Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Islamic Countries

• [1]

84.134.114.149 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is according to The Islamic Community of Kosovo, we need a source from something more offical than a Community. I remember reading sources before Kosovo declared independence saying that Islamic countries would be the first to recognise, but they didn't. We need something more official ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

we need you to join wikipedia and do things yourself--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be great if you created an account because you seem to be a helpful user providing all this information and sources. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia said it would recognise "soon" in April and "very soon" in May. They seem to have a radically different view of time. There was and is nothing stopping them from doing so, so why haven't they yet? Why don't they now? I'll believe it when I see it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They may recognise in this "Third Wave" of recognition which keeps been mentioned, however this is just me speculating. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Islamic countries were the first to recognize, Afghanistan was the first to recognize. Albania and Turkey came the same day with Costa Rica and France in between granted, but it was still three out of five. The next day Senegal recognized. So it wasn't really wrong. Also we do know the following Muslim nations are at least intending to recognize: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen, Oman, Bangladesh, and Malaysia. If they all recognized in quick succession that might have a snowball effect in other Muslim countries. I wouldn't be surprised if Jordan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Uganda jumped on board as a result. Still, this is just speculation unless someone's feeding them info but we have no proof of that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(dentfree) Maybe, just maybe, THEY WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE...(DUNH DUNH DUNHHHHHH)...mWAHAHAHhahahahAHAHahahaha. :D Beam 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits like that are wrong and should'84.134.123.44 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)t be made.

Thats like saying god lied when he said "i am coming soon" in the end of the bible, soon varies depending on whaty your thinking, soon could gbe soon as in "a year", a minute, ect, --Jakezing (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They probably recognized but have yet to announce it. There was a country which did this in the first wave. Beam, recognition is inevitable...who doesn't support Muslim brothers? Ari 0384 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

... islam isn't a unified religion, just like christianity only not as, uh, much--Jakezing (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User Jakezing I was being sarcastic and humorously. Everyone knows that Kosovars are not religious. Ari 0384 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text sprawl ? (UN reaction)

I'd suggest that this paragraph rewritten or made shorter - or possibly removed altogether - to better conform with the article:

Due to the ongoing dispute in the UN Security Council, the planned reconfiguration of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and partial handover to the EULEX mission met with difficulties. In spite of Russian and Serbian protest, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proceeded with the controversial reconfiguration plan. On 15 July 2008, he wrote in his quarterly report on the evolving situation in Kosovo: "In the light of the fact that the Security Council is unable to provide guidance, I have instructed my Special Representative to move forward with the reconfiguration of UNMIK ... in order to adapt UNMIK to a changed reality and address current and emerging operational requirements in Kosovo." According to the Secretary-General, the "United Nations has maintained a position of strict neutrality on the question of Kosovo’s status".

Hapsala (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the position of the United Nations, the Secretary-General, and the UNMIK mission (heavily affected by the declaration of independence - and itself influencing the international perception to a considerable degree) should be rather enlarged. The quotes could be summed up though, but I preferred to do it this way to avoid the lengthy discussion part here. The same goes for the whole UN Security Council agenda (which is part of the main story). Moreover, the EU membership perspective for Kosovo is still missing in the intro. The whole article is still too much of a list, not a carefully designed article on such an important topic. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed because there is some useful information in this paragraph. However i think it could do with shortening a little or been re-written. If it were to be re-written or shortened, how would you propose it to be? Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But at least remove this word: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proceeded with the controversial reconfiguration plan. It's already pointed out in the same paragraph that the plan is constroversial and disputed. Hapsala (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

done Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over Kosovo independence

I can't understand why there is a separate article on the Controversy over Kosovo independence. It's the same topic. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It has a merge tag on it, but given how many people edit war over that topic, I doubt a merge will come soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but the tag is about merging it with the Political status of Kosovo which makes no sense to me. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well again, I hate to say you're wrong.... Anyway it could make sense as the controversy is a result to the declaration. And in fact it would make sense as the scope of the domestic controversy could fit into a Political Status of Kosovo article where as the International Reaction is too big for that. Again, it also makes sense to have all reaction (as I state below) in one article with it summarized or not mentioned in the Political Status article. If sumarized, it would be done as we have done it at the Kosovo article. Beam 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No. They are not the same topic at all. But they should be merged into one article "Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence" but then again it's retarded enough trying to monitor this article for POV pushing and the like. Imagine an article of that complexity, covering domestic, and international reaction. ***shudder*** Beam 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept of course your underlying <shudder> argument. But your point "controversy" is not "international reaction" (or just "a result to the declaration" and so on) is (well-intended) hairsplitting. It is the same topic, and the basic positions of Serbia and Kosovo belong here as well, because they are widely reflected in the debate. But probably the "real one" is just not feasible here as you say... --DaQuirin (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is to large, for the sake of edit lag and scrolling/ctrl F, you keep it seperate and a "reaction" would be to vague--Jakezing (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge and article rename is needed? To just "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"??? Just a thought. Bazonka (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

which in no way says what this artuicle is about, we already have a 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and then we'de have top remove the reactions stuff.--Jakezing (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

They want to recognize between 5 and 15th Agust.84.134.120.216 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? This information can't be added to the article without a firm reference - e.g. a reliable media report or (better) a Montenegrin government statement. Can you point us to further information? Bazonka (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence? Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Here it is:

• [2]

84.134.58.150 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this source is enough to move Montenegro back to the impending recognizing states. An MP may have some insights into the functioning of Montenegrin government, but it's an expectation, not a guarantee. We've had enough issues with Montenegro over the last five months that caution is best when wanting to change its position. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Excelsioreverupward. Montenegro will eventually recognise but not soon. They are trying not to upset anyone. So they are trying to please both Serbia and EU/ USA. So i don't think will expect any recognition from them this year. They will wait until the whole "independent Kosovo" thing has died down a bit. So i don't think we should use that source. If we find something a bit more offical i may chance my mind to updating Montenegro about recognising between 5-15 Aug. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just wait until 15th August - it's only 3-and-a-bit weeks away. By then we'll know whether the MP was right or not :) Bazonka (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an Albanian MP, I'm not sure his word can be taken for much. Better to wait and see.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

and yet if a US, russian, or serbian said it, then we'de take it, that is racist and POV.--Jakezing (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I interpreted it was that he was an ethnic-Albanian Montenegrin MP: "Albanian Alternative leader and Montenegrin MP Vasel Sinistaj...". So his opinion carries more weight than a foreigner, but he's not a government source, so it's still not strong enough. Bazonka (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not racist. The same thing has happened a few times in Macedonia with Menduh Thaçi. All we can do is wait and see. BalkanFever 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not racist because Albanians don't constitute a separate race from the white race, but it definitely is full of prejudice and a tad discriminatory. So his word doesn't count much because he's an Albanian MP? As opposed to Serb/Montenegrin MPs whose word counts automatically? One can say that since he's an Albanian he might be sympathetic to recognition and thus biased, but we can't honestly say that his words don't count because he's an Albanian. It's just full of hatred - purposeful or not. --alchaemia (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Devil's Advocate thought he was an Albanian from Albania, as opposed to an ethnic Albanian in Montenegro. Therefore the MP would be less qualified to speak on a Montenegrin matter. I don't think Devil's Advocate was being racist in any way, just mistaken. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware he is from Montenegro. I'm saying as an Albanian MP in Montenegro his word can't be taken for much. Albanians are generally in favor of recognition and as can be seen even in this discussion typically Albanians in favor of recognition have much loftier predictions for Kosovo's prospects for recognition. Look at Kosovo thanks you and their list of countries they think will ultimately recognize to get an idea of what I'm talking about. There's an overabundance of optimism. I'm not saying it could be taken seriously if he wasn't Albanian.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your 'explanation' is even worse than your first remark full of prejudice. There are Albanian MPs in Montenegro who do not claim that recognition is coming soon; should their word "not be taken for much" then too? Awful. --alchaemia (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion on Devil's Advocate. Bazonka (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is primarily a state of Albanians and Albanians outside of Kosovo are generally supportive of Kosovo because of that fact and are as a result overly optimistic about its prospects. The same would be true if it was Croatian Serbs talking about Srpska independence. It's an unfortunate fact that many people in this world think in terms of race and ethnicity. If acknowledging this bias is somehow racist then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I for one, think this guy could be right, but it's not even remotely reliable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying that he's biased and too optimistic, and saying that his word "can't be taken for much." That you fail to see that is even worse. --alchaemia (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for something that isn't there. His word can't be taken for much because he probably has a bias towards Kosovo since it is primarily an Albanian state. If he was in the government this might have some more meaning, but just some Albanian MP making lofty predictions about Kosovo, not good enough.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

People, why on earth are you even considering to use an opposition MP's words (and from an outright strong pro-recognition one)? --18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvonimirIvanovic (talk • contribs)

Here is a new link:

• [3]

84.134.120.156 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Non aligned conference

Apparently Serbian Foreign Minister will attend in order as he said to talk to those who haven't recognized and ask them not to change their position. Apart from the speech he will have separate meetings with foreign ministers of Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Brunei, Kenya, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Bhutan, Laos, Bangladesh, Singapore, Venezuela, Panama, Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Bolivia. Now in the media so far from these countries we had any sort of negative approach from Sri Lanka, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Laos, Venezuela, Chile and Bolivia, neutral from Panama, Singapore, Colombia positive from Pakistan and Bangladesh and no reaction from Mongolia, Brunei, Kenya, Bhutan, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia. It will be interesting to follow the media from these countries in the following time, especially from those countries that haven't spoke yet and see if they will react positively or negatively.--Avala (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any information from those countries would be more than welcomed. However we should keep in mind that also Kosova's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister had meetings with various (e.g. South American) ministers & embassadors but, as far as I know, had not any positive or negative reactions in the media. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Avala can you provide use with a source to update Serbia and other countries, which Serbia has lobbied with please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we can't update this particular article because the news from the conference are too broad ie. not too many statements and non-aligned have no website known to me (as they don't convene that often I guess). Anyway Serbian FM says that in total the delegation from Serbia has had meetings with ~40 other delegations. Also some declaration proposed by Serbia regarding that UN intl court thing was adopted which says that non aligned countries would vote in the UN for the international court to determine the legality of the Kosovo declaration of independence before they make a decision whether to recognize or not. I guess we wont hear from them until then.--Avala (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he said that the non-aligned countries had planned to ask the court for 'any international issue.' He didn't say anything about Kosovo being specifically mentioned. --alchaemia (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

history defines what is legal and what isn't, not some court.--Jakezing (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where do you come from but in developed world there is no self-help (which Serbia was doing before with war) or magical evidence. In the developed world legality is determined by courts not village wizards and such.--Avala (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To the victor belongs the sport...who do you think writes history? Answer: those that are the winners. Ari 0384 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Avala, you're wrong, it is the underdeveloped world that mostly uses the written code of law, while the First World (the developed) relies mainly on personal decisions, self-rule (but of/upon the entire world), with pretty much making law meaningless (especially the entirely worthless international). --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we could add a line to Serbia saying that their FM has lobbied against Kosovo to some 40+ countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i miss tocino now.--Jakezing (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ambassadors "indefinitely" recalled

I understand that Serbian ambassadors to countries which recoginzed Kosovo were originally only recalled for consultations. But, is the latest development regarding ambassadors to non-EU countries actually the first time the Serbian government officially uses the word "indefinitely"? Hapsala (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well they said something like that they see no reason to return the ambassadors to those countries until they revert their decision on Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes recalling the ambassadors was done by Serbia to show their protest to the countries for recognising Kosovo. Would should more/ improve this information in Foreign relations of Serbia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia not recognize Kosovo passport

31 July 2008 | 13:04 | Source: Tanjug PRIŠTINA -- Macedonian border police are denying entry to people carrying the new Kosovo passports, writes Priština daily Zeri.

According to the daily, the reason for this is that the Macedonian government has not yet officially recognized the new travel documents.

The first passports were issued in Priština yesterday, and were presented by Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.

Kosovo officials have expressed surprise at the reaction of Macedonian border police, because, writes Zeri, the Macedonian government announced that it would accept the new passports, regardless of the fact that it had not yet decided to recognize Kosovo’s unilateral independence.

Macedonian media said earlier this month that in spite of the fact that Macedonia had not recognized Kosovo’s independence, it would accept the province’s new passports.

Skoplje media reported that according to its sources in the government, Macedonia would accept the new passports, and would consider them to be a continuation of the old passports issued by UNMIK, thus allowing Kosovo citizens to travel to Macedonia without any problems.

At the same time, the Macedonian government will not formally recognize the “Republic of Kosovo” passports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvonimirIvanovic (talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but the Macedonian Govt denies this see here Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

" Kosovo media reported on Thursday about the difficulties that Kosovars had to travel to Macedonia. Reports said that Kosovars were turned back from the Kosovo-Macedonia border as authorities did not recognise the new passports.

But Pesevski said this was not true.

“We deny all media reports that people were not allowed entry at the border," he said." Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is chaotic. But please move the discussion to Talk:Kosovan passport. --Avala (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain

I just restored Bahrain listing to the article, wholly removed by user:Avala 2 hours earlier. The edit summary given intimates that the entry is off-topic and is sourced to speculation by journalists. In my opinion, entries for Morocco, Uruguay, which Avala deems tacitly or explicitly (see archives) as on-topic and properly sourced, are even flimsier with regard to sourcing to journalistic speculation. But they are pro-Serbia positions... I re-read the Balkan Insight source (of 7 July) and I honestly don't see this item as off-topic or poorly sourced. However, I would like the community to discuss this, and other OR still on the page, such as Cuba's alleged official rejection of Kosovo, or India's, or Sudan's, or Egypt's. Or improper sourcing to Serbian Foreign Ministry in the case of Libya, and no other corroborating source independently stating Libya's official position. --Mareklug ^talk 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop taking the old discussion that was concluded over and over again just because you didn't like the conclusion before. This is probably 13th or 14th time that you bring up Cuba. It's enough, stop with this silly game. Regarding Bahrain - the person in question that is quoted

• Is Naser Shaik Abdulla Naser Alfadhala, referring to the Kosovo declaration of independence (just to remind you that the subject of this article is the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence)? No he is not.
• Is the BalkanInsight a representative of the Bahraini government or do they say where do they get such information even if the source was unnamed? No they do not.
• Were there reports that suggest Serbia would recognize Kosovo? Yes there were. Did we add them to the article? No we didn't.
• Were there statements of Serbian ministers regarding trade with Kosovo (Which Serbian govt sees as Hong Kong of Serbia)? Yes there were. Did we add them to the article? No we didn't. Why? Because they are not a reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.
• So what is your point again? Your point is to spread the POV no matter what, at all costs, at all times.

--Avala (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Marek, I totally agree. Avala doesn't like shaky sources for countries that express a positive stance on Kosovo's independence, but he's quick to add shaky stuff about Cuba and Lybia and what not. This article is filled with an aura of Serbian-leaning resistance, and part of that reason has been Avala's double standards in what to source and quote. 76.226.68.137 (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your first edit on Wikipedia and you are already such an expert? Wow.--Avala (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically for you, he's quite right. You support shaky sources for Cuba and Morocco, but you reject shaky sources for Bahrain. If that's not POV I don't know what is. --alchaemia (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If there weren't all these first-edit-IP and red-link users I wouldn't have known that I was supporting that Morocco entry. I suppose I got it all wrong when I thought that I have said previously it should be removed. And regarding Cuba, it has been chewed so many times that I don't see the point in chewing it for 14th of 15th time.--Avala (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no tenure on Wikipedia for bad information, and striving to correct/remove it is always appropriate. What is not appropriate is deflecting discussion on merits by making pointed remarks at whether one's partner in the debate has a red link or not, whether the person has made an edit before or not. The words speak the truth or are tendentious opinion all on their own -- your words, for instance. You have over 10 thousands edits, yet, dare I allege, you have harmed this article more than any number of vandals. Cuba has never officially said a thing about Kosovo, yet you personally represent it as such on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png. IN point of fact, you use this article's content as the basis for Wikipedia content elsewhere in Wikimedia project space. As long as you corrupt it, and them, discussing it and bringing it to community's attention -- for the 15th time, as you say -- is on point. I find your debate as odious and low-brow as your edits on Kosovo-related matters, wherever you deem appropriate to make them, but this is Avala-central on Kosovo, and this is where I keep confronting your edits. --Mareklug ^talk 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If Morocco, as you say, is an improper entry, and even predates Bahrain's, why have you not removed it, but removed Bahrain alone, with an edit summary where you marvel over how long this suspect (in your view) bit was allowed to linger in the article? Have you ever proposed to remove it? Can you please list for our edification and for your credibility's benefit any diffs here, whereby you aded pro-Kosovo independence recognition information? To paraphrase a charming bit of internationally-flavored English, All your edit are belong to us. :) No, not the U.S, or us, readers. Us, Serbians. :/ The mind boggles at how useful as an editor you could have/would have been, had the apparent editorially manifested nationalism not taken over your perspective... Sad for us, Wikipedians. --Mareklug ^talk 17:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you ignorantly refuse that Cuba has made a statement doesn't mean that they haven't done it (and luckily there are sources to back it up so it's the word of Mareklug vs. the word of media). And regarding the 2nd part - when I added information on countries that have recognized you said something like "fine, of course" and now you are pretending that things like this didn't happen so we get back to the point that you like to slander pointlessly. I did remove Morocco at some point but consensus was reached to keep it together with some other entry which didn't have any coverage, Tunisia I think. Anyway I see no reason not to remove Morocco and I see no reason to leave Bahrain either with such information that we have atm. I will remove the trade information and Morocco. I will leave the BI thing but hopefully someone will remove that too as I don't find it appropriate. --Avala (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If "Cuba has made a statement", it should be included in the article, and I woudl think that it should be easy as pie for you to link to it here to back up your claim. Still waiting. Still waiting for the diffs, too. And just because I concurred with your proposed and carreid out edits to add Serbia government-favorable information to the article in no way serves to counterclaim that what I said of your edits is in any way inaccurate: you do only add indications of nonrecognition and information along that vector. Thank you, though, (in anticipation) for removing the Morocco cruft at last. --17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Mareklug ^talk

You are so utterly boring with that diff search as if you couldn't do it yourself and as if you didn't know anything about it. Here is the recent one diff.--Avala (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Idea/ Compromise Remove both Cuba and Bahrain because neither of their govts have made official statements regarding Kosovo. Cuba is not expected to recognise Kosovo (at least not in the near future) and Bahrain is expected to follow Saudi Arabia and co when/ if they get round to recognising Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not for Cuba because they did make a media statement and we already realized that reaction (with which article deals) can be a statement too not necessarily an official act adopted in parliament signed by the President, King or Prime Minister. When this article is renamed to "Official documents adopted worldwide regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" we can erase Cuba but until then we have to respect a different reaction style in the world. Some will make a press conference, some will do it in the newspaper article, some will do it in the parliament, some will do something else but in the end they are all reactions made in different ways. --Avala (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC? User:Avala and his original research pervading this article

The above section (#Bahrain) is a prime example of synthesis and harmful activity that is known on Wikipedia as original research and is forbidden by policy. It may genuinely look to Avala, that Cuba, the state, has spoken by the informal means of an editorial article having been penned by an influential Cuban, Fidel Castro. It may also look to him that he genuinely is aggregating various official state reactions, expressed idiosyncratically, such as Sudan's (whose President is a newly wanted genocidal criminal, with a warrant for his arrest by International Court, as I write these words, so that any official actions by his Sudanese government are a matter of legal questioning and at best interpretation that they legally stand for Sudan at all, not that we have anything official on Kosovo from the Sudanese, only, again, interpretation of their actions at conferences with regard to other countries' proposed joint declarations on the subject), or India (curiously absent as far as any updated official Foreign Ministry statements, despite having a carefully managed website, where earlier official statement on Kosovo was provided, so an absence of a change of poition is highly notable -- instead, Avala has famously campaigned (interceding with a new admin even to unlock this article, so he could circumvent lack of consensus for his proposed additions re: India and China) to include as representative of Indian reaction (and Chinese) the verbatim words of a Russian Foreign Minister's "joint communique" delivered at an international meeting with the presence of an Indian and Chinese ministers). Avala's interpretations are a matter of record, as he maintains and colors the maps on Commons used in other articles (they were removed from this one as partisan and unreliable and opposed, entirely lacking consensus). HIs interpretations are always, always in the direction of increasing the perception of the world being against Kosovo recognition (other than edits pertaining to officially announced recognitions. Avala does not deny reality to that extent.)

There is nothing in principle that is wrong with portraying and citing Castro's journalistic activity in this article, or, for that matter, the significant stage utterances of a respected Icelandic singer on stage in Japan, also on the matter of Kosovo's independence, but we have decided to not quote individuals, no matter how influential. Some of us have continued to synthesize original research, meant to portray national state reactions while divining from individual politicians's say. Prime example of that is Bosnia, also fiercely defended in this article by Avala, who synthesized much of that.

I have nothing against refactoring the article away from information attributed to states. But as long as we are subscribing states discretely (using state flags and official country names) to these 'individuals's international reactions, a firm line must be drawn between verified information that we are merely repeating from source without synthesis, and assembling sources in the service of Wikipedians's synthesis, of the sort Avala has been pervasively shoving by the truckload into this article.

I think, especially as documented by his own hand in maps depicting reaction by countries in Image:Kosovo_relations2.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg -- essentially orignal research based on his interpretation of this article -- we know what Avala thinks about every country's reaction. To contrast what he really thinks and promotes outside this article on the subject of this article, we have the "slippery slope", weasel-type statements he has managed over the months to insert into this article, to the extent that we have let him. But he takes them further on the maps, beyond what he article says, as the maps he authored clearly show.

For instance, how can Bosnia or Uruguay be said to have officially rejected Kosovo statehood, when neither government has uttered an offical governmental word on this, and in the case of Uruguay, all we have is anonymous sources allegedly reported by one private Spanish-language website, not even a leading newspaper of the country that would carry a date, number, and a reputation for news gatehring and reliable reporting? It's not even a reasonable source, yet it suffices for Avala to color Uruguay red on his maps. Red means officially rejects Kosovo's independence. Or, in the case of Bosnia, only individual politicians have expressly been quoted, not Bosnia, the state. These politicians all have said (maybe except for the Serb among them) that Bosnia has a complex domestic situation, and therefore the world cannot expect to hear from Bosnia-the-state on this subject any time soon?

I think this farce has gone on long enough. I request the community to express its opinion, how to correct the Wikimedia projects's content, including this article, corrupted systematically by the original research carried out by User:Avala.

I also want to gauge any support a Request for Comment or a motion to be made to the Arbitration Committee to review and possibly discipline Avala for his egregious body of edits on the matter of international reaction to Kosovo as having damaged Wikipedia's and Wikimedia projects' credibility, a protracted action carried out with no signs of end in sight. --Mareklug ^talk 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is libel. You have been blocked previously for insulting and attacking me but you haven't learned a thing. You are also bringing up the same thing over and over again until you hope to get the right reaction here which is forbidden by Wikipedia etiquette. I will just respond your Bosnia claim here as the rest of it can be found in history Prime Minister Nikola Špirić, presiding Bosniak member of the rotating tripartite presidency Haris Silajdžić, Nebojša Radmanović the Serb member and Željko Komšić the Croat member have all reacted and you say that "government has not uttered an offical governmental word on this". Are you trying to be funny or what? Prime Minister and all three Presidents plus some ministers and local leaders have all made statements and you say there was no reaction? Who do you think you are going to fool? Wikipedia editors are not dumb you know. And as I said if the article gets renamed to "Official documents adopted worldwide regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" we can erase Cuba but until then the statement of the foreign policy advisor of Cuba will stay. --Avala (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your work is being questioned. It is an insult to us all. Your edits are being questioned. As for insulting you, you and I were blocked for 3RR on Commons when I tried singlehandedly to oppose your original research on maps. Why would I even have a reason to confront you, if it weren't for your harmful original research and being incredibly stubborn about peddling it?

Why don't you let the community have its say about all this. Your cries of slander and claims that I am insulting you and mentioning our block on Commons in a slanted light is more underhanded discrediting of the speaker, leading the reader away from what the substance of that is being said -- this is your typical ploy, just like objecting to redlinks in persons names in the Bahrain section. --Mareklug ^talk 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I could say "Mareklug has been erasing the Main Page of Wikipedia every day, let's judge him in a kangaroo court" but it wouldn't make much sense would it? Just like what you wrote doesn't make sense as it is the product of imagination, not a reality and that is why I call it a slander. You are yelling about the OR (like you used to yell about "skewing") yet you are supporting an entry saying "According to a Balkan Insight article, Bahrain is expected to recognise Kosovo." which is kind of inconsistent isn't it? Make up your mind - are you looking for official things only or for rumours, or it's a selective thing depending on the situation. Just a few hours ago you said "Can you please list for our edification and for your credibility's benefit any diffs here, whereby you aded pro-Kosovo independence recognition information?" and then again you said something like "still waiting" but when I did it to stop your slander you didn't respond. Or when you said how I was "skewing" quotes but couldn't point at a single letter I supposedly changed. So it's the same here but instead of talking about the previous two issues now you are on talking about OR. I wonder what is going to come next. --Avala (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(Pendant mode on: actually it's libel, slander is spoken defamation. But anyway...)

Ok then, corrected :) --Avala (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, could you possibly compile a list of the specific items that you think are problematic? I'll review them, wearing my admin hat, and hopefully provide some neutral advice to the pair of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heres a good idea, BOTH OF YOU GET OFF THE ARTICLE, not just avala or mark, both of you, when tocino is around its all agaisnt him, but we have a better reason on him, but with avala, avala actuly cna fighty back and win... so, to end this, BOTH OF YOU JUST LEAVE THIS ARTICLE, hell, mark, your even wrong about sudan up there in your rant. "In July 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court accused al-Bashir of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur, and requested that the court issue a warrant for his arrest.[2]" never says it was granted--Jakezing (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, your call for other editors to abandon the article is totally inappropriate and rather uncivil. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Húsönd 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After all the "red lights" burning here, the entry on Bahrain has improved in my view. @Avala The entry on India needs some streamlining too. Too many repetitions (from Serbian and Russian sources), whereas the only official source has a different tone... --DaQuirin (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No hudson, when we need ot have this section, things have gone to far, these two arn't able to work together and when that happens, you seperate them, this is what i suggested to tocino, take a break from kosovo stuff and eachother and come back when the two can agree to stop this pointless fighting, this section tells you things have gone downhill, and i suggested both do it, because tocino decided not to and hes banned for his actions.--Jakezing (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, users are to be considered autonomous enough to decide by themselves when/if they want to leave this topic. Calls for that are therefore needless and rather inconsiderate for their rights. Tocino banned? When/Where did that happen? Húsönd 12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This shows that he keep on showing his pov and not heading warnings and advice to stop. [4]--Jakezing (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to this discussion. I don't think it is fair to pick on one user. I do not believe Avala has been doing Original Research. And if some users believe that he has, this discussion should be on his talk page, not this article talk page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

While targeting a specific user is certainly not appropriate I disagree that Avala hasn't been inserting original research. The entry on Cuba is a prime example of original research per WP:SYNTH. It uses two separate sources to reach a conclusion that is not supported by either. Avala's entry on Cuba suggests Castro's words on Kosovo are an official response since he is an adviser to the Cuban government, but nowhere is there any indication Castro's response was done as part of his official duties as an adviser or whether it was merely his personal opinion. However, Avala, by saying Castro is an official adviser is trying to insinuate that his opinion is the official reaction of the Cuban government. There is nothing to back this up in either source so it constitutes original research. Cuba probably won't recognize, but as far as I know no official reaction has been given.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So do we always have news saying "George W. Bush spoke in the capacity of the position he holds - President of the United States" or "George W. Bush stated that..."?--Avala (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Fidel is still the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba and he is also an official foreign policy advisor, a position which was approved by the national assembly. Similarly, Condi Rice was foreign policy advisro during the first four years of the George W. Bush presidency. When she spoke back then, she spoke on behalf of the American government. When Fidel speaks, he still speaks on behalf of the Cuban government. --Tocino 05:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it's silly to even talk of him as having some official advisory position. All your source indicates is that they will look to his editorials for "ideas" and "guidance" which is not the same as holding an official government position. Nowhere does this indicate his editorials represent official government policy or that he was speaking "on Cuba's behalf" as Avala claims with respect to Kosovo. Avala took information from two different sources to reach a conclusion not present in either source which is a perfect case of unpublished synthesis and original research. Though the more appropriate term for it would be bullshit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuban National Assembly actually elected him to that post so please take your POV elsewhere as we are dealing with facts here and the fact is that he is an elected official. And in case you were wondering why I added that extra information - I did it because some editors constantly contested the fact that he is a valid representative of Cuba. --Avala (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More elaboration needed

This shallow article... Just a start... I created this template: Template:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence for articles realted to the declaration of independence. So far, there seem to be only two country related articles (Czechia and Serbia), but as the process is quite complicated, there should be at least one article per major country and its particular decision. Feel free to add more articles and make constructive edits to the template. Hapsala (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

we dont need articles to just a single countries reaction--Jakezing (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As this article is restricted for practical reasons, further elaboration might very well be needed for the reaction of at least some countries. Hapsala (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Give it some time, and the articles about the reactions by specific countries (except Serbia), could be merged into here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta Recognize Kosovo

Daily Kosovar papers are publishing!

Found this daily croatian

http://business.hr/Default2.aspx?ArticleID=551270a4-e095-4c41-94e6-358d9a34258b&ref=lastadd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please translate that? 84.134.93.220 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Government of Malta hasn't posted anything yet on their websites. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What does the link say? 84.134.93.220 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I ran it through a (poor) translator and came up with a lot of gibberish, but it does say, "plus to become 44," which logically we can take to mean that with Malta the number of countries now recognising is 44. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I got invitation from the Canadian Bobby to translate it. Basically it says that Malta decided to recognize Kosovo last night and that it is on road to become the 44th recognizing state. It also says that Behgjet Pacolli (Albanian businessman, quite possibly the richest Albanian) lobbied for that. Though the article is inconsistent, the title says "Malta recognized Kosovo" (past tense) but in the text it says "Malta made a decision to recognize Kosovo last night which will make it a 44th state to recognize" (future tense). I am convinced that other media will report soon so let's wait for them for a few hours so we can see if Malta has recognized or has decided to recognize.--Avala (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

So, how should we classify this information? As recognition achieved or pending? Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The http://business.hr/ cites Television Kosovo as their source not Maltese Government so let's wait until it's confirmed officially outside Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will use the opportunity to inform on some more news - that article suggests in a secretive manner how Kosovo media are talking about a recognition from an important South American country but Serbian media have already spoiled the fun a few days ago by publishing it's going to be Colombia. Also Egypt has decided not to recognize passports of Kosovo either.--Avala (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you happen to have any english-language links about Colombia recognising? Did the article(s) suggest any time frame? Thanks! Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No nothing that can be used in the article. More like "It's reported that Colombia will soon recognise" similar to what we have removed under Morocco. But it's valuable in the sense that we should keep our eyes open on Colombia not on some other country. Also here is the list of countries where Serbian Foreign Minister is going next for bilateral meetings so we can I suppose expect news, confirmation or change from there and those are China, Singapore, Malaysia(!?) and Philippines. I know that you have previously thought of calling some ministries of foreign affairs so you can do it with Colombia, it's still working hours. I quickly found this one, not very reliable as it is a tabloid but it says that Kosovo FM Skender Hiseni told Pristina newspaper Ekspres that he got assurances that Colombia will be the 44th state.[5] --Avala (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's not going to make much headway in Malaysia. My Spanish is not perfect, so I dunno how good I'd be at talking to the Colombian FM. I guess I could look into it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If they don't speak foreign languages in the foreign ministry they could just close it down instead. And I have no idea about Malaysia either. We'll see what is that all about, maybe he is counting on their confusion "we have recognized-no haven't-yes we did-wait what?" they have shown a few months ago.--Avala (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that the talkpage is in work mode (again)! --DaQuirin (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we still don't know if they have done it or not. A while ago there was a link to the page of the President of Kosovo. Maybe we find something there?84.134.71.98 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing about it.

• www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748 Malta is not on the list. Also www.kosovothanksyou.com hasn't listed them.84.134.117.164 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like to know whats going on there. There must be anything about it anywhere?84.134.125.2 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Colombia

We should move Colombia to the states, who are going to recognize soon.84.134.56.152 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? We don't have any links. Avala was kind enough to share what the Serbian media is saying, but beyond that, we have nothing in writing, as it were. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have a link:

• [6]

I hope again that there is anybody who can read that.84.134.56.152 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is about reaction and that news piece is quoting Kosovo minister comment on Colombia, which he can't really do, it's not diplomatic to do it (unless it was done in presence of a Colombian official when it's a different thing, more of a joint statement but this time it wasn't). We are looking for statements from Colombia directly instead. And that news article itslef ends with a question mark which is suggesting indefinite state of Colombian position. --Avala (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And Kurir is not a reliable media house, anyway. As far as what's diplomatic or not, I find it very strange that Serbia's foreign minister is almost always the one who 'explains' the position of certain countries on independence/passports - usually without the other party being present. Such was the case with his "explanation" about Egypt 'not accepting the Kosovan passports' - no sign of Egypt's representative, just Jeremic. --alchaemia (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not nice to make things up you know - [7] [8] - look at them two they are almost in love, let alone passports lol --Avala (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said they didn't meet; I only said that it's Jeremic who "explains" the position of Egypt (for Serbian media) while the Egyptian Foreign Minister says nothing about passports. --alchaemia (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that there was "no sign of Egypt's representative" but there he was ;) Anyway if Jeremic started talking nonsense, Gheit standing next to him would have said "whow Mr Jeremic I didn't say that" but he didn't. Obviously you are making questions regarding a type of strict rule in diplomacy called protocol so I suggest you to read a nice book - "Diplomatic protocol" by Zoran Veljic which is used at a diplomatic academy to learn more on many issues including the one in question here about who speaks on what issues to the media after a bilateral meeting. Why Egyptian foreign minister would talk about a Serbian support to Middle East peace process and why would Serbian FM speak about the Egyptian support to Balkans peace process etc. :) --Avala (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what are you ranting about? Egypt's position is explained by Egypt's foreign minister, not Jeremic. If Egypt has something to say about the new passports, he will say it on behalf of the country he's a foreign minister of. Last I checked, Egypt was far bigger and more influential than Serbia so there's no need for Jeremic to explain the position of Egypt while standing next to Egypt's foreign minister. He told Serbian media that Egypt didn't recognize Kosovan passports - not during the conference. --alchaemia (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are still not getting it, aren't you? Your comment regarding Egypt being larger, not needing Serbians to explain their positions is immature and shows your lack of knowledge on diplomacy which is not a bad thing by itself but you not stopping trying to explain us the diplomacy you know nothing about is. You should learn not to speak so confidently about things that you have insufficient knowledge about. Also you tried to tell us how he made the statement after the conference, but how would you know if you haven't seen the conference? May I remind you that just a few edits up you tried to convince us how the Egypt minister wasn't even there. Please for the sake of this article and Wikipedia stop typing such unfounded claims so easily.--Avala (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Egypt papers or media did not issue one single statement. No news from egypt except Jeremic's mouth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no base to say that as you don't live in Egypt. If world media like AP sent reporters I am pretty convinced it was seen in Egypt too. Now please stop making unfounded claims.--Avala (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Better than nothing!84.134.71.98 (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's about time to stop using Serbian's FM statements in this article. How can he speak in the name of China, India, Egypt? Don't these countries have a Foreign Ministry? Same applies to Kosova's FM, which, by the way, we are rarely citing here. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Colombia Recognizes Kosovo (Aug 6, 2008)

So it's official now:

Colombia Foreign Ministry Web: http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal
Declaration of Recognition: http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/WebContentManager/Repositorys/site0/06AGO08KOSOVO.pdf Exo (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it on the article but someone will have to do the coloring in the map. Exo (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is protected so that can only be done by a commons admin -- CD 11:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request for it to be unprotected -- CD 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- CD 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Belize Recognizes Kosovo (Aug 7, 2008)

Kosovo Presidential Website: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,949

Basically the president of Kosovo has received the recognition letter by the Belize government. Exo (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I'ts added! M.M.S. (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why China needs to move to Concern rather reject?

Look at Chinese State Media Xinhua how they report their news. Besides, China has not given any statement since back in february "concerned"

Mujota holds a double citizenship of Kosovo and Sweden. - Citizenship of Kosovo coming from A main Chinese State Media!

PRISTINA, Kosovo Aug. 5 (Xinhua) -

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/06/content_8984422.htm

China needs to be moved to Concerned. They have supported EULEX deployment and even refered to Kosovo FM at UN as Foreign Minister Hyseni!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that China refers to Kosovo as "that Serbian territory" it seems like they are more than just concerned with the declaration. Boris Tadić will meet with Hu Jintao on Thursday and I bet we will get even stronger statements from the Chinese government then. --Tocino 05:30, 6 August 2008

Quote? where does it consider?

Xinhua is Chinese State agency. It says Mujota has Kosovo citizenship. Do u know what this means. China never stated it rejects Kosovo's independence. Only expresses concern. B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove China from rejection list. Concerned. Serb president visitation has nothing to with this. Must remove it! It lacks of sources. Contains not a single sentence on the entire news media indicating from a chinese official"we reject independence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand Serbia meets people. But it means nothing. China needs to be removed from rejection list until otherwise.

Please remove!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "rejection list" and "needs to be moved to Concerned"? We have only three lists: states that formally recognise Kosovo as independent, states that have declared intent to recognise Kosovo, and states that have yet to decide or do not recognise Kosovo. China does not recognize Kosovo nor declared intent to do so, thus it belongs correctly to the third list, irrespective of whether it is concerned or not. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to spend time on every IP "user" who drops by to share his POV in a form of rant like "KOSOVO NOT INDEPENDENT IT SERBIA" or "KOSOVA INDEPENDENT IT REPUBLIC". I mean this is insulting for people who are actually trying to make something out of this article and I don't see any reason to respond as we are not a call center.--Avala (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is wrong with User:Avala. He must have an impression that he is one of the best (if not the best) contributers on this article hence he is not allowing anybody to contradict his opinion. He should be more mature & professional. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200808071110/Politics/China-continues-to-remain-neutral-on-Kosovo.html

China remains neutral /concerned.

Please remove it from rejection list. Russia and China have completely two different opinions.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/07/content_9021931.htm

We are not going to quote hysterical interpretations by the media which is supposed to be English but writes half of the names in Albanian and is called New Kosova Report. Chinese Ambassador to Serbia has confirmed the position of China today[9].--Avala (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia source????"? Xinhua chinese news agency does not even mention anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More latin American countries to follow

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/12283/

Other Latin American states likely to follow Colombia in recognising Kosovo in the near future are Panama, Guatemala and Chile.

Please add them on the to recognize list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We need announcements by government officials, not media speculations that something is "likely". — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it would make sence, and why would panama recognize just because columbia did? We said the same thing about the carib. states when canada recognized.--Jakezing (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama's government and foreign policy tend to be more aligned to Costa Rica's (they both don't really have formal militaries, both have strong relations with US, etc) than Colombia's. Any speculation that these websites print is more about the relationship they have to the US and each other than any statements by government officials, etc. Regardless of whether Balkan Insight said so or not, we shouldn't add any of these countries without formal notice from a high up in the government that knows what they're talking about. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, judging by the position towards the USA Romania would have recognized or judging by the fact Serbia recognizes Palestine Israel might have returned the "favor" but they didn't etc. so such journalist speculations aren't helpful at all.--Avala (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see rather than listing them based on a journalist's hunch. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The same website, which is funded by the USA/EU/NATO, said that Bahrain will recognize and they never have. It's just wishful thinking on their part. --Tocino 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, tkae your damn USA/EU/Nato conspiracy and shove it. Were all tired of hearing you say "the seperatist supportuing snakes", all your POV about how the USA is pressuring all these countries to support, how the EU is evil, how kosovo is independant because of nato, it's getting really old, so stop talking about it.--Jakezing (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civil. We understand that you hate me and anybody else who might support international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, but your incoherent attacks don't belong on this page. --Tocino 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Now now tocino dont act all inocent, didnt your block teach you anything?--Jakezing (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain may still recognise. It is not helpful to dismiss this possibility out of hand. Which of us would've thought that Belize would recognise? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino should bereported to an admin for this stupid nonsense.84.134.79.149 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have 3 (three) edits.--Avala (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand.84.134.79.149 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No avala, stop acting like your better then the ip users. their just to lazy to register--Jakezing (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can please somebody answer my question?84.134.79.149 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's foreign minister has said that there will be more recognitions from the Central and South American countries soon. He has not specified which ones so I guess we'll just have to pay attention to the countries in the region. If we were to speculate, it's likely going to be Panama, El Salvador and some island countries. We could also be surprised by Chile and Mexico, depending on how US diplomacy has played out. Exo (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I may put on my speculation cap, I would anticipate that Panama and the other Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua will recognise. Nicaragua probably will not because of its current government, which is allied with Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Uruguay, who have already indicated in some way that they will not recognise. It would not surprise me to see some or all of the Leeward Islands states (Barbados, Saint Lucia, Dominica, et al) to recognise.

A very basic notion that we must remember is that, for most countries, Kosovo is a remote issue. It has no bearing on their national priorities. It's an out-of-the-way, small European state that was created under controversial circumstances, so most states either don't care or are taking a 'wait and see' approach. In their respective statements, Belize, and Columbia to a lesser extent, indicated that they had waited to see how things would turn out.

Additionally, since Kosovo's independence was effected outside of the framework of the United Nations, many countries have been leery of legitimising an end-run around that institution. For many countries, the UN is their only opportunity to be heard and any weakening of it is a slap in the face. Some, as we've seen, are holding out because of this (Vietnam and Algeria come to mind).

Mexico has already made statements in opposition to Kosovo's independence, so I do not think that it will recognise any time soon. The US has lost much of its influence in Central and South America, as demonstrated by so few American states recognising promptly, and most countries are acting on their own schedules.

Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see that albania was, 3rd to recognize right?--Jakezing (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be forgotten that there are other forces at work than simply Kosovo here. Colombia and the United States are working out a free trade agreement in the US Senate right now, so by supporting Kosovo, Colombia is increasing its chances of free trade being ratified by the US Senate. These issues are why we're going to hear A LOT of these rumors and speculations in journalism or even with people like the Kosovo foreign minister. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is who the main trading partners are. Most of these countries have a trading rate of 25% plus with the United States, and that translates to influence. Of course countries like Mexico can't be influenced easily, however the smaller ones are just one phone call away. I believe that there must be a reason why recognition waves are being used, instead of individual recognitions randomly. So maybe all this hiatus time has just been scheduling recognitions as opposed to lack of interest or "wait and see". Either way, this should be interesting to watch. Exo (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If other Central and South American countries start to recognise then it migh help other countries who hesitate to recognise as well. Together with Middle Eastern and some African countries this number can get close to the "magic" number 100.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did some calculations with the import and export numbers of most of these countries and they appear to be ridiculously dependent on the US, EU and Japan. If this wave of recognition involves the Central American countries, then we will see a big number of those. Of course a momentum like that would be hard to stop, especially if the Saudis join the trend too. This has the potential to become an avalanche, let's hope our hearts can handle it...on both camps. Exo (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If 90% of the OIC recognize than you get that 100 mile mark. None of the countries that have recognized have stated that they will not support Serbia by allowing her to sue Rep. of Kosova on the ICJ. This number is nothing. Stop being so obsessed with getting 100. Ari 0384 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbian president has met Bush today and asked him for his support regarding Kosovo. He is definitely worse diplomat than Harvard educated Jeremic lol. Even Turks tricked Tadic when both president and PM told him there is no way Turkey is going to recognize Kosovo but they did it on day one. --Avala (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Avala, dont be like tocino, things are bad enough with him. now, take your opinion and POV out of this--Jakezing (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok -> [10] ... Now I think that an apology would be appropriate from you.--Avala (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

States that have declared intent to recognise Kosovo

I'd suggest that the group "States that have declared intent to recognise Kosovo" be merged with "States that have yet to decide or do not recognise Kosovo". Either you've recognized or you have not. "Official intent" is only a matter of confusion as it's possibly part of the political gamle and hard to properly evaluate here. It should also be pointed out that none of the most recent recognizing states have been included in the We-might-recognize-group before they actually recognized Kosovo. Hapsala (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree This is how me and Avala divided the groups originally until someone added this third group, which does not correspond with map. We can keep all the same information that "they have declared intent", but put it in the "States that have yet to decide or do not recognise Kosovo". These countries have yet to officially recognise Kosovo. I believe it is more NPOV this way. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. It should stay the way it is.84.134.112.4 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

comment Please back up your opposition with reasoning/ explanation other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, otherwise your opposition will be disregarded. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, this guest has a habit of IP Switching and just being annoying in general.--Jakezing (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not, I suppose. It was useful during the recognition waves when states were announcing that recognition is about to happen in a few days but now we have only 4 countries and they have been there for weeks, and in case of S.Arabia months.--Avala (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So was lithuania--Jakezing (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats right. I will write sometihng about the comments about me later. 84.134.91.131 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea - why don't you register with Wikipedia? Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe this list could be useful, not recognising and declaring intent to recognise are two things, take russia and montenegro (or Saudi Arabia), Russia is strongly opposing while montenegro is trying to recognise but cant because of the serbs (well, maybe not exactly but you get the point), so instead of going through the list to see who has declared intent to recognise, you have a specific list, which makes it more comprehensive -- CD 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that that. @ Bazonka : Why should I do that? 84.134.126.90 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

so you can become a better more constructive useful and helpful wikipedian Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

@84.134.???.?? Why won't you do that? It's not difficult and would make you more credible. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the user account Kosova2008 that I don't use anymore, you can have that. IM me if you want it. Ari 0384 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He could have cody6 lol, though, no... nvm, cody6 is there to remind people why im uncivil :D. Also, it's make it easier to warn you Ip 84.--Jakezing (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want that? 84.134.126.90 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Intent to recognize is very important. Many countries look at who is about to recognize when making a decision about their own recognition, therefore it's definitely important. Exo (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You think Foreign ministers are consulting Wikipedia to make up their mind? Gugganij (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the intelligence gathered by some of the smaller/poorer nations includes info from Wikipedia. Where else (other than Kosovothanksyou) can you find a comprehensive list of who has/hasn't recognised? Bazonka (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't think that they get influenced by a "Intent to recognize" section in the article - it's to "soft" and subjective to be trusted. Gugganij (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The list proved to be very unreliable in the last few months, and it is one of the main remaining sources of POV clashes in this article. I thus agree that we'd be better off merging it in the "have yet to decide or do not recognise" list. Keeping it separate does not provide additional information to the reader, only additional subjective assessment. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense!84.134.66.127 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Countries that support vs opposse

How come now there is room for Spain to be addded, it's obviously a direct hijack by proserbia wikiamen to add spain, in case some latin american country reads the site, to stop further latin american countries to recognize Kosovo.

I got news for you serb buddies, all central and southern, at least 2/3 of them are ready to join Columbia and Belize

Please give me a link!84.134.121.54 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If Spain is added, it should be added Italy as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean more about Spain? Also Italy already recognised and have you got any sources? Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"all central and southern, at least 2/3 of them are ready to join Columbia and Belize" wait, so it all of them, or 2/3?--Jakezing (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

Why is Serbia included among nations (next to Saint Kitts and Nevis!) which have not yet recognized Kosovo? This implies that Kosovo is actually not a part of Serbia anymore. Imagine that - say - Cornwall declared its independence from the UK, and UK was included in list which had not established formal diplomatic relations with Cornwall... I'd suggest that Serbia be removed from the list, or relocated to a group of its own. Hapsala (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not part of Serbia anymore.84.134.117.197 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Its very unlikely, but Serbia could accept Kosovo and recognise it as independent. Serbia is a country which does not recognise Kosovo, therefore Serbia is in that list with its status just like all the other countries, which currently don't recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ijanderson977. 84.134.117.197 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hapsala. --Tocino 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it isn't a list of countries which have not established diplomatic relations with Kosovo, because if it was Nauru, Senegal, Peru ect would be in this list, becuase they have not established diplomatic relations with Kosovo. It is a list of countries which currently don't recognise Kosovo as an independent nation. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More precisely this is a list of various reactions from various countries but for the sake of a better organization it has been divided into a few groups. I think perhaps the compromise between these two opinions (Hapsala and Ijanderson) would be to put Serbia regardless of the alphabet on the first place in the list but not into a separate table. Any thoughts?--Avala (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand, tocino has returned...--Jakezing (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't have!84.134.88.13 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ijanderson and Avala. There is a sublist of "UN member states" in a list of "States that have yet to decide or do not recognise Kosovo". Does Serbia recognize Kosovo? No. Is Serbia a UN member? Yes. Did Serbia express a position wrt Kosovo's DoI so that we have something to put in its entry? Most definitely. Therefore, Serbia should be included in the list. However, Serbia is obviously not just a random country not recognizing Kosovo, hence it makes sense to indicate it more prominently, such as by putting it first in the list. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose to having Serbia at the top of the list, it should stay alphabetical. Putting Serbia at the top of the list can be seen as POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose putting Serbia at the top of the list. It should be left in its alphabetically correct place. RIVA02906 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore will not recognize Kosovo and will vote for the ICJ to give opinion on the legality of declaration. Those are the latest news from Singapore just seen on TV if anyone is interested. Possible article expansion will come after we get online sources.--Avala (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats coming out of Jeremic's mouth! Nothing from Singpore's government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.225.241 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

from B92 (I been seeing this source a lot). Nothing from the Singapore MFA website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is the main and possibly only online news portal in Serbia. Something like seznam/novinky in Czech R.--Avala (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the solution is - email or call the Singaporean MFA and ask them to confirm, if they do so it would be safe to use this as a source. I doubt they will be publishing much info on their website as it was a meeting with Sadasivan Balaji not George Yeo. If no one in doubt goes for confirmation we can add it based on photos which prove the meeting [11] [12]--Avala (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos prove that a meeting took place, not what was said at the meeting. Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the meeting was real, I just believe we should be careful of who we cite with actual declarations, that's all. We also need to be careful to match what was actually said at the meetings. My personal view is that we should get it from the horse's mouth (or directly from the main source, in this case, each country's MFA). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source from the Serbian Government but it's not an original either but a copy of the news article [13]. It's not urgent to add Singapore today. We currently do have the statement from Singapore, where they are calling it controversial or something like that. Serbian MFA website still hasn't published news on this so we'll have to wait a bit more for the "horse's mouth".--Avala (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a broken link. Bazonka (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Click on English at the top of [14] and then try opening the link from here again and it will work.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

nope..Avala you are violating rules. It is not neutral source. It's quoting serbia sources.

Please remove. How abrupt you become to change it. Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.184.158 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Softball Federation wins international recognition

Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports of the Republic of Kosovo announced that on 12 August International Softball Federation (ISF) has recognized and accepted with full membership privileges the Kosovo Softball Federation.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200808141126/Culture-and-Sports/Kosovo-Softball-Federation-wins-international-recognition.html

Please add.

How come tennis table is not there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.34.4 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Table tennis is there - but it's in a footnote under the table because the federation admitted Kosovo before its declaration of independence, hence it's not a reaction. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the ISF Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be removed like churches? Perhaps added to Foreign relations of Kosovo?--Avala (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus to Keep Sport reactions. Also I do not understand why Sport should be added to Foreign relations? Ijanderson (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose to keep everyone happy but you are right it doesn't belong there either. Maybe there should be some kind of third article on this, this way it's a little bit of apples and oranges. --Avala (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A sports article? Ijanderson (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well some kind of. Either Sport in Kosovo or perhaps Membership of Kosovo in International Organisations.--Avala (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Im surprised there isn't an article called Sport in Kosovo? Anyway I believe this sort of information should in that article. Ijanderson (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy for this stuff to be moved to Membership of Kosovo in International Organisations or Membership of Kosovo in International Sports Federations or similar. I think Sport in Kosovo is too broad a subject for this info. Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Membership of Kosovo in International Sports Federations created by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

Malaysia has frozen its recognition procedure on Kosovo. [15] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what the Serbian Foreign Minister has claimed, not Malaysia. Colchicum (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

and the Serbian Foreign Minister is a reliable source Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the Serbian position he is. I.e. "On ##.## Serbian FM Vuk Jeremić claimed that Malaysia had decided to freeze the process of recognizing Kosovo’s unilateral independence" rather than "Malaysia decided to freeze the process of recognizing Kosovo’s unilateral independence". Colchicum (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the contention with the article, I suggest we should wait from a statement from the Malaysia MFA before we make any changes to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should get confirmation from the Malaysians before altering the page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, we should have another source from them as well then Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the Malaysia MFA website, their English statement said only that the two leaders are meeting and discussed on how to improve relations between Malaysia and Serbia. No word of Kosovo in the statement at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes some MFAs give just short notices. But I think this is obvious even without Jeremic's statement that they have frozen the recognition through what we already have in the article where their foreign minister says how they are not in a hurry to decide so there is no special need to put it in, we aren't in desperate need for information on Malaysia. Of course if their MFA comes up with detailed statement it would be great.--Avala (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Every information we have is important!84.134.77.15 (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Still nothing from the Malaysia MFA; I mainly just saw statements in Serbian papers. So if we word the statement, we have to word it very carefully and we need to use a newspaper. The only thing I see about Kosovo is either not in English or they mentioned there is a liaison office in Pristina (they use Republic of Kosovo, but not sure when the page was changed). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you remember the mess that the Malaysian representation in Kosovo caused. They released a statement that Malaysia recognized Kosovo and then the Foreign Minister refuted by that statement that we have in the article now. Anyway their MFA website is down atm. From what we've seen so far I don't think that their diplomacy is at a very high level.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another Link about that:

• [[16]]

84.134.108.94 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK that's a neutral source so I will add it.--Avala (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting statements on Malaysia

Kosovo president has held a meeting today (Aug 14) with Mustafa Mansor, representative of Malaysia's diplomacy in Kosovo, where he denies the recognition process being frozen by his country: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,958

Wherever Jeremic got his "freezing" from, it's not what was said on this meeting. Exo (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The same Mustafa Mansor who claimed that Malaysia recognized Kosovo?--Avala (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The representative of Malaysian diplomacy in Kosovo. Exo (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that. My question is, was it the same person that claimed in February how Malaysia recognized Kosovo?--Avala (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Relevance? Exo (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is that if it's the same person in question we can't trust him. If he lied in February when he said that Malaysia recognized Kosovo (it was even on the website of the President of Kosovo) then how can anyone be convinced he is not making things up again?--Avala (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And who are you exactly to determine what official can and cannot be trusted in their statements in the capacity of the representative of a certain country's diplomacy? Here's an English version of the article btw: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/12383/ Exo (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK stop it right there. Making such jokes only prevents final agreement and consensus. It's not about ME, it about facts, he said "Malaysia recognizes Kosovo" and does Malaysia recognize Kosovo? No. Did he make it up? Yes. Is he a trusted representative of Malaysia? No. Now he says "Malaysia is still assessing the case of Kosovo's recognition" - why should we believe him? He lied before, he lied before, he lied before. He is not to be trusted, he is not to be trusted, he is not to be trusted.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

He didn't lie. He got given the wrong message, it was confusion. The Liaison Office in Pristina read the welcoming of independence as recognition. But he wasn't lying as you are stating. Ijanderson (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe but either way (intentionally or not) he didn't give a truthful information. But OK let's say he is not lying that he is just confused - we still can't be sure that he is not confused now too.--Avala (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw BalkanInsight made an error "Serbia's Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremic, said he had persuaded Kuala Lumpur not to recognise Kosovo." - he did not claim that. He said that Malaysia decided to freeze the process of recognition, not to reverse it and not recognize. Malaysian head officer mentions "one way or the other" and their FM "recognition or otherwise" which is actually suggesting a change of mind while Jeremic only talked about freezing the recognition process until further notice. He said something like "I hope that the process will not be unfrozen" and Malaysians also said that they took not of the ICJ trial and that they will decide in September about their vote in UNGA (I guess it also means no recognition or otherwise until then).--Avala (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a joke at all. This is the representative of Malaysia in Kosovo, and he is saying that his country has not frozen the recognition procedure and is still deciding about the matter. Freezing and considering are two different things. It doesn't matter if there was a confusion or a "lie" as you like to call it in the past, this is still an official who is authorized to make statements in his country's behalf. And the statement of a Malaysian government representative contradicts the statement of a Serbian government representative. Who agrees? Exo (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already added to the article. We are questioning something else here, whether someone who lied (or was confused before) can be trusted now and why would they be trusted now.--Avala (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, there should be no question about that. He is the representative of Malaysia, he talks in his country's behalf. He could lie all day, but we cannot deem it to be a lie unless there is a source of someone higher than him from his government contradicting his words. We certainly can't give priority to Jeremic's words over Malaysian officials. Exo (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed this latest OR. Please see to fixing the ones still remaining from yore. As for the credibility of diplomats from 3rd countries speaking for the consumption of a host country, they are not to be trusted, period, certainly not on the level with websites of their ministries. But Serbian Foreign Minister or his Ministry (the same goes for Kosovan couterparts and/or Prime Ministers) are completely unacceptable as Wikipedia sources for those third countries. Case in point: Libya. --Mareklug ^talk 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Only two sources are "official" for a meeting between Serbian and Malaysian minister - Malaysian MFA website and Serbian MFA website. It's not our problem that Malaysian MFA website still has the meeting info in the future tense and Wikipedia will not suffer because of that.--Avala (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets go how Avala is analysing this. We can't use any source, because someone might have been confused and got something wrong. Ijanderson (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what Avala is saying is that what matters is what the Malaysian and Serbian MFAs say over Kosovo. The Kosovo President meetings with representatives of Malaysian diplomacy are somehow less important, because...mmm, POV? Exo (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I singled out Malaysian representative because of history of giving false statements.--Avala (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't twist your words and it's not false statements, it was a misunderstanding, or at least it was presented as such. My point is this precisely, that we have no right to classify or determine anything, because our words are not stronger than a representative of state's words. And don't use that tone with me lol. :P Exo (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's not false statement" - if he said that Malaysia recognized and it didn't it's a false statement regardless of the reason (misunderstanding or intentional lying) and that gives us the reason to suspect if the representative is maybe in some kind of misunderstanding again?--Avala (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I can offer a suggestion, hold off on Malaysia now. I saw the leaders of Kosovo and Malaysia meet together, but I do not have knowledge of Albanian, so I do not know what was said between the two. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200808151131/Politics/Malaysia-refutes-Serbia-claims-of-Kosovo-recognition-freeze.html

Also, now from Horses mouth: Jeremic: I never said Malaysia has frozen its process

“Malajzia asnjëherë nuk më ka premtuar se do ta ngrijë procesin e pavarësisë së Kosovës”, është detyruar të pranojë ministri i Jashtëm, serb, Vuk Jeremiq. Ai ka thënë se ky shtet po i vazhdon procedurat për njohje. Komentet Jeremiq i ka bërë në New York, ku ka dorëzuar zyrtarisht në OKB rezolutën, në të cilën Serbia i kërkon Asamblesë së Përgjithshme që të votojë për ta çuar çështjen e pavarësisë së Kosovës në Gjykatën Ndërkombëtare të Drejtësisë. Jeremiq ka pranuar se do ta ketë të vështirë për të marrë shumicën e votave në Asamble. Ai ka thënë se Serbia do ta pranojë çdo vendim të Gjykatës. http://www.kohavision.net/

Serbia again

User Tocino has put Serbia to the top of the list of UN members who currently do not recognise Kosovo, despite opposition. I myself oppose this because putting Serbia at the top of an alphabetical list makes Serbia seem higher with some sort of special status, there for is WP:POV. Serbia is like any other country and in theory could recongise Kosovo, therefore should be treated on this article like any other country, so by putting it at the top of the list is in violation of wp:npov Ijanderson (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care either way how the list is organized, but in response to the argument, Serbia's relationship to Kosovo is irrefutably unique, since it is the country from which Kosovo is breaking away. It certainly isn't POV to give Serbia special status, and I find it somewhat silly to claim it is just "like any other country." Serbia does have a special status amongst non-recognizing countries, and that reality is self-evident and predicated on the historical and political circumstances.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see a point on why the placement is like that, since it was Serbia that is losing part of their territory with the UDI. However, what I would suggest is leave it the way as it, and just click the button to sort the list back in ABC order. But if consensus is decided to put Serbia back in the proper order, then I will agree to that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals at the top of this talk page were A) make a separate table for Serbia B) put Serbia among all other countries. Compromise is always in the middle and that is keep Serbia in the current table but put it on top of it. Isn't the solution that satisfies all parties a win-win solution even though every side has to give up a little bit?--Avala (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to making a separate section for Serbia, as Kosovo's declaration of independence is the only real county which is affected by it. However I think it would look messy in table format for Serbia on its own. So how about this? Ijanderson (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just take Serbia out of the table and put it in paragraph format? That would work if we put Serbia in it's own section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is we didn't really follow the actions of the Serbian govt closely and there could be a lengthy article with many sections on it. I think the current state is the most suitable for the current format of the article.--Avala (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an article already at Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, but I am not sure if it is lengthy or not. Plus, I think the article Czech Republic's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence should be merged to here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We should put Serbia in its own paragraph, the above we should wright

---

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

---

So that we can link threw to a full position to Serbia's full position on Kosovos declaration of independence. Agree? Ijanderson (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please perform the edit, as it it is late where i am. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If others agree, I can have the edit arranged. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit performed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it very annoying that some users like Tocino do edits on their own without prior consensus. We should take some precotions to avoid one-man-shows in Wikipedia. I believe this to be a more important issue rather than whether Serbia should be placed on top or not. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, he argument for doing that was "moved Serbia back to the top... there is no consensus to list Serbia as just another opposing nation". Well if there is no consensus on where to place Serbia, shouldn't it remain at the status quo before until a consensus is reached? Ijanderson (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We need that "ask for permission and consensus before an edit" system we had before! Everyone would come here and get things approved before making edits. This is a very controversial article and needs strict monitoring or it will get out of hand fast. Exo (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports

Why were the international sports organizations removed? RIVA02906 (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if its being put on a new page, the section should remain marked and include the link. Also, given its importance relative to the others, there should be a section on the Olympics Committee in this article, though it could be moved for convenience to international organizations. RIVA02906 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I made my own changes. Fell free to discuss if you object. RIVA02906 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See here Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Kosovo_Softball_Federation_wins_international_recognition --Avala (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

Here I found something very interesting.

• [17]

Please loook for Kosovo.84.134.81.243 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone include that in the section about Serbia?84.134.82.64 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its important!84.134.82.64 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please do it?84.134.82.64 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do it!84.134.82.64 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly... Calm down!

Secondly, there is nothing on that link about Kosovo - it's the homepage of an Austrian newspaper. Please provide a reference to the actual article in question, otherwise we have no idea what you're on about. Explaining something about the content of the article on this page would also be considerably more helpful than just saying it's "something very interesting", especially as it's (likely to be) in German and this is English-language Wikipedia.

Thirdly, if you registered with Wikipedia you could make the edits yourself, and you wouldn't have to go mental asking others to do it for you. Bazonka (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP address posting unintelligible spam.--Avala (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Website comes out broken for me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

All I could find is the statement by Serbian FM saying how Serbia will respect the ICJ ruling and then the journalist comment that Serbia will recognize Kosovo but they failed to quote the whole statement where he said he is convinced that ICJ will rule in Serbian favor.--Avala (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly that I mean. And I'm not posting spam.84.134.102.36 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not spam exactly, but your posts above were unintelligible. Bazonka (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My English is not so good maybe.84.134.102.36 (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about your English but more your specific style.--Avala (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is de jure independent

Kosovo is de jure independent,not defacto. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not de jure independent worldwide, only in countries who have recognized. The fact remains (de facto) that the Serbian government has little to no control over the territory claimed by the Kosovar government. Therefore the statement is correct. Dave4Prez (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This will be settled by the ICJ ruling.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't. The ICJ ruling will be worthless because it won't change anything. It also may not be the flawless victory Serbia expects it to be, either. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to take the wait and see approach. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia said it will respect the decision by the ICJ. Countries which decide not to ... well it says more about them then about anything else. Disrespect on court decision, binding or not (how do you make such a decision binding anyway?) would be a bad sign internally too ie. some could say "if my government doesn't care about court decisions why should I". It doesn't mean they will withdraw recognition or recognize after the decision (it's the independent right of every country) but they should respect what the court will say on independence declaration (not on recognition but on declaration, that's what court is deciding on). The question here was about the Kosovo independence - is it a de jure or de facto. And guess what it's not Wikipedia editors who decide. Shocking as it might be but they are not the ones who can even nearly make a decision of that kind. The only body which has some authority on this is ICJ with its decisions.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Avala, I have to agree with Canadian Bobby, there is no body which has the authority to decide, this is the eternal problem with the notion of "international law". It is neither the ICJ nor Wikipedia editors who decide. An opinion of ICJ would still be an interpretation of international law by an organization, albeit notable, and not the ultimate truth. It will only clarify whether Kosovo is de jure independent according to the ICJ, and nobody really cares. Well, you might look at the list of advisory opinions of the ICJ issued so far. Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ICJ has no legal binding! It wong go thru though - it's just a bluff for the Serbia leadership to hold into their power!

Yes it "wong go thru". How about signing your comments?--Avala (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

lol Ijanderson (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister Thaçi also stated that "in a not so distant future our neighboring state Serbia will recognize Kosovo."[18]. Should we add this too?--Avala (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm thats not really Serbia's position, but Thaçi's prediction. Maybe this will be true in about 10 years or so. Anyway, because of this, we shouldn't include it on the article. Ijanderson (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

US lobbying Brunei

Here's an article from the Brunei press with a blurb which states that the US Special Envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) met the foreign mininster and lobbied for Brunei to recognise Kosovo. [19] Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the first time. The Canadians report that they were lobbied about Kosovo and to recognize her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Brunei is half of Kosova, territory-wise. I read that article much earlier and I had to WP it to find out where it is. I know Prime Minister Thaci promised fresh recognitions soon, let's wait and see. Ari 0384 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Although interesting, I don't think we can include this information in the article as it gives no indication as to how Brunei will react / has reacted to the lobbying. Bazonka (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta is expected to declare its position today or tomorrow.

The government is expected to issue a statement today or at the latest tomorrow to make clear its position on Kosovar independence and recognition of passports.

Speaking to this newspaper, Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Melvyn Mangion would not be drawn into commenting on whether or not the authorities will recognise Kosovo, citing “too important information that has been agreed on at a parliamentary group level”.
Source: http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=74088 Emetko (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We should add this once Malta has finalised its position, either today or tomorrow Ijanderson (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta officially recognised!

Here is the relevant link: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080821/local/malta-recognises-independence-of-kosovo

Please add to the list and map, plus increase the number to 46. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It can't be added to the map just yet because it's on commons and someone decided to lock the map file so it can't be changed at the moment.--Avala (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why has my comment been deleted? --alchaemia (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Was your comment anyhow productive? Was it a suggestion regarding the article?--Avala (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was. It was a comment on how the article needs to get updated even though Jeremic might say otherwise ;) I've read many a comment from you that had nothing to do with the article or its betterment and if I started deleting them, you would lose a lot of your comments. Stick to your comments and nevermind mine. There are higher authorities for that. --alchaemia (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Maltese Gov't declaration in the Maltese language. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese looks even crazier than Albanian! :) Bazonka (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

States that have declared intent to recognise Kosovo

Please move Portugal to that section, sources:

• [[20]]

Please be quick.Thank you.84.134.94.15 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't really use that. We need something from the Portuguese government (preferably) or media (perhaps) - Balkan Insight is hardly an authoritative source on Portuguese politics.

And anyhow, what's the rush? Why not chill out and dream of Malta - putting something on Wikipedia is hardly going to make Portugal recognise any quicker.

How about this for a crazy idea? Why not register with Wikipedia and you can make edits yourself! Wow! Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that the way you are talking to people ? Do this do that? 84.134.94.15 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one telling people to do things: "Please be quick" etc. I was merely suggesting that you register with Wikipedia as you are an active contributor to this page. Bazonka (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the better way.84.134.94.15 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a discussion above in the section called Portugal. We need someone else other than the Balkan Insight to say this same information. I prefer to hear it from the Portuguese MFA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Media reports are fine but only if they have an actual quote which the BalkanInsight article doesn't. Plus we have a section on Portugal and several statements, their PM said he would recognize but after he talks with President but President had a rant against Kosovo in public so then FM gave some balanced statement basically saying we are not acting just yet. --Avala (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But adding that Malaysia has freezed recognition, quoting some non reliable source is okay right? Shameful! Double standards!@

Jeremic refutes his statement on Malaysia

Also, now from Horses mouth: Jeremic: I never said Malaysia has frozen its process

“Malajzia asnjëherë nuk më ka premtuar se do ta ngrijë procesin e pavarësisë së Kosovës”, është detyruar të pranojë ministri i Jashtëm, serb, Vuk Jeremiq. Ai ka thënë se ky shtet po i vazhdon procedurat për njohje. Komentet Jeremiq i ka bërë në New York, ku ka dorëzuar zyrtarisht në OKB rezolutën, në të cilën Serbia i kërkon Asamblesë së Përgjithshme që të votojë për ta çuar çështjen e pavarësisë së Kosovës në Gjykatën Ndërkombëtare të Drejtësisë. Jeremiq ka pranuar se do ta ketë të vështirë për të marrë shumicën e votave në Asamble. Ai ka thënë se Serbia do ta pranojë çdo vendim të Gjykatës. http://www.kohavision.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tthis Kosovo tabloid is the only one to report on this it seems. I don't see why is it such a big deal on Kosovo anyway that there is so much fuss about it.--Avala (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is important!84.134.116.35 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

KohaVision is owned by 'KOHA Ditore', a respected daily, itself owned by Veton Surroi. It is not a 'tabloid' - that space is reserved for the likes of Kurir, Vecernje Novosti, Press, Blic. All of them, incidentally, Serb-owned. It's important to acknowledge that he refuted his statements, as that helps understand Jeremic's MO; he routinelly 'explains' other states' positions, often exxagerating or even downright lying, as was the case with Malaysia. We're dealing with an immature politician who represents the Serbian state. Says enough about the state, I'm afraid. --alchaemia (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just quote you first for everyone to know how impartial you are, how you have no grudge against Serbia - "We're dealing with an immature politician who represents the Serbian state. Says enough about the state, I'm afraid.". Now the fact that this Veton Surroi is the owner means absolutely nothing to us. It's still a tabloid making stories up. And then you come here to spread that yellow journalism as some kind of definite truth. Please don't.--Avala (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not say anything to you, but to those who know Surroi and his media house, it says quite a bit. As I said, the only tabloids here are the ones mentioned above, and one of them you actually quoted just before Colombia recognized. I hold no 'grudge' against Serbia; Serbia's crimes are far too heavy to deserve merely a 'grudge.' But that's a story for another time. Stop spreading lies and propaganda, claiming that Koha Ditore is a tabloid, and face the truth: you are represented by a lying, twisting foreign minister. --alchaemia (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We're dealing with an immature politician = lol. This is an encyclopedia, not some police force hunting down mass murderers ;) Ijanderson (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means what exactly? Avala wanted to claim that Malaysia has frozen its recognition process and reported it here. Later it was refuted by both Malaysia and the youngster calling himself the foreign minister of Serbia. The evidence is clear, and Avala doesn't like it. We are an encyclopedia, indeed, that's why we can't let Avala's push through information that is refuted the next day. --alchaemia (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia is waiting for a ICJ ruling, which will be positive for Serbia, therefore they are unlikely to recognise, because they don't want to be seen as "breaking international law". Thats what is to happen. Ijanderson (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why you reach such a conclusion. Of the 15 judges in the ICJ six are from nations which have recognized Kosovo and some others are from countries likely to be sympathetic towards Kosovo. I wouldn't be surprised if they give a ruling that does not accommodate either side or even one that provides legal backing for the move by declaring it a matter for states to decide. Who knows, they may go so far as to argue the unilateral independence move is sanctioned by international law reinforcing Kosovo as a legal precedent. You can't just assume what the court will rule. I don't think they will give a positive ruling to Serbia. I'd bet on something in between.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Judges are not in a some kind of automatic ruling mode. They have already ruled in favor of Serbia in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case. For an example the UK always votes for the ICJ initiative at the UN, they never tried to deny that right to any country so I think it's safe to assume that their judges at the ICJ are also professional enough not to vote like robots but based on their career and knowledge. And judges need to explain their ruling whatever it might be. They can't rule with simple yes or no. For an example these words come from one of the most important documents of international law - Helsinki Accords.

The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.

The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.

How could they jump over that? They obviously must rule based on something and it will be hard to find more important document than this one. Plus if they rule in favor of Kosovo, according to all the things said since February, Serbia will border something else in the west instead of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I assume the ICJ will act with a lot of caution on this one. Actually it might take years for them to decide.--Avala (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand each judge is not necessarily going to vote the way their country wants, but it can't be ignored. In a situation like this there is potential for political bias. Also the international law is not completely clear since both territorial integrity and self-determination are embraced in most areas of international law. Sometimes a situation has favored the former, sometimes the latter. Assuming they will simply back Serbia is just ridiculous. I think the most likely result is somewhere in the middle because I doubt any of the judges want to be one faulted with the consequences of siding with one principle over the other. Granted, I think any ruling which does not provide outright support for Serbia is likely to be seen as a victory for Kosovo, though.

Certainly none of this should be taken as a sign of Malaysia's ultimate position. The cat's already out of the bag no matter what the ICJ says and many Islamic countries will go whichever way they want in the end. Either way this is veering away from discussion about the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you insane? What nonsense is that?84.134.90.246 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop with your personal attacks. No one takes you or this tabloid seriously.--Avala (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No im not insane, im a realist unlike you. Your an optimistic. Lets see if Malaysia will recognise Kosovo, i bet it won't. I support Kosovo, but i know my stuff too. Thats how things work. Brap! Ijanderson (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's instructive to see Avala twist to hist argument even historical legal documents, by quoting, what else is new, selectively, distoring the whole. Also in the same document, The Helsinki Final Act, here is the entire VIII Article: Equal rights and self-determination of peoples. This part, of no lesser standing, is usually ignored by states-rights folks and defenders of conquests by larger countries of smaller nations:

“ VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples

The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self- determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self-determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination of any form of violation of this principle.

”

Read what it says there, in the 2nd paragraph: "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference." Last I heard, majorities of local populations in certain former administrative units of a certain aggrieved Balkan signatory state have done just that. But their lawful decision, their voice, is being actively suppressed in the name of upholding an earlier article of the same document. Either we have here a contradiction, as often is the case in law, or brazen self-serving interpretation on everybody's part.

In the end, it's good to have a little bit of distance from anything you describe on Wikipedia, as well as to strive to be fair and balanced in editing it, else you risk becoming somebody's mouthpiece and lose credibility of thinking readers and editors... --Mareklug ^talk 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, thanks for reminding of that self-determination is also an important article on the Helsinki Final Act. It seems that when it comes to their own issues, our Serb "friends' are keen to use international law, while forgetting huge chunks of it. Everybody turns into a Kissinger when it's time to "defend" Kosovo, but they "forgot" to do that when they marched to Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and claimed self-determination for the serbs there. --alchaemia (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes peoples but those Albanian peoples already have a state in case you forgotten. Plus it says "without external interference" and as far as I remember this independence is called "supervised independence" by the Ahtisaari plan based on which the independence was declared. Supervised independence suggests external interference (EULEX, KFOR, UNMIK etc.) and therefore it's a violation of borders by a third party which interfered in order to change them by the use of force. And alchaemia you are right, Serbs broke international law when they demanded independence in Croatia too. But if Kosovo independence is declared legal, Serbs of BiH will automatically declare independence (according to their parliament declaration if the majority of countries in the world recognize Kosovo or if the new international legal norms suggest that Kosovo declared independence legally Republika Srpska is to become an independent country). Not to mentione the UN charter which also says that the territorial integrity of all members must be respected ant that the right of "self-determination of peoples" is seen as the right to enjoy the preservation of culture and language within another country.--Avala (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Those "Albanian peoples" who "already have a state" are citizens of Albania - these Kosovars, of whom many are Albanians, are not citizens of Albania thus do not have a state of their own other than the Republic of Kosovo. And please quote that UN charter that says the right to self-determination is the right to cultural rights. As for the so-called Republika Sprska (Shumska), I care very little what they have to say. Let them declare it, and be recognized by Serbia alone. That'll be the day. --alchaemia (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Untrue lead

I am sorry but there is something wrong in the lead. There was no vote in the Kosovar Parliament, but the deputies were asked to sign in the independence declaration, as happens usually in the independence declaration ceremonies. Can anybody redo the lead?balkanian (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source/reference that backs up your statement? Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was a vote, we all saw it happen on live TV also. And not just any TV, but the major TVs of the world. Exo (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad "we all saw it" isn't a valid source. Ari 0384 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Which goes for the other side too.--Avala (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had taken care of this once already, at 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, but a cursory look there now shows that my edit and the source I put there have been obliterated and replaced with an earlier, useless Finnish-language website. You can dig through the history of edits to verify my claim, and retrieve the source, or you can just go to my talk page and get it from the item #2, when Jawohl broached the subject there, and we fixed an earlier misrepresentation.

→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mareklug#RE:_Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence – the first link in that section is PDF transcript still reachable at kosovo-assembly.org. It contains all the documention needed, albeit only in Albanian: a recorded roll-call vote on adopting the Declaration, member by member, with annotation made whenever one was absent. Of the 20 seats lawfully reserved for identified minorities, 11 were unstaffed at the vote, including all 10 seats assigned to parliamentarians representing the Serbian minority, as well as one other, representing ethnicity unidentified by me (his own ethnicity is legally irrelevant but may have been de facto decisive). 9 minority representatives voted within the unanimous quorum numbering 109 parliamentarians, as there were no votes recorded against. --Mareklug ^talk 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we also find a source for every single word used in the article explaining their meaning and confirming their spelling? The fact that a vote was held is a generally known fact. The vote numbers are another matter. Exo (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The vote and the voting numbers are directly related as one affects the other, this is common sense. Ari 0384 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are, however the opener of this section claims that there was no vote in parliament. That is outrageously ridiculous, especially for those of us who have followed this process closely. Then you raised the issue of the validity of the sources to which I reply: easy on the attitude. ;) Exo (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian recognition coming soon

This is according to the leader of one of the parties in the government coalition. Link here: [21]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "leader" of DUI is Ahmet an ethnic Albanian. He says the recognition will happen after demarcation (not for another year). The recognition isn't coming any time soon. Ari 0384 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand several Albanian politicians have made overly optimistic claims, but this person happens to be the leader of a political party which is part of the ruling coalition. To that extent his words have a great deal of credibility. Also I'm not sure where you get this idea it will happen after a year. Ahmet specifically says there are only three technical problems needing resolution on demarcation before recognition. It sounds like he's saying it will be days or weeks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But now we know that it is coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.90.188 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to coming sooner...

• [22]

84.134.75.180 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

While this isn't exactly anything out of a Portuguese official's mouth, Balkan Insight claims that Portugal intends to recognize Kosovo in time. I tried looking on the Portuguese Foreign Ministry site for any information, but I don't get very far using my Spanish. Is there anyone who might be able to find something more useful than an unreferenced statement out of Balkan Insight? Excelsioreverupward (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, this is not a place for such broad speculations. Balkan Insight article is hardly enough to cause a discussion. When they announce something rest assured we will add it. Also you didn't get very far with their Foreign Ministry not because your Spanish is bad but because you should have used Portuguese language.--Avala (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intending on using it as a forum. If this newspaper is making these kinds of claims about Portugal's intent to recognize, then they have to have a source somewhere either within the Portuguese government or from one of these numerous speculators we've run across over the last six months. In either case, we can use that information for this page. By the way, I am fully aware that Portuguese is the language of Portugal. I am a fluent speaker of Spanish though and tried using it to at least get a topic or a statement from someone and then submit it for translations. Since you like to use links, if you look at this link right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages, you'll find that Portuguese and Spanish are in the same language family and thus have very similar words and structures. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it's quite probable that Balkan Insight got their story from a reputable source, we don't know what that source is. It is possible (and I am by no means saying that this is what happened) that they have invented the story out of thin air. We just don't know. A Portuguese media/government report would carry much more weight than a Balkan one re. Portuguese policy. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have been more clear on that. Whatever that source is, we can use it to clear something up. If BI is using speculative sources, then we can use that to prevent someone from moving Portugal into an "intent" section unneccesarily, like we've seen too frequently. However, if BI got its info from Portugal's MFA, then if someone can find it, maybe some of the confusion about Portugal's status can be cleared up. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Portugal will recognize Kosovo - this news was also given in the morning by our morning news in TV Espana here! It's a matter of time when Portugal will recognize it.

As for my Spain, i think they are pissed at Russian's and no longer want to even relate themselves with Serbia neither. Some surprises are going to happen!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right. You are the one who previously claimed that Spain is included in this article in case "some latin american country reads the site, to stop further latin american countries to recognize Kosovo.". So you think diplomacy of some countries is based on this article? Heh you are Spanish as much as I am.--Avala (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I remind everyone, that Tonio Borg of Malta, government member after all, expressly said the same thing in a Times of Malta quote some weeks ago; I aired this here already. So we really have plausible, repeated indications. Time to move Portugal to the imminent recognizers list, no? We don't have any recent news from Portugal indicating dissent. --Mareklug ^talk 00:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we got any new sources regarding Portugal's stance? Eg MOFA or Media Ijanderson (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Slovakia's writeup and plea for merit-based clean-up

Given yesterday's media reports with Robert Fico being quoted by "Slovak STA agency" according to Balkan Insight website, I went out looking for direct sourcing, and discovered no STA news agency in Slovakia, but a prominent STA in Slovenia. The two are sometimes confused, but we are told, usually by American media. :) Anyway, this only underscores the chronic unreliability of so-and-so-said news sourcing of what politicians said in the media that we have been using. I went looking further, and discovered that the Slovak MFA maintains an updated website in both Slovak and English, and that they keep in an easily searchable form their official pronouncements on Kosovo. Even the ones from 2007 and earlier. They did make a perfectly lucid single statement, short enough to be quoted in full – on the day of Declaration. All the assembled collages of what this or that Slovak politician said restate it, without adding anything, except potential for injecting POV by crafting these "quilts" by wikipedians. So I replaced all the crap with that, sourced properly using {{cite web}} fully filled out.

I suggest we take this lull in action to similarly decrapify the rest of this article, because under the cover of restatements such as in Slovakia, there have been injected boatloads of groundless characterizations for state official positions in the same vein (collages of carefully chosen politician quotes).

I'll note in closing, that a number of nonpartisan editors have chronically demanded that this be done, and it gets ignored or fought tooth and nail by the partisan ones: for example, user:DaQuirin fairly recently asked the same for India, but it just went ignored. --Mareklug ^talk 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Slovak MFA is not the only one that can react from Slovakia. Please refrain from information removal because WP:NOTPAPER.--Avala (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And BalkanInsight was refering to SME obviously. Here is the article in Slovak [23]. He says that Kosovo is a closed story for Slovakia until and if the international law changes. And that it would be ridiculous to recognize Kosovo passports if you don't recognize Kosovo itself. I found the article in 15s, you could have done that if you wanted to as well but you obviously needed a good reason to blank the article a bit (your hobby from before) but this is simply not the reason you can use for that. Also you promised not to make such edits here anymore but you are back to intentionally cause problems.--Avala (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So his statements [24] - [25]

• It would be ridiculous not to recognise the state, but to recognise the passports - To by bolo smiešne, pretože pas je určitým signálom, že pochádzate z nejakej krajin
• In the case of Kosovo as an independent state, international law has been seriously violated, - Nevidím v dohľadnom čase priestor na zmenu nášho názoru, pretože v prípade vzniku Kosova ako samostatného štátu bolo hrubo porušené medzinárodné právo
• at some point in future, all the international conditions are met - Ak by sa do budúcnosti naplnili fragmenty samostatného štátu, boli by naplnené všetky podmienky medzinárodného práva, budeme sa o tom baviť. Pre nás je však momentálne Kosovo uzatvorená téma, --Avala (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is no "unreliability of so-and-so-said news sourcing of what politicians said in the media". It takes only a few seconds to find out if something is true or not in the world of today's technologies. Of course languages could cause problems but Mareklug as Polish is your mother tongue I'd expect you to have a good comprehension of Slovak too. Polski jest twój język ojczysty. Myślę, ty można zrozumieć Słowacki. Czy zgadzasz? --Avala (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My comprehension of Slovak is your smokescreen, Avala. It is completely besides the point. BalkanInsight, a Bosnian press source we use a lot, and which is not at all Serbian and has been assumed up t now by us to be reliable, has made a misrepresentation, by attributing Fico's interview to STA in Slovakia, which does not exist. That finding Fico giving an interview to SME in Slovakia is easy, is a straw man and irrelevant.

What is significant is what I did say: the collages partisan wikipedians have woven out of individual politician say are inherently POV, and dangerous, and in this case, they say nothing the MFA didn't say. I left in place the more current stuff about denying passports, removing only the crap that restates the MFA official position that Avala should have used months ago, since English is presumably even easier for him to read than Slovakian for me. :)

So I removed them, and introduced solid sourcing - the MFA, since we are continuing to represent whole states here, not aggregate reaction from within states. Avala is making here a misrepresentation, conveniently shifting the framework to fit his creation on the page. Now he reverted what clean-up I did, and laid a smoke screen in the discussion, too.

Editors, please do with this what you will. I told ChrisO that I would abide by Jakezing's request to both me and Avala not to edit here, trusting ChrisO and Husond would take up the task of investigating my claims and acting on them. This has not happened, and crap continues to be added to this article unchallenged, as old crap coexists with it peacefully. In all, things are getting crappier by the kilobyte, as the world turns.. And so I write here again, and edit here, again. Meanwhile, Avala has brazenly reverted and obfuscated my nonpartisan contributions, and WP:NOTPAPER has nothing to do with justifying any of it, but WP:NPOV and WP:VER and WP:OR are all trampled in the matter of Kosovo recognition internationally by his edits, in an article purporting to be representing states, on Commons maps depicting explicitly what states do, not individuals. In a word, help already! --Mareklug ^talk 03:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely deleting information downgrades the articles encyclopedic quality. Ijanderson (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't. Deleting information inherently POV and POV-inducing is the proper course of action. Did you read what the Slovak MFA stated? I know it's hard, because Avala removed it altogether, and it requites digging through history. Do, please. And you will see, that the aggregate collage attributed by Avala to individual politicians, carefully edited and assembled by him according to his POV, essentially restates this terse official document. Meanwhile, similar collages have been placed in lieu of official state reactions for Cuba, Bosnia, Uruguay, India, China, misrepresenting the cases there. As long as we are representing states, not all individual reactions by citizens or politicians of a state, we should be using, if possible, official state reactions where they exist, and clearly state that they have not been made elsewhere. For example, states issue official letters to MFAs in question (Kosovo, Serbia), which those governments in turn reveal. We have seen for instance Malta or Columbia recognize Kosovo via such official letter disclosures. This has not happened in the reverse case of Bosnia, for example, yet Avala has construed and enforced the perception that Bosnia has officially acted to not recognize Kosovo. This information should be removed as harmful original research. The MFA for Slovakia, which has not deemed it appropriate to issue another statement since, but which has issued policy statements on Kosovo in the past when it wanted to, is what is needed here in terms of sourcing, as it is official and clearly states Slovakia policy in force formally. Add to that the info on not recognizing passports, which I did not remove, and you have a NPOV, well-sourced encyclopedic write-up. Avala is defending his collages because he is skewing stuff elsewhere with the same practice. --Mareklug ^talk 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"officially acted to not recognize Kosovo" - for the zillionth time - there is NO such thing as official non-recognition. Out of all countries only Slovakia and Romania adopted a document regarding nonrecognition and even there such action was criticized as unnecessary. This article is called "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and as any other WP article called "International reaction to..." it includes statements given to the media not only official documents and it will stay that way (unless it gets renamed to "Official documents and acts adopted regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence")/--Avala (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are writing self-serving obfuscation, Avala. Bosnia, in your hand only, is shown on Commons in Image:Kosovo_relations.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and in direct consequence, on Serbian Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects -- as having officially having rejected Kosovo independence, marked in red on the world map. You did this, based on this article, which now you claim in a fit of sophistry as depicting reactions within Bosnia only.

There is no marking on those maps of yours that some politicians or communities in Bosnia have stated opinions to this effect, but only that Bosnia acted as a state! It did not! Even the Bosnian politician quotes (minus the Serb's) plainly state this ambivalence -- Bosniaks wish to be left alone and keep a low profile on the score of recognizing or not recognizing Kosovo's independence.

As for the opinions within countries, we have removed world-influential opinion of Iceland-native, USA-resident Björk (expressed on stage twice, inside Japan), which had international ramifications for music goers in Exit Festival in Serbia. We removed opinions of ethnic Serbs protesting in Canada and Australia. We removed political parties, churches and sports federations. We did not include any of the discussed on the talk page prominent individuals -- Zbigniew Brzezinski interviewed in Armenian media comes to mind.

In sum, you are making a dubious case for your edits, after you have created content, without anyone else's backing. Furthermore, without marking it so, you reverted the edit that had included official Slovakia reaction as a state. In fact, you removed it completely while using WP:NOTPAPER as justification both here in this thread and at the time of making your rewert-edit in the edit summary: diff. Your edits do not bear out your claims and smoke screen. Writing to me on this thread in Polish is outrageous and gratuitous, and only underscores your sophistry and underhandedness. You fail to address issues. And you continue to harm Wikipedia content with partisan edits. --Mareklug ^talk 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If one sentence in Polish to a Polish user is outrageous then you should maybe take a wikibreak.--Avala (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.s. This is one of your map upload comment, Avala: 12:51, 21 March 2008 2,825×1,435 (1.59 MB) Avala (I am taking a new approach in order to avoid future edit wars and misunderstandings. It means that any edit to the map must be justified by the source given and in accordance with map legend. [...]). The map legend stated then, as it states today, for color red: States which have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent. And you marked red among others: India, Uruguay, Cuba, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Brazil and ...Bosnia. When has Bosnia-the-state actually stated this? When has Cuba actually stated this? When has Uruguay stated anything re: Kosovo; Uruguay has stated simply nothing on this subject. Kindly source it, all of it, in this thread, for all of these claims of red.--Mareklug ^talk 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So after my reply you again wrote this: "as having officially having rejected Kosovo independence". So I am going to repeat what I wrote until you read it. There is NO such thing as official non-recognition. Out of all countries only Slovakia and Romania adopted a document regarding nonrecognition and even there such action was criticized as unnecessary. This article is called "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and as any other WP article called "International reaction to..." it includes statements given to the media not only official documents and it will stay that way (unless it gets renamed to "Official documents and acts adopted regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence").--Avala (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We should keep most of the information and shorten it in my opinion. Eg Nutshell it Ijanderson (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but not just for the sake of it. I want to read more information on Wikipedia and I consider the rule about WP not being paper encyclopedia to be one of the most important rules. I don't want editors to summarize information for me, I'd rather do it myself after reading the article. There is a difference between boilerplate MFA statements (for an example China always uses empty phrases like "grave concern" whether its commenting the situation in Tibet or climate changes which doesn't say much) that could be almost the same for two or more countries and a more local approach. For an example Spain advocates mutual agreement but they never went so far to bring up the Munich agreement and what not as Slovak PM did. That's why we have to use a bit longer entries in order to differentiate countries.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority wrongly listed as a state?

Since we have just moved Abkhazia and South Ossetia to states from regions and such, let's reexamine Palestinian Authority's placement in the article. Is it really a state? Last I heard, in political theory and practice, one of the requsites fo a state is control of territory. PA does not even control Gaza Strip (Hamas does), not to mention complete domination by Israel, militarily and in terms of traffic allowed in and out. And its observer status at the UN is that of an entity, not a state, which is hte status of Vatican City. IMHO diplomatic recognition alone a state does not make. -Mareklug ^talk 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If "complete domination" means the PA isn't a state then I guess neither is SADR, which is listed in the same category as the PA, or Georiga, or any other country situated in a warzone or whose status is disputed. Besides, the PA is the main government authority in the West Bank's population centers and some rural areas in the northern part of the WB that Israel abandoned during Disengagement. Plus, though it doesn't control Gaza, it is internationally recognized as the government that ought to, even by Israel. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This, in sum, I strongly disagree with Mareklug - the PA is listed correctly. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike all the countries you named, PA does not even control Palestinian territories among Palestinians, as I already mentioned. Neither does PA control the food suppply or energy grid. Israel can shut it off completely, and has, at any moment. Israel controls the borders of PA. How is this a state? PA does not de facto control Occupied Territories, and contorl of territory is one of the three requisites of statehood. The other two are international recognition and will of the people. We could argue (Hamas rule) over the third one. But if you don't have all three, you don't have a state. And what's in the news? Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians regarding future statehood. How can it be both future and already present at the same time? The article even qutoes senior Palestinians, saying that they don't have independence. --Mareklug ^talk 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It has control over some of the territory it claims (the extent of its claims are unclear given that there are factions in the PA, most obviously Hamas, who don't recognize Israel) and it has recognition. The 'will of the people' is too vague a concept to address. As to borders, part of Georgia's border in controlled by Russia; SADR's borders are partly controlled by Morocco, etc, etc. There are even peaceful examples - the Vatican's borders are effectively controlled by Italy, for example. Notice, btw, that two of those examples, SADR and the Vatican are on the same list as the PA. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, you may wish for greater PA control over its affairs but this is not a debate forum on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The issue is how best to categorize the PA. It is my firm opinion that, in light of the fact that it controls territory and conduct official international diplomacy, that it best fits with 'other states.' This opinion has been affirmed by other users in previous discussions that can be found in the discussion archives. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Palestine where it is currently situated. Ijanderson (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence → International recognition of Kosovo independence — The article has evolved to become a compendium of recognitons and recognition denials by states. The proposed move has been discussed on the talk page. The proposed name is better than another proposed and also favorably received alternative, "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo", because it avoids POV (is it Kosova or Kosovo, according to its government?) and does not confuse the issue with the republic proclaimed some years ago and recognized then by a few states. Renaming would help eliminate the original research still present in the article, whereby non-recognition by states and anonymous rumors (example: Uruguay) have been cast by editors as state recognition or denial of recogniton by a state, This OR has spread elsewhere: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, Image:Kosovo_relations.png. --Mareklug ^talk 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Makes sense given the current state of the article. Húsönd 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - at present I see the two equal titles. Please fix the problem.--Avala (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 07:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - would entries on Paraguay and Mozambique stay under the new name?--Avala (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- CD 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense. —Nightstallion 10:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the other. kwami (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - re. Paraguay and Mozambique: I think the new title is still appropriate for them. I don't see why a statment expressing indecision would fall outside scope. Bazonka (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - until we figure out which title is to be used in all cases. Currently both articles, on Kosovo and Abkhazia and South Ossetia use "International reaction to the independence of" and it's good, they are consistent. But changing the title of this article would break consistency. Also we need to make sure that reactions don't drop out under a new title and that we stay with only one section and that is the one about states that recognized Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the other. kwami (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support -Less OR hopefully.Dejvid (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

*Support name change, but no other changes. Ijanderson (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support International recognition of Kosovo — the wording proposed above is ungrammatical and could be more succinct. kwami (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  Um, "International recognition of Kosovo was" "kind of opposed" for being too vague, and this was proposed as one of two alternatives, and I argued for this one as less problematic. Can we just speedily add a possessive to it without changing or jeopardizing this ongoing motion? International recognition of Kosovo's independence. What say? Or just do it? --Mareklug ^talk 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it would need to be International recognition of the independence of Kosovo. "Kosovo's independence" makes it sound like Kosovo is a person. kwami (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Look at my suggestion for a split. We can expand this article with original statements of recognizing countries and have a 2nd one solely for table citing countries that have recognized. If we make International recognition of Kosovo's independence we might have to add all countries of the world into the table as it would not be only reactions but also their positions and it means about 100 other countries which would be added to a table with only "Does not recognize Kosovo as independent." in the note.--Avala (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes to title or current structure of article. The article is pretty well organized as it is. We just need to re-add reactions of political parties and other groups. This article does not have to follow what other articles are like. Kosovo Albanian separatists declared independence this year while Abkhaz and South Ossetians declared independence in the early 90's so we are dealing with different situations here. --Tocino 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Tocino here. He is correct. The current name suits the article best. Also the current structure is fine too, easy to read encyclopedic information. Tocino is also correct over Kosovo and South Ossetia & Abkhazia. The Russian separatists declared independence in the early 1990s without support, whilst Kosovo declared independence this year with support from 3 permanent UNSC members, NATO, EU and other countries, so we dealing with a different case. Ijanderson (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support The date is irrelevant. Since Kosovo has only declared independence once, the date is certainly unimportant enough to not be included on the article title. Zeus1234 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Albanian separatists also declared independence in 1990. See: 1990 Kosovo declaration of independence#Proclamation of the Republic of Kosova. --Tocino 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Article should be changed from "reaction" to "recognition." I agree with Tocino in that there is no need for this article to parallel the South Ossetia & Abkhazia article. But, since Russia recently recognized, a groundbreaking event, the breakaway Georgian republics are now in the world spotlight. And so, contrary to Avala'a opinion, I think that the "Reaction" title would actually be more appropriate for South Ossetia and Abkhazia than it is for Kosovo, since the latter probably won't generate much more significant reaction, only recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title fits the article better than the proposed title, and there was a previous declaration (on the beginning of the Kosovo War) I believe - correct me if I am wrong. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Change from "reaction" to "recognition" is justified. A "reaction" is simply a declaration, or a statement, while "recognition" is the ongoing political process that is taking place.--70.179.109.248 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)--Sulmues 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• International reaction to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the new title of that article on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They made it to be consistent with this one and we are trying to change it be consistent with that one. There must be naming consistency, both articles must have the same title style whichever we decide on.--Avala (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I moved the Abkhaz/S. Ossete article because there was an edit war brewing, with mirrors of various Abkhaz articles under different names ("recognition" vs "condemnation", etc.). I figured copying the wording from this article as a third choice would make it seem unbiased. But I think most of the editors there prefer "recognition", and I've been asked to move it back, so that shouldn't dissuade you from moving this article. I'm going to wait to see what happens here (unless some other admin beats me to it), because I share the concern one of you made above about opposition being covered (Russian condemnation of Kosovo and Western condemnation of Ossetia). But I don't see any conflict with discussing opposition in an article on recognition, and the title is more succinct that way, so I vote mild support for moving all such articles to "recognition". kwami (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back to "recognition", and think that we should follow your lead in what you decide here. kwami (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not International recognition of Kosovo? Even more succinct, with no loss of meaning. And anyway, "Kosovo independence" is ungrammatical. It should be "Kosovar independence". kwami (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would be OK as it could include variety of views. Because "International recognition of Kosovo independence" might exclude all countries that don't see it as independent. --Avala (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we accept the "recognition" wording, IMO the title of this article still needs to be changed. "The 2008 Kosovo declaration" means a declaration made in 2008 that is known under the name Kosovo, like the "Doha declaration". Grammatically, it should be "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo". kwami (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

I think we can have two articles. Currently the content is a bit divided in weight. We don't have statements by the states recognizing yet we have detailed positions of those who don't. Maybe we could create a single table with reactions of world officials regarding this independence declaration (whether it was positive or negative) here and have a separate article Recognition of the Republic of Kosovo independence which would contain information only on countries that have recognized Kosovo independence (ie. the current table on states recognizing).--Avala (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right - this produces a systematic bias. And your split would solve that problem.Dejvid (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I prefer the current system, its good, its easy to read encyclopedic information on the whole international reaction on Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but under the new proposal the article will either have to be expanded to include all states or will be sliced only to include those who recognise.--Avala (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which then ignores theo ther countries, what, an article on 46 countries? waste of time.--Jakezing (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I prefer the current system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

World Court opinions

It may be a good idea to create a seperate article dealing with nations regarding the Serbia appeal to the World Court. As nations like Indonesia and Malaysia (some websites are already showing their opinions) report their support or opposition to a ruling by the World Court, this will begin to clutter up the article a lot. Making a seperate page for these ruling would help prevent the page from getting too overwhelmed. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Someone should make such a page.84.134.80.251 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, proposal for a name? Some countries will base their decision weather to recignise on this. Some countries will use it to back to back their opposition or support on its out come. Others will disregard it all together. We need a suitable name for it. Suggestions? Ijanderson (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Again patience. It's all maybes now and until September. After these countries take a final decision we will have an article about this with a nice table who voted for what at the UN. Right now it's not worthy of an article.--Avala (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

More news from Montenegro

• [26]

84.134.80.251 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Montenegro does have a large Albanian population, they are probably wait for Macedonia to recognise first. Ijanderson (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Haiti apparently in the process of recognising Kosovo

According to the Ambassador of Haiti to the US, Raymond Joseph, was informed that "Haitian government is in the process of recognition of Kosovo independence."[27] Ijanderson (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph was informed by whom? By Krasniqi? So, a Kosovo representant tells Haitian ambassador what the Haitian government is doing? That does not make any sense. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Joseph was informed by the Haitian Government that they were in the process of recognition of Kosovo Ijanderson (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now that the New Kosova Report is back online, I can read the article myself. It is Krasniqi who is informed, by Joseph. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well ive included this to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also some interesting info about Niger in there. We could be getting something from them soon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)