Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.166.229.162 (talk) at 18:35, 25 April 2008 (→‎Edit Request - Palestine II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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[1] | 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)[2]

  • 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) [3]

  • 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]

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

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

Macedonia

Macedonia is on no rush to recognise Kosovo according to this source. [4] 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[5].

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

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

Kind of but the reference was published two days before, we just didnt find the sources for 2 days, only by email Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Oh, I just proposed a Romanian one because I saw the current one is Romanian. If you don't think that adds any credibility as a reference, you can eliminate it altogether, because there are already two other English references about Romania's reaction anyway.
D0nj03 (talk) 18:26, 21 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]

The section was titled "Unrecognised states and regions striving for more autonomy or indepedence", however User:Mareklug insists that the "Unrecognised states" part be dropped from the title. Shortly before the article was locked (will it ever re-open BTW?) User:Mareklug changed it to the current title. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is not a "region striving for more autonomy or indepedence", it's an unrecognized state proclaimed by a government-in-exile. Meanwhile in Chechnya, the United Russia party received 99% of the vote in the latest elections. --Tocino 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just more obfuscating verbiage. There is no state there -- it's all Mother Russia. However, the region clearly strives for independence. Something becomes a state when at least one other state recognizes it. Northern Cyprus is a state (perhaps not for very long.) Somaliland is not a state yet (but soon, perhaps; UA or Ethiopia is about ot recognize it.) That state vs. region distinction is absolutely clear cut and makes the section title tidy. By the way, why are you the only editor constantly manually altering your signature time with edits like these: [6]? Can't the software generate the correct time for you like for everybody else? Why are you dicking with the date? --Mareklug talk
More futile opposition by the disruptive User:Mareklug. The region of Chechnya no longer strives for independence as evidenced by the voting populace supporting the United Russia party with 99% of the vote. Meanwhile the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, an unrecognized state which lives in exile, strives for independence... the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is not a region though because it has no sovereignty. As for the edit times, I have never used the bot generated dates (by typing in the ~,~,~,~ characters). Since I live in the United States and closely observe British and Irish culture, I like to figure out what time it is in England by doing it in my head and sometimes I get it wrong (daylight savings time is different between here and there) so I go back and correct myself. Got a problem with it? -- Tocino 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. Every saved edit, no matter how small -- one glyph, for example -- necessitates making an entire new copy of the page plus some other overhead on Wikipedia servers. So your getting it wrong and then fixing a digit or two is technically highly undesirable and antisocial. You should use the "Show preview" button provided next to to the "Save page" button, and visualize what you are about to write, and do your double checking on the not-yet-written page content. Then write it. Doing it over and over like that is just wasteful, and looks weird in page history. As to Chechnya, in the 50s it was common in Eastern Europe for ther to be 100%-for votes, and you can ask those who are still alive how they'd vote if they had a chance in a free world. You don't have to -- none of these no-longer Moscow-bound countries with the exception of undemocratic Bielorus is run by authoritharian regimes that manufacture 99% votes. So I'd take any claims of what the Czechens want for their region, when coming from Moscow, with a grain of salt. --Mareklug talk 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the Chechen Republic, which currently has sovereignty of Chechnya and is a constituent republic of the Russian Federation, does not want more autonomy or independence. Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has vowed to fight any remaining rebels and he is a close ally of the Kremlin. It is very simple... Chechen Republic of Ichkeria = unrecognized state with no sovereignty, while Chechen Republic = constituent republic of the Russian Federation. --Tocino 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mareklug, it only becomes a state when another country recognises it. (UA or Ethiopia have been about to recognise Somaliland for years btw) Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:32, 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]

Should it? I don't think so. It is the Palestine Liberation Organization, not the Palestinian National Authority, which enjoys observer status in UN General Assembly, and international recognition as representation of Palestinian people. See e.g. Palestinian National Authority#Overview, Palestine Liberation Organization#The PLO in the United Nations, Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Thus PLO or the State of Palestine would be a better link target than PNA. Given the potential for confusion, and the general uncertainty of who controls what, I think that the current link to Palestinian territories is actually a wise choice. — EJ (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statements were made by leaders of the Palestinian National Authority. Further, the PNA is effectively the government of the self-declared 'State of Palestine.' There is no seperate 'State of Palestine' government. If anything, the item should be listed as the Palestinian National Authority instead of Palestine since that would be more accurate. The term 'Palestine,' as it is sued internationally, refers generally understood to refer to the PNA. But in any event, the link should go to the PNA, not 'the Palestinian territories.' Linking to 'Palestinian territories' is, quite frankly, POV. This article is about the international reactions to Kosovo's declaration of independence, not the status of the areas Israel captured from Jordan and Egypt in 1967. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh i totally agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do the editors, the ones capable of making the appropriate changes, actually intend to respond to this edit request? 141.166.229.162 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

typo edit request

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

Agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happy‑melon 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible map edit?

Just a thought; maybe if we had a map that included those who recognise Kosovo (as per now) and those who are vocally entirely opposed to it (i.e. Russia, Serbia). This would give the map a more balanced perspective really.--Him and a dog 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG DISAGREE It is uncertain as to who is opposed to it. For example some may say Cuba is opposed to Kosovo, others say that Cuba is Neutral. However one thing we are all certain with is that it doesn't recognise Kosovo. It is POV to say which countries are opposed to Kosovo, if you get what i mean. Some countries it is easy to say which countries are opposed to Kosovo, but its harder with others and you can never really get a true perspective of which countries are opposed to Kosovo. We had a big debate on how the map should be. A consensus was reached and we decided to show countries which recognise and countries which don't recognise, that works out the most NPOV as its is based 100% on fact. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. We had it before and it didn't work due to different interpretations of positions.--Avala (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest to see whop is against are those who very speceficly said "no" to it, like spain, russia, serbia, and not china, china's using that "look and concern"--Jakezing (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isnt. China is against it. Why? Because of Tibet and Taiwan. They may not have published something or announced it, but thats why they are against Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaci yet again has said that Montenegro Will Soon Recognise Kosovo

[7] should we believe him. I'd like to believe him, but hes said that several times and its not happened.
Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci expects Montenegro to recognise independent Kosovo soon, and Montenegro does not hesitate in recognising Kosovo’s independence."
"I am confident that this will happen in the new future"
by near future does he mean by the end of the year or next month or what.
I can see Montenegro recognising, but i can also see them taking their time about it too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but judging from the recent statements of the Prime Minister of Montenegro it seems he knows what kind of reaction it will cause in Montenegro itself so he is very cautious. Also Thaci has said that Kosovo will be recognized by exactly 100 countries in one month from the declaration which didn't happen and according to my math wont ever happen. --Avala (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be rather optimistic. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
President of Serbia has today brought the issue of pressure on Montenegro and Macedonia in front of the UN Security Council. It wasn't his main focus but he did discuss it.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop predicting the future avala.--Jakezing (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Also Thaci has said that Kosovo will be recognized by exactly 100 countries in one month from the declaration which didn't happen and according to my math wont ever happen."

Thatys pov, and predicting so stop predicting it.--Jakezing (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have my right to express my opinion in the talk page. That wasn't my edit request and I didn't say "it's a fact..." but "according to my...".--Avala (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My math goes like this, 99 than 100. One hundred is a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.122.70 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible its just going to take a long time, 10 years minimum. But im sure it will. Even Serbia cant go on forever without recognising it. They would be stupid not to recognise Kosovo eventualy. It would be unpractable for Serbia not to recognise Kosovo. You can't hate someone forever. Sure for the meantime Serbia is making out that they will never recognise Kosovo. But they will
HAVE to eventualy. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah like China will HAVE to recognize Taiwan independence? I don't think so.--Avala (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is a completely different scenario Avala. It didnt break away from PRC. Also Serbia isnt a UNSC member and it cant use the treat of "We wont trade with you if you recognise Kosovo" because no-one will care if Serbia refuses to trade with them. It would be silly for Serbia not to recognise its immediate neighbor, when almost the rest of the world does. (Im talking in about 15 years time). However only time will tell Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia is unofficially ready to recognise Kosovo only if the "special case" is dropped. Meaning Serbia would recognise Kosovo is Republika Srpska was granted full independence. I can hardly see something like this happening.--Avala (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo isn't a special case. Its like loads of countries which have declared their independence, such as America. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Condoleezza Rice insists that no region shall declare independence after Kosovo. That Kosovo was granted special case status but that it wont be given to anyone else. US administration called Abkhazia and Ossetia independence declarations illegal. --Avala (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article unlocking

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

I emphatically agree that the article should be unlocked. Whatever slapfight prompted the thread to be locked has long since been forgotten. The article is suffering because of the inability to change it as events and new information warrant. Please unlock it and severely punish those who violate the rules instead of collectively punishing all of us. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very nice, but a) I can't think of any sorely neglected areas in the article that need editing, b) no one has committed not to forcibly revert, esp. User:Tocino, who has if anything gone on record to say that this is his first desire, c) locking the article seems to have stabilized it and forced all changes to survive rigorous review. Edits during locking have been better on the whole than the often revert-laden activity from before. I have no illusions that reverting and re-locking are to be expected, with the net result of turning off the admins whohave been helpful. --Mareklug talk 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, it should be unlocked first, then if things go horribly wrong lock it again -- Cradel 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, instead of locking it again automatically, why not block those causing problems? Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh those who cause problems should be blocked from all Kosovo articles Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia dosn't bow to your wish's kosova. Disagree' simply because we actuly get somewhere ussualy now.--Jakezing (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just made my point, "we get somewhere usually now" because the article is locked. This way the clashing forces of Mareklug and Avala don't intersect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.122.70 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I like it the way it is: necessary edits are made at a reasonable pace, people discuss everything, there are no radical changes, the article is stable yet up-yo-date. I think the admins are doing a fine job of keeping up with edit requests and preventing edit wars, which, given the nature of the disagreements here, I think will erupt the moment it is unlocked.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ban says UNMIK is to stay

This might need adding in some form. Let's decide where. [8] --Mareklug talk 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the UN section.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeh yeh place it there Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that UNMIK will only formally stay, as its withdrawal was contested by a Russian veto in the UNSC... --Camptown (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comments from Sergey Lavrov

Lavrov, the current Foreign Minister of Russia, said yesterday that Kosovo Albanians and their supporters "planned to persuade or force about 100 countries to recognize, but that only 37 countries had done so, while more than 50 had explicitly said that they would not." Link to comments =[9] . 50 is a lot larger than what we have here on this article. What countries are we missing? -- Tocino 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions vs Facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.122.70 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? How are they expected to persuade 100 countries when they havent even got a ministry of foreign affairs set up yet. It took over 9 years for Serbia to be recognised as itdependent from the Otoman Empire. It took over a year for Croatia and Slovenia to get a single recognition. I think Kosovo is doing rather well to stay there are many counties against it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently some countries have made statements but we've missed it. He wasn't having a rant. He said 37 countries recognized. He didn't say ~35, more or less, cca. but he mentioned the exact correct number. So it brings us to a conclusion that he wasn't joking about the other one either. And he usually makes careful factual statements, much more careful than Putin for an example. So I think we should work harder to find out which countries are we missing on.--Avala (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that will only lead to speculation and edit wars. Why not leave it to the reader to conlude that 37 UN member states have recognized, the rest have not. --Camptown (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean the information. He said that these 50 countries were explicit and I am not sure if we have 50 explicit statements here meaning we should look for them. --Avala (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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


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


But it can be accomplished.So, stay Tune.And put the news first, and not propaganda.And make the right Tabulation.For now.Its 37 and counting.Shall we count to 50.Like all Serbs claim.Or shall we count to 123.Its for time to decide.Who was right.And as for propagands.You can always use Serbian wikipedia.And remember.Majority of English speaking countries did RECOGNIZE Kosovo.Just a big heads up.To some here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizlin (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the majority of the worlds money. Most top powers decided to go for it and said yes to kosovo.--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of English speaking countries have not recognized Kosovo. These countries include New Zealand, South Africa, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Jamaica, and Philippines amongst others. --Tocino 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population -- second table. India has fewer native speakers of English than Germany at barely 178 thousands. In that table, we can stop counting after no. 10, Singapore, as the countries listed below it are all dominated by populations whose native language is not English, as is Singapore itself. So the majority of English-speaking countries has in fact recognized Kosovo, in particular, all countries in the top 5, Ireland being the least populous of those. The next country, South Africa, has 11 official languages and clearly is not an English-speaking country on the whole amy more than it is a Xhosa-speaking country on the whole. No English-speaking country however small has denounced the independence of Kosovo. --Mareklug talk 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In moments like this, its comforting to know that this is article is locked, and that ideologically motivated disinformation is contained to its talk page.
If we counted up the English native speakers to obtain how many hundreds of millions are represented by governments (all democratic) which have officially recognized Kosovo as a state vs. the paltry thousands that live in jurisdictions that have, as of today, officially rejected the declaration of independence, we'd portray this issue fairly, painting an accurate picture. Doing so, we'd not find a single English-language spoken natively jurisdiction that is on record against the new country of Kosovo. New Zealand, a case of strict neutrality, represents 3.6 million native English speakers, and that's the most damaging bit of evidence to independent Kosovo's cause we could come up with, in the English-speaking world. Even South Africa is engaged in mediating and has withheld taking up an official position. English-speaking world is overwheliming pro-Kosovo, as is the world's economy, to the tune of over 70% of the world economy supporting officially Kosovo's indpependence.
And Albanian separatism is a different issue, for example, manifest inside Macedonia, and I belive, no countries, including Albania, have addressed it as such, embracing or rejecting, in Australia, Bosnia, Greece, Kosovo, Italy, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, or Canada, countries inhabited by purported Albanian separatists. --Mareklug talk 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

About 95% of them countries English isn't the main language. Especially the African countries, where tribal languages are used loads more than English. Most of the people in them countries cant speak english. [10] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak foreign minister

Is this worthwhile to mention? No Recognition But Slovakia Backs Kosovo. I think that Slovakia will participate in Eulex might be worth of being included. Gugganij (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is worth mentioning as it is an international reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence and thats what this article is about. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request Slovakia

Slovakia should now be written like this.

|  Slovakia || Prime Minister Robert Fico stated on Slovak television that the declaration of independence is analogous to the Munich Agreement that allowed the Third Reich to annex the Czechoslovak territory of Sudetenland. Foreign Minister Ján Kubiš stated that Slovakia will take four months to arrive at an official position to recognise or not recognize Kosovo's independence.[2] Robert Fico reacted to that calling it "only a technical deadline" and said "I do not exclude the possibility that Slovakia will never recognize Kosovo. Kosovo is not some independent territory, it is an integral part of Serbia where Serbs, and members of the Albanian ethnic minority live.".[3] Fico has also said that the creation of an independent Kosovo was a violation of international law, and added that it would be very difficult for his country to recognise Kosovo.[4] On 10 March 2008 Slovakia's President Ivan Gašparovič said "that Slovakia did not think it was obliged to immediately recognise Kosovo, until it had formed its own position on the consequences of the province's unilateral independence". He was further quoted: "I think some time for reflection is necessary, because Kosovo has given the 21st century a clear signal that it once again has to discuss questions concerning national minorities, their rights and even the revision of territories. For that reason, our decision will not follow quickly."[5] Deputy Prime Minister Dušan Čaplovič said that by declaring independence without Serbian consent, Kosovo broke international law and created a precedent.[6] On 22 April the Slovak Foreign Minister said that Slovakia supports Kosovo, but is not going to recognise the state because “it was not a result of an agreement at the United Nations level.” [7]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-


Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, dear friend. I read the article and it contains this passage: “I am in Kosovo and we will work with Kosovo as two partners,” Jan Kubis told media in Pristina when asked if he was in the Republic of Kosovo or in another country.

Countries like Serbia or Russia have not said anythign like that, or even sent emissaries on the level of foreign minister to Kosovo to declare cooperation "as two partners". So let's not paint a false picture with selective quoting. Slovakia is classically stradling the fence. --Mareklug talk 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose we write then? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Include the "we will work with Kosovo as two partners" quote, for starters, and remove unnecesary paraphrasing. Possibly, look for an English-language Slovak source with more verbatim quotes from the Foreign Minsiter from that visit and any additional recent ones. The more you can tell in the FA Minsiter's words, the better is the measure of Slovakia's official reaction accurately reported. --Mareklug talk 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is obvious they are not going to work against Kosovo within EULEX mission. Of course they will work as partners. And yesterday he visited Belgrade and repeated that Slovakia has no intention of recognizing Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that there'd be some awkwardness about dumping on somebody and then paying them a visit the next day. Insulting your host is usually frowned on in most cultures. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Kubis supports independence personally. He caused some controversy in Slovakia last year when it became known from his actions. So he has to act between his personal views and those of Prime Minister and all political parties. And no he wont be sacked for having a personal view different from that of the PM. If that would happen Slovakia would be authoritarian country and not a democracy.--Avala (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian embassy in Pristina

One month ago (!), did we notice this? Italy transformed its office into an embassy, it seems. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we must include this Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Government "approved" the opening of an embassy on March 19, see the official text. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should change it from

Italian Office in Prishtina[33]

to

Embassy of Italy in Prishtina from 19 March[8]

Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It seems that currently the Italian office in Pristina was just transformed into a branch ("sezione distaccata") of the embassy in Skopje.[9] Gugganij (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, in your link: it's even better, it is still "SERBIA. EMBASSY SATELLITE OFFICE - PRISTINA (Kosovo)". Confusion, I mean, it's Italy and they had elections... :). Important is here that the Government took an effective decision on March 19 to establish an embassy.[11] And this should be enough so far. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia also made that decision but with annex that an embassy can be opened only after Constitution enters into force. Maybe this case is the same?--Avala (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided states:
KOSOVO
SEZIONE DISTACCATA DI AMBASCIATA - PRISTINA (Kosovo) {Sezione distaccata di Skopje}, KOSOVO
PRIMO SEGRETARIO COMMERCIALE: MURA PATRICK
Indirizzo: Azem Jashanica, 5 - Dragodan - Pristina
Tel. : 0038138244925
Fax: 0038138244929
E-mail: pubblico.pristina@esteri.it
Serbia is not even mentioned, thus, it seemed to me not that out of date. However, the link provided by you in combination with DECRETO DEL PRESIDENTE DELLA REPUBBLICA: Istituzione di un'Ambasciata d'Italia a Pristina (Repubblica del Kosovo). does convince me indeed. Gugganij (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I tried to explain, it's really, really out of date :))

SERBIA
EMBASSY SATELLITE OFFICE - PRISTINA (Kosovo), SERBIA
PRIMO SEGRETARIO COMMERCIALE: MURA PATRICK
Address: Azem Jashanica, 5 - Dragodan - Pristina
Tel. : 0038138244925
Fax: 0038138244929
E-mail: pubblico.pristina@esteri.it

But never mind! --DaQuirin (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. In light of the two sources provided above I agree now with the change as proposed by Ijanderson977. Gugganij (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Marshall Islands - source

I suggest replacing the current source (Breaking News) with this one

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ks-gov.net/pm/Fillimi/tabid/36/EntryID/511/Default.aspx|title=Republic of Marshal Islands, member of UN, recognises Republic of Kosovo as independent and sovereign state|publisher=Office of Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosova|date=2008-04-17|accessdate=2008-04-22}}</ref>.

Reason: In mentioning the recognition text it seems to me to be a more authoritative source than the breaking news bit. Gugganij (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't a "we" issue. You were the one to object so vehemently on the sourcing of the Libyan information. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with Libya section? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mareklug believes that Serbian media and Government completely fabricated a meeting that never took place between Serbian Foreign minister and Libyan high officials. Of course common sense tells us no one would engage in falsifying photos, statements and videos especially not a Government over such a thing and one more reason to believe our common sense logic is that Libyan government did not make a reaction to refute Serbian Government and support Mareklug in his claims of falsifications. But it doesn't prevent Mareklug from mentioning this everywhere including the section on Marshall Islands. --Avala (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me what I believe. I have never said that and you are lying. I have been on record documenting wretched anti-Kosovo propaganda byh B92.net and advocating strictly neutral sourcing, that excludes the governments of both Kosovo and Serbia, and media of these states, when portraying official reactions of other countries. Can't you be truthful? Why can't you produce a Libyan account? Or a world press account quoting Libya? --Mareklug talk 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us the link for Libyan MFA so we can try to find a report there? Oh wait they don't have a website. Can you give us a link of the Libyan Government website so we can try to find a report there? Oh wait they don't have it. They don't have a Government in a Western sense but a People's Committee which has a website in Arabic.--Avala (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever they have, their foreign policy is not annouced by proxy through the Serbian Foreign Minsitry or Serb State Television! Which part of "world press account quoting Libya" don't you understand? Why are you so stubbornly refusing to respect Wikipedia standards of neutral sourcing? And we have mandled malay source, and you yourself have linked Serbian language, Czech, Portuguese, and Spanish, and I'm sure some others, so why should Arabic be na exception? --20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't an announcement through Serbian MFA. What we have is a report after the meeting. Please don't make things up if your story is not holding up.--Avala (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources (129, 130) sourcing Libya at the moment. The first link is broken. Neither reference is complete -- I believe this is your shoddy work. The second link is http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/vest.php?id=44250 which everyone will recognizes as Serbian Foreign Ministry and it comes from the section of hte site called "Government activities". Perhaps you should give up misleading, misinforming, concealing, lying, and otherwise being unhelpful? Since one link is broken (good riddance) and the othter entirely unacceptable on NPOV policy grounds, better find some acceptable replacements, or this section will be struck all together as not verified information, unfit Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course when you used New Kosova Report it was fine. Such a media without any history and credit is fine for you but the Government isn't. And of course it's in the "Government activities" if the news is about the meeting by Serbian Foreign minister. Should it go to the State Symbols section? Here is the alternative of the broken link [12] which oh in so propagandistic Serbian manner mentions the reaction of the Crimean Mejils as well. You have already confused me. There are two places in this section where you are talking about this and numerous in the archive. What exactly is it that you want? That we erase some information because Libyan MFA is so developed that it has no website? How great idea!...not. Now back to the Marshall Islands, ok? --Avala (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Mareklug: Although I see your point, I think if the non-neutral website provides sources beyond any reasonable doubt (in this case: Citing the recognition letter at length) it should be used. Otherwise it might be hard to verify possible future recognitions by smaller countries with a less developed diplomacy. Gugganij (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia states once again it's against independence for Kosovo

Slovakia stated once again it's ruling out recognition of Kosovo, after a meeting in Pristina between Slovakian Foreign Minister Jan Kubiš and Fatmir Sejdiu. Here's the link [[13]].--Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Oh the skew story is back. Of course you don't explain how could they have the same quotes as others in the news article regarding the event that happened before those reported in other media that you are talking about. --Avala (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that we couldnt use newspaper sites as sources Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can. In Internet era reports are transparent, they can't be hidden and stashed. Media houses that would get involved with "skewing" of information would very soon get discredited by international organizations and community (and Wikipedia editors are not competent to make these decisions obviously).--Avala (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself. Obviously you are right in so far as anyone insisting on sourcing an anti-Kosovo foreign policy purportedly of some third sovereign state to Serbian Foreign Ministry and Serbian State TV is a clear indication of collosal incompetence as Wikipedia editor. You got that much right. --Mareklug talk 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During your chase on the colossal incompetence you could have also noticed that I am not discrediting any sources and that all should be judged on case-by-case basis. Of course if the source is saying some country decided not to recognize Kosovo independence you throw sticks and stones at it (even if the news article in question is very thorough and followed by media files) but if the source is about some country that decided to recognize of course you didn't jib from using it even if it was a one liner news from the website called New Kosova Report. --Avala (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should use this video, its a very useful source and relevant to the article [14] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

proposed Libya edit request

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

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

  • Strongly disagree - When you used New Kosova Report it was fine. Such a media without any history and credit is fine for you but the Government isn't. It wasn't an announcement through Serbian MFA but a report after the meeting. Of course you like to present this if the article had a sentence "Libyan position is". But it doesn't. Here is what our article says:
Abdulhati Al Obeidi, Secretary for European Affairs of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, after meeting with the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremić on 17 March 2008, stated that Libya will not recognise a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. Al Obeidi said that Libya strongly supports the position of Serbia regarding Kosovo, despite the pressure from the European Union and some Islamic nations to recognise, and that Libya considers the unilateral declaration of independence illegal. Al Obeidi stated that Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi considers the UN Security Council to be the only place where the Kosovo problem can be solved the right way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a Serbian government source for Libya [15]Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one we are using. My point is that there can be only two official sources to report on a meeting between Serbian and Libyan Foreign ministers. These two are Serbian MFA and Libyan MFA. Libyan MFA has no website at all. Obviously we are left with Serbian MFA as the only valid official source to tell about this meeting and we are using it. Can anyone possibly object on what I just wrote?--Avala (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Avala. The Libyan People's Committee on Foreign Affairs website is only in Arabic, which I don't think any of us can read, so we are defaulted to the Serbian Government's information.
I would caution everybody that to immediately disregard any Serbian governmental source is borderline tendentious malice. Serbia is not an enemy and to automatically disregard the informational output of its various organs is to betray bias, which is unseemly and unbecoming. We are starved for information - I'd take an article from Cornwall Grocer's Monthly (I made it up, but you get the idea) if it had a blurb on Kosovo. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree That latest source Bobby has presented is good, therefore we should keep Libya on the article. Its notable information, so i have withdrawn what i said earlier. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Asking a Malay speaker to translate Malaysia's official statement was dandy, but asking an Arabic-speaking admin to scan the Libyan site for Kosovo news is unthinkable. Just as unthinkable is faillure to perceive conflict of interest inherent in sourcing Serbian Foreign Ministry for what Libyans said about Kosovo. Has any of you ever bothered to read WP:VER and WP:NPOV? Do you understand what appearance of conflict of interest is? And you, Ijanderson977, your flipflopping on zero basis is just annoying. Bobby's latest source is the same source you agreed to chuck a few lines above. It's the same source Avala stuffed in the article. It's the source I want replaced with neutral sourcing, and it does not have to be from Libyan website. But it has to be beyond reproach. I am disgusted with this lack of adherance to basic principles of Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may recall that I objected to using the Malay translation to justify removing Malaysia from the list of states recognizing. I think automatically assuming that the Serbian government information is inherently wrong and inaccurate is a mistake. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like usual as soon as you notice lack of support for your POV, you resort to personal attacks and lecturing users why they are all wrong and you are right. And regarding the first part, there is no conflict of interest when Serbian government makes a report on a visit of it's minister to a foriegn country. Using let's say Canadian news sources on this while we have an official source would be wrong because media tends to spice news up while governments make clearer reports and secondly Canadian media simply did not make a report about this visit.--Avala (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nauru recognized

According to

kosovothanksyou.com

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

Reference from president of Republic of Kosovo [16] kushtrimxh (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh its true. We should add it to the list Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here an english sources [17] Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request Nauru

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

|- | 38 |  Nauru[10] || 2008-04-23 || || || |-

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

Agree Gugganij (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Happy‑melon 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry Ijanderson, I slept in and I was beaten to the punch I see. :-P Húsönd 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You know why they have recognised it, because they have been told to by the US. Not that they care at all about what goes on in Europe Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but are these four countries too lazy to publically announce recognition of Montenegro or do they have a prejudice against Montenegrins or is Montenegro not worthy of attention? What these four nations are doing sends a really bad message. They are basically saying that if you don't resort to violence or have the U.S. and NATO strongly supporting you behind the scenes then we don't care about you. --Tocino 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, i think your taking it to the extreme there. They will have automatically recognised Montenegro when it joined the UN and not announced anything publicly since. But Kosovo will not be joining the UN anytime soon and they have been "persuaded" by the US to recognise sooner Ijanderson977 (talk)
I tend to believe that they've recognized Montenegro, but we don't know for sure until they announce publically. The difference is probably that Kosovo is desperate for recognition so they blurt it out to the world that Marshall Islands, Nauru, Monaco, and Senegal have recognized, while Montenegro does not need the attention. --Tocino 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh i know what you mean. Kosovo i desperate for every little recognition and makes a big thing out of it, whereas Montenegro didnt expect for there to be any problems when becoming independent so hasnt made such a big thing over recognition Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well done. Thats why we are discussing things about the article. Not Chatting. And FYI it is a discussion board, for discussing the article, which we were doing Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montenegro has nothing to do with Kosova. Tocino incites the chat by asking or stating "country x recognized Kosova but country x doesn't recognize Montenegro" this has NOTHING to do with this article. We don't need chit-chat, this is not a chatroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lithuanian parliament decision

User:Jakro64 claimed in the section above that the Seimas agreed to the recognition of Kosovo (64 yes, 5 no).[11]

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

Here is the text (date: April 23, 2008): [18] Gugganij (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant help there. However I'll try find someone who can speak Lithuanian to translate it Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive asked to Lithuanian speakers to translate the text for us Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This what the person i got to translate it said

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

Strange, and what did they vote yesterday on (62 vs 5)? [19] Gugganij (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I duno mate

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

It looks like a document that shows current steps that Lithuania has taken. The vote might have been a preliminary vote to put up a recognition document on vote in the parliament. --Avala (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the case. Gugganij (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe it is a draft, but it is a bit strange that the parliament votes on a draft! If so I am sorry I have misunderstood. A summary of the text is to be found on my talk page. Jakro64 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't need to be in a hurry. If Lithuania really recognizes Kosovo, I am sure it gets mentioned in the media. Gugganij (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (done)

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

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

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

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

Please replace the Nauru [12] sourcing reference with:

[13]

--Mareklug talk 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Burkina Faso

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

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

Below is the link to the story by B92, a Serbian news agency, in English:
Burkina Faso, Nauru recognize Kosovo B92, 24 April 2008
As the title suggests, it acknowledges the recognition of Kosovo by both, Burkina Faso and Nauru. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit request: Burkina Faso

|- | 39|  Burkina Faso[14] || 2008-04-24 || || United Nations non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the declaration of independence |-

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

Follow up:

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

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

Agree. Additionally, please change the text at the top of the page to state that 39 states recognize as of 24 April 2008.
Agree. Obviously this is the proof of loss for the article when it's locked. It's not up to date as we have to wait for the administrator. Also watch with numbers, Malaysia hasn't recognized after all.--Avala (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I took the liberty of exchanging the source from B92.net to The Kosova Report, as the former has been documented on this page as suffering from bias whereas the latter, despite its name, hasn't and is located in Sweden not in Serbia or Kosovo. As for the article being locked, it only precludes edit warring. Good changes get propagated eventually. If this is too slow a process for you, move on to editing Wikinews. --Mareklug talk 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which website? The Wikipedia or the source given above? If the source, it's gone. I substituted instead one that is not located in Belgrade and that no one has documented as engaging in shoddy hournalism, unlike B92.net . --Mareklug talk 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Húsönd 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia, Diplomatic Relations

Not sure what that will entail but here is the source [20]


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

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

costo rico

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

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

Malaysia - recognition not yet decided

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

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

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


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

And I will copy the content here:

Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo, Says Dr Rais

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Malaysia - edit request

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

|  Malaysia || On February 20, Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed news on Kosovo independence. On April 24, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim stated that there were many things needed to be considered before taking a decision on the matter and that Malaysia "is not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise".[15][16] ||


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • agree, but no edit just yet However i also have a media article which says that Malaysia recognised Kosovo. [21]

and you should read this archive too with that other source you have been using the MOFA. [22]It is dated from 17/02/08. The recognition was on the 20/02/08. Two days after that Malaysian source was published, making it out of date. We need to find an up to date official Malaysia or Kosovar text before editing as the is no 100% certainty yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think

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

is less reliable then

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

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

Yeh i know, thats why i kinda agree. we are in no rush to edit, but lets try and confirm this more first as we will get no editing done if we dont reach a consensus.
and one other thing. kosovothanksyou.com is shit and unreliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say what exactly you are looking for here? We have today's statement by Foreign minister in the national news agency. I don't expect Yang di-Pertuan Agong to come on Wikipedia and confirm this to help our unnecessary scrutinizing. Does anyone expect that?--Avala (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, now they are changing back and forth. Zello (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If such a biased website as kosovathanksyou.com is in action of removing Malaysia from the list, I honestly believe we have a crowd of "Thomas the Doubters" here.--Avala (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the change should be made, as we are an encyclopedia therefore we should tell the truth. Malaysia has not recognised Kosovo yet, just welcomed it. Im sure they will recognise it eventually but not yet. yeh because the kosovothanksyou.com team is stupid and dont know owt. you can tell they are not professionals. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


Posted: April 24, 2008"

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

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

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

Declined Not enough consensus as of this moment for this requested edit. Probably due to conflicting information. I believe that in the coming hours or days it will be clear whether or not did Malaysia recognize Kosovo. If it hasn't, then this edit will naturally be implemented. Until then, I think Malaysia should return to the map. Húsönd 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it. I hate this sabotage activity where you have users who registered just for this and users who haven't bothered to look into this and users who have huge Kosovo flags on their user pages who disagree. Then an admin comes and says "oh look there is no consensus so I'll decline,". Imagine when we had news that USA recognized and if I came in with 10 sock puppets and made disagree comments and therefore caused other users to disagree as well (because they wouldn't bother to read and see it's a new data, not something from 10 days ago).--Avala (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, Avala. It's a massive conspiracy. We're all in on it. Even the Malaysian government has been collaborating with us just to honk you off. In the future, kindly refrain from leaving patronizing messages on my talk page. K thnx bye. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude. And actually if we go into comical conspiracy theory, I'd say you were not working with the Malaysian government because you were the one who obviously thinks their Foreign minister is lying since you disagree with adding his statement to the article. ;) --Avala (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How am i embarrassing myself? Is it because i can tell what a reliable source is and what isn't? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Have you even looked at the link? It (state news agency, not some media) gives a quote of the Foreign Minister. How is that not reliable?--Avala (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I believe the words of foreign ministers and other government officials should hold more value than what websites such as kosovoandmetohijathanksyou.com say. In this case the Foreign Minster of Malaysia is clearly saying his country does not recognize. --Tocino 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief. After it being mentioned a kajillion times on this page, you know very well that it's kosovothanksyou.com. Dubbing it "kosovoandmetohijathanksyou.com" is extremely disingenuous and just makes you look like a propagandist. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

The President's website list UK, France, USA, Turkey and Albania as having recognized first:
Lista e vendeve që e kanë njohur pavarësinë e Republikës së Kosovës: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748
Kronologji e fillimit të njohjes së Republikës së Kosovës: http://www.president-ksgov.net/documents/zyra_presidentit_festimi.pdf Exo (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

serbs are desperate.

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

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

Serbs are desperate? It was the Kosovo Albanians who said that they would be recognized by over 100 nations within months. They have failed miserably so far. The Kosovo Albanians are celebrating that nations such as Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Burkina Faso have recognized (after going almost a month without a new recognition)... this shows how desperate they are. --Tocino 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's 2 things that have been reported. Some countries are putting off the official recognitions until after the Serbian elections. The other crew is awaiting the constitution to take effect on June 15th. However Hashim Thaci reports that the goal for 100 countries by the end of 2008 is still in place and that it might happen much sooner that that. The quote from him was "everything is going according to the agenda". It didn't really sound that desperate, but then again, a recognition is a recognition. There's only 192 UN members and even if 1 of them recognizes, regardless of who that is, it can only raise the number and benefit whoever is being recognized. Exo (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


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


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

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

you two should have a read of this [24] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and this [25] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List in English [26] Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Avala surely you can remember that UNMIK source i produced about a month and a half ago which said "Malaysia announced it recognition threw its liaison Office is Pristina whilst other countries ect..." Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please explain the statement by Malaysian Foreign minister. I must ask this even though it might sound odd but do you think their FM has mental issues?--Avala (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Those who say that Malaysia has not recognized:

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

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

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

Yes, I'm a liar. A really big liar. Ask Ian, he'll tell you. As per your second point, do you have a source confirming a Foreign Ministry denial? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The statement of a Foreign minister (Yes, head of a Foreign Ministry) in state owned media, on April 24, when he said Malaysia needs more time to determine whether it will recognize or not. He couldn't have been more clear.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "A story from the Malaysian state news media quoting the foreign minister" covers it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We all know Malaysia dislikes Serbia. So thats why it was one of the first to recognise Kosovo [27] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia disliked Serbia. But they have opened an embassy in Belgrade and lifted visas since then.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Serbia and Malaysia are best friends now and Malaysia will never recognise Kosovo becuase they wouldnt want to upset their best friends, Serbia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of guessing what are Malaysian motifs and ideas regarding foreign policy. They do what they do and we find out about it through statements of their Foreign minister who said exactly this "Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise.". Point at the part of this statement you think is unclear.--Avala (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Impose" is an interesting word to use. It doesn't mean to give or grant something, but to force it. Maybe he could be referring to pressuring other countries to recognize? Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo, Says Dr Rais [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeh but this source contradicts that [29] Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an Albanian source on one hand which might say a lot of things and a clear English official source from Malaysia from today. I think it's silly to give advantage to the first one.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love the way you refer to it as an "Albanian source" instead of "Official Republic of Kosovo source from today". Then you refer to the other sources as "a clear English official source from Malaysia from today" instead of "English source from Malaysia today". Nice to see you have a NPOV perspective on the issue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're trying to say that a news agency has more weight than an official government website. That's just not going to fly. Even if it were true that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo, the government website would take priority over the news agency. You will have to find a heavier source than just a news agency for it to take priority over the governmental website. If you could come up with such a source, we'd all back off. Exo (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official Malaysian state news agency citing the Foreign Minister has more weight than a website of the Kosovo president. There is no Malaysian source to back up recognition story (what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message, what we use as a source is a welcome message,).--Avala (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was from the same day as that Malaysian soucre. Thats why the list included Burkina Faso which recognised Kosovo yesterday, therefore must have been updated yesterday. That malaysian source is also from Yesterday. So we have two sourcs from the same day saying differnet things. We have Kosovo Presidents site saying one thing and malaysian media saying another. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

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

No, it was used before but was removed due to edit wars. Current map is the most neutral one.--Avala (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Avala: You complain tht other editors are not reading, but you yourself are guilty of it here. @151.21.168.245: I put in the needed subst:ncd template and once an admin removes the local image, the commons one will become used as it has the same name. --Mareklug talk 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

== Edit request: Update ==

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

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

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

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

edit request Estonia (diplomatic relations est.)

Please replace in the first table in the article:

|- | 13 ||  Estonia[17] || 2008-02-21 || ||European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

with:

|- | 13 ||  Estonia[18] || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008[19] ||European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-


This is a noncontroversial update. --Mareklug talk 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "on the embassy level": Your source states, that "Estonia has no plan to establish an embassy there yet". They might want to accredit a non-resident ambassador, however the source doesn't support that. Thus, I think it's better not to mention this part. Gugganij (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Estonia Foreign Ministry has not updated its Foreign relations -> Bilateral relations subpage for today (Latvia's entry was updated yesterday), so there's no source to back that up, and the press release does not say. So I struck that part. This is the link to watch: [30]. --Mareklug talk 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How's this Avala, [31] ? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better.--Avala (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcomed. So now what are we doing with Estonia? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing about embassies. --Tocino 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just say, "established diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level." Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief Blurb - Tuvalu

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

So?--Jakezing (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we can probably expect to hear Tuvalu's position on Kosovo in the next week or so and update the article accordingly. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dear Sir,


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


Regards



Rustam

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

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

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

No some IP user said they confirmed it. Medias in Pristina and Belgrade have reports on this today, I am trying to find it in English.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me give me your email address and i'll forward it to you. I agreed at first yesterday that Malaysia should be removed, but then i found that presidents list. But it must be wrong. Malaysia has only welcomed Kosovo's independence. Im sure they will recognise Kosovo, but not just yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
President of Kosovo has stated today that Malaysian representative informed him in February that Malaysia recognized Kosovo but that yesterdays statement by the Malaysian Foreign Minister says that they didn't and that he will sort it out with them today. Welcoming is not a recognition (Pakistan welcomed it but didn't yet recognize, Czech didn't welcome it but will probably recognize it (their PM says he is doing it unwillingly))--Avala (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serbia has no reciprocal ambassadorial relations with Malaysia. It is covered from Jakarta. But Serbia has sent protest notes to Governments where it has no embassies but it didn't do that in case of Malaysia, so obviously Serbian MFA knew Malaysia didn't recognize. --Avala (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I think this doesn't downgrade the credibility of the website of the Kosovo president. It doesn't seem to be a case of making things up, rather a diplomatic blunder of a Malaysian representative.--Avala (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we update out list then? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


we have an article from Bernama which has exact quotes from the Malaysian foreign minister saying "Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo" For those who didnt know Bernama is Malaysia's version off BBC so is a reliable source unlike CNN which i wouldn't trust the weather it reports to be true, so there is no hope in truth over politics. Bernama is a major media, it broadcasts to Washington D.C., Dhaka, New Delhi, Manila, London and Vancouver. Also we have a source from Malaysia MOFA web site too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that we should change the page then we should change it. This matter has been bizarre. I'm sorry I doubted you, Avala. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References

  1. ^ "BREAKING NEWS: Republic of the Marshall Islands has recognized Kosovo", New Kosova Report, 17 April 2008. Link accessed 2008-04-17.
  2. ^ [1], Slovakia Today, 2008-02-25.
  3. ^ "Slovakia ardent in opposing Kosovo independence". BBJ. 2008-02-26. Retrieved 2008-03-24.
  4. ^ "PM to FYROM: "No solution, no invitation"". Athens News Agency. 2008-03-14. Retrieved 2008-03-14.
  5. ^ "Czech, Slovak presidents: Kosovo sets precedent", B92, 11 March 2008. Link accessed 2008-03-11.
  6. ^ Ľuba Lesná (2008-02-25). "Slovaks divided on Kosovo". The Slovak Spectator. Bratislava, Slovakia: The Rock s.r.o. Retrieved 2008-03-21.
  7. ^ "No Recognition But Slovakia Backs Kosovo", balkaninsight.com, 22 April 2008. Link accessed 22 Apr 2008.
  8. ^ "Italian Embassy in Pristina", qn.quotidiano.net, 19 March 2008. Link accessed 22 April 2008.
  9. ^ "Embassies, Consulates and Trade Offices". Foreign Ministry of Italy. Retrieved 2008-04-22.
  10. ^ "Republic of Nauru Recognised the Republic of Kosovo", kosovapress.com, 22 April 2008. Link accessed 23 April 2008.
  11. ^ "Seimo NUTARIMO "Dėl Kosovo Respublikos pripažinimo" PROJEKTAS (Nr. XP-2859(3))" (in Lithuanian). Seimas. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
  12. ^ "Republic of Nauru Recognised the Republic of Kosovo", kosovapress.com, 22 April 2008. Link accessed 23 April 2008.
  13. ^ "Nauru recognizes independent Kosovo", The New Kosova Report, 23 April 2008. Link accessed on 2008-04-28.
  14. ^ "Burkina Faso recognizes Kosovo". New Kosova Report. 2008-04-24. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  15. ^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia: Press Release: "Declaration of Independence of Kosovo", 20 February 2008, for an unofficial translation see here.
  16. ^ Malaysia Not In Hurry To Recognise Kosovo, Says Dr Rais, 24 April 2008, Malaysian National News Agency
  17. ^ "Estonia recognises Republic of Kosovo". Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
  18. ^ "Estonia recognises Republic of Kosovo". Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
  19. ^ "Estonia, Kosovo establish diplomatic relations (Roundup)", Monsters and Critics, 24 April 2008. Link accessed 2008-04-24.

Edit Request - Palestine II

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=208161934"