Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

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

edit request Estonia (diplomatic relations est.)

{{editprotect}}

Please replace in the first table in the article:

|- | 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || || EU member state
NATO member state |-

with:

|- | 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

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

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)

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: [1]. --Mareklug ^talk 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The citation says absolutely nothing about Estonia or Kosovo establishing embassies. --Tocino 23:04, 24 April 2088 (UTC)
• Oppose - hopefully you just provided a wrong link...--Avala (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this Avala, [2] ? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better.--Avala (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcomed. So now what are we doing with Estonia? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Still nothing about embassies. --Tocino 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just say, "established diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level." Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed the edit request says nothing about embassies, just that Estonia has established a diplomatic mission. Which is true therefor should be added Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will obviously agree if the edit request is updated by the correct source.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How is the proposed source incorrect? --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

| 13 || Estonia || 2008-02-21 || Estonia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations in Tallinn on 24 April 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

how about now with the correct source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree--Avala (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Looks like consensus is on its way, but it's not here yet. Happy‑melon 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. How is this source any more correct than the originally proposed one? It's not even a source for the done deal but a source for it being in the future! I demand some answers here, because your oppositions and corrections look unnecessary and unexplained, and the new proposed source is worse. --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina/Prishtina

I've just noticed that both spellings for this city are spread throughout the article. For the sake of consistency, we should have only one. I haven't been following any discussions about this issue lately, so I don't know if there has been any agreement about which form to use. But if there's no consensus on what name to be used, then usage should default to "Pristina", which is the name of the article about the city. Unless a consensus is created for moving that article to Prishtina, then the current usage of Pristina as the main title of that article should affect the rest of Wikipedia. Húsönd 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Húsönd's comment. - Ev (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to Húsönd, that the article was absolutely uniform in its use of Prishtina prior to his carrying out a bogus editprotect request which altered this for exactly 2 instances -- in Albania's and Croatia's write-ups, and that only, because of opposition on grounds of spelling this city name, raised at the initial editprotect request which was agnostic with regard to this issue and preserved congruency and uniformity of the article intact.

So, instead of putting it as "both spellings for this city are spread throughout the article", which is a skewed account of what happened, maybe you should just fix your edit? And leave the changing of the spelling of Prishtina to an outcome of real consensus building based on merit? Right now, this makes it look like a slimy parliamentary manouver of slippery slope. Nudge, nudge, fait accompli in a series of small displacements. I think such transformations are against the spirit of the Wikipedia process, where rationale for content changes should be explicit, and survive scrutiny. Likewise, there is a lot of demagogy on this page about how "Pristina" is the only admissible or prohibitively exclusive rendering in English. This is a lie, and it is being spread in bad faith, without any scholarly backing, but often in capital letters and as enboldened text. Likewise, the consensus aledgedly achieved on this issue is illusory, as the issue is being contested. For instance, User:Evlekis, who is quite knowledgable, was away for the duration of this RfC, and having come back, made pointed commentary on talk:Pristina. There are other knowledgable users whose opinions are recorded on that talk page from days of yore, or experts who chose to remain silent (User:ChrisO) while authoring MoS material on this issue. Finally, no one has addressed the question: Is uniformity of spelling a city name that is different depending on its historical and political context is really a virtue? In fact, it may be a bad idea.

I think all of the above should be discussed in scholarly, neutral terms, instead of making it look like there is a mess in the article that needs correcting to an undisputable, scholarly standard. I would particularly like it considered, that spelling the city ina Serbian way in Serbian-related context such as historical articles about Serbia or Orthodox Christianity etc., while spelling it "Prishtina" in contemporary Kosovan political settings -- and possibly spelling it Pristina when there is no overriding specific context -- may be the right thing to do. This issue was raised during the purportedly consensual RfC, but was never addressed. Consensus arrived at while ignoring meritorious dissent is no consensus, and neither is it true consensus, when important points go unaddressed. Respectfully, --Mareklug ^talk 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, fix my edit? What is there to fix? Mareklug, it is totally true that this name issue should be discussed in scholarly, neutral terms. But that's hardly for here. I just pointed out that the existence of two variants of the same name in this article makes it inconsistent. And on Wikipedia, when divided between different spellings of a name, we usually apply the name used as the title of its article (in this case, "Pristina"). It's quite standard. The entire discussion that ensued below has been repeated several times for sure, probably with the same arguments. It should be occurring at Talk:Pristina, which is the main article about the city. As for the name here, and edit request asking for an admin to change all instances of "Prishtina" to "Pristina" would probably be accepted. It wouldn't be me to perform it though. Húsönd 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, dear Húsönd, restoring uniformity in syntactical matters to status quo ante your edit, please correct me if I am mistaken, would surely qualify as fixing your edit? Such intervention would be consistent with administrative tiding up. Especially so, since things were entirely tidy in this regard before your edit. Meanwhile, we trudge on establishing true, scholarly consensus on the matter, albeit all over the Wikipedia, which unfortunately can't be helped it seems. The matter of usage in a context-driven way has not been squarely addressed. I.e., I don't think your "we usually apply" quite plumbs the depths of the possible arguments. :) This case is not usual, and persuassive arguments exist for a different, customized course of action. --Mareklug ^talk 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. Firstly, as an admin performing a requested edit to a protected page, I am to either approve or decline the request, not to approve and make my own modifications. That was not what was requested. Then, there's no such thing as a status quo established for this article as "Prishtina". I recall seeing "Pristina" around ever since I visited this article for the first time. And I reiterate that Pristina is still titled "Pristina", so that pretty much seems to indicate the form to be used on Wikipedia. The only thing to be fixed is probably the remaining "Prishtinas". Húsönd 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached to use Pristina Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština. Pristina is now used on all articles except this one due to aggressive users who believe that "it should be Prishtina because Kosovo is Albanian, and thats how some spell it within the Rep of Kosovo itself". So we should use Pristina like all other articles and like the result of the consensus. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be more precisely, not some but all Albanians spell it that way as a matter of fact. This has nothing to do with aggressiveness. I hope sooner or later (better sooner) the Serbs will accept that this is none of their business any longer how people spell their own capital. We are patient. :-) --Tubesship (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but that does not change the spelling of the city in English, regardless of Kosovos status. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ijanderson, the city's name is Prishtina, no matter how many time you write it in the serbian manner it still doesn't change the fact that 99% of Prishtina's residence are Kosovar - Albanian. You can also try to change Kosovar to Kosovan but it is clear to see that in English or Albanian or even Norwegian the term "Kosovar" is exclusively used. Live with it. Also who is saying that Kosova = Albania? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is great that citizens of Pristina refer to their city as Prishtina, just like how citizens of Belgrade refer to their city as Beograd, but the bottom line is that English speakers use Pristina and so does Wikipedia. -- Tocino 05:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All references to the city in this article must be chnged to Pristina - because (rightly or wrongly) that is the Wikipedia standard. And if you don't like it, take your argument to the Manual of Style page - this is not the place. Bazonka (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Use Pristina, per Húsönd's rationale. — Keep in mind that the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names states clearly that "[t]he same name as in the [main article's] title should be used consistently [in other articles using the name in question]."
The ideas behind this guideline is to aim for some consistency throughout Wikipedia, and to centralize naming discussions in one talk page instead of having to repeat the same discussion ad nauseam in every individual article (like it's happening here). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plese see my reply lodged above, under Húsönd's section-starting rationale (and your secoding it). In particular, please address the claim that context-sensitive naming for entities with contested or multiple names is a good thing, and does not degrade desirable consistency, but reflects scholarly considerations and context. --Mareklug ^talk 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your points, Mareklug. But I think that the issue should be discussed and decided either at Talk:Pristina or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). The current consensus may be considered as fragile and poorly thought through, but disregarding it altogether and arguing against it in individual articles will only lead us back to having parallel discussions in multiple talk pages with the same arguments being repeated over and over again... Let's stick to "Pristina" for now, at least as a temporary solution, please.

Now, regarding that particular claim: at least certain types of consistent context-sensitive naming are very desirable, and the naming conventions for geographic names stress the importance of historical context: "The same name as in the [main article's] title should be used consistently [in other articles using the name in question]. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." (This exception is more clearly expressed in the convention's introduction: "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context").

However, in using different forms in different historic contexts we're merely applying our core criterion of reflecting the usage of most reputable English-language publications. We limit ourselves to follow the editorial choices made by those publications (and scholars). We thus peg Wikipedia usages to common English ones, and avoid the many, many problems that establishing our own ones would entail with our current decision-making process.

To apply this already enshrined principle to Kosovo's capital, we would need to establish that English-language publications do refer to the city using different names in different historic contexts. Once such an usage is apparent, we should reflect it. — But, as far as I'm aware of, this is not the case here. So far our sources seem to use one form or another irrespective of context.

I'm afraid that to go further and decide by ourselves, independently from what our sources do, to use different names for different political and cultural contexts would lead us to move away from the impeccable neutrality of our core criterion of following common English usage, and into the slippery slope of prescribing what names should be used (at which point all hell may break loose :-)

Having said that, I do see the logic behind your proposals, Mareklug, and I have kept them in mind since I first saw you mentioning it, in late March or early April. The idea should be discussed at Talk:Pristina and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)... calmly and remembering that there is no deadline. In any case, time is still needed to allow for the publication of new sources showing naming usages for Kosovo after the events of early 2008. - I hope this helps, at least a little. Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quickly made map to help explain language differences

@ Kosova2008 You have it all wrong. Pristina is English not Serbian. The Serbian equivalent is Priština. Therefore you argument is invalid. We are not interested in what the residents of Pristina spell the name of they city or what language they speak. As this does not matter as we are on English Wikipedia.
Let me make it easy for you to understand.
I live in the United Kingdom. The capital of the the United Kingdom is London (as you will know). The Albanian translation for London is "Londër". Now if we were on Albanian Wikipedia, I'm sure you would agree that we would spell the name of the city in Albanian, which is "Londër". Obviously we would not spell it in English as we are on Albanian Wikipedia not English Wikipedia, so by spelling it in English on Albanian wikipedia would just be confusing and wrong, even though the city is English and the residents speak English, we should still spell it in Albanian as Albanian Wikipedia is an Albanian language site not English.
So what i don't understand is, why should we spell Pristina in Albanian, when English wikipedia is and English Language site, not Albanian. Do you see my point?
Does this image make it easier for you to understand?
Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see in your maps they've moved London 50 miles north. That's interesting. Bazonka (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt put London in the exact point. Well done for noticing that. I made it in a rush. Im not going to spend hours making a map, so that i can help explain to a confused user understand language differences. i have better things to do. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting MAPS. Prishtina is on the other side. I can't say I agree but I am willing to support this "pristina" after June 15th when the constitution takes affect. Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.210 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

K2008, for the specific purpose of naming articles in the English-language Wikipedia, the forms used in any constitution is meaningless. We don't rely on official documents; instead, we merely reflect common English usage, especially that of publications from the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia & NZ. - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to conform. I really respect you for that. As i said i made the maps in a rush ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So, is anything going to get done about this? Suggest changing all references to "Prishtina" to "Pristina" in line with Wikipedia style policy, except where in a direct quote. Bazonka (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Which Wikipedia style policy are you referring to? I'm not aware of one. Not only is there no Wikipedia style policy to appeal to, there is no Wikipedia reality to back such a change. Consider (these are all actual article naames, not redirects, and they have all been forcibly restored by various admins within a month to their present titles. Some of these admins are in favor of "Pristina", to make it all very untidy. :/

• University of Priština (its official name is "University of Prishtina -- see the article content and URLs from USA universities that mention it in the article)
• Priština International Airport (its official name is "Prishtina International Airport -- see its webpage; it is run by a company whose name contains "Prishtina International Airport" -- that's a fact, not negotiable convention of Wikipedia.)
• District of Priština (no move to change it or even discuss changing it to "District of Pristina".

So, kindly, what is your hurry? A case could be made that all of the above and this article's own use are most scholarly and authentically pertaining to "Prishtina". Vocal opinions based on majorities and popularity polls only occluded the scholarship of the issue, and the reality of who uses these names. I remind you that this article is about the Republic of Kosovo government's standing in the world, and this government unequivocally spells its capital one way. --Mareklug ^talk 11:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No urgency, but it would be nice for the article to be consistent. Style policy is here. Bazonka (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Have just realised that that "policy" is proposed. My mistake. However, it looks likely that "Pristina" will be the outcome. Bazonka (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been extremely bold and moved the three articles listed above to use "Pristina", and I have standardised all instances of the capital name in this article as "Pristina", all per the RfC. Happy‑melon 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous?

If 11 people who had the right to vote boycotted the resolution, then the Kosovan parliament was not "of one mind"/unanimous. I would suggest that unanimous in line 2 be replaced by unopposed (nobody voted contrary to the majority), or simply deleted: the reader can clearly see from the voting figures that there were no votes against the proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• diagree unanimous is ok, no need to edit it Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Unopposed is more appropriate wording, as unanimous could imply that Serbs would've supported had they attended the session. --Tocino 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Unopposed is more truthful, so i'll agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - the 11 MPs who boycotted were not physically present, which means that technically they did not form part of that parliamentary session's quarum, and therefore it was a unanimous vote of all the participating members. Simply being an elected minister does not make your opinion count, unless you are actually on the job and fully representing your constituency at a parliamentary session. This is very different from abstaining, which means that you are physically present, and fully entitled and capable of voting if you so desire. Analogy: if you hold a popular vote, and candidate "x" receives a 51% "majority," in reality, that's only 51% of the voters who went to the polls, not 51% of all eligible voters, but those who didn't bother to go don't count. But, there is also a slight possibility they are misusing the term "boycott." If it can be shown that they actually abstained rather than boycotted, then I'd agree to change the article to read "unopposed."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree: It was unanimous, everyone voted for it, the Albanians, Bosniacs, Roma, Egyptians...unopposed = not opposed, that means unanimous. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree. No modification is needed. As explained by Suerpsexyspacemonkey, the content of the article properly states the facts. The fact of the 11 Serbian minority representatives boycotting the vote is duly noted, but the vote by those who wished to be counted was unanimous. --Mareklug ^talk 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that the absence of the Serbian representatives makes any difference. It is not as though they happened to all be unwell that day: the article states that they boycotted the vote. That means that they were not of one mind with the majority in the parliament, and that means that the membership of the parliament was not unanimous. Not opposed does not mean unanimous: that is simply erroneous. As regards SSSM's argument by analogy to a plebiscite, this adequately proves why the word unopposed is appropriate (nobody actively opposed the motion in the voting chamber), but no serious commentator would state that in such a case as he/she proposed that candidate X received an absolute majority of the electorate. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a different take on this, but in my way of seeing, I agree that the absence of the Serbian representatives makes no difference. Their reasons for boycotting may be transparent, or not -- it is not ours to infer and conjecture. We only report. But, for sake of elucidating, perhaps the Serbian representatives rejected the entire institution of a Kosovan parliament, once the political events took the course they did. In any case, a quorum was attained, and that quorum voted unanimously. I think parliamentary definition of "unanimously" means exactly that. --Mareklug ^talk 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One part of the wording I do not like is "with all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotting the proceedings". Serbs are not a minority in Serbia. "Minority" should be replaced with "community". --Tocino 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In Kosova they are..since this page is about Kosova I see no mistake there. Kosova2008 72.161.253.240 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the proportional representation scheme of the Parliament, 100 seats are at-large with no profile attached to them, 10 seats are reserved for the Serbian minority representatives, and 10 for other minorities' representatives. Quite aside from whether Serbians are a minority in Serbia or not, the representational profile sketched here is fact of Kosovan law under which the parliament operates. The representatives elected to represent the Serbian minority through those designated seats conceivably might be Kosovo-naturalized Cape Breton Island-born Canadian Gaelic speakers who happen to have at least 1/16 Mi'kmaq bloodlines. But individuals of such admittedly unlikely ethninicty in principle could be elected by the Serbian Kosovan constituency to the Kosovo parliament. The fact of representing Serbian minority is written into the local law, but that's as far as the law goes: it does not take DNA samples or probe geneologies. It just sets aside 20 seats for specified voter communities, minorities in Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbs may not be a minority in Serbia, but we're talking about Kosovo here, a separate, independent state. --alchaemia (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Far too early to claim that. Kosovo still lacks any broader international recognition, and in such terms, so are Palestine, North Cyprus and Western Sahara separate and independent states. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's status is irrelevant. Serbs are a minority in both the province of Kosovo and in the Republic of Kosovo, and we are discussing that particular region's parliament. Serbs were/are a minority in both the local government of, and in the administrative territory of, Kosovo. This is true before, and after, the declaration of independence.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should've noticed to what post was my answer. :) He said that Kosovo is a separate, independent state.

Sorry, I meant it as a response to the general topic of whether or not Kosovo is an independent state, and not to you personally. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is according to one of the two interpretations of the term. E.g. Albanians are a minority in North Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Noth Kosovo is not an official political subdivision or administrative region, either in the Serbian Province of Kosovo, or in the Republic of Kosovo, so that interpretation is not really as relevant as the issue of who is a majority/minority in all of Kosovo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually we are talking about 10 Serbs and 1 Gorani PM that were not present. Thus they did not object, technically speaking they were simply not present. The other minorities voted for the declaration. So it was voted not only by the Albanians as the article implies. That is also misleading. Jawohl (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We sourced it the way it was given Chicago Tribune. But, just checking right now, that page is gone, the link broken. Conceivably they moved it to their archive, but while searching the archive is free, access to its content is not. We should take this opportunity to find a free, reliable English-language source that states explicitly this 10 Serbian minority representatives + 1 Gorani minority representative breakdown of the boycott. --Mareklug ^talk

There are two interpretations. One is minority - whomever is not majority, that is whomever is not ethnic Albanian. The Albanians are a minority in North Kosovo.

Another is a legal interpretation. In that manner the Serbs' status is questionable as that of a national minority, and might be considered more of that of a constituent nation. This in the end draws the very scrupulous controversy, inevitably leading to Kosovo's status - and the matter that an ethnic group in its own nation-state is not a minority on a part of it.

• Agree. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread has become seriously forked. Can I ask that those who wish to debate the appropriateness of the term minority start a separate thread, so that we can clarify the issues around the definition of unanimous here without being diverted. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Re. "unanimous", it's clearly quite a contentious issue. "Unopposed", on the other hand, doesn't seem to be problematic. Let's just cut the crap and say "unopposed". Bazonka (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unopposed" doesn't seem to be problematic? Wrong. This thread is about changing it to say "unopposed," and that is clearly a contentious issue. So, as far as "cutting the crap" is concerned, you can clearly see the "disagrees" to the term "unopposed" before anyone diverted the topic--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about??? Nobody has said that "unopposed" is an inappropriate word - the only argument against it is that it's not worth changing from "unanimous". And that's the word that's causing the contention. "Unanimous" is obviously problematic and so it should be replaced with something that isn't; although it may not be their first choice, not one person has said that "unopposed" is inappropriate. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just find it rather convenient to argue that, where disagreement exists over an edit suggestion, only the original text is "clearly contentious," while the suggested edit is not, despite there being opposition to it. I find it even more convenient argue that going ahead and making the edit, over voiced disagreements, somehow constitutes "cutting the crap." ;) I also think that expressing disagreement with the term "unopposed," as several people have, is, by definition, stating that the term is inappropriate in that context. For a word to be "inappropriate," in a discussion of linguistic accuracy, it does not have to be outlandishly bad, it only means that one term is more accurate than another.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that unopposed would mean that it wasn't opposed...and yet it was. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say the point is that it was not opposed in Parliamentary session, though it was opposed by alternate means, and by mentioning the boycott in the article, we simultaneoulsy remove the ambiguity (there was moral opposition even if it was not expressed in a vote), and we preserve the technicaly accurate term.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will seccond that point, and say "unopposed" would be more problematic. In defense of speaking/writing precisely, a conjecture could be made, that the vote, while unanimous, was in fact opposed by the Serbian minority representatives (and the only Gorani representative), who boycotted the proceedings. Given the boycott, for us to write that the vote was unopposed would be misleading. On the other hand, voting unanimously denotes a precise parliametary outcome. But being in opposition can include all kinds of manifestations, including not taking part in convening the parliament. By just reporting the boycott, we avoid having to source something that states that these 11 people actually opposed. Opposition by these people is a matter of conjecture, and that should be left for the reader to infer. --Mareklug ^talk 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mareklug & Kevin McE - I would say you have just demonstrated why it is best to leave the text as is. "Unanimous," as you say, denotes a precise parliamentary outcome, and I believe it is not misleading so long as we simultaneously report the boycott, and therefore allow the reader to infer just how much opposition exists. In this case, we are talking about moral opposition, which is clearly extant, even though there was no parliamentary opposition. It would be unencyclopedic, inaccurate, and POV, to write a technically less accurate term for the sake of insinuating the level of moral opposition, which is, as you say, conjecture, even though we know it exists because of the boycott. Because of this, I find the use of the term "unopposed" more problematic than "unanimous," in this context.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So if both unanimous and unopposed are problematic, is there any need at all for an adjective to be attached to the vote. The voting "scores" are displayed for people to interpret as they will, and so there is no need, and to judge from this discussion, there is a possibility of inferring a POV that I do not believe the article intends, so is it not best to use neither word, and let the voting figures speak for themselves, without a commentary. Kevin McE (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how the voting system in the Kosovo parliament works. If abstention is counted as a no vote, then I'll agree that there was opposition. If, however, the delegates needed to actively vote against the resolution in order to have their opinion counted, then it was unopposed. I belive that the latter case is more common. Bazonka (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Bazonka that if abstaining is considered equivalent to voting in contrary, then unopposed is inappropriate, but if that is the case, then the 109-0 voting figures are also a misrepresentation. I agree entirely with SSSM that we should not use a term which favours any particular POV, nor one which is technically inaccurate. Indeed, technical accuracy is why I started the thread. There is, at least in UK English, technical language attached to voting and in that usage unanimous means that the entire body charged with making a decision or a statement is of one mind, that there is no dissension from the majority viewpoint, while unopposed means that the majority viewpoint was not actively opposed by voting in contrary, or that a vote was rendered unnecessary by the futility of opposition, but does not imply the support of every person with a right to vote. Strictly speaking, it is a body of people that can be described as unanimous, and a proposal as unopposed: it is sloppy, but widespread, use to apply either description to a vote (the only way a vote can be literally unopposed is if nobody objects to the movement to vote). By these definitions, I believe that it is clear that the vote of the Kosovan Parliament in February could be said to be unopposed, but not unanimous. However, if these terms are still of uncertain interpretation, or if the use of either of them would appear to support a particular interpretation of events, then I repeat that the sentence makes perfect sense without either. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Remove the word "unanimous" from the first sentence. No need to replace it with anything (although I like "unopposed" it is unnecessary). This should be uncontroversial (famous last words...) Bazonka (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done but the first sentence of the article now reads awfully, and needs to be reworded more significantly than that. I was on the verge of instituting the wording below, but baulked: how does it sound as a new phrasing? Happy‑melon 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

“ The international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence followed Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on 17 February 2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour, 0 in opposition; all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings. ”

Agree with minor alteration - I would change "followed" to "follows" as the reaction is still ongoing. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Serbian minority?

The language used in the constitution about to become into law on 15 June 2008 implies "minority" through its reference to "representation of communities that are not in the majority in Kosovo" and going on to describe the details of this representation, including Serbian community's:

Article 64 [Structure of Assembly]

• 1. The Assembly has one hundred twenty (120) deputies elected by secret ballot on the basis of open lists. The seats in the Assembly are distributed amongst all parties, coalitions, citizens’ initiatives and independent candidates in proportion to the number of valid votes received by them in the election to the Assembly.
• 2. In the framework of this distribution, twenty (20) of the one hundred twenty (120) seats are guaranteed for representation of communities that are not in the majority in Kosovo as follows:
  • (1) Parties, coalitions, citizens' initiatives and independent candidates having declared themselves representing the Kosovo Serb Community shall have the total number of seats won through the open election, with a minimum ten (10) seats guaranteed if the number of seats won is less than ten (10);
  • (2) Parties, coalitions, citizens' initiatives and independent candidates having declared themselves representing the other Communities shall have the total number of seats won through the open election, with a minimum number of seats in the Assembly guaranteed as follows: the Roma community, one (1) seat; the Ashkali community, one (1) seat; the Egyptian community, one (1) seat; and one (1) additional seat will be awarded to either the Roma, the Ashkali or the Egyptian community with the highest overall votes; the Bosnian community, three (3) seats; the Turkish community, two (2) seats; and the Gorani community, one (1) seat if the number of seats won by each community is less than the number guaranteed.
    — Kosovo Constitution PDF file, 239 KB

I don't know the wording of the law in force at the time (I conjecture that it is very similar), but the Constitution text reflects the current way of looking. --Mareklug ^talk 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see this so much as a legal issue, as much as a simple numerical fact. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request (Czech rep)

Ambassador: Janina Hrebickova

Source: in Shqip (ALB) Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• agreed Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} please update Czech Rep like so

---

| 41 || Czech Republic || 2008-05-21 || Ambassador to Kosovo from 22 May 2008 || EU member state
NATO member state |}

---

This is an uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Embassy of Czech Republic in Kosovo from 22 May ? Kosova2008 72.161.253.240 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does the Albanian source say? I could not find confirmation in any other source, be it Czech or international media, or Czech MoFA. Sure enough, the government declared that it will transform its Liason Office in Pristina into an Embassy, and Janina Hřebíčková is expected to become the first Ambassador,[3][4] but I have seen no evidence that this already happened. In fact, any new Ambassador must be officially appointed by the President, and I'm fairly certain this has not yet happened in her case. — EJ (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shqip: Pas njohjes së pavarësisë, Republika Çeke e ka ngritur nivelin e përfaqësimit të saj diplomatik në nivel ambasade në Republikën e Kosovës, thuhet në një deklaratë të Ministrisë së Jashtme çeke. Shefja e gjertanishme e Zyrës çeke në Prishtinë, Janina Hrebickova është emëruar ambasadore e parë e Çekisë në Republikën e Kosovës.

English: After the recognition of independence, Republic of Czech has raised the level of diplomatic representation to embassy in the Republic of Kosova, reads a declaration by the Minstry of Foreign Affairs of Czech. The head-admin of the now office of Czech in Prishtina. Janina Hrebickova has been enumerated (?) the first ambassador of Czech Rep. to Republic of Kosova.

Does this help EJ? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

update: I found a conflicting report from the MFA of Czech that says "will" as in it has not happened. Whereas the Albanian media is reporting that it has already happened. Source MFA Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. So, as I understand it, the words "reads a declaration by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs" clearly imply that the media report is only based on the declaration by the MFA (which is, by the way, already linked from our article), not any other source of information. As the actual statement by the Ministry does not confirm the information, it seems that the whole thing is just a result of careless misinterpretation by the journalist. I thus oppose the edit request, and I suggest to use more care when relying on media. — EJ (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented out the editprotect since it's opposed. --Mareklug ^talk 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, from, gack, B92.net, which settles the issue with clear evidence against the edit:

The Czech government's decision to recognize the unilateral independence, which Serbia rejects as illegal, has caused a storm in the local political scene, which continues unabated for the third day.

The decision will have to be justified in parliament at the start of June, but the jurisdiction to make the recognition remains with the cabinet.

The leader of the Czech communists, Vojteh Filip, said last night that his party will propose a law that will in the future make the parliament the institution with this jurisdiction.

"Legally, the Czech decision to recognize Kosovo will be finalized once the presidents appoints the Czech ambassador to Priština. We have asked Vaclav Klaus to block the appointment of Janjina Hžebičkova," Filip explained.

--Mareklug ^talk 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. President Klaus, who recently said he felt ashamed that the Czech government decided to recognize, may block the appointment of an ambassador. Also the opposition is looking to pass a law that would annul recognition, so Czechia having an ambassador, let alone simple recogniton of Kosovo, is far from a done deal. --Tocino 21:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposition is not able to pass laws, that's why it's the opposition. And we'll see if it's 'far from a done deal' or not.

Actually the coalition partner of the Czech Civil Democrats, the Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, is generally opposed to recognition and so are some Civil Democrats, such as the President, so combine those forces with the opposition Social Democrats and Communists and you have a majority, able to pass this one law which would annul recognition. --Tocino 18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

...a law that will in the future make the parliament the institution with this jurisdiction. If this proposed law gets a majority it will not, by itself, annul past recognitions. Gugganij (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also possible that parliaments can annul recognitions. I am not sure that this is what the parties are currently discussing but it is an option. Anyway, I am confident that once the Social Democrats and/or Communists win a majority after the next Czech elections that the new government will correct policy, annul recognition of the NATO/EU puppet state, and support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. --Tocino 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope they did not annual anything.

No, not annual, but monthly. Every month some countries recognize Kosova, so time is on our side. --Tubesship (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We will see if Klaus goes ahead and appoints the ambassador or if he is going to block the appointment. So there is no ambassador just yet.--Avala (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not change anything about the recognition which is already done. --Tubesship (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, the Czech government website very clearly states that as of now the Czech Republic formally and fully recognizes Kosovo. There is no legal ambiguity whatsoever. If for whatever legal reason they recind their recognition, that is a future matter to be seen.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an agreement here, then, that no action need be taken with regard to this entry? - Revolving Bugbear 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Czech Republic will now establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo. "The Czech Republic's policies are the result of a conviction that the recognition of the independence of Kosovo will strengthen stability in the region," the Foreign Ministry stated in a press release.

The Foreign Ministry also announced that the office of the European UNMIK mission in Pristina will become the Embassy of the Czech Republic in the Republic of Kosovo. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I'm waiting for months now. They're planning recognition, that can't take so long!84.134.88.242 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You might as well of cracked a joke about Eurovision tbf Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to write about this exact thing this morning before I headed to work but WP was crashing on me. I have a SHQIP source that says that Arabia is soon on the list from a meeting between Alb President and someone from the Saudi's. I read it at Kosova.com Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you can give me a link? PS: I think Kuwait, the United Emirates and maybe Bahrein and Oman will follow soon after.84.134.74.144 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've only wanted to say what is important!

Can you (or someone else) translate the artikel from Kosova.com? Thank you.84.134.82.104 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, post the link on this page. then we will get it translated, because i dont even know which link your on about Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

IJANDERSON don't play good cop bad cop around here. WE are discussing this because we believe its' important and we need to keep an eye on it. The link is this. I told you what it says that S.Arabia is going to recognize 'soon'. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything towards you. Nothing at all. So calm down dude Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he (or she?) was speaking to ME!

Calm down, everybody. Arabia will recognize soon. And a lot of other countries in that region will follow. --Tubesship (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody please take a breather. This is obviously a very important issue to some of you, understandably. However, we need to focus on facts here. If/when Saudi Arabia recognizes Kosovo, the information can go in as soon as a reliable source is provided. Until then, try to focus on what we do have, and everything will go a lot smoother.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo Seeks Arab Recognition" => "Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon"

"Kosovo Seeks Arab Recognition", BalkanInsight.com, 27 May 2008. Link accessed 2008-05-27. Today's BalkanInsight.com article, containing among others the following info:

• "Foreign Minister Hyseni met with the ambassadors of Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates accredited to the United Nations office in Vienna, and briefed them on developments following Kosovo's declaration of independence on February 17."

• "None of the Arab countries has recognised the move, although some, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have indicated that they have begun the recognition process."

• "The Charge d’Affaires of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Vienna, Abdulrahman Al-Suahibani, told Hyseni that he has been instructed by his government to communicate to Kosovo’s Foreign Minister that “Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon”."

--Mareklug ^talk 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing particularly new about Saudi there, but some new info about Qatar. We should mention this, but do we need to find something from a Qatari source first? Bazonka (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be added to Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on Qatar's Foreign Ministry's website. But we have sourced countries on less evidence than that (Morocco, Iraq, Kuweit). I suggest we do so for Qatar. ANd the Saudi Arabia info vindicates keeping it where it is, in the about to recognize bin.

And I found this Macedonian account from yesterday of US displeased and stepping on Kosovo to lobby better for recognition -- Kosovo needs to get 97 UN members to recognize it to be able to make the UN this year: "U.S. unhappy with dynamics of Kosovo's recognition", MakFax Online, Makfax News Agency, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, [[26 May] 2008. Link accessed 2008-05-27. --Mareklug ^talk 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

I suggest altering the table in the States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo section to:

Declined. There is no consensus at the moment. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Country	Evidence	International organisations membership
Qatar	Qatar has indicated that it has begun the process of recognising Kosovo.
Saudi Arabia	King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has promised that his country will recognise Kosovo. He confirmed this stance in early April, during a meeting he held in Riyadh with Albania's parliament speaker, Jozefina Topalli. Abdulrahman Al-Suahibani, the chargé d'affaires at Saudi Arabia's embassy in Vienna, is reported to have told Kosovo's Foreign Minister that "Saudi Arabia will recognise Kosovo very soon".

Would like to say more about Qatar, but the article is quite vague about who's said what to whom. Bazonka (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• agreed This is a non controversial edit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Agree: There is nothing to oppose. What's a "metoihaj Tocino?" Kosova2008 72.161.252.121 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a good request, but I will wait until a couple more users confirm that there is no opposition to this before I enter it in the article. - Revolving Bugbear 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a third party source and does not site any evidence that Qatar government officials have said anything about Kosovo and Metohija. Under the precedent set by the edit request to remove Morocco from list of states which do not recognize, third party sources with vague wording is not acceptable and we have to get citations from government websites instead. --Tocino 18:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disregard Opposition as Groundless Third party sources are allowed. Qatar are hardy going to mention that they are beginning the process of recognition on their MOFA site, only that they have recognised when they do it. The reliable source says Skender Hyseni met with Qatar Foreign Minister and this is what was said. I highly doubt the neutral Balkan Insight would lie. Third party sources are acceptable according to wikipedia. Morocco was removed because the notes and its source had nothing to do with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Disregard Opposition to Opposition as Groundless. Third party sources are allowed when they have quotes from government officials, but they aren't allowed, under the Morocco precedent, when they just have a random statement by the journalist. Read User:Mareklug's statement in the Morocco section, "This is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not consititute Morocco's reaction." As far as I am concerned this sentence from BalkanInsight is a drive-by comment by a journalist. It does not constititute Qatar's reaction. --Tocino 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Morocco precedent" is utterly different. I agree that in the "Qatar situation" the source is not particularly informative, but it does refer to the opinion of the Qatari government - it's certainly not a "drive-by" comment. The Morroco source only gave a general indication of the mood of the country, and in such a wishy-washy way that it could also be applied to any other country. I'm sure a better Qatari source will appear in two or three days, in which case we can replace this one. Bazonka (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying we shouldn't believe the journalist with no quotes of the Morocco source, but we should believe the journalist with no quotes from the Qatar source. I do not support this kind of selective processing. --Tocino 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely believe the journalist who said "countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories". It's obviously true... and irrelevant. And in the Qatari case I have no reason to disbelieve the journalist, and what he said is certainly not something to ignore as it indicates direct action by the Qatari government - very different from the Morocco quote which should be put to bed. Bazonka (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as we know the journalist from the Morocco source could've spoke with the Moroccan and Sudanese governments and he is just repeating their words. Yet certain editors decided that we could not assume good faith of the journalist, and his words were not enough. I am saying the same thing here. We don't know how the BalkanInsight journalist got that information and since he was unable to provide any evidence or quotes to support his statement, assuming good faith is not enough, we need more. --Tocino 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

N Qatar not done -- without any commitment as to whether or not I agree, there is a strenuous, concrete objection. Discuss further if you like, or revive this proposal when a new source is available.

What is the status of consensus on the Saudi Arabia proposal? - Revolving Bugbear 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I support it since there is a quote. --Tocino 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Would saying something like "Sources indicate that Qatar has begun the process of recognising Kosovo" be more acceptable? I don't think information like this is something we should ignore - and if necessary we should include caveats about its provenance.
I agree that the source we have is not ideal, but the difference between it and the Morocco case is immense - this one is about Kosovo, that one wasn't. Now let's never talk about that Morocco article ever again...
I think in the case of Saudi Arabia, the source is good enough as it quotes a Saudi diplomat passing on a message from his government. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the Morocco source is all about Kosovo. You can read it here in case you missed it: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/rift-emerges-at-the-united-nations-over-kosovo/71420/

I would only support putting Qatar in the states which are about to recognize category (which, BTW, title is terrible and it needs to be corrected to something more concrete such as "States which have declared formal intent to recognize") if Morocco is put back on the states which do not recognize list. Also the Qatar entry would have to have a disclaimer at the end like how the Moroccan entry did, something to the effect of "As of May 2008 no statement on Kosovo has been sourced by the Qatar Foreign Ministry." --Tocino 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, the Morocco source may mostly be about Kosovo, but the contentious sentence within it ("countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories") is not about Kosovo. It's about Morocco and Sudan. Irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Saudi Arabia done. I've tl'ed the template out until consensus can be reached on the Qatar issue. Please do not dismiss legitimate concerns of other editors -- an objection to a single third-party source with no direct attribution is a legitimate objection, since this situation could cut either way. And please assume good faith and speak civilly. - Revolving Bugbear 20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian embassy in Pristina

This source indicates that Bulgaria has established an embassy in Pristina. The Bulgaria section should be updated accordingly. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) {{editprotect}} please change as so

---

| 32 || Bulgaria|| 2008-03-20 || Bulgarian Embassy in Pristina from 27 May || EU member state
NATO member state |-

---

uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Revolving Bugbear 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't say "from 27 May" because the likelihood is that the embassy existed before that date. 27 May is simply the date when we found out about it. Bazonka (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that in future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Uncontroversial. Remove "from 27 May" from the Bulgaria item. We have no evidence that this was the date that the embassy was established - it is much more likely that it already existed at this time. Bazonka (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, natch - Revolving Bugbear 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Uruguay (contested)

Per administrator's characterization above as to what constitutes valid objection, I object to our continuing display of Uruguay in the article, as basically unsourced to WIkipedia standards, and mistranslated to boot, without English-language or any language official governmental informotion (say, in Spanish) provided.

Please remove:

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

As users already indicated on this talk page before (archived), the Spanish phrase "has not recognized", attributed in the Spanish-language source to anonymous sources in early March 2008, we are citing and actually misrepresenting as "will not recognize". This fact alone is cause to remove this entry. Another is absence of any attribution to a named governmental official or document. Ideally, we should be sourcing Uruguayan government in this matter, even if quoted in world press and not direclty from a Uruguayan official website, such as Foreign Ministry's, which exists and is continually updated. If Uruguay chooses to be officially silent on Kosovo, we should reflect that -- by not including it as reacting. After all, this is about international reaction, and we don't have entries of the sort "has not reacted". Yet, on the basis of this entry, editors have represented Uruguay on Commons maps in red, as having officially rejected Kosovo's independence, which is remarkably not true even on the basis of our write-up as it exists with all its faults.

--Mareklug ^talk 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The fact that you don't like one phrase doesn't mean it has to be removed altogether. If you want you can propose swapping "has not recognized" with "will not recognize" but that's it. And the fact that the name of the spokesperson is not revelaed is not a reason for deletion. It's still information and it's still a statement.--Avala (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The above editor, strongly disagreeing, is the one who a) mistranslated the text and never fixed it, b) injected the above code into the article, c) continues to represent Uruguay on Commons as officially having rejected Kosovo's independence. d) fails to address that Uruguay has officially not acted at all. e) removes content from this talk section header, suppressing information and another editor's voice. --Mareklug ^talk 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with comment. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making any comment on this proposal, where, exactly, did I make a "characterization as to what constitutes valid objection" on this page? Please don't put words in my mouth. These proposals should be based on your understandings of policy and an effort to work towards bringing this article up to a high standard while keeping in line with policies. Those are the parameters within which I am judging these requests, not by any precedent I set further up the page. If you disagree with a judgment call of mine, you are free to dispute it, and you are free to ask for other opinions. (Indeed, I am processing these requests simply because I have this page on my watchlist and it is easy and convenient for me to do so.)

I would once again like to suggest that everyone lower their intensity levels by a few ticks and have a long and careful read of WP:PROT before continuing with these discussions.

Best, - Revolving Bugbear 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Marek refers to your sustaining Tocino's objection to the inclusion of Qatar. Since Qatar was not included because the source was a journalist referring to what he/she found out, it would seem to set a new precedent for the inclusion/exclusion of information. Thus, since the Uruguay information consists of a journalist referring to what an anonymous government source said, it would seem that it does not pass muster (as hearsay). Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what he's referring to, but I didn't actually say what he's making it sound like I said. I said Tocino had a concrete objection. But I would like to avoid letting that set a precedent and discuss each case individually. - Revolving Bugbear 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Revolving Bugbear, you wrote: "Please do not dismiss legitimate concerns of other editors -- an objection to a single third-party source with no direct attribution is a legitimate objection, since this situation could cut either way." Your own words characterize what "is a legitimate objection", and I wrote "Per administrator's characterization above as to what constitutes valid objection, I object to..."'. How did I put words in your mouth, mistate you advice to us, or otherwise transgressed? As to the merit of the issue i flagged, it is a chronic problem, and I was motivated to relist it (as it was raised in the past already) by your lucid advice, which I acknowledged in what I still think is a correct and accurate fashion. Are you perchance saying that "a legitimate objection" is not the same as "constitutes valid objection"? This is the only thing I can identify, on reexamination, and it still eludes me. Please indeed assume good faith, and please advise. --Mareklug ^talk 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I appeared to be assuming bad faith -- what I mean with this is that I am not setting up a framework of standards for these edits. My summary of Tocino's objection was just that -- a demonstrative, not prescriptive, summary. (Note, by the way, that by journalistic standards these situations are not analogous -- the Uruguay source is attributed, as an anonymous attribution is different from a lack of attribution.) I want to avoid have a set of standards that are carried from case to case, as this can only cause problems. (You surely noticed this in your objection to using the Morocco request as a benchmark for the Qatar request.) As I said, please assess each request on its own merits and not on my words. Sorry for any offense. Thanks - Revolving Bugbear 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the Uruguay source is quoting unnamed government sources, while the Morocco and Qatar sources are quoting no one. --Tocino 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. I see no reason to doubt the validity of the source. According to FreeTranslation.com the words of the statement are very clear and that Kosovo does not meat standards of recognition. Uruguay's neighbours are also opposed to recognition, so the position of Uruguay comes as no surprise. --Tocino 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well lets do the best thing and get someone fluent in Spanish to translate the source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In Spanish, the information is clear. Uruguay don't recognize the independence of Kosovo because it isn't in accordance with the principle of territorial integrity and the use of present perfect tense is used because Uruguay would recognize Kosovo if the three named pillars are fulfilled by them and, according to the Uruguayan government, none has been fulfilled. --B1mbo (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another example of biased news reporting by www.B92.net

A direct quote from the Serbian website that many editors advocate using to source this article [5]:

---

24 May 2008 | 21:08 | Source: Tanjug

ATHENS -- Greece confirmed that Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis did meet with a man the authorities in Priština appointed as their foreign minister.

---

Would we blink at: "did meetwith a man the authorities in Belgrade appointed as their foreign minister"? I suggest that we would. This kind of language goes out of the way to distort news, not simply report it.

Another issue, is that nearly all B92 dispatches on Kosovo are sourced to "Tanjug", a Serbian news agency located in Belgrade, according to our flagged-as-unsourced 2.5-year old stub about it on Wikedia. B92 website could source Agence France Press or Al-Jazirra or, most directly, Greek media in this case, but their choice is invariably partizan, as is their phrasing. Stands to reason, their information is conveyed with partizan bias on the whole, and not suitable to source our neutral ecyclopedic account, which must strive to avoid even an appearance of conflict of interest, let alone demonstrated serious conflicts of interest. --Mareklug ^talk 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So.... Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe B92 to be a good source. yeh it is slightly POV. But then isnt all media. It is good to have a wide range of media. no need to pick on the pro Serbian media instead of pro Kosovo media. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What are the most nuetral sources anyways?--Jakezing (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A neutral source is in first order one that unfailingly writes "Foreign Minster So and So met with Foreign Minister So and So Number 2". Does this really need motivation? Does avoiding conflicts of interest in sourcing also need motivating? A neutral source is one that reports neutrally and has no obvious geographical dependencies on the protagonists. In this case, the news agency should not worry that it will be torched by the locals if it reports neutrally. This discredits B92.net as it does kosovopress.com and I have maintained this assiduously, without singling out the Serbian media. --Mareklug ^talk 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, folks, if I may clarify something. I am not saying, don't read B92.net cuz its pernicious, or don't discuss it and cite its dispatches on this talk page. Far from it, I have recently cited it myself. All I am saying is, it is clearly not a neutral source in the matters of Kosovo, and its geographical location futher disqualifies it, as it does Kosovan media, from sourcing positions of other countries. Why is this so hard to abide by? It follows best practices for Wikipedia as stated in numerous policies, guidelines, especially one called "Common sense". :) --Mareklug ^talk 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I read B92 everyday..it's very biased, but still it is an interesting place to read the Serbian POV on current events. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's so biased indeed. They should have said "the extraterrestrial that was appointed as Foreign minister". Then it would have been perfect! But in your world, not in reality.--Avala (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just admit once in a while that white is white and black is black. It will only enhance your edits' credibility. It is undeniable that B92.net went out of its way to edit the news to imbue it with a point of view, distorting and weirding the language, and even employing lower case for "foreign minister" in the case of the Kosovan Foreign Minister -- and skipping his name entirely -- while properly capitalizing and referencing the Greek one. Such telltale signs of rabid partizanship grossly disqualify this source for us, and your sarcasm is highly misplaced and amounts to another reality-denial. And reality-denial while editing sensitive Wikipedia content is highly uncalled for. Just so we are in the clear, that I am questioning the impartiality of your edits, the whole sum of them, in this article. This commentary of yours does not alleviate the situation in the least, and represents further ridiculing and belittling of legitimate editor concerns for keeping this article fair and accurate, including, impeccably sourced beyond accusations fo partiality. --Mareklug ^talk 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the report. To refer to the man the authorities in Pristina appointed as their foreign minister as "Kosovo Foreign Minister" would be pushing a POV as well, a POV which believes that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government is a legitimate state when 151 out of 192 UN member states don't recognize it. --Tocino 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia will recognize in June

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n141769 "It is expected for Macedonia to recognize Kosovo right after the general elections in the country..." Worth mentioning it. --Tubesship (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"This is what the analysis of the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies /IFIMES/ in Ljubljana states". So this IFIMES is some institute which analyses things in the Balkans. Focus is reporting on a report from IFIMES. First of all, the IFIMES report needs to be found. Second, the report is linking Kosovo recognition with the Macedonia naming dispute and recognition of the Macedonian language, which are completely different issues. Third, it says the elections will be communists versus anti-communists, which isn't the case. BalkanFever 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not completely different issues, Kosovo recognition is Macedonia's bagaining chip in both the naming issue and NATO membership, and these are intricately linked. The moment the naming dispute is solved, Macedonia will recognize.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The latest Macedonia-related report on their website is from 30.04.2008: GRUEVSKI AND THAÇI MOST POPULAR PARTY LEADERS!. I don't think it's the one the Focus news agency talks about, as it does not mention any communists and only mentions Kosovo recognition as a problem to contend with for Gruevski after he is elected. :/ But, at least I showed which space to watch, and the report I'm linking contains a lot of sampled public opinion that might be of interest to Macedonia-watchers. --Mareklug ^talk 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is incredible how many times it has been said "Macedonia will recognize soon" and then we wait, and wait, and nothing happens. This is just more USA/EU/NATO pressure behind the scenes and does not warrant a place on the article. --Tocino 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia will recognise, once it has established boarders with Kosovo, which suit Skopje officials. They aren't exactly going to have boarder negotiations with a country which they have no intentions of recognising. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boarder&x=0&y=0 --Mareklug ^talk 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok i get it. I made a spelling error. You can laugh now ok. Border Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, yet I also agree with Tocino in the sense that it's not happening any time soon, and all of these reports we read about some "imminent" development should be taken with a grain of salt.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially since most of the statements come from Albanian politicians in Macedonia, like Thaçi (Menduh, not Hashim). Essentially, wishful thinking and/or votegetting techniques among the Albanian minority. Alas, that is my OR, but this is the situation. Oh, and Ij, I'm not so sure about your demarcation hypothesis, since President Crvenkovski stated around a month ago that he doesn't care which government (RoK, Serbia, UNMIK) he talks to about demarcation, he just wants it done. BalkanFever 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not going to stick unless his government recognizes RoK. You can sign deals all you want (even that is questionable) but you can't expect the other party to comply with them if you haven't even recognized them. If they're looking to have their cake and eat it too, it's gonna be tough luck for them. --alchaemia (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and FIFA

Just a head's up, that FIFA's Executive Committee acknowledged formally receiving Kosovo's application for membership in the world football (soccer) body, and that the consideration of this application will be on the agenda for tomorrow's 57th FIFA Congress meeting in Sydney, where it will be voted on by individual national federations represented in person. The Congress starts 12 hours from right now, and considering new membership applications is point 11 of the 2-day agenda. Unlike the FIBA situation (basketball), FIFA membership is voted on democratically by all the physically present member federations, each having one vote, whereas in FIBA, the membership decision is up to a Central Board (several little known individuals), a situation that is not at all transparent to outside scrutiny and far more succeptible to behind-the-scenes pressure by influential national federations with an agenda.

Some information is provided in our article about Kosovo national football team, but its editors failed to mention the FIFA Congress vote as the mechanism, making it seem instead that some monolithic FIFA will make a decision sort of like FIBA went about it in basketball.

Incidentally, the one-person opposed editrequest to include FIBA's denial of membership to Kosovo should be revisited, IMHO, as it was opposed solely on the grounds that sports should not be mentioned at all, which has nothing to do with maintaining and updating the sports that we already have included. Again, editors are just not keeping issues modular when making and processing edit requests, which makes small localized updates unnecessarily problematic, unnecessarily linking localized maintenance to broad shifts in policy that probably won't get consensus. --Mareklug ^talk 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be surprised if Kosovo are granted membership of FIFA as they are not yet members of UEFA, which as a prerequisite needs teams to be members of the UN. (This is an interesting article on the subject) Either way, definitely worth a mention. Note that the sports section was updated yesterday. Bazonka (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that Scotland was a member of UN. 82.95.147.146 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Scotland's (and the other Home Nations') membership of UEFA predates the membership criteria. They are a special case, and they certainly wouldn't be admitted nowadays. Bazonka (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that just recently Spain successfully lobbied enough nations to vote against admission of Gibraltar national team into UEFA, Kosovo admission is just as likely to fail if you take into account that Russia, Portugal, Greece, Romania, and other nations would be strongly opposed. --Tocino 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think Greece and Portugal would strongly oppose. The others yes. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a sad story when people vote against your participation in sports events because of political views, and it's even worse to see people on this page get happy about that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Qatar

Lets do this properly. We have this source [6]. What shall we write?

its says this about Qatar "Foreign Minister Hyseni met with the ambassadors of Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates accredited to the United Nations office in Vienna, and briefed them on developments following Kosovo's declaration of independence on February 17."

and

"None of the Arab countries has recognised the move, although some, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have indicated that they have begun the recognition process."

Can we see some proposals please? and maybe some more sources? Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of other information, I suggest "Sources indicate that Qatar has begun the process of recognising Kosovo. As of May 2008 no statement on Kosovo has been sourced by the Qatar Foreign Ministry." Bazonka (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support adding Qatar only if Morocco is re-added. The two cases are very similar and I will not accept one source being favored over the other. --Tocino 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What I said above about precedents applies to you, too, Tocino. Consider each case on its own merits. - Revolving Bugbear 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK then, how about, I will support this proposal if we can get a better source which has quotes and evidence to back up the claim. However, I would consider supporting this lone source if we are able to hold other sources up to the same standard, in assuming good faith in the journalist. So this means a possible reverse in the decision to eliminate Morocco's entry from the article. Better? :) --Tocino 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Morocco entry was primarily deleted because it was irrelevant, not because the source was a bit iffy. (In what way is "countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories" about their government's position on Kosovo?) On the other hand, the Qatar source directly talks about the Qatari government preparing for recognition. Admittedly the source is a bit vague, but if we give enough caveats it should be acceptable. It's utterly, utterly different to the Morocco case. Bazonka (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the reasoning in the Morocco section... comments by different editors... Editor 1) "Agree with removal. It is not an official statement." Editor 2) "While the sentiment reflected in the article is probably accurate, it is nowhere near an official position or statement, it's nothing more than a comment by a journalist." Editor 3) "I do agree that this isn't really worth mentioning though - it's more general opinion than an official statement. "

Well for the Qatar source we have the same circumstances. The Qatar government has said nothing about Kosovo as far as we know, but some journalist has made a statement about Qatar and Kosovo with no quotes or evidence to support it. It is exactly like the Morocco source where the journalist is making a statement without support about the countries' positions on recognition of Kosovo.

Saying that you are worried about separatists in your own borders constitutes a serious reason to oppose recognition of Kosovo. We don't know if these are the exact words of the Moroccan government, but if we assume good faith in the journalist then we should believe that these are the words of Morocco and that is their reasoning for not recognizing. This is plausible reaction for a nation which is dealing with its possession of Western Sahara. --Tocino 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tbf Morocco should be re-added as the source is 100% about Kosovo and we all know that Morocco is not going to recognise Kosovo due to their Western Sahara problem. Not to mention that it is a reliable source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Morocco should only be added if one can get any information on record as to its reaction, not to be confused with some journalist's stated speculation mentioning Morocco's plausible reasons, or that of Sudan, for possibly reacting or not. --Mareklug ^talk 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Qatar has indicated that recognition procedures have begun and we have a source for it from a high rank meeting report, then I don't see what the problem is. Just write "Qatar has indicated it has begun recognition procedures". Also, Morocco's entry was something like "Morocco will probably not recognize because of the W. Sahara problem". It can't get more POV than that. Wikipedia doesn't deal with probability, it deals with sources. And the sources are saying that Qatar is in the process of recognizing Kosovo. Exo (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But the journalist for the Qatar source has no evidence or quotes to support his claim that Qatar have promised recognition. He states it like it is a well known fact, when in reality no one else has heard anything about Kosovo from the Qatar government.

The Moroccan entry read: "Morocco is reportedly worried about separatists and the secession of ethnic groups within its own territory, but no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March 2008." The Moroccan source said the following: "But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories." This is very similar to the proposed Qatar entry in where a journalist is making a statement with no support to back it up. We don't know if the journalist from the Qatar citation contacted the Qatar government and if he did he should have said so. We also don't know if the journalist from the Morocco citation contacted the Moroccan government and if he did he should have said so. Assuming good faith in both journalists means that we should assume both reporters did their homework and contacted the respective governments. However it seems assuming good faith in the journalists is not enough for some. --Tocino 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No.

• Morocco/Sudan evidence = speculation, no reactions are being reported.
• Qatar evidence = Qatar recognition underway is being reported.

--Mareklug ^talk 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

• Morocco/Sudan citation = written as fact but not backed up by quotes or evidence
• Qatar citation = written as fact but not backed up by quotes or evidence

--Tocino 01:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the problem, thank you for stating it succintly: written as fact (without, in fact, constituting reported facts). This sticky way of creating virtual reality in the matter of reactions to Kosovo independence is rampant:

• Offcial act of nonrecognition has been written as fact for the following governments which have yet to act officially, often by their officials' own words (Foreign Minister of Slovakia): Bosnia, Slovakia, Cuba, Brazil, Uruguay, India, Libya, Algeria, Portugal -- and until I reverted it, Armenia.
• Reaction has been written as fact for countries which no one has to date been able to source as in fact having reacted at all: Morocco, Iraq, Uruguay.

Definitely, factless written as fact is a rampant virutal reality creation device, employed by editors in the matter of Kosovo on English Wikipedia and on that basis, sourcing Commons maps. That's why pruning this article of any such is of highest priority, and has cascading consequences.

But it so happens that Qatar is a case of sourcing a report of fact, a position of a secretive state whose high officials attended a meeting on recognizing Kosovo, where the reporter himself was physically present. This is not one of those wikipedian-fabricated written-as-facts pressed into flesh from Frankensteined quotes and other assembled "source material", much like fast food is made out of garbage.

So the Qatar info satisfies the criterion of verified content -- it is plausible, it was reported on location, it is contextualized by concrete events, and the reporting agency is nonpartizan and not co-located to either Kosovo or Serbia, and it just happened. A journalistic essay by a New York desk-sitting columnist, painting a broad picture and speculating on what countries might do while aggregating other countries' actual reactions -- and doing so in March -- is hardly equivalent, now, (almost) in June. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia, Slovakia, Cuba, Brazil, Uruguay, India, Libya, Algeria, Portugal, and Uruguay all oppose recognition and their positions are accurately displayed on this article. As for the Qatar source, it is filed from Pristina and not from Vienna where the meetings of the FMs took place. So you are making an assumption that the Balkan Insight journalist was in Vienna and then returned to Pristina to type the report. While you are willing to believe the journalist from the Qatar source was embedded with the separatist government delegation in Vienna and then for whatever reason had to travel back to Pristina in order to publish the article, you are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to the journalist of the Moroccan source. You know these journalists have telephones, internet, e-mail, and such these days. The "New York desk-sitting columnist" as you put it could've easily e-mailed the Moroccan embassy in Washington and gathered their response, that they are worried about separatism, and put it in his informative column. Bottom line is that both journalists made a mistake in failing to tell their readers how they got their information and ultimately that is what is keeping their words from entering our article. -- Tocino 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors, when will you put an end to Tocino's offensive words like these: "the separatist government delegation..." ? --alchaemia (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about when he calls Rep. of Kosova a "puppet state"? Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not recognizing or have yet to decide

Can someone PLEASE split the table into two sections: one for not recognizing and one for yet to decide? it would clean up the table alot.

Googolme (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree as this would be a users interpretation on the sources weather or not a country has not recognised or has yet to decide. It is easy to decide for some such as Russia, but harder for other such as Cuba. At the end of the day both category's do not recognise Kosovo and this works out the most NPOV, unlike the POV system which you suggest. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree as well. This issue was also discussed in previous archives. Ijanderson is 100% right. Exo (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - The table is fine as it is. Splitting it further would make it cluttered, not clean. The difference between not recognizing and yet to decide is highly POV and is even more difficult to source, and more prone to controversy. All that really matters is recognize and don't recognize, because that is objective and doesn't assume intentions or political sympathies, which are open to interpretation.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we only use the support kosovo map--Jakezing (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The map we use is based 100% on fact rather than the opinionated. The lists are in the sections them headings because they are fact based lists, not opinionated. Making this article more NPOV than POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Though when you think about it, the fact we only show a map with supporters is showing more favour to the recognizers ina way. Total NPOV with maps would to have none.--Jakezing (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the map shows every country in the world. ;-) It depends on what you want to read into it. One could just as easily argue that the map is biased against non-supporters because it only shows those with official diplomatic relations, and not those who are thinking about or might recognize, making the number seem smaller. The map reflects a fact, just like the map of the European Union members reflects a fact.

But, I do see your point: non-recognition is just as relevant as recognition, because the article title is "international reaction," so, perhaps it would be better if the rest of the world was some other color instead of neutral grey? Past maps were rejected because they presented multiple pov "reactions" in multiple colors, and this compromise map tries to neutralize things. But, perhaps it would be appropriate to change the color scheme so both sides are shown just as vividly--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the map showed countries which recognise Kosovo and countries which don't. Some countries may support Kosovo but not recognise. For example Slovakia has announced that it supports Kosovo but it won't recognise it. Just like how the US supports Taiwan but doesn't recognise it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbian officials met with Rep of Kosovo officials for first time

Serbian officials met with Rep of Kosovo officials today. This is the first time officials from both countries met, sat down and discussed things. This should be added to Serbia's entry. [7] Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I migrated Serbia's reaction to its own article, precisely because it's an ongoing ever expanding story, with new deatils arising all the time. Just follow the link and update the article (which is not locked from editing, and probably needs some loving attention). This detail belongs there. Its importance will be automatically contextualized by the progressioin of events. When Serbia recognizes Kosovo, we'll alter this article. :) --Mareklug ^talk 00:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to bust your pipe dream but Serbia and the vast majority of nations will never recognize Kosovo. :) --Tocino 01;12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember you can't hate someone forever. Time will be Kosovo's greatest success. Ijanderson977 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Words like "always" and "never" are laughable in the political arena. Exo (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate anybody. Just telling the facts. :)

I have noticed a strong anti-Serb editoral POV from BalkanInsight, BTW. For example it called Vojislav Koštunica the "out-going Prime Minister" when in fact it is very likely that Koštunica will still be PM after the SRS-DSS-SPS alliance forms. Also it says in another article that Serbia is "bitterly opposed" to Kosovo's secession. Calling Serbs "bitter" is not exactly embracing NPOV. It would not surprise me that, like B92, BalkanInsight is funded by the USA/EU/NATO. --Tocino 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said you hate someone. I was referring to Russia and Serbia ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Koštunica is out-going because his term formally expires. If he emerges as a coalition leader of the new government or not, his out-goingness is not altered. The characterization is true and exact. In your own example concerning calling Serbs bitter, nothing like that was evidenced even in your paraphrase: The phrase "Serbia is bitterly opposed" pertains, by employing the the common and perfectly understood by the reader device of metonymy to the Government of Serbia, where the world "bitterly" idiomatically modifies the verb indicating "being against", indicating the high degree of this opposition. This canny usage does not indicate even that the Government of Serbia is bitter, let alone that Serbs as a nation or group are, as Serbs happen to also live in Bosnia, where BalkanInsight.com is headquartered, and certainly there are Serbs on staff. Spreading FUD and misinformation as you did here only makes this page more difficult to use for editors improving this article's factuality. Please desist already. This skit with BalkanInsight is clearly a back-atcha for my substantive portrayal of transgresssions of B92.net, including truly weird and unequal language. The wild insinuation about who may be funding BalkanInsight.com is just inflammatory rhetoric without any topicality on this talk page, or basis, and probably borders on violating the article's (and your own) terms of probation. Consider this a friendly warning, which might save you from crossing the line (again). --Mareklug ^talk 02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If the deal is reached between the parties, Koštunica will still be PM and he would have never have left office. He never would've left for anywhere so he was never out-going. BalkanInsight could've used better wording than bitterly. Why don't they say that the USA/EU/NATO is "bitterly opposed" to Serbian sovereignty and terroritial integrity then? Of course only the Serbs can be bitter. Yeah right. I've just read another article from this BalkanInsight and it labels one side of Serbian politics "pro-European" and the other "nationalist". You can still be nationalist and be "pro-European" at the same time you know. Last time I checked Serbia was in Europe and for one side to be nationalist and therefore not "pro-European" would mean that that half of Serbian politics are self-loathing Europeans. Make no mistake about it, what BalkanInsight is doing here is substituting "pro-European" in place of "pro-EU" as if the EU had some right the proclaim itself the rulers of all of Europe. --Tocino 03:25, 29 may 2008 (UTC)

This is alot of OR and POV discussion.--Jakezing (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People

{{editprotect}} Sort the flag out. It seems to have been deleted. Just sort it out please. it looks a mess. Either find the correct flag or have no flag. Ijanderson977 (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted on the Commons yesterday because it didn't have the correct sourcing information. Anyway,  Done; thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangladeshi recognition soon; Muslim nations to act jointly at conf. in Uganda?

Here's a Bangladeshi newspaper account from 16 May after a meeting with a US ambassador in Dhaka with some info not reported yet on this talk page:

...Foreign Adviser Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury told reporters after a meeting with US Ambassador in Dhaka James F Moriarty.

During an hour-long meeting, the US Ambassador sought Bangladesh's support to woo the Myanmar government to receive the world aid for the cyclone victims as well as independence of Kosovo, two aircraft for Darfur and US candidature for IOM leadership. On Kosovo, the Adviser said Bangladesh always support the cause of Muslim brothers in Kosovo and is contemplating about Kosovo's recognition.

He said Muslim countries would be able to take collective decision at the Islamic Foreign Minister Conference (ICFM) to be held in Uganda in July.

— The New Nation, Dhaka, Bangladesh

--Mareklug ^talk 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. It says that Bangladesh is contemplating recognition. That is a big difference from your title "Bangladesh recognition soon". --Tocino 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinda have to agree with my Serbian friend here. But it's still worth following as Tocino will learn that America has a way of

getting things done indirectly. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that Bangladesh's MOFA site is s**t. We could do with some sources from it. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro might recognize Kosovo on 16 June

June 16 has been frequently mentioned as a possible date for eventual decision by Montenegro to recognize Kosovo's independence. Media in Podgorica say June 16 was mentioned during regular contacts between Montenegrin officials and the Euro-Atlantic allies. [8]--Digitalpaper (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This should probaly be included in the article Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and every speculation out there. I am sick of Montenegro and Macedonia since they are the ones that always some "high official" says recognition will happen soon or w/e and it never does. I see no reason why this speculation should be included. Kosova2008 68.187.142.80 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

... sp dod ;ithuania and now Suadi.--Jakezing (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberia Recognises Kosovo - Edit request

MONROVIA, The Government of Liberia has joined several European Union countries and the United States of America in recognizing Kosovo

source: http://www.liberianobserver.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/11910/Liberia_Recognizes_Kosovo.html Emetko (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncontroversial edit. Please add Liberia.

---

| 42 || Liberia || 2008-05-30 || || |-

---

uncontroversial edit. Please update all the other numbers such as UN from 41 to 42. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Tubesship (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - only the UN number needs to be updated. Bazonka (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why only the UN number and not the list and map, too? --Tubesship (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the list and map should be updated too. My comment was a response to Ijanderson's comment "Please update all the other numbers such as UN". Sorry if I was ambiguous. Bazonka (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done the map. — EJ (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done, but what about the country list? --Tubesship (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words: it is pointless to ask for map changes in an edit request. The map is on commons, and it is not protected, unlike this article, so ordinary users like you and me can edit it directly. — EJ (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Digitalpaper (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done--Húsönd 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

European Parlament says it recognises Kosovo Independence

Jelko Kacin, European Parliament Reporter about Serbia said in Brussels yesterday that the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament in Brussels have marked recognition of Kosovo independence. The flag of ‘independent Kosovo’ was raised on the mast.
Kacin confirmed that to be recognition of Kosovo by the European Parliament.
source: http://www.blic.co.yu/news.php?id=2236
Also:
Brussels: The European Parliament (EP) in Brussels on Wednesday witnessed the Kosovo delegation appearing in EP under the flag of “independent Kosovo”. This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions.
(Doris) Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.”
source: http://eyugoslavia.com/kosovo/28/kosovo-delegation-appears-in-european-parliament-with-independent-kosovo-flag-22300/ Emetko (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please add this to "International governmental organisations". This is an uncontroversial edit.

 Not done Further discussion is needed, as this has two disagreements. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

| European Parliament || Jelko Kacin, reporter of the European Parliament announced on 30 May 2008 that the European Parliament recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. He added "‘Kosovo, too, has its place in the EU and I am against that any country, including Serbia, has the right to obstruct Kosovo on its way to the EU". This was the first time Kosovo's flag was official hoisted at an EU institution. |-

---

Uncontroversial edit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It's the statement of a biased person Jelko Kacin not the decision of EP. His statement was denied from the EU whose officials said that the EU has no legal rights to recognize countries and that it is decided by the individual member states.--Avala (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree Jelko Kacin represents EP as he is the official spokes person, EP is not a voluntary club, but is high Europe Institution especially when it comes to press releases, every statement is clearly monitored before it gets in the media, they have a public relation policy. I agree for the edit to take place. --Tubesship (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification needed. Not mentioned at [9], [10] or [11]. If the EU has recognised Kosovo, why isn't this mentioned on at least one of those pages? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

What about the Ms. Pack Declaration?

Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.

a Request From Greek & Serb MPs to remove the Kosovo Flag From the Session Was turned down by the EP. Emetko (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no serbian Member of Parliament in the European Parliament as serbia is no member of the European Union. --Tubesship (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Avala et al: perhaps reading the article wouldn't hurt? He's not saying the EU recognized; he's saying the European Parliament did (EP, not EU). --alchaemia (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the European Parliament, not the European Union - these are slightly different (although related). I think we need to mention this statement by Kacin, although it is worth stating that the EP (and indeed EU) has no authority to recognise. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jelko Kacin is spokes person for EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.247.44 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree: Jelko Kacin represents EP, EP is not a voluntary club, but is high Europe Institution especially when it comes to press releases, every statement is clearly monitored before it gets in the media, they have a public relation policy. I agree for the edit to take place --Digitalpaper (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we add a line or two to the end of the EU part, mentioning that the European Parliament has recognised Kosovo? Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

EP has no legal authority to do it. --Avala (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact they did it. --Tubesship (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they did. They adopted, with a two-thirds majority, the Ahtisaari plan which stipulates independence. Some things just make logical sense. --alchaemia (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they shouldn't be able to recognise, yet seem to have done so anyway definitely makes it worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to read it you would see that Ahtisaari Plan needs to be adopted by Security Council. Anyway Rehn reacted [12] and Serbian Government wants Jelko Kacin to be removed [13]. --Avala (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think they're going to dissolve parliament now - Government of Serbia reacted... Your link is broken, by the way, like much of the material on that page - "Грешка" --alchaemia (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry. But that second link say

"The page you requested cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following: • If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. • Use the navigation bar on the left to find the link you are looking for. • Click the Back button to try another link. • Enter a term in the search form below to look for information on this site."

What has that got to do with the EP. also why should we trust B92? I thought we were not using it. That B92 source is just Rehns view. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The EU does not decide as a whole to recognize, as it is up to the individual states. This session was nothing more than a propaganda rally for vicious anti-Serbia politicians trying to show their strength, despite objections by those who are reasonable. --Tocino 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tocino you have just disagreed for the sake of it. If you would have bothered reading the proposal you would see that its the "European Parliament" not the "European Union", so i suggest you revise your comment. No one is suggesting the EU has recognised Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to say the same thing. It may well be outside the powers of the EP, but it would certainly seem that they have made a de facto recognition, if not a de jure one. Therefore, certainly worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the European Parliament does recognize Kosovo at this point, as it only needs a 2/3 majority. That does not mean the EU recognizes Kosovo, but the European Parliament. This should be noted. Exo (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberia

I think they recognized. Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.196.137 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberia Recognizes Kosovo

Published: 30 May, 2008

Foreign Minister Olubanke King-Akerele MONROVIA, The Government of Liberia has joined several European Union countries and the United States of America in recognizing Kosovo, formerly a province of Serbia until February 17 this year when its inhabitants voted for independence.

http://www.liberianobserver.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/11910/Liberia_Recognizes_Kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.52.78 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It'd help if you guys would read whats been written before. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson, when you guys made that edit request you had only a report from a Liberian paper, now we have OFFICIAL proof. 68.114.196.137 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have an official proof, why not post it here? The link provided by 64.9.52.78 is the same report from a Liberia paper which we already source in the article. It would be better to have a government source, but as far as I can see, Liberian MoFA did not yet publish anything on the matter. — EJ (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thats the same source as i used in the edit request. So what are you on about? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia and Montenegro to recognise in June (supposedly)

[14] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament recognises Kosovo, but the EU doesn't - edit request

New proposal, its more clear, the European Parliament recognises Kosovo. However the EU doesn't. The European Parliment needed a 2/3 majority to recognise, which it has. The EU does not recognise Kosovo yet as 7 of its members currently don't recognise Kosovo. So here is my new proposal

{{editprotect}}

---

| European Parliament || On 30 May 2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution. |-

---

Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament has no authority to recognize any state, only EU members can recognize states. Same story like with EU. Also in those links we can only see opinion of couple of Parliament members, not the official statement of parliament. I would suggest some kind of compromise to be inserted.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Igor, you seem not to understand that European states in the European Union are independend in their foreign politics unlike American states in the United States of America. So there is no contradiction that some European states in the European Union do not recognize but the European parliament does. And the European parliament did as a matter of fact! --Tubesship (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship is correct. We are not talking about the EU but the European Parliament. EU would require unanimous consent, EP only requires 2/3 majority, which has been achieved and the EP has recognized Kosovo. That means that when the European Parliament deals with Kosovo, it will deal with it in the capacity of an independent state. Any opposition from countries in the minority, like Greece or Spain, would be overturned because 2/3 majority dictates the policy of EP. Exo (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If the EU states are independent in foreign politics, and EU has no formal constitution, so EU cannot have a foreign politics of its own. IMO some "survey" on a current "roll-call" of self-proclaimed "European" Parliament (which doesn't include all European countries nor has a constition) shouldn't have even any importance in this article, not to say jurisdiction on recognizing a country. But then again the inclusions on statements of various sports associations, in this article are disputable also. Further, the sources provided state that 2/3 majority supports the plan, no wording about recognition. As far as I have found this eYugoslavia exists since July 2007 - are they notable and trustworthy enough for even such claims? Who counted this votes (if there were votes), are there any other confimrations of this votings? And moreover, as far the Kacin's words are concerned, it is his interpretation that raising flags means recognition. Is there any document, transcript or such from the meeting of EP MPs and Kosovo MPs for recognition"? Does raising flags necessarilly mean recognition of independent state? IMHO, these are only interpretations from some politicians. --Biblbroks's talk 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the "INTERNATIONAL REACTION..." and the EU parliament falls under this category whether it has a constitution or not, it is a supernatural union of states. The EP is a directly elected parliament, you guess who elects the beuracrats. The sport section should be included because WP is not a paper encyclepedia and therefore we are not in a limit, we have seen not just Kosova but other sporting events (Olympics) where sports have been used as a political tool...some international sports such as FIFA are not allowing Kosova to compete just because of political reasons; this constitutes a reaction. Furthermore the EP with a 2/3 vote recognized Rep. of Kosova and they hoisted the flag of Kosovo, another reaction. Now, since this source is neither pro-Kosovar or pro-Serb we have to assume good faith. This is why I am for this change. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that Kosova2008. The fact the EP does not cover all of Europe is utterly irrelevant; neither does the EU, and that's mentioned in the article. The fact that it doesn't have a constitution is utterly irrelevant; neither does the United Kingdom, and that's mentioned in the article. Bazonka (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, 2/3 majority is good enough at EP. Exo (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongest Agree --Tubesship (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Opose --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Digitalpaper (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Bazonka (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose' - with such wording per above comment --Biblbroks's talk 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree: Stated Above Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I will abstain from deciding this edit request as I have an opinion about this matter. The European Parliament does have the power to recognize a country's independence (and this is obvious as otherwise it wouldn't have been able to recognize Kosovo's). Now the effects of this recognition are definitely not like a sovereign state's recognition and will probably only affect the European Parliament itself and its actions. But still, it will result in some implications. For example, the European Parliament will from now on allow the prime minister of the Republic of Kosovo to address the plenary and be effectively recognized by the parliament as the prime minister of that republic. Also, from now on, whenever the European Parliament refers to Serbia it won't be including Kosovo anymore. Etc. This edit request is necessary and thus I agree with it. Húsönd 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement and the good reason you gave for your decision. I am stunned about the arguments of the opposers as if it makes reality undone by claiming that the reality is not supposed to be, like the parliament is not supposed/allowed to recognize. Whether they are allowed/authorized or not, they did it! And it should be mentioned that they did it as it is a matter of fact that they did it. What some people seems not to understand is the role of the legislative: They make the rules as they make the laws! This is, what a legislation does! And exactly this is the European parliament! --Tubesship (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per Biblbroks's reasoning. --Tocino 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree. Húsönd's arguments are convincing. Gugganij (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree This is because over two thirds of the European Unions elected MEPs (Member of European Parliament) voted to recognise Kosovo. This has nothing to do with which EU states recognised Kosovo, but how the MEPs voted. Since 2/3s voted to recognise, this is notable information, which should be added. This was a democratically done. The result was to recognise Kosovo, Greece and Spain opposed, but there was nothing they could do as it was democratically conducted in the Parliament.

Here is another example of the European Parliament recognising a country with out each individual member doing so themselves, the same happened when Montenegro became independent, the Parliament recognised it before every member did. See this here Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Ijanderson977: Can you provide us with link about voting on recognising Kosovo you mention? In provided links we only see voting on adoption of Ahtisaari's plan.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Agree per Ijanderson977. Jawohl. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I would be far more confident in the encyclopedic quality of this edit, if we could source it to European Parliament's own news release. Then we would have the benefit of it coming from the horse's mouth, with important details, such as how many voted for and how many against. For example, this news release in the matter of Kosovo from March of last year does this: "MEPs strongly back Martti Ahtisaari's proposal on Kosovo, call for it to be put under "supervised sovereignty"", European Parliament, 28 March 2007. Link accessed 2008-05-31. As is, we are sourcing it to only the http://eyugoslavia.yu/ and http://blic.co.yu/ . We could do better. Also, European Commissioner from Finland has spoken on the matter of EP acting vs. EU policy, and that quote should probably be condensed and included for fair and contextualized complete reporting's sake:

“ European Commissioner Olli Rehn said Thursday that he does not agree with European Parliament members who have said the body recognized Kosovo as an independent state by displaying the flag of the self-proclaimed "independent Kosovo," Beta reported Friday.

Rehn said the European Commission "is working on the basis of joint decisions by the European Union" and the commission has "no authority to recognize any state." He said recognizing states is a matter to be decided by EU member countries.

However, he said the European Parliament can act "at its own discretion" within its own structures, such as the display of the Kosovo flag at a meeting between European Parliament representatives and the Kosovo Assembly.

” — Olli Rehn, European Commissioner, "Official: Only EU members recognize states", United Press International, 30 May 2008. Link accessed 2008-05-31.

That, too, is notable and part of this news. --Mareklug ^talk 12:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, the only solution would be to write a short letter with a simple question regarding European Parliaments position towards Kosova. I would do it but my english is not good enough so I propose you do it. I thank you in advance in the name of all Wikipedians. --Tubesship (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship, if, as you say, this is the only solution, then there is no confirmation for the recognition of Kosovo by European Parliament. Furthermore, if my words are read carefully, it can be concluded that I haven't said that EP voting shouldn't be included in the article's entries. My words, however, could be understood as if I questioned EP's jurisdiction on such matter as the Kosovo's independence is. Yet this can be regarded as my own perspective of such matters (as it probably is), but this is the consequence of readability and encyclopedic value of this article, since it appears to me that this is becoming more and more as some kind of a scoreboard. What I wanted to say is what some editors came to understand while others refuse or can't. And that is that the credibility of EP's recognition is questionable. All the provide sources have said on this issue, is that the flag was raised and the 2/3 majority supported a plan, not recognition. As it can be understood, these sources aren't official documents of the EP. Although the title of the news excerpts could induce such a conclusion (We have recognized independence), this is referred to raising flags at the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament, and again this is regarded only as Kacin's interpretation. Further in the article is said somethin different though, Podimata said, “It is not in our jurisdiction to decide on the status of Kosovo as an independent state.” and ..deputies of European Parliament and representatives of Kosovo Parliament requested that ‘the EULEX authority is deployed in the whole territory of Kosovo’ and distanced themselves from the deputies of the EP that disputed unilaterally proclaimed Kosovo independence..

I propose that the wording for this news should be different (if any inclusion should be done) - something like: Raising of Kosovo's flag at the meeting of ... has been interpreted by some politicians as a step towards recognition of Kosovo's independence by the European parliament. --213.198.219.189 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) --Biblbroks's talk 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - EP Recognized Kosovo. We are not here to discuss the legaliy of actions, just to report them, as long as they come from governmental or intergovernmental bodies. It doesn't matter whether or not the EP's decision carries any legal weight in the EU or elsewhere, that is irrelevant. The article has many sourced reactions from things like sports and religious oganizations, so I don't see what is wrong with quoting a high governmental body in Europe, it´s not as if anyone is trying to imply the EU recognized or that this action somehow settles the Kosovo issue once and for all. No, this is just a legitimate story pertinent to the article. If an intergovernmental oganization rejected Kosovo independence, I would support quoting them also.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that EP even did not discussed this issue. Officially they only putted flag. EP is not a body that would do such action as recognize some country when it is out of their jurisdiction. We only have interpretation of flag action by some EP members. There was no voting on recognition of Kosovo, like some are suggesting. Plus giving some 2/3 results. I agree that this event is important and should be in article, but it should be putted properly.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As requested by Tubesship, I wrote a letter of inquiry to PE via their web interface for Correspondence with Citizens. I told them who and why is asking, and told them of this discussion and requested official info as to any vote and ramifications of this PE event for PE activity. In view of claims that there was no vote, we should probaly remove the editprotect template as hopeless and seek better sourcing, monitoring the PE website, while we await any contact from them. -Mareklug ^talk 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@ -Biblbroks there was voting. My MER took part and voted for recognition of Kosovo. Therefore your opposition is groundless. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, sources on voting for recognition aren't yet provided. Neither is any source for recognition by the European Parliament provided. My opposing vote is based purely on that. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done If and when primary sources from the European Parliament are found or become available, they should be added; however the secondary sources provided are acceptable, and there appears to be sensible consensus for this edit. Happy‑melon 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bad joke! There are no news on the official homepage of the european parliament for recognition of kosovo. And you have just 2 secendary sources which are from further Yugoslavia. If I understood right it was just a voting needed to put this unconfirmed and probably not true news online in the wiki. I think its absolutely wrong to put it in as long there is no officially confirmation. Seader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.209.51 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but im not going to argue with you as i am not willing to waste my time on an anonymous user, who doesn't even bother to sign his comments. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I signed it with Seader, tahts my name. I am not a registered user of the english wiki. So I am not anonymous. But you still dont habe to argue because I see here are too many people which believe almost everything without an officiall confirmation. On the officiall Homepage of the european parliament is no confirmation for this. And dont you think that if the european parliament would decide something like that, there would be a press release? Of course there would be, but there is nothing like that. Seader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.249.106 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - sport federations: add FIS and fix FIBA broken link

{{editprotect}}

In the International sports federations, please replace:

---

|- | International Basketball Federation || On 26 April 2008 FIBA declined to admit Basketball Federation of Kosova to membership. Reason: "Kosovo has not fulfilled all necessary conditions". |}

---

with:

---

|- | International Basketball Federation (FIBA) || On 26 April 2008 FIBA declined to admit Basketball Federation of Kosova to membership. Reason: "Kosovo has not fulfilled all necessary conditions". |- | International Ski Federation (FIS) || On 30 May] 2008 FIS through the 46th International Ski Congress meeting in Cape Town made the following membership decisions: "Affiliation of Montenegro, Serbia, Lesotho and Malta as Associated Members bringing the total FIS membership to 110 members. Kosovo’s affiliation is pending recognition of the state by the United Nations. In the meantime, participation of their skiers is permitted at FIS/level and children’s races." |}

---

This edit would fix a broken link for international basketball by replacing it with identical information sourced officially, and adds a reaction for international skiing. --Mareklug ^talk 03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but is it necessary to include the sentence about Montenegro etc? Bazonka (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not hurt to do so, does it? It's context, and it tells us there are 110 members. --Mareklug ^talk 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - if you think it's necessary, I shan't argue. Bazonka (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Revolving Bugbear 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} There's a dodgy "]" in the sports section now. Please remove. Uncontroversial. Thanks Bazonka (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased maps

There was some talk about biased maps, showing some Wikipedia users' interpretations of statements made by various countries. I just noticed that there's a map at European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo showing interpretations of different EU countries' opinions. Isn't that map biased too? Should it be replaced by something different? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

At the moment, that map appears to be factual. The EU countries as are a much less "interpretable" set, so that map is reasonable. Spain, Cyprus, Romania indeed have officially refused to recognize, for now anyway. And Greece, Slovakia, Malta and Portugal have indeed delayed making their position official. All the other marked countries have recognized officially. Presumably one could make the map correspond to this one by setting the countries other than those that have recognized officially, but then the EU vs. non-EU states would need to be distinguished. --Mareklug ^talk 11:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the map is biased. If an EU country has recognised Kosovo, that is fact. As we would have not added otherwise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone recognized Kosovo

Three sources that report this: [15], [16], [17], can someone put an edit request?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalpaper (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Tubesship (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any English news regarding this?--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree at present - need better sources, preferably English Language. I can't find anything on any SL or Africa news sites. Kosovothanksyou.com (and you'd assume they can speak Albanian) have so far only put SL into their "Recognition procedure has been initiated" section, so there must still be some doubt. However, I suspect that following on from Liberia, the West African dominoes are now starting to fall - we shall see... Bazonka (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned sites should be translated. Can xsomeone do that please?84.134.62.205 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RTK has pulled that article off it's website, for what it's worth. --alchaemia (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

here it is:

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=1459 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I already said that it should be translated.84.134.62.205 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

here is in English news: http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080531968/Politics/Sierra-Leone-Recognizes-Kosovo.html

Sierra Leone recognized Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state.

Sierra Leone becomes the 43nd state to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. A country of 5 million with a total area of 71,740 sq km is located in West Africa, Sierra Leone became indepedent in 1961 from the United Kingdom. Sierra Leone is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Union. After Senegal, Burkina Faso and Liberia, Sierra Leone is the fourth African country to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Nobody will be able to officially confirm it until Monday. Reading the comments on the link provided to Telegrafi, one of the posters states, "plus sierra leone= 43," so I'm inferring the information states recognition by Sierra Leone. I ran the word "njohur" through this [18] online Albanian-English dictionary and it translates to (among other things), "recognize." Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

---

| 43 || Sierra Leone || 2008-05-31 || || |-

---

Also, please update the map and change the text to read that 43 states recognise as of 31 May 2008. Further, please correct any coding errors I may have made.

Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

njohur is past tense of recognize....I am a linguist who speaks Albanian fluently.

here is the English version reported by an english news media:

http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080531968/Politics/Sierra-Leone-Recognizes-Kosovo.html

Oppose. "NewKosovaReport" and "Telegrafi" are not reputable sources. --Tocino 20:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They've not misled us yet. The former, in particular, was not wrong about the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Liberia, Czech Republic, etc etc. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not?84.134.121.181 (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, we're always going to have problems with sources reagarding recognition from many underdeveloped countries and we will have to go with the best we have. Regarding Tocino's comment that "NewKosovaReport" and "Telegrafi" are not reputable sources, he has no basis for that statement whatsoever. Exo (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On hold, I'd like to see a couple more decisions on this, but I am watching this conversation ... - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree Newkosovareport is a very reputable news agency. Many prestigious newspapers such as New York Times, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph and magazines (Newsweek, Times, Economist) quote it. Even serbian and many balkan news agencies quote it such as beta, blic, javno, ina, etc. Torcino is misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More news agencies report it: http://www.rtv21.tv/site/?id=5,0,0,1,a,13513 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More news agencies confirm it:

http://balkanweb.com/sitev4/index.php?id=21551 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Agree, Need Confirmation - After thoroughly googling "Sierra Leone Kosovo," and reading through all of the official Sierra Leone government websites, I could find nothing on this. Apparently only Newkosovareport and a couple of Albanian-language sites ar reporting it. Let's give it a couple of days, and see if other international media confirm this report, in a language other than Albanian. After all, everyone wants to avoid a false report that leads to undoing a country edit, as happened with Malaysia.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the SL websites haven't been updated in quite awhile, so let's not hold it against them for not doing so on a Saturday. I'd complain further about delay in listing the information, but it would be futile to do so. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

newkosovareport has been very accurate on every report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It has? As I recall, they used to report Malaysia as having recognizd, until shortly after the time Wikipedia removed it. Fancy that.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Malaysians are the ones who bungled that story, so I don't think you can blame everybody else for it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede to that. Still, it feels odd making an edit based on something that hasn't broken beyond a Kosovo-based source, and I don't see much of an issue to wait till monday, or at least till other sources pop up. I have yet to understand why so many editors here, on both sides of the argument, insit on making important updates without even waiting so much as a day to study them and make sure they are accurate. :) --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Newkosovareport has never quote malaysia. As a matter of fact, NewKosovareport was the first one to bring to attention the Malaysia incident. So, your claims are biased and lacking of facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My recollection might be wrong. I distinctly remember it from one of the Kosovo-based websites often quoted here, and I thought it was NKR, but if it wasn't, then I guess it is more reliable than I thought.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold off on adding: It is best that we wait for other sources to verify this. Monday is not that far away for those not in the Pacific time zone. While waiting, we could look at news agencies and press sources in Africa or in SL's neighbors. I don't know what we could find, but it is worth a shot. The local source for that Liberia's recognition may monitor developments next door. Another thing is that KosovaLive ([19]), a Kosovar news outlet, hasn't shouted it from the rooftops yet. I have found that KosovaLive works like a regular morning newspaper though, showing yesterday's news today. But that may be my perception due to the big time difference. And notably Kosovothanksyou.com is adding SL to their list, but cautiously adding it into the "Recognition procedure has been initiated (or an official confirmation is needed)" category. I have noticed lately that they verified with the Permanent UN Mission of a nation in question before adding it into the "recognized" column, done with Liberia, Nauru, and the Marshall Islands. So maybe one of us can see if the Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in New York has published something or even has a website? Bottom line is that if even Kosovothanksyou.com isn't going to go and put SL on the done deal list yet, we shouldn't either. Ajbenj (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone's UN mission is not reporting it, neither are the president's website, nor other SR governmental bodies.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There's no consensus (yet) for this addition.  Sandstein  22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

agree' here is an english language source [20] Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of good order -- that's the same English language source, noted about 2/3 of the way up this conversation. - Revolving Bugbear 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@ Revolving Bugbear So are you allowing them to disagree per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Care to tell me where you think I said that? - Revolving Bugbear 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmmm. Because there is nothing wrong with sources and the users opposing are quite clearly are anti Kosovo and pro Serbia. So they are opposing because they don't like the new news, therefore they are breaching WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you as an administrator should discard users who oppose per that. Ok? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am opposing, yet I am resolutely pro-Kosovo, and personally wish to see as many countries recognize as possible. I also think it fair and wise, given the nature of discussions that normally take place, to wait for confirmation. Pro-Kosovo editors demand no less whenever pro-Serbian editors quote a Serbian source. This article has established a precedent for favoring official government statments, and whenever this is circumvented, there tends to be great controversy. Waiting a day or two is not the end of the world--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I say there was anything wrong with the sources? All I said is that it's the same source. - Revolving Bugbear 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase the writer Westbrook Pegler and intimate that there seems to be a prevailing attitude that nobody here would commit theirself to the time of day from an atomic clock. We have Albanian language sources, which not many of us can read, but that doesn't delegitimize them. To argue that non-English sources are somehow inherently flawed is biased and ethnocentrist.

This continuing obsession with the rather novel definition of "balance" that permeates everything here, which consist of 'I don't like it, so it's not balanced,' is obstructing and is not doing any good. The only "gotcha!" moment ever, which everybody keeps bringing up, was Malaysia and that was something that the Malaysians themselves bungled - and they admitted it - and cannot be ascribed to bad faith on the part of the media. The New Kosova Report has not ever deliberately misled anybody and simply because it happens to be Kosovar (although I believe physically located in Sweden) does not mean that they're insidious agents of evil, as some of you repeatedly imply.

If the President of Kosovo comes out and says that the grass is green, are some of you going to demand that we get non-Kosovar sources to confirm this stunning piece of information? This constant handwringing and embarrassingly timid approach is rather stunning and causes undue delays and prevents progress. Instead the page is updated at an agonizingly slow pace in the format of a very dysfunctional committee where saboteurs are immediately legitimzed and sustained as the gallant saviours of "balance."

Regardless of whether Sierra Leone recognised or not, which it almost certainly did, by the way, this obsession with a "balance" of sources in which nothing is to be believed unless you can come up with a mountain of sources ranging from The Baltic Times to the Cabbage Lovers' Monthly, creates a rather Schizophrenic environment that is unwarranted, wasteful and repetitive.

As shocking as it may be, sometimes you have to go with one source. In a perfect world, we'd have dozens. Sierra Leone does not exactly have a crackling Internet presence. They may never post anything online about Kosovo. Kosovothanksyou.com will undoubtedly be ringing their UN mission on Monday and will confirm the news that way. Then at least one of you will object that kosovothanksyou.com is biased. Bah! Seeing as this is an issue that is important to Kosovo, it's only logical that the Kosovar media would cover it. It is biased to cast aspersions of bias on Kosovar media, if you think about it!

Enough is enough. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be puzzled by the level of hyperbole and accusation, over something so absurdly simple.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's so absurdly simple is exactly my point. There are 3 Albanian language sources (that work) and one English confirming and that's still not good enough. If it were Britney Spears news, everybody would be rushing to catch up.Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a long history in this article of people claiming recognitions or impending recognitions from one source, which turn out to be false. We also have a long history of people from both sides accusing each other of having "biased" sources whether they are in Albanian or in Serbian, and it inevitably comes down to third party sources before consensus is ever reached, so let's not be hypocritical here. We have managed to find official government sources for just about every country, even the "unimportant" ones, and we're not even asking that, just that we get a source from a different country. Keep it real guys, let's cut the drama, let's just confirm what we all know will very probably get confirmed if it is true.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been claims of impending recognitions, but nobody has ever tried to get them added to 'the list' of countries that have recognised. Macedonia and Montenegro are the most notorious for this, as you know, but it's never made it past this stage. I'm not accusin anybody of bias per se. I'm saying that constant accusations of bias are rather silly and pointless. We do not have official governmental sources for several countries, including Liberia, Nauru, the Marshall Islands and San Marino - we got those from kosovothanksyou.com or a tv station website in the case of San Marino. I am keeping it real - no tripping here - and drama seems to be what we do here. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care if they've "only" been wrong about impending recognitions, they still report those quite frequently as facts and make me generally suspicious of their reliability. I said "almost" every country has a government statement, and I explicitely said that one was, in my opinion, not necessary for Sierra Leone. I just want another national media. No, they are not sourced from kosovothanksyou.com, Liberia is sourced from a Liberian paper, and San Marino is sourced fom a Sanmarinese radio, which makes those stories unlikely to be biased. Only Marshall Islands and Nauru were partially sourced from kosovothanksyou.com, in conjunction with your emails as supporting evidence, which I myself supported as credible. If any Kosovan, Albanian, or Serbian website, by itself and without confirmation, has sufficed for consensus and inclusion in the article before, it is news to me and I stand corrected (btw thank you for reminding me of Kosovathanksyou, which I was earlier confusing with Newkosovareport). I do not think accusations of bias (towards media, not towards users) are silly at all, if they go both ways, and not just toward our political opponent. I believe that, as a matter of responsible reporting, we should always confirm stories with sources from different countries than the affected nations. I'm not the one who wrote a long belittling diatribe about how absurd and intolerable people who disagree are (and I don't mean to single you out personally, many here do the same, on both sides), I've made a polite and very reasonable request to wait until monday, and I'm not the only one who disagrees with the sourcing. Any rate though, I am changing my position, because I will not have access to internet for a while, and I have no reason to oppose the inclusion of Sierra Leone, if it really turns out to be a fact.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

After more consideration, I just want to aknowledge and emphasize my mistake in confusing New Kosova Report with Kosova Thanks You, because that was really the biggest source of my contention.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - newkosovareport was fine as a source for some past recognitions, why should that change? Gugganij (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as if there has always been consensus on that. he reality is, there has always been prolonged and heated squabble, and edits only made after more sources were found. I am saying let's be reasonable and skip to the confirmation.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I am an Albanian-speaking Kosovar citizen. I have read all the news stories that have reported that Sierra Leone has recognised the Republic of Kosova, however all non-RTK (Radio Television of Kosova) media have quoted RTK as reporting the news. In other words, there is only one news source that stands behind this story and they seem to have withdrawn the story. Now, it's not Telegrafi or NewKosovarReport's fault that they quoted RTK -- so, regardless of whether this news story turns out to be true of false they cannot be described as unreliable or not trustworthy. RTV 21 is also reporting the recognition, but again they fail to mention a single source for the story. I must add that the local media in Kosovo do not normally set out to misinform and I can't see any reason why they would do that in this case. For this reason I suggest that we wait for a more formal confirmation or denial because I am sure that in the next couple of days someone, somewhere from the Government of Sierra Leone will come forward and make a formal statement. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, RTK (Radio Televisioni i Kosoves) is very accurate. They put the news 12min on their website (after reported) and you can stream it --- it's the only news agency that does this. It's nice to be able to watch the 5 o'clock (Kosovar Time) news 12 mins after its' been aired online. I also oppose of the change until we get more sources. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

@Supersexyspacemonkey: As far as I can remember we added one of those tiny islands in the pacific to the recognition table, after one user provided newkosovareport as a source. Therefore, I still agree with adding Sierra Leone to the countries recognizing Kosovo. However, I have no problem to wait a few days for other sources (e.g. waiting till the website of the Kosovo president update their list). Gugganij (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagree we should add Sierra Leone now.84.134.68.40 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm seeing a lot of talking going on here, but not a whole lot of discussion. Voting and then explaining at length why everyone should agree with your vote or disregard the votes of people who disagree with it does not count as discussion and will as such not lead to consensus. The object here should be to discuss these things and try to reach some common ground. - Revolving Bugbear 11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my message was not clear. I want Sierra Leone on the list.84.134.68.40 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the urgency? I think the sensible thing to do is to wait a couple of days for a better source of information. If we get one, we add SL. If we don't, then we continue to discuss. But in the meantime - let's just chill out. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to chill. Instead we should work good.84.134.111.20 (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want a good workover, log in, and I will gladly leave you some pointed advice on your talk page, with concrete links to resources leading to enlightment, on how to edit Wikipedia well. --Mareklug ^talk 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone has recognized Kosovo

Sierra Leone Recognizes Kosovo PDF Print E-mail Saturday, 31 May 2008 ImageSierra Leone recognized Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state, reported today Kosovo's public broadcaster RTK.

Sierra Leone becomes the 43nd state to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. A country of 5 million with a total area of 71,740 sq km is located in West Africa, Sierra Leone became indepedent in 1961 from the United Kingdom. Sierra Leone is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African Union. After Senegal, Burkina Faso and Liberia, Sierra Leone is the fourth African country to recognize the Republic of Kosovo.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080531968/Politics/Sierra-Leone-Recognizes-Kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read ABOVE ^^^^^^ Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone recognition sources

(Please add to these lists)

English Sources

• newkosovareport.com (English)
• [21]
• [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.115.158 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.115.158 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Albanian/ Non English Sources

• telegrafi.com (Not English)
• rtv21.tv (Not English)
• balkanweb.com (Not English)
• rtklive.com ???? (Not English)

I think we have established that Sierra Leone has recognised, but can anyone else find sources saying Sierra Leone recognised Kosovo? Its important to get this encyclopedic information on the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for summarising. The RTKlive article is no longer there, and I suspect that this was used as the source for the other sources. And I think we can discount the Xhakli site as it's someone's blog, and not at all informative. As all the other sources are in Albanian (and hence probably POV), we should wait for more - preferably something African or Serbian. Of course we can't wait for ever, but let's give it a day or two.

I think it's interesting that POVtastic Kosovothanksyou still only have SL in the "Recognition procedure has been initiated" section - you'd expect them to put it straight into their "Formally recognized" bit. What do they know that we don't? Bazonka (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

i removed the two you mentioned. Kosovothanksyou.com are either waiting for a recognition text or are waiting for someone at an embassy to answer the phone. There will most likely be more sources tomorrow as many media sites don't operate at the weekend. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian, I will be more blunt. What you just did above is a clinic in skew, in how not to source. Not only is this sourced from ONE SOURCE -- RTV, and replicated by others, but there's doubt about its verifiability, with sources disappearing, rather than becoming more numerous. Your characterization of the "Non English Source" as such is gratuitous and misleading -- they are all Albanian-langauge sources quoting RTV eplicitly, all from Kosovo (maybe one from Albania). Given the context of this article, and what has already been aired about avoiding conflict of interest in sourcing, and the discussion where Kosovar Wikipedians argued to hold off with including this information, I am extremely dissapointed in your lack on judgment in pushing a dubious piece of wikipedistic merchandise, and ever more so how you went about it, to the point of annoyance. --Mareklug ^talk 14:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were in Albanian, but i was not too sure as i don't speak the language. All i was doing was asking for other sources? I knew that we were not to use them sources. I was just trying to gather all the information together that we have. Then maybe perform an edit request. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think we have established that Sierra Leone has recognised" -- you really do? Please take a moment to think coolly about what I said and note how you can improve your editing. --Mareklug ^talk 14:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats why i said "think" (meaning not 100%) and was asking for more sources for confirmation. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently RTK has removed all information regarding Sierra Leone. --Avala (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the RTK article is precisely why I have concerns about these sources. All the listed sources either cite RTK or are RTK. Some other Kosovo English-language media sources are not reporting anything at all about SL recognition. The first RTK links shows a very short news item (I apparently do not have a specific font pack installed so it comes out garbled) and the last is the removed article itself. Normally, I have no problem with New Kosovo Report, they are good at citing their sources, so I check into it. If it is another source than RTK, or RTK gives us some more info then we should proceed. I did see at the end of the Balkanweb link that the story is credited to something called "A.S", RTK, and Balkanweb. This will likely be resolved tomorrow when the SL UN Mission or other Embassy picks up the phone and talks to RTK, KosovaThanksYou, or New Kosovo Report. No matter if someone at RTK got a good jump on a breaking story or it is a misunderstanding, some SL or Kosovo official will have to comment on this eventually. Ajbenj (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And what is now? Has someone checked it?84.134.77.201 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news and ive been looking on Google news, B92, Balkan Insight ect. It seems to be a mistake made by RTK and other news companies followed and made the same mistake. Please carry on looking though. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on any SL media sites, although I guess it wouldn't be headline news there.

If nothing appears in the next day or two, it may be worth adding an entry for SL into the "States which do not recognise Kosovo" section saying something like: "On 31 May 2008, Kosovar media reported that Sierra Leone had recognised Kosovo's independence. No other sources were known to have reported this, and the media reports were later withdrawn. It therefore seems likely that no recognition was made by Sierra Leone." This may help to reduce confusion in the future. Just a thought... Bazonka (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good one.84.134.115.158 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• [24]
• [25]

these two are both in English and say that SL recognised Kosovo. However they both user RTK as their source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got anything else?84.134.115.158 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall i put in a edit request? Im not too sure if SL has recognised. What do other users think? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't appear to have produced a non-RTK mention of this recognition claim. It looks more and more with the passing of time and no independent confirmation appearing, that someone at RTK simply confused Liberia with Sierra Leone -- they do border on one another, and both have somewhat similar-looking names (more so than Tanganyika and Zanzibar do, anyway :)).

We should not address rumors, especially flash-in-the-pan rumors that its own source has promptly removed without a trace or comment, something that I find highly questionable as journalistic practice: a correction notice should have been provided, or some prominent annotation explaining its appearance.

As for documenting this faux-recognition in the Wikipedia article in order to help prevent future confusion on this score, I think that such is the role of this talk page, even though I concede that its ongoing archiving and the lack of easy search facilities for examining just this archive, together conspire to hide the evidence of this topic having been aired. Just the same, no change to the article for Sierra Leone (i.e., leaving it unmentioned) seems to me to be the best course of action, in my opinion. --Mareklug ^talk 01:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to hear something, one way or another. I know that some of us have been banging away trying to get somebody to tell us something and that the kosovothanksyou.com people are trying to get an official comment as well. We'll see. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wild idea: Why not have an Albanian-speaker contact RTK and find out what is going on, where RTK got the lead for the story, why it disappeared, etc? Also they could contact the Kosovo President's office and see if anyone knows anything about SL recognition. Ajbenj (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Regions striving for more autonomy or independence(Chechen Republic of Ichkeria)

"welcome the declaration of state independence by Kosovo and do not question the right of the people of Kosovo to distance themselves from the state that terrorised it" The quote is from a known terroist and does not even represent many people nor the citizens of Chechnya. I did not know wikipedia takes the side of radical terroism and uses there quotes to support a opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mescovic (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mescovic. Do you have any other information from the Chechen Rep of Ichkeria? We could do with it. Such as sources? Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. See, the problem is not with the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria being listed, the problem is with the title of the section that Ichkeria is listed under. Shortly before the article was locked User:Mareklug changed the title to its current name of Regions striving for more autonomy or independence. Beforehand the title was Unrecognized states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence. Chechnya no longer strives for independence as evidenced by the Chechen people voting in favor of the United Russia party with 99% of the votes in the recent Duma election. The leadership of Chechnya are former rebels but they no longer demand independence and they currently support Chechnya's membership in the Russian Federation. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, meanwhile, is a government-in-exile based in London with no sovereignty over the Chechen land, therefore CR of Ichkeria is not a "region striving for more autonomy or independence". It IS however an unrecognized state and so under the original and legit title of Unrecognized states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence CR of Ichkeria's place in the category is well deserved. It is not only the CR of Ichkeria that seems out of place in category that User:Mareklug has imposed on the article, but Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh also do not fit well in this artificial title. The aformentioned are not just "regions striving for more autonomy or independence" but they are also "unrecognized states" becuase they have all already declared independence only for the international community to respond by ignoring their declarations. Having Unrecognized states in the title gives it more weight as it allows CR of Ichkeria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh to be in the category with an intellectually honest description. --Tocino 01:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mesovic, a "well know terroist"? In every instance that you spelled the word terrorist/terrorism you misspelled it. Who is this "well known" person? User Tocino what position do you hold to speak in behalf of the Chechen people? Can you provide us a link that shows for whom the majority voted for? Also what is an "aformentioned"? Kosova2008 69.29.70.177 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

United Russia wins over 99% of the vote in recent Chechen elections... Link here = [26]

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria does not function inside Chechnya, rather they are based in other countries. This is called a government-in-exile.

Aforementioned means something previously mentioned or refered to. In the context I was using I was referring to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh. --Tocino 05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, never heard of that word before. So who is this terrorist person that the user Mesovic was talking about? Kosova2008 69.29.70.177 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The commies won 100% of the votes too, but we all know how democratic that was. Same with Putin and his clique. --alchaemia (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotect}}

Please the current title from

---

Regions striving for more autonomy or independence

---

to

---

Unrecognised states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence

---

uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)  Done PeterSymonds (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of these regions - especially Republika Srpska - are important at all. This is the page about international reaction and these places have no done so - at least not in an international level. It can be argued that they have reacted through their own websites or news agencies, but those are not all that important - especially for places that have no diplomatic relations with other nations whatsoever - the likes of South Ossetia or whatever. I think they should all be removed. --alchaemia (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its all encyclopedic information. It gives the positions of other separatists. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with tocino.--Jakezing (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It may give their position, but I don't agree that they're "other separatists" as this means that Kosovan leaders were separatists as well. The situation in Kosova/o is much more complex than pure separatism. --alchaemia (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this edit change was necessary. Kosova2008 69.29.70.177 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Saakashvili reiterated position of Georgia

Here is the statement of Georgian president made on May 8: "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future,"[27]

This news article also mentions that Montenegro government will run opinion surveys before it makes it's decision whether to recognize or not.--Avala (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

These sources says that Montenegro might recognise on 16th June and is more up to date than your source [28] [29]. So we can't really do much with it on Montenegro. However feel free to put in a edit request for Georgia. I will support it with you.

Quick example.

Foreign Minister of Georgia, Davit Bakradze, said on 18 February 2008 that Tbilisi would not recognise Kosovo's independence, adding: "I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this" On the 8th May Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said "We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognise Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future,"

Rough idea Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd take anything that the DSS-financed KosovoCompromise.com website says with a grain of salt. It's obviously a propaganda-mouth of the Kostunica-run DSS, and is, more than likely, financed by the official state coffers of Serbia. Thanks, but I'll wait for a more credible source. --alchaemia (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)