Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Camptown (talk | contribs)
9,798 edits
Line 468: Line 468:


{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}

== typo edit request ==

One "||" should be removed from the Marshall Island item. --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] ([[User talk:Camptown|talk]]) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:58, 21 April 2008

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

Edit Request: Change Prishtina to Pristina

{{editprotected}}

It has been established that the correct english spelling of the city is "Pristina". So it needs to be changed form the incorrect "Prishtina" to the correct "Pristina". So the article needs changing accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please establish consensus, preferably at the RfC Happy‑melon 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. this is just a repetive presentation of the same editprotect request, which is being opposed, reflecting the meritorious position taken by knowledgable editors on the city article's talk page in the 2 move request discussions, and by the proposed Wikipedia naming policy for Kosovo. As for Kosovo events, its constitution is not yet one. It is a draft. --Mareklug talk 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the current count is 5-2 in favor with only you and Kosova2008 opposing. But hey, at least ljanderson saught consensus, instead of just changing it on his own (kind of like how you did by changing it from Priština to Prishtina). --Tocino 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus. The vote is 5-3 in favor of moving it. Most importantly the opposition has provided no reasonable justification for keeping it as "Prishtina" other than saying the Kosovo Albanian government may have made a typo in their constitution (which is a faulty logic to say the least). --Tocino 22:54, 8 April 2008 UTC)
No, my main reason is that it is pronunciate by Albanians AND by Serbs with an "sh", so the writing with an "s" could easily lead to an mispronunciation.--Tubesship (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Mareklug opposes this edit request, no other user does. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We listen to the merit of arguments. Please dont' force the issue on such basis. One valid, logical, well-sourced opposing voice of reason is all it takes. You are misusing hte editprotect template. You have littered this page with several -- all about this one change. This is grossly inappropriate behavior, not in keeping with what the editprotect mechanism itself allows. --Mareklug talk 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There will be no change, be assured of that, not only because it's signed but because it is getting officially adopted in less than 12 hours.

The Kosovo parliament is set to hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday morning to adopt, without any debate, the new constitution of Kosovo, the parliament's presidency decided on Tuesday.[1]

So are you suggesting waiting until morning in expectation that something extraordinarily shocking might happen?

The truth is that tomorrow at 8:15 the capital of Kosovo will be officially called Pristina by countries that recognized it's independence and Pristina or Priština by those who didn't. --Avala (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are so fond of repeating, Wikipedia is no crystal ball. But then, you have already represented Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, Bosnia, Slovakia on Commons maps as having officially rejected the Kosovo independence, despite no evidence of that, and so who are you to be an authority of what is going to happen in the future? Certainly it has not happened. --Mareklug talk 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Kosovo Declaration of Independence was signed in "Pristina" [2] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The country represents itself as Republic of Kosova, yet we don't do this on Wikipedia. So this argument is selectively chosen and does not reflect principled linguistic considerations. --Mareklug talk 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Again I am not sure if you are trying to fool editors or you are just not informed yourself. Either way it's malicious to claim something that you don't know anything about or you know it's wrong but you still claim it's right. Anyone can open a link with the text of the constitution and see the Article 1: "The Republic of Kosovo is an independent, sovereign, democratic, unique and indivisible state." and not "The Republic of Kosova is an independent, sovereign, democratic, unique and indivisible state.". So please stop with spreading misinformation. --Avala (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about spreading information? That's is what the President's Office of Information is supposed to do [3]. As you can see plainly, it spells Republic of Kosova with an a, twice. And the main page referes to "Prishtina". I suppose the president's webmaster is guilty of all this, but just the same, this is presently officially disseminated information. I did not make it up and I am spreading information. --Mareklug talk 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds can you oppose apart for the sake of opposition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The grounds are documented painstakenly on this page, if only under the "Hungarians and Wikipedia use the" or whatever section. As I said, my opposition is principled on representing only the most accurate encyclopedic knowledge, and it represents the considered opinion of experts on Wikipedia in this matter, and unlike that of several editors, it is not motivated by nationalistic or anti-Kosovo or anti-Serbia sentiments. I just want the most exact usage in the appropriate context. I would fight for the Serbian spelling in a Serbian context with equal vigor. --Mareklug talk 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the ground that Pristina is POV because it is an easier spelling of the serbian pristina. (That's my opposition). Kosova2008 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However on an English context aproved by the Kosovo Government the name is "Pristina" Therefore the most exact usage in the appropriate context is "Pristina"Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is marked on its title page as "As Approved by The Constitutional Commission for Public Discussion", and on the download page it is marked as 17 February 2008. Why, may I ask, are you having a meltdown on 8 April 2008 about this stale text? --Mareklug talk 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because i would rather have English on this article instead of another language as it is English Wikipedia. May i ask why you insist to use foreign languages on English wikipedia. In Germany they call it Deutschland, should we add that on the article too? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed already in detail. We have common, established English names for "Germany", "Hanover", "Munich", and then we use German names for cases where we don't. Pristina is a poor rendition of a Serbian name, and it fails even to indicate the way it should be pronounced, which Priština and Prishtina both do. The Coat of Arms of the city features Prishtina, as does its English-language website. There is disconnect between these official uses and the official postal use, a leftover from Serbian times and American-run military occupation, which may explain its use by some well-meaning person, unaware of the lingustic considerations, or the official city self-representation to the world. --Mareklug talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution is in legal hierarchy above the following you mention as a source: Coat of Arms, official webpage and senior Wikipedia editors. None of them can compare to a constitution in what is official spelling or whatever regarding Kosovo. Simple as that.--Avala (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, proper language use in English is not legislated by any constitution, especially one which has not been passed yet, or for that matter, applied yet (it won't apply on passing -- there will be a future date -- this is just for exactness' sake; the constitution is immaterial here, esp. as it makes no law in this regard). --Mareklug talk 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Mareklug: However in the English language the City is called "Pristina". Obviously its going to say "Prishtina" on the coat of arms of the city as its an Albanian speaking city, however when translated into English Prishtina is Pristina. No matter how much you argue and refuse to accept its correct English spelling at the end of the day it is called Pristina weather you like it or not. Just accept it ok Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Imagine having Roma on Rome coa, or Wien on Vienna coa would you insist that this local version should be used on English Wikipedia? Citing coat of arms as a reason for your opposition is rather invalid. Official English translation of the Constitution is above any local coat of arms.--Avala (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Coat of Arms may be in Albanian, but the English-language page on the Municipality of Prishtina's webpage states Municipality of Prishtina. 2 recent Kosovo geographical publications in English (ISBNs given above) standarized on Prishtina. I am not making anything up, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Pristina may be a prevalent representation, but it is not strictly correct, as explicated on the Kosovo naming Wikipedia proposed policy page by an identified expert. --Mareklug talk 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what does municipality website says? Is it some kind of reliable and important source? Especially if there if it stands against the constitution. --Avala (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Mareklug FYI: the Municipality of Pristina is not more important than the Constitution of Kosovo. The constitution of Kosovo is extremely senior, far more higher than a Municipality of Pristina Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ijanderson977, in legal sense, if we were talking about a law about selling booze on Sundays or not selling, you would be right -- but as far as documenting who is using language correctly, I think we would say that those closer to the phenomenon hold more sway. And newer, over older. The draft, as I pointed it out, is from 17 February 2008. In its Serbian version it has the city misspelled without a diacritic in the address box. Or maybe it is using the postal spelling. However, in the Albanian version the address box has the name given as "Prishtina" not Pristina" (version form 17 Feb). In fact, tis item differs in Albanian between the versions from 17 Feb and 22 Feb, on the download page [4]! So, here you go -- inconsistencies and changes in the very draft you are talking about. --Mareklug talk 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to look at Serbian or Albanian versions used but to look at the English version that is used. You are referring to independence declaration or some early draft but why are they important now that we have a final version which will be adopted in 8 hours?--Avala (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to look only at information Avala wants us to look at, that much is clear. Forgive me if I beg to differ. The draft inconsistencies even in the native tongue of the persons preparing it are clearly indicative of the unreliability of it as library reference in the matter of spelling Prishtina. And crystal balling is truly pathethic, esp. for an editor who advocated against it repeatedly in other contexts. Amazing. --Mareklug talk 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information to look at: The official web page of the University of Prishtina (with prepared masthead in that spelling). Surely the local university knows how to spell its name? :) [5] --Mareklug talk 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes the University is surely more important than a country's constitution. --Avala (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the University. Which consititution do you mean exactly? Observe: "Kosovo's parliament will consider approving a draft constitution at an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday. Experts said MPs would undoubtedly approve the draft. In this scenario, Kosovo's constitution will come into effect on June 15. That quote is from the very Russian RIA-Novosti news agency, last night's edition, here [6]. Seems that there is no imminent prospect of an actutal constitution for the Republic of Kosovo, any time soon. There might be such law of the land by the midsummer, assuming the authors fix all the typos, and the parliamentarians agree to enshrine into law any remaining ones. :) All this is paperchase for now. --Mareklug talk 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the constitution will come into effect on June 15 doesnt mean they will change all the spellings over night. It already is "Pristina" in English, it has been way before Kosovo declraed independence and always will be. When the constitiution comes to power is pointless as to the correct English spelling. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit Request "Prishtina" is, at most, only sporadically used in the English language when compared with "Pristina" (which is by far the most common name in English for this city). Húsönd 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's a mixed bag, but if you qualify your count by noticing where it is used, you'll see Prishtina on the ground in Prishtina, as well as concentrated in the newest uses, and official government webpages of Republic of Kosovo (President's, Premier's, Governemnt's), it's main infrastructure (Post Office (POSTA), International Airport, University) and various NGOs (A.I. Prishtina) and foreign cultural missions (French, American English cultural centers). That would imply a weighed preference for this spelling on merits by those in the know. I discount US government, because for some reason they have an axe to grind, I'm just not sure what motivates it -- maybe just wishing to keep in agreement with military maps in and preserve cross-agency tranparency? USA imposes feet in air traffic worldwide, so I'd not be surprised at clinging to Pristina because that's they way they keyed it into their systems long time ago. --Mareklug talk 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we arguing about this here again?--Jakezing (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As recognition of new countries is in the Dutch situation something on the Kingdom level, i.e. Aruba is also part of the countries recognizing Kosovo, I suggest changing the link with the word Netherlands here to the Kingdom of the Netherlands rather than to the Netherlands.

(situation could be compared to having a link to the Conus rather than to the United States of America.

*Disagree The Netherlands Antilles conducts foreign affairs primarily through the Dutch government, not threw Aruba itself as it doesn't have a MOFA. If we were to add that we might as well add England, Scotland, Wales N Ireland, Gibraltar and all the other over sea protectorates and crown dependencies and thats just for the UK. We could add Porte Rico for the USA and other countries ect. Theres not much point. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland for Denmark Kosova2008 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was my point: Greenland is GREEN on the map, so we should see (a) green dot(s) corresponding to the Carribean parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well.ThW5 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As cited by Ian and Kosova2008, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Puerto Rico et al. are external territories that do not have the sovereign capacity to conduct their own foreign relations and are integral parts of their respective countries. They may have internal autonomy, but in foreign relations they are represented by the latter. The designation should remain unchanged. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's just a minor matter, BUT the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of three countries (The Netherlands, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba). Although the former, due to its sheer size, is practically dominating the federation, the latter two are legally not external territories but countries with equal rights. According to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the constitutional document governing the relationship between the three constituent countries) External Affairs are a Kingdom matter. If we really want to be precise the link should be changed. EDIT: On the other hand it's just a technicality. Gugganij (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: "Western Sahara" or SADR

{{editprotected}}

It would be more accurate to list the Polisario Front's reaction as being the reaction of the 'Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic.' It is currently listed as the reaction of Western Sahara. Western Sahara is only a geographic term for a former Spanish colony that is now a disputed territory; it is not a proper political term. Therefore, the entry currently listed for Western Sahara should be relisted as the 'Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).'141.166.153.48 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, people, it is Sahrawi. A mnemonic is that the adjective is derived from Sahara, not Saraha. — EJ (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the typo141.166.229.164 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, that doesn't make SADR=Western Sahara, that is perhaps unless the 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic' changes its name to the 'Western Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.' If 'Sahrawi' is derived from ' Sahara' it still doesn't change the fact that 'Western Sahara' is but only a geographical term; while SADR is the (partially-recognized) state. 141.166.229.164 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I AGREE with the edit request. — EJ (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

In the section "Other states", please change the text

|  Western Sahara ||The Polisario Front, which governs the partially recognised (by 45 states) Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, has stated that the speedy recognition of Kosovo's independence by many countries shows the double standards of the international community, considering that the Western Sahara issue remains unsolved after three decades.[1]

to

|  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic ||The Polisario Front, which governs the partially recognised (by 45 states) Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, has stated that the speedy recognition of Kosovo's independence by many countries shows the double standards of the international community, considering that the Western Sahara issue remains unsolved after three decades.[2]

Discussion:

  • I hope it is now as explicit as it can be. Apart from the title change, I also unlinked the second occurrence of "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" in the subsequent text per MOS:LINK, and I formated the reference. — EJ (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now we have something to work with! Mareklug is right, we admins need to know the exact code to cut and paste since we usually do not know the subject well enough to "write the article for you". (The request seemed uncontroversial but I was to tired yesterday to write a response.) I'll look into this now.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. Ouch, this article takes ages to load on my old computer due the humongous amount of reference code, in spite that I have a 2 Mbit/s ADSL connection. I think we need some kind of new system where articles like this have their references on a separate subpage. Users on old modems probably have serious problems to load this article. --David Göthberg (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the flags -- these things take forever and a half (I timed it with a klepsydra :)) to load for virgin users such as yourself. The regular seawolves in these here parts have 'em cached already, and don't experience the overhead, but new readers will have them scaled and pngfied by MediaWIki. --Mareklug talk 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't think it is the flags. I checked. The flags are just a handful of kilobytes and since they have been loaded by other users before they have already been rendered and cached at the Wikipedia servers. While the reference section is a couple of hundred kilobytes, so that one takes time to render on my slow computer.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's beyond tolerable? On a dialup (39k bps measured throughput download) and a 10yearold laptop (G3 processor at 300 MHz) I get the complete article to load in about 1:40 to 1:50 using latest Opera or SeaMonkey browsers under an old Mac OS X 10.2.8 (2002). With images turned off, 45 seconds. When I copied the article to the Sandbox (WP:SAND), I get comparable load times, provided I zero the browser cache. If I don't, SeaMonkey will load the sandbox in 20 seconds, but I doubt that very much is pulled off the server. Reloading the main space protected article takes 45 seconds.
No 4+ minutes that somone reported, waiting on a dial-up.
The two-column reference template invocation, Reflist|2, uses CSS3 to paint references in two columns (on Firefox and SeaMonkey, still 1 column on Opera). Conceivably, your browser is slowed down buidling/handling this part of the page. Please delete the "|2" in the reflist template invocation to see if that's the bottleneck. And use a modern browser (even on old hardware/software, such as the two mentioned above). --Mareklug talk 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan

I do not believe this fits in the list. There is no "Kurdistan" (not even a defacto or exiled one) that seeks to be independent at the moment.

-- Cat chi? 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a source which says that the Kurdish people do not wish to become independent? Kosova2008 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only independent countries (defacto or dejure) belongs to that list. The only Kurdistan that we can claim to exist is "Iraqi Kurdistan" which is recognised to be a federal state of Iraq and does not claim to be anything more than that. Therefore Iraqi Kurdistan has no more say than North Carolina or Utah on international affairs. The second a "Kurdistan" declares independence and make such an official statement they can be added to the list like other such defacto countries. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL we cannot speculate to this end one way or another. -- Cat chi? 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Only independent countries belong on that list? The list in question is Regions striving for more autonomy or independence and, I believe, Kurdistan as a region fullfills that premise. Actually, it had been corrected to Iraqi Kurdistan but since reverted in edit warring, but the source used describes Iraqi Kurdistan and talks about Iraqi Kurdistan's desires in the context of Iraq. Having said that, a source for a note that local people rejoiced is rather subpar as far as indicating reactions of entities. It's unlikely we will see any Iranian or Syrian Kurdistani reactions as those are suppressed. But there are relatively free Kurdish newspapers in Turkey. Both Kurdistan and Morocco need more substantive annotations and sourcing. --Mareklug talk 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Montenegro

For today's Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic stated that Montenegro doesn't recognize Kosovo following its own national interests, alarming that its independence is a source of instability not only for Serbia, but the entire region. He stated that in due time there will be an open parliamentary discussion and that in the end the Government of Montenegro will make a final decision. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says that they will make a decison after the Serb elections. [7] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That (decison after the Serb elections) was said by the leader of Albanians in Montenegro, not by the Prime Minister. Btw Macedonian Government finally fell after disputes with Albanian party and elections will be held in June.--Avala (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have read the source, you would have noticed that it said "Montenegrin Prime Minister, Milo Dukanovic, responding to the Bosnian daily Dnevni Ava..." It has nothing to do with Albanians. Thats what the Prime Minister said. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wasn't the PM mentioning that but two politicians one of them the leader of Albanian parties.--Avala (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the point's the Parliament will open up a discussion after Serbian elections, that the Government will decide on it and that the PM is worried about it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a point to all of this or any change you guys want to make in this article? Kosova2008 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President Filip Vujanovic said that Montenegro will declare it's position once that conditions for that are met and that making a decision at this moment would be hasty and not good for national relations within the country.[8] --Avala (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

Please split into four subarticles. Guidelines call for articles over 60 KB to be split and this one is 121,922 bytes and is very slow to load because of all the tiny flag graphics. It takes four minutes on dialup. It can easily be split into:

  1. States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent
  2. States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide
  3. Regions striving for more autonomy or independence
  4. Other entities

199.125.109.64 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whos up for removing "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence" as they are not really needed for this article? And delete political parties too? What do we all think? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in splitting. I don't believe it would take 4 minutes to load this article as it would mean it has about 1,3 mb. And regarding regions I wouldn't remove them as again this is not a paper encyclopedia so we are not obliged to cut on anything. It's valuable information.--Avala (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on removing regions striving for autonomy/independence, and I also oppose splitting, this would only make things less comprehensive --Cradel 11:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
still say we should remove the Religious organisations one, since in all honesty, what the serbian orthodox church and the Other Orthodox Churches, and the RCC say, dosn't really matter here. What importance does it matter if thje RRC, supports it, or even the pope, leader of that church, supports or dosn't, because either way it SHOULDN'T affect a countries decision.--Jakezing (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on removing the religious organizations as well --Cradel 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the general international reaction and those churches are international organizations.--Avala (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the churches, remove the sports organizations. The latter in particular are for the most part not reactions at all: the tennis and handball associations have had Kosovo as separate entity for years, and Kosovo has been an observer at FIS for years also. The IOC reaction could be made into a short sentece+reference in the lead, somewhere near the bottom. As for other ways to shorten the article, we may need to farm out more {{main}} subarticles like I did for Serbia, particularly for wordy entries that will only grow in time, such as Slovakia (4 more months of deciding ahead for them, and it's not obvious they even started their clock, per the President's quotes). --Mareklug talk 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Slovakia, Prime Minister has already decided and 4 month period is a technical deadline (of the EULEX transfer). President has no power over this issue. His statements are added just to get the whole picture of the Slovak reaction.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the web page with all the needed files has about 1.7MB. Some 1.1MB of that are indeed images, while the article itself has about 420KB (not 120K, the HTML is much more wordy than the wikitext). So, the solution for the anon is to disable automatic loading of images in his/her browser (that's a good idea anyway on a slow dial-up). For us, it means that apart from removing this or that organization, we can reduce the download size of the article to a fraction thereof simply by deleting all the flag icons. — EJ (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It loads immediately for me and my connection is not fast at all. On contrary it's rather slow so I believe this page can only cause trouble for users on 14k dial-up modem.--Avala (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to splitting up the article or deleting sourced information. This is an important article and the more information the better. If you still have dialup then that's your problem and not everyone else's. --Tocino 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as it is. Its well sourced and is full of valuable information. It can't take 4 min to load. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does take 4 minutes to load. Exactly 4 minutes. And it takes 2 minutes 11 seconds to load from cache. And no I'm not going to turn off images or anything of the sort. I'm going to ask that any article longer than 40 KB you should start to think of splitting and any article over 60 KB definitely should be split. I'm on a 56 kB/s dial-up. I guarantee that there are still people out there on 1200/2400 Baud modems. Wikipedia articles over 60 KB have no excuse for not splitting unless they are a single list that has to be sortable and has to all be in one file. And even then you can offer two versions, one that is split up and one that is sortable. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we delete valuable information from this article, just so it loads faster on your computer. It is not our problme that you have a bad internet. It loads in less than a second on my internet. So i see no reason to downgrade this article for your convenience. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, on my laptop it loads fine. In other computers I've used it loads up fine. Are you telling me that it took you 4 minutes to load one single page? I think its' time for you to buy a computer made in the 21st century, whatever you have sounds like garbage *no insult*. Kosova2008 (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page hardly takes any time to load on my laptop. Look at sites such as myspace, they are well bigger and have music and other features and they load instantly too. The computer's at my work and college i use load it quickly too. We are not to delete any off this information, we are not a paper encyclopedia so we don't have to limit the content. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs is meeting Presidents of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Salvador and with Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs so I guess we can expect a few more additions to this article.--Avala (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting taking out even one character. I am suggesting creating sub-articles and splitting the article up into manageable sections. That way I don't have to wait for the sections that I am not interested to load to find the information that I am interested in finding. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im affraid this is one article you will have to put up waiting to load as i doubt that users will agree to reach a consensus to put it in subarticles. Sorry anyway. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Rep not to recognise for at least 1 month

This was confirmed last night in Prague by that country's vice premier Petr Nečas.[9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they had said not until after the Serbian elections. Montenegro has said the same thing, as previously discussed. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Today the Czech Premier Mirek Topolanek has stated it is better for Czech Rep to recognise Kosovo than it would be to not recognise Kosovo as "it would bring about totally uncontrolled developments in the Balkans". He also said "I must say that when it comes down to Kosovo, there is no good solution. The least worst solution is to recognize Kosovo, no matter how difficult this can be for Czech citizens, or for some ministers".saying. [10]


So we can probably expect recognition from the Czech Rep.
And before you all jump on me and say Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, i know that already thats why we shouldn't add anything yet until it has been confirmed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico strongly against unilateral independence

Mexico won't be recognising any time soon, as the Serbian MOFA met today with Mexican officials. [11] Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can use the website of the Mexican SRE (their Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to find out what the Mexicans said. Sooner of later, what the Serbian Government said will be confirmed by other governments (as what I found out in the case of the Japanese), but for the sake of transparency and neutrality, we should at least print what the Mexican said from Mexican officials (or Mexican papers). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they will publish more than a report "Serbian FM met Mexican FM" because I've noticed some Latin American countries don't go beyond that. For an example Serbian FM had a meeting with Argentine FM a few days ago and Serbian MFA website published a long report of the meeting while Argentine MFA website only posts notifications of meetings that were held and subjects that were discussed but without conclusions. --Avala (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well that is more or less what we have in the article at the moment just in more diplomatic vocabulary from the more sensitive moment on February 19. Serbian Foreign Minister is meeting with Felipe Calderón today as well.--Avala (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the website of the Mexican presidency will be more in depth than what the Mexican SRE might post. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though they are meeting at the World Economic Forum. It's not a state visit obviously (Foreign Minister meeting the President).--Avala (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Molossia recognises Kosovo

The Republic of Molossia recognised Kosovo on 18 April 2008. [12] Molossia is only recognised by partially recognised countries itself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not really sure that this particular information should be added to the article. Maybe if Kosovo decides to recognize Molossia. --Avala (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be listed in "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence"? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we have Ichkeria maybe we should add this too.--Avala (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed seems fair to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shall i put in an edit request? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...this is a micronation within the US, looks like a one man gig. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeh, Haha! Now that ive looked into it properly, it seems to be a false country, which some land owner has created as a joke. It shouldn't be added to the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even an amusing 'micronation:' like Sealand. 141.166.154.5 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This place has a population of FOUR, -- Cradel 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

The MOS section referred here is WP:ENGVAR.

Several of the quotations use a different spelling orthography than their sources even though the MOS specifically states that quotations should retain the spelling of their sources.Zebulin (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, we should only use English spellings.
We have had this discusion loads of times, but you get people complaining for the sake of it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - Marshall Islands

17 April 2008 the Republic of Marshall Islands recognized independent Kosovo, according to a Kosova Report press dispatch claiming the UN Marshall Islands representation as direct source.

Accordingly, please append the following snippet of code to the end of the table UN member states (its membership in the UN is stated in the lead of the article Foreign relations of the Marshall Islands) in the section States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent:

|- | 37 |  Marshall Islands[3] | 2008-04-17 | | | |-

This edit is a noncontroversial update. --Mareklug talk 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Had to fix the code though. Húsönd 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not doubling the pipes. Um, you put in one set of pipes too many -- look closely at the table. --Mareklug talk 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also update the first sentence in the second paragraph to read, "As of 17 April 2008, 37 out of 192 sovereign UN member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo." In addition, somebody needs to update the map. If it's not done by the time I get home from work, I'll go ahead and do it. Thanks. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, paragraph and map. Húsönd 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got absolutely nothing against this but isn't it a bit hypocritical that a user who demanded official documents as the only valid source before, now gives us the New Kosova report as a reliable source with such text as "The news was confirmed for NewKosovaReport by the Marshall Islands Permanent Mission to the United Nations.". Once more, I have no doubts about this, I am only questioning motives when I compare this to previous positions of the user who made the edit request.--Avala (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News papers and other media institutions are rather useful sources. Ok they are not always 100% certain, but we should use them when appropriate. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as I did before. But Mareklug is inconsistent. When it comes to Serbia even if the news article features photos, videos and quotes he calls it invalid and falsified. But the short note "Kosova report confirmed this news from the permanent mission in the UN" is reliable. I am not saying they made it up but let's face it that making up "The news was confirmed for NewKosovaReport by the Marshall Islands Permanent Mission to the United Nations." is much easier then creating false videos, quotes and images of the meeting that never took place (and securing the other country does not refute these allegations of Serbian "Falsifying" Government.)--Avala (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Mareklug is consistent: no Kosovan or Serbian sourcing of positions of other entities than Kosovo and Serbia, respectively. And no sourcing by demonstrably inferior publications, such as B92.net (I documented a case of them lying through choice of headline on this very page). As far as I can tell, The New Kosova Report is neither Kosovan or Serbian source, nor has anyone documented them lying on this talk page. http://www.newkosovareport.com/2007101763/Support-us.html -- shows that the operation is editorially lodged in Gotheburg, Sweden, and its servers are in the USA. If you can find a Ye Olde Serbian Reporte, with editorial offices in Mongolia and servers on Sri Lanka, you are very welcome to use it to source the Vanatuu nonrecognition of Kosovo, should that ever happen... :) Of course, in all seriousness, New Kosova Report is the only one we currently have, and we will substitute it with UN Permanant Mission of the Republic of the Marshall Islands or some such. And I am waiting for some such for Libya, still sourced to Foreign Ministry of Serbia and Serbian State TV, both in Belgrade, last I looked, with brodcasting tower on Mt. Avala. :) Hope you see the difference. --Mareklug talk 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes certainly an agency called New Kosova Report is neutral ans superior source regarding Kosovo (especially considering it has an Albanian word as part of the name). It's like using for an example Kosovoandmetohijareport.com opened by Serbian diaspora as a reliable source. Just because something is officially from Sweden doesn't mean it's Swedish.--Avala (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, a Serbian diaspora-run news source from Mongolia with servers in on the island of Ceylon would be dandy, provided they had a track record of solid information. No one said the people in Gothenburg are Swedes, and no one is discriminating against them on the basis of ethnicity, but perhaps that concept is novel to you. We discriminate on basis of obvious deficiencies in journalism (as documented) and clear conflict of interest (Serbian State TV/Serbian Foreign Ministry telling us about Libya on one hand, and Kosovan President and Prime Minister telling us about Macedonia on another.) Which part of what I said is still unclear to you or seems unreasonable? I have nothing against a good Serbian source run by expatriates in Vancouver. Find it, use it. --Mareklug talk 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The American Council for Kosovo is a U.S. nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a better American understanding of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija and of the critical American stake in the province's future.". But when you open the page http://www.savekosovo.org/ you can see that they are not so neutral. You have a basic problem of distinguishing reliable from biased media especially so because you judge them not on a de facto basis but on a de jure basis which means some website could say "We are neutral non profit organization for delivering news regarding Kosovo" but that they have an article called "US will never recognize Kosovo". What are we going to trust a self-description of the media or their reports? To you obviously we are going to turn off common sense and believe everything we are told (for as long as it fits into our agenda). On the other hand you will choose not to believe a Serbian media group (funded from the US, bearing awards for democratic journalism etc.) even if their article has photos, videos and quotes which haven't been refuted by anyone. That is because such news don't fit into the agenda.--Avala (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avala please drop this. This thread was a perfectly uncontroversial one, it was totally unnecessary to pop out a way for attacking another user. Please focus on content, not on editors. Thank you. Húsönd 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to thoroughly scrutinize every previous entry to the article this one obviously has to go through the same process. That process included real personal attacks towards me including name calling but I resisted that and always stayed on the main path that is the article improvement.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please document on this talk page one journalistic transgression by The New Kosova Report, as I have done for Serbian news site B92.net. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if there's still any doubts, Marshall Islands also appears as having recognized on April 17, 2008 on the official website of the Kosovar president: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748 Exo (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This really highlights how pathetic things are going for the Albanian separatists in Kosovo and Metohija. It has been 20 days since the last country announced recognition. Now 20 days later all of the Kosovo Albanian press is hailing the latest country to recognize which is....wait for it... the Marshall Islands, a state which has less than 62,000 citizens and who's foreign policy is basically controlled by the U.S. State Department. The Marshall Islands is another state, along the likes of Monaco and Senegal, who, according to the Foreign relations of Montenegro article, have yet to recognize an independent Montenegro. The decision to recognize Kosovo and Metohija while failing to announce (publically at least) recognition of Montenegro is really bizarre and warped logic, but these three nations are the exception to the rule. While the international community supports Montenegro's sovereignty, they overwhemingly support Serbia's sovereignty as well, rejecting Kosovo Albanian separatism in the process. --Tocino 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Tocino, this is not a forum. You know that well. Húsönd 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Tocino, Serbia will never get Kosovo back now that the Marshall islands are best friends with Kosovo. Unlucky for Serbia! Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or on the other hand lucky for Kosovo to have Marshall Islands on their side! :) On the serious side, Tocino has a point and this should be elaborated in articles regarding Foreign relations of Kosovo and also such articles regarding Foreign relations of Senegal, Monaco and Marshall Islands. It is not an unimportant fact that these countries do not recognize a nondisputed UN member but they do recognize a disputed territory. But it's not the material for this article.--Avala (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mess with those Marshall Islands. LOL. Seriously though, like Avala said, it's odd and noteworthy (IMO) that these three nations have recognized a disputed territory but haven't recognized a U.N. member state. As for the other point, even the most ardent Kosovo supporter must admit, the pace of recognition is going extremely slow and it must be worrying for them. -- Tocino 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many states have decided to wait for the International Court of Justice or UNSC ruling on this matter.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil, for one. This is so, according to our article, as sourced by you (my edit is now locked as the visible one, which you expressly said is fine with you; it continues to use your source). But, Brazil is colored red by you on Image:Kosovo_relations.png/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, which is not the orange or khaki of a state waiting for the International Court of Justice or UNSC ruling on this matter.
Would you please explain this contradiction as portrayed in our article vs. on Commons, both edited by you? The map, while no longer used here, was used here, until I objected, and continued to be used on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, until I removed it today, after Tocino insisted that two maps on the same topic, representing different POVs, is too confusing for the reader, and kept removing ...only mine, after I displayed both, with yours on top. :)
The question is serious, and still unanswered by you, so please do answer it, at last. It pertains to "the main path that is the article improvement" (your words), even if it is, for now, another, but closely related article in the Diplomacy of Kosovo category. --Mareklug talk 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Brazil has a position that they will recognise the independence of Kosovo only if Serbia does I think it's pretty obvious what their position is. It's a no and map portray current positions. Just like it was crystal clear that the USA will recognize independence of Kosovo until they officially did so the map did not include them because maps portray the situation as it is today. Now enough with the discussion on maps that are not used on this page. This section is about Marshall Islands.--Avala (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any news on recognition by other two associated states - Micronesia and Palau?--Avala (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any news or announcements by those two regarding Kosovo. But predictably they are likely to follow suit in recognizing Kosovo. Rather soon. Húsönd 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Montenegro"

Senegal, Monaco and Marshall Islands will have recognised Montenegro, they will have just not been explicit about doing so, whereas recognising Kosovo is more important on the world theater. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is not more important which is shown in the fact that Montenegro had exactly 72 (out of 96 in total) recognitions in two months. If we put this into mathematic equation of diplomatic reactivity world-wide Kosovo will be recognized by 50 states in total which matches the predictions of experts who repeated that Kosovo recognition will plateau at 50. Only Kosovo PM mentioned number of 100 states in one month. --Avala (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that recognition seems more important to kosovo, than a recognition to Montenegro would have seemed as there was not much of a dispute with Montenegro unlike Kosovo. So countries are making a fuss about recognising Kosovo, but didnt about Montenegro. So in that sense it was more important.
Palau are likely to recognise soon as they are basically run by America. Micronesia are more cocky and will piss off America a bit first and get a good deal off the Americans, then they will recognise. wikipedia isnt a crystal ball, so we cant right anything, but for discussions sake thats what will happen Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, just discussion on the matter. But Palau's contract is expiring in 2009. Maybe they will use the opportunity to show off how they are not run by Americans, and Micronesia might use the opportunity to show how portrayal of them as non cooperative is wrong. So we might get a twist where Palau will not recognize and Micronesia will.--Avala (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also this is interesting:

Top Ten Countries that Vote with the United States at the UN (1997)[13]

  • Micronesia 100.0%
  • Israel 93.3%
  • Bulgaria 81.1%
  • United Kingdom 79.4%
  • France 78.3%
  • Monaco 77.6%
  • Norway 77.6%
  • Marshall Islands 74.4%
  • Uzbekistan 74.4%
  • Luxembourg 74.2%

I don't see Israel (because of it's own similar problems) and Uzbekistan (not going against Russia) voting the same as the US on this matter. Others except for Micronesia have already aligned their positions with the USA.

While on the other hand Top 10 Countries That Vote Most Against the U.S. at the United Nations (2005) [14]

  • North Korea (96.7%)
  • Laos (95%)
  • Iraq (94.4%)
  • Turkmenistan (94.2%)
  • Vietnam (94%)
  • Congo (93.5%)
  • Bhutan (92.9%)
  • Saudi Arabia (92.8%)
  • Zimbabwe (92.8%)
  • Cuba (92.6%)

Here I can see Saudi Arabia (as announced) and perhaps Iraq voting with the US. Others have mostly already aligned their positions against the USA on this matter or stayed silent (like North Korea).


--Avala (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might happen, but is not likely. Also America has more influence over them than Serbia and Russia does. And at the end of the day, do Palau and Micronesia in reality care what happens in the Balkans. They will do as they are told/ bribed to do. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Europe

Secretary General of the Council of Europe has said that the Balkans is stable after Kosovos independence. [15] Should we add this to the article? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also said that CoE will communicate only with UNMIK.--Avala (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was 2 years ago. Now he recognizes the Republic of Kosova. Do you? ;) --Tubesship (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Terry Davis made that statement yesterday.--Avala (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lithuania

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

Thanks for asking this. I was going to pose the same question today. Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to some sources I've found, Lithuanian companies are lobbying in the Parliament against the formal recognition because they have much bigger interest in Serbia than in Kosovo and they are also asking the government to open the embassy in Belgrade. And that this was the real reason behind the vote in the parliament a few weeks ago. But I can't find anything about yesterday's motion.--Avala (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us these sources please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

That is like it was before. But Mareklug allows only "States which are about to recognize". That is why the article is locked, because he doesn't allow "States which have showed formal intent to recognise Kosovo" to be in the article, he even called it "bullshit".--Avala (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's simple. It's either about ot recognize or not. Do you have any citable new evidence that it isn't? If so, we'll add it and move it out of the category, via a single editprotect request. Else, it is about to recognize, just that it is stuck that way. --Mareklug talk 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A state of about to happen can be indefinite; something can be "likely to occur at any moment" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent) to the end of time. As for your claim that "the only way to keep Lithuania and Saudi Arabia outside of other countries that do not recognize is to call the section 'States which have declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo'", we can achieve that end far easier by doing exactly nothing. :)
You don't offer a Saudi source, let alone an official Saudi source. Therefore, your demand that we classify that state as having expressed "formal intent to recognize", whatever that means, lacks any verification. If anything, Saudi position remains highly informal. Formality adds nothing to "recognition likely to occur at any moment", which is what this list helps the reader pick out from all other states. It's just a reading aid, a way to helpfully organize material, and leave it at that. --Mareklug talk 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, how about "States which have showed intent to recognise Kosovo" Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Mareklug, no one is questioning the section but it's poorly written name.--Avala (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania will officially recognize and will start bilateral relations with Republic of Kosovo, on Tuesday 22 April, 2008, parliament already agreed last week with producing the official recognition paper to sign in Tuesday. kushtrimxh (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

Macedonia is on no rush to recognise Kosovo according to this source. [16] The want to maintain good relationships with Serbia and recognising Kosovo may damage relationship with Serbia. So in the mean time no recognition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia under pressure

Apparently Bolivia has been pressured by US congressmen to recognize Kosovo. This is what President Morales said in an interview[17].

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

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

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

It is noteworthy for two reasons. First, because it shows that the American government is pushing for recognition behind the scenes. Secondly, because the President has said publically that he rejected the Congressman's suggestion which reaffirms Bolivia's opposition. --Tocino 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that America is pushing for recognition behind the scenes. Just like Serbia and Russia are pressuring other countries not to recognise, as they are going country to country saying "don't recongise or we will be very angry with you and degrade our embassy."

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

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

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

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

What is meant by "trying to turn Bolivia into another Kosovo"? Im puzzled over it Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who want more autonomy for the southeastern regions of Bolivia. However, Morales and his supporters are strongly against more autonomy for the southeastern regions. --Tocino 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Cruz is organizing referendum for independence or something like that in a few weeks.--Avala (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of tidbits

I spoke to someone at the Antigua and Barbuda Embassy in Washington by telephone today - the person only gave me a first name. I asked about A&B's position on Kosovo and was told, "We have nothing in writing as of yet." The person's tone indicated clearly to me that they had no interest whatsoever in talking to me, so I let it go at that.

I also spoke to someone (nicer) at the Embassy of Timor-Leste who told me, "We have received no instructions on this from the government."

I'll try calling some more places on Monday. I called the Gambian Embassy, the Tongan Consulate General in San Francisco (which has responsibility for the US) and the UN missions of the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu and nobody answered the phone. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I think what you are doing is worthless as you will get the same answer everywhere. They will not disclose such information on the phone call before the government makes an official press release.--Avala (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not to be rude, but let me enlighten you with a lesson in etiquette. I don't know your particular background, but if you're wishing to maintain friendly relations with somebody, you don't insult them for making a positive effort. "Not to be rude, but what you're doing is worthless" is being very rude. It's insulting and belligerent. I do not particularly appreciate being addressed in that way and I don't think you or anybody else would, either. It reflects very poorly upon you to set upon me in this way when all I'm trying to do is try to fill in some of the gaps in our information.
I am perfectly aware that they are under no obligation to tell me anything. I've spoken to very friendly, cooperative and helpful people in the past while working on Wikipedia articles and to some who were not so cooperative. That's how it goes. I actually do think they would tell me if they had any information to pass on. Asking whether their country has a policy on Kosovo is hardly delving into state secrets. While I was on the phone with the East Timorese embassy, the secretary who answered set the phone down and I could hear her asking somebody else what I had asked her, so she actually was trying to find out for me. At diplomatic missions, you're only told what's relevant to your work and apparently Kosovo is not for Antigua and East Timor. Maybe I'll call the foreign ministries and ask somebody directly? I have an international calling card that's fully charged.
While I have taken note of your omniscience, Avala, I would appreciate it if you would let my futile, mortal efforts run their course before throwing thunderbolts at me from your lofty perch on Olympus. Thank you. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are putting such a great effort in, then call those Ministries and Embassies that we need a bit more data on. Cuba, Mali and Uruguay at first place. But also Israel, Ecuador, Syria, Morocco and Tunisia. I believe that would be much better spent time and money than with Tonga and Antigua. Cheers. --Avala (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every country gets one vote at the UN General Assembly, Mighty Avala, so rating them qualitatively is somewhat of a red herring. Cuba and Syria would be imprudent for me to call given that the US has no relations with the former and very bad relations with the latter. We already have information about Israel and Mali. Morocco, Tunisia and Uruguay would be interesting to follow up on.
You mock my effort, which is fine. I am amused. However, I would like to note that you did not deny anything I said nor did you apologize. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect your efforts, but they border on original research and are probably not usable as a source. Superm401 - Talk 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very sensitive and prone to overreaction. Before you threatened not to make another edit because someone came against you. Now in this particular situation you think that I am mocking you which is not my intention by all means. My intention is 1) to prevent you from calling all the embassies as I can see their answers; 2)to direct you into calling embassies and ministries on whose positions we don't have sufficient information or we need some clarification. They are most probably not going to disclose any secret info to you over the phone but we can find out more about the positions of countries we don't have enough info about and whose official statements have been discussed thoroughly here (ie. do they mean this country is pro or against independence). To previously mentioned countries I can add Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, Andorra and also Thailand, Jordan, Lebanon, Honduras. I am just saying it would better to call these than spend time calling Antiguan embassy to get an answer there is no position. --Avala (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sence when can you read minds and see the future avala? You can't say that the responces will all be the same in the manner of which you speak. That is OR and Crystal ball type of crap.--Jakezing (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how on earth is Bobby to know that Antigua has no position until after he's phoned them? And maybe what he's doing is worthless - but it does no harm, and he seems to be enjoying spending his time in this way. Carry on Bobby! Bazonka (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the fact they haven't made their position public. All I was trying to say is that it would be better to clarify some countries on which we are not 100% sure rather then spending time on countries which have no position. --Avala (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is the Andorran position more important than the Antiguan? Khuft (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more important but it is more interesting because Andorra is ruled by Spain and France who have different views on this matter.--Avala (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andorra is not really ruled by Spain and France - the co-princes of Andorra are simply the French president and the bishop of Urgell. I doubt whether Andorra would let itself be to much influenced by either... After all it also remains a tax haven, despite the EU's efforts to stop it. Antigua (and the other Caribbean) is much more interesting because we seem to have little knowledge on the position (if any) of these Caribbean states. If one of thm recognises Kosovo it may lead to a domino effect in the region. That's why the Marshall islands are interesting: their position may lead Palau, Micronesia and maybe others in the region to follow suit. Khuft (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be interesting to wait for their positions but it is obvious they don't have a position, otherwise they would have made it public.--Avala (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this has been posted before but it is an interesting page and while it primarily concerned with predicitons it may be worth checking occasionally for any new announcements of intnent to recognise. http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ (Sapient Homo (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

we've known about that site for ages. thanks anyway Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this how Liechtenstein's recognition became known? Somebody actually called up the embassy, found out they had done a pseudo-"secret" recognition alongside the Swiss de jure recognition, and then the official press release came a day or two later?

Edit rqst.: reference 154.

That link is broken. I propose this: România spune NU independenţei provinciei Kosovo D0nj03 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Eelam & Tamil Tigers

Is the response listed for Tamil Eelam in the section ' regions striving for more autonomy or independence' the reaction of the Tamil Tigers? If so, there should be a notation that the Tamil Tigers are widely recognized internationally as a terrorist organization (by India, the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, and Australia among others). Most readers would probably consider this fact noteworthy. 141.166.152.57 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeh but what is their view? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As listed in the article, their view is: "IRNA, the Islamic Republic News Agency, quoted sources reflecting the view of the Tamil movement that it hailed the independence of Kosovo. "According to IANS, the Colombo-based radical Tamil daily Sudar Oli in its editorial said it was not surprising that the Sri Lankan government was the first to condemn Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)". The view of the Tamil movement is that "Kosovo's independence is a historical necessity, an unavoidable event" and that "Kosovo shows that the chains of oppression will not last and that some day, they will break."" 141.166.226.105 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - Palestine

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

References

  1. ^ Sahara Press Service - Servicio de Prensa Saharaui - SPS RASD info
  2. ^ "Process of independence: POLISARIO Front denounces the policy of "two weights two measures"". Sahara Press Service. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
  3. ^ "BREAKING NEWS: Republic of the Marshall Islands has recognized Kosovo", New Kosova Report, 17 April 2008. Link accessed 2008-04-17.

typo edit request

One "||" should be removed from the Marshall Island item. --Camptown (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=207091520"