Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need some help against an anonymous IP

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

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

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

Brazil (3rd section about this country)

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

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

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

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

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

Húsönd 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Obscuring Taiwan (2nd section about this country)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech Republic editprotect request

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard to understand why this article is fully protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UNMIK-line

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

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

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

NATO {{flagicon}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liechtenstein

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

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

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

Requesting consenus regarding present organization of the tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Community of Serbia

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about using Macedonian news?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arab/Muslim reaction to Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table formatting

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

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

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

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

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

Every other table

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making the article meet neutrality standards

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

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

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

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

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

Serbia formally propose partitioning Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lithuania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the intro

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

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

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

No NATO flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mareklug vs Tocino

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

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

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

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

Serbia

Serbia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More map updates

• 
  Montenegro
• 
  Albania
• 
  Macedonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Aid

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

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

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

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

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

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

It only happens in ex-Yugoslavia?

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

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

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

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

Macedonia

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

Please read previous discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

South Korea / recognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of Republic of Kosovo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montenegro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OIC membership data in the notes section is irrelevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swiss (update)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention: This article is under probation, please calm down

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

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

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

Merge Political Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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