Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35


European weightlifting federation

84.134.58.7 (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So?--Jakezing (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Add it to the article of course!84.134.117.61 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article. Go to Membership of Kosovo in International Sports Federations.--Avala (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that there is such a page.84.134.113.21 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SVG map

I made an SVG version of Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png, which can be found at Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.svg, which was made using [1] as a template. As it is an SVG version, I am requesting that it be used in place of Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png. Alethiareg (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree with conditions Better quality image. However less users will be able to update the map. But I agree it should be used if it duplicates the exact same information as the PNG version. And we have to use the exact same map legend too if we are to adopt the SVG map. Ijanderson (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Good to know. I am not entirely familiar with the process of editing stuff from the commons or exactly how the uploading procedure works with regard to uploading to both the commons and Wikipedia. Could someone give (or preferably, link to) a basic run down of policies with regard to uploading files to Wikipedia vs. the Commons? Alethiareg (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Uploading is the same on the Commons and Wikipedia when it comes to items you made yourself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded it now to commons as CountriesRecognizingKosovo.svg. — Emil J. 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess someone decided to switch it to the PNG map. Honestly, SVG will be easier to edit, so why the change back to the PNG map? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia

Max Mux (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The headline in the above link, attributed to Bosnian News, begs to be be quoted verbatim; in fact, the entire short dispatch does:

BiH indirectly recognizes Kosovo as independent state

25. September 2008. | 09
09

Source: Bosnian News

The Bosnian Central Election Commission invited its counterpart from Kosovo to send a monitoring mission for the next local elections in Bosnia.

The Bosnian Central Election Commission invited its counterpart from Kosovo to send a monitoring mission for the next local elections in Bosnia.

Some politicians in Bosnia already consider that this move recognizes the legitimacy of an institution from a country that has not been formally recognized yet by Bosnia.

The invitation was sent in May, three months after Kosovo’s proclamation of independence.

The President of the Bosnian Central Election Commission Suad Arnautovic declined to comment yesterday, while other members of the body claim such a decision was never discussed by the Commission.

I would think it would be very difficult to justify continuing coloring Bosnia red on Image:Kosovo_relations.png/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, especially with Some politicians in Bosnia already consider coming from a Bosnian News dispatch and reprinted/translated (maybe) by a .yu Serbian portal! This, being no different than anonymous diplomats (in Spanish) justifying coloring Uruguay red. Analogously, that would mean coloring Bosnia light blue. Add to the already mentioned but deflected :) dispatch http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13267/] that the Three Muskateers known as the Bosnian Presidency agreed to disagree internally on backing Serbia on the ICJ UN vote, and so the Chairman, who is a Bosniak, will deliver remarks in New York at the UN General Assembly as himself, instead of as Bosnia (he was against, the Croat was abstaining, and the Serb...) I'm awaiting the inevitable rebuttal, but surely a map revision is what is really called for here, IMHO. Thoughts? --Mareklug talk 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we even keep that image? Second, it is still not recognizing, therfor, still would be red. --Jakezing (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, why should we? It's inaccurate and misleading, and it is being justified with information introduced into our article. So the two are tied, even if it is not used here because it was kicked out. Nonetheless, I-see-no-evil is not exactly the correct Wikipedian attitude, sir. As to the heart of your reply. Mexico and Paraquay are also still not recognizing, and so, should also be red? Maybe you should take a bleeping look at the map legend, and see what it claims to be representing... the red color on these maps means: States which HAVE STATED they will not recognise Kosovo as independent.. Bosnia has not acted (as Bosnia) in this matter. That's the whole kit and kaboodle. It's time to fix this lie. --Mareklug talk 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


BiH will not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. Because if they do then they will lose 49% of their territory. This has been articulated by politicians across the ethnic divide. --Tocino 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

since when can Tocino see into the future? lol Ijanderson (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and the maps in question do not claim to show what will happen, but only what has happened. Bosnia has not rejected Kosovo independence. Neither has Greece. Neither has Paraguay. Neither has Pakistan. "Will not recognize" has a different meaning on that map. If it were as you say, the whole map would be red, except for the deep blue countries. But that's a different map, the one used here, with different colors. --Mareklug talk 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that is all very nice but each of three nations has a veto right in Bosnia and if there is no consensus there is no action. That is why Haris Silajdzic spoke on his behalf in the UN not in front of the whole Bosnia, because the Croat and Serb member of presidency didn't want to sign the platform which would allow him to do so. The same goes for recognition among other things. There is no reason to call it "not any time soon" because Serbs have adopted a resolution in their parliament that they will not allow recognition so therefore under current Bosnian constitution it is impossible for Bosnia to recognise Kosovo.
The House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 15 members equally distributed among the three ethnic groups in Bosnia: 5 Bosniaks, 5 Serbs, and 5 Croats. The members are appointed by the parliaments of the constituent republics. Their duty is to make sure that no law is passed unless all three groups agree on it. This arrangement is unpopular in Bosnia among the Bosniaks, but ironically attempts to change it would have to be approved by the chamber itself.

--Avala (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  Kosovo
  States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent.
  States which have stated they intend to formally recognise Kosovo as independent.
  States which have delayed or have expressed neutrality on recognition of Kosovo's independence.
  States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations.
  States which have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent.
  States with no reported position at present.
Please specifically note the HAVE STATED in the red and light blue cases.
Why are you skewing again? It is besides the point, why Bosnia this or that. Or how it is organized, and what the consequences of recognizing might be. The point is that this evidence DENIES your personal activity on Wikipedia and Commons, that of having represented Bosnia as already having acted as a state, and specifically, rejected the independence of Kosovo. If that were the case, we would not have the above-cited case of Bosnian media quoting "some Bosnian politicians" as themselves perceiving Bosnia as having practically recognized Kosovo informally... Why is this even debated? Have you no shame? I understand having different takes on gray areas, but wholesale denying reality? Please... And when you run to Husond to have me banned for another personal attack, be sure to ask him, since he apparently lives in the region, if what I am saying is not true. Sometimes it helps not to have a Serbian perspective, you know... It's called, looking at things from a distance. --Mareklug talk 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.s. I am quoting Avala from immediately above: if there is no consensus there is no action. How can no action = HAVE STATED they will not recognise Kosovo as independent? Isn't it rather: no action = States with no reported position at present? Or no action = States which HAVE DELAYED or HAVE EXPRESSED NEUTRALITY on recognition of Kosovo's independence? By the way, you have New Zealand shown among "States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations." Yet Helen Clark, their Prime Minister, issued the most neutral assessment of this event possible, indicating her New Zealand will work with whoever is doing business on the ground. How can this neutrality be colored the same color as Brazil? Oh, forgive me, you also already colored Brazil as one of States that HAVE STATED they will not recognise Kosovo as independent? If so, where has Brazil stated this? Hasn't the Foreing Minister "defended" his recent pronouncements, that Brazil will await a Security Council decision, and characterized those that didn't, as putting the Security Council as "second"? That's what the source we are using in thsi article says in Portuguese. But the commons maps say in Avalanese something completely different. This is not a Monty Python skit. This is an encyclopedia, and that includes Commons maps purportedly depicting "Kosovo relations" with the quoted above legend. Kind sir, enough of this charade. Please edit Wikipedia/Wikimedia in accordance with sources used. --Mareklug talk 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
All the caps lock makes it difficult to read but I think it is completely off topic. If you have any news on new reactions please do post them, if not then it's irrelevant and we are not interested. Anyway to end this discussion I have addressed the crystal ball issues you brought up, now the map is dealing with the current situation.--Avala (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to belabor this point unseemly, but did you perchance have a computer malfunction? Both maps appear to remain unmodified with 5 and 15 September timestamps, respectively. Consequently, Bosnia, Brazil, Greece, Uruguay, Cuba are still incorrectly attributed having stated, what none of them stated. New Zealand is still not depicted as neutral, or Chile and Mexico, for that matter. You even have Malaysia, which welcomed Kosovo independence, colored neutral or delaying (khaki). I suggest you use that color for Bosnia, if not the outright gray of "no position is known". We are talking about states here. Kosovo has relations with states, not individual Serbian or Bosniak presidency members... --Mareklug talk 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] Bosnia's electoral commission Friday rejected demands to accredit Kosovo monitors to oversee October 5 local elections here after initially inviting them to do so. ""The request to accredit monitors from the electoral commission of Kosovo had been rejected,"" spokeswoman Maksida Bajramovic said. --Avala (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So... they're reacting to their own action? --alchaemia (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest Developments

84.134.94.166 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the broad interview with Hashim Thaci "latest decelopments"? I warned you not to spam this talk page. There is a clear notice at the top that this is not a forum.--Avala (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me this repeated accusation of "spam" is being made to ostracize and shut up a new community member, instead of helping him or using constructively his better contributions. Here, it cannot possibly apply to the second link, which starts like this:

The Republic of Kosovo will become a member of World Bank and International Monetary Fund at the latest by the first half of 2009, announced yesterday in Prishtina Vice President of World Bank for Europe and Central Asia, Shigeo Katsu, after the meeting with Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi.

The World Bank official advised to use the Donors' Conference money for serious economic actions, which would help improve the lives of Kosovar citizens.

"The membership process for Kosovo to join World Bank is continuing. In a few days, we will discuss many technical issues, but also assessments and calculations we have to make in accordance with the economic policies of the World Bank. Actual predications are for this new state to join World Bank within 6-9 months," said Sheigo Katsu.

Surely this info warrants updating our INF entry in the article. --Mareklug talk 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Mark, he's been here for months, andhe cant even stay logged onto his account.--Jakezing (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Erm, that would be Marek. :) See, we all have our foibles. His might requires helping him along. Staying logged in may not be up to him but his peculiar ISP situation. In any case, twice now he has given us stuff on this page that is germane (bad Armenia writeup, International Monetary Fund membership now a certainty), and both times he was shouted down. I came to the situation after the fact, and uncovered, that his contributions in these two cases DO merit writing on this talk page, Jakezing. So... let's take that its bitsy splinter out of thine eye, brother. --Mareklug talk 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Germane? Was? Das is englisch? --Jakezing (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, reading a dictionary before spouting off wouldn't hurt you.

ger·mane /dʒərˈmeɪn/ [jer-meyn] –adjective

1. closely or significantly related; relevant; pertinent: Please keep your statements germane to the issue.

While he is not the best interlocutor, his intentions seem to be honest and constructive so take it easy dude, okay? --alchaemia (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Now mark, no insulting people. --Jakezing (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
While he can't properly sign in, you seem to have developed an inability to read. It's not Mark, as the man corrected you, it's Marek. --alchaemia (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it alchæmia? BalkanFever 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You, again? One of the worst, mos offensive editors on Wikipedia. I've never seen an editor insult someone in an edit (revert) comment before - until you insulted me. That was just... the top of a pattern of behavior you show around here. Also, you're free to check if it's me or not. If it isn't, as it isn't, I expect an apology. --alchaemia (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you're talking about. BalkanFever 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's on your talk page, and please stop the harassment. Your accusation that I'm behind Max Mux/IP 84 is both ridiculous and unfounded. I demand an apology for that baseless accusation. --alchaemia (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Except I never said that. BalkanFever 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
And then what is this: "Is it alchæmia? BalkanFever 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)" --alchaemia (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Mark takes less time to type then marek.--Jakezing (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, it's very hard to put an extra e. See? It took me 3 hours to type that e. --alchaemia (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you all stop the chit-chat please?--Avala (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland

User Avala wants to include new information on the Polish president's statement. So it should be properly done without misleading information. President Kaczyński is neither blocking recognition (that has actually happened weeks ago) and is not trying to revert the past decision or blocking diplomatic relations in general as Avala's edit tried to suggest. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was not difficult to find neutral wording. So please next time try to be more precise. Thanks, --DaQuirin DaQuirin (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
And no one ever suggested it has got anything to do with recognition. The column in question is clearly about Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations as it says at the to and the entry in that box for Poland was just about that. The current wording is fine.--Avala (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was misleading insofar as it said that the President intended to block diplomatic relations in general (which would of course be putting recognition in question in a certain way) whereas his statement was nuanced and could easily be summarized the proper way. Please just try to show some good will to find neutral wording next time! --DaQuirin (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Reciprocal diplomatic relations can usually mean the status of ambassadorial level diplomatic relations. Anyway I'm glad the issue is over.--Avala (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It can mean that, but it doesn't have to. --alchaemia (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but it is certainly related to diplomatic relations of any kind, not recognition.--Avala (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between diplomatic relations and having an Embassy. Kosovo and Estonia have a diplomatic relationship but they don't have respective Embassies. Kaczynski did not block diplomatic relations, he just said he won't confirm the Ambassador in case an Embassy opens. --alchaemia (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
He has not blocked an ambassador from Poland yet, he has just threatened to. I'm sure the Polish Parliament are aware of this threat, so have not bothered to to chose an ambassador for Kosovo whilst Kaczyński is President. We can not be certain of whats to happen in the future. So lets state whats happening at present, which is that Kaczyński has threatened to block any diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level. Ijanderson (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The why does it say in the article that he has blocked diplomatic relations at Ambassador level? He has simply threatened to do so, while the government has not proposed it officially. The article, as it stands is incorrect and POV. --alchaemia (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia


Recognition seem to be coming soon.84.134.93.18 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like what BalkanFever and alchaemia told you in nth section you opened about Macedonia - WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If it happens it will be added. We are not interested in speculations of what might happen or not especially not with Malaysia, the country that is completely confused on this issue.--Avala (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the report is quoting the Malaysian Foreign Minister Rais Yatim it is indeed interesting information. Thank you for that. But is it really true? - we will see. I may remind everybody that we have so far included Serb media reports on India's position which are of the same character as the New Kosova report article. From now on, we should find here a common line how to deal with the Serb or Kosovo articles on third country's positions. In that respect the article is not in good shape, the India entry is the best example for this. My suggestion would be to remove most of these references (many of them are outdated too). --DaQuirin (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
we leave them in the do not recongize catagory until they say they recognize. for countries like malay, that would be thwe best thing.... same for macedonia, we wait until they say they recognize, or make a date they WILL recognize, then we start moving things. --Jakezing (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
And more thing - I don't see any quote in that report as DaQuirin suggests. If it had a quote under quotation marks it could be useful. This way it could be anything really, for an example it could be journalist summarization of Kosovo minister words which is pretty far away from the quote as such.--Avala (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
yes...--Jakezing (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Malaysian Foreign Minister Yatim congratulated Minister Hyseni on the achievements of Kosovo and encouraged him for Kosovo to continue the path of democracy and social wellbeing. He also pledged hi(s) Kosovar homologue that Malaysia will recognize Kosovo very soon and open the path for the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. As for the indirect quote (that's all what a foreign minister can do after 'confidential' talks): Kosovo's foreign minister gives a summary of his talks with his Malaysian colleague in a way that cannot be misunderstood. This is a valuable source of course - if we are to include Serb press articles on third party's positions... I still hope that we can agree on this. It could be given in neutral form as: Kosovo's foreign minister quoted his Malaysian homologue after talks etc. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Max Mux (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All that aside... I think there is information in that New Kosova Report article that could be added to Egypt's section. Something along the lines of: "On 29 September, Foreign Minister Ahmed About Gheit said that his government is following closely all developments in Kosovo and the region, and that his country will act at the right time regarding the issue of recognition of Kosovo". Not groundbreaking news admittedly, but we have added similar statements from other countries before. Bazonka (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

I can't help but notice that 25 September has already passed. Any news from Macedonia? And any news from Arab countries, for that matter? For Ramadan is also nearly over. — Emil J. 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As the Macedonian PM said, nothing new. BalkanFever 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Rasim Ljajić Arab countries will mostly abstain from this issue.--Avala (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What are the rules when there are a lot of members abstaining? I mean, what is the required majority, if, for example, 50 states abstain out of 192? --alchaemia (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Simple majority. Those who abstain just reduce the number of votes needed.--Avala (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I see. But isn't there a certain number of votes needed? I mean, theoretically 100 nations can abstain, for example, leaving 92 nations voting. Then we have a simple "majority" of 47 votes needed to pass something. It seems kind of low and undemocratic. I'm not referring solely to this case, just discussing in general. --alchaemia (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstain from the UN vote yes but recognising soon.84.134.105.86 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you work for them, do you decide what they do ? Nope, therfor, your Crystaling there max.--Jakezing (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for these periodic sections. Macedonia announced that there is nothing new in their position and I can imagine it will stay that way until they announce something new so there is no need to ask the same thing on and on because this is not an info forum of the Macedonian MFA.--Avala (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But there will be something soon.

84.134.126.193 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Something" Does not mean it will recognize.--Jakezing (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
When there actually is something, tell us. Stop saying something will happen "soon". It's been more than half a year since Macedonia was reportedly going to "recognise soon". And "something" could be the exact opposite of recognition. I suggest you stop trying to tell the future by presenting your opinion as fact. BalkanFever 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

They are going to recognize in the next days.Max Mux (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please move Macedonia.Max Mux (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, relax. Macedonia may recognize or it may not in the future couple days, but it is not that important in the general scheme of things. --alchaemia (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important.84.134.93.18 (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep on citing speculation which is itself based on speculation, all from foreign sources. Please, learn Macedonian and ask Branko or Nikola or Antonio directly, because I sure as hell won't. BalkanFever 12:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Since everyone else gets to speculate, I'll have a go. If I were to take that source seriously, then I would conclude Macedonia will definitely not recognise Kosovo, because it says Kosovo will not (might not) use the constitutional name. There is no way that Macedonia is going to sign a document from Kosovo that contains "FYROM". No way. BalkanFever 12:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats just speculation on your part. It is clearly stated by the president that they will recognize. 84.134.94.98 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't read much do you max? This may be insulting, but your insulting yourself by not reading the comment all the way. second, i did a count, countign this section, theres NINE, neun, 9, whatever spanish nine is, entirely independant section for macedonia, who knows how many made by max here.

I think, can we call this bad behaviour?--Jakezing (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And then there's the archives. Oy vey. Normally I would ignore him and hope he'd go away, but passers-by might interpret his reply-less comments as "uncontroversial" and add the crap to the article (in good faith, I assume). And I'm too lazy to actually pursue getting rid of him, so here I am, doing the same shit I do everywhere else on wiki: explain to users who don't know any English why they are wrong about Macedonia. BalkanFever 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the whole text. I have insulted no one. You are still looking for a way to let me look bad. If thats no bad behaviour I don't know what else.84.134.94.98 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "Since everyone else gets to speculate, I'll have a go" As said by balkan.
  • "Thats just speculation on your part" Reply by max.

Lets see..., ya... you din't insult him, you insulted yourself by pointing out the exact same thing he said he was going to do, Speculate, now, is their a urther point to this spammed sction name, or can we close this debat?--Jakezing (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Macedonia will state before hand if they are going to recognise Kosovo, because this will make it harder for them. If they do recognise, they will just randomly do it with out warning first. Therefore it will make it easier for Macedonia to cope with. Ijanderson (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That's quite correct. It's very unlikely that Macedonia will need to be moved to "imminent recognisers". It would just jump up to the "recognisers" section. I'd laugh if they already recognised but are too scared to say so. BalkanFever 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
We should get rid of the imminent recognisers section. It only causes problems. Bazonka (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ICJ

Serbia claims to have a majority.

Max Mux (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurray!!! Does this mean something?--Jakezing (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. Please stop asking stupid questions and being agressive to me.Max Mux (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Second, they arbn't claiming anything, i looked in it, the very first words, say that a test poll, not serbia, shows it has majority support. Also, it's not surprising they have 120 nations...

- :"As of 15 September 2008, 47 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo." 120 nations supporting serbia also falls in that remaining non recognition area.--Jakezing (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again as with Macedonia and Malaysia we will wait for the event to take place. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. You should be officially warned for spamming this page now.--Avala (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm not spamming. 84.134.118.38 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warn the kid in Gheg Albanian, he obviously can't understand English. BalkanFever 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearly understanding english, I'm not albanian and not a kid.84.134.118.38 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well what is your native language, old man? It sure will make things easier, because there is no doubt that you don't understand much of what Jakezing or I say, and we are both native speakers, so we would know. BalkanFever 14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearly understanding every word you both said.84.134.118.38 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you do understand these words completely because you keep opening crystal ball sections.--Avala (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I exactly understand them.84.134.118.38 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ok ok , calm down ;) -- CD 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you react if people try to provoke you?84.134.118.38 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Prove that you understand them by not opening another section on Macedonia.--Avala (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we wait and see who has the majority? When its actually happened. Not before. Ijanderson (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
And even if the court rules in Serbia's favor, their decisions takes a few years and also non-binding, according to the AP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It is "non-binding" because they have no means of enforcing the ruling but nonetheless it is the highest authority for international cases which are not involving genocide charges.--Avala (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

states that don't recognize Kosovo

well as you can see on this website http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm . Kosovo according to international law is part of Serbia. Thefore, the states that continue to support this view are acting according to international law. Thus, they should be identified as such since its much more appropriate because it's factual. Lastly, this is just for some information for the people who are actually interested in this topic. It has nothing to do with my claim. This website provides general information about the issue. Hopefully it will help in there editing. http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/chandler.pdf Mike Babic (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What your trying to do is inflict WP:POV on this controversial article. Therefore you are in gross violation of WP:NPOV. We do not want your opinion included in this article. By doing so you are vandalising the page. Please stick to wikipeidia's guidelines and do not re-add your propaganda or I will report you. Ijanderson (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please be willing to discuss the topic at hand. I don't see why i shouldn't state my facts. Essentially, I'm disappointed in your response. You provide no critical insight or argument why you think otherwise. You're just basically accusing me as an editor of vandalizing an article. Meanwhile, I have fully explain my reasoning why I have added the statement. In the future, please refrain from attacking me by labeling me a vandal. Lastly,I can't think of why you don't want by editing. I can only assume that you still don't believe that my information is untrue. Therefore, i will add more sources, perhaps this will satisfy your inquisition.24.36.19.38 (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The UN has stated that it holds a strictly neutral position on the status issues (it can't do otherwhise when the Security Council is blocked). There are completely contradictory views on the legal matters, and it is pointless trying to introduce any one-sided view into the article. Please use only neutral wording. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Its POV to state that countries which don't recognise Kosovo as "honoring international law", Iraq, BiH, Serbia, Russia, Georgia, China, Isreal, Libya, Vietnam ect have all violated international law, yet you have labeled them a from them as respecting and honoring international law for not recognising Kosovo. Double Standards? We don't want your propagandistic nationalism on this article. Please stick to consensuses and wikipedia's polices. Reinstall your POV edit and I will report you. Also its not because your are a Serb, user Avala is Serbian and he edits this article frequently and I rarely ever revert his edits because he knows how to edit neutrally. Ijanderson (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh great after IP84 spreading pro Kosovo spam now we have the IP24 spreading pro Serbia spam. I think the article should be finally relocked for IP and newbie users.--Avala (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes i believe semi-protection would be best to stop anonymous users and newly created accounts from damaging this article. There has been several incidents where this article has been vandalised lately by newbies and IPs. Ijanderson (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Bazonka (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Although IP24 is Mike Babic and IP84 is Max Mux, both autoconfirmed, so semi-protection might only force them to log in, rather than stopping them. For that we need admins to issue blocks. BalkanFever 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty well known that the declaration of independence by the separatists and subsequent recognition by a small minority of nations is a blatent violation of international law. --Tocino 18:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So was what serbia did to kosovo in the 90's...so was what russia basicly did in georgia, so was alot of vietnam. Only a small group of countries can really claim to be upholders of international law, and the big players in the world, they arn't on that list. So we can't play the "International law" thing. Also, the UN decision for kosovo, was back in 1999, nearly 10 years BEFORE kosovo made this declaration, so it isn'ty a reaction anyways.--Jakezing (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that UN resolutions nullify after 9 years in effect. --Tocino 00:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
And yet, is it a reaction to this topic? Nope, its a reaction to ANOTHER declaration. tHERFOR, ISN'T REALLY SUTIBLE FOR THIS article--Jakezing (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How imminent is "imminent"?

In light of Bazonka's comment in the last of the million Macedonia sections, what is the point of the "imminent recognisers" section? The four that are in there have been there for a long time, and we keep on getting annoying requests (well, demands, really) to move countries there. The section seems useless; either you've recognised or you haven't. And if we didn't have it, we'd stop getting this agglomeration of stupid sections. BalkanFever 12:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent It means, likely to happen at any moment; overhanging. Which means it can keep that way indefinitely, but if it happens next minute, you were expecting it. IMHO eminently useful distinction. For example, I don't think Mexico or Bosnia fit the bill. But Macedonia and Montenegro, they sure do now. It's a comprehension aid, nothing more. --Mareklug talk 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with BalkanFever. The section made sort of sense in February when there were at any given time a few states in the middle of the recognition process (e.g., waiting for approval of the head of state). It is obvious that no such process is actually going on in the countries which have been in the section for months. The section is only a source of trouble, and it does not provide any meaningful factual information, it is essentially WP:BALL excused by quotes. The section is totally unreliable, in recent months there was almost no correlation between its contents and the actual states which eventually recognised (the only exception being Malta). — Emil J. 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@User:EmilJ: Thats not true. I agree with Mareklug84.134.66.101 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is true. Seriously, how about supplying valid arguments for your cause instead of half-sentence shouts, for a change? — Emil J. 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Balkan, I forgot to suggest, that another way to put an end to this agglomeration of stupid sections would be to react by moving the two M's to imminent recognizers already. If you stick your hand out the window of a speeding car, don't complain that the wind bends it back. @EmilJ: think of this as computer's memory cache. Its performance has been compromised by swapping in or out grossly wrong page sets, based on partisan conviction, not best available information. Czechia, your own country, would have been a stable exemplar of a resident member, had it not been pushed out by partisan editors. Presently, Montenegro and Macedonia are imminent recognizers, and this is borne out by press quotes ascribed to Serbian politicians, warning them off. Let's look at the matter objectively: it is helpful to select the set of states basically expected to recognize at any moment, based on good information expert editors have accrued, that the unfamilar reader will not have. Good information is mathematically defensible. Your beef is with incorrect decision-making, not the tool. How helpfully we present known information, is a measure of our success at serving the reader's needs, as opposed to appeasing partisan editors. I would agree with Ian, that Imminent recognizers ought to sit under Other states, per map legend and article organization reflecting it cohesively.--Mareklug talk 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, "mathematically defensible"? The fact of the matter is, the "good information expert editors have accrued" so far turns out to be terribly bad. As I already pointed out, the only country which appeared in the section since April or so, and whose inclusion proved later to be justified by recognition, was Malta. It is clear by now that Saudi Arabia, for example, is no more "imminent" to recognize than most of other UN states, the old stray quote to which we stick in the article notwithstanding. And conversely, none of the last 10 or so recognizing countries (save Malta) ever appeared in the section. Empirically, the section thus totally failed to deliver the information it promises. Why? Because it is not a matter of "correct decision making" or "presenting known information". It is an attempt to look into future, which is inherently impossible to know with any reasonable success rate. The division of nonrecognizing states into the two sections does not and cannot "aid comprehension" for the reader, it can only create a false impression of such comprehension which is in reality grossly misleading.
Lithuania was also one of the countries in the list which did, in fact, recognize. --alchaemia (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As for Montenegro and Macedonia, there is no objective reason for them to be marked as imminent recognizers, even by the poor and unreliable standards the section is based on. What we only have on them are rumors and hearsay, which appears regularly ever since the independence declaration (especially for Macedonia), and with the same regularity turns out to be completely bogus. All the supposed dates of the expected recognition proved to be wrong so far. Wikipedia is not in the business of reporting such third party guesses, and especially not presenting it as a kind of fact. — Emil J. 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with BalkanFever & EmilJ: I believe we should have two groups for UN states. A: UN states which recognise Kosovo B: UN states which don't recognise Kosovo. This way its more NPOV becuase it isn't someones interpretation of sources weather they will recognise soon or not, leave this up to the reader. Also it corresponds with the map. Ijanderson (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with consensus to scrap the section. It's been almost 8 months since the declaration. These so-called imminent recognizers have had plenty of time to recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state, yet they haven't despite their dubious statements which have been attributed to Kosovo Albanian politicans and the NewKosovoReport.com website. Ultimately either you recognize or you don't and currently Bangladesh, Haiti, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are amongst the vast majority of nations which do not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. --Tocino 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'Tis done. Bazonka (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It indeed makes much less sense to have it since February when things were going at a much faster pace. Now it sounds more like a "could be but doesn't have to".--Avala (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Marek, what difference is there between expecting recognition from a country and not expecting it? It's still not recognition. And what difference would there be between recognition we expected and recognition we didn't expect? It would still be recognition. I'm not complaining about the wind, I'm just annoyed with the guy next to me telling me that my arm will break off because he heard it from his friend and therefore it must be true. My arm might break off if I try grab the pillar of the next bridge, but until then I still have my arm. And then of course there's the driver threatening "promaja" will kill me. (Don't worry about the last part; Avala should get it ;) BalkanFever 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe so true.--Avala (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Several species of small furry Balkan Presidents gathered together by a radio and grooving with a Pict

Fine, fine, I believe in consensus and no skin off my nose. But ask Avala why he keeps coloring his maps with redder shades as time goes on...

Meanwhile, this is especially for you, Emil (and, again, for your Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png maps, Avala):

The skinny
  1. Bosnia - Bosniak president support independent Kosovo khaki or gray
  2. Bosnia - Bosniak president opposes Serbia going to ICJ over Kosovo
  3. Montenegro - Montenegrin president says Montenegro will recognize Kosovo in due time. light blue
The full text
VOA Interviews Balkan Presidents on Kosovo
Sep 27th, 2008 | By Sindh Today | Category -- Press Release



Washington, D.C., September 26, 2008 -Kosovan President Fatmir Sejdiu, in an interview today with the Voice of America (VOA), said he continues to lobby his Balkan neighbors to officially recognize his country’s independence from Serbia.

In separate interviews with VOA, Bosnian President Haris Silajdzic and Albanian President Bamir Topi said they support Kosovo’s independence and are opposed to Serbia’s request that the International Court of Justice issue an opinion on the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence.

But Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic told VOA, “Since the debate on Serbia’s initiative is scheduled for the first part of October, I do not see the need to express my country’s position.” He said his country sought good relations with both Serbia and Kosovo, and recognition of Kosovo would come “at the appropriate time.”

Kosovo’s Sejdiu said he hoped the Balkan states, Macedonia and Montenegro, in particular, would back Kosovo, which has the recognition of 47 countries, including the United States. Serbia viewed Kosovo’s February 2008 declaration of independence as an act of secession.

” This would be very important for us, as it would complete the cycle of recognition from the neighboring countries, with the exception of Serbia, and would be a very positive signal for the countries that are far away from Kosovo,” Sejdiu said.

Earlier this week VOA interviewed Serbian President Boris Tadic. All of the interviews were featured in newscasts reaching the Balkan nations and can be viewed by selecting the appropriate language on VOA’s main website at www.VOANews.com.

The Voice of America, which first went on the air in 1942, is a multimedia international broadcasting service funded by the U.S. government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors. VOA broadcasts approximately 1,500 hours of news, information, educational, and cultural programming every week to an estimated worldwide audience of more than 134 million people. Programs are produced in 45 languages.

-- Mareklug talk 08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say is that any decision in Bosnia can be blocked by any of the three nations. I wrote about this before but you think no one saw it so you are trying to do it again. But sorry I am not going to allow any attempts to deceive wikipedia editors. House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 15 members equally distributed among the three ethnic groups in Bosnia: 5 Bosniaks, 5 Serbs, and 5 Croats. The members are appointed by the parliaments of the constituent republics. Their duty is to make sure that no law is passed unless all three groups agree on it. This arrangement is unpopular in Bosnia among the Bosniaks, but ironically attempts to change it would have to be approved by the chamber itself.
So just like with the speech of Haris Silajdzic at the UN, what he said here is not approved by Serbs and Croats and is his personal view only.--Avala (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we stop arguing over this? Just wait, right now, the position is not recognize, even those "nuetral" countries know that they are saying they don't recognize kosovo as independant.--Jakezing (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Does anyone know what's going on with the archives for this talk page? The bot doesn't appear to have moved anything for ages. I've just moved a few bits manually to Archive 28 (which already has some things in it), but only 27 archive links appear on the talk page.
I think this may be something to do with the article name change - some code at the top of this talk page refers to "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", but I don't understand how it works. Can anyone fix or explain this? Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I managed to fix the Archive 28 link, but I have no idea how to persuade the bot to resume archiving. I asked the bot operator for help. — Emil J. 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Setting Poland straight: why it matters to get this right

Dear User:DaQuirin, I threw out your attempt to appease a chronically injecting partisan edits Wikipedian, who through sustained edit-warring (and now, unfortunately, your assistance) had introduced dangerous WP:Original research regarding Poland, its diplomacy on Kosovo, and Lech Kaczyński. (Why didn't any of you warn him on his talk page, or blocked him for it, or topic-ban, in accordance with the Arbitration Committee's probation extended as protection from such abuses to all Kosovo content?)

As I conscientiously and fully disclosed in my edit summary, I restored Poland according to this edit: diff of a revert performed by User:Aotearoa. It so happens, that User:Aotearoa, who seldom if ever edits here, is a geographer with interests in political theory and other related content on the Polish Wikipedia. In fact, I will say it plainly, he and I are at loggerheads on Kosovo on the Polish Wiki. For one thing, he instituted a User:Mike Babic-like one-sided characterization of what international law states in the matter of Serbia and Kosovo, in the pl:Kosovo article, which doubles as that Wiki's equivalent of this international recognition of Kosovo article. Nonetheless, even so, his overlooked revert in the matter of Poland and Lech Kaczyński purportedly blocking anything in the way of diplomatic relations of Poland and Kosovo is particularly spot-on, and his edit summary needs is so lucid and decisive, that ordinarily it would brook no further discussion.

However, I would like to point out that this particular unnoticed edit war comprised (so far) four introductions of the same stubborn OR, reverted by four different editors (I, once again, a johnny-come-lately, by removing the unfortunate content DaQuirin allowed himself to be talked into, make it now five different editors reverting one and the same User's dubious edit in a span of a few days).

This editing-by-attrition, until we all drop exhausted and give in, is why the article is disputed, because, in truth, it contains false portrayals intermixed with accurte ones.

Consider: Lech Kaczyński has not blocked a thing. He has preemptively vowed (see source title: I will not sign my name under an Ambassador to Kosovo's credentials) not to sign an executive order assigning credentials to any Polish Ambassador designated to represent Poland in Kosovo. The only problem is, that this vow is a counterfactual of no significance, as the government, as User:Aotearoa lucidly pointed out, has no intention of sending and ambassador to Kosovo! Kaczyński, a man of unquestionable hot air, whatever else one may think of him, may as well vow to not send Polish cosmonauts to Mars. Will we then write, that he blocked Polish space program?

What particularly troubles me, is that the edit-warring Wikipedian proved to be impervious to this evidence and reasoned correction of his edit, and only continued stubbornly to re-introduce his pet OR. This shows intransigence and inability to collaborate with editors.

As we all painfully know, this was just the latest in great many disruptions of this article, making unnecessarily onerous and difficult the process of setting article content to a neutral viewpoint. Leaving this contribution in place would have only damaged this article further, where one editor injects unnecessary or misleading content, claiming that it is impeccably sourced! Meanwhile, as this situation amply shows, these injections serve to create an alternative reality, an impression that obfuscates, instead of elucidating and serving to inform the reader. Worse, before, in exactly analogous situations in March pertaining to Castro/Cuba and Armenia, my earlier attempts to simply remove bogus content met with accusation of "article blanking, vandalism, and removal of sourced information". Please see my archived talk page. A complaint was even made against me on the Administrators' Noticeboard to seek sanction against me for these transgressions of mine. Editors, this situation needs to be addressed finally, and the latest little tidy edit war the admins did not notice, which was sustained disruptively by one editor against many, presents evidence clearly, all easy to verify. I call on all of you, admins and nonadmins alike, to be watchful and care.

Editors of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose, but your chains of inaccuracies, accrued through inaction. Stand up for your informative Wikipedia. Stand up, Mimi, stand up! :) [1] :) --Mareklug talk 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comment. But I beg to disagree (at least partly). One could have changed this into a more correct "threatened to" formula, but the "pompous gasbag" (your words) <now I see you removed this characterization :) > is the elected President of Poland and went so far as to discuss this inner-Polish debate during his stay in New York [7]. Since Poland has recognized Kosovo, and the Polish President called this decision (again) "legitimate", the whole debate in my view is not too relevant anyway. But why not find a (better) neutral wording to include this nuance which has an impact on the diplomatic relations between Poland and Kosovo. Many other states opened embassies, Poland not - so there is some need for explanation... ? --DaQuirin (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought better of my "pompous gasbag", and was editing it out forsooth :) when you must have written your answer, with those first words of mine still in evidence. :/ On reflection, my candid characterization of the Polish President is not germane to my case. As largely ceremonial figure, at odds with his government, he, but not only he, often aspires to self-importance. Vaclav Havel he ain't. The current Czech President suffers from a similar affliction, and I have been told, so does the Portuguese. Ceremonial Presidents seem to have a difficult time being entirely relevant. :) I would agree to some treatment, were it only relevant to the Polish/Kosovan diplomacy, but it is not. The government, as Aotearoa wrote in his edit summary, has no such plans. The point is moot. However, my larger point, sadly, is a continuing problem for us. You do see that, dear daQurin.... --Mareklug talk 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
One more thing (as you added that last question): there is no great mystery as to why Poland is behind on diplomacy with Kosovo. The government is indolent. Press reported they lost the passport samples they were sent by Kosovo, and they requested later the Polish embassy in Skopje to procure some. There is no burning desire to further offend Serbia. Serbs are popular in Poland, in part for commonly fought wars, and those pesky Christianity-based sympathies, and that idiotic Slavic brotherhood of smaller nations that like to lord it over some even smaller ones :/, and so on. Plus Poles genuinely like Serbs, as long as they are like Ana Ivanović and Novak Djoković :) A diplomatic mission in "Prisztina" and the Polish recognition of Kosovan passports are all coming. Just no ambassador. Give it more time, and then source that, when we are in a position to do so. In diplomacy, Poles are not the conscientious Estonians or the no-nonsense Czechs. Are we not men? We are Devo! :) --Mareklug talk 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? This is not a blog.--Avala (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the fact that Poland has not yet opened an embassy in Pristina has nothing to do with Lech Kaczyński and his threats. IIRC the Czech president also threatened not to appoint an ambassador to Kosovo, which the government simply ignored and opened an embassy anyway with a chargé d'affaires in charge. Note that no one suggested to mention that in the article. So, I agree with Marek that Kaczyński's statement is irrelevant, and should not be mentioned in the article either. — Emil J. 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
So how is a threat by Kaczynsky (future action) different from all those entries - "embassy to open" (also future action)?--Avala (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's different in that the Embassy will actually open (there is a clear decision for that), while Kaczynsky was being hypothetical; the government has decided not to open an Embassy before he made his "threat." --alchaemia (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear decision by Kaczynsky to block. Government will not announce the plan to open in order not cause internal fights and popularity points for President but it is irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No there isn't. A decision can only be taken for or against something if that something has happened. For example, if the Polish government had decided it wanted to open an embassy and sent an official for accreditation, and Kaczynski blocked it, that would be a decision. Simply expressing a will to block something does not mean that a decision has been taken. I've no doubt that he would block it had he been offered the chance - but he wasn't, so nothing of the sort you describe in the infobox has actually happened. Not to mention that the English used is not up to Wikipedia standards. --alchaemia (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You gave me a great idea Marek: you, Avala, Emil and I should all unite under mother Russia and take over Europe :D BalkanFever 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates made for Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Libya

I could not give you a head's up earlier, since i was busy communicating at length with administrator User:Husond. Please check all 4 countries for possible shortening. I purposefully did not remove anything there while adding new information, in order to avoid edit-warring. But these were significant position-changing additions, all. I see User:BalkanFever already did some further improving to Macedonia. --Mareklug talk 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)



Koov

Guys, Bidn (talk · contribs), Sidn (talk · contribs), Dibn (talk · contribs), Jikn (talk · contribs), Enlip (talk · contribs) and others with similar habits who are active here are all socks of banned Koov (talk · contribs) and are to be reverted and blocked on the spot. Colchicum (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the positions of countries

We should not do this as it violates WP:NOTPAPER. If we have longer parts to the article, it is more detailed and richer in information. Ijanderson (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian, all things considered, if we were talking about good texts, sure. But these are haphazard, POV assemblies, carefully stitched together to create an impression. And in many cases, not important. If we want fair and cohesive, in most cases it will entail chucking what is there, in favor of ultimately shorter entires. And, as states recognize... --Mareklug talk 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, but we should still take WP:NOTPAPER in to account when shortening, but I understand what you mean. Ijanderson (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for long, Featured Article content. :) But that takes a lot of dedicated editing. Incidentally, Ian, make sure you use {{cite web}} and its ilk: <ref name="This is a reference">{{cite web | url=http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=188335 | title=Montenegro to Decide on Kosovo Recognition Soon | work: [[Javno]] | publisher=Javno.com | location=[[Zagreb]], [[Croatia]] | date=2008-10-03 | accessdate=2008-10-03 | language=English}}</ref> and <ref name=This is a reference" /> for reuse. Using these consistently will not only make the References uniform but will allow switching the appearance should preference-based bibliographic schemes be ever incorporated into Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that you should not really use "language=English". English is the default on English WP, the parameter "language=" is there for foreign language sources. — Emil J. 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Ijanderson. Cutting and shortening is the violation of WP policies.--Avala (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutting and shortening in order to remove accumulated WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:VER violations, as well as to remove WP:OR is precisely in keeping with decent work, not just in writing encyclopedias, of which Wikipedia is one. It's easy to invoke WP:PAPER in order to shield dubious scholarship. As well as dubious poetry: If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter -- T.S. Eliot. We aspire to be editors, and that implies incisive edits, not spew forthwith as hacks. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Although there is an ongoing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. -- Wikipedia:Policies. --Mareklug talk 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been in favor of shortenings for quite some time now. Indeed we should not leave any room for POV while changes are made, but these changes will need to come because new statements keep coming and the older ones become irrelevant or repetitive. It makes the stance of a country confusing and inefficiently explained. Exo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia 2

Dear editors and readers:

I was dismayed by the recent edit marked with an edit summary of (unless there is a hierarchy reason we should stick to time and remove haris from bosnia per (mareklug will not object, he dislikes unofficial speeches)- http://www.24sata.info/17224) diff

  • Practically from the inception of this topic back in Febuary 2008, Bosnia has been bitterly upehld and forcibly portrayed (despite reasoned opposition) on the basis of this article, and continues to be portrayed so on Image:Kosovo_relations.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg in red, as one of the "States that have stated they official do not recognize independent Kosovo".
  • I and others have been meanwhile pointing out repeatedly, that Bosnia, like Cuba or Uruguay or Armenia, has not acted as states to this day in the matter of Kosovo recognition.
  • The fact that Bosnia has not acted, and the assertion: "if there is deadlock, there is no action", were recently admitted to by the same editor, on this talk page (see #Bosnia from September 2008, above on the talk page, or already archived when you read this).
  • He committed himself to correct those maps. He has not.
  • What is being argued by him to this day, is crystal-balling along the lines: "Bosnia can't recognize Kosovo, because if it did, it would lose 1/2 of its territory. Or: Bosnia will never recoginise Kosovo, because its parliamentary structure prevents it from doing so. This is all, forgive me, outrageous and self-serving synthesis, unsupported by necessary instruments stipulated by the Wikipedia policy known as WP:VER, if only for the significant reason, that no source asserting this coupling was ever given in support of it.
  • For the entire duration of this article, this editor and maybe 2 others, have insisted that Bosnia's alleged rejection of Kosovo independence (that is, Bosnia acting as one state in unison) was supported by one of those troublesome collages, weaved of quotes attributed to individual politicians. No one cared then, how official each quote was -- be it from official speeches, or revelations made by private partisan Serbian websites, or quotes quoted or paraphrased in neutral Turkish newspapers.
  • I recently uncovered an unnanounced by anybody on this page interview given by the current Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia to Voice of America, which, according to the Indian website that reprinted the VOA press release, shows it to be not the speech given by him at the UN General Assembly in September 2008, but a separate interview given in his native tongue (one of them) and broadcast back to Bosnia. This item was removed in this edit, which otherwise involved putting items in a timeline. Nothing else was removed in this edit.
  • The link given as justification in the edit summary makes no mention of VOA (the link is not in English). It is another Serb politician in Bosnia's, also member of collective Bosnian Presidency, individual take on how unofficial the his Bosniak counterpart's speech was at the UN GA, that the Bosniak only spoke as himself. Be that as it may, so ever has this Serbian-Bosnian! So have been all the politicians in our Bosnia write-up, except, perhaps, the FM, when announcing why, for technical reasons of local law, he can't accept Kosovan passports on his own, and defers the matter to the Bosnian Presidency. It certainly provides no justification for removing this significant departure from the assumed postion that Bosnia has been tarred with on Wikipedia, and continues to be represented as such at least on this talk page, and on the aforementioned maps of commons (inconistently with the map legend), therefore, misprepresented on other Wikipedia langauge versions that use these maps!
  • Removal of this information, for the reasons given in the edit summary, strikes me as yet another unfortunate edit in a chronic series of such edits.

That is all I'm going to say on the score of this edit.

But I exhort the editors editing here should be particularly vigilant that NPOV and accurate relevant sourcing are used at all times. If we were to really remove unofficial speeches, unoffical species of speeches, in order to perform a normative cleanup/improvement, we mustn't start doing so by selectively removing only what this, which is forcing us to perhaps revise our long held cherished, hardened, partisan points of view.

Bosnia has not acted officially as a state. Deadlock, if there is one, does not formally imply the country as a country having taken a position. Bosnia cannot in good faith be represented on any Kosovo relations map, as one of the countries that have stated that they refuse to recognize Kosovo. They have stated nothing.

The removed content, reinstated to the article and reproduced below, mustn't be removed, as long as Bosnia-the-state continues to be portrayed on the basis of this article to have done what in fact it has yet to do.

This item presents a tangible suppressed evidence, and constitues a needed correction, indicating that within Bosnia and Herzegovina, its current President supports Kosovo independence (while the country's government has yet to act in the matter), and has told so his own people, in the local language, beyond and above any speeches he may have delivered or will deliver while addresing the UN General Assembly:

State Evidence International organisations
 Bosnia and Herzegovina On 26 September 2008 while attending General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, Bosnian President Haris Silajdžić said in a Voice of America interview broadcast back to Bosnia in local language that he supports Kosovo's independence and is opposed to Serbia's request that the International Court of Justice issue an opinion on the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence.[2]

--Mareklug talk 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


One more thing. I cringe when I see news headlines such as this one: More on wikipedia abuse. (In tis case, it's a blog, but indexed by Google News, so very public, and it quotes a bonafide Register.co.uk article). Do we want our article to get singled out as Wikipedia abuse? I don't think so. Please edit accordingly. --Mareklug talk 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not good to ignore things. For an example you can see that I have posted this a couple of times yet you ignored it each time. I wont give up though. This is the reality, not the repetitive text blocks:

The House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 15 members equally distributed among the three ethnic groups in Bosnia: 5 Bosniaks, 5 Serbs, and 5 Croats. The members are appointed by the parliaments of the constituent republics. Their duty is to make sure that no law is passed unless all three groups agree on it.

--Avala (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BiH is a federation (and a very weak one at that), not a dictatorship. Haris Silajdžić has little influence as a result. --Tocino 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Even to represent Bosnia, the president of the presidency needs the allowance of the other two let alone make decisions.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case, there is a deadlock and no action has been taken. Therefore BiH is neutral, and has not officially rejected recognition by an act of a decree or declaration. As such, there is no need to color it red as having officially rejected recognition. I'm glad we agree. --alchaemia (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not neutral. Any recognition idea has been vetoed by Republika Srpska which means the answer from Bosnia is negative. They have said that they would leave BiH federation in case Bosnia would recognise Kosovo after which most of the Croatian and Bosniak politicians have decided not to support Kosovo (Silajdzic is not one of them obviously).--Avala (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I'm sorry but Republika Srpska is not in charge of foreign affairs; the presidency of BiH is, and the presidency has so far been divided on it, with Silajdzic supporting it, Komsic appearing neutral and Radmanovic against it. There's a deadlock, and when there's a deadlock, there's simply no action. Try not to sell Republika Srpska as a competent authority in charge of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it isn't. You simply can't claim that any decision on foreign affairs (or otherwise) has to be be a consensus decision of the presidency of BiH and then also claim that recognition was rejected when we clearly know, from the horse's mouth, that at least one member supports it. According to the sources we have, and the only ones that are valid, Bosnia is neutral and has not, to date, officially rejected recognition by an act of decree on the part of the presidency of Bosnia, the competent authority in charge of Foreign Affairs, among other things. --alchaemia (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Kosovo independence is 'a reality'
The Press Association (in Google aggregate)
13 minutes ago (0955 CST USA 3 Oct 2008)

Kosovo's independence is a reality, Montenegro's foreign minister has said, suggesting his government would recognise the new state even though that would anger traditional ally Serbia.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February. It has won recognition from the US and most nations in the European Union. But Serbia - backed by Russia - has refused to acknowledge the split.

Montenegrin recognition of Kosovo would be a major blow to Serbia, because the two Balkan republics have close historical and cultural ties. Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic which stayed in the union with Serbia after the federation broke up in 1991. Montenegro split from Serbia in 2006.

Serbian officials have appealed to neighbouring states to refrain from recognising Kosovo.

In a latest bid to maintain claim on the region, Serbia has moved to question Kosovo independence at the International Court of Justice.

But Montenegrin foreign minister Milan Rocen said during a parliamentary debate that "an independent Kosovo is a political reality ... and Montenegro has no right to close its eyes before that fact".

He said it was up to individual countries to decide whether to recognise Kosovo or not.

In Pristina, Kosovo's President Fatmir Sejdiu urged Montenegro and Macedonia, another former Yugoslav republic, to recognise Kosovo's independence quickly.

"It is a good answer from countries that are now sovereign and with which we were in a state union that is now destroyed and does not exist," Sejdiu said.

Kosovo has been run by a UN administration since a 1998-99 war.

--Mareklug talk 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like more article updating is called for (link reference prepared with {{cite web}} for easy copy-and-paste into our article: "Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation". Focus. Sofia: Focus News Agency (Bulgaria). 2008-10-04. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |languge= ignored (help)

Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation

4 October 2008 | 11:25 | FOCUS News Agency

Podgorica. The Parliament of Montenegro adopted a resolution for speeding the European Integration with a position that the European orientation would be a position for the solution of the issue with the independence of Kosovo, the Serbian daily Blic reports. The resolution, which was qualified by the opposition as formal recognition of the independence of Kosovo was supported by 45 MPs from the ruling coalition.

--Mareklug talk 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • 7 October 2008, more indication from the horse's mouth (the President) of imminent recognition by Montenegro:

Associated Press (2008-10-07). "Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo". International Herald Tribune. New York: The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-10-07.

Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo
The Associated Press

Published: October 7, 2008

PODGORICA, Montenegro: Montenegro's president has indicated his tiny Balkan state will recognize Kosovo's independence despite bitter opposition from traditional ally Serbia.

President Filip Vujanovic said Tuesday that the decision will have to be made soon because of Montenegro's desire to become an European Union and NATO member. He said recognition of Kosovo is an "obvious condition" for integration.

Serbia's Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic on Monday warned Montenegro against recognizing Kosovo, which split from Serbia in February, saying it would represent "a stab in the back."

Serbia and Montenegro have close historical and cultural ties and comprised a single state until 2006.

This article [8] says that today Macedonia and Montenegro will decide about recognising Kosovo. here is the english article too [9]. BTW it is b92.net source. --Lilonius (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro recognized http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/09/europe/EU-Montenegro-Kosovo-Serbia.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.125 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source Re Montenegro and Macedonia recognizing Kosovo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122358590057620353.html 141.166.230.9 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

Hi there, i'm from Portugal, sorry if i do not know how to work with wikipedia, but today the news here said that Portugal, is going to declare either it recognizes Kosovo, or it doesn't, next Tuesday (7th October) many political analysts here say that, this declaration will obviously recognize Kosovo's independence, because if it didn't, there wouldn't be any declaration. Well, just thought you should know, I'll report back next Tuesday then, see ya... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.213 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


No Crystal Balling please.--Jakezing (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
hes not crystal balling Jakezing. [10][11] Russia is saying that Portugal might recognise soon due to pressure from the West. Ijanderson (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean Crystal balling? I'm just giving information, I'm not assuming anything... And further all, i live here, i believe i know the portuguese reality better than you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.213 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
And i live in the US, and yet i don't know half my countries foriegn policy, though thats more fromn a lack of interest comapred to my normal studies.--Jakezing (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
To the IP address, crystal balling is where we guess on the future, almost like fortune telling. As for what I found, nothing from government websites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm the IP address, and thanks for the explanation Zscout, but i did know what the expression meant lol, as for you Jakezing, I understand you have given many and valuable contributes to Wikipedia, nevertheless you shouldn't denigrate other peoples information, if you wanted links for this, i can give you plenty, in portuguese though...[[12]][[13]][[14]]Want more? (Gomes89 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC))
Here we go, with Earthtimes.org translating today's (3 Oct) Publico dispatch: Portugal preparing to recognize Kosovo: reports ("Posted: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:36:10 GMT")

Lisbon - Portugal is preparing to recognize the independence of Kosovo, media reported Friday. Foreign Minister Luis Amado may disclose the date of recognition on Tuesday, when he will inform a parliamentary foreign affairs commission about Portugal's stance, the daily Publico said.

Amado is currently holding meetings with the parliamentary parties to discuss the issue.

Portugal wanted align itself with most other European Union countries, which have backed the February 17 independence declaration of the former Serbian province, the daily said.

The EU was believed to seek a unified position before the United Nations General Assembly discusses a Serbian request for a legal review of Kosovo's unilateral independence declaration on October 8.

Serbia's ambassador to Portugal, Dusko Lopandic, urged Portugal not to modify its position at the "sensitive juncture of the process" before the UN meeting.

Yes, it certainly looks like Portugal is going to recognise, but there are no direct quotes in the article above, or in any of the Portuguese articles that Gomes89 referenced (thanks Gomes). Let's wait till Tuesday when we should get something direct from the horse's mouth.
Incidentally, the 2nd of Gomes89's articles (DN Online) contains the following (translated badly by Google):
"When returned to New York, cited in Belgrade, the Serbian president said for the first time that it will accept the division of Kosovo as a last chance, if all the other failed. That would mean that the part of the Kosovo territory north of the river Ibar would be linked to Serbia. This is a chance that EU and U.S. would be willing to accept, western diplomatic sources told the newspaper Blic, ahead that we must, first, there is consensus among the Europeans." Bazonka (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It won't hurt to add something along these lines to the article under Portugal, now. Before, when Maltese Foreign Minister asserted that Portugal will recognize, editors here said, let's wait, until we have it confirmed from Portuguese source. Well, we do now. On Tuesday we can refine what we have further still.
As for the quoted bit, we can now find in Google News lots of texts written in English, pointing out that this partition of Kosovo idea has been firmly rejected by the USA and Germany. Angela Merkel said as much at the recent Berlin visit, where it was floated by the Serbian President. --Mareklug talk 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Well it's today, Portugal will become the 48th country to recognize Kosovo's Independence, so I think it would be a good idea moving Portugal to the right list and put Portugal (don't forget Azores and Madeira) on the recogniton map. (Gomes89 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

It'll be moved when we have official confirmation, ideally from a Portuguese or Kosovan government source. Let us know if you spot anything in the Portuguese media stating that they have actually recognised - something saying that they are going to recognise today is unfortunately not strong enough evidence. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything of merit in this article? [[15]] As far as I can tell, Portugal has still not recognised. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here you go, courtesy of translate.google.com:
Translation of Portuguese into English
Title -- PS and PSD prepared to follow allies in recognizing Kosovo
Author -- EVA CABRAL

Parliament. Amado explained to MPs today the position of the Portuguese Government The foreign minister will today explain to Members of the Parliamentary Committee for the development of the Portuguese position on the recognition of the Kosovo. Amado should remember the importance of pragmatism in international relations, and the fact that most partners of Portugal in NATO and the EU have already recognized the independence of Kosovo.

Jose Lello, responsible for international relations of the PS, said the DN that "foreign policy is directly linked with the real, ie with the interest and business in the country." Pointing out that most Portuguese allies have recognized Kosovo, a region where Australia has a military mission, the Socialist leader stressed that "until now the military contingent has not suffered reprisals by the fact that Portugal does not recognize the country, it is worrying the maintenance of this type of position. " According Jose Lello if "they were only by a sentimental or ideological position" certainly does not recognize the independence, adding that the level of international law "the UN already rewrite the history of Kosovo."

Also Jose Cesario, Deputy Coordinator of the Social Democrats in the Parliamentary Committee of Foreign Affairs ensures that "will listen very carefully to the explanations that Luis Amado.." The deputy Social Democrat recognizes that "foreign policy is always dominated by pragmatism" and so "in the case of Kosovo is necessary to assess the situation and see what is the most suitable time to recognize the country, taking into account the position already taken by partners of Portugal in the EU and NATO. " With regard to the presence of a military contingent in Kosovo Jose Cesario says that this is "a situation that is not new," not so "that we must change the position Portuguese."

Also towards the recognition of Kosovo is the PS MEP Ana Gomes who blog in Our Cause says that the recognition "is the conclusion that bring enhanced the end of a day to visit Serb enclaves within Kosovo, including the northern part of Mitrovica and to talk with senior local, Albanians, Serbs and international. " The MEP assumes that impressed "particularly the quality policy of the Mayor of Mitrovica, Bajram Rexhepi, and their efforts, even informally, maintain contact and seek work with the authorities in the northern part of the area that comply with Belgrade."

It is recalled that in the EU 21 countries have recognized Kosovo, missing only Spain, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Cyprus. In this list the Portuguese are not the only ones who have problems such as ethnic or territorial argument. Portugal was initially planned to enter the second round of European countries to recognize the independence, but the government preferred to wait, and the PR stressed the need to respect international law and attention to creating a precedent.

--Mareklug talk 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried the Google translator too. It seems a bit weird though... where did the mention of Australia come from??? There doesn't seem to be anything remotely similar in the original. Anyway, it would appear that there is no new news. Bazonka (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's weird how the translator put in "Australia" for "Portugal", otherwise not changing the sentence meaning. Anyway, Husond already confirmed that they recognized, and the article has been updated, map too. We're done here, at long last.

Here's a source that saya "Portugal recognizes Kosovo's independence" in Portuguese. I hope someone can offer a full translation. [16] --alchaemia (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done based on one more source provided in a new section below. --Mareklug talk 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia nearing recognition decision

This is according to the president. Here's the article: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/3794/2/ It seems we are close to getting Montenegro and Macedonia's positions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

for the love of god, this is just spam, evne if it was max who made it.WE WILL ADD IT ONCE THEY ANNOUNCE, NO MOVING, TIL THEN--Jakezing (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, Jakezing, I've yet to see you do anything of any value around here. I mean, you always comment on these talk pages but never in a helpful tone. When's the last time you brought some INSIGHT into a discussion rather than shouting and just jib-jab? The same thing is being reported on BalkanInsight and there's a video of him saying it. I'd say that the president of Macedonia has a pretty clear picture of how things will go vis-a-vis recognition and that we can take his word for it. This is not Ali Ahmeti or Menduch Thaci who, as Albanians, are predisposed to "making things up", according to some editors here. This is the president of the country and I'm sure that he's more versed in matters of Macedonian policy than you are. --alchaemia (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you more versed as well?--Jakezing (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, nor do I act like it, in contrast to you and your shouting. --alchaemia (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this from A1 too. Either way, he said there will soon be a decision, not that there will soon be recognition. We can speculate that it probably will be recognition, but does anyone think anything should be added to the article? BalkanFever 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you are seeking consensus and opinion of other editors but Mareklug has already expanded the article with this:
2 October 2008 in Brussels, Macedonia’s President Branko Crvenkovski stated that Macedonia’s government will very soon announce its decision on recognising Kosovo’s independence, as the time for reflection and analysis regarding the independence of Kosovo has passed and it is time for decision: “I expect from the government, which has the constitutional competence regarding this, to announce very soon the stance of our country concerning the independence of Kosovo.” Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.
--Avala (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Since we've put other statements by Crvenkovski, I see no harm in including something to the tune of "President Crvenskoski has said that the government will soon reach a decision" adding that "the time for reflection has passed, now is the time for action." (I'm paraphrasing, of course). --alchaemia (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of shortening the section using the three Rs: rewording, rearranging, and removing. BalkanFever 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree with Jakezing that we should wait, however its not spam and Jakezing needs to keep calm and remain WP:CIVIL. Ijanderson (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh ya, the caps... that was a weird thing with the kkeyboard fing up and not letting me turn off caps. and don't tell me that then don't remind that to our ip/user freind who is overly kosovar supporting--Jakezing (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean me?Max Mux (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (and Montenegro) recognized: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122358590057620353.html 141.166.230.9 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UN decision

I thought we should make a article about it. Macedonia for example will abstain.

Max Mux (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree if avala and Ian agree to it... also, why macedonia, WHY, why couldn't you have found any other country saying so.--Jakezing (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the badly put external link, so it has the {{cite web}} form suitable for inclusion in main article. Max Mux, please make note of it. As for the actual news, it further aligns Macedonia with the EU majority. Hasn't EU decided to uniformly abstain? I propose adding one-sentence update to Macedonia writeup, but would prefer a Macedonian or neutral source. --Mareklug talk 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've already suggested we should create and article on it. Any name suggestions? Ijanderson (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How about an article with the name "International Voting at the UN General Assembly for a World Court ruling on the legality of Kosovo's Independence" or "International Voting at the UN General Assembly for an ICJ ruling on the legality of Kosovo's Independence"? Any other suggestions? Ijanderson (talk)
It depends what happens - let's wait and see. I'm not sure we need a new article. Bazonka (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. It would be interesting to see the positions of the different countries so or the other way.Max Mux (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is another source:
Max Mux (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons for an example International Court of Justice advisory opinion on declaration of independence by Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite as a model is about an OPINION, delivered, not about a possible opinion in some crystal-balling future! ""Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was an advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996.[1]". That's the article intro. ICJ might altogether refuse to hear the case!!! Jeez. --Mareklug talk 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Idea

We should add an extra column to say what they voted for at the UN GA. For example like this below.

Country[3] Date of recognition Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations International organisations membership Voting in the UN GA
1  Afghanistan[4] 2008-02-18 First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC Against
2  Costa Rica[5] 2008-02-18 (17 February 2008 local time) United Nations United Nations Security Council (UNSC) non-permanent member at time of declaration For

We can do the same for UN states which don't reccognise Kosovo. We could always changing the wording if need be. What you think? Ijanderson (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea. Lets make it so.Max Mux (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian, you have to make it absolutely clear, that this is a vote in the matter of referring to ICJ for legal advice in a non-binding way the question of legality of Kosovo declaration of independence. It is not a vote on the legality of declaration itself, and is not a straightforward reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence. It will only become obvious, if the header is linked to the appropriate yet-to-be-written article. And, as this vote is not "a reaction to the UDI", I have misgivings about coupling it with the reaction tables directly. Like I said before, a state may vote for this particular measure without any bearing on its recognition or lack of it. --Mareklug talk 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) P.s. This article discusses the ramifications and possible outcomes of the ICJ opinion, and also tells why Serbia asked for "advisory non-binding" ruling: "Does the ICJ matter?". quote: "But the point is not the merits of the case; the point is that an ICJ decision on Kosovo’s independence will take years. A case involving the genocide convention between Serbia and Croatia was filed in 1999 and has not been decided yet. The protracted nature of the ICJ process will give Serbia and Russia exactly what they want: more uncertainty."
I think that there will be a debate which means some new quotes. Also most of the countries that recognised (ie. EU and US) will abstain from voting. US said that they consider the initiative inappropriate but that they respect ICJ so that they will abstain and the UK provided an idea for the President of UNGA to work on a more precise question. Greece and Finland announced they can't vote against but that EU will probably abstain. Countries that implied that they can derecognise if the ICJ rules in Serbian favor are Costa Rica and Denmark. That's what I know.--Avala (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Costa Rica, but Denmark's prime minister was in Kosovo about 10 days ago and he clearly stated that Denmark will not "derecognize." Where did you get that information? --alchaemia (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Correct, that was all over the news : "Denmark will not change their decision on the the recognition of Kosovo" (the headlines) -- CD 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
He said that Denmark will not change merely over the vote in the UN but also that any change in a position would require an ICJ ruling as a cause.--Avala (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
When did he say that? Because I'm pretty sure he said Denmark's recognition will not be withdrawn no matter what ICJ rules. --alchaemia (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Im pretty sure pressure would soon mount up against Denmark if it considered that Ijanderson (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I thnik we should stick with (talk) idea. And we should be quick with deciding. The voting will be today.Max Mux (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the hurry? We don't know what's going to happen yet. If hundreds of countries vote, then it may be worth creating a new article or adding a new column to this one; but perhaps all countries except Serbia and Russia will abstain, in which case we can just add a bit extra to Serbia and Russia's text. We just don't know. My point is: let's wait until we know what we're dealing with, then we can find an appropriate way to portray it. Bazonka (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

77-6 in favor. There will be some new quotes El Salvador, Singapore etc.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was 77 for, 6 against, and 74 abstaining. Don't forget the last crucial bit. --alchaemia (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
How is it crucial? Many countries were not present during the vote and it is also "abstain" even if the representative got stuck in the traffic.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's crucial because it shows that, while the General Assembly usually votes overwhelmingly to send something to the ICJ, it did not do so this time, passing the resolution with less than 50% for and with more nations voting against or abstaining than voting for. An absence is not an abstaining vote so please don't try to make it sound so. If a country did not show up, it did not form part of the quorum. Its vote does not count at all. Among the nations either against or abstaining, 6 voted against, 74 were present but did not vote at all - i.e. were neutral. It's crucial when you have more nations neutral or against the resolution then for, even if the resolution did pass on procedural grounds. --alchaemia (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
77 + 6 + 74 = 157 < 192. Representatives who got stuck in the traffic are apparently among the remaining 35. — Emil J. 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as NATO isn't bombing Serbian civilians and Chinese embassies, or the KLA isn't terrorizing the Serbian public, what happens in peacetime Serbia is not the most crucial issue on the international stage. The vast majority of nations however are supportive of Serbia's initiative. --Tocino 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words : Simple majority.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course, though your "majority" consisted of 77 states out of 150+ in attendance so I wouldn't be really proud of it. Then we also have the issue of the Court's jurisdiction and its acceptance/refusal of the case. From the ICJ page I quote:

Generally, the Court has been most successful resolving border delineation and the use of oceans and waterways. While the Court has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State espoused on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Court has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force.

It will be a tough battle, for sure ;) --alchaemia (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain: have voted in favor

the 22 other EU states: abstain


USA and Albania: voted against it

Turkey: abstain 

* http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=08&nav_id=54059

Max Mux (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal recognizes Kosovo

Portugal is recognizing today Kosovo's independence [17]. Page will require a swift update. Húsönd 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source [18] --alchaemia (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, seems like Kosovo's been recognized already by my country. :-) Húsönd 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I updated the map -- CD 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the page is protected. I can update it if everyone would agree that would be an uncontroversial edit. Húsönd 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an uncontroversial edit. Go for it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Mareklug talk 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Somebody else get the map updated. :)

Actually, it was just move-protected. Mareklug took the initiative and updated the article. Húsönd 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we have an official source from the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [19] --alchaemia (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to post this information on the talkpage other than to bait those who respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia? The article is not blocked from editing. --Tocino 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's posted here to form consensus and provide veritable sources before editing this article, something which you still have to master. --alchaemia (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is posted here in a gloating form by an admin who advertizes all over his user page how much he loves NATO/EU. The first citation was fine, there was nothing to debate about. It was clear that the so-called "socialists" in Portugal got tired of getting their arms twisted by USA/EU/NATO so they folded and betrayed socialist values in the process by recognizing this fake and illegal entity in Serbia. --Tocino 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOAP --alchaemia (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleade stop that kind of talking.Max Mux (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, it seems you're the one who is "baiting." To gripe about 3 sources is quite an exaggeration. That's a pretty modest and reasonable number for an edit, especially a recognition edit. You are just repeating your political ideology ad nauseum without adding new info, either to vent or to push buttons rather than to make a real point.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Max, asking tocino to stop is impossible, he dosn't listen to us.--Jakezing (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

EU, NATO, OIC lists - POV?

In the International Organisations section, the EU, NATO and OIC sections can be expanded to show their member states. States that have recognised Kosovo are denoted with an asterisk; states that "have stated they will not recognise Kosovo" are denoted with a double asterisk. Since we removed such distinctions from the map on the grounds of POV, I think we should remove the asterisks from the "will nots" in these lists also. Agree? Bazonka (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly. Esp. since they are used to advance POV. Zap 'em. --Mareklug talk 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Zapped. Bazonka (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Romania and Slovakia recognize Kosovo Passports

“Ky është një sinjal i qartë se mbështetja dhe njohjet do të vazhdojnë. Në të njëjtën kohë konfirmoj edhe zotimin dhe qëndrimin e dy vendeve tjera anëtarë te BE-së dhe NATO-së, Rumanisë dhe Sllovakisë që të pranojnë pasaportat e Republikës së Kosovës." http://rtklive.com/?categoryId=1&newsId=27091

Kryeministri i Kosovës, Hashim Thaçi falënderoi Portugalinë për njohjen e shtetit të Kosovës dhe Rumaninë e Sllovakinë për njohjen e pasaportës kosovare, ndërsa ia dërgoi një mesazh Beogradit zyrtar, se pavarësia e Kosovës është çështje e kryer dhe vetëm fuqitë mbinatyrore, siç tha ai, mund ta zhbëjnë atë.

kosovalive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.46.65 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

http://rtklive.com/?newsId=27091 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.46.65 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the Slovaks speak for themselves. [20] [21] Also I doubt Romania would recognize these separatist papers. Romania is strongly opposed to separatism. --Tocino 16:13, 8 OCtober 2008 (UTC)

Please don't astart again with that talking about "seperatism". Max Mux (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of Passports was relayed by foreign ministers of both countries! Your link is old. This has happened yesterday.

Link in English [22] --alchaemia (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one from a non-Kosovan source. [23] --alchaemia (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is confirming link in English, from Balkan Insight. I looked briefly on Slovak MFA site, but they maintain radio silence, and the USA Slovak embassy page says to contact the embassy for countries not listed - and Kosovo is one of them. :) I think it's time to update the article for Slovakia and Romania, esp. Slovakia, which continues to display outdated, opposite, information. Also, the source plainly names Greece among countries that have recognized the Kosovan passport:

Mareklug, I posted that Balkan Insight article just before you posted. :) I think it's time we update the information box on Romania and Slovakia, as well as Greece. --alchaemia (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there was an edit conflict, and in any case, I missed seeing your second link. Sorry for the duplication. I did update Romania and Slovakia, but did not touch Greece myself. --Mareklug talk 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UN positions

some irrelevant discussion (made so by the publishing and inclusion in the article of the list of voters/absentees) removed for the sake of readable and topical archives.

OK the list is out. I will update the article.--Avala (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that map belongs there, and certainly not before the recognition map. You can create a new article if you'd like, but I disagree with putting that map there. --alchaemia (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

There are now only three Western European countries that do not recognize Kosovo: Spain, Vatican City, and Andorra. I don't doubt it is difficult to find news about Andorra and I know its reaction isn't especially important but it would be good to find what reaction, if any, they have made regarding Kosovo's declaration of independence so that it could be included in the article. Does anyone know what Andorra's reaction is? 141.166.230.9 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see even closely related to those two countries is that they both use the Euro as their currency and that is it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Divided between France and Spain, two countries that have a different opinion on this issue, Andorra is neutral.--Avala (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
And nuetral is the same thing as not recognizing.--Jakezing (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
But have they made an official statement about their opinion, something that can be posted in the main article? 141.166.230.9 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No... but in the end, they are still saying "we don't recognize kosovo". there is no middle ground here, for some countries, kosovo is an unimportant matter, for others, massive. Andorra, would it to suddenly recognize, wouldn't affect global politics, if russia were to, and it has all the ground it needs to do so since it's base is gone, we would see ALOT of recognizers show up.--Jakezing (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I am not claiming that Andorran recognition or non-recogniton has any affect on global politics but it is within the purview of this article. Further, since its the only western European country without a stated reaction, it does, in its own small way, stand out. It would be appropriate therefor to include a short entry on them. 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.230.9 (talk)
That entry would entail to say, that they tried very hard not to say a word. The Andorran FM visited Croatia after C. already recognized Kosovo, and in the joint statement, she said nothing. --Mareklug talk 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's reaction

Considering the section called "Serbia's Reaction": In a sense, I fail to see why Serbia's reaction should be preceding that of the other countries which are listed alphabetically. However, I'm willing to overlook that if its section is kept as tight as possible and excess information is delegated to other articles. As it stands, the section is unnecessarily overburdened with the names of 77 states that voted for the resolution in the GA on October 8th, while we have 6 names that voted against, and 3 out of 74 that abstained. If we are to list states that voted, we should either list all, or list none. To list only the ones that voted for and then list half a dozen (out of 80) that voted against or abstained is disingenuous and POV. I suggest we wither remove them all or include them all but at the bottom of the article, after International Organizations. --alchaemia (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I returned the article to the pre-POV addition of some country listings in that UN GA vote. IMHO a listing of all 35 states that chose to ignore the vote is just as telling. And the vote roster/absentee list is not congruent with Serbia's non-recognition. A case could equally be made that getting 77 votes for out of possible 192 constitutes an international rebuke to Serbia's efforts to delegalize independent Kosovo, or at least an international yawn on the part of the world. At any rate, this complete listing is not to be made in quite this spot. Somewhere in the UN writeup, as a {{show}} collapsed listing, maybe. It mustn't be given undue prominence. It's just a procedural preliminary vote with no direct bearing to state recognitions of Kosovo. It certainly was no referendum on Kosovo, which it appears to be portrayed as by some editors. --Mareklug talk 04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A country choosing to abstain chooses to abstain, i.e. not to rebuke anything. Precisely six powers constitute your imaginary alliance for an international rebuke to Serbia's efforts, namely Albania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the U.S. You're really twisting things here. For example, the remaining tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors are abstaining from discussing this page. They really are not rebuking any side --- they just don't have an opinion. Anyway, a full listing may be too much in the context of this article. A small picture as an illustration along with this paragraph may be appropriate. Read the title of the article; General Assembly is kinda international and this vote is kinda "international reaction", 8 months later. Not the same as individual recognition, but certainly relevant and certainly worth more than one sentence, given the obvious possible ramifications of the ICJ opinion, whichever way it goes. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy is ridiculous. The hundreds of thousands of possible editors of Wikipedia cannot even be enumerated by one person conveniently, let alone be bothered to know of the existence of this article, yet we are talking about an organization with 192 member states, gathered together in one building, where 30+ decided to ignore the vote for political reasons. These states deserve to be listed in any accounting, to preserve NPOV and to give the reader all the information congruent with this particular UN GA procedure. The procedure did not amount to international reaction to Kosovo UDI as such, but reflected complex behind-the-scenes dealings and power brokering of today. Such a linkage is far more indirect and uncertain, given the development of the global international situation, and of Kosovo's own situation, since 17 February 2008. This was not a referendum on legality of independent Kosovo. To let on that it was is harmful OR. And this vote was not tantamount to the ICJ even holding a preliminary hearing on the subject of the legality of independent Kosovo, let alone taking up this concretely referred to it case. It was only a preliminary procedure for that reason, albeit a final vote on the subject in this session of the UN GA. This motion elicited support of 77 out of 192 members, not even a majority mandate! For motions of this sort, which historically pass with huge margins, it is an appalling failure. You can put together a table of passing measures at UN GA and compare the margins and see where this vote falls. It's rather easy to ascertain. --Mareklug talk 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The last such case (West Bank barrier) was referred to ICJ by GA by something like 90 to 8. Given that the whole Arab League was obviously behind that proposal, that is roughly the same kind of vote. Of course, these two votes have something in common --- namely, one particular country against. Guess which one? Anyway. To label this vote an appalling failure is utter OR. You discredit yourself with every post and make this page unbearable for good-faith editors. Hope you enjoy your POV result, it makes for a wonderful Wikipedia. --Dzordzm (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That was my own opinion, which I took care not to inject into the Wikipedia main space, unlike some other editors' practice. But, heavens, 77 out of possible 192 votes, is a paltry result, where more abstained and voted no and 34 boycotted it as the most safe thing to do. No matter what lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a pig. :) And I note your good will as further lending credence to your say. Why, I am just one of the most essential builders and maintainers of this article, and dare I say, without my opposition, it would have been silently run over by partisan edits. Or so it seems to me. --Mareklug talk 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Either have this list or have the table expanded with one liners about countries which voted this way or another. I think the short list is far better than a heavy table. Mareklug called it a "preliminary vote" which is wrong, because the preliminary vote was held week ago and then 120 states supported the initiative.--Avala (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a column on how the respective states voted during the GA voting on the request for an advisory opinion re Kosovo?

Should we add a column on how the respective states voted during the GA voting on the request for an advisory opinion re Kosovo? Bgdboy011 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.Max Mux (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have returned the list of countries who voted. I think it is far better than expanding the table with 30 new countries with content only being one line and that is how they voted in the UNGA.--Avala (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would propose to just add a column to the table, indicating a yes, no or abstention vote on the matter.Bgdboy011 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That would still require an expansion of the table for countries like Antigua and Barbuda which didn't react on Kosovo apart from this vote.--Avala (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Avala that the article is better organized using lists in the "International Court of Justice" section, not expansion of the tables. — Emil J. 11:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The Placement of "International Court of Justice" section gives undue weight to these votes and makes it seem as more important than the actual Recognition statuses. Sure the vote is a form of "international reaction" but it is of secondary importance to the actual Recognition Status and is more of a reaction to a Diplomacy event than to the actual DI of KOSOVO. Maybe its better to move it down after the Status Tables. Emetko (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with you as well. — Emil J. 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mismatch

The current lists of countries voting in UN GA, based on [24], are incorrect. I just counted the countries, and it adds up to 75 for, 6 against, 69 abstain, and 36+1 absent, which is markedly different from the official numbers (77, 6, 74, 35). Can we get a better source for the lists? — Emil J. 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia was missing on the first list, which brings it up to 76. We are still missing 1 country for and 5 countries abstaining, and we have 2 extra countries listed as absent. — Emil J. 12:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I found [25]. Their lists have 77 for and 74 abstained as expected, so I'll assume they got these right. They give only 29 countries as absent, so I will just remove Saudi Arabia and Senegal in accordance with the abstainee's list, and assume the other 6 are missing by accident. — Emil J. 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Emil, if I understand correctly, after your adjustments, we still cannot account for some countries, which clearly have a seat at the UN and even were on hand at this GA session. What do we do about that? --Mareklug talk 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) The current listing in the article accounts for 192 states, temporarily (?) listing Liberia with the absentees and making note of its technical predicament. Will this vote be readjusted to account for Liberia's intention? --Mareklug talk 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
All sources we have count Liberia as absent. Intentions are one thing, and official results of the vote another. I don't think we should make any readjustments on our own. — Emil J. 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I mean, the www.un.org source does not really include Liberia on the list of absentees, but that's also true of six other countries (CAR, Comoros, Guinea Bissau, Sao Tome etc, Somalia, Tajikistan), apparently for no good reason. The point is that Liberia is not listed among those who voted against either. It is widely reported in news media that 6 countries voted against, not 7. — Emil J. 15:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberia wanted to vote against but was not allowed to vote at all due to not paying some UN fees. And Georgia, how did they vote?--Avala (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If your information as to reasons is true, this is quite a story: UN prevents a poor African nation from expressing its vote for capitalistic reasons of falling behind on rent. Great testimonial to freedom @the UN. :) --Mareklug talk 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is funny because the US doesn't pay fees too afaik. The UNGA president said "Liberia can not vote" which shocked the British representative.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Georgia abstained. The story about Liberia not being allowed because of not paying appears to be an urban legend. Do you have any reputable sources for that? We have: [26] "He added that Liberia did vote, but its vote was not recognized because of technical difficulties", [27] "Liberija nije glasala kada je bilo vreme za glasanje, a kasnije je izjavila da je protiv", [28] "A Liberian diplomat complained that her vote was not counted due to a technical malfunction, but the assembly president deemed the vote legitimate", [29] "despite a Liberian diplomat's complaint that her vote was not counted because of a technical malfunction", etc. (the latter two formulations are repeated in many other media). No one mentions any unpaid fees. — Emil J. 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's probably just Avala trying to discredit Liberi's No vote using urban legends and OR. He gave no source whatsoever for that claim. --alchaemia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to forget, that Avala is discrediting the USA, which historically supported UN activities out of any proportion, excessively underwriting all UN agencies, and that has been going on since the inception of the United Nations. --Mareklug talk 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Second map

I am not sure about the second map (maybe a separate article on that topic?) to be included on top of the main part. Serbia's wish to ask for an ICJ opinion was not to be denied (every state should have the right to ask for legal advice). But what does it say about the recognition itself? I don't think a separate map makes sense (or is even misleading readers) because the decision to accept Serbia's legitimate wish did not imply a decision on Kosovo's recognition. It would be the least to ask for consensus here before changing the basic structure of the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So I removed the map until we can reach consensus here (sorry, I was not logged in). --DaQuirin (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I am entirely sure that the second map (now, the first map) is entirely off-topic and its placement lends this episodic item undue weight (per WP:Undue weight and the rest of the WP:NPOV). Please remove it from this article and put it in its own article. This new article mustn't be made to represent this "case" as an existing opinion of ICJ. ICJ may well choose not to hear this case at all. This was only a procedural vote in the UN General Assembly, where 77 of 192 elegible votes were cast for it, which some editors have chosen to elevate to something significant. It's true influence remains unassessed and largely unknown. --Mareklug talk 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Still hoping that we will finish having a 'real article' (not only a list with a map) I suggest that we integrate the text ("Among its reactions ... The United Nations General Assembly adopted this proposal on 8 October 2008 with 77 votes in favor, six votes against and 74 abstentions, of 192 possible.") into the first part (maybe in a summed-up version). The map could be included into a separate article on the ICJ legal opinion. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to throw this discussion far off-topic, but no, ICJ may not choose not to hear this case, understanding of course that this is not a "case" to begin with. General Assembly has the right to request advisory opinions from ICJ, and when it exercises that right, like it did yesterday, with a nearly 95% majority (inform yourself of procedures), it gets the opinion. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with just figuring out how to display the first map. I still don't know if the article consensus is PNG or SVG. Now, a second map wants to be introduced. For the sake of simplicity, please, no second map. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK if the decision is to keep one map then so be it. Btw the ICJ can choose not to hear if they consider the question not to be about law but it's not the case here it seems. They have already spoke to the media that the decision could be made in months not years as some suggested and that they might invite Kosovo representatives to present their story and that they are interested only in legal issues not political.--Avala (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ad PNG vs SVG: not sure there is a clear consensus, most people do not seem to care at all. However, when I put the SVG map in the article, it was reverted within an hour, so I assume we'd better stick to PNG for now. — Emil J. 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that PNG is far easier to edit because SVG files are heavy and require special software.--Avala (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I hate repeating myself, but it's the other way around. You need an image editor to edit a PNG file. On the other hand, thanks to whoever created the blank SVG map, you can easily edit the SVG map using any text editor (notepad, emacs, vi, ...). There is a list of ISO two-letter codes of the recognizing countries near the beginning of the file, you insert a new one there, and that's it. — Emil J. 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
SVG files are annoying though because they save as checkboard images on these computers--Jakezing (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"Checkboard images"? What on earth do you mean by that?
Anyway, a new attempt by Hapsala to use the SVG map was reverted by Cradel with the edit summary "you can hardly see the borders in the svg". To address the issue, I have increased the thickness of the borders by half. Are there other outstanding visual problems with the SVG map? — Emil J. 13:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I tested the map Cradel reverted and the PNG he favors on the [[iPhone touch], and the SVG works no worse, and is a far more detailed map, showing all the Greek islands, instead of a monolithic blob, for example. And so i would think the version Emil prepared with thickened borders is even better in this context. I confirm that editing in a text editor is very easy and no software whatsover is needed. Unfamiliarity with this should not be used as a reason to oppose the SVG when the SVG gives better results. --Mareklug talk 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Head's up - expect Macedonia/Montenegro action today

Editors, expect possible recognitions today from these two states, owing to parliamentary debate currently underway in both, with proposed legislation supported by majority parties, and rumors of concerted action a la Hungary/Bulgaria/Croatia of some months ago.

Montenegro Recognizes Kosovo (Oct 9)

Why did they recognize after the UN General Assembly vote? Does anybody know the reason for this? --DaQuirin (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well they only voted for Serbia's proposal simply to soften the blow a bit. A couple days earlier their foreign minister clearly said that Montenegro considers that the ICJ opinion will not actually change anything. --alchaemia (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
@DaQuirin: this underscores the fallacy of equating the vote (which garnered sub-majority support, indicating limited interest) with reacting to the UDI. States may have distinct reasons for supporting this measure, irrespective of their actual or implicit recognition of Kosovo. --Mareklug talk 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thx for your comments. The UN vote was not without any meaning at all, I think, but it sent mixed signals. As for our article: Montenegro, it seems (?), is now the only state that recognized but voted with Serbia on the ICJ case? --DaQuirin (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
And Iceland? The country that wishes to borrow 4 bln euro from Russia? :) --Mareklug talk 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Take your Russophobia elsewhere, Polska. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, what are you saying? Isn't Iceland's vote logically connected to asking Russia for 4 billion euro (which, apparently, they have announced as obtained, but haven't, according to latest news)? Why are you painting me with your ethnic brush and calling me "Poland" in Polish? You are not contributing here any insights, only ethnic hatred, as near as I can tell, and neither is your trolling nixing our matter-of-fact {{MKD}} usage from our state tables. No one had a problem with that through months of editing around Macedonia. Like I said, take your Greek nationalistic agenda to the pages, where country code templates are made. We only use what is given. Your say is far from level, alleging "rusophobia" for mentioning the obvious and directing your stridency along ethnic lines. --Mareklug talk 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Shall I remind you who has been engaging in ethnic trolling? Instead of proferring a serious argument against the use of the constitutional name, which also happens to be the actual article location and Wikipedia's established term for the country, you rushed into a torrent of anti-Greek abuse. One could very plausibly argue that your double slur against Iceland and Russia is "logically connected" to your being Polish. Do you propose that we take such trash seriously? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you a making a federal case out of my remark? We don't care for partisan edits, and have seen them from Chinese, Serbs, Kosovars, and now an editor with Greek letters. What am I to think? As for the Republic of Macedonia, we are -- I certainly am -- agnostic as to its naming woes and running soap opera titled "What can the world call this country?" -- we just use {{MKD}}, and have done so for months without any issues. Please note that I just re-added the earlier today-removed mention of the Republic of Macedonia -- in those words, linked exactly that way from the intro. It was there all along. It is there now, again. I hope this does justice to the rule you cite about not introducing Macedonia without its official name being used first. Good grief. :) And how can linking Iceland's foreign policy to Russia's be a "slur" at either? It's realpolitik, that's the spirit in which the comment was offered. If you find this linkage unseemly, complain to Icelanders, the former wealthy among nations. --Mareklug talk 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A "federal case"? How fittingly American of you. What's wrong with Greek letters anyway? Have you ever wondered where the "Polish alphabet" actually came from? And what makes you think you're immune to partisanship? Your ethnic slurs certainly suggest otherwise. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen, if a guy with an ethnic alphabet on en wiki comes to partisan-pillage on any topic, I call'em as I see'em, be they Polish letters in his handle or any other. So much for that. I hope you can relent now, O Cradle of Polish Letterforms Personified. :) Maybe you perceive too many slurs, and not enough good diction? My original objection pertained to a perceived partisanship. If you claim not to be partisan, welcome to the club. --Mareklug talk 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"Ethnic alfabet"? Now I've seen it all. As opposed to your decidedly non-"ethnic" handle, right? Clearly, a partisan par excełłence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ethinic alphabet. What of it? If you had a differential equation in Reverse Polish Notation as your handle, I guess we would need to perform a generalization from "ethnic" to "ethnic and geeky". My handle is a straightworward disambig of my first name by tacking on just enough of my last name to fit into a unix login. Mystery solved? --Mareklug talk 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Still looks pretty "ethnic" to me. Why are you so obsessed with Kosovo anyway? I'm visualizing a bearded Polish guy who masturbates over every conceivable Russian "defeat". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's coming over loud and clear that your discussion here has nothing to contribute to reporting on Kosovo recognition, and has now debauched into explicating your lurid fantasies, based no doubt on elementary cyberstalking and ad hominem remarks? Meanwhile, you keep yourself under a digital burkah. But why do you hate Poles, Americans, and love visions of masturbating bearded rusophobes? Is this on topic for betterment of this article? Looks like trolling and asking for a block to me, esp. all this ethnic baiting. I fail to see any constructive content in any of your edits in this article or on its talk page. Someone needs to tell you that plain and straight. --Mareklug talk 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's about as on-topic as your Icelandic roubles, I'd say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine was an honest answer to an honest question. --Mareklug talk 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia is set to recognize

OK, according to the official Montenegrin Government source confirming Kosovo's recognition by Montenegro, Macedonia and Montenegro have undertaken a joint recognition process and are in constant communication. I quote the press release from Montenegro's Website (which is, unfortunately, only in Montenegrin right now and which Avala could confirm):

Vlada Crne Gore je na današnjoj sjednici jednoglasno donijela Odluku o priznanju Republike Kosovo. Ova Odluka je donešena u skladu sa ustavnom nadležnošću Vlade da odlučuje o priznanju drugih država (Član 100 Ustava Crne Gore). Vlada je takođe usvojila zajedničku izjavu vlada Crne Gore i Makedonije o istovremenom priznanju. U stalnoj smo komunikaciji sa Skopljem. Vlada Makedonije će zasijedati nešto kasnije i usvojiti već usaglašeni tekst zajedničke izjave, koja će nakon toga biti postavljena i na sajt naše, i na sajt makedonske Vlade.


My translation:

The Government of Montenegro has, in today's meeting, taken the unanimous decision of recognizing the Republic of Kosovo. This decision was taken in full agreement with the competence of the Government of granting recognition to other states (Heading 100 of the Constitution of Montenegro). The government has also adopted a joint statement of the Montenegrin and Macedonian governments outlining joint recognition. We are in constant communication with Skopje. The Government of Macedonia will hold its meeting a little later and adopt the already-agreed upon text of our joint statement, which will also be published on our, as well as the website of the Macedonian government.

Remember, this is only a rough translation and not as polished as I would have liked. Avala or any other Serbian/Montenegrin speaking editor can confirm or deny the validity of my translation. Here's the source [31] --alchaemia (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Macedonian Parliament just announced their vote on the resolution to recognize Kosovo: 85 for, 1 against, and 16 abstained. This will now go to the Government which is expected to recognize tonight. [32] --alchaemia (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Balkan Insight, a neutral source, in cite web format, suitable for inclusion in the article:

Macedonia recognized Kosovo

The earth times has reported that Macedonia has recognised Kosovo? [33] But im not sure if this is true Ijanderson (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. 22:50 Македонија го призна Косово http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?lId=1
  2. http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810091298/Politics/Macedonia-recognizes-Kosovo-despite-UN-vote.html
  3. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/236284,montenegro-macedonia-recognize-kosovo--summary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/montenegro-and-macedonia-recognise-kosovo/id_32278/catid_66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=09&nav_id=322641 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add: 50th country.

Added.--Avala (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is an English-language reference from Macedonia media, suitable for referencing in the article (cite web template used):
--Mareklug talk 21:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one very good thing about this - NO MORE GAZILLION MACEDONIA SECTIONS! :D --Avala (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL Ijanderson (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad that is over and done with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You're telling me. Well, I don't see how I could possibly be of any more help here; have fun guys :). BalkanFever 08:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a paraphrase of that famous call from the Communist Manifesto and an apt quote from a cool Canadian song y'all should download, by Jane Siberry from her album No Borders here, "Mimi on the Beach"
  2. ^ Voice of America press release (2008-09-27). "VOA Interviews Balkan Presidents on Kosovo". Retrieved 2008-10-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |published= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "List of countries that have recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo". Official website (in English, Albania, and Serbian). Office of the President of the Republic of Kosovo. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  4. ^ "The Statement of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Recognition of Independence of Kosovo". Kabul, Afghanistan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Afghanistan. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-05-09.
  5. ^ "Costa Rica se pronuncia por la independencia de Kósovo" (DOC) (in Spanish). Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto. 2008-02-17. Retrieved 2008-02-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo/Archive_29&oldid=1136269377"