Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

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

Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations

The list of "Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations" isn't really needed, with a simple fact that two are serbian groups(one of which dosn't have an article) and the other is a orthodox church(of which serbia is kinda part off). Really, what does the opinion of 2 serbian(which will very obiously support serbia's postion) and an orthodox church organization that isn't important enough for such action. Basicly, what is the reason for having this small, catagory of 3 religous groups? --Jakezing (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

> Basically, what is the reason for having this small, catagory of 3 religous groups?

Basically, to make the pro-Serb editors here at Wikipedia feel better. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly :) Jawohl (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when does wikipedia play favours? If we keep those 3 there, we should find something to equal out, 3 un-important organizations that favour kosovo.--Jakezing (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of of repeating myself all the time about this topic, you should read previous arguments about this, do not bring this up again if you didn't read them. There was 10 religious group in this category but it came down to 3 most important Vladar86 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i'm sorry but i don't feel like going through all the crap in the archives. And how are 3 groups there most important? They ALL support serbia, two are serbian which makes it obiouse, and 1 dosn't even have it's own article!--Jakezing (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

are you some kinda demigod of wikipedia so all users should repeat themself for you? Only those 10 religious organization (mostly autonomous orthodox churches) did make statement about kosovo independence, it is not my problem whom they support. Serbia is secular state and there is no 'official serbian religion' let alone two. Vladar86 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing this section. Of course the Serbian Orthodox Church, and (many if not all of) its fellow Orthodox Churches, will oppose Kosovo independence. And probably some Albanian churches will favour it. And most churches will urge peace and restraint and try to avoid taking sides. But, at the end of the day, who cares? Churches of any persuasion are not major players in the international political scene, so its doubtful that their opinions on the Kosovo question will make a major difference. So why mention them then? --SJK (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly--Jakezing (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Holy See's response be copied to this list? The Holy See represents the Roman Catholic Church. Its opinion as a largest religious/ecclesiastical organization on Earth is surely more important than its response as the tiniest state on Earth. Besides, that list would look better if it included a religious/ecclesiastical organization that was neither Orthodox nor tied to Serbia. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as I've already argued, the opinion of churches is politically and legally irrelevant. The opinion of states is politically and legally relevant. Therefore, the opinion of the Holy See as a religious entity is irrelevant; but its opinion as a soverign subject of international law, and a participant in international diplomacy, is relevant. --SJK (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of the world's largest church is hardly irrelevant. Perhaps it is officially but it hardly is politically. Further, if we exclude the opinion of the Catholic Church, as a church, we may as well exclude the opinions of the Orthodox Churches.141.166.157.172 (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some help against an anonymous IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area&action=history Please help against this IP, thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did it but receive no reaction. Can anybody help? --Tubesship (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil (3rd section about this country)

Following a request, here is the complete translation of this source regarding the Brazilian government's position on Kosovo:

The Brazilian government does not support the independence of Kosovo, as it occurred in an unilateral manner, and will only recognize it when that becomes the result of a political agreement with Serbia, under the conduction of the United Nations. This interpretation of recent declarations of the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim, and of an official note made public this Friday, on which the Ministry of Foreign Relations expressed its preoccupation with the violence wave in Serbia and with the attacks to the Embassy of the United States in Belgrade, was confirmed by diplomats.

From the Ministry of Foreign Relations' point of view, by declaring the country independent, the leaders of Kosovo have ignored the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, from the year 1999. That text stipulates a compromise of the United Nations towards the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Yugoslavia (current Serbia) and also determines, on its second appendix, that a possible sovereign government of Kosovo be the result of a political agreement.

"The Brazilian government reiterates a call for restraint and reaffirms its conviction that a peaceful solution for the Kosovo issue must continue to be searched through dialog and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and in the legal framework of the 1244 resolution of the Security Council", informs the note.

The Ministry of Foreign Relations is especially worried with the cascade effect that the independence of Kosovo may have throughout the world, as has indicated Amorim on the last 18th, in Brasília. Particularly, in countries with a fragmented population. In his recent declarations, the minister defends that Brazil awaits a decision by the Security Council before defining its official position on the matter. For him, the countries that have already recognized Kosovo's independence have put the United Nations in a "second place".

Húsönd 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Obscuring Taiwan (2nd section about this country)

While I understand why Taiwan/ROC is not on the top list, listing Taiwan towards the bottom of the page, alongside unrecognized states that have not recognized Kosovo, obscures the fact that Taipei has recognized Kosovo. Taiwan should be put in a separate heading toward the top of the page, between states that have recognized Kosovo and states that have formally announce they intend to recognize Kosovo.

The other partially recognized states can remain where they are under the heading 'partially recognized states that do not recognize Kosovo.'

I would note that only one entity, UNPO, is listed under the heading 'International non-governmental organizations'. If this is acceptable, I fail to see why a category called 'partially recognized states that recognize Kosovo,' consisting only of Taiwan, is unacceptable. Further, a 'partially recognized states that recognize Kosovo' heading might be expanded if the TRNC, SADR, or the PA recognize. 141.166.153.120 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, as far as the first/third paragraphs go. But the same line of reasoning should apply to other states. Accordingly, true to the definition, "a state is what at least one other state calls a state", I reorganized our lists, breaking up the "officially recognizing states" and the "not recognizing or still deciding states" into "UN member states" and "Other states". We refer to and count up the UN member states in the article lead, so it makes sense to have the same reflected and labeled in the tables.

I also moved up the "regions", making them the third main section, following the 2 main sections we had for a long time. Renamed to "regions", they fit the definition used without POV conflicts.

Now the "other entities" section lists truly just other entities with no pretense to statehood. Hope this solves the contention on the score of Taiwan or any other state. For example, should Russia officially recognize the breakaway portions of Georgia, they will become states, vs. regions that they are now (per the definition of a state used here). --Mareklug ^talk 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it obscuring the ROC to list it amongst other partially recognized states? To list ROC ahead of other partially recognized is pushing an extreme POV, considering that Palestine and Western Sahara are recognized by many more nations than the ROC is. --Tocino 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is obscured because you buried it at the bottom of the article among the states (and partially recognized states) that do not recognize Kosovo. States that recognize Kosovo should be listed at the top, regardless of their international status.

Further, the international status of Western Sahara, the PA, and TRNC is irrelevant. If they should recognize Kosovo, then they should be moved up to the top and put in the same list as Taiwan. Until then, they should be left at the bottom because they don't recognize. All I propose is that there should be a list of partially recognized states that recognized Kosovo and that this list should be at the top, beneath fully recognized states that recognize and above states intending to recognize. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the entry for Taiwan should mention which recognized country recognized Kosovo before and after it. That is information I would expect some wikipedia users might want to know. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

IN any case, User:Tocino is mistaken here. Under the new system, there are not partially recognized states, only "UN members" and "Other states", one pair for recognizing and one for not recognizing/deciding states. The situation is completely symmetrical and NPOV, and no one is listed ahead of anyone -- everything is alphabetical. It's just that recognitions are noted ahead of non-recognitions. Or is that POV??? --Mareklug ^talk 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its POV. I simply wish to suggest that the Taiwan entry's note state which country recognized before and after it; a lot of governments recognized on 2/18 and some users may wish to know if it was the first country to recognize that day, the last, or somewhere in the middle.

As for the numbering scheme to the left of the flags, I agree that that should not change. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic editprotect request

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the following (in order to install an updated version that follows):

| {{CZE}} || Prime Minister [[Mirek Topolánek]]: "The Czech Republic will eventually recognise Kosovo's independence, but some conditions must be fulfilled... a guarantee of law and order, protection of minorities and cultural heritage and if there are some forces both of the global and the European NATO to oversee the order."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=299882|title=Czechs to recognise Kosovo - Topolanek|date=2008-03-02|accessdate=2008-03-03|publisher=Czech Press Agency}}</ref> According to Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs [[Alexandr Vondra]], the Czech Republic takes a realistic stance to Kosovo's recognition, and will sooner or later recognise the independence of Kosovo, though this will not happen before [[Easter]] (4th week of March [[2008]]).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=301430|title=Czechs to recognise Kosovo sooner or later - deputy PM Vondra|publisher=Czech Press Agency|date=2008-03-10|accessdate=2008-03-11}}</ref> The [[Czech Social Democratic Party|Social Democrats]] and [[Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia|Communists]] are opposed to recognition and have passed through the lower house of parliament a recommendation to the government to "procede in line with the international law and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council," with regards to policy towards Kosovo. President [[Václav Klaus]] has also expressed concern with the unilateral declaration and has said that the Czech Republic must take into account the traditional friendly relations between the Czech and Serbian nations.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=298381|title=Czech President Klaus concerned about development in Kosovo| publisher=Czech Press Agency|date=2008-02-22|accessdate=2008-03-13}}</ref>
|| {{flagicon|European Union}} EU member state <br /> NATO member state
|-

Please install the following (sourced today) as the first entry (alphabetical order) in the table in the subsection States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo:

| {{CZE}} || On [[22 March]] [[2008]] Czech Foreign Minister [[Karel Schwarzenberg]] disclosed that he will propose that the government recognise independent Kosovo on [[2 April]] [[2008]]. This is so, because he would like the Czech Republic to recognise Kosovo's independence by the NATO summit in [[Bucharest]] that starts on that date.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=303560|title=Czech ForMin wants govt to recognise Kosovo on April 2 - press| work=ČeskéNoviny.cz|date=2008-03-22|accessdate=2008-03-22}}</ref>
|| {{flagicon|European Union}} EU member state <br /> NATO member state
|-

I believe that this update is self-evident and non-controversial, as it reflects imminent recognition sourced to the Foreign Minister himself. Thank you, --Mareklug ^talk 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one getting 404 errors from all the references in this proposed change, old and new? Happy‑melon 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They work in North America. --Mareklug ^talk 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to understand why this article is fully protected

Right now many important articles related to Kosovo are fully protected "until disputes are resolved". I thought most editors did a great job avoiding edit wars on this article; and as it is based on a list of countries which - obviously - have recognized Kosovo, or are not planning to do so, it is hard to understand why the article needs full protection. --Camptown (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the unsubstantiated mass removal of article content. After we reached a consensus to make an article as two lists those who were moving countries between lists before now started to remove content (and also re-add unsourced POV summarizations which we also agreed not to include). --Avala (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But obivous cases of vandalism and violation against 3RR should be dealt with by blocking offending users, not by "blocking" articles. --Camptown (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism wasn't the issue, and there was too many cases to 3RR to block everyone involved, so I used my discretion to lock the article to get people talking. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself and had in mind to open this conversation. I don't really see any reason for this article to be protected. We all know what/who the problems are. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If other administrators want to swat the users, they can go right ahead. I'll unlock now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I should say that I also think that full protection is not the best choice for this article which is documenting a current event and thus needs to be constantly updated. Quite a few edit wars have occurred indeed, but this article is being sufficiently monitored and edit wars have been tackled by warning users against imminent 3RR violation, and asking them to talk instead of fruitlessly try to impose their edits. Húsönd 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The UNMIK-line

The CIA Factbook has been updated: the notion "UNMIK-line" on the Kosovan/Serbian border has been removed from the maps. See: Kosovo and Serbia. --Camptown (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well on the 20th I think. I must have checked that page like a billion times since March 6th (first post of Kosova on CIA). I'm also interested to see what the CIA puts under military, currently if you click it, it takes you nowhere. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Updated maps (without the "UNMIK-line") are uploaded at the Commons as Image:Kosovo-map.gif and Image:Serbia-map.gif, with correct PD-tags. Camptown (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO {{flagicon}}

Is there a reason why from the international organizations listed in the tables, only NATO doesn't have its flag next to it? I mean something like:

Image:Flag of NATO.svg NATO member
European Union member

If you notice the code, you'll see there isn't even a {{flagicon}} template for NATO, unlike most other int'l orgs (or a Template:Country data NATO for that matter, unlike e.g. Template:Country data EU --both of which aren't "countries", but I can understand the utility behind this). I'd go bold and create those templates myself and add them here, but I thought I should post this question here to see if there's some sort of consideration against NATO's flag in articles. NikoSilver 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is some kind of copyright issue. --Avala (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The NATO flag is licensed as fair use and cannot be used as little icons, due to our policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, so much for our artists here! Just a white compass on a blue background, and we need to copy this from somewhere? The result is simply annoying in this article. NikoSilver 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We did draw it ourselves, but the original location of the image, the Wikimedia Commons, deleted it due to the copyright held on the emblem by NATO. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the non-free nature of the image, I had to delete Template:Country data NATO (three times!) and protect it to prevent re-creation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

The current citation for Liechtenstein says absolutely nothing about Serbia, Kosovo, or the unilateral declaration. In fact all it is is a link to the Liechtenstein embassay to Germany. If anyone cannot come up with a better reference, then I am going to delete Liechtenstein's entry on this article --Tocino 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

yeh the reference is crap. We should find another of delete it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody be kind enough to seek an official comment from the Liechtensteiner government? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consenus regarding present organization of the tables

Considering that User:Tocino promptly undid what looks like a good idea, namely:

1. States that officially recognized
   1. UN member states
   2. Other states
   3. States that will recognize
2. States that don't recognize or are deciding
   1. UN member states
   2. Other states
3. Regions (recognizing or not)
4. Other entities
   1. Organizations - governmental
   2. Organizations - non-governmental
   3. Sport federations
   4. Churches
   5. Political parties

All of the above hinges only on the following lucid agreement: A state is that entity, which at least one other state calls a state. IMHO no POV is involved here, and membership is instantly decidable. Plus, we count recognizing UN member states in the article lead, so it makes sense to reflect the distinction of UN vs. other states in the tables.

Please help form consensus here. For now, I restored the above, so that people can see how it works in practice. Thanks --Mareklug ^talk 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a better system to me. I approve of it. It is NPOV too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that User:Tocino was exempt from the established protocol of first seeking consensus for any major changes. I shall have to take note of this so that I can ask him first before making any future addition to the page. I support Mareklug's organizational scheme. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mareklug made the massive change of structure without a consensus. --Tocino 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was hardly massive. Your going over-the-top there mate. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the old model that was in place for weeks. This newer one is a little confusing and less organized and let's face it, the only reason for the change is to move the ROC up the article as much as possible. --Tocino 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino already altered the above simplicity by changing "UN member states" in one case into "UN member states and observer states", just to force Vatican/Holy See into that table, the only observer state :(.

Personally, since we already have a Churches category, thematically the Holy See should go with them. In any event, I had placed it in "Other states". Incidentally, Holy See recognizes Taiwan (ROC), I believe? --Mareklug ^talk 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In general the new format seems an improvement. But note that Palestine is also recognised as an Observer at the UN. Not sure about the argument that Holy See really goes with the other churches - note that it is a subject of international law and the others aren't. It's a bit of an odd case, maybe it would be better not to include Observers in the main table and perhaps class Holy See/Vatican with ROC/Taiwan as "Other states and entities"? 87.113.6.220 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your on point with Palestine, and your suggestion of placing Holy See and Palestine with "Other states" makes perfect sense. And so I carried out this suggestion, twice, but User:Tocino reverted my edits each time, and I really don't think that getting blocked for edit-warring with, of all people, Tocino, is a self-justifying battle wound in the service of improving Wikipedia. :) So, someone else will have to undo Tocino's imposed edits (which he described as "reverting vandalism" :)). His reverting vandalism also obliterated the largely agreed to here "States" vs. "Regions" distinction, damaged a reference in the lead, inserted unjustified fact/dubious templates quetioning self-evident truth, undid a move of Macedonia to the ranks of imminent recognizers, deleted sources and text properly justifying this move. In a word, they vandalized the article. And I can't help you. But, I'm sure, sooner or later this will get corrected by ZScout370 or some other admin. Or Macedonia will recognize tomorrow, and we'll be able to undo these changes as part of necessary updates. Once again, forcing the issue wins the day... Now we have Palestine listed with UN member states, through a slight of heading adjustment to make it more inclusive. :( --Mareklug ^talk 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the Holy See is accredited to the UN as an "observer state", Palestine is as an "observer entity" ([1]): I changed "UN member and observer states" to "UN member states and observers" to encompass both of them. MaartenVidal (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one more piece of evidence, that User:Tocino made a bad edit, and you only "improved" on it. You see, these tables are all about states, not states and entities. So I suggest we revert back to uncontroversial "UN member states" -- and it will be symmetrically so for recognizing states and non-recognizing/still deciding, as each contains a "UN members" and "Other states" subsections. Then, list Vatican/Holy See and Palestine back under "Other states", just as it is done for Taiwan/ROC. This is so self-evident, I'm amazed I have to make it indo an exposition and persuade on its behalf... :( --Mareklug ^talk 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point... the status of Palestine in the UN is no different from the one enjoyed by the ICRC or the SMOM, and it would be odd to see their positions in the same list. MaartenVidal (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have consensus, and not only that, but justified reasons for excluding Palestine, the observer entity, from the list of UN member states. I will attempt to again restore the agreed upon division: UN member states and Other states. Let's see if that gets forcibly reverted... --Mareklug ^talk 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Community of Serbia

Why is this on the article? the page is called "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" As far as i am aware, it is not international. it should be removed? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Community of Serbia by definition represents Kosovo Albanian Muslims as well as Muslims in the rest of Serbia. According to just 33 U.N. Member states that recognize an independent Kosovo, that makes the community an international one as it represents two nations. Why are you trying to delete sourced information that is relevant to the article? --Tocino 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because its pathetic and silly. So according to the rest of the non 33 countries, it represents one nation. therefore not international. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I am sure that if it actually represented Kosovo Albanian Muslims as well as Muslims in the rest of Serbia, it would have by now supported Kosovo independence. Second, you are clearly contradicting yourself Tocino. You say that by definition it includes both Serbians in Serbia proper (the one recognized by all of the UN, not 3/4 of its members, you know what I am talking about) and Kosovo Albanians, yet your excuse for putting it in is that it represents two nations, Kosovo nation and Serbian nation. Well, you should know that it is not an international organization because for 3/4 of UN, it represents only Serbia because they do not see a Kosovo entity, and for 1/4 of the UN again it represents only Serbia because they see Kosovo as a separate entity. So, please stop this madness, and this also explains why this tiny organization supports Serbia in this issue. 128.197.130.215 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)lopata

The 'Islamic Community of Serbia' (ICS) probably claims to represent Serbian Muslims both inside and outside of Serbia's borders. This should be sufficient to keep it on the list. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

"Macedonia tomorrow". Is it ok if we move Macedonia to the "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo"? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. --Tocino 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So what. Im not saying it is defiantly going to recognise Kosovo tomorrow. Your Dr Mehdi reference was from a media source. So that is not reliable either. So what your saying is, "no media source is reliable" Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] This article also references the border demarcation talks beginning tommorow between Kosovo and Macedonia. It would be rather silly to negotiate the common border with a government that you don't recognise, so I would expect recognition would come tommorow. Of course, our anti-Kosovo/pro-Serbia editors are the arbiters of these matters, since they'll just delete everything they don't like, so we shall have to wait for their ok before changing the article. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Macedonia has not yet "declared formal intent to recognize Kosovo" as the category headline says. This is just gossip from a pro-Kosovo Albanian propaganda website. --Tocino 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so if it came from a Serbian propaganda website that'd be ok? Gotcha! Do you really think Macedonia would, given the sensitivity of the issue and its geographical location, openly anounce it beforehand? While the evidence is circumstancial, it is compelling circumstancial evidence. People have been convicted of something on a lot less. So, when Macedonia recognizes tommorow or the next day, I believe I will be entitled to an 'I told you so.' Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are prematurely connecting the dots. This is a fact: the Macedonian government has not "declared formal intent to recognize Kosovo". --Tocino 20:27 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, I don't always agree with Tocino BUT this is an exception. I believe there was a claim that Macedonia would recognise Kosovo on Sunday, March 23 but it didn't happen. The Macedonians denied it. I suspect Macedonia will eventually recognise Kosovo within the next month or two...but right now they are taking a wait and see approach--like Canada did for a while. Leoboudv (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Albanians, who had quit the government because the MKD administration wouldn't commit to recognizing Kosovo, rejoined today. They would not have done so if they hadn't gotten a guarantee on recognition. They're opening boundary negotiations with the government of KOSOVO tommorow, not Serbia. This is rather basic logic, not a rash connecting of dots. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Crystal. --Tocino 20:40 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly don't patronize me. You act as though I'm pulling stuff out of thin air, which I believe past experience demonstrates you have a greater talent for than I. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. They did return to the government but they also said there was no agreement over Kosovo yet. They made 6 requests, Kosovo being just one of them. Maybe 4-5 other requests were fulfilled so they returned.--Avala (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, writing in all-caps is considered impolite. In reference to your listing of requests and the ensuing speculation, I would direct you here: WP:Crystal. Kind Regards, Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the official redirect as you can see on that page. But it's not the point of my previous post. --Avala (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets just end this dispute and wait and see what happens tomorrow yeh? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen! Engaging in an editing dispute over speculation about an event that might or might not happen the very next day is... really stupid. Better to just wait, see what happens, and settle the matter objectively.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What about using Macedonian news?

"Тие беа признавање на Косово, закони за јазик и за знаме, социјален пакет за припадниците на ОНА, затворање на хашките случаи и поголема застапеност на Албанците во јавната администрација. „Време“ дознава дека е договорено двете партии да формираат работни групи што ќе ги разгледуваат прашањата за законите за јазикот и за знамињата, како и за социјалниот пакет за борците на ОНА. Во однос на хашките случаи било договорено тие да се решаваат во рамките на државните институции и во согласност со постојниот закони. За десетина дена Владата ќе излезе со акциски план за вработувањата во јавната администрација. Во однос на Косово, е договорено само дека има политичка волја од двете страни за решавање на ова прашање." - [3]

It explains how every of the requests will be solved. About Kosovo it says - "Regarding Kosovo, it was agreed only that there is a political will of two sides to work on a solution for this question". --Avala (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO that's a euphemism for "stick a fork in Macedonia; they're done." :)

I would like to point out, that the same editors objecting to the sourcing for Macedonia, have tacitly used the similar sourcing, if far less supported by any evidence in the case of Uruguay. Uruguay, on the basis of this evidence, has been colored on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png red, as a state officially not recognizing Kosovo. Completely premature, that. What a double standard, not to mention, double-talk.

I changed the table heading to a sensible one that covers all imminent recognitions, formal or bootleg :), such as Macedonia's. Note that we failed to catch several recent ones that came as soon as people started killing each other in Kosovo again. And if Crystal ball is spinning that Macedonia will recognize, it's just as Crystal ball to spin that the rejoining Albanians got everything but recognition. Also, Macedonia is expecting an invitation to NATO at 2 April 2008 meeting in Romania, if it manages to get Greece out of the way. This is the real deadline. --Mareklug ^talk 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) P.s. If you would like to look at a conservatively sourced equivalent of the maps I mention above, take a look at pl:Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg. :)

Just because spokesperson is not named everywhere it makes it no less official. And that map is not conservative but wrong. Slovakian PM reacted to 4 month period calling it technical date and saying Slovakia might never recognize Kosovo because it considers it to be an integral part of Serbia. --Avala (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm? What spokesperson? Uruguay? I believe the websource says, "according to unnamed sources, the government will"... So, prey tell -- maybe your Spanish is better than mine -- how exactly does future tense of whoever speaking support the assessment that Uruguay already acted? Also, we have been through this on Slovakia -- even the Prime Minister quotes you have sourced all have their government actively decide for the next 4 months before taking up an official position -- and the color for delayed decision is khaki, according to the legend, not red, wihch means already officially rejected. Positions of Slovakia and Serbia are not the same. Positions of Slovakia and New Zealand are for all practical purposes exactly the same, with Slovakia likllier to turn dark blue first, because it works within the structures of EU and NATO, where recognition is gaining ground. If my map is wrong, I'll be glad to fix it, once I hear that from someone else than you or Tocino or Top Gun. I always listen to impartial observers, but forgive me for having certain doubts about your assessment, given what you did with Uruguay, with all due respect. --Mareklug ^talk 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, but you´re wrong. National council of Slovak republic has accepted last year resolution which is ordering goverment to not recognize Kosovo. Also that "4 months break" is just diplomatical pharase used by minister of foreign things Kubiš. In fact 5 of 6 parliament parties and 3 of 3 goverment parties are strongly against reconition of Kosovo. That means untell something very big happened Slovakia won´t recognize Kosovo because one ethincal party which nobody takes seriously, even their opposition partners, won´t chagne nothing on opinion of all another 5 parties. Suma sumarum: Slovakia won´t reconigze Kosovo. We should be on the list together with Serbia, China, Russia, Spain, Romania etc. etc. And please, don´t try to tell me something else. I´m living here and I know pretty well whats going on here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well again you know better that the Prime Minister of Slovakia. He makes following statements: it's like Munich agreement, violation of international laws, we may never recognize, Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, our position is the same as the position of Spain. And you still think Slovakia is just about to turn dark blue and that it is neutral? Funny. New Zealand has a policy to recognize states only if they are UN members (and don't mention Switzerland because it was Swiss decision not to be a member until recently ie. they had no obstacles on joining, NZ did not have any relations with FR Yugoslavia either while it was out of the UN). Anyway the map is supposed to depict the current situation and not what might happen if something happens when it happens if it happens... --Avala (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to Macedonia. Are there any sources which set a date for recognition or it's just interpretation of some editors coming from "Regarding Kosovo, it was agreed only that there is a political will of two sides to work on a solution for this question"?--Avala (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

@Avala / Macedonia: yes, the INA Macedonian press agency, quoting Macedonian government officials, unnamed of course. Just like in Uruguay's case. But User:Tocino deleted that text and reference. Look at the versions in revision history before his reverts.

You still have ignored Uruguay. ANd Slovakia technical deadline or no, it is still a 4 month official evaluation period, so don't bend the truth. What about Uruguay????? --Mareklug ^talk 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Uruguay will not recognize Kosovo independence because of the three requirements, pillars of recognition haven't been met. Now back on topic. Do you have any sourced quote that Macedonia has agreed to recognize Kosovo independence and set a date?--Avala (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even you just stated: Uruguay will not, so why in the hell did you prepare a map where Uruguay has officially not recognized?

There is no such thing as "will not" and "does not" are the same when it comes to recognition. Because there is no such thing as "we will decide that we don't recognize". If it was already decided then these two become the same and there can't be "will not" in definite form. --Avala (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I already told, yes, and that you are to look in the revision history, that it was reverted. Here: "INA: Macedonia recognition tomorrow".

The following properly updated, augmented, correctly sourced entry for Macedonia has been forcibly removed by User:Tocino, more than once, leaving in place the wrong version, in the wrong place in the article. Someone needs to undo User:Tocino's revert and put it back in the article, in the table under imminently recognizing states, with Norway, Lithuania and Czech Republic, right under Lithuania:

|- | {{MKD}} || Official government sources have disclosed to Macedonian press agency INA that Macedonia may recognise Kosovo on [[25 March]] [[2008]].<ref>[http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080324792/Politics/INA-Macedonia-recognition-tomorrow.html "INA: Macedonia recognition tomorrow"], ''NewKosovaReport.com'', [[24 March]] [[2008]]. Link accessed 2008-03-04.</ref> On [[25 March]] [[2008]] Macedonia resumes border demarcation with Kosovo, not Serbia, as a joint Kosovo-Macedonia commission meets in [[Skopje]]. Also, an Albanian coalition party has now rejoined the government, after leaving for 10 days -- one of its chief demands was the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo.<ref name="border" /><ref name="Macedonia Albanians back in government">[http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=137135 "Albanian party in Macedonia returns to government"], ''Today's Zaman'', [[24 March]] [[2008]]. Link accessed 2008-03-24.</ref> "The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President [[Branko Crvenkovski]]. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo, but he pointed out that nations in the two organizations have to yet to assume a common stand.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/26/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Balkans.php|title=Macedonia's president cautious on Kosovo, dispute with Greece|publisher=International Herald Tribune|date=[[2008-02-26]]|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8186/|title=Kosovo Neighbours Wary Of Recognition|publisher=[[Balkan Insight]]|date=[[2008-02-26]]|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref> Macedonia may recognise Kosovo on the [[25 March]] <ref>http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080324792/Politics/INA-Macedonia-recognition-tomorrow.html </ref> || {{flagicon|European Union}} EU candidate country<br /> NATO candidate country<br /> |-

--Mareklug ^talk 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version is incorrect. No Macedonian government official has "declared formal intention to recognise" Kosovo. In fact pro-Kosovo Albanian media and the Kosovo Albanian government has in the past said that Macedonia will recognize only for Macedonia to in turn respond with silence.--Tocino 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It still stands that you guys are using an unnamed source quoted in an article. We have no official statement from the Uruguayan government offering a position on Kosovo. You cannot tell me that my article isn't official and then go use an anonymous source to justify listing Uruguay as refusing to recognise. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are differences. First of all, every country that opposes does not necessarily release a statement on its FM website, because in order to show support for Serbia all one nation has to do is stay silent therefore by default supporting the pre-February 17 borders. Secondly, there is no reason to doubt the Uruguayan source, while the Macedonian source is quite dubious. Also as I've just said, even the Kosovo Albanian government has said that Macedonia will recognize, but then we wait, and wait, and wait, and nothing happens. I will believe that Macedonia recognizes when I see it. Remember that there is a large Albanian community in Macedonia and recognizing the Kosovo Albanians might encourage the Macedonian Albanians to rebel. --Tocino 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is about Macedonia. Move all discussion about Uruguay to a different section. Stick to the point. BalkanFever 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this speculation about Macedonia recognising Kosovo. When the government declares formal intent to recognise, or when it recognises, feel free to change it, preferably using Macedonian government sources, or Macedonian media directly quoting the government stating it has done so. I'm happy to translate anything anybody needs. BalkanFever 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever it is believed to be tomorrow because the Albanian coalition re-joined the government today and the border demarcation will take place where Kosova's territorial area will change from 10,887km2 to at least 10,908km2. Every newspaper is speculating this in Kosova and Macedonia. 72.161.206.124 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Every newspaper in Macedonia is saying "Menduh Thaçi says Kosovo will be recognised by Macedonia very soon" (Menduh Thaçi is the Albanian leader in the coalition). When the newspapers say "Macedonia will recognise Kosovo" or "Macedonia has recognised Kosovo" that is different. Obviously Menduh would say that, but the government hasn't listened to him before, so why should they now? You don't need to answer that, because it's irrelevant to this article. The fact remains - Macedonia has not recognised Kosovo yet, nor has it declared intent to. BalkanFever 09:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If the foreign ministry, state-run press organ, parliament or whomever else could have a say in the process of recognition aren't saying it in a press release or directly quoted as saying something, it isn't official. Everything else is only speculation. Moot point. Ajbenj (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia Denies Kosovo Recognition Claims. I think the article covers the point BalkanFever is trying to make. Köbra ⁸⁵ 10:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The last thing I saw from the Macedonian MFA is a recent meeting with the Italians, which a decision either way should not be delayed for stability in the region. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab/Muslim reaction to Kosovo

I finally found out why not a single Arab country has yet recognised Kosovo. Most view it as a US creation and feel that they cannot endorse this US move since it will signal support for US policies--rather than solidarity with a Muslim country. Please read this excellent web story here on the delicate situation. It notes that some Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Mauritania will eventually recognise Kosovo...but they are in no rush here. [4] Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this is not something that can be added to the article. Anyway Serbian MFA is visiting Indonesia tomorrow so we can expect some clarification on the post meeting press conference from the chaos of statements that came from Indonesian Government. --Avala (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An even more interesting detail from the second page of the Weekly Standard article: "In the south Serbian town of Tutin, for instance, the beginning of March saw fighting between the moderate, traditional Muslims led by local mufti Muamer Zukorlic, and a Wahhabi group calling itself "the Islamic Community of Serbia" and run by an unknown named Adem Zilkic, openly aligned with Kostunica's Serb nationalists. During a riot on March 7, an Albanian supporter of the moderates, Enver Shkreli, was shot in both legs, apparently by Serbian police supporting the radicals."

It speaks about the support of the Saudi-backed Wahhabi movement by Macedonian and Serbian governments against the traditional Muslim communities of these countries. If it came to be true, then the Islamic Community of Serbia is not a real representative of Serbian Muslims but a government backed fringe group. Anybody against deletion? It is a red link, anyway... Zello (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But it has been removed repeatedly, even within 48 hours, by Zscout370 precisely on grounds of its red-linkedness. Restored today by User:Tocino. --Mareklug ^talk 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the subject does not yet have an article of its own does not mean it isn't relevant to this discussion. --Tocino 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the red link itself is not enough reason to remove but the quotation above claims that it is not even a representative organization of Serbian Muslims. This is a more serious problem so I suggest deleting. Zello (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has now been taken off the map even on Kosovo thanks countries that recognize or will recognize website. Though they did add Qatar instead. Nonetheless the website has seriously deteriorated again as they now list almost all countries in the list "Countries that will recognize the Republic of Kosova in the intermediate future". --Avala (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is on the intermediate list Avala. Also the Islamic Community of Serbia is not a real Muslim community, it just emerged in the last few years as Serbia began radicalizing. Their stance of anti-Kosovar comes in a move since Muslim communities in Serbia support Kosova whereas the local Serbs don't---in an attempt to gain recognition the ICS (islamic community of Serbia) is coming with anti-Kosova stance. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Table formatting

Please can the following (surely non-controversial?) changes be made to the formatting in the following tables?

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#UN member and observer states

Currently the table formatting commences: {| class="wikitable sortable" width=100% align=center ! !! width=175px | [[Country]] !! [[Diplomatic recognition|Date of recognition]] !! Status of reciprocal [[diplomatic mission]]s !! Notes

This should be changed to: {| class="wikitable sortable" width=100% align=center ! !! width=175px | [[Country]] !! [[Diplomatic recognition|Date of recognition]] !! Status of reciprocal [[diplomatic mission]]s !! class="unsortable"|Notes

This would render the first table unsortable by the "Notes" column, which is surely the desired behaviour in this table? It makes some sense to be able to sort by the other 4 columns (actually not convinced about date as that is better done by the first column, but certainly not by the "notes" column).

Every other table

Currently the table formatting commences: {| class="wikitable sortable"

This should be changed to: {| class="wikitable"

This would render all the other tables unsortable. This is also surely the desired behaviour. It is pointless to sort any of these tables into any order than the order they are presented in to begin with.

Please note that not only are the little javascript buttons that appear on these tables cluttering and without function (and therefore distracting/annoying), they don't all work e.g. in International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#UN member and observer states 2 (the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" version) clicking on the "sort" button for "International organizations membership" completely fails to work on my browser - it actually just resets the view to the top of the page and doesn't sort anything at all. No matter what you think about the arrangement of the tables, surely this should be changed? 87.113.6.220 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will do. But get a better browser - Opera (web browser) is free and works very well on a variety of platforms. --Mareklug ^talk 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I was able to replicate that specific problem on a variety of browsers - at least on that particular sort button. 87.113.26.152 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Making the article meet neutrality standards

Everyone has to agree. There are loads of little pro Serbian and pro Kosovo parts to this article. It needs to be sorted out. This is an encyclopedia, it needs to tell the truth, with a neutral perspective, so that readers can make up their own mind on the events. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

True. I think 99% of the job was done by removing summarizations and by making two tables. All we have to do now is use sources only without interpretation - just reporting news. That's the only way to maintain neutrality. --Avala (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true statesman! Yet, your edits in Slovakia show a refined job of collage-making a basically Serb-POV hack job. Sure, sources, but craftily excerpted, only to show what you like. And what you like, unfortunately, is not showing all sides. Do look critically at your own edits. They represent much of the skew. --Mareklug ^talk 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is about a straight-forward subject and shouldn't be all that difficult to manage. Yet, because of a few very anti-Kosovo/pro-Serbian editors, we go in endless circles with those causing the trouble, who glibly claim to be the aggrieved. They make major content changes unilaterally without seeking consensus and then pretend to be indignant and surprised when anybody says anything. They do not hesitate to delete anything they don't like and cry bias when anybody else alters the smallest thing on the page. To a casual observer, their presence would be a surprise. Afterall, if you dislike something so much, why hang around? Yet, the mission is quite clear. As the now legendary half-day debate over Malaysia's recognition proved, there is no real interest on their part in a neutral article. They simply want to trash Kosovo any petty little way they can, and making us bend over backwards to attempt to change their already made-up minds amuses their smug attitudes perfectly. Why is it that those of us who edit this article constantly have to pander to a very vocal, disruptive cabal who have annointed themselves the gatekeepers of the page? It would seem the fox is editing the article on the hen house and the farmer is being shoved aside because he doesn't have an official statement linking foxes and hens. Enough is, as they say, enough. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We'de be better off leaving it as it is, no matter what kind of change we make that actuly helps, unless the state recognizes it, we get alot of crap and war's and arguements that half the time get pointlessly nowhere.--Jakezing (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia formally propose partitioning Kosovo

Serbia formally proposes partitioning Kosovo along ethnic lines, asking the United Nations to ensure that Belgrade can control key institutions and functions in areas of the newly independent country where Serbs form a majority. (International Herald Tribune) --Camptown (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Serb Ministers Deny Kosovo Partition Talks --Avala (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems like a devided Serbian government is starting to realize that it actually lost Kosovo... --Camptown (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan Samardžić is a rogue minister and it is not his first time to act like this. Documents of this type that were not accepted in the Government are invalid and are representing only his opinion but not the official policy.--Avala (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the decision to submit a proposal to partioning Kosovo also invalid as it's obviously publicly opposed by at least one cabinet minister? --Camptown (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The decision was made by one minister. He didn't tell anyone about his intentions. And President also opposed such plan. Ministers from DS and G17+ stated that they do not support this and as they form a majority in the government such plan is indeed invalid as it couldn't never get through the Government review process. --Avala (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That dosn't make it invalid, it just means it is a waste of time. If it were invalid, then a large number of laws in the us and other places could be called invalid, just because it has little support.--Jakezing (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. The Minister signed "Government of Serbia" at the bottom of the proposal without the actual consent of the gov. And it's no division proposal, but an attempt to save the non-Turks minorities living south from the river of Ibar from extermination and to once again reaffirm Serbia's territorial integrity and sovereignty over Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Non Turks???? Where did you land from? Jawohl (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, didn't you read Serbian parliamentary election, 2008? :) Anyway, the Albanians aren't gonna accept it - and the UNMIK is not very prone to work against their wishes (true, it was neutral by giving the choice to the international community on whether to recognize Kosovo by neither nullifying nor accepting the Declaration of Independence, but it obviously "tolerates" much, as it goes outside its mandate by letting the border crossings into the hands of the provisional institutions of self-government). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

We all remember how Lithuania broke away from the Soviet Union and unilaterally declared its independence, and desperately asked the world community to recognize its independence. So, why is Lithuania dragging its feet now? --Camptown (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a sovereign nation and can formalize a position on foreign affairs whenever it wants. Sorry for being blunt, but that's how things work. Watch the official Lithuanian Siemas (Parliament) site. If they going to recognize or are considering it in the Siemas, it will be on their official agenda. Last time I looked, it wasn't unfortunately. Ajbenj (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're right about Lithuania being a sovereign state that has the "right" to drag its feet in a formal process. But, to put it in perspective, it appears rather awkward when Lithuania of all nations needs so much extra time for a formal recognition - like the one Lithuania was so anxiously screaming for less than two decades ago. --Camptown (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania was a breakaway republic while Kosovo is a breakaway province so there is difference. --Avala (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time i checked, Kosovo was a Republic, not a province. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija declared independence and called a new country - Republic of Kosovo. While Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic declared independence and called a new country - Republic of Lithuania. So there are absolutely no grounds for comparing Lithuania and Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they might not want to recognize? Chandlertalk 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we care why lithuania is taking it's time?--Jakezing (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the intro

The last paragraph of the intro, where it talks about the ambas. thing, do we really need that many countries? We could easily shorten that list to a few countries. "United States,[5] Australia,[6] France, Canada,[7] Turkey,[8] Germany[9], Belgium, Peru[10], Switzerland[11], Poland[11] and Austria[11] for consultations" Is there any real reason to have all these countries listed? Maybe, but...(g2g)--Jakezing (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean shorten? Instead of saying "ambassadors were pulled from the United States,[5] Australia,[6] France, Canada,[7] Turkey,[8] Germany[9], Belgium, Peru[10], Switzerland[11], Poland[11] and Austria." Are you suggesting something like "ambassadors were pulled from Belgium, Peru and Austria." ?--Avala (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How about just "The government of Serbia adopted on 12 February 2008 a so-called Action Plan designed to combat Kosovo's independence, among other things, threatening to recall for consultation its ambassador from any country that recognizes Kosovo, which they have consistently done." And put exactly one reference on this. This article is about international reaction, and mentioning this one aspect succintly instad of chronicling each ambassadorial recall suffices. Besides, no one is maintainging this ever growing list, which is reason enough. --Mareklug ^talk 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No NATO flag?

While the EU, UN and OIC have their flags shown in the Notes field, why does not NATO have it? -- Realismadder (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#NATO_.7B.7Bflagicon.7D.7D --Avala (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain - forthcoming recognition after all, by way of Ukrainian politician quote

Check this out: [5]: Still the international community is poised to recognize Kosovo independence, he added. “Last week I met with a Spanish diplomat who told me Spain is going to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Spain is under immense pressure, the diplomat admitted to me. As the large-scale recognition comes, serious conflicts will surface in 16 European countries which may lead to parts of them breaking away. Ukraine belongs here, too,” Syrota stressed. --Mareklug ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A rogue Ukrianian politician does not speak on behalf of Spain. Also, you conveniently left out the part where this same Ukrainian politician said, "It is not in the interests of Ukraine to recognize Kosovo independence". --Tocino 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not exactly hide it, since I gave you the link. His opinion about Ukraine recognizing or not is not interesting, since he has no power - you even call him rouge. Rouge politicians have no sway in Ukraine. His news, however, is interesting. There's no reason to doubt it, is there? --Mareklug ^talk 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to doubt it, since the Spanish government and both major national parties in Spain have said they are opposed. --Tocino 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! A rouge politician is somewhat different from a rogue politician. "Rouge politicians have no sway in Ukraine" - are you implying that Ukranians are sexist and/or homophobic? :) Bazonka (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear...Mykhailo Syrota is not a rogue diplomat. He is an anonymous member of a party that won less than 4% in the last year election. He can't speak on behalf of Ukraine let alone Spain. --Avala (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all very nice to know, but Mr. Syrota did not speak "on behalf of Spain". He spoke convyeing interesting news, you know, the sort of "unnamed sources" you so uncritically regard as beyond reproach for Uruguay. No need to beat a dead, straw horse. Reality is not a piñata. --Mareklug ^talk 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a spokesperson without a mentioned name talking about his country (there would have been a deny if it wasn't a real source) and an anonymous minor party member from Ukraine talking about another country.--Avala (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug vs Tocino

You two should stop hiding behind the Internet. Arrange somewhere to meet in person... and fight. Winner of the fight gets to win the edit war. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, now... just because I disagree (vehemently at times) with User:Mareklug on this issue and his methods of editing WP, does not mean I want to fight him. It's not like he's threatened my family or anything. :) --Tocino 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha. i think its funny we have users that have different views on the situation. its healthy and helps keep this article neutral, as the other user will sport something that isn't NPOV. :-) Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FactBook 2008: Map of Serbia does not contain Kosovo, and Vice Versa

Serbia

Serbia

1) FactBook 2008 lists map of Serbia without Kosovo, see map.

2) Also, FactBook 2008 lists map of Kosovo *without* Serbia, see map. I recommend we use these maps in the article. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree! 213.112.155.138 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Kosovo is regarded as a province of Serbia according to 159 of the 192 U.N. member states... that is why the map is currently what it is. --Tocino 05:44, 24 March 2008 UTC)

But no one cares about UN, so I don't see how this matters? Kosovo declared independence, 66% of world economy supports Kosovo, and Kosovo has been de facto independant for quite a while. So.. JosipMac (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I care about the U.N. and so do the Kosovo Albanians. They know that they'll never be a full-fledged member of the international community without U.N. membership. --Tocino 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that when the majority of U.N. member states recognizes kosovo (which will happen in a couple of months) than wikipedia will change all of the maps to include kosovo too? 213.112.155.183 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it means - and hardly it's gonna happen in months (maybe years though). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about majority of UN countries? It's the quality of recognition - not quantity. The US, Britain, Western Europe... all major powers recognized Kosovo. Get a doze of reality. Serbia and anti-Western countries claim that because UN SCR 1244 refers to the “territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia, Kosovo cannot declare independence without a new security council resolution. However, because UN 1244 Resolution's reference to “territorial integrity” is mentioned in the preamble and is thus not legally binding, and because nothing else in UN SCR 1244 says Kosovo can’t declare independence, Kosovo can declare independence without a new security council resolution. Thust far, Resolution 1244 has never prevented Kosovo from becoming internationally supervised country with limited independence. Therefore, Republic of Kosovo is not part of Serbia and will never be part of Serbia. 209.53.181.45 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"all major powers recognized Kosovo" -- You forget about Russia and China, they are permanent members of Security Council and major powers too. Also, I am not sure the power of the countries is a criterion that's used on Wikipedia. Second, the fact that a resolution doesn't forbid something doesn't meant that that thing is permitted under UN rules. Third, we don't decide here what's the legal status of Kosovo, we just follow what the majority of countries recognize, and as of now the majority of countries don't recognize Kosovo, when that changes, we will change the map too (unless there's a Wikipedia policy that says that Wikipedia should follow USA or Western Europe POV) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with one red shoe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't follow anyone's POV, not even "the majority of countries". Superm401 - Talk 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How did this get at the end of the page? --Avala (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. This was orignially from the talkpage of the Serbia article. --Tocino 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It raises an interesting topic: "It's the quality of recognition - not quantity". ;) --Camptown (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some countries, such as Croatia, recognise Kosovo as a country. Some other countries, such as Greece, don't recognise Kosovo as a country. How about showing Kosovo as a country on the infobox map for Croatia, but as a part of Serbia on the infobox map for Greece? Then the maps would reflect the countries' respective POV. (130.237.227.202 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

I thought we were already doing that. BalkanFever 10:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, not. Look at the infobox maps I mentioned. (130.237.227.202 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Well then, I guess you would have to go to each talk page and ask for someone to update the map...or get someone reading this to do it for you. BalkanFever 11:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More map updates

• 
  Montenegro
• 
  Albania
• 
  Macedonia

The new Kosovo border (formerly the UNMIK line) is visible on all these maps... --Camptown (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What about demarcation between Kosovo and Macedonia? BalkanFever 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What about it?Kosova2008 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it render this map incorrect very soon? BalkanFever 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, would the changes to the border after a demarcation agreement between Kosovo and Macedonia be so significant to the point of bringing visible modifications to the image? Húsönd 03:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They could, but yeah, probably not. BalkanFever 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever, the demarcation is about lands <200km2. Also the only map that would be rendered is the one with Macedonia, the borders with Montenegro, Serbia, and Albania stay the same. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute is about 200 km2, I thionk it is about 25 km2.

The Vatican's Reaction should also be listed under Ecclesiastical and other religious organizations

The statement came from the Pope. In speaking for the Holy See he also speaks for the Roman Catholic Church: the a largest ecclesiastic/religious organization on Earth. The Pope's statement should therefore be copied to the 'Ecclesiastical and other religious organizations' list. It would be more accurate and it would be preferable to include an item on the list from a religious organization that is neither Eastern Orthodox nor tied to Serbia. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Vatican has the ability to recognize nations as the Holy See, so it was decided to put the Vatican under the Holy See. The Pope is the head of state of the Holy See. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As its name implies, the State of Vatican City is a country and it should thus be listed as one. If it makes you feel better, you can list it as "Vatican City (Holy See)" Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I had before, until yet more changes were done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to list Vatican City alongside Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara, since its status is not disputed by anybody. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at the issue all wrong. The lists are no longer organized per "states that most people like" and "states that only some people like" (in the case of Vatican City, the PRC does not like them enough for there to be diplomatic relations, as VC recognizes Taiwan (ROC) and maintains diplomatic relations with it). The listings reflect the distinction of "UN member state" vs. any other state, and that is also what the article lead counts, when reporting international recognition to date. And a notion of state as that which at least some other state recognizes also removes bickering as to what constitutes a state. --Mareklug ^talk 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO, UN and Serbia Engage in High Stakes Game Over Kosovo

Professor Stefan Wolff, a political scientist and director of the Center for International Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution at Nottingham University, about the latest developments:

"The violence in northern Kosovo over the past several weeks is both an expression of public anger by local Serbs and something that is at least encouraged by Belgrade" ... "Attacks on the UN in northern Kosovo, or on Western embassies in Belgrade, merely confirm to Kosovo Albanians and many others beyond Kosovo -- and in my opinion wrongly -- that peaceful coexistence with Serbs and Serbia is very difficult to achieve. Making things difficult for the UN, the EU, NATO and other international organizations in Kosovo and the region is ultimately a futile strategy that may pay off for some politicians in the short term but will harm Serbs and Serbia as a whole in the long term. Thus was the case with [former Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic, who built a reputation on "standing up" against the West. The sooner Serbs realize that Kosovo was lost some 20 years ago when its autonomy was revoked and Milosevic and his allies brutally asserted their control, the sooner they can move on with building a viable, democratic, European state." ... "It is unlikely that the situation in Kosovo itself will escalate into a new conflict in the Balkans, but in combination with the instability that Macedonia is experiencing in the wake of the fall of its government and the increasing belligerence of Serbs in Bosnia, it is difficult to see how the region would achieve greater stability in the near future." ... "NATO will need to make sure that any unrest in Kosovo does not spread to other volatile areas of the region, such as Bosnia and Macedonia. It is highly unlikely that there will be prolonged and open hostilities with Serbian forces, but there is always a chance that localized violence might occur especially in border areas. The worst case scenario would be that, following parliamentary elections in Serbia in May, a new government deliberately provokes such incidents. This would be a vey dangerous scenario, and an unwise strategy for any government to follow."

DW.de Interview --Camptown (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you consider adding to the article from this interview? --Avala (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a synopsis and a reference to the interview added to the lead, below the bit about recalling abassadors. Try this: Independent political experts contend that Serbia lost Kosovo 20 years ago, when it revoked its autonomy and brutally repressed the local population. They further contend that current violent opposition by Serbs in Serbia and in other former Yugoslavian territories such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia risk plunging the whole region into renewed military conflict, perhaps taking place as localized border violence confronting NATO/EU forces. --Mareklug ^talk 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, at least outside Serbia, DW is not generally known for NPOV, but would it be possible to incorporate such a text in an article here without being accused for being a biased Albanian nationalist? --Camptown (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there are many independent "experts" (in this case experT) saying a lot of things and it's not really our policy to add that. If you do, someone will add 2 independent statements that say different. Then you will add three and so on...--Avala (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bogus. We add facts, and reactions are facts. If more experts surface, saying the same thing, we'll add another ref to the same statement, unchanged. If more experts surface saying something different, we'll add them. There's no need to paralyze this process of reporting reality. --Mareklug ^talk 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The sooner Serbs realize that Kosovo was lost some 20 years ago when its autonomy was revoked and Milosevic and his allies brutally asserted their control, the sooner they can move on with building a viable, democratic, European state. That's a pretty good summary of Kosovo being a so called "unique" example. --Camptown (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And then you can just wait for someone to make a parallel with Iraq and Kurds.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So you really consider the POV-pushing Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs to be a balanced source..? --Camptown (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I´m wrong but Kosovo´s autonomy was reduced in 1989 because it was on level of republics of Yugoslavia and in 1990 it was revoked. Same happened in Vojvodina. And that really doesn´t matter ´cause that doesn´t make from Kosovo unique case. Charter of the UN Organisation is proclaiming that borders of the state cannot be chagned without agreement of that state. That´s all what matters. If this was disturbed and international community agree with that (at least those 33 states) than it can be taken as precedens. And I don´t know if you know that Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia alsready announced that they will appel on international community to recongize these territories of Azerbajan and Georgia as independent states, as well. Their decision was based on Kosovo´s precedens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted both viewpoints (both of the so-called "international political experts" and the Serbian FM) because A) It made the introduction too long B) Who are the "international political experts"? Not all "international political experts" think the same C) Serbian FM's statement belongs in the Serbia entry. --Tocino 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right. --Avala (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another interesting move from our Serbian editors. If they disagree, they fill the article with ridiculous nonsense. OK - I subsequently removed the propagandistic "action plan" as well. --Camptown (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Without calling it propagandistic I agree it shouldn't be in the intro but in the reaction of Serbia. And it wasn't a Serbian editor who removed it, just so you know. --Avala (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had a Serbian background... Who removed it is less interesting... I referred to this revision. --Camptown (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Tocino who removed them and he has no Serbian background. Anyway that is a reaction as well so it fits into the title of International reaction. Even better than unnamed experts I think. It's a request from a high official of Serbia for the international community to examine Kurdish problem in Iraq and possibly grant independence to Iraqi Kurdistan. --Avala (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the bit about action plan, and don't think it at all propagandistic. However, even though Tocino claims not to be a Serb, be clearly ate something Serbian and it altered his constitution, because his edits are straight from the desktop at Republika Srpska, Burn the American Consulate Division... :) --Mareklug ^talk 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not following you. What are you trying yo say? What division? What has Republika Srpska got to do with anything? --Avala (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing that the pro-Kosovo Albanian editors assume that I must be Serbian. You know it is possible to be a Westerner and not hate Russia, CIS, or Serbia. In fact I quite like these countries and hope to visit one day. The Cold War is over guys. --Tocino 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know, maybe it means very biased statements, and somewhat racist tendencies.128.197.133.25 (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian Aid

Vladimir Putin has ordered aid for Kosovo Serb enclaves [6] but Hashim Thaci opposes the plan.[7]

--Avala (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minisiter Hashim Thaçi has denounced it and he is calling on Russia to coordinate the aid. 69.179.180.146 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK but please give us the source. --Avala (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala, considering how the russian aid is useless and has NOTHING to do with this article what is the point? America recently decided

to start cooperation with Kosova for weapons..is that going to make it in THIS article? I think not. --Same as Above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.88.98 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It only happens in ex-Yugoslavia?

How can Macedonia establish a Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation - with a nation it has not yet recognized? --Camptown (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They can because Macedonia is a independant nation and by virtue of this can do whatever crazy thing it wants with it's foreign policy. That and i'm pretty sure macedonia recognizes that keeping up the border talks with serbia would be a waste of time, since then you gotta deal with the fact that serbian goverance in the kosovo territory is non existant, making the agreement useless.--Jakezing (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Kosovars are betting that they will be recognized in time for the agreement to be signed and ratified, although is seems awfully odd that they'd accept being an unrecognized part during the negotiation... --Camptown (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, as of February 18th, kosovo is a de facto and semi de jure and can do whatever crazy idea they want. --Jakezing (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Haven't got time to edit the article right now, but the DPA returned to the government in Macedonia a few days ago, as the government made conciliatory moves on all of their demands; however, it was reportedly agreed that the recognition of Kosovo would take place at a later time. Would be great if someone could add that (you'll find sources on Google News instantly). —Nightstallion 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read previous discussion.

"Тие беа признавање на Косово, закони за јазик и за знаме, социјален пакет за припадниците на ОНА, затворање на хашките случаи и поголема застапеност на Албанците во јавната администрација. „Време“ дознава дека е договорено двете партии да формираат работни групи што ќе ги разгледуваат прашањата за законите за јазикот и за знамињата, како и за социјалниот пакет за борците на ОНА. Во однос на хашките случаи било договорено тие да се решаваат во рамките на државните институции и во согласност со постојниот закони. За десетина дена Владата ќе излезе со акциски план за вработувањата во јавната администрација. Во однос на Косово, е договорено само дека има политичка волја од двете страни за решавање на ова прашање." - [8]

About Kosovo it says - "Regarding Kosovo, it was agreed only that there is a political will of two sides to work on a solution for this question".

--Avala (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a statement that satisfies most opinions... --Camptown (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Wouldn't it be great to have a separate article about the demarcation negotiations? --Camptown (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Well, maybe only as a curiousum, that Macedonia can negotiate its international border with a state it has not yet formally recognized, as a precondition to such recognition. That, I admit, takes the cake. Other than that, border disputes are dime a dozen, as are demarcations, and properly belong as mentiones in [{Foreign relations of Kosovo]]-type articles with varying amount of text, situation warranting. --Mareklug ^talk

---

So what does this mean (about Macedonia) then? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

South Korea / recognition

A new development: "South Korea has decided to recognize Kosovo ... (diplomatic sources said). South Korea notified the U.S. of its position ..., but Seoul has yet to fix a date for the announcement of its decision, South Korea has already explained the background of its decision to Russia and Serbia through diplomatic channels, added the source." [9]. --DaQuirin (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yonhap is the official news agency, so this article would not have appeared without some higher approval. I think we can take this as an official announcement of intent. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree Kosova2008 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

South Korea recognizes Kosovo, says also the IHT [10] --DaQuirin (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com just beat you guys. Go look at their page. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care who is first, our job is to get it right. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to move Korea to the 'intending to recognize' column? Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a Korean statement at the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about Kosovo, but due to their website layout, I wasn't able to link to the exact statement. If I wasn't on spring break, I would have printed this out and shown it to a random Korean student and ask for a translation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will watch diplomacymonitor.com for as long as I can stay awake, but that won't be long sorry. :( Kosovo press is reporting recognition [11], but still they got Macedonia wrong, will wait for official word. Check diplomacymonitor.com. If they do it, it will be there! Ajbenj (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How I personally get my information was going to each website of each Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I like to get it from the horses mouth (American term for original source). When it came to Japan, I visited the MFA website daily and even read the news in Japanese. That is also how I found out the Serbian Ambassador to Japan left the country as a form of protest (Japan has decided not to recall their ambassador from Serbia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Diplomacy monitor also notes that too, but you are right Zscout. If you can read Korean, etc... the MFA is the best place. The Kosovo topic on Diplomacy Monitor is full of Serbia's reaction, and actually their government and MFA put out more about the Kosovo topic than any other source nation. Kind of can't blame them on that, as they are a sovereign nation with their own opinion. Diplomacy monitor gets most nation's diplomatic traffic (FM, Gov't, Presidency, Parliament, EU, UN, etc) and posts it in English, French, Spanish, and/or German and archives it. It just sometimes takes them a while to post it all, as it is mostly maintained during a UN (NYC-North American Eastern Time) Business day, except in times of importance or crisis. Still a little less time consuming, despite the time lag, to find out if something is official or not. Lots of links there, my friends. also try Tanjug, the Serbian (ex Yugoslav) news agency. Ajbenj (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to the list of countries with intention to recognize. When they make the decision official we will add them to the first list. --Avala (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Name of Republic of Kosovo

I am not sure where people have gotten the idea that Rep. of KV is called "kosovo". If you look at every official or government website it says "Republic of Kosova". The board signs in the borders says "Welcome to Kosova". All articles refering to Republic of Kosova as "kosovo" need to be changed. Even the PM (Hashim Thaçi) websites calls Kosova, "Republic of Kosova". PM website Kosova2008 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and according to Serbia it is called the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, but English speakers generally only use Kosovo (not Kosova). --Tocino 03:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino this article refers to the DOI (declaration of independence) of Republic of KOSOVA not kosovo. That's my point. Serbia also refers to Kosova as "kosovo i metohija". The 33 countries that recognize Kosova recognize it as Republic of Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We know the official name is the Republic of Kosovo, but we always get rid of the "Republic of..." in most cases and just use the plain form. The exceptions is with Taiwan, two Koreas and the two Cong countries. But this article should at least note the official name used by both Serbia and by the Kosovo government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, another thing Kosova2008, take Japan off the list that uses Kosova. The Japanese use the Republic of Kosovo (Kosobo if written in Japanese) . User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The DOI in the Kosovar Government website says, "Kosova Declaration of Indipendence" (indi not inde). The Kosovar Government declared independence in '91 or '92 with the same name "Republic of Kosova" --- who thinks that Kosovar people would change their mind now? The legal name of the new state is Republic of Kosova, Kosova for short, KV the international name. Now if we are to get technical this article should reflect on the actuality which is Rep. of Kosova...Japan, Korea and the whole world can call it Dardania for all I care but the legal name is Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

English usage is Kosovo. BalkanFever 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The English name is Kosovo, just as it's Finland for Suomi, Sweden for Sverige, Italy for Italia, the list could go on. Chandlertalk 10:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just keep it as Kosovo. Thats what people who speak English refer to it as and this is english wikipedia. It's like me complaining to stop calling my country the United Kingdom and start calling it Great Britain. Who cares really. Everyone knows what you mean. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do the Serbs ever use the term "Kosova" formally, e.g. in order to distinguish it from "Kosovo"? --Camptown (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosova is the name whereas "kosovo" is the derogatory term. The Serbs add the o to make it serbian ownership, it's a type of oppression. In the last week all official websites are turning the o - a. I assume there will be a referendum where city names will change and the country's name. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's short for Kosovo Polje meaning "field of the blackbirds". Kosova Polje would be something like "field of the blacbirdn".--Avala (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the origin of name Kosova for Kosovo? When the use of than name begun? Who uses name Kosova? Does only Kosovo(Kosova)governmet use this name or this is the name under the state is recognized? CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS. Is Kosova Albanian of maybe Turkish word for Kosovo? If this is so then we must also replace for example China with 中國 or Tokio with 東京都 and Islamabad's Urgu name of اسلام آبا. This could be same as with Burma - Myanmar name dispute. --Shanticm(talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, somebody should continue this pointless discussion (the article Kosovo would be the right place) with the makers of the website www.kosovothanksyou.com :)) --DaQuirin (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia English. It is called "Kosovo" in English and "Kosova" in Albanian. So its makes sense if we call it "Kosovo" the English version for Wikipedia English. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Just spell it the English way, which is Kosovo. 82.38.249.55 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Now the majority of EU states have recognised, should Montenegro be moved to the preparing to recognise section? Or has something changed in Montenegro that means that this criteria no longer applies? Bazonka (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a presidential election campaign going on in Montenegro and I don't think anyone would like to anger half of the country's population. Plus Albanians and Bosniaks, old time allies of the current leader have decided to support the opposing candidate so I don't he will throw away Serb votes as well. Though we will see what happens. --Avala (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the government would have to have stated "As the majority of EU members have now recognised Kosovo, we will do the same" or something to that effect. BalkanFever 13:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about moving Macenonia to the departure hall now when it negotiates its international border with a state it has not yet formally recognized...? --Camptown (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Border demarcation is not a cabinet decision of recognition. --Avala (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation in Macedonia is different - they are negotiating with the de facto power in Kosovo because negotiating with anyone else is pointless. But this doesn't mean that they recognise it as the de jure power. Bazonka (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But the demarcation negotiations must lead to recognition - all other options would be totally absurd! I therefore suggest that we put Macedonia after Lithuania in group 2. --Camptown (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro's bit on the page should be updated accordingly then - at the moment it indicates that, according to prime-minister Milo Đukanović (he is no longer PM-designate I believe), they will recognise when the majority of EU members recognise. Needs to mention the delay(?) caused by the presidential elections. Bazonka (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They said they would once the majority recognized kosovo. But we can't move mont. to the soon to recognize list because they havn't officaly stated that yet, jsut that they will after the majority has. Now, what i mean is, if we add mont. to that list, it's POV and has no source besides the old one for the wait.--Jakezing (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

March 22: "He said he understood emotions in Serbia over Kosovo, though he did not agree with Serbian officials as to the causes of the crisis. The prime minister repeated that Montenegro had to follow its own interests, adding that the government would be led by national interests over the matter, and that it would coordinate its policy with that of the EU." --Avala (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OIC membership data in the notes section is irrelevant

Does anyone have any sources suggesting that Kosovo has intentions to join the OIC? If not, I will remove the OIC membership data in the notes section, because it's completely irrelevant. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corn123098 (talk • contribs)

Prime Minister of Kosovo has stated he will pursue a campaign for Kosovo to join intl organizations and a few days after that Turkey proposed a document at OIC that OIC should recognize Kosovo. Now if you have any source which gives a specific no about OIC ok but to me it seems it's obvious he thought of OIC as well. --Avala (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are putting OIC in the notes section, because it is an "international organization", and Kosovo's PM said that he wants to join intl. orgs., then we might as well put every single international organization there is (like FIFA, WTO, etc) alongside OIC. This is Wikipedia, and it is my understanding that unless Kosovo's government has declared intent to specifically join the OIC, then it should be removed. --Corn123098

This has been brought up time and time again and we are not going to remove it. Kosovo Albanians are 99% Muslim, even more Muslim than Albania who is an OIC member state. --Tocino 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino,I have brought up this issue to you directly that Kosovars are not 99% Muslim but you keep on repeating propaganda lies. Avala I wouldn't care one second if you removed OIC. Kosova2008 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was defending OIC from that unsigned comment. I don't know who made it. --Avala (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala, give us the link of PM's statement. OIC should be removed. It is Tocinos POV to have it there. If and when Kosovos government requests a membership we can put the flag back on. For no it is a crystal ball which Avala likes to present so gladly. Jawohl (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an sources that would suggest that Kosovo, an overwhelmingly Muslim province, would not join the OIC if it were invited? --Tocino 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The OIC hasn't said itself if it would extend membership to Kosovo or not. The only membership that I see Kosovo gunning for is the United Nations, but that is a another can of worms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. A partially recognized state without U.N. membership or even observer status, is unlikely to join the OIC, or the EU, or NATO, or any other international group. --Tocino 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "non permanent member of UNSC during the declaration.." is irrelevant information as well. Why does it matter? Kosova2008 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, I do not need to provide sources for something that you claim as a fact. It is you who has to give us the sources. We are trying to turn this onto a religious issue whereas even Serbias FM stated yesterday the this is a ethnicall problem and not a religious one. So OIC and the churches should be removed. And as far as I am concerned I would also remove the sport section. Jawohl (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Swiss (update)

Someone change the Swiss Liason to EMBASSY [12] Kosova2008 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Switzerland supposed to be nuetral on controversial issues such as this? This is a country that didn't even join the U.N. until 2002, yet they are one of the first countries to recognize and open an embassy in Kosovo. Why are they taking such an activist stance on this particular issue? --Tocino 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They were put under big pressure :) Jawohl (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should neutrality exclude the operation of an embassy. I'd rather suggest the opposite. --Camptown (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything of their record for recognition new countries, though I agree that it could be viewed a bit strange, though this is similar to the section on Lithuania (if it was here or over at Kosovo), every country has the right to have whatever policies they want, so to speak. Chandlertalk 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because a country is neutral does not mean it can't recognise other countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As a consequence of the Kosovo conflict in the 1990s, there is a huge number of Kosovo-Albanian refugees or migrants living in Switzerland until today (around 100.000 native Albanian speakers, see Demographics of Switzerland). It seems that the Swiss government thinks they have enough reason to legitimize an "activist" stance here. I suppose, they want to send back some of the Kosovo asylum sekers, so they see it needs a stable situation there, with a regular government etc. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Stability is key in the region is a common theme I see in many statements. Regardless if they came from the Japanese, Belarusians or Americans, I see this goal. If the Swiss decide to recognize, then their land could be used by the Kosovo Government and the Serbian Government as a site to hammer out differences. The refugee issue is also a good reason to establish an embassy. I am sure the Americans are figuring out a way to make some of what we took get sent back in a due process manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(I deleted my own post, it was irrelevant)68.114.197.88 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland was the first country to openly state the Kosovo should be independent. That was three years ago. I do not think that it has to do with the war refuges since we talk only about 17.000 who do not have a regulated status. So recognizing a state because of the chance to get rid of 17.000 refuges seems a bit odd. Jawohl (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to explain that Switzerland has a vested interest in Kosovo, not only with the wish to send back some of the refugees (yes, Switzerland is not turning war refugees in citizens as the U.S. seem to do, but on the other hand it were countries like Switzerland that opened their borders and accepted great numbers when it was appropriate to do so), but also and primarily in view of establishing and officializing economic and political relations with Kosovo, homeland of so many Swiss residents. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Swiss FM, who's in Pristina for a visit, there are 180.000 Kosovars in Switzerland. 40.000 have swiss passports and 140.000 have B or C staying permits. Just a small number of them do not have a regulated status and will be returned at some point. Jawohl (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Attention: This article is under probation, please calm down

As new edit wars and incivility seem to be erupting, I've decided to remind everyone that this article (as well as all Kosovo-related articles) is under probation by the Arbitration committee (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, later superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia). Any users who persistently engage in edit wars, persistently try to enforce changes without consensus, or persistently display incivility towards other users, may be banned from editing this article. This article documents current events and cannot afford to be fully protected due to edit wars (it would prevent its constant updates), so in the future bans will likely occur as an austere but effective procedure for averting disruption. Therefore, I appeal to all users to please calm down, talk your disagreements cooperatively, and refrain from edit warring. Thank you. Húsönd 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Also it would be good if consensus was explained here. Some users think that consensus is reached this way: I propose> others oppose > I explain why I am right and they are wrong = Consensus reached. Obviously that wrong approach by some editors is causing a lot of edit wars. --Avala (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that some of the edit wars would have been stopped to a degree if people edited one thing and one thing only. So we can just look at one edit, not a whole bunch of others lumped in the same one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Political Parties

Lets merge "Regional political parties that advocate independence" and "Political parties of ethnic minorities" and call it Political Parties. Its less chaotic this way. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is chaotic. One is for majority groups (Basques, Catalans, Flemish, Quebecois, and Scottish) and regions while the other is for minority groups that don't really have as much autonomy as the aformentioned majority groups do. I think it is better organized the way it currently is. --Tocino 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They are still political parties. We can use the notes column to denote if they are seeking independence themselves or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it has already been changed. I don't have a problem with it though. The only thing however, is that Basques, Catalans, Flemish, Quebecois, and Scottish have their own flags that everyone reocgnizes, while the Hungarians in Serbia and Romania do not, therefore we use Serbian and Romanian flags on their entries, which is inconsistent with the others. --Tocino 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of order - why are we listing political parties at all? I mean, why don't we ask the plumbers union what they think? This page is becoming more complicated and borderline tedious. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a start of the trimming process. I tried to remove groups that don't even have articles on Wikipedia, but they always kept on being put back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No trimming is needed. This is an important article and the more responses the better. And just because one does not have an WP article of its own does not make it irrelevant to this discussion. --Tocino 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't have every single response on the face of the earth. There has to be a point where we have to say enough is enough. When we start removing entires from a list, we been asked in the past to get rid of red linked entries. Now, I removed the religions section of the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is about the international reaction, and unlike Bjork's opinion, what these parties have to say is relevant because they all either want more autonomy or independence. --Tocino 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep it to a minimum? The page is getting very long and cluttered. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority groups? SNP is not a majority groups. Its 4th biggest in the UK. They don't sit in Westminster. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By majority group I meant Scottish people not just the SNP. But with that being said, the SNP does sit in Westminister and they are also the largest party in Scottish parliament. --Tocino 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottish people are not the SNP, therefore not majority. Ok i'll rephrase what i said earlier, SNP rarely sit in Westminster. (btw there is only 1 "i" in Westminster.) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this and some of long notes in the table, I just removed all flag icons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good because they were flags of countries, not political parties. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-added them because it helps distinguish which nations and/or regions they represent. --Tocino 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them again, due to concerns placed in notes by the images and from here. I placed the countries the parties are located in to make it easier. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But see, under the Parti Quebecois it is listed as Canada but in reality it is a Quebec party. Same for Basque and Catalan nationalists... they are Basque and Catalan respectively, instead of just Spanish. Merging the two sections (political parties that advocate independence and political parties of ethnic minorities) has opened a can of worms. It also looks duller without the flags.--Tocino 19:48, 27 March 2008

Then you can change from Canada to Quebec, etc. It won't be that hard. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary is incorrect. Only one user asked for the flags to be removed and one user asked for them to be kept. Only two users supported the merge and one opposed yet it was done anyway (10 minutes after asking). Now I kind of wish that I never added the responses of the Hungarians in Serbia and Romania because it lead to the eventual deterioration of the article. I understand how this works. People are going to oppose my edits just for the sake of it. I'll be more careful next time. --Tocino 20:00, 27 March 2008

We shouldn't confuse people by adding flags of countries to political parties, as some of the Political Parties have different party flags to the countries flag. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion. It's just that people don't want the SNP to be associated with the Scottish flag even though they control the Scottish government. --Tocino 20:03, 27 March 2008

We don't need graphic icons for everything. As other users said, this article is getting cluttered and we need to fix it. The flag icons is part of it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"We don't need graphic icons for everything," True, but then those flags did not harm the article either, in fact they helped distiguish which regions those parties represented (and it made the article look nicer and more professional). The funny thing is no one even complained about them until I brought it up.... and I was not advocating that they should be removed, rather I was using the flag situation of the Hungarian parties as a reason why to keep the two sections seperate. I don't agree with the thought that the article is getting too clustered. We have listed the international responses which are appropriate to the article. --Tocino 20:14, 27 March 2008

If you are thinking that I have a personal bias against you, that is not the case. I left a note on your talk page about it. Well, I thought it would have been odd to have flag icons for part of that section and no icons for the others. Plus, on the versions before I took out the flags, there was invisible notes that tried to stress over and over again about the icons are there just for decoratory purposes. I felt like it would be easier to just remove them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has gone on too long. It really isn't that big of a deal. But I think it gets to the larger point in which it seems like there is a segment of editors (not including yourself) which attempt to be the final authority and will not compromise. --Tocino 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which word best describes what you have just written "ironic" or "hypocritical"? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very amusing, ironic thing for you to say. I don't think anybody is opposing your edits just for the sake of it. However, reciprocity does play a strong, if sometimes subtle, role in social interaction. Considering the unilateral edits you've made in the past to the content added by others, I think it was rather generous of it to be brought up for discussion first. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight here. Ijanderson asked for consensus to merge the two political party sections and ten minutes later he merged them. I did not revert even though I was opposed to merging. Then the flags are removed and are replaced with an incredibaly repetitive method (now it looks like Republican Left of Catalonia (Catalonia), Scottish National Party (Scotland), etc.) which has detracted from the article's quality. --Tocino 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the flags, nor did i suggest it either. I just supported the removing of flags and with good reason too. If you want to have flags, put up the party flag to improve the quality of the article. But not the country flags, as this is misleading. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Were there any complaints about them being misleading before the merge? No. It is not misleading to say that the Flemish Alliance comes from Flanders, or the Basque Nationalist Party comes from Basque Country. We cannot use the logos for the individual parties because of fair use violations. --Tocino 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible/feasible to have a separate page for the reaction of political parties and religious organizations? Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the problem with having them here. They've been listed on this article, in different forms granted, for over a month now. Altogether they only have 11 entries. --Tocino 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However it is misleading to suggest that the flag represent the part when it doesn't. I think its rather silly to put Quebec next to Parti Quebec and Scotland next to Scottish National Party ect . It hardly takes a rocket scientist to work out the SNP is based in Scotland and with all the others. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i had no idea that the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania was based in Romania. But thanks to Romania put in brackets to the party name, i now know it is. Who ever did that is a genius. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the regions the parties represent. --Tocino 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We should Keep (Serbia) next to "Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians" as that is not as obvious. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And he did. Gentlemen, this looks perfect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Norway

According to the Norwegian daily The Dagbladet, Norway will recognize Kosovo at the Royal Statsrådet meeting, Friday March 28 at 11.00am (UTC+1). Norway was generally expected to wait with the formal decision till after the Serbian elections in May, but has appearently decided to go ahead with the Royal Regulation before the NATO summit. Anyway, tomorrow we'll see if these rumours are correct. --Camptown (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone translate this. I think they just recognized. http://www.regjeringen.no/nn/dep/ud/Pressesenter/Pressemeldingar/2008/norge_kosovo.html?id=505130

Jawohl (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's a recognition. Added to the first list. --Avala (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is confirmed in English now too. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/press/News/2008/norway_kosovo.html?id=505130 Cheers /--Den-femte-ryttaren (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil, again

Talk about it here, instead of continuing your disruptive edit wars. Grsz 11 05:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tried before, failed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am interested to hear from User:Mareklug as to why these changes were made: (see edit summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&diff=201514504&oldid=201509949 )

This... "The Brazilian government does not support the independence of Kosovo and would only recognise if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations"

became this... "The Brazilian government will recognize the independence of Kosovo only if Serbia does." A much dumbed down version of the original text.

And why was all of this was suddenly deleted... "was stated by Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, in statement regarding protests against Kosovo independence in Serbia. He also said that countries that have recognised the independence of Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place." Brazil previously expressed concern that the independence of Kosovo may have worldwide cascade effect."

and this was deleted too... "However, according to the same source, unnamed diplomats are confirming that Brazil would only recognise Kosovo if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations."

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

Rough translation via FreeTranslation.com...

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

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

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

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

So the translation shows that unnamed diplomats confirmed that Brazil won't recognize and also that countries who've recognized have put the U.N. in second place.... but none of this is noteworthy to User:Mareklug so he decides to delete it all.

Requesting permission to revert User:Mareklug's disruptive edit... --Tocino 06:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, with all due respect, slapping a dumb POV template on the article is not a solution. If you cared to be insightful, you'd read the 3 sections devoted to Brazil on this talk page, contenting that the quote ascribed to the Foreign Minister is fabricated and does not appear in the source cited, nor does it appear in the Ministry's press release in turn referenced by the quote. The good admin Husond even translated the whole source and posted it on this page, #Brazil (3rd section about this country), so that people who can't read Portuguese can compare the actual text against the quote crafted by User:Avala and senselessly returned by User:Tocino. Plus the Brazil entry contained repeated content, as in the same thing twice. Does it really take an act of United Nations to put proper content to Brazil's entry?????? Anyone can look at the translation and note that it does not contain a quote by the Foreign Minister, but the Tocino-reverted text does. Don't you people have eyes? Aren't you willing to look at evidence? Tocino is a vandal. Fabrications have no place in Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 06:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We've got the translation which proves Mareklug is just changing text for the sake of it. It's basically the same text but reworded. I can't understand why is there an urge here to revert everything even if there is little difference between two versions.--Avala (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Armenias case we also had a small change done by you, if I am correct, which was really small. The heading read "Armenia will not recognize Kosovo" but you forgot to put in the word YET as it was stated later in the article. Statements should not be changed or summarized by anyone and in no case. The same intervention was also done to the statement of India. Need I to continue, Avala? Jawohl (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a few sources on Armenia so please don't act like I was making things up. And why would you stick India change to me when I was the one to complain about it? Anyway as usual, even though there is evidence in sources, Mareklug is claiming there is fabrication. Well at least no more skewing. I still don't see any reason for reverts by either side considering the content is quite similar and the only difference I can see is in wording but the point is unchanged in both. --Avala (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual you always have to be right. Further discussions are useless. Jawohl (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

South Korea just did it

See here: http://www.mofat.go.kr/webmodule/htsboard/template/read/engboardread.jsp?typeID=12&boardid=302&seqno=306110&c=TITLE&t=&pagenum=1&tableName=TYPE_ENGLISH&pc=undefined&dc=&wc=&lu=&vu=&iu=&du= --Tubesship (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Korean statement last night, finally got it in English. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii

Where's Hawaii on the map? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably too small to notice, but it will be colored green (as it is part of the United States). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter whether it's shown or not because it's not an independent country... well not since its unilateral annexation by the USA in 1893 - a kind of Kosovo-in-reverse. Bazonka (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet smaller objects show? I'm gonna have to insist on Hawaii. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Smaller countries show. Really, don't get your knickers in a twist over this one Pax. Bazonka (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres a differnece between a US state and hawaii, hawaii is noticablely visible, on virtualy all maps of the world and the region.--Jakezing (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhm where's the problem? Hawaii's on the map, in the pacific, where it belongs.84.151.236.142 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

What part of the article is actually disputed (according to the tag)? This is a list with a reference to every entry. Can someone point out the problem so that we can resolve it? --Tone 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brazil entry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Partially recognized"

Could we please come up with a consensus definition on what it means to be "partially recognized"? It seems inconsistent to label Kosovo, the Republic of China and Western Sahara as "partially recognized" when there are very few, if any, countries that have diplomatic relations with every country on earth. The Holy See and People's Republic of China don't have diplomatic relations with a couple dozen countries. Israel lacks recognition from around 30 countries. Are they "partially recognized" states? At what point does a state/political entity cease to be "partially recognized" and graduate to a normalized status? Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It means that there is a worldwide dispute of this state sovereignty. Taiwan, Kosovo, Sahara are unrecognized by majority of the world states and they are lacking recognition on all continents. Israel on the other hand is only disputed by some of the Arab states and Malaysia. Also I don't think there is any dispute over Vatican.--Avala (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"limited recognition" works better. That's what Taiwan is labeled, and Kosova has more recognition and of better quality as well. Kosova2008 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. 99.9% recognition would be "partial". "Limited" seems a much more appropriate word. Bazonka (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

1% recognition would also be "partial". "Partial recognition" is a commonly used term for situations like Kosovo. There's nothing wrong about it. Húsönd 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, using this approach, may I move Israel, PR China, Cyprus, Macedonia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the "other states" column, since there's at least one country that doesn't recognize each of them? I hasten to add that I'm not trying to be caustic, but pointing out the need for a definition. Bhutan only has relations with 23 countries, yet it's not subjected to the "partially recognized" terminology on Wikipedia. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Husond, but given that criteria, then nearly every country on earth would be "partially recognised". "Limited" implies limitation (surprisingly enough), "partial" does not. Bazonka (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I think that this is a matter of common sense. We shouldn't e.g. start Slovakia's article by saying that is is a partially recognized country simply because Liechtenstein doesn't recognize it. Slovakia may in fact be partially recognized, but since an overwhelming majority of countries recognize it, we can easily neglect that fact. Basically, nobody's complaining about the lack of the "partially recognized" mention on Slovakia, so I guess there's a common sense agreement to keep it the way it is. Same for others. Again, common sense. Húsönd 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, about Bazonka's "limitated" versus "partial", I understand the point. But it can go the other way around, like "limited" meaning that the recognition granted by recognizing countries isn't full (has limitations). In the end, I think we have pretty much two terms that can have the same different interpretations. Húsönd 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but since when does common sense trump pedantic edits on wikipedia? ;-) Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is thought of as partially recognized because it is only recognized by less than 1/4ths of U.N. member states. The other nations you mentioned (PRC, Israel, Vatican) all have U.N. membership (Vatican is observer), belong to numorous international organizations, are recognized and have diplomatic relations with the vast majority of nations. You are comparing apples and oranges. --Tocino 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries should be grouped onto UN and non UN members. Women are either pregnant or not, to use an analogy. They can not be partially pregnant. If we continue with this logic we will end up again in a edit war because there are no clear numbers for partially recognized countries. Macedonia is also partially recognized and so is China but they are UN members. If someone has a formula, or could come up with one that we could apply for every country than so be it, but to me it ssems that non UN and UN member works best. Kosovo is recognized by only 35 countries but this countries make up 70 % of worlds GDP so for some that might like being recognized by 70% of the world. And then we have Palestine which is recognized by so many countries but none of them can "make life easier" for them. Jawohl (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

37 [36 UN + 1 non-UN (Rep of China)] Kosova2008 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the obsession with UN membership as the ultimate criterion for being a "real" country. I would be more concerned with the on-the-ground reality. Kosovo is an existing polity whether anybody recognizes it or not. Wikipedia is not a governmental body and is not bound by official policies dictated by state actors. We *could* drop the term "partial recognition" and instead just state that Kosovo has been recognized by 36 countries and leave it at that without seeming to qualify it by using "limited" or "partial." Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Bobby, you are right, but we have to keep everyone happy here and that includes people who persist on International Sport Comities, Churches and count the countries which do/not recognize as if this the eurovision song contest. In order to prevent a long discussions we should just drop out the partially and stick with UN and non UN. Jawohl (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we use UN in the description of an entity in any way, shape or form...then we imply that UN is important enough to qualify it as a country, otherwise why would it be relevant enough to be in the primary description? I think we should use "partially recognized" in order to include the stance of non-UN countries as well like Vatican, Taiwan, North Cyprus, etc. However, "partial recognition" should not be in the opening description either, because we have no authority, and neither does the UN, to categorize something as a country or a state or whatever. We can only go by what the entity calls itself, and then describe which entities recognize it as such, and then we could move to other relevant organizations like UN, EU, NATO, etc. Exo (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein recognized Kosovo

I emailed the embassy of Liechtenstein in Washington to inquire about the Principality recognizing Kosovo. This is the answer that I have received:

Dear Mr. Laurent,

With regard to your email I can inform you that the Liechtenstein Government has decided on March 25, 2008, to formally confirm a decision taken on February 12 with regard to the recognition of Kosovo.

At the same time it was decided, in agreement with H.S.H. Hereditary Pricne Alois von und zu Liechtenstein, that this recognition is put into effect by "silent procedure", meaning that no official announcement will be made.

Sincerely,

Tamara Büchel-Brunhart

Assistant to the Ambassador

Embassy of Liechtenstein 888 17th Street, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 331 0590

Fax: (202) 331 3221 Email: tamara.brunhart@was.rep.llv.li

www.washington.liechtenstein.li

I am willing to forward the email to whomever may wish to view it. May I add Liechtenstein? Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is ok with me, please forward it to me. You can find my email address on my user page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh that email seems like proof to me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good source: Liechtenstein recognized Kosovo today [13]. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is today's official statement of the Liechtenstein government: recognition date is indeed March 25 [14]. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was waiting to be accused of lying and making it up. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am impressed. It seems that you were nearly breaking the news (or even triggered the Vaduz public announcement) since the first Swiss press article went online one hour ago! --DaQuirin (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the notice "silent procedure" since obviously the made a public statement. Gugganij (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FIFA

Anyone know what FIFA's thoughts are on Kosovo? I've found a 2 year old article (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/releases/newsid=103025.html) that states that they would follow the discussions opened by the UN in Vienna on 20 February 2006 regarding the "final status" of Kosovo. Given its age, is this worth mentioning? Bazonka (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not really a reaction to declaration of independence. --Avala (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Who really cares if FIFA recognises Kosovo or not? Is Brazil going to recognise Kosovo just because FIFA does, and Brazil is associated with Football. No they are not. FIFA is irrelevant. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't understimate the role of powerful international sport organizations like IOC or FIFA. It's much more interesting than the Serbian Orthodox community in Bavaria's reaction (kidding). In the case of the former East German state (gaining worldwide recognition) that factor had a certain political effect. Just imagine a Kosovo national team playing under its flag, anthem and so on. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

DaQuirin is right. FIFA are a major international organisation - look at the title of the page. Ijanderson, your comment about Brazil is silly. Nearly all countries are associated with football - you just mentioned Brazil because they have one of the better teams. No country (whether a top footballing nation or not) will recognise Kosovo because of what a sporting organisation does... but it will become a messy political situation if, e.g. Kosovo's team are drawn against Serbia, Greece or Russia in a World Cup qualifier. Bazonka (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, add it in then. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. Spain prevented the Gibraltar national team from joining UEFA and considering that there is much more opposition to Kosovo than there was to Gibraltar, the dream of Kosovo, which is recognized by less than 1/4ths of world nations, playing in European competition is just that... a dream that will never happen in real life. --Tocino 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, IOC made a statement just few weeks ago that politic should not be involved in sports so if they stick to that statement they should allow Kosovo to join them. I wonder why is Tocino so bitter about everything pro Kosovo? Jawohl (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right Tocino, but it would be good to see official statements from FIFA and UEFA saying as much. I've emailed both organisations to ask them to state their position. Bazonka (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the OIC issue, the only group that Kosovo is looking to join is the United Nations. Sure, they have a NOC set up, but everything else is probably secondary. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only group that Kosovo's government are looking to join is the UN, but I would bet that their national football association is looking to join EUFA/FIFA. Bazonka (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that FIFA/UEFA (or if UEFA membership will be blocked AFC or something) is worth mentioning (if/when they release a statement). Though countries probably wont recognize just because FIFA accept it as a member, it would be a big name to have on your side. Chandlertalk 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There was once (in the 1950s) the strange case of the Saarland national football team and the Saar olympic team of 1952. FIFA and IOC make their own rules. The Saar team even played the World Cup qualifiers against West Germany then! (but it is not a good reference for Kosovo maybe, because the Saar was incorporated into Germany in 1957 after a referendum) --DaQuirin (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think so and the Liechtenstein you must add, or not !!?? Thank you

Hello, I think so and the Liechtenstein you must add, or not !!?? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW! that was a weird thing to say? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too. However, you make no sense. And anyway, Liechtenstein has already been added to the list. Bazonka (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Priština needs to be replaced with Pristina.

We do agree that this is the english wiki and not the serb or albanian. We decided that on the Kosovo/a name. That is why the same standard should apply also to the rest of the article. Priština should be changed with Pristina. Jawohl (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Words and names ofentimes keep their accents when translated into English to preserve the proper pronunciation, such as naïve or Estée Lauder. I see and understand your point and would not have any objection to the change you suggest, but I wish for the point I have raised in turn to be noted. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what we used, we need to be consistent. Just like we decided to use GB-EN, we should probably not accent the capital name (except at the article on the city). The only thing that I request is that direct quotes are not modified at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I really see no reason for not having the English name (see cities like Kiev, Gothenburg, Moscow, who all are called by their English names) Chandlertalk 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) edit, though this might be considered a little different as its not really a translation, ah well. Chandlertalk 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles) is a proposed guideline of how kosovo city names should be like , it says that it should be Pristina --Cradel 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that we should be consistent because soon we might need to write Japan in Japanese and so on and so forth. What is a rule for one thing should be applied to the rest,Jawohl (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC) as far as English Wiki is concerned.

WP uses Priština. Pristina is a re-direct. --Tocino 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well WP needs to be changed onto Pristina than. Jawohl (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia serves the interests of Serbia's. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's called Kosovo and Pristina in English, it's not about serving Serbian interests deal with it. Chandlertalk 20:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia we spell things the English way. So Kosovo and Pristina are the correct versions. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I regard UNMIK as the official source of the name. UNMIK refers to the capital (short name) as PRISHTINA but the (legal) long name of the city is Prishtina/Pristina (the serbian s). Now shouldn't we use UNMIK as the source considering that UNMIK legally is the HIGHEST interim-government/is the highest power or main authority? Kosova2008 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Template:Unsigned -->

No. I think we should use the English language as the highest and main authority on this, as it is English wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, someone should change our article as well as the WP one. Jawohl (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy states: "Wikipedia's naming conflict guidelines mandate that articles on self-identifying entities should use the name chosen by the entity in question, or an equivalent English translation. A self-identifying entity is, in this context, a political entity (such as a municipal or regional government) or a public or private organisation." This means it should be titled how the city identifies itself in the absence of a common English name. Kosovo is used because that's how it's referred to in English. However Pristina is referred to most often is how it should appear. Grsz 11 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. Here is the link of the municipality/capital : http://www.prishtina-komuna.org/ Jawohl (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"This means it should be titled how the city identifies itself in the absence of a common English name." So we should change all WP articles from "Priština" to "Prishtina"!Kosova2008 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't in the absence of English, as there is an English version. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The english version must have neglected the name chosen by the political entity at that time I guess then. The question here is do we stick to the naming policies of Wikipedia which were quoted above or do we turn this place into a cocktail bar. Name changes are common and not unusual when new countries are born. Jawohl (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if the towns name would be changed in Albanian, it's might not be changed in English Chandlertalk 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be Pristina , as simple as that , I don't see any reason it shouldn't - plus even if it cant be Pristina (for any reason) then it should be with "sh" because thats how the municipality identifies itself, but there is no reason it should be with the š--Cradel 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is clear bias on how information is being presented in wikipedia. WP is an encyclopedia but you guys are trying to push an agenda. The name of the city is PRISHTINA, the inhabitans call it so, the local government calls it so and even UNMIK (a UN MISSION) calls it so but in wikipedia the SERBIAN version is used. Now Prishtina isn't allowed to be known as so but a political entity such as "Serbian Republic" Republika Srpska is allowed?? Kosova2008 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Germany the inhabitants call it Deutschland, so do the German government and authorities. Should we call it Deutschland? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats because there is an english name for germany .There is also an english name for Pristina , perhaps not officialy but there is one an it should be used here--Cradel 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If "Republika Srpska" is the form used in English to refer to this entity, than there is no reason not to use it. Since "Pristina" seems to me the form most prevalent in English, that's the version Wikipedia should use. Gugganij

(talk) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should raise this in the Pristina article --Cradel 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen so much drama over a diacritic. yeesh. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the diacritic , its the language in which it is written in --Cradel 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ljanderson977 to answer your question, the ISO gave Deutchland the name Germany. Until Kosova joins the UN to receiver an ISO tag. . I think we can all agree to compromise from "Priština" to "Pristina" Kosova2008 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I disagree.

I just carefully read the WP proposed policy on Kosovo and its discussion. It is clear that it should be "Prishtina". The "Pristina" you guys talk about as common in English is a bum form, akin to "Gdansk" or "Poznan". These (Polish) names clearly require a "ń" for "n" under best fidelity rendition: Gdańsk, Poznań. There is no English name for these towns. There's only diacritic-impoverished convention of glib simplification. But Wikipedia is about painful precision. So, I contend, there never was an English common name of "Pristina", just as there never was an English common name of Gdansk. Furthermore, the city, IN WHATEVER LANGUAGE, SOUNDS LIKE "PRISHTINA". So we are talking about misapplying ortography and phonetics, when we bastardize it as "Pristina". It's "Priština" or "Prishtina" and nothing else, context depending. And, since we have a new Albanian-based nomenclature, and the town itself is in the 90%-Albanian section of the country, and because it itself represents itself on its English-language webpage as "Prishtina" (and consistently represents itself in Serbian on its Serbian-language page, and in Albanian on its Albanian-langauge page), ergo, we have no choice. Prishtina, as of 17 February 2008. This is my best scholarship NPOV opinion. --Mareklug ^talk 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said : either Pristina (common usage or whatever) or Prishtina(90% albanian , self-identifies like this) , no reason for the diacritic , no ? --Cradel 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That was really POV thing to write. It's obviously chosen to be Pristina. --Avala (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the usage of the word PRISTINA. It's the most neutral, especially in EN WIKI. Exo (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't let inflamatory, real POV statements sway you, or laziness. American/English geographical use in the popular media is notoriously sloppy and often ommits diacriticals. Omission of cdiacriticaals does not make for an encyclopedic-grade "common name"! Memento the famous composer named Dvořak -- somehow music lovers manage to get this name right in the English langauge without fuss. Making mistakes is the most neutral only to the ignoramuses. We must strive for exactness, correctness, precision. If it won't be rendrered correct in the encyclopedia, where, then? It's the en wiki which contains all these diacriticals in place names. See the links I gave. --Mareklug ^talk 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no argument over the popular media at all here. There is no reason for the city name to be in Serbian, when the majority language is Albanian. Obviously Pristina is a compromise. Priština is just far fetched and non-neutral. Exo (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pristina" is in lisp, dear old boy. If you wnat to go lisping names of places which perfectly uniformly sound like PRISHTINA, and you want to teach unwitting children the lisping version, go ahead, but I will have no part of it. Compromise on matters of scholarship sucks. --Mareklug ^talk 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then why not write Prishtina instead of Priština to avoid this "lisp". Why should the minority language take priority before the majority language? Propaganda, that's what sucks. Exo (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's not the officially adopted policy. Until it is we will continue to use the one you think comes not from consensus but laziness. Regardless it was chosen as the most NPOV reflecting version. --Avala (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles) and see for yourself, what it exactly recommends for Prishtina. It may only be proposed, but it is the best scholarship we have. And its recommendations ammount to Prishtina.

You seem to be confusing NPOV with mediocrity. But then, you are the editor who fabricated the Brazil Foreign Minister quote AND fabricated him saying it in a FA Ministry press release. Go ahead, show with links, that I am mistaken. :) You can't, because I am not mistaken. :) --Mareklug ^talk

Guys before we move on to Brazil and Cuba let us solve this issue first. I suggest to change it to Prishtina and support the arguments which do favor this. Jawohl (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely for Prishtina. It is the majority language and it accounts for the "sh" sound. While the Serbian version does account for the "sh" sound, it is not the language spoken by the majority and therefore it should be replaced. Exo (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is the local language because this is the English language Wikipedia and Pristina is the best solution to use the English term and avoid Serbian and Albanian. We don't have an article on España but on Spain. --Avala (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If editors want to get picky about the "sh" sound, then obviously the majority language would have to be used. I think we have rejected the Priština option and need to find consensus between Prishtina and Pristina. However, seeing that Pristina is just an English adaptation from Priština, then Pristina is still a relic term. The current majority language refers to the city as Prishtina, and the English language does have the "h" sound...so Prishtina can be adapted to Prishtina without ommiting anything. I support this adaptation which is based on an adaptation from the majority language rather than on an adaptation from the minority language. Exo (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

So what happens now , does it get changed or not ? --Cradel 10:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I standarized all references (other than in quotes, and these are only titles of references) to read Prishtina, which is the most correct designation for contemporary references to the Kosovan capital, per best practices as documented by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). The article still resides under the Serbian name, so I piped those links. You should take this up again on its talk page. Presumably in Serbian historical contexts it should remain Priština. There is no meritorious reason for "Pristina", as that is just an impoverished representation of the Serbian notation. --Mareklug ^talk 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackdude101 and NATO

I thought we had decided not to use NATO flags as it was against copyright and some other protection thing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the list of countries of the world,whay there is not North Korea? Scusatemi per la lingua, non parlo bene Inglese! Ciao!

In the list of countries of the world,whay there is not North Korea?

In the list of countries of the world,whay there is not North Korea? Scusatemi per la lingua, non parlo bene Inglese! Ciao!
Find a reference of North Korea and we will gladly add it in. Until then, we can't. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Il Korea di Nord non ha rilasciato una dichiarazione ufficiale circa Kosovo. Quando, lo elencheremo. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now ifd i only knew what you were saying...--Jakezing (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"North Korea hasn't released an official declaration about Kosovo. When it does, we'll list it". Húsönd 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

Is there anyone able to put Hawaii on the map? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, added. Please change the location if it's wrong. --Avala (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vuk Jeremic's opinion

In the Times of London, Serbia's foreign minister Mr. Jeremic predicted that about 40 countries would recognise Kosovo at most. see: [15] It looks like he is very accurate here. Most of the states recognising Kosovo thus far are US allies although I was quite surprised that Bulgaria recognised it. My personal opinion is that the final figure will be somewhere between 40 to 50 states unless more African or Arab states start to recognise it. Do you think my estimate is correct? I'm just asking for your opinion...because I respect it. I'm not trying to spark a war here. PS: I suspect many third world countries are refusing to give an opinion on Kosovo perhaps they don't want to anger the US or Russia. But I am surprised China and Cuba have remained neutral thus far. Thank you Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"At most" doesn't mean within the first three months. Superm401 - Talk 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Leoboudv, China and Cuba haven't been neutral. China is opposed and Cuba refuses to recognize because of the anti-American attitude. Furthermore it has been a little over a month and Rep of Kosova has received 37 recognitions of the some of the worlds most economically strong nations (70% of world GDP). You are underestimating the ISG who will start the second wave July 27th 2008 and Kosova will have at least 80 recognitions. Don't forget America gained realindependence in 36 years (War of 1812). Kosova2008 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the US was independent within 8 years of its rebellion from Britain in 1784, not 32 years. George Washington was its first president and he died in 1799. China has 'expressed grave concern' about Kosovo's declaration of independence but it hasn't formally said it will accept/reject Kosovo. Neither has Cuba. I wonder what the number of countries recognising Kosovo will be. I suspect it will be 40 to 50 because I don't think US allies in Central America like Honduras or Guatemala will remain neutral forever. But unless the non-affiliated Arab or African states recognise Kosovo in a big way, I think it will be hard for Kosovo to get more than 50 states recognising it. That may be why even the Kosovars have focused more now on the 'quality' of the states recognising Kosovo, rather than the quantity. Of course, I may be wrong. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Britain recognized US independence with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and was recognized as independent by several countries years before that. The US became a single nation in 1781 with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and became the present modern republic with the Constitution of 1789 (prior to the French Revolution of that same year), which has existed without interruption up to the present day. The war of 1812 was fought between the US and Britain as two sovereign countries that recognized each other. The war is often given the nickname "The Second War of Independence," which is just that, a nickname, not a formal political reality. It is so nicknamed because the US was demanding "freedom" from certain British practices on the high seas, i.e., it was asserting its de jure sovereignty. It is also given that nickname due to the fact that Britain might have reconquered the US had it lost.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that most countries are waiting for one thing: to see whether the remaining, uncommited Balkan countries, specifically the former Yugoslavia, recognize Kosovo. Macedonia and Montenegro might recognize, and even Greece is reportedly doing an about-face, considering recognition. Other continents view this as primarily a Balkan issue, and after that a European issue. So, being that the situation in so controversial, the global community probably wants the local, relevant countries to decide it, and thereby settle the hotly debated question of whether Kosovo's independence will bring more stability or more dispute to the region. If 4 out of 6 former Yugoslav republics recognize Kosovo, the floodgates will open, and many, many more countries will recognize. If it goes beyond ex-Yugoslavia, and all of the Balkan countries recognize Kosovo, with the exception of Serbia and Bosnia, then it will look even more impressive. Countries around the globe will feel free to recognize Kosovo because it will be perceived as supporting the will of the Balkans, and the will of Europe. But until that Balkan recognition is confirmed, the currently uncommited Balkan states might still, theoretically, in the end, decide to refuse recognition and openly support the Serbian position on Kosovo. Because of this uncertainty, faraway states do not want to recognize prematurely, and later be accused of interfering and imposing an undesired situation on the region, and going against the will of the local, and most affected, sovereign states. If we do see it come to pass, that states like Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, and a few more EU countries recognize, I feel fairly certain that there will be a LOT more than 40 or 50 countries by the end of the year; we will suddenly see all sort of Arab/Middle Eastern, African, Latin American, Asian, and Pacific Island countries offering recognition to Kosovo--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a very nice statement but on wikipedia, dosn't mean a thing. To much pov in it, like, 6 of the former yugoslavia??? all the balkan nations, most of europe? where are you getting your facts on how this will work junior?--Jakezing (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's both be honest, captain obvious ;), this Entire Section is pov, because it asks a speculative, pov question. My response was openly and intentionally pov, which I admit in the first sentence. In truth, this section is not even appropriate for Talk, because it does not deal specifically with the article. But, I could not resist and I endulged a response, since I don't post very much. But I'm afraid you do not read very well, good sir. I did not say "6 of the former Yugoslavia," I said 4 of 6. I did not say "all the Balkan nations," I said "all except Serbia and Bosnia" And no, those are not "facts," they are possible futures. I did not present them as facts, I did not insinuate they were facts, I did not dream they were facts. They are mere educated speculation, based on ambiguous and noncommital statements. As for Europe, however, that one IS a fact: more than 50% of European states, a majority, currently recognize Kosovo, that is an objective statement. If you are going to bother and take the time to respond to somebody (especially if you're going to do it in a condecending way), it's a good idea to actually pay attention to what they said, because what you wrote had almost no relevance to what I wrote, which makes your statement even more meaningless than mine, junior. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

...and with that I'll also stop responding to this discussion. As I said, the discussion is inappropriate for the talk section, and I regret answering it with my opinion. This is not a forum--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

China and Cuba aren't really neutral, make no mistake about it they will vote against in the UN in September.

This unilateral declaration by the Kosovo Albanians has been a huge disaster. They said they wanted to be recognized by 100 countries by the end of the year, but at the rate that they are going they will be lucky to get to 50. Back during the early stages of the Cold War many of these same Western countries, who have irresponsibly recognized Kosovo, irresponsibly recognized the Republic of China over the People's Republic of China. But these nations eventually realized their mistakes. The same is going to happen with the Taiwan of Europe... the Serbian province of Kosovo. Western governments will realize it is more important to have good relations with a productive member of the international community and a stable and historic democracy which is the Republic of Serbia. They will realize that good relations with Serbia is more important than having a petty recognition of Kosovo which is mafia-controlled, drug capital of Europe, with an absolutely pathetic economy. --Tocino 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This unilateral declaration by Kosova Albanians has been a huge success. They said they wanted to be recognized by 100 countries by the end of the year and they are on the best way to accomplish that as they have already been recognized by 37 countries in less than 6 weeks. And about the comparison to China: I guess it might have to do with Serbian politicians megalomania to compare their breaking up country to China. And about the drug smugglerss: I think the western countries are much more worried about the war criminals that are harboured inside Serbia like Karadzic, Mladic and others but by some alleged drug smugglers. And about the economy: After independence the economy of Kosova will definitely soar as there is now a decision made which was long waited for. Just be patient, at the end of the year we will see which of us was right. --Tubesship (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." For you information, a month and 13 days after Montenegro democratically, peacefully, and legitimately seperated from Serbia, it had already been formally recognized by 68 nations (including Serbia) and had U.N. and OSCE membership. International expert says, "The number of countries that recognized Kosovo's unilateral secession is lower than expected" Read full article here: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=15&nav_id=48482 This is going terrible for the Kosovo Albanians. --Tocino 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My imitation was not to flatter but caused by my own incertitude about my english as I am not a native speaker. Back to topic: Why do you not compare Kosova with Slovenia or Croatia? They had to wait much, much longer for recognition but nevertheless their recogition can be considered as a success. --Tubesship (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of different eras, leaders, situations, etc.. Montenegro only voted to seperate less than two years ago so it is much more relevant to what is happening with Kosovo and its quest for recognition. --Tocino 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

INA reports Macedonia recognition

"Tomorrow Prishtina and Skopje will start the process of demarcation of the Kosovo-Macedonia border, while at the same time Skopje will offer official recognition for Kosovo, states Macedonian agency INA." A friend in Macedonia told me he read something like this there and this website is echoing that same response. [16] Kosova2008 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite is dated Monday, March 24, which means that "tomorrow," in the article, refers to Tuesday, March 25. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So Macedonia recognized on 25th but no one is aware of that? --Avala (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More likely, Macedonia did not recognize at all, despite the article's speculation. Probably because the border demarcation effort stalled around that time.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't read the date. And I agree with you the Kosovar Government stalled but I do believe their speculations that both are going to happen in the same day. Kosova2008 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree it will definitely be a double deal, it's just a matter of time.----Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

King Harald of Norway

Good bless Norway! Good bless the King of Norway for signing the recognition of Kosovo! He did the only right thing and he showed responisbility and leadership. I hope the Serbs soon will understand that the only path forward for them is to do the same. I'm not kidding. What are the options for the Serbs? Being a laughing stook and backwater of Europe with allies such as the Russian nationalists who are only considering a strategy that suits THEM; or being a constructive and cooperative minded partner in a future Europe wher national borders don't matter anymore. And also: If the Serbs and the Kosovars join the EU, they would have much more say and votes within the EU institutions that should they join as ONE nations. Just look at the Czechs and Slovaks who are benefitting much more by being separate entities. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess Bosniak found his way back... Chandlertalk 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stopped reading after all that stupid "Good bless" crap. First, it's "god bless" and second, take your pov crap away from here.--Jakezing (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

192.121.84.241 may very well have a couple of interesting points: In the European Union, borders between member states are supposed to be almost invisible (except when it comes to internal taxation), deminishing the value of the nation state; and, certainly, Serbia and Kosovo would be much better off if they joined the EU as two member states instead of just one. As of today, all G7 countries have recognized Kosovo - so the question is whether it is practically sustainable for Serbia to focus its foreign policy in trying to persuade the countries which have recognized Kosovo to withdraw their recognitions. --Camptown (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. --Avala (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Good bless.... (sic!) ;) --Camptown (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

North Cyprus

Shouldn't North Cyprus be on the map (at least since Taiwan is)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so mostly because they didn't officially recognize the independence of Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus was drawn as one piece on the map, not two. Plus, if I read the TRNC page, it said it supported the move, but didn't back it with official recognition papers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed on this map. Long time ago I added the missing North Cyprus and Brunei to the Kosovo_relations/Kosovo_relations2 SVG maps on Commons. --Mareklug ^talk 22:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Muslims

The Islamic Community of Serbia is presented as if it was the sole representative of Muslims in Serbia. Yet news sources say that a recent change in leadership from Zukorlic to Zilkic is disputed by Zukorlic's supporters and there have even been violent riots. It doesn't even remotely look like Serbia's Muslims are unanimously against Kosovo's independence. Having just Zilkic group's statement on the page is highly misleading. --Vuo (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source which claims Zukorlic's group is supporting independence? --Avala (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't have to in order for the statement to be unreliable. The problem is the accuracy of the article, not whether who is for and who is against. --Vuo (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to remove that entry twice before, but kept on getting reverted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is being returned by User:Tocino, as one of several disruptive edits. I will remove it now, as there are repeated reasons on this talk page to get rid of it. --Mareklug ^talk 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that deleting it is a bit excessive and potentially invites allegations of bias. The reality — as complex as it is — should be documented. --Vuo (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Better no content than misleading content. I invite you to augment the article with impartial, accurate content on the score of Muslim communities (of Serbia and elsewhere) and their positions on Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk

Republica Srpska

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

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

Portugal

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

[17]

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

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

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

Date format in table inconsistent

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

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

Brazil

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

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

More lies from User:Mareklug....

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

Rough translation via FreeTranslation.com...

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

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

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

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

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

Lets reach a consensus on Brazil once and for all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Begin quote from archive.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Violation of WP policy

What is with the campaign to change the correct spelling of Priština to the Albanian version of Prishtina? Prishtina (see link: [18]) is a re-direct. Using Prishtina in this article goes directly against WP policy. If you want to change WP policy go to the Priština talkpage. This would be like me going around to all of the articles that link to Burma and changing the links to Myanmar. --Tocino 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

There is no rule there. Here are the requested moves [19][20]... both wanted to move Priština to Prishtina, but both votes failed to reach a consensus for the move, therefore it has been decided that on English WP the name of the article will be Priština. --Tocino 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somaliland & Puntland?

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

Concerning Somaliland you may find something here [21], though it's not much. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech Republic

The Czech Christian Democratic Party has reservations regarding the recognition of Kosovo. The leader of the Christian Democratic Party, Jiri Cunek, has called on urgent talks with the Civic Democratic Party and Green Party, according to a Czech radio station. [22] --Avala (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech foreign minister calls for recognition on April 2

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

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

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

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

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

The incorporation of Czechia among the imminent recognizers is a bizarre speculation. The prime minister wants Kosovo to be recognized but Schwarzenberg, the minister of foreign affairs, thinks that there is no reason to hurry and most of the government opposes our support of the independence. The independence is also opposed by the whole left-wing opposition, the social democratic party and the communists (because of our traditional friendship with Serbia supported by some pan-Slavonic feelings), as well as by the Green Party [25]. The president disagrees with the recognition and so does the Christian Democratic Party and portions of the main coalition partner, the Civic Democratic Party - so pretty much all parties disagree to one extent or another. I would bet that a non-recognition on Wednesday is more likely than recognition on Wednesday. At any rate, the statement that "we are about to recognize Kosovo" is deeply exaggerated and can't be justified by reality. Lumidek --90.176.185.73 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Level of protection

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

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

A POV edit was made yet again by User:Avala, removing the sentence has been added several times now, about no official Foreign Ministry traffic having been sourced from Cuba. But the article was to be locked by User:Philippe last night, just as I was saving my updates regarding Macedonia, having been asked to do so by Kosova2008 on my talk page who documented his request with a new official this time reference, but User:Philippe apparently has defective locking controls -- another admin locked today all of User:Philippe' last night's lock attempts without apparently examining each one. User:Philippe reacted to a noticeboard request for full protection: [26]. When requesting an explanation on his talk page, that is where I noticed a note from the other admin mopping up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonia Again - Formal Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information regarded from the MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MFA) is more important than what news agencies are reporting. The source is a year old but look at the GOALS AND PRIORITES (Current) ([27]). Here is a short excert, "Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

editprotect request - fix important date error

Resolved

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

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

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

With:

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing Macedonia

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

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

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

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

Western Sahara or SADR?

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

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

Notes and references number 213 dead

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

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

Serbia To Recognise After All

According to this source, Serbia has decided to accept Kosovo as a state not a province. The negotiations are expected to take place soon. Serbia will recognise Kosovo within the next Month. [28] Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian PM on Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

Attempt to augment information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise over the largest city of Kosovo

Google news hits.... Pristina has 1,527 hits [29], while Prishtina has only 52 hits [30]. When you do a search for Priština [31] you get the same results that you get for Pristina, but I will admit that the vast majority of the results show up as Pristina and not Priština. Using Google is a good way of seeing what English speakers prefer, and it's pretty clear in this case that English speakers prefer Pristina. --Tocino 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Position of the Philippines

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

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

The Philippines believes that a lasting solution, including that of independence, should be based on a negotiated solution mutually acceptable to all parties. Considering the existing sensibilities in the region, continued dialogue should be encouraged among all the parties concerned to ensure regional stability.[32] Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates of recognition

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

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

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

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

States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avala the article is good the way it is. A reaction isn't a simple "yes" and "no". It is true what you say, but I am leaning towards ljanderson977 here. Also look at this article [33]. It talks about how Czech Rep. will recognize Kosova even against the will of others. I assume a similar scenario will appear with Portugal. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Uruguay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article reads,

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

Translation [34] reads "the government has not recognized the independence of Kosovo"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mareklug is a troll

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

Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greece (new stance))

The independence of Kosovo has created a new reality Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence has raised fears for the future of the Balkan region. How has Greece reacted, and what has Athens suggested to prevent trouble after Serbia’s threats of retaliation? Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence has created a particularly delicate new reality in the Western Balkans. The position of Greece has been determined by respect for the principle of a peaceful solution of differences, a solution obtained through dialogue and negotiation, not as the result of unilateral initiatives and accomplished facts. For the moment, the stability and security of the region are the principal objectives to be guaranteed at all cost. Greece calls on all the parties involved to abstain from any action likely to stir up tension. The active presence of the European Union and its collaboration with NATO’s KFOR force are necessary. Athens intends to make its own contribution to it. In regard to recognition of the new order of things -- which in any case does not constitute a precedent -- Greece will adopt its stand only at a later stage, after examining in depth all the developments and their dimensions and their impact on the security of the region, and on its own interests. [35]

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

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

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

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

"Content

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

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

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

Macedonia article

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

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

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

New Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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