serbia.
Here is what source 44 reads, "S3M-1373 George Foulkes: Kosovo—That the Parliament believes that Kosovo is now safe and stable because of the NATO-led campaign in 1999 after aggressions there resulted in the death of around 10,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 ethnic Serbians; remembers that Alex Salmond described this action as "misguided policy" and "unpardonable folly"; believes that the conclusive action of the Labour-led UK Government helped to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the Balkans, further loss of life and a humanitarian crisis; considers that it is in part because of this decisive action in stark contrast to the SNP’s defeatist approach at the time that we see Kosovans celebrating independence in the streets of Pristina waving Union Jacks and American flags; further believes that the international intervention took place because of the atrocities against an ethnic minority within Serbia, not in order to free an oppressed nation from occupation; accepts that unilateral independence for Kosovo was not the ideal solution, and considers that the celebratory tone of Aileen Campbell’s motion, S3M-1363, is misguided at best and political opportunism in the extreme."
Your Copy and Paste mentions "congratulates Kosova", your edit is "kosovo"..I'd ask that if you are going to change the entry you cite it as mentioned such as "...congratulates Kosova (kosovo)", you can't just simply add a "kosovo" just because you refuse to use the name that 99% of the Kosovars call it. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you scroll down about 3/4ths of the page you will find the section which mentions the congratulatory motion by Aileen Campbell. And the reason why Kosovo is used is because that is what the rest of the article, and all of Wikipedia for that matter, uses. I am not trying to change anything from the current article besides fixing a dead link. The same wording is still there. --Tocino06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct way to present this entry is "...congratulates Kosova (Kosovo)." Whomever wrote the entry felt the need to change Kosova-->Kosovo because he/she has a problem with the A. Kosova2008 (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ari, Tocino added Scotland. You can search his contributions for "Scotland" and it shows on the 2nd 500-entry page, when drilling down from the latest contribution. Here is the diff diff ("added Scotland"). Tocino, please explain to us why you falsified the source. Furthermore, this falsification, albeit on the surface congruent with common English naming, made it impossible to find this item, one of hundreds in this document, in the source, per evidence above. Had you included indentifying information as to the lodged motion, as we have done in this discussion thread, falsifying the source would not have significant consequences. But it does. You asked: Haven't you heard of control+F? What binding of control+F, please tell us, allows one to search for text which does not exist, becaue the editor edited out the string that could be found? Here we have a case where writing lies in the article has consequences that only became apparent when we examined "link maintenance", "non-controversial edit". You said that you have no intention to change the content, you just want to fix a broken link. There appears to be far more to fix than that. --Mareklugtalk11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The original source used Kosovo. And even if it did use Kosova I would've corrected it to Kosovo because Kosova is uncommon in the English language, only used by people with a strong pro-Kosovo Albanian POV. --Tocino16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't assume good faith on you, you are clearly falsifying sources for your own personal agenda. These edits are not "non-contreversial" but VERY controversial and need to be examined much more carefully. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't assume good faith in a user named: Kosova2008. Clearly you have a strong bias and we need to examine your contributions more closely. --Tocino22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My contributions are providing sources and such, I have NEVER edited this article nor do I plan on doing so; but you feel free to review ANYTHING you want. I'm not standing here A)falsifying sources B)unable to respond on a talk page leading to C) cluttering the talk-page with chit-chat Kosova2008 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) How about both of you stop with the personal attacks? And Kosova, don't go complaining to WP:ANI when things don't go your way. If there's nothing more, I'll archive this section manually. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I was told by the Admin that that's all I could do, even though he took it as his job to delete and rewrite parts of the article with no consensus and no support from the community. I took his advice and used it against him at WP:ANI. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
the activity in discussion will be lower now as we are watching UEFA EURO 2008 but always watching teams and asking, did this country recognized Kosovo? Like today: Swiss vs. Czech Republic, they both recognized so we can cheer for both of them :) --82.114.94.21 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Jo ende (no not yet). When it happens WP will add it quickly, but Saudia Arabia most likely won't recognize in months if not a year or two. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please add to the UN Members subsection's table under states that do not recognize or have not decided:
|-| Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[1]|||-
Done Though I've formatted it with the rest of them. Is there a pressing reason to have it formatted in a different way? (If there is, editprotect it again and I'll spot it). Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. I said beofre. that having two identically-titled sections would bite us sooner or later -- and it did now. Yes, there is a reason, Peter. The item should go under UN Members of the states that do not recognize or have not decided, not the UN Members of the states that have formally recognized. The former ones live in a table without ordinal numbering/ It is the states that have recognized that sport a table with ordinal numberng, but the order there is chronological by act of recognition, not alphabetical, so #34 for St. Kitts-Nevis would not be correct, even had we been adding St. Kitts-Nevis to the recognizing states. The nonrecognizing states or those still deciding are lodged in a section furhter down the page, and these are kept alphabetically, since they lack a time component. So, yes, this needs fixing. Thank you. --Mareklugtalk09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, I want to get St. Kitts' reaction on this article. But with the system the way it is, it's really hard to make changes and once an entry is added it's almost there for good. So let's get this one right before we submit it. Now, I think that the editorializing from SKN is important and it belongs in the reaction. Also, I do not believe SKN speaks on behalf of other nations, so when they say no one else has made a statement, that is overstepping their bounds. It also doesn't help matters that they are factually incorrect as Cuba has made a statement.
--Tocino19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@Tocino Instead of beating down the opposition by repeating the same assertions, please direct your eyes slightly above, and do at last reply substantively. It looks like you're engaging in OR, as was the editor who included Cuba in the first place. But the place to discuss it is several inches north.
@Ajbenj I agree to the skeletal SKN entry you prepared last. We can reuse this source on Cuba under separate cover, or in a discussion that will remove Cuba altogether, or relegate it to there having been a notable individual reaction in Cuba. For St. Kitts-Nevis itself, what you proposed is sufficient, if incomplete. I support adding it like so, and took the liberty making the ref tag reusable: <ref name="SKN April 2008">. --Mareklugtalk22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the ref tag reusable! =) Still as lot I need to remember or get better at when writing code... I don't think enough people have chimed in yet on this, so I will hold off on a new editrequest at this time. Ajbenj (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Any more opinions on the last, shorter proposal above? We need a wider sampling of positions on this one. When (if) we get to something good, should I post it as a new editrequest, or go above and add on to my original one, to cancel out the first editrequest? Ajbenj (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Well, it looks like Wikipedia has gone and done an RTK and announced the recognition of Kosovo by St Kitts & Nevis! Marvellous. Hopefully no other media sources have picked up on this, or we'll look like right idiots.
This is just utterly wrong and needs to be put right immediately! It seems that this is a major cock-up by an admin.
Uncontroversial. (It's controversial to leave it where it is.)
Remove St Kitts & Nevis from the "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" section. Make the edit as proposed above (with the text about the consultative committee) in the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" section. Bazonka (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Done I don't understand what was racist about it before, but I've alphabetized it nonetheless. --CapitalR (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ghana || The position of Ghana is that it "would be guided by consultations through the United Nations (UN) system", and that they wish "the best for Serbia to attain genuine peace and stability". [1]||
Ukraine || The President stated that Ukraine's position on the situation is first of all following national interests and international law. He emphasised that Ukraine's position proceeds from the opinion that the decision on recognising Kosovo or not requires timing for most of the world's countries. "We proceed from hope that resources of regulation through talks have not been yet exhausted."[1] The Ministry of Foreign affairs stated that "The multilateral mechanisms, such as EU, OSCE, UN, should play an important role."[2] On the other hand, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs, Oleh Bilorus, said: "Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo".[3]
||
|-
Not done for now - no consensus. Happy‑melon 11:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Slovenia[1] || 2008-03-05 ||Mission of Slovenia in Prishtina[2]
EU member state
Done. Uncontroversial. Please note here if you disagree. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 13:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Italy[1][2] || 2008-02-21 ||Italian Office in Prishtina[3] || 
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence 
Denmark[1] || 2008-02-21 || || 
Morocco || Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March 2008.[1]||
Iraq || During a visit with the Serbian Ambassador, Iraqi Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Labeed Abbawi stated Iraq's support for UN principles regarding non-interference in internal affairs and the rights of minorities.[1] ||
Done Removed non-reaction from reaction section.--Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
San Marino[1] || 2008-05-11 ||
Done. Someone please update the map. Thanks. Húsönd 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Albania[1][2][3] || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Albania in Prishtina from 19 February 2008[4]
Croatia[8]|| 2008-03-19 || Liaison Office of Croatia in Prishtina [9] ||EU candidate country
Not done – {{editprotected}} is for use once everyone agrees on changes to be made to the article. Add another editprotected once there's consensus for a particular change. Cheers, Nihiltres{t.l} 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Czech Republic[1] || 2008-05-21 || || 
EU member state
Czech Republic[1] || 2008-05-21 || Ambassador to Kosovo from 22 May 2008[2] || 
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Qatar not done -- without any commitment as to whether or not I agree, there is a strenuous, concrete objection. Discuss further if you like, or revive this proposal when a new source is available.
Bulgaria[2]|| 2008-03-20 || Bulgarian Embassy in Pristina from 27 May[3] ||
Uruguay || 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.[1]
||
|-
Liberia[1] || 2008-05-30 || ||
|-
Estonia[1] || 2008-02-21 || ||
Sierra Leone[1] || 2008-05-31 || ||
|-
Edit declined. There's no consensus (yet) for this addition. Sandstein 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Georgia || Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this".[1][2][3]
![[47]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg){kind=link}
![[48]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg){kind=link}
Saint Kitts and Nevis || According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the official website of St. Kitts and Nevis, "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence.... But the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [1] ||
Saint Kitts and Nevis || On 27 March Kosovo's declaration of independence was discussed at a meeting of St. Kitts & Nevis' Foreign Affairs Consultative Committee. It is "to be researched for fuller examination in future meetings".[4] According to an opinion piece authored by the St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "the feud between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo date back to the 7th century and it would be naïve to expect the conflict will be resolved overnight. The issues relating to territory, sovereignty, religion, ethnicity and minority rights are intricate to the fracas in the Balkans." [5] ||
Done If and when primary sources from the European Parliament are found or become available, they should be added; however the secondary sources provided are acceptable, and there appears to be sensible consensus for this edit. Happy‑melon 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)