Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Slovakia states once again it's against independence for Kosovo

Slovakia stated once again it's ruling out recognition of Kosovo, after a meeting in Pristina between Slovakian Foreign Minister Jan Kubiš and Fatmir Sejdiu. Here's the link [[1]].--Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We have had that news already today Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean President of the Republic of Kosova Fatmir Sejdiu? Kosova2008 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@Top Gun: Thank you for posting a link to B92.net article, titled: "Slovak FM rules out recognition of Kosovo". Its own text does not bear out the title (Slovakia is officially still deciding, and the text harks to Slovakia's position remaining unchanged). This is yet another case showing off why Belgrade loyalists have gained control of at least the website, and this source is unreliable and of no encyclopedic value. The text of this article is skewed towards what the Minister said that is agreeable to Serbia, omitting the quotes we have seen in other sources, and is overly representative of Kosovo Serbian quotes. Classic skew. Very helpful to document, though. --Mareklug ^talk 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh the skew story is back. Of course you don't explain how could they have the same quotes as others in the news article regarding the event that happened before those reported in other media that you are talking about. --Avala (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that we couldnt use newspaper sites as sources Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can. In Internet era reports are transparent, they can't be hidden and stashed. Media houses that would get involved with "skewing" of information would very soon get discredited by international organizations and community (and Wikipedia editors are not competent to make these decisions obviously).--Avala (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Obviously you are right in so far as anyone insisting on sourcing an anti-Kosovo foreign policy purportedly of some third sovereign state to Serbian Foreign Ministry and Serbian State TV is a clear indication of collosal incompetence as Wikipedia editor. You got that much right. --Mareklug ^talk 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

During your chase on the colossal incompetence you could have also noticed that I am not discrediting any sources and that all should be judged on case-by-case basis. Of course if the source is saying some country decided not to recognize Kosovo independence you throw sticks and stones at it (even if the news article in question is very thorough and followed by media files) but if the source is about some country that decided to recognize of course you didn't jib from using it even if it was a one liner news from the website called New Kosova Report. --Avala (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i think we should use this video, its a very useful source and relevant to the article [2] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just mentioning, that Slovakia will participate in Eulex. This is rather notable (since Spain will not). Gugganij (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed Libya edit request

Currently Libya's position is sourced to Serbian Foreign Ministry and a broken link to Serbian State Television. My asking the editor who did this (who provided the sources without attribution, dates, last access dates, or language used in the case of Serbian-language source which is now a broken link) produced an offer to another .yu domain (Yugoslavia!) source. I think this is unacceptable.

I propose removing Libya information altogether as unsourced to Wikipedia standards. A world press account quoting Libyan government would be the minimum. This is not being provided, even today. Ergo, strike this info as unverified. --Mareklug ^talk 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Hopefully removing this works out better and stops arguments. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree -- Cradel 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Object -- The Foreign Ministry link is fine. A governmental source is acceptable as a reference on wikipedia. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree - When you used New Kosova Report it was fine. Such a media without any history and credit is fine for you but the Government isn't. It wasn't an announcement through Serbian MFA but a report after the meeting. Of course you like to present this if the article had a sentence "Libyan position is". But it doesn't. Here is what our article says:

Abdulhati Al Obeidi, Secretary for European Affairs of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, after meeting with the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremić on 17 March 2008, stated that Libya will not recognise a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. Al Obeidi said that Libya strongly supports the position of Serbia regarding Kosovo, despite the pressure from the European Union and some Islamic nations to recognise, and that Libya considers the unilateral declaration of independence illegal. Al Obeidi stated that Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi considers the UN Security Council to be the only place where the Kosovo problem can be solved the right way.

Obviously the bolded part explains how and when this was said.

Can you give us the link for Libyan MFA so we can try to find a report there?

Can you give us a link of the Libyan Government website so we can try to find a report there? You can't because they don't even have a Government in a Western sense, they have a People's Committee which has a website in Arabic.

Hiding information that you dislike under disguise of NPOV while the article clearly says how, when and where the statement was made is malicious and I can't assume good faith here, sorry. Media houses that would get involved with "skewing" of information would very soon get discredited by international organizations and community (and Wikipedia editors are not competent to make these decisions obviously).

It is only you as an individual who believes that the Government completely fabricated a meeting that never took place between Serbian Foreign minister and Libyan high officials. Of course common sense tells us no one would engage in falsifying photos, statements and videos especially not a Government over such a thing and one more reason to believe our common sense logic is that Libyan government did not make a reaction to refute Serbian Government and support Mareklug in his claims of falsifications.

Please try to focus on finding new information rather than proposing removing material which I see as destructive proposal.--Avala (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Serbian government source for Libya [3]Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's the one we are using. My point is that there can be only two official sources to report on a meeting between Serbian and Libyan Foreign ministers. These two are Serbian MFA and Libyan MFA. Libyan MFA has no website at all. Obviously we are left with Serbian MFA as the only valid official source to tell about this meeting and we are using it. Can anyone possibly object on what I just wrote?--Avala (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Avala. The Libyan People's Committee on Foreign Affairs website is only in Arabic, which I don't think any of us can read, so we are defaulted to the Serbian Government's information.

I would caution everybody that to immediately disregard any Serbian governmental source is borderline tendentious malice. Serbia is not an enemy and to automatically disregard the informational output of its various organs is to betray bias, which is unseemly and unbecoming. We are starved for information - I'd take an article from Cornwall Grocer's Monthly (I made it up, but you get the idea) if it had a blurb on Kosovo. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree That latest source Bobby has presented is good, therefore we should keep Libya on the article. Its notable information, so i have withdrawn what i said earlier. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Asking a Malay speaker to translate Malaysia's official statement was dandy, but asking an Arabic-speaking admin to scan the Libyan site for Kosovo news is unthinkable. Just as unthinkable is faillure to perceive conflict of interest inherent in sourcing Serbian Foreign Ministry for what Libyans said about Kosovo. Has any of you ever bothered to read WP:VER and WP:NPOV? Do you understand what appearance of conflict of interest is? And you, Ijanderson977, your flipflopping on zero basis is just annoying. Bobby's latest source is the same source you agreed to chuck a few lines above. It's the same source Avala stuffed in the article. It's the source I want replaced with neutral sourcing, and it does not have to be from Libyan website. But it has to be beyond reproach. I am disgusted with this lack of adherance to basic principles of Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You may recall that I objected to using the Malay translation to justify removing Malaysia from the list of states recognizing. I think automatically assuming that the Serbian government information is inherently wrong and inaccurate is a mistake. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like usual as soon as you notice lack of support for your POV, you resort to personal attacks and lecturing users why they are all wrong and you are right. And regarding the first part, there is no conflict of interest when Serbian government makes a report on a visit of it's minister to a foriegn country. Using let's say Canadian news sources on this while we have an official source would be wrong because media tends to spice news up while governments make clearer reports and secondly Canadian media simply did not make a report about this visit.--Avala (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Avala's reasoning. --Tocino 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mareklug "And you, Ijanderson977, your flipflopping on zero basis is just annoying" That seems like a personnel attack. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. i may report you next timeIjanderson977 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Also per Avala's reasoning. --Top Gun 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request (contested) - upgrade source used for Nauru (last entry in first table)

Presently the source given for Nauru's recognition of Kosovo's independence is KosovaPress.com, a website in Kosovo. This is problematic and suboptimal according to WP:VER and WP:NPOV, and presently there is at least one alternative English-language source, which is not co-located with Kosovo (or Serbia) and therefore using it avoids edgendering an appearance of conflict of interest in sourcing. No one has found any transgressions or journalistic infidelity in any material published by the proposed replacement source. Sourcing Serbia or Kosovo located press or governments for positions of third countries when alternatives exist is against the best guidelines and practices of maintaining high standards of above-the-board neutrality in Wikipedia.

Please replace the Nauru sourcing reference with:

--Mareklug ^talk 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree Its not really needed. The current reference is good enough. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - you are suggesting of replacing a source called Kosova Press with a Kosova Report. Not much of a difference and this information has been approved by the Kosovo Government so it's not disputed. If you can provide a "neutral" source then fine, but it's not really necessary. I doubt Nauru will publish an official recognition text on some of their websites. Though you can try to find some of them on ICQ, considering the population of Nauru there is a great chance this person will be a Minister or related to someone who is, and ask them to publish it somewhere. The only official webpage I could find published last news in 2004. It also says Nauru has diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia is at B, and Herzegovina is at H. One more interesting fact. Not only that Nauru doesn't recognize Montenegro it recognizes Herzegovina and Bosnia as two separate countries (these two are geographic regions not ethnic btw). --Avala (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

After the first rejection of recognition in parliament, President promised it for April 17. Any news what happened yesterday and why Lithuania again failed to recognize Kosovo independence?--Avala (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking this. I was going to pose the same question today. Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to some sources I've found, Lithuanian companies are lobbying in the Parliament against the formal recognition because they have much bigger interest in Serbia than in Kosovo and they are also asking the government to open the embassy in Belgrade. And that this was the real reason behind the vote in the parliament a few weeks ago. But I can't find anything about yesterday's motion.--Avala (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show us these sources please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They are in sources regarding rejection from few weeks ago. But like I've said no news have been published regarding yesterday.--Avala (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like Lithuania needs to be moved to the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" category. --Tocino 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed At this point it isn't going anywhere.--Jakezing (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They have shown some sort of intent, as the Foreign relations committee has approved recognition and so have others in the Lithuanian govt. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo" needs to be renamed "States which have showed formal intent to recognise Kosovo". Its more suitable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is like it was before. But Mareklug allows only "States which are about to recognize". That is why the article is locked, because he doesn't allow "States which have showed formal intent to recognise Kosovo" to be in the article, he even called it "bullshit".--Avala (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. It's either about ot recognize or not. Do you have any citable new evidence that it isn't? If so, we'll add it and move it out of the category, via a single editprotect request. Else, it is about to recognize, just that it is stuck that way. --Mareklug ^talk 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Country can't be "About to do something" for two months. It's either going to do it in short time or it is not. They only way to keep Lithuania and Saudi Arabia outside of other countries that do not recognize is to call the section "States which have declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo".--Avala (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A state of about to happen can be indefinite; something can be "likely to occur at any moment" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent) to the end of time. As for your claim that "the only way to keep Lithuania and Saudi Arabia outside of other countries that do not recognize is to call the section 'States which have declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo'", we can achieve that end far easier by doing exactly nothing. :)

You don't offer a Saudi source, let alone an official Saudi source. Therefore, your demand that we classify that state as having expressed "formal intent to recognize", whatever that means, lacks any verification. If anything, Saudi position remains highly informal. Formality adds nothing to "recognition likely to occur at any moment", which is what this list helps the reader pick out from all other states. It's just a reading aid, a way to helpfully organize material, and leave it at that. --Mareklug ^talk 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, how about "States which have showed intent to recognise Kosovo" Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Mareklug, no one is questioning the section but it's poorly written name.--Avala (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania will officially recognize and will start bilateral relations with Republic of Kosovo, on Tuesday 22 April, 2008, parliament already agreed last week with producing the official recognition paper to sign in Tuesday. kushtrimxh (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As Kushtrimxh wrote, Lithuania's parliament yesterday said yes (with 62 against 5) to recognition of Kosovo. Referance is http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_sale.klaus_stadija?p_svarst_kl_stad_id=-1692 (Lithuanian only). Jakro64 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala, nobody is arguing that the states in question will not recognize Kosovo, only that the recognition isn't imminent, and the statement "about to recognize" is both leading and unnecessary, because the timeframe has proven to be highly uncertain. I don't think that rephrasing it diminishes the fact that formal intent has been issued, or that it pushes an anti-Kosovo political agenda in any way; it is a perfectly neutral compromise that states a clear and honest fact.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comments from Sergey Lavrov

Lavrov, the current Foreign Minister of Russia, said yesterday that Kosovo Albanians and their supporters "planned to persuade or force about 100 countries to recognize, but that only 37 countries had done so, while more than 50 had explicitly said that they would not." Link to comments =[4] . 50 is a lot larger than what we have here on this article. What countries are we missing? -- Tocino 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions vs Facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.122.70 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? How are they expected to persuade 100 countries when they havent even got a ministry of foreign affairs set up yet. It took over 9 years for Serbia to be recognised as itdependent from the Otoman Empire. It took over a year for Croatia and Slovenia to get a single recognition. I think Kosovo is doing rather well to stay there are many counties against it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some countries have made statements but we've missed it. He wasn't having a rant. He said 37 countries recognized. He didn't say ~35, more or less, cca. but he mentioned the exact correct number. So it brings us to a conclusion that he wasn't joking about the other one either. And he usually makes careful factual statements, much more careful than Putin for an example. So I think we should work harder to find out which countries are we missing on.--Avala (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that will only lead to speculation and edit wars. Why not leave it to the reader to conlude that 37 UN member states have recognized, the rest have not. --Camptown (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No I mean the information. He said that these 50 countries were explicit and I am not sure if we have 50 explicit statements here meaning we should look for them. --Avala (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As some dont know it yet.General assembly of the Un will be held in September.And off course, Serbia plans to sue every state and call Kosovo declaration of INDEPENDCE illegal.Because, they still believe, through their propaganda, Kosovo will not get even 50 recognitions.So, in their mind, Serbia would be the only VICTOR when the September comes, and the DECIDERS come open and play.So, what is the truth here.Thou shall, or Wont shall.Or perhaps, are we talking, about new English in here.

So, please STAY ON TRACK.And dont give FAVOURABLE Views on SOME COUNTRIES, AND PUT Some countries, into Never going to recognize Kosovo, because you dont have the supposed

And one last thing.Russia cant use VETO, when General assembly has a session and each state counts.So,that is why there is so much Russian rant, and Serbian propaganda, because they have a vision, in Serbia.Russia will Veto.Kosovo wont get 100 recognitions.Like, they dont know, Kosovo can still be a member of the Un.Well, it is a hard way.But still a member.They only need 123 recognitions.Hard.Very hard!

But it can be accomplished.So, stay Tune.And put the news first, and not propaganda.And make the right Tabulation.For now.Its 37 and counting.Shall we count to 50.Like all Serbs claim.Or shall we count to 123.Its for time to decide.Who was right.And as for propagands.You can always use Serbian wikipedia.And remember.Majority of English speaking countries did RECOGNIZE Kosovo.Just a big heads up.To some here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizlin (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Along with the majority of the worlds money. Most top powers decided to go for it and said yes to kosovo.--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of English speaking countries have not recognized Kosovo. These countries include New Zealand, South Africa, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Jamaica, and Philippines amongst others. --Tocino 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population -- second table. India has fewer native speakers of English than Germany at barely 178 thousands. In that table, we can stop counting after no. 10, Singapore, as the countries listed below it are all dominated by populations whose native language is not English, as is Singapore itself. So the majority of English-speaking countries has in fact recognized Kosovo, in particular, all countries in the top 5, Ireland being the least populous of those. The next country, South Africa, has 11 official languages and clearly is not an English-speaking country on the whole amy more than it is a Xhosa-speaking country on the whole. No English-speaking country however small has denounced the independence of Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Country doesn't have to angrily denounce Kosovo in order not to recognize it. Not everyone uses Putin rhetorics you know.--Avala (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Only 6 out of the 50 nations who have English as an official language recognize Kosovo as an independent state. English speaking countries, along with the vast majority of the international community, overwhemingly reject Kosovo Albanian separatism. --Tocino 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In moments like this, its comforting to know that this is article is locked, and that ideologically motivated disinformation is contained to its talk page.

If we counted up the English native speakers to obtain how many hundreds of millions are represented by governments (all democratic) which have officially recognized Kosovo as a state vs. the paltry thousands that live in jurisdictions that have, as of today, officially rejected the declaration of independence, we'd portray this issue fairly, painting an accurate picture. Doing so, we'd not find a single English-language spoken natively jurisdiction that is on record against the new country of Kosovo. New Zealand, a case of strict neutrality, represents 3.6 million native English speakers, and that's the most damaging bit of evidence to independent Kosovo's cause we could come up with, in the English-speaking world. Even South Africa is engaged in mediating and has withheld taking up an official position. English-speaking world is overwheliming pro-Kosovo, as is the world's economy, to the tune of over 70% of the world economy supporting officially Kosovo's indpependence.

And Albanian separatism is a different issue, for example, manifest inside Macedonia, and I belive, no countries, including Albania, have addressed it as such, embracing or rejecting, in Australia, Bosnia, Greece, Kosovo, Italy, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, or Canada, countries inhabited by purported Albanian separatists. --Mareklug ^talk 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

India, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Madagascar, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, New Zealand, Liberia, Jamaica, Namibia, Lesotho, Botswana, The Gambia, Mauritius, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Guyana, Solomon Islands, Malta, The Bahamas, Belize, Barbados, Vanuatu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Micronesia, Kiribati, Grenada, Seychelles, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis America, Palau Oceania, and Nauru are all officially English speaking countries and they all currently support Serbian sovereignty and do not reocgnize the Kosovo Albanian separatist state. This list of English speaking nations that do not recognize is almost double the list of countries, English speaking or other language speaking, that recognize Kosovo. The English speaking world along with other communities overwhemingly oppose independence for Kosovo and Metohija. --Tocino 19:48, 22 April 2008 9UTC)

About 95% of them countries English isn't the main language. Especially the African countries, where tribal languages are used loads more than English. Most of the people in them countries cant speak english. [5] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nauru recognized

According to

kosovothanksyou.com

Nauru has recognized Kosovo.Is this confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizlin (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference from president of Republic of Kosovo [6] kushtrimxh (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh its true. We should add it to the list Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here an english sources [7] Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request Nauru

This UN member has recognised Kosovo today on 23 April, it should be added to the bottom of the list and colour it in on the map and update it to 38 out of 192 UN members too please.

---

|- | 38 | Nauru || 2008-04-23 || || || |-

---

This edit is a noncontroversial update Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree Gugganij (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry Ijanderson, I slept in and I was beaten to the punch I see. :-P Húsönd 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another state which recognizes Kosovo but does not pubically recognize Montenegro. Weirdos. --Tocino 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You know why they have recognised it, because they have been told to by the US. Not that they care at all about what goes on in Europe Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but are these four countries too lazy to publically announce recognition of Montenegro or do they have a prejudice against Montenegrins or is Montenegro not worthy of attention? What these four nations are doing sends a really bad message. They are basically saying that if you don't resort to violence or have the U.S. and NATO strongly supporting you behind the scenes then we don't care about you. --Tocino 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, i think your taking it to the extreme there. They will have automatically recognised Montenegro when it joined the UN and not announced anything publicly since. But Kosovo will not be joining the UN anytime soon and they have been "persuaded" by the US to recognise sooner Ijanderson977 (talk)

I tend to believe that they've recognized Montenegro, but we don't know for sure until they announce publically. The difference is probably that Kosovo is desperate for recognition so they blurt it out to the world that Marshall Islands, Nauru, Monaco, and Senegal have recognized, while Montenegro does not need the attention. --Tocino 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i know what you mean. Kosovo i desperate for every little recognition and makes a big thing out of it, whereas Montenegro didnt expect for there to be any problems when becoming independent so hasnt made such a big thing over recognition Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Montenegro puts copy of the every recognition letter on their MFA website. And they did receive many official recognitions after they entered the UN, specifically from countries that recognize only UN members like New Zealand. Actually almost a half of their recognitions came after they were admitted to the UN. This process is not exactly automatic as you can see some members of the UN don't recognize each other (recognition of Israel for an example). --Avala (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) yeh i know this is not always the case north and south Korea for example Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a chat or a discussion board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.160.253 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thats why we are discussing things about the article. Not Chatting. And FYI it is a discussion board, for discussing the article, which we were doing Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro has nothing to do with Kosova. Tocino incites the chat by asking or stating "country x recognized Kosova but country x doesn't recognize Montenegro" this has NOTHING to do with this article. We don't need chit-chat, this is not a chatroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that it has got nothing to do with it but you can't (and shouldn't try to) impose it on anyone.--Avala (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Agree, we were analysing the situation and comparing it to Montenegro. We have every right to discuss what we were discussing. It was not agianst wikipedias rules. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian parliament decision

User:Jakro64 claimed in the section above that the Seimas agreed to the recognition of Kosovo (64 yes, 5 no).

However, I don't speak Lithuanian and I don't know if this constitutes already recognition. Gugganij (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text (date: April 23, 2008): [8] Gugganij (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I cant help there. However I'll try find someone who can speak Lithuanian to translate it Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive asked to Lithuanian speakers to translate the text for us Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This what the person i got to translate it said

"It's just a basic DRAFT resolution by the Seimas recognizing Kosovo independence and recommending the government to establish diplomatic relations. I don't think you need the full translation. The longer first part just discusses prior positive Lithuanian reaction to the Kosovo declaration. Note, it is dated April 23 (today) and has not yet been voted on" Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, and what did they vote yesterday on (62 vs 5)? [9] Gugganij (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I duno mate

Maybe they have recognised Kosovo. Lets try find something else to confirm this Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a document that shows current steps that Lithuania has taken. The vote might have been a preliminary vote to put up a recognition document on vote in the parliament. --Avala (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be the case. Gugganij (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On 22 April Lithuanian Seimas once again acknowledged the project for recognition of Republic of Kosovo, same did Committee of Foreign Affairs of Seimas, European Affairs committee, Foreign Ministry of Lithuania, President of Republic of Lithuania. According to the schedule the plenary session with procedure of enactment will be very soon. kushtrimxh kushtxh (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is a draft, but it is a bit strange that the parliament votes on a draft! If so I am sorry I have misunderstood. A summary of the text is to be found on my talk page. Jakro64 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to be in a hurry. If Lithuania really recognizes Kosovo, I am sure it gets mentioned in the media. Gugganij (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request (done)

The date in the second paragraph ("As of 17 April 2008, 38 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo") should be updated to 23 April instead of 17 April. Zello (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Agree' 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Thats obviously an uncontroversial edit Gugganij (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond just carried it out for "24 April", but did not acknowledge it here. I removed the template editprotect request and marked the section title accordingly. --Mareklug ^talk 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=1206 Bardhylius (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

" Burkina Faso recognizes the Republic of Kosovo as a sovreign and independent state in accordance with the International law", in an official statement issued by the Government of Burkina Faco in Ugadugu. In addition, Burkina Faao emphasized its interest to establish strong ties with the new sovereign state. Kosova Information Center- the news agency of Kosova government www.kosova.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Below is the link to the story by B92, a Serbian news agency, in English:

Burkina Faso, Nauru recognize Kosovo B92, 24 April 2008

As the title suggests, it acknowledges the recognition of Kosovo by both, Burkina Faso and Nauru. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Burkina Faso recognized Kosovo www.telegrafi.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Burkina Faso

---

|- | 39| Burkina Faso || 2008-04-24 || || non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence |-

---

This edit is an uncontroversial update. Gugganij (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up:

1. Please remove Burkina Faso from the section "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide"
2. Please update the number of Organisation of the Islamic Conference in the section "International governmental organisations" and give BF an asteriks.
3. And as Candian Bobby states underneath, update the text at the top of the page to 39 states

Gugganij (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Additionally, please change the text at the top of the page to state that 39 states recognize as of 24 April 2008.

Agree. Obviously this is the proof of loss for the article when it's locked. It's not up to date as we have to wait for the administrator. Also watch with numbers, Malaysia hasn't recognized after all.--Avala (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I took the liberty of exchanging the source from B92.net to The Kosova Report, as the former has been documented on this page as suffering from bias whereas the latter, despite its name, hasn't and is located in Sweden not in Serbia or Kosovo. As for the article being locked, it only precludes edit warring. Good changes get propagated eventually. If this is too slow a process for you, move on to editing Wikinews. --Mareklug ^talk 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This website is so pro-serb. I wonder why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which website? The Wikipedia or the source given above? If the source, it's gone. I substituted instead one that is not located in Belgrade and that no one has documented as engaging in shoddy hournalism, unlike B92.net . --Mareklug ^talk 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Estonia, Diplomatic Relations

Not sure what that will entail but here is the source [10]

Kosova2008 128.206.162.135 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be added to the article that Estonia established diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level with Kosovo on 24 April 2008. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

costo rico

serbian blic reports that costo rico has recognisezed kosova http://blic.co.yu/politika.php?id=39332 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Costo Rico and Costa Rica recognised Kosovo on February 18.--Avala (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia - recognition not yet decided

Well, this rather confuses matters: according to Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency, Rais Yatim, the Foreign Minister has in fact said that Malaysia has not yet taken a decsion on whether to recognise Kosovo:

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=328837

Given that this report comes from an official news agency, and that the original statement of 'recognition' was only offered in an unofficial translation, there is a good case for arguing that Malaysia should be moved to the undecided category. JL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.49 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the official Malaysian document said exactly the same but editors here argued that media knows better than the MFA of Malaysia because some news reports said that Malaysia recognized (the same as those who said S.Arabia recognized).--Avala (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I will copy the content here:

Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo, Says Dr Rais

PUTRAJAYA, April 24 (Bernama) -- Malaysia is not in a hurry to recognise, or otherwise, the newly independent Republic of Kosovo, said Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.

Rais said there were many things needed to be considered before taking a decision on the matter.

"Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise. But we are looking at it very closely," he told Bernama when asked about Kuala Lumpur's position on the matter.

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on Feb 17 this year, a move fiercely opposed, and declared as illegal, by Serbia.

So far 38 countries, including the United States, Britain, France and many other European countries have granted recognition to Kosovo which has 2.1 million population, but countries such as Russia, a historic ally of Serbia, opposed Kosovo's independence.

--Avala (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

38 countries obviously includes Malaysia too, as the number has increased today to 39 with the inclusion of Burkina Faso. The President's office in Kosovo seems to think that Malaysia recognizes, and have it on their list.

Malaysia - edit request

Move Malaysia to States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide/UN member states with following text:

| Malaysia || On February 20, Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed news on Kosovo independence. On April 24, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim stated that there were many things needed to be considered before taking a decision on the matter and that Malaysia "is not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise". ||

I also ask admins to actually read through some of the few "disagree" comments. One is made by a user who registered just to disagree, one believes this is the same edit request regarding Malaysia as that one from two months ago because they didn't bother to see this edit request is regarding news from today, April 24. Thank you. --Avala (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'Disagree. In your prior post you were complaining about the administrators using a media source to support their position, yet you are requesting an edit - based on a different media report. --alchaemia

No I wasn't, I was complaining on people who were complaining. And this is not a valid reason to disagree.--Avala (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - wasn't there a link in the president of kovoso's website saying that Malaysia recognized, also on serbian media B92. I think you said in the Libya edit request that a government source is reliable-- Cradel 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is April 24 news. We have todays statement by the Foreign minister from the state owned news agency.--Avala (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing because we have an official press release from the ministry of foreign affairs (with a translation) confirming recognition. You are offering an article somebody found as proof that they haven't. My disagreement is valid because your sourse does not trump the website of the ministry of foreign affairs of Malaysia. alchaemia (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

Obviously you haven't read it. How can you be so superficial when dealing with these things? If you bothered to read it you would have seen that it says Malysia welcomed independence news. (Part of my edit request which says "On February 20, Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed news on Kosovo independence.").--Avala (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree - the former press release was obviously very misleading, and media interpreted it as recognition although it wasn't. Until a decision is made in the Malaysia case, administrators should update the article with Burkina Faso because this seems uncontroversial. Even the pro-Kosovar kosovothankyou website was updated and Malaysia was removed. I think that's more than enough proof. Zello (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - We already went through this once. Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• agree, but no edit just yet However i also have a media article which says that Malaysia recognised Kosovo. [11]

and you should read this archive too with that other source you have been using the MOFA. [12]It is dated from 17/02/08. The recognition was on the 20/02/08. Two days after that Malaysian source was published, making it out of date. We need to find an up to date official Malaysia or Kosovar text before editing as the is no 100% certainty yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is official source. It is state owned Malaysian News Agency publishing a statement by a Foreign minister. We've been through officializing before. It doesn't happen. There will be no official document saying "Malaysia is still thinking" especially not now. Unless this is an assumption Malaysian Foreign minister is out of his mind or pathological lier, Malaysia hasn't decided yet.--Avala (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think

"The Muslim countries that have so far recognized the secession of Kosovo are Albania, Turkey, Malaysia, Afghanistan, and Senegal, and such a move is being planned by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Russian media said." (March 11)

is less reliable then

"Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise. But we are looking at it very closely," he told Bernama when asked about Kuala Lumpur's position on the matter. (April 24)

--Avala (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i know, thats why i kinda agree. we are in no rush to edit, but lets try and confirm this more first as we will get no editing done if we dont reach a consensus.
and one other thing. kosovothanksyou.com is shit and unreliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you say what exactly you are looking for here? We have today's statement by Foreign minister in the national news agency. I don't expect Yang di-Pertuan Agong to come on Wikipedia and confirm this to help our unnecessary scrutinizing. Does anyone expect that?--Avala (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Their prediction lists are unrealistic but the updates were almost always correct, definitely not worse than this article. And they were convinced by the Bernama news although they obviously wish it otherwise. Zello (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now they are changing back and forth. Zello (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If such a biased website as kosovathanksyou.com is in action of removing Malaysia from the list, I honestly believe we have a crowd of "Thomas the Doubters" here.--Avala (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the change should be made, as we are an encyclopedia therefore we should tell the truth. Malaysia has not recognised Kosovo yet, just welcomed it. Im sure they will recognise it eventually but not yet. yeh because the kosovothanksyou.com team is stupid and dont know owt. you can tell they are not professionals. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to call people stupid. They're saying it was a technical mistake: "Also, due to a technical mistake in our applicaiton earlier today Malaysia was removed from the list for a period of five minutes.

Yes we made a technical mistake while updating the link (which you can see now goes to the Kosovar president site). Malaysia turned yellow but now all is back to as before. We are waiting ot see what exactly is happening here regarding this issue. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.232.8.1 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Posted: April 24, 2008"

alchaemia (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

yeh your right i dont need to call them stupid. But they are. Im not saying they are stupid becuase of the Malaysia fault. It other stuff such as their predictions. Their "recognition texts", and the "announcements" for "Countries that will recognize Kosova..." its all false and mis-interpreted. Do not trust their lists Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you want to say about their predictions and whatnot; their recognition lists have been pretty much accurate, and almost every recognition text links back to an official press release from the corresponding foreign ministry. You're just embarrassing yourself by continuing this rant. alchaemia (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

Declined Not enough consensus as of this moment for this requested edit. Probably due to conflicting information. I believe that in the coming hours or days it will be clear whether or not did Malaysia recognize Kosovo. If it hasn't, then this edit will naturally be implemented. Until then, I think Malaysia should return to the map. Húsönd 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. I hate this sabotage activity where you have users who registered just for this and users who haven't bothered to look into this and users who have huge Kosovo flags on their user pages who disagree. Then an admin comes and says "oh look there is no consensus so I'll decline,". Imagine when we had news that USA recognized and if I came in with 10 sock puppets and made disagree comments and therefore caused other users to disagree as well (because they wouldn't bother to read and see it's a new data, not something from 10 days ago).--Avala (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Avala. It's a massive conspiracy. We're all in on it. Even the Malaysian government has been collaborating with us just to honk you off. In the future, kindly refrain from leaving patronizing messages on my talk page. K thnx bye. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to be rude. And actually if we go into comical conspiracy theory, I'd say you were not working with the Malaysian government because you were the one who obviously thinks their Foreign minister is lying since you disagree with adding his statement to the article. ;) --Avala (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How am i embarrassing myself? Is it because i can tell what a reliable source is and what isn't? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The President of Kosovos website says that Malaysia did recognise Kosovo on 20 Feb, have a look here [13]. Thats more reliable than Malaysian media. Plus there was that UNMIK source which said they recognised Kosovo too Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the link? It (state news agency, not some media) gives a quote of the Foreign Minister. How is that not reliable?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support I believe the words of foreign ministers and other government officials should hold more value than what websites such as kosovoandmetohijathanksyou.com say. In this case the Foreign Minster of Malaysia is clearly saying his country does not recognize. --Tocino 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief. After it being mentioned a kajillion times on this page, you know very well that it's kosovothanksyou.com. Dubbing it "kosovoandmetohijathanksyou.com" is extremely disingenuous and just makes you look like a propagandist. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Please, delete the redundant note "First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC" from the Afghanistan entry in the "UN member states" section.

There is no other reasonable way of comparing times other than "based on UTC", and the fact that Afghanistan was the first to recognise is sufficiently exhibited by its being the first entry on the list, as well as by the numeral 1 in the first column. The note is a left-over from ancient history of the article when the Costa Rica entry included the nonsense note of being the first to recognise "based on local time". — EJ (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: It's not redundant, and in light of fact that the archives will show that the document generated by Costa Rica in Spanish carries the date of 17 February 2008, clarification that Afghanistan was the first to recognize in standard time reference frame is needed. Clearly recognitions could be ordered by calendar date afixed to official documents, which is a reasonable way of comparing times/dates, esp. in the matter of archival material, esp. many years after the fact. --Mareklug ^talk 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The President's website list UK, France, USA, Turkey and Albania as having recognized first:

Lista e vendeve që e kanë njohur pavarësinë e Republikës së Kosovës: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748

Kronologji e fillimit të njohjes së Republikës së Kosovës: http://www.president-ksgov.net/documents/zyra_presidentit_festimi.pdf Exo (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

Can you use this map on Commons Commons:Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png instead of actual local version? --151.21.168.245 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was used before but was removed due to edit wars. Current map is the most neutral one.--Avala (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: You complain tht other editors are not reading, but you yourself are guilty of it here. @151.21.168.245: I put in the needed subst:ncd template and once an admin removes the local image, the commons one will become used as it has the same name. --Mareklug ^talk 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was an honest mistake. It's the same file, in order to use the commons version we need to remove the one in Wikipedia. As you wish. --Avala (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Update numbers for logical consistency

{{editprotected}}

The following udates are necessary in the section International governmental organisations:

1. In the entry of the reaction of the UN: Please replace Member states (36 / 192) with Member states (39 / 192)
2. In the entry of the reaction of the OIC: Please replace Member states (5 / 57) with Member states (6 / 57)
3. In the list of member states of the OIC: Please add an asterisk (*) to Burkina Faso

All those edits are uncontroversial updates. Gugganij (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree on the first two until we sort out Malaysia.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's rather a question of consistency and currently Malaysia is in the list of countries who recognised Kosovo. In case it gets removed, we certainly will change those numbers accordingly. But as of now at least the first number is plainly wrong, even if you disregard the case of Malaysia. In my point of view those numbers are just a technicality - reflecting in a consistent way the first list. Gugganij (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The number is wrong because it counts Malaysia as a country which recognizes, when in reality, according to their FM, they do not recognize. --Tocino 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Source from Avala not strong enough to contradict an official government website. Exo (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Cradel 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree as well. --alchaemia (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia
• Do This edit already! It's needed for internal consistency's sake, as noted. If Malaysia's position is to be altered, it is to be done atomically -- all references in unison. The present situtaiton is unacceptable and User:Tocino and User:Avala opposition constitutes a disservice to maintaining the integrity of this article. --Mareklug ^talk 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Malaysia has not recognised yet, i will agree to 38/192 UN and 5/57 OIC Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus Happy‑melon 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Palestine II

Do the editors of this wiki-article, the ones capable of making edits now that it is locked, intend to reply to the topic 'edit request - Palestine' located above? 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive put an edit request banner on it, so this will notify admins Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bolivia under pressure - edit request April 25

Apparently Bolivia has been pressured by US congressmen to recognize Kosovo. This is what President Morales said in an interview[14].

AJ:You recently said that the United States government was pushing to try to turn Bolivia into a kind of Kosovo. What proof do you have of that?

EM:First the American congressmen that visited me recently asked me to support that division of Kosovo. It's impossible that we can support the division of a country.

Should we add this to the Bolivian section?--Avala (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is noteworthy for two reasons. First, because it shows that the American government is pushing for recognition behind the scenes. Secondly, because the President has said publically that he rejected the Congressman's suggestion which reaffirms Bolivia's opposition. --Tocino 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We all know that America is pushing for recognition behind the scenes. Just like Serbia and Russia are pressuring other countries not to recognise, as they are going country to country saying "don't recongise or we will be very angry with you and degrade our embassy."

Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. did recognize early, so we obviously know their position. But on the other hand, there are 535 congressman, each with their own agenda, so even if we take Morales at his word that doesn't mean the U.S. itself has been doing organized lobbying. Superm401 - Talk 13:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The US recognized early, along with several European powers, which have long supported Kosovo independence because of their own convictions. This is not a unipolar or bipolar argument orchestrated by a superpower; these are groups of nations that freely and willingly support independence on one side, and freely and willingly support Serbian territorial intergrity on the other. Each side genuinely sees their argument as the best and most correct option, after years of deadlock and an intolerable status quo. These two groups of negotiating nations, after failing to agree on a final status solution, are subsecuently working hard to convince the rest of the world to support their positions. You can blame a handful of powerful/affluent countries for manipulating world events, but not the US as the sole perpetrator, that is too easy and simplistic--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK suggestion: When asked for a proof for his statement that the US government was trying to turn Bolivia into another Kosovo, President Evo Morales responded that he was asked by the US congressmen during their visit to Bolivia to recognize Kosovo independence but that he refused to support a division of a country calling it impossible.

Any other suggestions?--Avala (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "trying to turn Bolivia into another Kosovo"? Im puzzled over it Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are people who want more autonomy for the southeastern regions of Bolivia. However, Morales and his supporters are strongly against more autonomy for the southeastern regions. --Tocino 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Santa Cruz is organizing referendum for independence or something like that in a few weeks.--Avala (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So no objections? It's safe to file an edit request.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK so definitely no objections. I am now making an edit request:

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following next to the existing entry on Bolivia:

When asked for a proof for his statement that the US government was trying to turn Bolivia into another Kosovo, President Evo Morales responded that he was asked by the US congressmen during their visit to Bolivia to recognise Kosovo independence but that he refused to support a division of a country calling it impossible.

Thank you, --Avala (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• weak agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now - seems to have implicit support above, but clear approval for the exact wording would be better. No rush - restore the tag when there's a more obvious consensus. Please also format the reference using a cite template. Happy‑melon 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia's Ambassador to US, confirmed that it was recognized. (no source, IP user post)

Malaysia's Ambassador to US, confirmed that it was recognized.

serbs are desperate.

Additionally, the ambassador said that they are lobbying on behalf of the Republic of Kosovo.

Have a good day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbs are desperate? It was the Kosovo Albanians who said that they would be recognized by over 100 nations within months. They have failed miserably so far. The Kosovo Albanians are celebrating that nations such as Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Burkina Faso have recognized (after going almost a month without a new recognition)... this shows how desperate they are. --Tocino 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's 2 things that have been reported. Some countries are putting off the official recognitions until after the Serbian elections. The other crew is awaiting the constitution to take effect on June 15th. However Hashim Thaci reports that the goal for 100 countries by the end of 2008 is still in place and that it might happen much sooner that that. The quote from him was "everything is going according to the agenda". It didn't really sound that desperate, but then again, a recognition is a recognition. There's only 192 UN members and even if 1 of them recognizes, regardless of who that is, it can only raise the number and benefit whoever is being recognized. Exo (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Every country counts, even the small ones. Or is this some mideval mentality. Of course we will celebrate Burkina Faso, Nauru, Marshall Islands and all the other small ones. God Bless them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.76.229 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the High Commission in London and they confirmed that it was recognition Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysian Foreign Ministry confirmed that they have recognized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All I see is original research by numerous IP posts. IP post says "Malaysian Foreign Ministry confirmed that they have recognized it." and gives us no source. On the other hand we have the head of this ministry who said a different thing today.--Avala (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, useless to claim confirmations without sources. Zello (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

you two should have a read of this [15] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

and this [16] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List in English [17] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read that and all this was based on "welcome note" from February 20 and not on a today's statement by a Malaysian Foreign minister.--Avala (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala, The Laison Office in Prishtina handed the Recognition Letter to the President of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala surely you can remember that UNMIK source i produced about a month and a half ago which said "Malaysia announced it recognition threw its liaison Office is Pristina whilst other countries ect..." Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And please explain the statement by Malaysian Foreign minister. I must ask this even though it might sound odd but do you think their FM has mental issues?--Avala (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia has recognized, all the major medias reported on it, official websites reported on it, there was a bi-lateral meeting in which recognition papers were given and Malaysia announced it would open an embassy in Kosovo. Saying that Malaysia didn't recognize it's like saying that these meetings and these statements and these letter exchanges never happened. Exo (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So, a tally: Those who say that Malaysia recognized:

• The Malaysian High Commission to the United Kingdom
• The Embassy of Malaysia to the United States of America
• The Office of the President of the Republic of Kosovo
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia (via its statement in Malay, which we examined quite thoroughly in our now mythical debate over the meaning of one word in it)
• The Liaison Office of Malaysia in Kosovo
• kosovothanksyou.com (admittedly flawed)
• UNMIK
• B92

Those who say that Malaysia has not recognized:

• Avala
• A story from the Malaysian state news media quoting the foreign minister

We'll have to await further confirmation before we change anything. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thought you were serious and committed for enhancement of this article. I guess that all that talking about calling ministries across the globe was a lie as well. Anyway please add the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to that second list. --Avala (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a liar. A really big liar. Ask Ian, he'll tell you. As per your second point, do you have a source confirming a Foreign Ministry denial? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The statement of a Foreign minister (Yes, head of a Foreign Ministry) in state owned media, on April 24, when he said Malaysia needs more time to determine whether it will recognize or not. He couldn't have been more clear.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "A story from the Malaysian state news media quoting the foreign minister" covers it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We all know Malaysia dislikes Serbia. So thats why it was one of the first to recognise Kosovo [18] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia disliked Serbia. But they have opened an embassy in Belgrade and lifted visas since then.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So Serbia and Malaysia are best friends now and Malaysia will never recognise Kosovo becuase they wouldnt want to upset their best friends, Serbia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of guessing what are Malaysian motifs and ideas regarding foreign policy. They do what they do and we find out about it through statements of their Foreign minister who said exactly this "Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise.". Point at the part of this statement you think is unclear.--Avala (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Impose" is an interesting word to use. It doesn't mean to give or grant something, but to force it. Maybe he could be referring to pressuring other countries to recognize? Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK since you are trying fantasy worlds here I will paste the whole news article again.

Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo, Says Dr Rais [19]

PUTRAJAYA, April 24 (Bernama) -- Malaysia is not in a hurry to recognise, or otherwise, the newly independent Republic of Kosovo, said Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.

Rais said there were many things needed to be considered before taking a decision on the matter.

"Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise. But we are looking at it very closely," he told Bernama when asked about Kuala Lumpur's position on the matter.

Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on Feb 17 this year, a move fiercely opposed, and declared as illegal, by Serbia.

So far 38 countries, including the United States, Britain, France and many other European countries have granted recognition to Kosovo which has 2.1 million population, but countries such as Russia, a historic ally of Serbia, opposed Kosovo's independence.

--Avala (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but this source contradicts that [20] Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an Albanian source on one hand which might say a lot of things and a clear English official source from Malaysia from today. I think it's silly to give advantage to the first one.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I love the way you refer to it as an "Albanian source" instead of "Official Republic of Kosovo source from today". Then you refer to the other sources as "a clear English official source from Malaysia from today" instead of "English source from Malaysia today". Nice to see you have a NPOV perspective on the issue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's not from today. And if it's in Albanian then it's Albanian, it's not like I am saying mumbojumbo. Just like the second one is from today and is Malaysian--Avala (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to say that a news agency has more weight than an official government website. That's just not going to fly. Even if it were true that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo, the government website would take priority over the news agency. You will have to find a heavier source than just a news agency for it to take priority over the governmental website. If you could come up with such a source, we'd all back off. Exo (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Official Malaysian state news agency citing the Foreign Minister has more weight than a website of the Kosovo president. There is no Malaysian source to back up recognition story (what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message,).--Avala (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was from the same day as that Malaysian soucre. Thats why the list included Burkina Faso which recognised Kosovo yesterday, therefore must have been updated yesterday. That malaysian source is also from Yesterday. So we have two sourcs from the same day saying differnet things. We have Kosovo Presidents site saying one thing and malaysian media saying another. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got another email from the Malaysian High Commision in London

this is what it said after i asked, what is Malaysia's position on Kosovo.

---

Dear Sir,

Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence as declared by PM Hashim Thaci on 17 Feberuary 2008. Malaysia hopes that the declaration would fulfill the aspiration of the peoples of Kosovo in determining their future as well as guaranteeing the rights of all Kosovans to live in peace, free and stable. Malaysia also calls for all parties to work together for a peaceful and stable Balkans.

Regards

Rustam

---

So Malaysia has not recognised Kosovo yet Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of diplomatic language seems strange to me. I think this email doesn't support your claim at all. If anything, it suggests the opposite of what you are saying. "Welcoming" is not an official diplomatic term meaning recognition, that is true, but it certainly doesn't mean "something-less-than-recognition." It is simply a statement of support. That support could go all the way, i.e., it could entail full recognition, or, it could just be moral support with no political backing. This email says nothing in clear terms. It strongly suggests recognition, and definitely does not deny recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it hasn't recognized Kosovo. That's what the Foreign Minister said to the state news agency yesterday. But the successful sabotage of edit request resulted in failure of getting this in the article. My edit request, in case some haven't noticed, included that Malaysia welcomed news on Kosovo independence but hasn't recognized. --Avala (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, yesterday, that same office, confirmed the recognition and today they confirm their nonrecognition. Is that correct? Jawohl (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No some IP user said they confirmed it. Medias in Pristina and Belgrade have reports on this today, I am trying to find it in English.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe me give me your email address and i'll forward it to you. I agreed at first yesterday that Malaysia should be removed, but then i found that presidents list. But it must be wrong. Malaysia has only welcomed Kosovo's independence. Im sure they will recognise Kosovo, but not just yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

President of Kosovo has stated today that Malaysian representative informed him in February that Malaysia recognized Kosovo but that yesterdays statement by the Malaysian Foreign Minister says that they didn't and that he will sort it out with them today. Welcoming is not a recognition (Pakistan welcomed it but didn't yet recognize, Czech didn't welcome it but will probably recognize it (their PM says he is doing it unwillingly))--Avala (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear "lost in translation" case. I think they just welcomed it but since it is already in the local media we should maybe let the do the job. Did Serbia actually recall the ambassador from there? Jawohl (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbia has no reciprocal ambassadorial relations with Malaysia. It is covered from Jakarta. But Serbia has sent protest notes to Governments where it has no embassies but it didn't do that in case of Malaysia, so obviously Serbian MFA knew Malaysia didn't recognize. --Avala (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw I think this doesn't downgrade the credibility of the website of the Kosovo president. It doesn't seem to be a case of making things up, rather a diplomatic blunder of a Malaysian representative.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we update out list then? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait until tomorrow... ?Jawohl (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ok then Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am all for trying to find the official position from Malaysia, but we are going to need very strong sources to contradict an official government website. Either a statement from the Malaysian Foreign Ministry on their official website or an article from AP, Reuters, CNN. We have used sources like B92 or Kosova Report for cases when we lacked official government material or mass media articles, but in this particular case we have a government website saying that the country has recognized and wants to open an embassy, so it would require a very strong source to contradict it. I am personally not comfortable with anything less than the Malaysian foreign ministry or a major media. Exo (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Government source says Malaysia welcomed welcomed welcomed not recognized Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

we have an article from Bernama which has exact quotes from the Malaysian foreign minister saying "Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo" For those who didnt know Bernama is Malaysia's version off BBC so is a reliable source unlike CNN which i wouldn't trust the weather it reports to be true, so there is no hope in truth over politics. Bernama is a major media, it broadcasts to Washington D.C., Dhaka, New Delhi, Manila, London and Vancouver. Also we have a source from Malaysia MOFA web site too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus is that we should change the page then we should change it. This matter has been bizarre. I'm sorry I doubted you, Avala. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

@Exo im not trying to insult you, but im guessing that you have never studied media because you would know that a major media such as AP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, Fox, Al Jazeera and France 24 are never going to report anything specifically on Malaysia recognising Kosovo, as it is not news worthy to them as it does not appeal to or affect their audiences, so it would be a waste for them to report on it. Thats why the Media we use for sources are agencies such as B92, Balkan Insight and New Kosova Report as the news on Kosovo appeals to and affects their audiences more, therefore they are the Media who are to report on the topic, not major media. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They report only in case that Malaysia decides to recognize but these translation troubles and incompetence of Malaysian diplomats are not something that world media will ever report on. All Serbian media have published this so far though. I am waiting for B92 to translate it. --Avala (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia - edit request 2

{{editprotected}}

Move Malaysia to States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide/UN member states with following text:

| Malaysia || On February 20, Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed news on Kosovo independence. On April 24, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim stated that there were many things needed to be considered before taking a decision on the matter and that Malaysia "is not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise". ||

I think that now there is a consensus among real users who edit this page to finalize this. (explanation: by real users I mean all those who haven't registered today with only purpose to post disagreement here or IP users with no edit history.)--Avala (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• You stated elsewhere that "President of Kosovo has stated today that Malaysian representative informed him in February that Malaysia recognized Kosovo but that yesterdays statement by the Malaysian Foreign Minister says that they didn't and that he will sort it out with them today." Based on this information you provided, the logical course is to wait for them to sort it out before making any new edits. There undoubtedly will be an official declaration, given the high-level interest. It seems highly premature to request an edit of this kind, even while the Kosovars and Malaysians are still "sorting."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Presumably you count yourself among "real users who edit this page", but you are blocking two outstanding meritorious edit requests, one by not updating your objection after a correction was made (Estonia and Kosovo started diplomatic relations) and the other case being a pure consistency fix (updating the numbers of states for the content actually on the page). Once these are carried out, presumably this one would follow, if unopposed. There's good reason to have consistent old versions, even if an imminent update is in the air. Perhaps you'd like to address these editprotect requests first? --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I explained my conditional support there. When we have the clear situation regarding numbers, update them. When source is corrected in Estonia I will agree. Simple as that.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What's not acceptable about the Monster's and Critics press report about Kosovo and Estonia establishing diplomatic relations in Tallinn? Why is making the article consistent at all conditional? Don't you think it will help anyone using the revision history? --Mareklug ^talk 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG AGREE we are an encyclopedia therefore we need to tell the truth. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious in light of President of Kosovo admitting present uncertainty. This furhter shows that relying on government page sourcing from either Serbia or Kosovo as to third country positions is not a very good idea. Get it from the horse's mouth. --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the request, disagree with attacks on any users that try to contribute. Anything could have gone wrong with the statement and the last ones to be accused are the users (be it real or fake). The recognition was mentioned in numerous articles around the web mostly mentioning Malaysia as one of the 5 OIC members that recognized. Jawohl (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now explained what I meant by "real users".--Avala (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ? What are you explaining. Could you be a bit more specific? Jawohl (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • @Jawohl "(explanation: by real users I mean all those who haven't registered today with only purpose to post disagreement here or IP users with no edit history.)" thats what Avala said Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ijanderson977 . Jawohl (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree and change all the numbers accordingly. Zello (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - there was also an article on the kosovar media : "Malaysia changes its mind", but I think it hasn't recognized at all -- Cradel 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Propose to wait until the situation is clarified. The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia has no new statement regarding Kosovo apart from the one in Malaysian dated 20. February. BTW is there anyone speaking Malaysian who would be able to read the local press? Maybe the comments from the Malaysian Foreign minister have been mistranslated... Khuft (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No friend. No need to wait. If Malaysia does recognise, i'll be the first support it and im sure no-one else will oppose if it does recognise. What you have to think is, if someone is generally looking at the article for information because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, they are not getting the truth, becuase we still have Malaysia in the list, when it actually hasn't recognised. So we need to make it as truthful, neutral and reliable as possible. So we shouldnt include Malaysia for the meantime, but when Malaysia does come to recognise (hopefully) we will add it into the list. No point in lying and keeping it in the list encase it does recognise. Do you understand me? ;) Also the situation is clarified by the Malaysian MOFAs Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do understand you. I would wait one or two days for this to be confirmed by other Malaysian sources - but hey, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. In any case, the map currently shows Malaysia as not recognising, while the list still lists Malaysia as recognising. This is not acceptable - so please change the list asap in order for it to fit with map and with the majority opinion here. Khuft (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i agree. And if Malaysia does recognise, i will push for change in the article :-) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No actually it was confirmed by Malaysian sources so we can proceed. Interview for Bernama, started all this, don't you remember?--Avala (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant Malaysian sources additional to the Bernama article. Khuft (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia website still lists the Liaison Office in Pristina - wouldn' it be odd if they keep it in a country they don't recognise in some way? Anyway - that's just my 2 cents. Khuft (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. There is no reason to believe that the Malaysian government is lying about recognition. Malaysia never really definitively said they recognized in the first place. All we had were sources that said they were amongst the handful of Muslim nations that have recognized. The words of the government are now clear... they have not yet decided. --Tocino 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

@Khuft Russia has a liaison office in Kosovo and we all know that Russia doesnt recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the feedback. Khuft (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is simply not enough evidence to move Malaysia from its current place. Kosovar President has said that he will issue a statement in the near future, so let's wait for that first. --alchaemia (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

• Agree Bernama is a good source, but it is a secondary source vs. a primary one, and one single statement quoted a newspaper is not enough to overturn govermnent statements that seem to say recognition, and which have failed to retract or clarify their position since February. I agree there is a good case for the possibility that Malaysia did not recognize and that there was a mistranslation; however, there is an equally strong case for Malaysia recognizing, including the fact that Kosovo and its supporters have spoken of and treated Malaysia like a supporting country, yet the Malays have not protested. Surely they would have noticed by now the mistake? Let's wait to see conclusive info straight from the government. Until then, I support the status quo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing is there was no government statement that sais recognition but "welcoming" which is not the same thing as this statement by Foreign Minister proves it. And having Malaysia among countries that have recognized is not a "status quo" but a down right fantasy which is not supported by any official document from Malaysia. Foreign minister said they haven't recognized. High commission said that they haven't recognized. Malaysian MFA said they haven't recognized, they said Malaysia welcomed it. Kosovo president admitted it on Friday (list on his website is not yet updated). What exactly are we looking for here? That the Malaysian Government signs an official letter to "Thomas the Doubters of Wikipedia" saying "Yes it's true! We have welcomed Kosovo independence but we are not in a hurry to recognize it!" ? Let me tell you directly - it's not going to happen. --Avala (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • First, Mr. Avala, this is not a question of signing superfluous statements just for all the Thomas Doubters to see, though I do understand your frustration; it is a question of the revelant party, Kosovo, openly treating Malaysia like a supporter, which if not true, constitutes a serious diplomatic incident worthy of official and public clarification, something that, if true, IS bound to happen. Add on top of this the fact that, as you so pointed out, these two entities are currently adressing the ambiguity at high levels of government, meaning that there is a process pending and a likely statement. Second, are we talking about the email that one user provided elsewhere in this talk page or the web page of the Malaysian government? I just saw something else that makes me question moving Malaysia to the list of countries that do not support: on the website of the Malaysian liaison office in Prishtina, it says the following:

"Host Country: KOSOVO"--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • We are talking about the following
        • Press release by Malaysian government
        • Statement by Malaysian Foreign Minister
        • Email confirming the previous two
        • Kosovo President admits there was a mix up
      • That thing regarding Malaysian liaison office has been discussed before. Russia and other countries have the same thing. It's not a secret Malaysia fully supports Kosovo independence but it hasn't officially recognized it so it can not be listed in States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent. Article as it is atm is a joke. --Avala (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. After looking over the unofficial translation of the original government statement, it seems to me that the source was misinterpreted, and there was never a basis to include Malaysia in the list of countries that recognize. The statement includes diplomatic language that reads like letters from several other countries that do not officially recognize. The states that do recognize all use very clear and unambiguous language to that effect. I change my stance and agree with the edit request.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus seems close, but not yet present. To forestall the inevitable protests, WP:DEADLINE and meta:The Wrong Version. Happy‑melon 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done after further discussion above, it seems a 9:1 consensus has now formed, which is adequate. Happy‑melon 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will now change my vote to support further edits on numbers.--Avala (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be picky but there's one more thing that needs to be addressed. The sentence in the intro that reads, "As of 24 April 2008, 39 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised..." needs to be changed to, "As of 27 April 2008, 38 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised..." in accordance with the number that the table currently shows. Thanks. --Tocino 00:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Estonia edit request 2

{{editprotect}}

---

| 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

Please change Estonia as so with the correct source Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. (alternative source that shows this has been finalized [21])--Avala (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. How is this source any more correct than the originally proposed one (Monsters and Critics)? The proposed replacement source is not even a source for the done deal, but a source in future tense, which anticipates the signing but is not actually reporting it! I demand some answers here, because your oppositions and corrections look unnecessary and unexplained, and the new proposed source is worse. --Mareklug ^talk 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your source did not even mention diplomatic relations. How can this one be worse than that? Anyway the alternative source says "Today the protocol of diplomatic relations between Kosovo and Estonia is signed".--Avala (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You must be confused. The title is: Estonia, Kosovo establish diplomatic relations (Roundup). The first paragraph is: Apr 24, 2008, 13:57 GMT "Tallinn - Estonia on Thursday became the first Baltic nation to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo." Are you having a browser problem? --Mareklug ^talk 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No actually your source first paragraph says "The government of the Republic of Estonia decided during its session today to recognise the independence of the Republic of Kosovo." --Avala (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is amazing. YOU'RE CLICKING ON THE WRONG LINK. The link you are referring to is also included in the proposed 2nd edit, that you agreed to. We are not talking about the source for when Estonia recognized Kosovo, which link is not being altered, but the link sourcing the diplomatic relations annotation being added in another column! --Mareklug ^talk 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt two users clicked a wrong link. Of course now I agree when it's corrected. Anyway that link in some of the previous proposals is giving a story in the future tense. This link should be used, it's official and it's about the done deal source. Better question is why do you disagree now? What is it that you want changed about this proposal?--Avala (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can doubt all you want, but THE LINK WAS NEVER EDITED. Wikipedia has revision history mechanism and this is not a matter of belief but incontrovertible evidence! Only a phrase referring to the level of diplomatic relations was dropped from the initially proposed text, WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO THE SOURCE REFERENCE. The source has never been "corrrected". You have delayed/scuttled an editprotect request without any basis, and some other irresponsible editor abeited you in doing so. So now you doubt 2 editors can't be wrong. But they are. You can't even apologize for being in the wrong. And the replacement link put in by that other editor is the one referring to things in future tense. And the Kosovo government link is not any more preferrable. Why not press release on the Estonian Foreign Ministry website? I WANT MY EDIT REQUEST RESTORED AS IT WAS PROPER AND NEVER HAD A WRONG SOURCE. I want an admission that two users held up an edit request without any basis. --Mareklug ^talk 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yell all the way but that source didn't include embassy opening, it is about establishing diplomatic relations which is not the same by all means. We need to be precise here and especially in referral to links. Now please explain why in the world do you oppose to this edit request, if not as a vendetta disagreement?--Avala (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OPENING EMBASIESES. I originally included "diplomatic relations on embassy level" as this is the phrasing we used in the article for Slovenia, and they are not about to open an embassy either. And I removed it. The link never changed. I suggest you restore the original edit request or posit a new one with the Estonia's Press Release. I'm not supporting needless, inferior edit requests that replace good ones that you guys opposed. --Mareklug ^talk 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug just because its a different source is no reason to oppose. I have an idea to please everyone, how about we use both sources, then this we we can reach a consensus. so can we all agree to improve the article? Don't take personnel issues into account please Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about paying attention to what is being proposed and proposing good sources, and not baselessly opposing good sources when they are proposed? There was nothing wrong with the original edit request source and by Avala's admission, there is nothing wrong with it. However, your proposed replacement source AND Avala's proposed Kosovo government source both talk about the signing in future tense, and the Kosovo government source is a source from Kosovo government -- not a good idea. If you want consensus, don't introduce randomness to carefully proposed editprotects, replacing them with inferior ones. And as I already mentioned, if you don't want the completely sufficient and neutral Monsters and Critics press source from AFTER the signing, use the Estonia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release (not yet linked from this page). It's in the Press Releases section. You can use the link to their website I provided in my discussion of the original editprotect when responding to the objection that "on embassy level" is not yet documented. It is the link where Estonia lists its bilateral relations alphabetically by country, and where it will list the details of its relations with Kosovo, when they get around to it -- that will be the ultimate correct source. You can navigate to Press Releases from there. --Mareklug ^talk 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong again. The first source puts it into the future tense and the Kosovo government says is signed today.--Avala (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, as you can't admit being wrong even on points of fact: This is a direct quote from the Kosovo government link you gave, and it refers to a future event: At 13:00 o’clock the ceremony of signing the protocol between the Republic of Kosovo and that of Estonia will commence, establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries. My source was written after the fact. So was the press release on the Estonian Foreign Ministry page that you guys are ignoring. I am to negotiate? Over what? Other editors' dyslexia? --Mareklug ^talk 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other editors' dyslexia" - I think you have just crossed the line here.--Avala (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor, but the UK psychologist quoted in our dyslexia article says it is not a medical condition but difficulty in reading. How are we to classify that has transpired here if not difficulties in reading:

1. My editprotect contains 2 sources; you click on the wrong one and on that basis claim my sourcing is wrong -- and veto a perfectly fine edit request.
2. Someone else posts the same edit request, but now sourced to an older press item that talks about the event in future tense.
3. You give a Kosovo government source, and when it is pointed out that this text treats the matter in future tense, you contest that, because the headline is in the present tense. But, as was shown above, the text says "will commence", as this note was written before the event took place.
4. My requests to use the Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs official press release are completely ignored.
5. I'm asked to negotiate, but the only alternatives allowed consist of to using inferior sources instead of appropriate ones, and editors not admitting that they made rash and mistaken assessments of the editprotect request. An allegation of the editprotect mentioning opening of embassies was made by you, and this allegation is untrue. It has nothing to do with what was written in the editprotect request either initially or after striking out some information. Looks like difficulties in reading to me -- I assume good faith all around, but I'm pointing out to repeated mistakes in reading, which include proposing sources written before the event took place, then denying that this is the case. Or claiming that the reference was faulty got fixed and is okay now, but it never changed. --Mareklug ^talk 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Mareklug- What i don't understand is that Estonians diplomatic mission could be on the article right now. Your the one who put the original edit request to include it in the article, so you obviously want it in the article. Your extremely Hostile you know. You need to learn to negotiate. If you don't learn to negotiate, this article will suffer. This article is not only about you. Your just one of the millions of users on wikipedia. So please, show a little respect and show that your willing to compromise. Your one of the most least friendly users ive met on wikipedia and thats a shame as ive had loads of fun editing articles with users, even though we have had different opinions. I just want the article to improve, do you? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in opposing either. If I am causing it anyhow, I apologize for whatever I did, just rationalize your vote here please.--Avala (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just the problem. Editors don't see. Editors don't see that there are two sources, click on the wrong one, and oppose a perfectly fine editprotect request, and never even own up to their mistake. Editors don't understand that one source is not as good as another, particularly if it was written before the event it is sourcing took place! Or that sourcing the government of Kosovo is a conflict of interest when sourcing the reaction of a third country. Same with sourcing Serbia's government when sourcing the reaction of a third country. Or Serbia's press. Or Kosovo's press. Or being stuck on the fact that perfectly suitable and neutral and solid source has "Kosova" in its name (The New Kosowa Report, Sweden), and making that fact automatically discrediting it, in fact, making it equivalent to the press inside Kosovo. If editors understood why doing these these things is undesireable, and would refrain from doing them, we would sail along. If editors saw what they fail to see, we would have properly constructed editprotects acted upon swiftly and unanimously, instead of encountering unjustified oppostion, and then being sloppily superseded by inferior editprotects. When their inferiority in turn is pointed out, the situation should be fixed appropriately. But all of that requires editors to see and understand.

Please restore the original editprotect for Estonia, or the original editprotect sourced to the Estonia's offical press release as posted on the Estonian Foreign Ministry Press Releases webpage. Thank you. I hope this is clear enough for editors to see. And understand. --Mareklug ^talk 05:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done make your bloody mind up :D! Seriously, I recommend, for the best results, that you keep discussions like this strictly linear: "I propose this... agree/disagree/that-makes-no-sense... Ok, here's another version... why-don't-we-include-this... another-version... agree/disagree/etc-etc-etc... this-seems-to-have-consensus... {{editprotected}}... {{done}}" If you keep changing the proposal, an admin can't see which of the comments were directed at the proposed wording in its current state, and which were objections that have now been resolved. No one is going to dig through the history of this page to see what happened when - it's an absolute tip! So please, combine the various Estonia discussions that are floating around, pool the discussion, come up with a version that has consensus, and hit it with an editprotected. Fragmenting the discussion and then arguing that option 1 is inferior to option 2, when the two are only a few words different and could easily be combined into option 3 if they weren't separated by 40 screens of discussion about something else, is shooting yourselves in the foot :D. Happy‑melon 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Update numbers for logical consistency

{{editprotected}} In the entry of the reaction of the UN: Please replace Member states (36 / 192) with Member states (38 / 192). And in the introduction change it to "As of 24 April 2008, 38 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo"

• Agree to 38/192 and 5/57 and adding asterisk to Burkina Faso and removing asterisk from Malaysia.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - with Avala -- Cradel 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree as well with the 38 version. Khuft (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

Is it really sure that Malaysia hasn't recocnized Kosovo yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.127.85 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Malaysian government, Malaysian Foreign Minister, Malaysian High Commission and Kosovo President - yes we are sure.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this in about 3-5 arguements, on this talk page alone, with more in the archives. Please read the talk page sections corolating to your request before you request something that has been discussed to the grave already.--Jakezing (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Avala, could you let us know who was the first one to recognize Republic of Kosova in the '90s? Was it ummm Malaysia? Malaysia has recognized and whomever took it off..just wow. 68.114.198.210 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Kosova2008

By my memmory, only albania recognized the 90's kosovo. So i don't see the point in that statement, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

so what if Malaysia recognised Kosovo in the 1990's. They haven't recognised Kosovo in 2008 and this article is called "international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". So its pointless information Ijanderson977 (talk)

You made a good idea there, the US didnt recognize the last independant kosovo, so why should they have recognized it now?--Jakezing (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time it was George Bush who was the president with Eagleburger as State Secretary. They disagreed back then and they still do. But Bill Clinton thought different so he pushed for this. George W. Bush didn't bother too much with it (basically he mentioned Kosovo for second or third time when he accepted their declaration), he just finalized it.--Avala (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia was the first country to recognize the last DOI, it wasn't just Albania. I am pretty sure Malaysia recognized Kosova, is there solid and vivid counter truths? Official documents? 68.114.198.210 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

A country is not required to publish a document to say that it does not recognise a new country. it can just carry on as normal. However Malaysia has only published a document saying that it welcomes Kosovo Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then read this please. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well im sorry. I can't read that. I cant read Albanian. However i would like to see a third party translation of that. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An initial translation: "The President of the Republic of Kosova welcomed the chief of the Malaysian Office in Prishtina, Mr. Mansor.

Mr. Mansor notified President Sejdiu that, the government he represents has decided to recognize Kosova as an independent and sovereign nation. Additionally, he relayed the message that Malaysia has decided to upgrade the level of its representative office to an embassy, with Mr. Mansor as charge d'affairs at this time."

Hopefully this sheds some light into the situation. --alchaemia (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

We know about that. We had that text. We had news about it. It's nothing new.. Even the President Sejdiu himself said that the Malaysian officer informed him on Feb 20 that Malaysia recognized but that Malaysian Foreign minister explained in April it was only a welcome note, not an official recognition on which they have to think more.--Avala (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of its existence. People asked for a translation, and I provided one. I would also say that the Malaysian foreign minister did not explain anything; he used the word 'to impose' which is not used when one 'grants' recognition. Its meaning is less than clear, but your bullying to change things at any cost has led to this nightmare. --alchaemia (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

Im not even sure if Malaysia has recognised Kosovo or not Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The adviser to the Kosovar President today said that there might have been a misunderstanding on the part of Malaysia's representative of the nature of the government's decision. Not sure what that means, whether he misspoke when he said Malaysia recognized, or if the government of Malaysia said the wrong thing, but that's what he said today. --alchaemia (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

Do you all see Avala's counter-productivity here? We have proof that Malaysia recognized Kosova on the diplomatic level but it's still not enough for him. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the US ambassador in Malaysia said that Malaysia only welcomed Kosovo independence.--Avala (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Malaysia kosovothanksyou.com provided a link to this statement of the Kosovar presidency. It's in Albanian, therefore I have no clue what it is saying, but it motivated kosovothankyou.com to remove Malaysia from the list of countries recognizing Kosovo. Gugganij (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It basically says they, the presidency of Kosovo, were lead to believe by the Malay representative when he brought with him Malaysia's welcoming letter that it meant the official diplomatic recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, and that they even asked him if that's what it meant, and he said yes: “A do të thotë kjo se Malajzia e ka njohur Republikën e Kosovës?” Përgjigjja ka qenë e shkurtër dhe pa ekuivoke: “Po, e ka njohur”. And that therefore any misunderstanding must have occured between the Malay government and its Kosovo representative, but that Malaysia now has no reason not to formalize its recognition, now that about 40 countries have done so. Basically it's ass-covering stuff, but without being ungracious to Malaysia. --Mareklug ^talk 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess no one can now claim it anymore, that Malaysia recognized. Anyway how did this man become a head of liaison office? I can guess he will soon be withdrawn back to KL by MFA but Malaysia should think about upgrading it's diplomatic academy.--Avala (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, bravo!! It just makes me smile when I read you translate Shqip (Albanian). I'm convinced now. Also I go to KosovaThanksYou.com, it's a redirect but it works, I see they removed it as well. 68.114.198.210 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Kosova2008

Yes, it needs to be taken out of the list, the recognition is not formal yet although the guy who delivered the message was asked specifically if Malaysia had recognized and he said "Yes!"...so I guess they need a better guy to deliver this type of news next time. Exo (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Estonian diplomatic relations

I think we all agree what Estonia should look like on the article.

The only problem is we can not agree on a single reference. There three different references stating that Estonia and Kosovo have established diplomatic relations.

1"Estonia, Kosovo establish diplomatic relations (Roundup)", Monsters and Critics, 24 April 2008. Link accessed 2008-04-27.
2"Estonia to Sign Protocol with Kosovo", balkaninsight.com, 24 April 2008. Link accessed 2008-04-27.
3"Today the protocol of diplomatic relations between Kosovo and Estonia is signed" ks-gov.net 24 April 2008 Link accessed 2008-04-27.

Now can we agree on a reference to use please? Then we can put in an edit request and update the article accordingly. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally i believe reference 3 is best because it is an official Kosovo Govt reference. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Estonian Foreign Affairs Ministry press releases used and editprotect request submitted. --Mareklug ^talk 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please replace the Estonia row in the first table with the following. Both of its references point to the official webpages of the Estonian Foreign Ministry:

---

|- | 12 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

• Strong Agree Its time to get this information on the article Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree BalkanFever 08:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment is there any particular reason why you insist on choosing one out of the references, instead of just putting them all in? Happy‑melon 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • One suffices. This is not a controversial bit of news. Look how other diplomatic relations are sourced, including embassy openings. This one does not entail an actual embassy opening (this case is similar to Slovenia's). One source, preferrably from the government extending diplomatic relations to Kosovo is plenty. The "controversy" over this edit is just compounded editor mistakes. For example, sources anticipating the signing are not as desirable those reporting the fact after it happened. And, there was no reason why the initial source, a press account on Monsters and Critics, was opposed, other than misreading. --Mareklug ^talk 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we have reached a consensus Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. As tempted as I am to create a new discussion page, form a subcommittee, and hold a referendum with instant runoff voting for this issue... It looks to me like this is a straightforward piece of uncontroversial information, supported almost word-for-word from its source. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment hey Ijanderson977 you know my position regarding Kosova, you can tell by what I call my country just thought I'd let you know that your sources....they are as neutral as B92, with Balkansight.com being the most reliable IMHO. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC) PS: also it doesn't matter to me why we need to have the Diplomatic category.

It wasn't me complaining over the sources. I was just trying to get everyone to reach a consensus. And yes it does matter over the Diplomatic Category. This shows that countries have started relations with Kosovo as a country. And is part of the "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Asterisks in the list of OIC countries

{{editprotected}} In the list of countries belonging to the OIC (section International governmental organisations): Please remove the asterisk (indicating recognition) from Malaysia and add an asterisk to Burkina Faso. Gugganij (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. This is consistent with cited information elsewhere in the article. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Palestine

{{editprotected}}

currently when you click on Palestine it redirects to "Palestinian territories" when it should redirect to "Palestinian National Authority" So can we change that please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it? I don't think so. It is the Palestine Liberation Organization, not the Palestinian National Authority, which enjoys observer status in UN General Assembly, and international recognition as representation of Palestinian people. See e.g. Palestinian National Authority#Overview, Palestine Liberation Organization#The PLO in the United Nations, Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Thus PLO or the State of Palestine would be a better link target than PNA. Given the potential for confusion, and the general uncertainty of who controls what, I think that the current link to Palestinian territories is actually a wise choice. — EJ (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The statements were made by leaders of the Palestinian National Authority. Further, the PNA is effectively the government of the self-declared 'State of Palestine.' There is no seperate 'State of Palestine' government. If anything, the item should be listed as the Palestinian National Authority instead of Palestine since that would be more accurate. The term 'Palestine,' as it is sued internationally, refers generally understood to refer to the PNA. But in any event, the link should go to the PNA, not 'the Palestinian territories.' Linking to 'Palestinian territories' is, quite frankly, POV. This article is about the international reactions to Kosovo's declaration of independence, not the status of the areas Israel captured from Jordan and Egypt in 1967. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So I believe you and I are Agreed that the link for Palestine should be changed from Palestinian territories to Palestinian National Authority. 141.166.159.80 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors, do you care to weigh in on this? - This is after all an edit request.141.166.230.9 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would additionally add that linking 'Palestine' to 'Palestinian territories' is like listing the reaction of SADR as 'Western Sahara.' 'Palestinian territories' is a geographic term, and though it is a contested, politicized geographic term, is is not a political term. 'Palestinian National Authority' is a political term and is usage is accurate here because the reaction cited to in the list is from the Palestinian National Authority; not the Palestinian territories. Thus, 'Palestine' should link to 'Palestinian National Authority;' not 'Palestinian territories.' 141.166.224.83 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i totally agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So do the editors, the ones capable of making the appropriate changes, actually intend to respond to this edit request? 141.166.229.162 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Palestinian territories refers to the land in which Palestine is located, whereas Palestinian National Authority refers to the governing body. So it should be redirected there instead.

Please redirect "Palestine" from Palestinian territories to Palestinian National Authority. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done It is not possible to easily change the target of the piped link, as it is part of the {{flag}} template system which is used on 125,000 pages, with the change affecting at least six hundred articles. This is something you should discuss at Wikipedia talk:Flag templates. Happy‑melon 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestine 2 edit request

{{editprotected}}

Well how about Palestine? see how ive done it? We already have consensus Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you may have misunderstood my response. I wasn't indicating that the change shouldn't be made to the template (it seems a reasonable request and the arguments for it seem plausible) but simply that it needs to be discussed in an alternative forum (actually Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, not the redlink I gave earlier). It is senseless to use the hack you have correctly identified as an alternative when the problem, if it exists, exists on 700 articles. I suggest you propose your change there, where editors familiar with the flag templates can tell you if it is sensible or whether there is some valid objection that is not obvious to us. Fixing one individual article is not the best way to resolve this issue. Happy‑melon 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care at the moment about the over all issue, I care about tis presentation in the current article. First, rejecting the current edit proposal is inconsistent the resolution of the Western Sahara-SADR edit since "Palestinian territories," like "Western Sahara" is a geographic and not political term. Second, its also POV. There is no reason why this article should repeat a mistake made on 700 articles; why should this be 701?; because the mistake is popular? - a popular mistake is still a mistake. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, its clearly easy to change a link, as ljanderson demonstrated. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the request for comment from WP:WPFLAG. Although of course you are entitled to hold it, I do not approve of such a narrow focus on a single article: why, when you have the opportunity to correct a perceived problem in seven hundred articles with perhaps twice the effort required to resolve it in one, do you instead wish to fix only one instance of it, leaving the other 699 to be resolved separately, with the same or more unnecessary energy expended for each? Happy‑melon 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction begins at home: if there is an identical mistake in 700 articles; popularity is not a valid reason to repeat that mistake again and bring that count up to 701. Further, the change can be made here and the request to fix the other 700 articles can be made at the same time: the two are hardly mutually exclusive. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have two templates, {{flag|Palestine}} (result: Palestine) and {{flag|Palestinian Authority}} (result: Palestinian Authority). If you want the later for this article, why not just use the later? Rather than making an across the board change.... If you don't want to call it "Palestinian Authority" and would rather call it Palestine, even that can be achieved, like so: {{flag|Palestinian Authority||name=Palestine}} (result: Palestine) also, I don't agree with Ijanderson977's solution, since we should use the power of the existing flag / country data template system rather than doing things manually.... --SJK (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a promising solution. Which style is preferred? Happy‑melon 08:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow....That is what we have been trying to do from the beginning! 'Palestine' links to 'Palestinian territories': we want it to link to 'Palestinian National Authority' instead. That is it. If making this change is a "promising solution," Happy Melon, then we have a consensus: make the change. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A Brief Blurb - Tuvalu

I spoke with a gentleman at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tuvalu on the telephone today to ask about their position on Kosovo. He told me that the cabinet had not discussed the issue yet and that the foreign minister was abroad and would not be returning for some time, so it will be "a few weeks" (his words) before Tuvalu makes a decision on whether to recognize or not. Canadian Bobby (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So?--Jakezing (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So we can probably expect to hear Tuvalu's position on Kosovo in the next week or so and update the article accordingly. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would expect more recognitions from the small Pacific Island states generally. They aren't concerned about angering Russia, they are generally very friendly toward the US and Australia, and many (though not all) of them recognize the Republic of China(Taiwan). They seem like good candidates for recognition. 141.166.224.83 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

This article is about the International Reaction to this Declaration of Independence, not about international recognition. As such, I think it would be better if there was a category of states that explicitly welcomed the independence of Kosovo. The reason why I am asking for this is not merely for the accurateness of the article, but also because diplomatic language has many nuisances. Nauru recognized Kosovo apparently, but that does not really change much, whereas if a larger nation welcomes it, then it might change more. This is especially important considering that many nations, as Tocino shows by the case of Montenegro, are too indifferent to come up with recognitions, and as the case of Malaysia shows, you can play around even with a recognition. Moreover, semantically speaking, when you welcome a declaration of independence, does that not mean that to some extent you recognize it? Finally, the importance of Welcoming can be highlighted by the fact that sometimes support means more than recognition: to Taiwan US support is much more important than recognition from countries like Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.130.196 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Welcoming is too informal a reaction to deserve a separate category. I have nothing against including that information in each individual country's description box, but, to say that the word "welcome" constitutes a unique and specific category of diplomatic "reaction" is like saying that there should also be separate lists for each state that "congratulates," "observes," "wants good relations with," "is concerned for," "takes note of," and "prays for" Kosovo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming shows that they don't dare or are not ready to recognise therefore is not as good. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That would border the no original research policy so I disagree.--Avala (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And lets face facts, the only reason a category is wanted on countries which have welcomed Kosovo is to make it seem to have more support than it does and that's not NPOV. If they really supported Kosovo, they would have recognised to show their support, instead of been cowards and only welcoming. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how it borders on original research since these are diplomatic reactions that mean much more than it meets to eye. I do not think that diplomatic language, coming from diplomats and not media, is ever informal. I think every word not said, and every word said, usually has value. I do not think it is NPOV because it shows more support than there actually is, because to Welcome, to a certain extent, does mean support. If Russia was to Welcome Kosovo independence, but not recognize it, it would have been a huge blow to Serbia, much more so than if US was to Welcome Kosovo instead of recognizing. Every statement of Welcome, I believe, shows some support for Kosovo; maybe not to the extent that the leaders of Kosovo want, but nevertheless to some extent. I do recognize however that considering the previous debate, my request is unrealistic, not because it is not sound, as much as because it will lead to much conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.130.230 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your wanting. We already mention if a country welcomes Kosovo or not. However we have a system of organising the countries. A list of countries recognising Kosovo and a list of countries not recognising. We do this as it is neutral, non controversial and is based purely on fact. Where as it would be different if we were to include welcoming countries, for example its controversial for example somebody may interpret one sources, and claim that the country welcomes Kosovo, however another person may interpret the source and say that the country doesn't welcome Kosovo. Now there will be big problems over that. Yes it is easy to find out for some countries if they welcome Kosovo (eg Pakistan), however for some it is harder (eg Slovakia) not everyone will agree. However one thing we can all agree on is weather a county recognises Kosovo or not. This works out best and it pleases everyone as it is NPOV. Do you understand now? Also will you please sign your comments in future Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The circus Monkey’s wry, whimsical view on Zimbabwe

Its a fairly long article, it half way down under the title "Zimbabwe: The only country where a civil war will be welcomed". [22] Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say Zimbabwe will recognise at all - it's referring to hypocricy of the West in general. Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ooops Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

article unlocking

Do we know why exactly is the article still locked? It can't stay locked forever and obviously things have cooled down so I don't expect an edit war to erupt if we unlock it. Should we ask for unlocking? --Avala (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree Its time the article became unlocked Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I emphatically agree that the article should be unlocked. Whatever slapfight prompted the thread to be locked has long since been forgotten. The article is suffering because of the inability to change it as events and new information warrant. Please unlock it and severely punish those who violate the rules instead of collectively punishing all of us. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very nice, but a) I can't think of any sorely neglected areas in the article that need editing, b) no one has committed not to forcibly revert, esp. User:Tocino, who has if anything gone on record to say that this is his first desire, c) locking the article seems to have stabilized it and forced all changes to survive rigorous review. Edits during locking have been better on the whole than the often revert-laden activity from before. I have no illusions that reverting and re-locking are to be expected, with the net result of turning off the admins whohave been helpful. --Mareklug ^talk 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it should be unlocked first, then if things go horribly wrong lock it again -- Cradel 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, instead of locking it again automatically, why not block those causing problems? Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh those who cause problems should be blocked from all Kosovo articles Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The even more intractable situation in University of Priština remarkably managed not not to result in locking, but is being discussed with substantial restraint being shown on all sides, and possibly is converging to a solution. I wonder why. Well, someone did content POV-fork University of Prishtina, but this won't stand. --Mareklug ^talk 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Disagree' Keep it locked, those who want it unlocked have directly or indirectly contributed to the edit wars. Any edit is being reviewed, which is what I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia dosn't bow to your wish's kosova. Disagree' simply because we actuly get somewhere ussualy now.--Jakezing (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You just made my point, "we get somewhere usually now" because the article is locked. This way the clashing forces of Mareklug and Avala don't intersect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.122.70 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like it the way it is: necessary edits are made at a reasonable pace, people discuss everything, there are no radical changes, the article is stable yet up-yo-date. I think the admins are doing a fine job of keeping up with edit requests and preventing edit wars, which, given the nature of the disagreements here, I think will erupt the moment it is unlocked.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support unlocking. Things are working very well, and the article is great, but this is not the wiki way. It's important, especially in highly-trafficked articles, for people to see how Wikipedia actually works. -- SCZenz (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think this topic is too "hot" to be left unlocked... the people who are most inclined to edit it are those who care the most passionately about it one way or the other, and that is a recipe for endless edit wars. The way it works now, people propose changes, and we have admins such as happy melon (who so far has impressed me with their neutrality) make a judgement on whether to make the change or not. I don't think this article needs to be locked forever, but I think until the underlying dispute (I mean the real world dispute, not editing disputes) is resolved one way or the other, or at least evolves into some sort of permanent status quo, feelings among editors are going to be too strong for unlocking to result in anything other than endless edit warring... --SJK (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of sponsored

In the section with the title "Political parties", it says, "At a government sponsered conference held in Budapest . . ." "Sponsered" should be spelled with O, in other words, "sponsored". I can't edit the page because it's locked. Ashton1983 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ashton1983 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian officials let on that Kosovo will be able to use their embassies (implying recognition imminent)

Source from 30 April 3008, Balkan Insight (Bosnia) article: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/9782

This suggests a need for a an addition to Macedonia's reaction. I'm surprised BalkanFever has not reported the Defense Minister mentioning this before in Macedonian press, as is indicated in this Bosnian source. -- Mareklug ^talk 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We should include this in the article.

Something like this

---

The Republic of Macedonia has not yet recognised Kosovo due to upcoming elections in June 2008 the decision weather to recognise Kosovo or not has been frozen until after the elections in June. However in the meantime, Skopje has said that Kosovo may use its embassies abroad.

---

What do you think? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing about embassies is speculation by Kosovo’s Foreign Minister Skender Hiseni and not a done deal.--Avala (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Today Macedonian President said that they are negotiating the border with Kosovo because they want the issue solved but that they don't care if they are negotiating with Pristina, UN or Belgrade because they just want it done.--Avala (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro referred to in neuter

{{editprotected}} The entry under Cuba refers to Castro as "its" where it should read "his". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the entry under "International Olympic Committee" has a phrase that reads "under Olympic flag". This should be changed to "under the Olympic flag". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - uncontroversial BalkanFever 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Grammar requests are not controversial and there is no need to vote on it.--Avala (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to agree either - it was fixed ages ago. Bazonka (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree This is an uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop agreeing - it's already been fixed!!! Bazonka (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. --alchaemia (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - FIBA membership not granted

{{editprotect}}

On 26 April 2008, the international governing body for basketball, FIBA, at this year's FIBA Central Board meeting in Beijing declined Basketball Federation of Kosova's 11 April 2008 request for admission to membership.

---

Please add the following entry to the table International sports federations:

|- | International Basketball Federation || On 26 April 2008 FIBA declined to admit Basketball Federation of Kosova to membership. Reason: "Kosovo has not fulfilled all necessary conditions". |-

---

--Mareklug ^talk 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Agree International sport Federations are not important, but we have others, so we might as well include this one too Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - add to the International sports federations section.--Avala (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree sport federations are irrelevant Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now - no consensus as yet. Happy‑melon 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - Basketball is a big deal in Serbia and Greece and in the Balkans so this decision will have made headlines over there. --Tocino 14:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

but its not relevant. Should we include the "international boy scouts association" on Kosovo too? No, becuase they are as pointless as Basketball federations and other sporting federations. They should not be included in this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Subrequest regarding International sports federations section

{{editprotect}} Remove International Ski Federation, International Table Tennis Federation and International Handball Federation. This article is called International REACTION to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and the status of Kosovo within these organizations dating from 2004 is not a reaction. Imagine Scotland declares independence and in article called "International reaction to the 2008 Scotland declaration of independence" we add information - Scottish Football Association has been FIFA member since 1910. Not really.--Avala (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with conditions sport federations are irrelevant, so all are to be removed, not just the proposed Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't erase IOC.--Avala (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Suppose. IOC should go into "International non-governmental organisations" Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what conditions need to be fulfilled to be considered for membership. --alchaemia (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)alchaemia

 Not done for now - no consensus as yet. Happy‑melon 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - Those particular responses are out of date. I am opposed to removing the entire section however, because I do think that sports federations are relevant. --Tocino 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

sport should be kept out of this Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sport is very relevant to the international status of a country, and the way in which popular culture views it. It therefore must be mentioned. This article is not just about which countries have recognised Kosovo. There would be all sorts of political goings-on if, for example, Kosovo were to be drawn against e.g. Serbia or Russia in a major sporting event. However I think the list of sports federations could be restricted to major international ones (IOC, EUFA, FIFA etc - not that we have info on all of these though) and those for sports that play a particularly big role in the culture of Kosovo, Serbia etc. Perhaps therefore remove table-tennis and handball (I don't know how big these sports are in Kosovo). I'd be happy to see the sport federations moved to the International NGO section though. Bazonka (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment @Bazonka: Well, then. If sport is very relevant to the international status of a country, then you'll be happy to keep the handball and table tennis international federation mentions, since they are important to Kosovars, as the only sports in which they can now represent their country. Deciding on our own which sport is important is inappropriate. There are only so many international sport federations, and each one has equal standing to that of any other. In the case of FIBA, Serbia's government has actively interfered, directing its own basketball federation to protest inclusion of Kosovo in basketball tournaments, such as the invitational conducted in Jordan (Amman). The federation itself said it had no choice, that it was directed to do so by the Serbian government. And FIBA is dominated by Serbia and its friends, since it is a basketball power and views basketball as culturally and diplomatically important. This political dicking is highly sport-dependent, and Serbia clearly lacks the same pull in other sports. All of this entails reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence, and the table tennis and handball federatons not kicking Kosovo out are also reactions. Why my straightforwad addition of the FIBA developments was blocked boggles the mind. It's another case of not thinking clearly. If someone wants to strike all sports from the page, they should raise it as a separate issue and have it aired, not block updates to exisiting content, which only make what is on the page incomplete. --Mareklug ^talk 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that Mareklug - as I said, I'm not familiar with what sports are popular in Kosovo. However Avala made a good point that membership prior to the declaration of independence is not really a reaction; since they allowed a non-country to be a member, their subsequent lack of action in expelling a quasi-country isn't at all surprising. I'm not sure what to do about those ones. Need to change the bit that says they're currently participating in the pingpong tournament though - I'm sure it'll have finished by now. Bazonka (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can we come to a decision on this please? I propose that we:

• add the details for FIBA as stated above. (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."
• the reference to "Kosovo faces uphill task for sporting recognition" (currently ref 220) applies to all of this additional text and so should be retained. The reference for table-tennis (number 221) no longer works and so should be removed. Bazonka (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for change before adding {{editprotected}}. Happy‑melon 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Well can we come to a consensus then? Bazonka (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

Perhaps we could make it easier for readers to find Serbia in the list. Serbia is not more important than the other countries, but we might consider the amount of people looking for it (and its two related articles) quickly. It could be in its own section, with the table of contents as:

2 States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide
2.1 Serbia
2.2 UN member states
2.3 Other states
Interested in your thoughts. Kayrat Tekebayev (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason to separate Serbia from the rest; they're all UN members, so Serbia's recognition is not more important. More desirable for Kosovan leaders, perhaps, but not more important. --alchaemia (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, considering Serbia is the entity Kosovo has declared independence from. What do our "veterans" think :)? BalkanFever 11:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest leaving it in the same list, but moving it up to the top. (I think that's how it used to be.) Bazonka (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal is to put Serbia on the top of the list, regardless of the alphabet, instead of leaving it where it is or taking it out of the list to a special one.--Avala (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that.84.134.114.174 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree No need to change it. Serbia is easy to find already. Its in alphabetical order. So if someone is looking for Serbia, they should look at the countries beginning with an "S". Not too hard to find Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree as well - I found having Serbia at the top of the otherwise alphabetical list of other countries quite disturbing. In any case, I don't believe that any reader will come to this page to get to know Serbia's position on the whole issue, as that one is quite obvious. Khuft (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You actually found it "quite disturbing"?--Avala (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yes indeed. It felt wrong having an alphabetical list starting with Serbia. Khuft (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbia belongs at the top of the list of countries opposing, which was where it was for a long time on this article. Kosovo and Metohija is internationally recognized as a Serbian province, so to have Serbia listed as just another nation looks as though you are trying to downplay Serbia's relevance to this subject. --Tocino 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't recognized as such, and will not be anytime soon. No need to separate Serbia from the list at all, as its 1 vote counts as much as that of Nauru or Burkina Faso - that is, 1 vote. --alchaemia (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

@ Tocino, your forgetting that Kosovo is also internationally recognised as an independent state ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Only bilaterally but not multilaterally.--Avala (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the international reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Obviously, Serbia would not consider its own reaction as an international reaction, since for Serbia it's an internal matter... Therefore there's no point in highlighting Serbia's position, as Serbia has no "international reaction". Khuft (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thats a good point, maybe we should remove all information about Serbia's response to Kosovo and include it in Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, so Serbia should just look like this-

---

| Serbia||

Main article: Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

See also: 2008 protests in Serbia

|| |-

---

What do you think? Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree. Current info is the summary of Serbian reaction. It should stay.--Avala (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. I didn't even know there was a page on Serbia's reaction until now... Obviously, there's no point in duplicating everything. Just adding the link would obviously be enough. Khuft (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By this same logic then this entire article should be deleted, because separatism in a Serbian province is an internal matter and other nations have no say over internal matters of Serbia. --Tocino 17:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, perhaps coming back to reality should be a priority, especially for you. 'Internal matters of Serbia'? A former UN-protectorate, under the military control of KFOR is an 'internal matter to you'? Serbia should stay where it is. --alchaemia (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the concurrent proposal was to eliminate Serbia's response altogether from the article because Serbia doesn't consider its response an international reaction... as the user said it's an internal matter. Well I was saying if you follow that logic then this entire article should be deleted because internal matters are not decided by foreign entities. Obviously I do not favor deleting Serbia's response or the entire article. --Tocino 18:47, 4 May 2008 9UTC)

• Support Majority Position - I consider this a non-issue; it's more aesthetic than anything. Leaving Serbia as-is would be fine. Placing it at the top of the list would be fine. Eliminating Serbia reaction and replacing with links to the Serbia article is fine. The only thing I would consider inapropriate is deleting Serbia entirely from this article.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG Disagree: Why change the article? If you are in this article then you already know how Serbia feels, adding this POV info is redudent. I will not support it, sorry. Alphabetic order as is works fine, I am sure a lot of people will agree with my position. Kosova2008 68.187.142.80 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino Why cant countries have a say about Kosovo? Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ctrl f feature was put in computers for a reason...--Jakezing (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gerhard Schroeder: "Recognition of Kosovo was the wrong step"

Interesting comments from the former German chancellor, who's Social Democrats party is still in power in a grand coalition keep in mind, so these comments could have some influence over the German govt. Here are Schroeder's words... "However, recognition of Kosovo has weakened those forces [Tadic's party], maybe to such an extent that soon we will effectively have a completely isolated and uncertain Serbia." "I think that recognition of Kosovo was the wrong step, because it was done too soon. In essence, recognition by the majority of EU member states and the U.S., instead of solving the problem, has only created new ones." "Speaking completely frankly, the EU has in this case completely bowed to American pressure. That solution might have been in the best interests of the U.S., but it was certainly not in Europe's best interests."

Link: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=05&dd=05&nav_id=49989

I propose adding Schroeder's comments to the article. In the notes section, we can say something like, "Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who's SPD party is still in power in a grand coalition, has criticized the swift recognition of Kosovo's independence. Schroeder, who says that the E.U. countries who've recognized did so under heavy pressure from the U.S. government, believes that Western recognition has caused more problems, including weakening the so-called pro-Europe forces in Serbia." --Tocino 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think we need to keep this article nice and neat, by limiting the entries to just official government positions on kosovo, and not including pov commentary by individual politicians, unless they are heads of state or foreign ministers. The number of pov statements similar to this one, or in defense of recognition, is unending, and cumbersome.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Well found Tocino. But its pointless. He is a former chancellor therefore what he says is pointless. I love how you try and add POV edits to the article and make it seem pro Serbian instead of neutral. Especially when the page is blocked and we have to use edit requests. You know that a consensus won't be reached. You do it on purpose, just to cause a big debate and trouble. Troll? Tocino please read WP:DNFT and WP:DBAD Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - add it first to Gerhard_Schroeder#Foreign_policy.--Avala (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Tocino 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment @ Avala he is a former Chancellor, therefore he has no foreign policy any more. There are just one mans views and opinions Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are notes only allowed for states which do no recognize? Why can't we have notes for the tiny minority of nations that recognize? To me this is suppression of facts. This has happened earlier where President Lech Kaczyński's opposition was documented under Poland's entry yet it was deleted by pro-Kosovo Albanian editors. There are 154 U.N. member states that do not recognize an independent Kosovo. Why don't we list all of them like the way we do for countries that do recognize... No notes or anything? Why is it that countries that do not recognize must have their reasonings explained on this article, while the countries that recognize are just listed without notes? People who support recognition in countries which do not recognize are thoroughly detailed on this article, while people who are against recognition in countries that recognize are blacklisted. There is a double standard here. Schroeder is Germany's equivalent of Bill Clinton and to blacklist him on this article is a blatent violation of NPOV rules. --Tocino 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I'll blacklist Bill Clinton for been former leader, just like i'd blacklist Tony Blair for been a former leader. Former is pointless and bulls**t. No need. Former leaders opinions are unworthy on current issues. Its not even useful information. Can you imagine someone looking at this article for encyclopaedic purposes, then they look at Germany and they see that Gerhard Schroeder disagrees with the recognition. Thats going to change everything. Thats major vital information. Seriously Tocino WP:DBAD. Your WP:POV is not needed on this article. The only reason you want it on this article is to make Kosovo to seem to have less support than it does have. Instead of been neutral. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Lech Kaczyński and other leaders who oppose recognition in countries that recognize? Why are we blacklisting these people? In the meantime those who support recognition in countries which do not recognize are promptly displayed. This article is titled "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", right? It's not titled, "Favorable reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" last time I checked. Ohh and it's bad form to call those with whom you disagree with "dicks". --Tocino 21:53, 5 May 2008 9UTC)

I'll agree with you there, i know its not called "Favorable reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", thats why we shouldn't include un-encyclopaedic information to favour your view point.
Also i know all about DBAD, for example it says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." So that means im a dick, but at least i can admit it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't disagree with recognition; he simply says that it has been done 'prematurely.' He's known for having such views, and the Serbian media usually pamper to his whims. He says that it should have been concurrently with the accession of Serbia and Kosovo into the EU. Nice theory, but the Kosovan people don't have the patience for experiments simply because Gerhard has some political theories he wants to try out. --alchaemia (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Today, 39 countries recognize Kosovo, with a further 112 indicating directly or indirectly they will do so in the near future."

From "Time to end the double standard", Commentary by Alex Yermoloff (Vancouver), TAIWAN Journal", Vol. XXV No. 17, 2 May 2008. Link accessed 2008-05-06. I wonder where the author got this precise "112". Interesting. --Mareklug ^talk 09:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that figure comes from this website which lists 111 countries (was 112 until Lithuania officially recognized) that they predict will eventually recognize an independent Kosovo. Koraki (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That makes it much less interesing. :( --Mareklug ^talk 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

edit request - Lithuania

Please change Lithuania position on regard to Kosovo Independence, sources below

Today Lithuania officialy recognized the Kosovo declaration of independence [23] Digitalpaper (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official source [24]Digitalpaper (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please carry out the following article modifications. They reflect new facts on the ground and are not controversial in the least:

• 1. Please add the following to the first table in the article (UN member states; in the section States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent:

---

|- | 39 || Lithuania || 2008-05-06 || || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

• 2. Please remove Lithuania from the table of states in the section States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo

• 3. Please update the article lead to read (2nd paragraph, first sentence + first part to the semicolon of the second sentence):

As of 6 May 2008, 39 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 of 27);

• 4. Please add an asterisk (*) after Lithuania in the listing of states contained in the show template for the following organizations in the table of international organizations: European Union, NATO.

• 5. Please speedy delete the local copy of the Commons map Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png, as it is obstructing the Commons version for over 7 days already, with all conditions satisfied, but the silly bot is unable to parse that.

• 6. (Optional) Please upload on Commons a version of the map that shows Lithuania in dark green. (Someone will do it shortly anyway).  Done --Mareklug ^talk 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 10:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Kosovapress reported it as well. Gugganij (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree Blic paper reported it as well --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Finally" fits more in a forum than a wikipedia talk page.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Commander Critic. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Here is an alternative newspaper source: [25] --Lumidek (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly is requested on #4. Please provide a more detailed explanation of the request. Húsönd 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Added an English language reference (The Baltic Times) (ha ha, edit conflict. I got this on my RSS :) Alas, Husond just managed to execute it before I could write to disk the English-language source, what with 3 edit conflicts in a row...)

As for point #4, in section International governmental organizations please replace the following code (table fragment):

---

|- | EU || The European Union does not possess the legal capacity to diplomatically recognise any state; member states do so individually. The majority of member states have recognised Kosovo. To articulate a common EU policy of either support or opposition to Kosovan independence would require unanimity on the subject from all 27 member states, which does not presently exist. On 18 February, the EU officially stated that it would take note of the resolution of the Kosovo assembly. The EU is sending a EULEX mission to Kosovo, which includes a special representative and 2000 police and judicial personnel.

Member states (18 / 27) Candidates (2 / 3)

Austria* • Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Cyprus** • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • Finland* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Ireland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania • Luxembourg* • Malta • Netherlands* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Sweden* • United Kingdom*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|- | IMF || Kosovo is not a member of the International Monetary Fund. It will have to apply and go through the membership process in order to receive IMF financial support. IMF presently provides technical assistance and monitors the economic development of Kosovo. |- | NATO || NATO maintains that its ongoing Kosovo Force mission and mandate remain unchanged and continues to operate under the agreement "between KFOR and the Republic of Serbia from June 1999".

Member states (19 / 26) Candidates (2 / 3)

Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Canada* • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Iceland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania • Luxembourg* • Netherlands* • Norway* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Turkey* • United Kingdom* • United States*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|-

---

with this code (table fragment):

---

|- | EU || The European Union does not possess the legal capacity to diplomatically recognise any state; member states do so individually. The majority of member states have recognised Kosovo. To articulate a common EU policy of either support or opposition to Kosovan independence would require unanimity on the subject from all 27 member states, which does not presently exist. On 18 February, the EU officially stated that it would take note of the resolution of the Kosovo assembly. The EU is sending a EULEX mission to Kosovo, which includes a special representative and 2000 police and judicial personnel.

Member states (19 / 27) Candidates (2 / 3)

Austria* • Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Cyprus** • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • Finland* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Ireland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania* • Luxembourg* • Malta • Netherlands* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Sweden* • United Kingdom*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|- | IMF || Kosovo is not a member of the International Monetary Fund. It will have to apply and go through the membership process in order to receive IMF financial support. IMF presently provides technical assistance and monitors the economic development of Kosovo. |- | NATO || NATO maintains that its ongoing Kosovo Force mission and mandate remain unchanged and continues to operate under the agreement "between KFOR and the Republic of Serbia from June 1999".

Member states (20 / 26) Candidates (2 / 3)

Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Canada* • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Iceland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania* • Luxembourg* • Netherlands* • Norway* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Turkey* • United Kingdom* • United States*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|-

---

Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Date

In the second section of the introduction: Please replace "6 May 2008 2008" with May 6, 2008.

Thank you. Gugganij (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. My bad. Húsönd 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Change Prishtina to Pristina

It has been decided elsewhere that WP:English now uses Pristina as the spelling of the largest city in Kosovo. I think it's time we changed all references of Prishtina in this article to Pristina. --Tocino 01:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)#

Agree, it should be in line with the article Pristina. Gugganij (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, as it already is in line with the article Pristina. Your comment would have currency, if we were talking about some name that only functioned as a redirect, without being emboldened as equivalent within article definition. Then, yes, I'd be for changing to article title, as the only thing on the menu. Observe. This is the first paragraph of the article (all formatting as it appears, nothing emphasized by me):

---

Pristina, also spelled Priština or Prishtina listen^ⓘ (Albanian: Prishtinë or Prishtina, Serbian: Приштина, Priština) is the capital and the largest city of Kosovo, a partially recognized country in the Balkans that declared independence from Serbia on February 17 2008. It is the administrative center of the homonymous municipality and district.

---

I believe that the most correct, scholarly use of the above Wikipedia content is to use it contextually. This means, in Serbian historical articles, pipe the link to Priština, while in contemporary Republic of Kosovo contexts, pipe it to Prishtina, which is how its government spells it (and the city administration itself). Precedent for this course of action has been set in several places, notably with Côte d'Ivoire, which country we could of course keep calling Ivory Coast (common English name, right?), but it so happens that its government expressly requested of the international community to use the French lexical string for all official naming, in any langauge, in particular, diplomatically. And so we observe this, including on Wikipedia. I don't see why Republic of Kosovo should be an exception to this enlightened, context sensitive use. Always use the most appropriate name, and be guided in your choice by context and undisputed main space content. --Mareklug ^talk 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does Kosovo request anyone abroad to use Prishtina instead of alternative spellings/names? I still prefer sticking to the most commons form in English, which is Pristina. Gugganij (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gugganij So you keep referring to it as Pristina because the Kosovar Government hasn't requested otherwise? You're saying you would follow such a request, if it is ever made? --alchaemia (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, since in my point of view Wikipedia should be descriptive and not formative. As long as "Pristina" dominates the English language when referring to this city, I am against changing it. Gugganij (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But Ivory Coast dominates the English language when referring to that country as well, but it's still Cote d'Ivoire in the article. Why the discrepancy? --alchaemia (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, why in the case of the Ivory Coast the contributors decided to deviate from a well-established core principle. I am sure we will find other cases as well. But that doesn't mean, we should create another one. Gugganij (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean that we should deny it to one group, but grant it to the other. --alchaemia (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to press this naming issue, and if the majority decides to keep Prishtina - well, ok. But since Tocino brought it up, I wanted to state my opinion, that I think keeping it is inconsistent with a core principle of Wikipedia. Gugganij (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pristina is an outdated English adaption of Priština. Prishtina is a current English adaption of Prishtina, the main language used in Kosovo. Why keep the English adaption of the Serbian version, when you can have the English adaption of the Albanian version? Doesn't make sense. Exo (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG AGREE It is the norm in English Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - In addition to Ivory Coast, there is also Belarus, which expressly asked countries to stop calling it "Bielorussia/Byelorussia." There's a few more examples as well, but I must repeat the question asked earlier, where has Kosovo asked that people call their capital "Prishtina?" The official English version used by English-speaking governments, including the two main ones, the UK and the US, is Pristina, and that is how media refer to it. I don't care what it's called in Pristina, just as I don't care that people in Turin call their city Torino, unless there is an official diplomatic request like in the cases that have been mentioned.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, let's examine this closely: You know who Dr. Fatmir Sejdiu is, yes? Scholar, university professor, fluent speaker of "Albanian, English, Serbian and French", um, current President of the Republic of Kosovo? Let's visit his high office's official web page in the English-language version, [26], and avail ourselves of the search box. Key in "Pristina", and see what you get. One result, to some anonymous letter of friendship type document mentioing Pristina nad Belgrade. Now key in "Prishtina". Wow. You'll get a stream of personal letters and speeches of the Kosovo President, a rather large number. Let's examine the latest one as of this writing, it's short enough, and I claim, highly instructive and indicative [27]:

---

09.04.2008 President Sejdiu Congratulates Filip Vujanovic on His Re election

Prishtina, 09 April 2008 His Excellency Filip Vujanovic President of the Republic of Montenegro Podgorica Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of the people of Kosovo, I warmly congratulate you on your re-election as President of the Republic of Montenegro.

The people of Montenegro have renewed their trust in you after having served for a mandate as President at a significant time for your country and Europe.

Kosovo and Montenegro, as newly emerged independent nations in Europe, share more than a friendly border: our commitment to democracy, as well as aspirations to join the Euro-Atlantic community, namely membership of the EU and NATO.

Dear Mr. Vujanovic,

The people of Kosovo and the people of Montenegro have every reason to confront their challenges with optimism in their pursuit of democratic and economic prosperity in south-eastern Europe and wider.

Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours at the service of your nation,

I remain yours truly,

Dr. Fatmir Sejdiu President of the Republic of Kosovo

---

• Looks to me to be written in flawless English. Every last word is in English. Note that the country is spelled "Kosovo", not "Kosova". No Albanian words here. Yet, clearly, as in all the other letters nad speeches of esteemed Dr. Sejdiu, its uniformly "Prishtina", not "Pristina". Do you think this man is an idiot, and cannot write down correctly his own capital in formal English? I hope not. Unlike the draft constitution, which isn't a law yet, and which is an anonymous document that for all we know has been written to US Government spec by Americans for Kosovars to have, and which referes to Pristina only in passing, exactly once, in a one-line designation of which city is to serve as the republic's capital, here we have personal, signed document, a high fidelity diplomatic correspondence by an obviously erudite person acting in legal capacity as the highest officer of the state. If his persistent usage does not constitute a request to spell Prishtina as such officially in English when dealing with the Republic of Kosovo, what do does?

• By the way, this letter is so painfully in English, that Filip Vujanović didn't even get to keep his diacritic. :) In all seriousness, perhaps we should consider that the Kosovo Government through the Office of the President of the Republic of Kosovo wishes to let on clearly how their capital is to be pronounced correctly. It's reason enough to choose one spelling variant in English over another. And, speaking of the English language norm, Encyclopedia Britannica of 1905 lodges its article about the city under "Prishtina", while its current online article is placed under the English variant with the Serbian diacritic, and the Albanian name is clearly written in addition, while no Serbian name is indicated. I think that speaks loudly as to what is normative in the English language. In both cases, the sound is clearly notated via the prefered scholarly spellings. I remind you that Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, presumably no less scholarly than the Britannica, not a Eurovision song contest or another arena for polls and selecting winners by votes. --Mareklug ^talk 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you argue that Dr. Sejdiu and the Encyclopedia Britannica edition of 1905 are overwhelming evidence that "Prishtina" is the correct version in normative English. Sorry, I don't agree, though I respect your opinion. First, it is the opinion of one man, no matter how respectable he is, second, he is a Kosovar man, and his English usage does not constitute a scholarly precedent, regardless of how good his English is, unless he is professionally dedicated to the English language. Third, it is common for people to refer to their native cities in their native tongue, in their native pronunciation, even when speaking a different language, and one notable personality's usage hardly makes it an "official" diplomatic request for foreign recognition of that variant. Fourth, I do not know if you refer to Encyclopedia Britannica online or on paper, but I don't have access to the online version, and the paper version does not reflect the current situation in Kosovo; however, as respectable as that encyclopedia is, it alone does not set the standard (especially not the 1905 edition). I do not pretend that I have done a lot of reseach on the matter, because I have not. I only give my overal impression, which I admit might be incorrect, but is my impression nontheless, and that is, the broader political and news media usage overwhelmingly prefers "Pristina."

As for this not being a contest. Well, actually, when it comes to English, it is. English is a democratic language. Unlike other tongues that are governed by official institutions of linguistic "purity," like the Spanish and French academies, English is governed by usage. It is a descriptive language, not a prescriptive or proscriptive one, and most English scholars, theorists, and linguists are philosophically opposed to governing English according to the rigid, protectivist, nationalist standards of other European tongues. Every year, dictionaries in the US and England are updated to reflect the scholarly opinion on worldwide usage. English scholars base this concept of "usage" on both mass-market publications and on literary works and journals, and on the media. Most publications seem to prefer "Pristina." This constitutes the encyclopedic benchmark for determining normative English. In other words, when Google, the world's English-speaking politicians, official government publications, and numerous online references, consistently give "Pristina," don't cite one primary source and one man as proof to the contrary. That is not to say you are wrong, only that I don't see the backing to your argument of what constitutes "correct" English. There are countless examples of names in the English language, which exist simply because they are easier to spell or pronounce, and with little other justification. The analogy to Pristina/Prishtina is "Budapest," which based on the Hungarian pronunciation should be spelled "Budapesht," and yet it's not. People use whatever feels, looks, and sounds "right" in their own language.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

@supersexyspacemonkey: so you reject Dr. Sejdiu's usage of the name, referring to the capital of the state he's a president of, but you accept how many pages are to be found on Google? Wow, that's some logic there. --alchaemia (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not just talking about google. Nice straw-man though. :) And yes, it is indeed quite logical, to prefer multiple sources over one man, even if he is a president. You are implying that one local speaker's preferences in his homeland define the norms of the English language. Not that is illogical--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he defines the name of his capital much more so than Google or Wikipedia or whatever "multiple sources" you are quoting.

No, not really, a politician does not define the "correct" version of any name on behalf of an entire foreign language, in fact, he is quite irrelevant in that regard. The issue is linguistics, not political correctness. My "multiple sources" are the various English-speaking governments, which call the city "Pristina" in their websites and press releases, the CIA world factbook, World Almanac, and articles printed by the major English-speaking news agencies. But let's stick to one argument and not make me prove the painfully obvious. It's the editors who advocate using "Prishtina" who think that we should ignore the common usage in favor of a name that respects Kosovan culture rather than Anglophone tendencies, because this somehow makes it more "correct." That's a valid argument, I just don't happen to agree with it--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Pristina is defined by the Serbian "Priština." (simply dropping the umlaut on s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be argued that "Pristina" is equally distant morphologically from both the Albanian and the Serbian versions, and is a generic representation of either one. Both Anglicizations involve changing one letter into another one, and the idea that the letter "s" is closer to "š" than to "sh" is completely subjective.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That idea may be completely subjective in some information theoretical sense, comparing codes for symbols or distance between strings, but I'm afraid that in English a letter with diacritics and its version without one are in popular usage the same thing. In fact, I suspect, that is why Serbian editors are happy to show Pristina in place of Prishtina, because it gives them the appearance of Priština as expressed in casual English. But this is, like I said, an encyclopedia, and we strive for exactness in lexical representations. Finally, please revisit the RfC and search for all my comments (there's quite a number, all involving sourcing). I don't want to copy-and-paste that stuff into this overlong talk page needlessly. Suffice to say, I documened pervasive Amercian university web page use of "Prishtina" and "University of Prishtina". And we are talking in this article in the context of Repubic of Kosovo, not Kosovo generically, which guides our choice of spelling contextualy. I remind you that our own article admits three equivalent variants without passing judgment on any one. The judgement is in the eye of the contextually using editors. --Mareklug ^talk 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

edit request UN

{{editprotected}}

please update UN from 38/192 to 39/192 and make it say at the end "five of which have recognised Kosovo already.", like so

---

| UN || Russia called an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on 17 February, but the council members, given differences in stated position between permanent members, failed to reach a consensus. Russia requested another meeting on 18 February. With Russia stating its intention to use its veto to prevent any recognition by the United Nations, Kosovo has no current prospects for membership. The UN has told Serbia to cease its interference in Kosovo.
Member states (39 / 192) It is expected that Russia's refusal to recognise Kosovo will prevent Kosovo from attaining a seat at the UN, as Russia is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council from which Kosovo will need unanimous approval. Note that China, which has expressed concern, and Britain, France, and the United States, which take the opposite position and recognise Kosovo, also are among the permanent members. There are ten other non-permanent members, five of which have recognised Kosovo already. |-

---

This is an uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence should read "...five of which have recognised Kosovo already". The total probably didn't include Burkina Faso. Bazonka (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested that too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding the small NATO template next to every NATO member state in the list

With the EU and UN having small logos next to every countries that is affiliated with the issue, should NATO have the same as well? The template for the flag next to every NATO members could be Image:Flag of NATO.svg (found on the Yugoslav wars page). Thanks. AeonicOmega (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you click on that image and read what's written on its article page in the table titled "Non-free / fair use media rationale for NATO". You'll discover shortly that this image may only be used to illustrate the NATO article itself, and noen other, because it is not a free image, but an image whose copyright holder is NATO, and very strict about its use. Unlike all the other flags, we use, which are free to use, the NATO flag is restricted to the public.

Another problematic flag is the Olympic rings flag, , which appears to be similarly restricted, although the compounded licencing templates on Wikipedia for that image refer to such abstruse legalese, that it is difficult to figure out for sure. Apparently, it is far from obvious even for the local free image police :), because it has been allowed into our article and no one ever removed it, while NATO thingees have come and gone. Since the olympic rings image is not allowed into Wikipedia competitor biographies' Olympic medal tables, if that policy is any indication, we are overstepping the bounds of allowed use in that case. --Mareklug ^talk 06:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mareklug. We can't use the flag as we dont have permision Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree on the NATO flag. However, I am puzzled by Mareklug's words about . I do not see any "abstruse legalese" there, but "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired" (which is perfectly consistent with Coubertin having died in 1937 = 2007 − 70). What's the problem then? — EJ (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please direct your eyes below that. There are all sorts of notices indicating that the IOC regulates how its flag is used, referencing sections and articles to which I have not easy access. Looks like apart from Coubertin's author rights, the symbol is subject to IOC's monopoly. They are pretty vicious about it too, as they are about anyone using the word "olympic" in commerce. --Mareklug ^talk 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that IOC cannot regulate the usage of the symbol unless the right to do so is granted to them by applicable law. After its copyright has expired, the copyright law does not grant them any right to make claims to the symbol. They could have enforced such restrictions until September 2007, but they have no legal power to do so now, irrespective of whatever they choose to write in their charter (which is, by the way, linked as PDF from the notice). IANAL though. — EJ (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Applicable law, you say. I read the relevant portions of the PDF charter (it states that it applies since summer 2007), and I am not any wiser, as it mentions law protection for "Olympic properties" other than copyright. You did not address those: there is a warning template pertaining to "official insignia" use being restriced in some countries, and one for "trademark" use, telling us we are responsible for making sure our use is noninfringing. Neither template links to any image-specific information, so I stand by my characterization of "abstruse legalese" in my way. Am I legally prevented from using the image of these rings in this article, or not? Copyright perhaps is irrelevant, but other pointy instruments appear pointed at us here. Neither discussion page (Commons or English Wikipedia) exists to shed light on the issue. This image's licensing info taken together sends a mixed, in fact, incoherent, message. --Mareklug ^talk 11:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The "official insignia" template is almost certainly bogus. AFAICS, it is supposed to cover situations where country X prohibits by law dishonesting or commercial or whatnot usage of state insignia of country X. It is not applicable to IOC, as IOC is not a sovereign country issuing its own laws. As for trademark, it would be a trademark infringement to market our own products marked with the IOC logo, but it is not an infringement to mark IOC or its products with its own logo. The latter is, in fact, the expected use of a trademark, which is not restricted by law but encouraged. I don't think there are any more instruments to be pointed: the logo cannot be patented, and that's about it for intellectual property.

But looking at the discussion I guess I sort of proved your point, there is indeed a lot of legalese going on, what I'm saying is just that we appear to be in compliance with it. — EJ (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting references

Anyone who is willing to perform the basic housekeeping task of checking all the references and citing them properly using citation templates, would earn themselves a generous helping of cookies :D Happy‑melon 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went threw all the references. references 4; 6; 14; 16; 20; 36; (fixes submitted --Mareklug ^talk 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ) 96; 112; 118; 123; 124; 132; 141; 142; 152; 168; 186; 189; 202; 204; 207; 211; 213; 217; 233 (decremented by 3, since the changes shifted 99 to 96, etc. #112 works (Iraqi meeting the Serbian ambassador in Baghdad on 14 Feb 2008). Um, this is not a reaction, and what the Iraqi said is misrepresented. --Mareklug ^talk 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC) )

Are either broke, error, can not be found or lead to home page of a site Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Many websites are poorly designed so that they are in basic htm and they delete older data or the same link works for a different article every week etc.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some documents were moved (or, we linked to a temporary location highlighted at the time, like a front page of a ministry). For example, reference currently number 16, Turkey's MFA's statement of recognition from 18 February 2008, is a broken link in the article but the documenet is available at http://www.mfa.gov.tr/statement-of-h_e_-mr_-ali-babacan_-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-republic--of-turkey_-regarding-the-recognition-of-kosovo.en.mfa That site is a bit confusing, with Speeches of the Foreign Minister and Press Releases of the minstry organized in separate hierarchies, and in this case, the item is labeled as "Statement" but appears under Speeches. I found it easily enough searching Google restricting with the site attribute like this: site:http://www.mfa.gov.tr kosovo

Some other sites are self-identified as temporarily not available (Macedonian MRT.com.mk used in reference presently at #4 to source the last sentence in the article lead - can be replaced with another Macedonian source http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/novina/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=106226&NrIssue=617&NrSection=10 ) and some, like Yahoo News or Associated Press (#14 - can be simply dropped, as it is only used as one of 3 sources for France; #20 - ditto, one of three sources used for United Kingdom), we should never link to, as they are temporary and don't pretend to be archival. In fact, there are no other Yahoo News links, and the best way to link Associated Press content seems to be linking to a news outlet that publishes AP content (International Herald Tribune or ABC News (American) or ABC News (Australian) are good examples that seem to persist).

I suggest that we use this to re-source wherever possible to the individual reacting countries' foreign ministries, and where such references are unavailable, neutral world press quotes of their relevant officials.

Submit each as an individual editprotect request showing plainly which article fragment to replace with what. Keep the References section on this talk page at the bottom, so that the results of your work can be easily inspected and the link itself followed. --Mareklug ^talk 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Link maintenance: Turkey

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

|- | 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || || NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 5 || Turkey || 2008-02-18 || || NATO member state
EU candidate country
|-

---

This is a maintenance request fixing a broken link without changing any sourcing, template use, or information. (The ref tag name was altered to make this request transparent.) Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - United Kingdom

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 7 || United Kingdom || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Great Britain in Prishtina from 5 March 2008|| permanent member of the UNSC
EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 7 || United Kingdom || 2008-02-18 || Embassy of Great Britain in Prishtina from 5 March 2008|| permanent member of the UNSC
EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

This is a link maintenance and resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Replacing a table row (UK entry). Broken link to Associated Press aggregate removed. Generic country information from the UK Foreign & Commenwealth Office removed (it is one of main sublinks from the UK Embassy in Kosovo link that follows). New York Times press dispatch retained but its author(s), date and title corrected (same URL; ref tag renamed to make this edit comparable). Official UK Prime Minister's website information added (includes in full the statement by the UK Prime Minister made on 18 February 2008).

Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - France

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 4 || France || 2008-02-18 || || permanent member of the UNSC
European Union (EU) member state
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 4 || France || 2008-02-18 || || permanent member of the UNSC
European Union (EU) member state
NATO member state |-

---

This is a maintenance and resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Broken Yahoo News aggregate link removed. Reused NY Times source tag renamed per its name change at United Kingdom. Balkan Insight press source replaced with the official France Diplomatie (official website of the French MFA) highlight page in its Kosovo section containing the Foreign Minister's statement on 18 February 2008.

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I played with the title of one of the references a little, but nothing serious. Happy‑melon 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - article lead, Kosovo-Macedonia border

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

The Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation began operating on 25 March 2008 in Skopje.

---

with the following:

---

The Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation began operating on 25 March 2008 in Skopje.

---

This is a broken link fix, replacing the unavailable Macedonian press source with another contemporary Macedomnian press source, and upgrading to cite news template. This action is sufficient to source the statement in question (newer information with newer sourcing is available).

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Link maintenance: Afghanistan

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 1 || Afghanistan || 2008-02-18 || ||First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 1 || Afghanistan || 2008-02-18 || ||First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC |-

---

This is a broken link maintenance request. The broken link is being removed and not replaced, since the other citation is an official government statement in English and suffices (the citation was verified, expanded and updated).

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Link maintenance - Peru, Belgium

{{editprotect}} Please replace:

---

|- | 16 || Peru || 2008-02-22 || || |- | 17 || Belgium || 2008-02-24 || Liaison Office of Belgium in Prishtina|| EU member state
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
NATO member state |-

---

with the following:

---

|- | 16 || Peru || 2008-02-22 || || |- | 17 || Belgium || 2008-02-24 || Liaison Office of Belgium in Prishtina|| EU member state
non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence
NATO member state |-

---

This is a maintenance broken link replacement/resourcing request.

Summary of proposed changes: Focus press agency (Bulgarian) link about Serbia recalling its ambassadors to Belgium and Peru is broken; was sourcing Belgium. Replace with a DiplomacyMonitor.com link to Serbian Ministry's English language note (same info) as 2nd source for Peru and Belgium, now sourced in Spanish (Peru MFA) and Dutch (Belgian press). No Belgian document indicating recognition on 24 February 2008 has been found yet, in any language, only press reports.

Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 08:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The official text of the Belgian recognition can be found in the Belgian State Gazette (Dutch and French) of 29 February 2008 http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2008/02/29_1.pdf MaartenVidal (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Georgia

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

---

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".[102][103][104]

---

With:

---

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".[102][103][104] On 9 May 2008, President Mikheil Saakashvili reiterated his nation's opposition to recognition, telling Russian media that "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future." Saakashvili added that Serbs should have been given more time for negotiations.

---

Thanks. --Tocino 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Fix it. This request is wrong on several levels. First of all, didn't we have a reaction from Georgia a bit ago, by its Prime Minister no less (head of the government), strongly implying eventual recognition (on grounds that Georgia will do as its friends have done)? Wasn't there a link to a long Estonian audio interview, ruling out any misquoting? Did he ever recant, or was he ever quoted saying the opposite, since that time? I don't believe so. A government spokesman claimed shortly afterwards that the Prime Minister was misinterpreted. Far be it for me to interpret -- I just want the audio linked to from this reaction write-up for Georgia. Now, with that Prime Minister's reaction ignored, we open ourselves to charges of selective reaction reporting. So, regardless of what anyone personally may think of Georgia's prospects for eventually recognizing Kosovo, and quite apart from what the President may have just said to the Russians, it behooves the article to report all those reactions for Georgia in turn, what was said to Georgians, to Estonians and toe Russians. :) And please source this latest bit to something less controversial than http://www.B92.net -- some source, any source, that no one has documented on this talk page yet as having produced biased, bad journalism on the subject of Kosovo. I'm sure there are Georgian and Russian sources. After all, the paraphrase refers to the Russian media. Find them. And, on a technical note, please don't propose edits that, taken verbatim, will corrupt the web page, and otherwise, make it onerous for the administrator to actually perform the update. Go to "View source" (where "Edit" usually is) and copy and paste here the verbatim code to be replaced, then prepare verbatim code to be put in instead. I just did a series of editprotect requests, carried out with just one minor title edit by Happy melon, so you have several good examples immediately above. --Mareklug ^talk 07:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Georgian government immediately rebuked what the Prime Minister had said to the Estonian journalist, and so far the government has not reacted negatively to the President's comments. We use websites such as www.kosovothanksyou.com and www.newkosovoreport.com as sources and I don't see you complaining about their bias. Despite B92 being preceived as pro-Western in Serbia itself, it is not an acceptable source to you purely because it is a Serb outlet. This is outrageous racism. --Tocino 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't use http://www.kosovothanksyou.com at all, and we use http://www.kosovareport.com/ because it is an impartial and valuable news source not located in Serbia or Kosovo and no one has ever documented that they shanked a story on Kosovo, but B92.net, unfortunately has (the story on Kosovo being the drug capital of the Balkans accourding to a UN report, so said their headline, but even the body of the article failed to back that up -- it was all made of whole cloth by splicing sources and references to among other things, Albania proper and generic UN agency reports which did not even mention Kosovo or mentioned it as a place where assistance was granted -- I read all the reports and I investigated and documented on this page the B92.net shoddy journalism. Search the archives of this talk page. I also commend to you the WP:NPOV/WP:VER guidelines on sourcing without inducing an appearance of conflict of interest (locality-based, in this case), and in this case, sourcing with a Serbian source a Russian media event, as opposed to souring the Russian media themselves, is going out of one's way to create such an appearance if not outright conflict of interest. Also, I would caution you against flinging unsubstantiated and malapropist charges of racism against fellow editors in any Kosovo discussion, lest you find yourself topic-banned for inflamatory behavior under the Arbitration Committee's article probation for Macedonia/Kosovo/Balkans which is in force. Such behavior in any context though would be considered a personal attack. Furthermore, it is obvious that there is nothing racist in objecting to a source with a documented history of defects on the subject in question, whatever the subject. --Mareklug ^talk 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have got to say that Mareklug has made a good pint there. Its only fair to include this, if we are to include that B92 reference as well. This will make Georgia NPOV by including both. So for the time being its a disagree until we can update it including both sources. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also i fail to see what was racist about what Mareklug said. If i remember correctly you called Mareklug a Polack once, so i don't think you are in the position to call anyone racist, as that would be rather hypocritical Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17528 --Tocino 17:58. 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good work: You found a Georgian source mentioning and linking the whole Prime Minister thing. Now incorporate it into a proper editprotect request, please, with yet another link to the audio itself. --Mareklug ^talk 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, How about this...

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".[102][103][104] In an interview with an Estonian journalist Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze said, "in due course we of course will recognize Kosovo." However less than 24 hours later a government spokesman told reporters, "The Georgian government's position is clear for everyone: the Georgian government does not intend to recognise Kosovo's independence." On 9 May 2008, President Mikheil Saakashvili reiterated his nation's opposition to recognition, telling Russian media that "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future." Saakashvili added that Serbs should have been given more time for negotiations.

--Tocino 03:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a start, but not yet ready for prime time. :)

1. You didn't obtain page source code from View Source, as you were asked to do, and so 3 references have placeholders, not actual links which could be followed, checked, compared against the article text and evaluated taken together with the other references. Sticking the above into the article would break it.
2. Way too selective, biased paraphrasing and/or quoting: the President is amply, exhaustively quoted and paraphrased (well, he is mouthing a pro-Serbia position), while the Prime Minister's say is severely reduced, and the spokesman is selectively quoted, omitting the sentence where he claims the PM was misinterpreted, and what he really meant was that... Likewise, the Foreign Minister is sourced THREE TIMES for his spiel, and allowed to expaund on the topic at length. He, too, just happens to be mouthing Serbia-friendly content. Don't you see the bias of all of it taken part by part and considered as a whole? Try to combine news impartially, without lending undue weight, prominence or sources to a point of view.
3. You ignored opposition to sourcing with http://www.B92.net/ (which you inaccurately portrayed as B92, the radio station, which we do not know for a fact are equivalent. The unscrupulous headline use documented before and mentioned above implies that political hacks are writing or altering the web content, possibly post-processing reasonably impartial dispatch copy prepared and submitted by legitimate journalists. Whatever, this source is no longer reliable.
4. Had you sourced the Russian media directly -- the ones about whom you reparaphrased the Belgrade website, which in turn paraphrased the Russian sources, you'd be getting the news more reliably and directly, without possibly injecting Serbian take on it. This is elementary common sense and entails fair and safe practices. I am assuming your good faith, and that you are biasing this edit request because you are not an experienced journalist or news editor.
5. Sourcing more directly, be it Georgian President's official communications, or, once removed, a Russian or Georgian news source is likelier to produce pure quotes for all info, eliminating potentially biasing paraphrasing. --Mareklug ^talk 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal included both pro and anti-recognition information, but as has been stressed by the government on three seperate occasions, Georgia will not recognize and that is the bottom line. The article in its present form accurately explains to the reader, short and sweet, that Georgia won't recognize so that is good enough. BTW, B92 is a reliable source, we use it in this article numerous times and we will continue to use it despite your racism. B92 is not perfect, like any other source for that matter, as it tends to side against the Radicals and DSS a bit too much for my liking. --Tocino 11:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Tocino -- "your racism"

I object to being called a racist by User:Tocino for a second time in short succession in this section. User:Tocino alledges racism on my part, because, having documented on this page a now archived case of journalistic malpractice by the Belgrade website http://www.B92.net/ where they slandered Kosovo as the drug capital of the Balkans per a United Nations report on drug trafficing -- in the website headling -- but when you analyzed the article text, there was nothing there to substantiate the accusation made in the headline. The whole article was a propaganda attack, with Albania-related references used in a bait-and-switch tactic, while the cited UN Report did not even mention Kosovo, except to say that help was extended to UNMiK. After that, I refusse to source Kosovo-related matters with this website. That's all, as far as my "racism". If you wish ot monitor actual broadcasts of B92 and use those directly, I have no opinion, except that it would be hard to do. :) But this website is discredited and of no use to us.

The twice repeated slur is only the latest in an ongoing series of personal attacks made on me by user:Tocino, all on this talk page:

1. "the "Polish fascist Mareklug". (earlier, archived)
2. "Mareklug is a Polack Fascist" (earlier, archived)
3. "We use websites such as www.kosovothanksyou.com and www.newkosovoreport.com as sources and I don't see you complaining about their bias. Despite B92 being preceived as pro-Western in Serbia itself, it is not an acceptable source to you purely because it is a Serb outlet. This is outrageous racism. --Tocino 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"
4. "B92 is a reliable source, we use it in this article numerous times and we will continue to use it despite your racism. B92 is not perfect, like any other source for that matter, as it tends to side against the Radicals and DSS a bit too much for my liking. --Tocino 11:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)"

Look. Ongoing abuse of my person is pointless. It won't make using http://www.B92.net as more credible source for this article. Editors who wish to move this article along need to be willing to modify what they are proposing, if they are being opposed on merit, which they are.

Ask yourselves: Why insist on a Serbian website to source its paraphrases of what some president told the Russian media? Why not source that president's office instead, or the Russian media? Why not look for sources in the president's home press? I mean, if he said anything important, it won't vanish, only magically preserved on the servers in Belgrade or Prishtina. --Mareklug ^talk 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your dark red is so pretty. See, I can write in pretty colors too. Too bad writing in colors gives your words no more meaning than they have in good old fashioned black. The fact is that your objection to B92 is down to race/nationality of the publication. This kind of intolerant attitude, the thought that a certain race of people cannot have any say over a matter, is not welcome on WP. --Tocino 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Being told that I am a racist twice was bad enough, but now I learn that I have an intolerant attitude to whole ethnicities and races or nations. which is unwelcome on Wikipedia -- all because I documented shoddy journalism practices by the concrete web page some folks are pushing like hotcakes. Furthermore, no one bothered to justify sourcing a Serb website in orther to source what Georgian President said to Russian media -- where are those Russian media accounts? Why are we not sourcing them? Is ther a reason I am unaware of, why Russian sources or the office of President of Georgia are tabu sources? Is there a reason why linking directly to audio with Georgia Prime Minister forecasting eventual recognition of Kosovo is anohter tabu? --Mareklug ^talk 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

B92 is a very good place for reliable sources and reports a lot of article related news, therefore we should use it Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tocino's proposal

I agree with Tocino's proposal. it seems to be neutral, valid, factual, reliable, well referenced, encyclopaedic and true Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a patently roundabout, conflict-of-interest sourcing and biased paraphrasing with non-working references and the continued absence of the requested/required direct audio link (so we may always have it available, not as long as some Georgian newspaper link is working) -- "neutral, valid, factual, reliable, well-referenced, encyclopedic and true"?

Please find nondisputed sources, add the missing stuff, make it all truly neutral. There's no reason to source Belgrade on what a Georgian said to the Russians, while avoiding to link directly the Georgian Prime Minister's recorded voice (an Estonian newspaper link). --Mareklug ^talk 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers 3 and 4 are not attacks and numbers 1 and 2 are rehashes. I do not object to Tocino's proposed edit. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Being told you're a racist on a ArbCom probation talk space is legit and not attacks? Hello? Are you the same person who was upset someone said "this is not a forum" when you posted commentary and demanded apologies? Just exactly what apologies would you seek to extract if you were accused on having intolerant attitudes towards whole ethnicities and nations, because you dissed -- with documentation, justification -- a website as unworthy, of being sourced, as untrustworthy? --Mareklug ^talk 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, just chill out Mareklug and go smoke a cigarete. You offended other users when they were making edits that were not to your liking, so what's the harm to offend you a little bit for a change? Top Gun