Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Establishment of diplomatic ties between Czech Republic and the Republic of Kosovo

According to the website of the President of Kosovo, the Czech foreign minister wrote to the President of Kosovo to inform him of the establishment of full diplomatic ties between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Kosovo. The details of full diplomatic ties will be discussed between the foreign ministers of the two countries, says the report. Here is the link for the text in Albanian [1]. The text does not contain anything else worth mentioning here.

RTK also reports this news at [2].

The text is dated as 01 July 2008. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial, even though one of our sources comes from those "separatist government headed by the snake". I can't find from the MFA of Czech mentioning a letter just that, "the Czech Republic will transform its UNMIK Liaison Office in Pristina into the Embassy of the Czech Republic in the Republic of Kosovo. (Date: May 21, 2008)". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech President has to sign every ambassador's credential letters so there is a great chance the embassy will be led by Charge d'affaires as Vaclav Klaus is against establishing an embassy. We'll see.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between establishing full diplomatic relations and having an Embassy; the Czech Republic has announced that it will have an Embassy in Prishtina and Klaus' non-signature is not a show-stopper but a nuisance. He may not sign it, but he'll be under a lot of pressure from the government and his mandate doesn't last forever. --alchaemia (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Official source for the start of diplomatic and consular ties between Belgium and the Republic of Kosovo

The Belgian State Gazette published today the exchange of notes d.d. 26 February 2008 and 23 April 2008 between the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Republic of Kosovo. Diplomatic and consular ties are deemed to be established on 23 April 2008. The bilateral relations between Belgium and the Republic of Kosovo will be governed by the existing bilateral agreements in force between Belgium and Serbia, until they will have been confirmed or renegotiated. [3] (p. 33598) MaartenVidal (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job finding it - and thanks :) --alchaemia (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh (again)

I found a clutch of stories about Bangladesh and recognition. The US has officially requested that Bangaldesh recognise Kosovo, with the US Ambassador meeting with various Foreign Ministry officials on two separate occasions, the most recent being 1 July. The press stories indicate some uncertainty on the part of the Bangladeshi government, particularly in light of the lack of OIC consensus and Russian opposition. Here are links: [4][5][6]. Some of these have bytes that could find their way onto the page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

D-8 Meeting

From July 4 to July 8 there's going to be a meeting of eight developing Muslim countries in Malaysia. The members include Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia. July 6 will be a meeting of the foreign ministers and Bangladesh has said the issue of Kosovo could be brought up in that meeting. It might be a chance to get a position from Nigeria and maybe get clarifications on Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Malaysia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It will surely be brought up as Turkey will lobby the other nations to accord formal recognition. It has been doing so since day 1, and continues to do so. --alchaemia (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaction

Daniel Fried (Assistance Secratary of State of EU) says, "There seem to be some of all of them, and the Serbs should not be sending over, or supporting thuggery. That's not responsible. And we hope the new government will act in a responsible way."

America (USA) is donating $400 mn in next 4 years.

All of these are reactions, found in voice of america. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Kosova in Turkey

This source says that there will be a Kosovar embassy in Ankara soon. Source Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Source Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

done Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo passports

They're still a few weeks away from issuing them out however the passport issue could become a very serious one. I have no doubt some people are going to come on and claim recognition of passports is recognition of statehood and even try to argue for it. So I think it's best to be pre-emptive in this. It's especially relevant because it seems Greece is going to recognize Kosovo passports and most likely other nations which haven't recognized, in particular New Zealand and Spain. It's also highly likely that other countries will not recognize their passports like Russia and possibly Bosnia. Those recognizing its independence are almost certain to recognize its passports so having another category for countries recognizing their passports might be legitimate. Of course, this also is an issue extending to the article on the passport and the article on their foreign relations. However, at least, this will provide for an important distinction in the article so its understood that not all those opposed to the declaration are like Russia and Serbia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be a mess, because lots of the states that have made so much of refusing to recognise Kosovo, such as Spain and Russia, are going to have to decide how to handle travel documents. Recognition of travel documents does not per se confer recognition on the issuing polity, but on the other hand, it tacitly does. Most countries don't recognise the Republic of China, but they accept and visa Republic of China passports. The implications will be very interesting to study. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovar Passport should be dealt in that article but in this article countries such as Greece that haven't recognized but will accept the Kosovar Passport should be noted somewhere; it is a reaction, I'd call it partial recognition. Also as of yesterday all visitors and citizens are getting the Republic of Kosova stamp; no longer "UNMIK Kosovo". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How does this affect EU rules such as the Schengen treaty? Kosovo is neither on the list of states whose citizens need a visa, nor on the list of states whose citizens don't need a visa. Will Kosovo citizens be able to enter the Schengen area without a visa, with a visa or not at all? Will different visa regulations apply to different Schengen states? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

No. Kosovans will still require visas. The visa-free list is the only authoriative one, i.e. onyl nationals on that list are excempt from the visa requirement, all that aren't listed need a visa. Kosovo will only have a chance of becoming a visa-free countries when all 25 Schengen members agree. It's a bit uncertain what would happen if a Kosovan were issued a Schengen visa by let's say Germany, and then wanted to travel to Spain, whose government doesn't recognize Kosovo as a country. There is a similar situation between Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic (both members of the EEA and soon of Schengen) and in that case the Czech Republic accepts Liechtenstein passports even though they do not recognize Liechtenstein (and vice versa). Passportguy (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good encyclopedic information, but shouldn't it be on Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo instead? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You cant lie about something which hasn't happened. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the Greeks will actually put out a statement saying they'll accept Kosovar passports or not. We'll just have to wait and see, as with pretty much everything else.

To reaffirm an earlier point, we all understand very clearly that you hate Kosovo, Tocino, and would love nothing more than for the whole place to sink into the earth's molten core - excepting the resident Serbs, of course - so could you please stop using every post to grandstand? Nobody in Belgrade is going to notice that you're the biggest, baddest anti-Kosovo dude here and fly you in for a medal ceremony, so you're really not helping yourself nor the content of the page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate Kosovo. Stop the personal attacks please. --Tocino 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo Albanian separatist government"--Jakezing (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong? Are they Kosovo Albanian? Yes. Are they separatists? Yes. --Tocino 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that's a personal attack, you're in for a shock when somebody actually directs one at you. Snark? Emphatically yes. Personal attack? No. To avoid any further misunderstanding, shall I say in the future that you only hate everybody in Kosovo who is not a Serb?

A point of order, at what point does the Kosovar government get to graduate from "separatist" to not being separatist?

Thaci, I think, made the much referenced "100 recognitions" remarks in the euphoric heady days surrounding independence. We all get enthused, don't we? I wouldn't give that particular statement much currency - I didn't at the time. I knew it wouldn't be nearly so easy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They will stop being separatists when they cease demands for independence and instead try to negotiate with the central government in Belgrade.

It's not just the 100 recognitions that they have gotten horribly wrong. Just recently they said Montenegro will recognize, which of course was news to Montenegrin officials. --Tocino 00:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino. This sources says differently over Montenegro [7] and Thaci is not involved in the source too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, it goes without saying that speculation on the part of Hashim Thaçi and a few others doesn't need to be taken seriously. The same with Macedonia's own Thaçi (Menduh, of the DPA), who stated almost every second day that Macedonia will recognise. This goes without saying, so everybody please stop saying it. BalkanFever 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed how, when Tocino is involved, every topic turn into an anti-Kosovo insult festival for Tocino, even if the topic has nothing to do with Thaci or 100 countries. --alchaemia (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The 100 countries comment was "by the end of 2008" if I am not mistaken. There's still plenty of time, but even if it comes close it would be considered a success. Exo (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chechen republic of Ichkeria

Someone insists that Chechen separatists were listed under "regions striving for independence", not under political parties and movements. Please explain your position. Note that the separatists do not control any territory and their activaity concentrated mostly in London and in Internet. The official Chechen Republic's government do not strive for independence, hence I consider inclusion of secessionist activists as representatives of the region as political provocation.--Dojarca (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the officla goverment and the group were talking about are different things, they arn't a party trying ot be elcted or anything, their a group claiming some outlandish and insane claim with no backing in the least.--Jakezing (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a mistake, Chechen republic of Ichkeria is a government in exile not a region.--Avala (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Our friend Tocino reverted Dojarca last time. Let's ask him why. Colchicum (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I am familiar with the situation in Chechnya. Ramzan Kadyrov is in charge and he has little appetite for separatism, same said for the Chechen public as evidenced by them voting for the United Russia party with 99% of the votes in the recent Duma elections. The rebels are as weak as ever, and many of them have moved out. This is why the article lists the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria's reaction and not the Republic of Chechnya's. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has no sovereignty and no control of Chechnya, yet they still are a government, but a government-in-exile. The title of the section says Unrecognised states and regions striving for more autonomy or independence. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria may not have any power and is a lame government-in-exile, but it is still an unrecognized state. --Tocino 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a government/unrecognized state only when it controlled Chechen territory, and is now a political group/organization. I think that a government-in-exile is almost always, by definition, only a political group/organization, and not a state, of any kind. Exceptions would include states occupied in time of war, whose exiled governments are widely recognized by other powers (Free France), in which case, the government-in-exile cannot be called an "unrecognized" state, but is actually a de jure state. Another case would be Taiwan/Republic of China, which though technically exiled from the mainland, controls at least a small part of the claimed territory.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.192.7 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kosovo wanted to, they could recognize Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. I am sure their fellow separatists would be ecstatic if they did that. --Tocino 16:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By "kosovo" you mean Republic of Kosova and by "their separatists" you mean Kosovar-Serbs? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, the point is, a true unrecognized state is also a de facto state. I'm not talking about legitimacy here, I'm talking about proper definitions. I don't think that a government-in-exile (usually) qualifies as a true "unrecognized state" because it doesn't exist outside of paper. Sure, it may indeed be "unrecognized," but is certainly isn't a "state" by any definition. An unrecognized state, legitimate or not, needs to have de facto control over territory, otherwise the list of "unrecognized states" runs into the hundreds, if not thousands. Chechnya was, in the past, a de facto and unrecognized state, but today, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria must be categorized as a political movement/organization, imo.

And if, as you sarcastically suggest, Kosovo, or anyone else, recognized the Chechen Republic, it wouldn't help this government-in-exile in the least, since they don't have a real and physically enforceable presence on the ground, as Kosovo does, which is why they'll never recognize them. Even though there is certainly much division and polemic over the recognition or potential recognition of controversial states like Kosovo, or Taiwan, Palestine, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, etc., there is little if any dispute that a purely paper state is just not considered worth recognizing, by anyone, on any side.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers game

This article has an extensive paragraph on the exact numbers of states which recognise. Statistical breakdowns among EU and NATO countries. But the numbers of those opposed has only been put as this:

Several states have expressed concern over the unilateral character of Kosovo's declaration. The UN Security Council remains divided on this issue: of its five members with veto power, three have recognised the declaration of independence, while the People's Republic of China has expressed concern, urging the continuation of previous negotiation framework. Russia has rejected the declaration as illegal.

Several states have expressed concern over the unilateral character of Kosovo's declaration. It sounds that three or four countries are only opposed. I propose that this sentence be changed to this:

Some 40 states have expressed concern over the unilateral character of Kosovo's declaration or are against it.

So replacing several states with some 40 states and adding that part at the end or are against it. Now please, I advise some editors not to get this wrong, the number 40 is not a number of countries that are opposed to the independence but a sum up total of countries that are against or simple concerned. In any case, the wording several states cann't stay, it is misleading. So I am proposing a reasonable compromise here, so Mareklug don't get all fired up and ready for another debate showdown.--Top Gun

I'd agree to add a country to this list of "concerned" if they have come out at least 3 times publicly saying so. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have changed it. --Tocino 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who gave you the right to do that??? I can't undo his change but someone please revert this clown-move. This pagee is still semi-protected for a reason; I don't agree with this change. We report FACTS, you can't prove that 40 countries have come out saying "we are concerned" at least 3 times...even so, you have not PROVIDED this, just changed the intro because you do not like it. There are guidelines we follow and this does not follow them. Please Revert!!! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who gave you the right do decide that they have to say it three times? Countries don't have to recognize Kosovo tree separate times for it to count. This is Wikipedia he has the right to change it. — chandler — 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of these 40 countries. Until then, im not happy it saying 40, because you could interpret a source to make it seem like a country opposes Kosovo, whereas some else may interpret it differently. This is why we decided not to have a list of countries, which oppose because its based on what people interpret. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have counted at least 52 nations which are concerned or will definitely not recognize. --Tocino 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you contribute to this article, International Disapproval of 2008 Kosovar Declaration of Independence -- I recommend adding that list of "52" countries there. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That article does not exist, and this isnt International approval to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence this is International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence So that list would go here. — chandler — 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to this
Many states have expressed concern over the unilateral character of Kosovo's declaration or have said explicitly that they will not recognise an independent Kosovo, including several important countries in the international community such as Russia, China and India. I believe this to be better, as it is more neutral and you can't really say a number such as 40 as there is no proof. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ijanderson - that's much better. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Better would be, "Counties such as China, India, Russia, and others have expressed concern with the Kosovan declaration of independence because of groups in their country aspiring independence or greater autonomy; recognizing Kosovo they believe would encourage others to declare independence as well." Ari d'Kosova (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither India, neither China have opposed Kosovo independence. This a misleading info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How come Japan, Australia and Canada are not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gun, it's not a game of showing off the countries in favor vs. showing off the countries opposed; it's about reporting verifiable facts. The exact number of countries recognizing, and the breakdown of their membership in international organizations, is factual not conjectural, not to mention it is a more manageable number because it's smaller. In contrast, many of the proposed "statistics" for countries opposing do not state verifiable data, but instead try to conjure up various analyses of how much and to what degree those countries oppose, a matter that is highly debatable and cannot realistically be broken down in exact numbers. Let us not get bogged down in a tit-for-tat approach of, "Well you guys get to display x-amount of numbers so we the opposition are entitled to show an equal amount." That is not encyclopedic, it is politics, it is pandering to the demands of two opposing POVs to get equal representation, as if this were a forum. Material should not be added to the article simple for the sake of parity between two POV camps; the data must also be factual and of practical use to the reader. Who is "winning" the so-called "number game" is irrelevant; we should not use this article as a platform to argue our respective cases for just how "good" or "bad" it's going for Kosovo in its quest for recognition--that should be a self-evident based on the information provided, and should be a conclusion drawn by the reader. Bad edit proposals, immaterial and speculative.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another step towards full sovereignty?

Participating nations

As of 2008, Kosovo is a participating nation (alongside Serbia) in the Miss Universe pageant to be held in Vietnam on July 14. Zana Krasniqi of Kosovo is one of ten finalists in the category "Best National Costume" Picture of Miss Kosovo in a traditional outfit (Online voting will determine the winner). Bojana Borić of Serbia has reportedly threatened to boycott the pageant due to Kosovo's participation. Hapsala (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What a great moment in the history of Kosovo. Some bimbo gets to participate in a beauty pageant. Are the separatists going to have a parade now? In the meantime, Kosovo is nowhere close to joining UN, EU, NATO, World Bank, FIFA, and the other organizations of some importance. --Tocino 00:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Define importance.

• UN: its a organization of nations failing at one of its main jobs, keep peace.
• EU: A group of nations that kosovo dosn't honestly NEED to join.
• NATO: North Atlantic Treaty organization, Also not something REQUIRED to join,
• World Bank: That Would be useful.
• Fifa: how would fifa be of importance, it has no international leverage so therfor, dosn't need to be joined either.

so tocino, explain why these groups need to be joined so early, --Jakezing (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: Stop talking nonsense and stop calling them seperatists.84.134.122.105 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To Hapsala, we been asked before to add information about the Miss Universe contest. Once again, this article is a very bad place to put that information. Put it in the article related to this contest. (BTW, the dress is nice). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino would disagree, that "bimbo"'s dress is a cheating mechanism and thats why such a "seperatist" is there anyways.--Jakezing (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, the UN what ever you think of it, is crucial, the EU is gaining power the Europe and for a small new country it would be much better to be inside then outside. NATO, no reason to join there. FIFA is probably one of the most powerful organizations and the one with the biggest number of member nations (about 15 more than the UN), it has a rather big influence on the world, as it's gotten governments to back down from controlling the national football associations (teams like Greece and Iraq have been banned from play for example). Now if Kosovo tried to join UEFA/FIFA I think Russia and Serbia can block them somehow (like Greece have blocked Macedonia from joining under their real name). BUT, FIFA and UEFA can put a big pressure on Serbia and Russia back if they think that Kosovo should be able to join etc. — chandler — 13:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Kosovo these nations are also participating:

• Aruba
• Cayman Islands
• Curaçao
• Guam
• Turks and Caicos Islands

So perhaps this is perceived as a glorious moment in history in Kosovo but in reality it's a completely unimportant private event.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Oh really? What are the requirements for membership/participation in Miss Universe? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I know Guam for certain is American TERRITORY and not a nation. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these are independent. Kosovo even under the US point of view has "supervised independence" which contradicts itself.--Avala (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland didn't join the UN til 2002, and isn't in the EU. Your giving these organizations to much importance. --Jakezing (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland's case is more different than Kosovo's, for NEW states, escpecially those who are unrecognised by the majority of the worlds other states, UN membership is something that would legitimize their claims — chandler — 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet, it isn't a practical goal yet, neither is the Eu, so as of now, thosre groups are of no importance because getting into any of them is slim to nil.--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Kosovo can't get into them doesn't mean they have no importance. — chandler — 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The UN isn't exactly something you8 need to join to be a nation... switzerland showed it, and guess what, name one of the main goals of the UN, i name 1 right now: PEACE, well, in 60 years, they havnt done a hell of a good job at peace now have they.So explain, why is it important to join a group that can't even do its main goal. --Jakezing (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The UN is an organization, just like OIC, and others. Just because Taiwan or the Vatican aren't part of it, it does NOT make them any less of a country. I'm sure when Swiss joined in 2002 their economy didn't increase, or anything special occur, Swiss just sent a person to UN as ambassador ---- but, and usually, joining the UN is considered a mark for a country NOT a REQUIREMENT which most people confuse. Those people that say Kosova isn't a state/country because it is not a member STATE of UN are also are claiming that Swiss wasn't a real country until 2002 or other countries which do not represent themselves on this organization. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One important difference is that Switzerland existed BEFORE the UN, as a country. As they want to be neutral they didnt join that organization that started out as the allied forces of the second World war, they were how ever a observer state of the UN since 1948... Comparing Switzerlands relations with the UN and Kosovo's relations with the UN just doesnt work in that sense. — chandler — 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are giving this organization (UN) too much importance. Swiss is no more a country than it previously was. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because no one is disputing them, and I'm guessing all countries in the world recognize them. — chandler — 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the UN organization disbands tomorrow [than by your logic] Swiss will not be a country. There, I pocked a hole in your logic. Like I said, too much importance on one international group. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

though all hell would break loose if that did happen.--Jakezing (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

hahaha, You're fucking mental, I've never said anything of the sort. I guess you have to re-read to understand. Switzerland was a country BEFORE the UN. Kosovo is, but it is not recognized by a majority, it is not in any major international groups. And nothing of that would change if the UN disbanded tomorrow, it wouldn't make Switzerland less of a country, and It wouldnt make Kosovo more of a country — chandler — 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what Ari is trying to say, you don't have to be in the UN to be a country. Thats true, but been in the UN helps a lot. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

for the sake of making this readable i restarted the stack. now, what were we talking about again?--Jakezing (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a place for a slanging match. But as far as intellectuals conversations go, if PR China won't allow Taiwan to join b/c of their veto (and influence if you must), Russia will do it's level best to keep Kosovo from joining the UN. Lihaas (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro again?!

I don't know if this is relevant to post it on the article so you decide what to do with it. And i know that the source (B92.net) has been considered by some as a slightly POV, but i think this article seams neutral to me.

Montenegrin chief of diplomacy Milan Rocen said that Montenegro did not promise nothing regarding the independence of Kosova to any of the sides. He repeated the same statement issued earlier by Montenegrin officials that Montenegro will bring the decision when it suits best to the political interests of Montenegro. [B92.net[8]] --Lilonius (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This constant back-and-forth by Montenegro has become tiresome. They should either announce a decision, or simply keep silent about it for as long as possible. It's like they enjoy the attention which is exponentially larger than their relative power and influence merits. --alchaemia (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently they have stated somewhere there will be no decision before 2009 so please don't open new sections because there will be no news on Montenegro for some time.--Avala (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, they will take all the time in the world before they recognise Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Loosing 80% of tourists for a tourism living country doesn't sound like a good idea.--Avala (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh Avala is right, because if Montenegro recognises, no Serb will visit Montenegro ever again, killing its tourist industry which it relies on so much, therefore Montenegro will never recognise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

how many Serbs go to Montenegro? Kosovars this summer visited around 200-250 thousand. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro will recognize when Macedonia recognizes. Macedonia will recognize when it is accepted into NATO and the EU. Macedonia will be accepted into NATO and the EU when it resolves the name dispute with Greece, after which, Greece will also recognize. It thought all this was common knowledge. =)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn those sneeky greek's, --Jakezing (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only there's a little math problem. Macedonia's government coalition must have one of the Albanian parties in it in order for majority to be reached, and there will be absolute pressure from both Albanian parties to recognize. I think Kosovo's recognition was cited as one of the reasons why the country went to re-elections, along with the failure to enter NATO and solve the name dispute. Ultimately, they're all connected. Exo (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro, being under pressure, will recognize Kosovo, but not for now, says its Foreign minister. "Is it going to be sooner or later? Neither I nor anyone else can say at this moment. It shall happen as soon as we conclude that it is politically best for Montenegro," Rocen told local media. [9]. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then Montenegro should appear in the states that have declared intent to recognize. It doesn't get better than an FM statement. Exo (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please add Montenegro to the states that have declared intent to recognize.--Sulmues 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta

What about Malta? They wanted to decide last week!84.134.112.28 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

this is not a place to ask questions. Go to a forum/ blog for that. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a discussion about international reactions and I'm EAXTLY right to ask here.84.134.106.146 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you should read this

Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on Anderson, don't act like God-almighty. There were plenty of times when you engaged in chit-chattery on this discussion page and almost none of it was a discussion about international reaction. --alchaemia (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta's meeting on Kosovo is today at 6:30PM their time. Exo (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of todays meeting on Kosovo in the Maltese Newspapers [10] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am listening to the audio recording of their meeting [11], however it's in Maltese and I have no idea what they're saying. Exo (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Danish FM to Serbia: Recognize Kosovo before EU

Read it all here]. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats really something for Foreign relations of Kosovo/Denmark/Serbia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title is International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and this belongs perhaps to article EU accession of Serbia or something like that.--Avala (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I posted this, and I thought it was very important. All this time (2007 and up) the EU officials have been saying non-stop that Kosova status and Serbia are separate issues, now, they are saying you have to recognize Republic of Kosova if you want to join. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well all Serbian officials have made it clear that Serbia will not join the EU at the price of recognizing Kosovo. Serbia cannot recognize Kosovo for that matter, it would be unconstitutional. Also Danish FM is just one person, Slovenian FM said Serbia doesn't need to do it. Keep in mind that if this was put as a condition to join the EU, EU would have to block the membership of Spain for an example. --Avala (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"now, they are saying you have to recognize..." the EU isn't saying it the Danish Foreign Minister said it. It's a big difference — chandler — 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Denmark is a EU member state, nonetheless. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo to enter EU separately from Serbia

This process is completely separate from that of Serbia, and EU treats Kosovo as an independent country applying for membership," said the chief of European Union office in Kosovo, Renzo Daviddi during an interview for the Russian news agency Rosbalt.

The European Union official explained that the review process of Kosovo membership into EU is not an indirect recognition but direct and open, emphasizing that European Union recognizes Kosovo as an independent and sovereign nation.

Regarding the period of when Serbia and Kosovo will be integrated into EU or whether Serbia will be able to block Kosovo, the European diplomat stressed that "Serbia cannot block Kosovo and my EU colleagues in Belgrade have explained this to the Serbian authorities. These are two separate countries that will be going through the process of integration as all other independent nations." http://www.newkosovareport.com/200807051022/Politics/Kosovo-to-enter-EU-separately-from-Serbia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters here but Gunter Gloser, the German minister for Europe has said the no Balkan country (including Serbia), can enter without recognising Kosovo (RTK)-- CD 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) -- CD 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Greece President hints at recognition of Kosovo

Greek President, Karolos Papoulias, during his visit to Austria stated that his "country is doing positive small and diligent steps in the direction towards recognizing Kosovo independence," Austrian and Greek media report.

Regarding the issues in the Western Balkans, Papoulias stressed that during the meeting with his Austrian counterpart, they both strongly agreed to continue supporting the integration of this region in the European family.

"We have given a promise to integrate all of them and it is important to save our credibility by keeping the promise," said Papoulias.

Regarding the European Mission in Kosovo, he reiterated the Greece determination to participate in implementing this mission, explaining that "Greece follows very closely the situation in Kosovo which it considers a very sensitive issue for Europe."

Greece remains one of the few European countries still in process of deciding the recognition of independence of Kosovo. However, this is the first time that a high Greek official confirms clearly Greece's positive signals in the direction of recognizing the Republic of Kosovo.

Until know, the official position of Greece regarding the recognition of independence of Kosovo has been positively neutral, while actively supporting the deployment of the European Mission in Kosovo and participating in the NATO security forces.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200807071025/Region/Greece-President-hints-at-recognition-of-Kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.52.78 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We need his statement not a media report. In the part where they put quotes there is nothing about this. I have found this

On the subject of Kosovo, Papoulias, in talks with Austrian Parliamentary Speaker Barbara Prammer, reiterated that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was still in force.

“The question is: how can the important principle of territorial integrity be ignored?” he said.

--Avala (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should ignore the small and diligent steps quote and just mention the 1244 quote? Well that's neutral. Exo (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"small and diligent steps" is not a quote but a claim by journalists. That's the difference.--Avala (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • avala, newkosovareport is quoting greek and austrian media.
    • No they are not. They just say "greek and austrian media" which means nothing as I can't find anything about this in Greek media.--Avala (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • please add:

greece has hinted at recogntion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.52.78 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't add rumors to this article.--Avala (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Claim by a journalist? Rumors? Oh, is this the new excuse for stopping information from appearing in the main article now? Shall we remind our editors about the Qatar precedent. Exo (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Qatar precedent? Please, we have two conflicting statements and we need to find Greek source to find out which one is right. Until then it's all rumors as they are contradicting. He can't say at the same time that Serbian territorial integrity must be respected and then that Kosovo should be recognized. Something is not right.--Avala (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What contradicting sources? Positions will continue upgrading time after time and it seems like Greece has slightly modified it's rhetoric. This is very newsworthy. Or should we always retain only the original position and ignore any progress on the matter? And yes, by Qatar precedent I mean when you claimed that journalists have no weight and they're just reporting things out of their hallucinations. Exo (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop making things up.--Avala (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What, it hurts your feelings when people state your intentions in blunt words? That's what you've done consistently throughout this article. You try to downplay and reject any statement that favors the Kosovar stance. And one of your favorite excuses is that "oh, but the journalist said it". Yeah, journalists write articles, who else did you want to say it, God? Exo (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If God said it, it would just prove that He's an evil, biased pro-Kosovar separatist. Who is this "God" anyway? Is He reliable? I think you just made Him up. Ha. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Made me lol — chandler — 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop making things up. I am the one who SUPPORTS using media reports. It's Mareklug who believes we should be using only official reports. But we must use common sense and make a distinction between serious journalism and pseudojournalism.--Avala (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well "small and diligent steps towards recognition" is a pretty serious thing to say that does not pop out of the blue one pretty day and it changes alot of things in regards to the greek stance on the matter, and to simply ignore the source based on personal judgement of pseudo or nonpseudo...that's just POV. Exo (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • it's a fact. please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh if the unsigned IP user says so then it has to be true.--Avala (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just add a sentence onto Greece and use that source. It will upgrade Greece's position. We can also include that UNCR 1244 source too Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But which sentence? The one where he says Greece will recognize or the one where he says Greek supports territorial integrity per UNSC 1244? These are diametrically different statements.--Avala (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, include both eg rough quick example "Greece will recognise however Greek supports territorial integrity per UNSC 1244 (ref)" Im busy at work, could you do that please Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • To put avala's quote, avala would have to provide a source.

A lot of Serb dailies also reported that Greece's Pres stating Greece will recognize Kosovo. On regard of 1244, this is misquoted by avala. I am still asking for a source

yes a reference is needed Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Was easy enough to google it. [12] — chandler — 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... each side provided its POV of the Greek statement. Probably he said both things... both phrases don't contradict themselves. Probably, the Greek President said something like "we're doing positive steps towards recognizing Kosovo, but the problem is how to make it compatible with the principle of territorial integrity". For Kosovars, the important thing is the first one; for Serbians, the second one... so both should be placed in the article. --B1mbo (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this part should definitely appear in the article along with the 1244 comments. If Greece is to recognize tomorrow, don't you think it would look unusual that all of a sudden a country that so strongly "rejects" independence, all of a sudden recognizes it? Of course, the readers would have been more prepared if they were informed about the "small and diligent steps" comment instead of just the 1244 ones that appear currently. Exo (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is greece listed as strongly rejecting their independence? If they are, that should ofc be changed... Now It might be true that he's said what you said B1mbo, but if no one has the full quote, it will look like 2 contradicting comments. — chandler — 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OH NO! We have two contradicting comments, therefore we can't use either! or what we could do is use them both, this seems fair and neutral to me. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What we *could* do - to go out on a limb, here - is leave Greece where it is, but write something like, "Recent statements by the Greek leadership have indicated a change in direction regarding Greek policy towards Kosovo. President so-and-so recently said on a state visit to Austria that Greece was moving 'diligently, step by step' towards recognising the new state" or something similar. I don't think I'm being too radical or bold in suggesting this, do you, Ian? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well take a look at this. This is proof that we can use both "contradicting comments"

---

Greek President, Karolos Papoulias, during his visit to Austria stated that his "country is doing positive small and diligent steps in the direction towards recognising Kosovo independence," However Papoulias also pointed out that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was still in force and that both the U.S. and Russia had an interest in the Balkans, adding that “Europe has made big mistakes in the Balkans.”

---

Seem fair yeh? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive added it Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting Sources

I do object to changing/adding Greece. I am supporting Avala because the sources are shaky. I don't trust B92, and I read that article 8 minutes after it came out. We must not make rational decisions but get it right; I am like Marelug who wanted only official reactions. I am not sure if someone already changed the entry but if you/they/he/she has I will not revert, but if someone else reverts this change I will support them because not enough time was given to make this controversial edit. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So an article about the Greek president indicating that Greece is taking small and diligent steps towards recognition is not an official reaction? Exo (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Exo. I'm not sure how much clearer or official it could get. It's a statement by the President of the Hellenic Republic to another head of state. Short of a notarized statement sent to each one of us, that's as good as it gets. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I thought this was Montenegro section, my apologies. Can this president recognize Kosova or does he need a majority or ...? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, it would be a good thing if we could find how the process of recognition is done in each country. That might indicate how likely or unlikely it is to happen. Obviously in Romania they had to take a vote in parliament, while other countries just came out with statements from the foreign ministries. I remember Belgium had to wait for some royal decree. If someone wants to find out how recognitions are done in individual countries, that might be a helpful addition to the article. Exo (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari, why don't you trust B92? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They're Serbian, i guess. — chandler — 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. B92 has indeed received credit as probably the best media in the Balkan peninsular and amongst those in eastern Europe altogether. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian but funded by Americans. Anyway I have clarified it to point at a difference in reporting as a hint that perhaps neither report is a good interpretation. --Avala (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha I have just found a Serbian source but not a major paper just some radio and the statement was "Greece has decided to take small and diligent steps regarding Kosovo as it is a delicate problem" [13] not "Greece is taking small and diligent steps towards recognition". Wishful journalism of New Kosova Report (even the name suggests their neutrality). I will remove it completely until we get a precise transcript of his statement from Greek media.--Avala (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And why should we trust your source, you said it yourself that it is a Serbian source. Again, this is my point, let's not be in a rush to add entries or move countries to different sections until we get clear and concise information. I really don't care what Greece thinks, they will recognize the Republic of Kosova Passport. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We're all trying to get updated information on everyone's stances and there's obviously something going on with the Greek stance. You guys can put whatever you like in that box, but do keep a "diligent" eye on this one. This is an article where stances will keep upgrading time after time and not every comment will come from the foreign ministries or Reuters. Exo (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@Chandler, my fiance is a Serbian. What is your point? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that the source is in Serbian, not English. For all us non Serbian linguists, you could be making that up. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't like sources from Albanian and/or Serbian medias, here is a quote in English from Greek web site [[14]]:

"Moreover, he said that Greece is one of the countries that had not recognized Kosovo'Αs independence yet, as it believes that small and careful steps should be made towards that direction." --Lilonius (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally somebody found a full quote. Thanks.--Avala (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

well edit accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • greek resolution did not mention 1244 resolution as b92.thus, newkosovareport was correct. 1244 resolution has no place in there. please edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.52.78 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Greek president doesn't decide on this. Perhaps he is pro-independence like Vaclav Klaus is against but it doesn't mean anything in the end as the Government makes the decision (especially considering the fact that they are from two different political sides).--Avala (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro again

this source says Montenegro will recognise, but not sure when. Not had chance to read it properly as im occupied at work, however we may be able to make something out of it Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that moves Montenegro in the "States which have declared intent to recognize" category. Exo (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are ambigious messages coming from Podgorica. One thing is known, sooner or later they will recognize Republic of Kosova. The best we can do is add such statements in the entry, until a judicial process has begun to recognize the NEWBORN republic there is no way we can move them to such category, respectfully of course. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the category is not supposed to be for judicial processes having started, more like a declaration of intent. Exo (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We'd need more than a few statements. The word "intent" can be interpreted in different ways. Lithuania is an example, Malta, etc. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When the Foreign Minister says that Montenegro will recognize, then that's a clear intent. They have not specified a date, but they have said that they will recognize. There's very little room for misinterpretation there. Exo (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be in a hurry. Give it a few days, you can't expect me to back you on an edit right away; let's give it a few days or a week. This act of the FM of Montenegro may cause an uproar to get him sacked from his job. You are forgetting that 3/10 Montengrians are Serb. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If tomorrow they back off from their statement that they will recognize, then we can move Montenegro back to the rest of the countries. But so far we have a formal declaration of intent to recognize. Exo (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well according to the political analysts, there is little chance that Montenegro will recognize Kosovo before the election. It is expeted for Montenegrin recognition to come some time around early 2010. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

According to what political analysts is Montenegro "respected" (expected) to not recognize before 2010? --alchaemia (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Various Serbian and Montenegrin, e.g. Dusan Janjic. It actually makes sense, the scheduled parliamentary election is in later 2009. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dusan Janjic is an interesting individual, but sometimes some of the stuff he says is just way out there. I wouldn't be surprised if it took Montenegro a while to recognize, but 2010 seems like a pretty long time to me. --alchaemia (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty long time or not, I agree that we simply cannot expect a recognition before the 2009 parliamentary election. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree, so there's that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds in precise? The political circles, from conservatives to liberals, oppose Kosovo independence: The Reformists are against recognition, the social conservatives, populists and Serbs are against any sort of thought on recognition, while the Serbs are preparing massive demonstrations should the government recognize it, the Liberals consider that Montenegro must be the very last country to recognize Kosovo's independence, more than 10% of the entire country's population was on foot demonstrating the day after Kosovo declared independence, and recognition is very problematic, both threatening to rift the Montenegrin population and to end the rule of the government (which has never ever been replaced). That is why the presidential election was being awaited, recognition would've probably disabled Filip Vujanovic's victory, at least in the 1st round. In the same manner the parliamentary election is being awaited. Perhaps similar to Romania, and even Serbia itself? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is not a forum, instead of discussing when Montenegro will recognise Kosovo, we simply say "Montenegro has not specified a date of recognition " or something similar and change it when they give a date, and it doesn't matter at all if we expect them to or not -- CD 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cradel Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Border Demarcation

This article mentions the border demarcation process as regards to Kosovo's relations to the Republic of Macedonia. What exactly is this process about? Are there any people living in the contested area, how is the Serbian reaction etc? And how do the parties come to terms with the fact that Macedonia didn't even recognize Kosovo? Maybe some WP editors know more and would be able to contribute to a new article possibly named 2008 Kosovo Macedonia border demarcation talks? 213.50.111.114 (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

i believe this page should be created Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the 2008 part is unnecessary because there havn't been any other demarcation talks between Kosovo and Macedonia so just Kosovo Macedonia border demarcation talks would be enough, or Ko.. demarcation negotiations -- CD 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, an extended exposition is needed as the formal negotiation is currently taking place, possibly leading the way to Macedonian recognition of Kosovo. Hapsala (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia rejects demarcation process as illegitimate

On July 4, Serbia sent a protest note to Macedonia claiming that its recent move to start demarking its border with Kosovo without inviting Serbian officials is "illegitimate".[15]. --Hapsala (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian MFA sent a complaint to Macedonian MFA regarding this and also they seem to be persistent as they have published the next day how they are waiting for an answer from Skopje. Serbian MFA has also subtly mentioned ROM/FYROM issue and perhaps signaled a change of Serbian position to recognize Macedonia as ROM under bilateral terms.--Avala (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This belongs on foreign relations of Kosovo/Serbia/ Macedonia Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Serbia's "rejection" is a matter for the foreign relations of Serbia/Macedonia and possibly Kosovo, not an international reaction. --alchaemia (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Response from the Macedonian Foreign Ministry arrived. They state that they do not recognize independence of Kosovo from Serbia and that the demarcation is merely there because Serbia does not control the border. The Foreign Ministry advised the Serbian government in its note to address to UNMIK and Kosovo's authorities to reach an agreement about Serbia's regulation of the Kosovo-Macedonia border. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Any source on that? All I read said that Serbia hadn't made any moves in almost 8 years since it doesn't control the border anyway. No mention of not recognizing Kosovo, nor any justification for the demarcation was given. --alchaemia (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain

Bahrain Financially Backs Kosovo. “We should examine the options on how to allow Kosovo products to penetrate into Bahrain and Bahraini products into Kosovo and to export them in the European market" Bahrain is expected to join more than 40 countries which have recognised Kosovo’s February 17 declaration of independence from Serbia. [16] What can we make of this? Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We could say something to the tune of: "According to a BalkanInsight article, Bahrain 'is soon to join 40 or so countries recognizing Kosovo'." --alchaemia (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish embassy in Kosovo

Turkey intends to open embassy in Kosovo [17]

Please add this to table.--Lilonius (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They just keep adding up... nice find. --alchaemia (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

added Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Can we add that?

[18]84.134.100.168 (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really new here - Macedonia is content to try to finish the whole demarcation thing (seeing as it lands them land), and will do it with anyone that can guarantee some type of agreement and stability. --alchaemia (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No we can't add it. It has nothing to do with International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Croatia ‘Preparing Kosovo Embassy’

I think this is relevant and should be on the table! Any thoughts?

After Kosovo constitution came into force, Croatia is preparing to open its embassy in Kosovo [19] --Lilonius (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

added Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta again

Can somebody please translate this?84.134.112.115 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[20]

It seems to be about yesterdays parlamentary session about recognition.84.134.112.115 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:Kalindoscopy to translate it as he seems to speak Maltese -- CD 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to say anything about the meeting, only the agenda -- CD 21:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey: I've left a translation on Cradel's talkpage and a summary of the debate itself. There doesn't seem to be any official resolution from Malta just yet. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted you reply here :

Ok. That's a big chunk of debate. If you could find a transcript I'd be happy to translate, but as it is, I'm not really prepared to transcribe the whole thing.
Basically, here's an informal translation for your information only. The Minister for Foreign Affairs begins by saying that it's a very emotive situation for Serbia (there are 16000+ Serbs in Malta). The Hon. George Vella continues, saying that 'Kosovo is important because the Balkans are important' and that the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state is contentious because of the danger some European countries feel. In principle, if the Maltese government recognises Kosovo (and he personally feels uncomfortable being made to do so because of the effect it will have on Cyprus, Greece and Spain) the next issue must be what sort of help and assistance Malta can give to Kosovo. Hon. Leo Brincat follows, saying that like many of his collegues, his attitude towards the situation is 'fluid' and he feels that if all Balkan countries were absorbed into the EU it would be a 'stabiliser' in the region. He says that it is common knowledge that Serbia and Russia's position towards what the EU is trying to do in recognising Kosovo is (according to them) illegal. Hon. Beppe Fenech Adami 'for the record' says that countries of the region have 'overwhelmingly' recognised Kosovo and that this has great political weight. He is 'comforted' that the unilateral declaration of independence (and constitution) of Kosovo embraces the principles of the EU. He says that Malta must support Cyprus (as it always has) through its Northern occupation and must likewise help Kosovo, while recognising the preoccupations of Spain and Greece. He calls for the government to recognise the 'sui generis' nature of the Kosovo case but leaves any final decision (respectfully) up to the government. The Minister then concludes by saying that as a country within Europe, even if it's not a part of the EU, it must be treated as an important part of the region. He also says that Malta must help Kosovo if it is recognised.
That's the long&short of it. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

-- CD 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of "ifs." No actual decision was taken, ha? Pity. --alchaemia (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like they're leaning towards recognition but are going through the requisite hand-wringing first. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by that it will most likely mean Malta recognizing and saying that it's a unique case, like every other country which has recognized them. So it seems this is merely a matter of time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sui generes" is what the man said, and he was talking about Kosova. That's a reaction. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it seems like they're saying, "well we wouldn't normally, but its a unique case, so we have to, *cough* pressure from EU/ USA *cough*" But then again who knows. I'll believe it when i see it ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maltese dailies report that Parliament has given the green light to recognize. Government now is to announce it on July 11. Viva Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

have you got a source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing close to what the IP is suggesting, that I could find online, is this. From the text: The government believes it should recognise Kosovo as an independent country, something that has already been done by 43 nations, including 20 in the European Union ... He proposed that when Malta recognised Kosovo, it should, in support of Cyprus whose northern part was occupied, point out the unique situation of Kosovo in its declaration of recognition. So it looks like it's happening, always with one eye to Cyprus (and Spain)! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I live in Malta. I am Maltese. The spoken translation there has a lot of errors. Missing the part of when it was decided. This was live on TV. The speaker of Parliament and chairman of foreign affairs told the parliamentarian that government has the green light to recognize it.

Here is a part from our Daily paper, I am translating. The paper reports that Maltese Parliament has given the green light to the government to go ahead with recognition of Kosovo. The paper adds the decision will be formalized in a matter of days, most likely 10 or 11 July which is when the Donors’ Conference for Kosovo will take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You again! You've got to stop following me around you know ;p

Well, I did say it was an informal translation. If you'd like to point out the errors, please do so. There's no mention of 'greenlighting' in the actual recording I was working off.. the first mention of such a thing was in the news today (something the article I linked to makes pretty clear). Also, if you're a 'Maltese' and 'live in Malta' why does your IP locate you as coming from Pennsylvania, USA? The mind boggles.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

here is the link:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080709/local/malta-should-recognise-kosovo-tonio-borg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What about it>? What about? Today is July 11, what now? They haven't done it! Why?84.134.69.221 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta and Portugal to the imminent recognizers list

I propose to move Portugal immediately to (and keep Malta in) the States which have declared intention to recognise, based on this news report from today's (9 July 2008) Times of Malta article Quote:

Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Malta should recognise Kosovo - Tonio Borg

The government believes it should recognise Kosovo as an independent country, something that has already been done by 43 nations, including 20 in the European Union.

Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg told the European and Foreign Affairs Committee that the seven EU countries which had not yet recognised Kosovo had internal ethnic problems, except for Malta and Portugal. Although it has not yet recognised Kosovo, Portugal has already declared that it will.

--Mareklug ^talk 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

i have already added that Malta section in. What we need is an up to date source specifically on Portugal Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, its quit clear here. We can add it.84.134.113.80 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for imminent recognition by Portugal? Where did that come from? Húsönd 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like speculations. Same with Montenegro and Macedonia. We'll see, time will tell all. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Its no speculation its clear look under References 3.)84.134.113.80 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh should, not will Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some German politicians have said recently that "Serbia should recognize Kosovo" but we are not moving Serbia to the group of countries which have declared intent to recognise.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

High-ranking German officials have said so, not "some German politicians." Also, there's a difference between "some German politicians" talking about Serbia, and the Foreign Minister of Malta talking about, ding-a-ding, Malta. --alchaemia (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonio Borg is the Deputy Prime Minister of Malta, Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Member of Parliament for the Nationalist Party.

I think that certainly means his word on Malta is good. No one is seriously suggesting removing Malta though, I hope. However, the comments on Portugal aren't reliable. Typically the standard has been primary sources of some important official saying they will recognize. Hence why Saudi Arabia, Montenegro, and Qatar, who have had major officials announce their intent to recognize, are on the list and others like Bahrain or UAE, who though reported to be intent on recognizing have not had major foreign policy officials declare their intent, are not listed. All the same this frequent reporting that Portugal is going to recognize should be added to their entry if isn't already.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed true that there have been various reports stating that Portugal will recognize, however I would wait for a high ranking official statement just for the sake of proper sourcing. Thankfully we got some good information on what was said during Malta's Kosovo session. Exo (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New Kosova Report

So much about the seriousness of the www.newkosovareport.com/. Apparently their webpage is down because they didn't pay a bill. "This Account Has Been Suspended - Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.". Now that is a message I wouldn't expect to see at CNN or BBC to which some even try to compare NKR with.--Avala (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An account is also suspended if the bandwidth was surpassed and that's something that may happen to an enterprise smaller than CNN. I'm sure you can't wait for the first chance to jump at NKR (or any non-biased source), but it, at the very least, doesn't use the domain name of a country that doesn't exist anymore (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia mfa.gov.yu, Newspaper/Tabloid Blic blic.co.yu, Newspaper Danas danas.co.yu, etc.) --alchaemia (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was suspended due to breach of terms of service.--Avala (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like what? --alchaemia (talk) 14:01, 10 July

2008 (UTC)

.yesterday...newkosovareport was hacked by serbian hackers...

It says the website has been suspended and that owners should contact billing department. --Avala (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did this entry about the website have a point other than to try to score cheap shots? I seem to recall some rule about the discussion page not being for this sort of topic. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheap shots? Are you joking? We have witnessed pages and pages of slandering of Serbian media based solely on the fact they are Serbian here yet you didn't react back then. This is opened not for chitchat but for the purpose of determining what is a reliable source. I don't think that the media that doesn't pay it's bills or that gets it's website blocked by the provider for it's content can be trusted. That is the point.--Avala (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's on a personal crusade against anyone that doesn't buy the 'Kosovo is the Heart of Serbia' wet dreams. Of course he's trying to score cheap shots. --alchaemia (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA.--Avala (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you need to re-read that before you suggest it to anyone else. And NKR is back up. I guess they "paid their bill." --alchaemia (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes for countries which recognize

Please don't archive (or let the bot archive) this section, since it is linked from the article with {{POV|Notes for countries which recognize}}. --Mareklug ^talk 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Mareklug ^talk 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not archive it and simply change the link in the article to point to the archive folder??? Bazonka (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a current, not archival concern. We need to address it, not sweep it under the carpet. It's a live discussion, and I'm hoping for corrective edits and progress on the POV issue, with more editors getting involved here, so that we can remove this template. --Mareklug ^talk 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is that notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize are allowed, yet notes explaining the situation within countries that do recognize arae not allowed? For example I recently put this in the Czech Republic entry:

Significant opposition to recognition of Kosovo within the nation. Every opposition party opposed recognition and so did some of the governing ODS party, including President Václav Klaus who said he felt ashamed when the government decided to recognize. A month after announcing recognition, the decision is still highly controversial within the Czech Republic.

Yet it was deleted within 15 minutes. Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. Also those two citations explain why there is no Czech embassy in Pristina, because it is too controversial. Finally it is highly notable when a head of state says he is ashamed over actions of the government. This is valuable information that belongs on the article. --Tocino 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is simple, the formal recognition overwrites all other views held. There's always people who have different opinions. Do you suggest we add the views of Čedomir Jovanović to the official reaction of Serbia? Only in a dictatorship can one country have one view concerning one subject. The fact of the matter is that Czech Republic has formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and soverign state and you will have to learn and live with it. Getting used to things that you don't like is a process, after I while you will cope better.

Finally, your post reveals two very important points: (1) obviously, the President of the country in question holds very little power in the country and cannot influence decisions -- so, why quote an official who has no power to influence a decision that makes him feel "ashamed", a person with a moral compass would have resigned when their government's actions made her/him ashamed, that says everything one needs to know about the person you wish to quote -- and; (2) since recognitions are not set in stone then let's wait until something formally changes, if it ever does. Clearly, what you mean by valuable information is valuable only to your very strong POV. Kosovar (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And not formally recognizing overwrites all other views held. So why don't we just list the 150 UN member states which support Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity without explanation? --Tocino 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, not formally recognising overwrites all other views held. The argument works both ways, no one claimed otherwise. However, where you are wrong is describing all countries that have not recognised the Republic of Kosovo as supporting Serbia. Does Pakistan really support Serbia? There are countries that oppose the Kosovar independence and there are those that are neither supporting nor opposing the Kosovar independence and will decide what line to take in due course, as is the case of New Zealand. To complicate matters further, different people based on their POV (and you clearly have very strong POV) read differently from the same official statements of different countries. For this reason, there is a good argument to have some comments from countries that are undecided, but I would not be too concerned if they were removed, as long as someone -- you, for example -- don't suggest that they support the Serbian position on this matter. Kosovar (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately you recognize or you don't. It's been a half a year since the Kosovo Albanian separatists proclaimed unilateral declaration of independence and the 150 UN member states have had plenty of time since then to recognize. --Tocino 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, is this supposed to be an opinion of a grown-up person capable of admitting their mistake? It's been a half a year since that and surely it will take much longer until all the states will have decided. Your comment sounds like saying: all of the remaining 150 states have rejected Kosovo recognition.

The simple reason is that the table of recognizing countries is just that : a table. If everyone adds his personal POV on who supported and who opposed recognition (and there are both in every country), the table will become cluttered and cease to be a table. If you are really interested in extended (i.e. more than three sentences) coverage of the Czech response to Kosovan independance, consider starting a page such as "Czech repsonse to Kosovan independance". There you could, in a NPOV manner, list pro and con views on Czech recognition. Passportguy (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. No, this is not possible, recognition is, at least in the theory of international law, an irreversible act (except of the disappearance of a state by war or peaceful unification with another state etc.) which makes the relevant decisions so hard-fought here (you did not understand this important point so far, it seems). The historic example of China / Taiwan was different, because the international community did recognize only one government for all of China, and so the People's Republic replaced the Taiwan government (there was no new recognition of "China", so Beijing took the UNSC seat). Now with the recognition of a state, being irreversible, the continuing bickering for example in the Czech republic is not relevant here. And it explains why the opponents and the Serbian government are so bitter about the decision to recognize Kosovo. Again: the recognition of states must be distinguished from the recognition of governments. "New states are generally recognized as such by other states if their origin is considered legitimate and irreversible." see for example the Swiss foreign ministry website [21] or every textbook on international law. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There may not be much precedent for it, but it can be done. What are they going to do if you change your mind about recognition of a non-UN member? Kosovo Albanian separatists would complain and so would their bosses, but no serious repercussions would happen. --Tocino 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it could be done, war could be declared as well! You are not well informed about international law, so it makes it useless to enter a political debate. Whether Kosovo is a UN member or not, makes of course no difference for the act to recognize. And there are some too well known precedents for that, at least in the former Yugoslavia. With the act of recognition, all the major Western states decided to accept Kosovo as a subject of international law, like Germany or Serbia, Bulgaria or the Vatican. That is what it's all about here! The only way to annul the decision will be another war in the Balkans which should not happen for everybody's sake. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. It's highly unlikely that Czech Republic declares war against Kosovo Albanian separatists, while it's somewhat likely that the next Czech government annuls recognition. --Tocino 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they cannot. This is what you do not understand. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they can. You do not provide evidence that suggests that Czech Republci cannot annul recognition with a change of heart. -- Tocino 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From a European or Czech point of view, this would be a serious breach of international law. All your arguments are strictly political ones, which are not the issue here. One can be for or against recognition. Once the decision is taken, a state considers the origin of a recognized state as "legitimate and irreversible" (see every - including Serbian - textbook on international law). --DaQuirin (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

International law is not an issue here. If they followed international law word for word, then the European states would've never allowed Kosovo Albanians to declare independence without Serbia's consent. --Tocino 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. I am unsure if the future Czech govt will derecognize like they claim but it's not the question, the question is can they do it and the answer is yes they can.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

International law is not an issue here. Both of you should at least give one source for your claim that the Czech opposition or President Klaus will not only have "a change of heart" but are about to reconsider the recognition of Kosovo as a legitimate state. This would be interesting! --DaQuirin (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS:There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. Any example for this? --DaQuirin (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do any of you realise what message a "derecognition" of this kind would send about a country who originally recognized? It's a flip flop that would stain that country's foreign policy and undermine it's international standing to the highest degree. Which is why alot of countries have trouble regaining support with the Western crew after making serious blunders of that kind. Concerning the comments on the recognition table debacle, formal recognition overrides any kind of secondary POV regarding the process. We add the MOST FORMAL position we can come up with, and if a country legally recognizes another country, everything else is TMI. It could but it could not, maybe but perhaps, probably but who knows. Yeah, formal stance is RECOGNIZED. Why don't we also use a different shade of green on the map to reflect who agreed more to the recognition and who didn't. Exo (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to add, that a lot of these "notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize" have been forced on us by User:Tocino and User:Avala, and are not really needed, or strictly defensible, but are thinly veiled OR consisting of creatively spliced point of view-pushing quotations, meant to create an appearance of a convincing, sourced reaction that essentially condemns independent Kosovo.

If a neutral observer were to audit the edits done by these editors since the article was unlocked, he or she would be dismayed to find a POV-pushing sequence of additions that continues to propagate this pattern of activity. All these additions advance the cause of representing a given country as opposing Kosovo's independence. I purposefully held back and simply sat back to see how this situation would unfold. Well, it went on unchecked, until Tocino started injecting the same POV-pushing slanting into descriptions of countries that did recognize, first in the case of the Czech Republic, and if unchecked, would have gone on to perform similar enhancements for Poland or Bulgaria, to judge from his earlier edits (before the article was locked).

I must say, that none of this strikes me as respectable writing of an encyclopedia. And so the article continues to slide into reflecting Serbian government's POV as a whole, as other editors have refused to engage in similar activity on behalf of Kosovo. Accordingly, no one has added updates for Georgia, Ukraine, or Portugal that would mention the pro-Kosovo statements and actions made by the respective prime ministers. Their reactions were amply aired on this talk page and proposed for addition, but were opposed and blocked by these editors: The Prime Minister of Portugal saying that his country will eventually recognize Kosovo; the statements of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko of Ukraine about carefully probing the issue; and the famous recorded interview in Estonia of Georgia's Prime Minister, who in perfect English famously said that as Georgia's friends have recognized Kosovo, it is only to be expected that Georgia will eventually do likewise. All these international reactions are simply missing, because no one is crusading a la Avala and Tocino, on the other side of the ledger.

I am rather disgusted with all the sewn-up "Frankenquote" explanations, as this material represents dubious scholarship, in sum, a failure to provide a balanced accounting.

If anything, I would suggest that instead of expanding these creative endeavors in the service of Serbia's government, as Tocino wants to do, or balancing them with counter-propaganda on behalf of Kosovars, Wikipedians are obligated to see to a massive revision of this sad article, drastically reducing its length: Let us dispense with point-of-view collages altogether, either pro-Serbian or pro-Kosovan, that are currently stitched all over the tables like some quilts, spliced from carefully groomed quotations.

For example, China's reaction is construed for much of its volume as what the Russian Prime Minister said, using his words -- does this practice not remind those who were around to witness it, Tocino's outrageous installation of an entry for Free Tibet, consisting of a Kosovo-and-Tibetans-are-guilty-of-this utterance by the same Russian Foreign Minister whose words now speak for India and China in our article, after Avala's and Tocino's edits, which never received consensus when the article was locked, so Avala lobbied an administrator to lift page protection?.

These quote collages, sort of bouquets arranged to form a suggestive picture, should simply be deleted, and only normative reactions, clearly ascribed to official publications of the government in question should be retained, without slanting, which is that happened, among others, in the case of Slovakia, where the government has not yet formally issued a formal ruling on Kosovo, and will not do so for 3 more months, but our article already paints a suggestive collage of opinion that amounts to Slovakia rejecting Kosovo -- and that, in turn, is used on Commons to color Slovakia red on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map by the very editor who prepared this suggestive collage in the first place!

In fact, the article, after corrective downsizing, would only gain on credibility and readability, sacrificing only one-sidedness and wordiness.

The editors who edit in this vein have laid down a smoke screen, arguing that they are only using sources, but in fact, they are misusing them abjectly, in the service of crafting a preordained interpretation, in some cases using partisan sourcing altogether (websites located in Belgrade or in Prishtina), and in a few, outright lying as to what the source actually contains.

In Ukraine's writeup, the quote sourcing Oleg Blohin Oleh Bilorus was non-trivially abridged, thereby changing the scope of what he said, in effect misusing the source. To the naked eye, without following the link and comparing texts critically, we have here a categorical statement, a sourced quote and a properly referenced official source. The same technique was employed months earlier in the case of writing up Armenia, since corrected.

Editing of this ilk had been repeatedly protested on this talk page when the article was locked, but to no avail. Now, with the article unlocked, the fabricated Bilorus misquote lives on, while new quotes are being one-sidedly added to the pile, all "good sourcing". --Mareklug ^talk 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Fixes applied. Mareklug ^talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Improved for clarity. Mareklug ^talk 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. And I am strongly opposed to deleting information just because it may suggest that the respective nations are against recognizing. --Tocino 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was the one who brought up the Estonian story about Georgia recognising and I was set upon as though I were the most evil person in existence - not hyperbole considering our group here. I've seen many stories that I thought were worthy of mention here but didn't act because I knew our pro-Serbian delegation would metaphorically beat me to death for mentioning them. There is a certain air of intimidation pervading this topic because you know that if you broach a topic that is not pro-Serbian you will be obstructed and argued to the point of despair. And now you'll beat on me for posting this, which is de rigeur. To our pro-Serbian posters: We get it. You really, really, really hate Kosovo. You gloat over how it doesn't have widespread recognition and every bad thing that happens in Kosovo is a blessing from heaven for you. Great. Good luck with that. However, it is a polity that exists and we're trying to document it as neutrally as possible. Kindly stop accusing everybody who doesn't agree with you of being a pro-Albanian separatist and spy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an overreaction and I am genuinely baffled as to how you can feel this way. First of all there is no cabal that secretly controls and bullies this article, if anything the so-called pro-Serbian posters are outnumbered four-to-one on here. The reason why your proposed entry for Georgia failed is because less than 24 hours after the initial comments the government was backtracking and saying that the PM misspoke. --Tocino 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The PM himself never said that he misspoke, and there exists no source that he ever recanted. The only source referencing the "backtracking" did not accuse the PM of misspeaking, but alluded to him being misunderstood. So much for your accuracy. You chose to censor all this, while adding partisan-sourced and partisan-chosen quotes to further make this a one-sided accounting. So, don't be baffled at the vehemence of Canadian Bobby's say, or my denouncement of your editing practices and those of User:Avala. Furthermore, you doggedly enter these neverending threads, and simply outlast opposition. Meanwhile, the article either gets locked, or people give up, not wishing to be blocked for edit warring. --Mareklug ^talk 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Misspoke, misunderstood are the same thing basically. The fact is that less than 24 hours after the PM spoke to the obscure Estonian journalist, the opposition pounced on the comments demanding an explanation. The bizarre comments which contradict everything else that the Georgian government has been saying, obviously embarrassed those in charge since the government quickly retracted, distancing themselves from the comments, and reiterating that Georgia will not, and has no plans to recognize. So with the the entire situation explained, the comments are not worthy of being on this article. --Tocino 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God stop posting these text blocks where you attack me without any reason or proof. It's like you have turned on a "rant machine" and you type hysterical things like Blohin with heaps of other mistakes. Take a deep breath next time and don't downgrade Wikipedia with such posts as the one above.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging mistakes, and the lapse of "Oleg Blohin" instead of Oleh Bilorus. I corrected the typos and the thinko, but the gist of my accusation remains, and I stand by it. This article needs radical surgery and, frankly, delousing. It is not encyclopedic, and it is not edited with fairness in mind. --Mareklug ^talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the resistance of two certain members, namely Avala and Tocino, has been causing this article to be very heated and at times inaccurate, and most often for no reason. From Avala, the outstanding observation I have noticed right off the bet is the illusive and wishfulthinking type of writtings. Words probably or surely have been used alot out of nowhere or out of pre-conclusions over what a diplomat might have said. I could cite the Brazil episode where the explanation box was twisted in such a way to make it appear as if Brazil's opposition was as strong as Serbia or Russia. Another classic one is Cuba, where the brother of the father of the mother of the sister of the diplomat said something, and it surely must be the stance of the neighbor too. With Tocino, the oppositions are much more irratic and hilarious at the same time. He opposes pretty much anything pro-Kosovo being written in there, and while he's at it, he comes up with new goldposts and standards. My favorite episode was when he claimed that the separatist government of Kosovo has no authority or right to claim that anyone has recognized them and somehow only Belgrade has such a power. Hence, the websites of the separatist government were supposedly biased and unreliable, because they were wrong in the predictions that Macedonia and Montenegro would recognize soon. As if Tocino regulates the gears of time and is able to assert when soon is soon and when late is late, and as if somehow predictions and perhapses are the new standard for judging sources. All in all, Avala and Tocino combined, apart for causing huge and often laughable disputes in the TALK section of this article, directly or indirectly they also cause either biased, incendiary or just unnecessary layerings to appear on the main article (remember the Pristina with the Serbian "s" episode?). Lithuania moved back and forth on the list a zillion times, Qatar hasn't appeared alongside Saudi Arabia yet because of some wishful thinking diplomacy being engaged around here that somehow journalists are just expressing some personal hallucination when they report that Qatar diplomats have said they are in the process of recognizing, and Malta still doesn't appear in the about to recognize list, despite Maltese diplomats having said so during that EU meeting this month. Obviously these entries are not appearing alongside Saudi Arabia because wishful thinking is being applied, and of course if Malta or Qatar are to recognize tomorrow, then we'd just have to move them from the "Don't recognize or have yet to recognize" immediately to "Recognize", even though we knew about their intent to recognize way before hand but a few obstructive members pushed their POV in crafty manners, thus leading to an unrealistic portrayal of positions or events in the main article. The last saga strongly backed by these members now revolves around complicating and overcrowding the recognitions table by writting in every single instance when someone agreed or disagreed to the recognition prior to the decision to recognize and/or any ongoing debacle over it. As if little hissings here and there are more important than the approval and seals of the cabinets of each government. A similar scenario happened some months ago with the map as well, where they wanted to color-code the countries based on the continuously faulty or erroneous positions that have often been supplied as "official/unofficial" stances in the "Yet to recognize" table. All in all, when you add it all up, it amounts to month after month after month of schemes, complots, POV shaping and reshaping, all in a flagrant attempt to favor Serbia's stance. Just awful. Exo (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Passports of Kosovo

I have added information to Macedonia and Slovakia about recognizing passports of Kosovo. Macedonia will recognize them as they have recognized UNMIK documents before while Slovakia will consider bearers to be illegal immigrants in Slovakia even if they poses a Schengen EU visa.--Avala (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia also recognizes UNMIK travel documents. And I find their justifications for not recognizing the passports laughable; many states don't recognize Taiwan but duly recognize their passports. But oh no, Slovakia will consider them to be "illegal immigrants." This kind of rhetoric is reminiscent of scare-mongers, not of a serious government. --alchaemia (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on the Government of Slovakia but unfortunately it's not needed here as it will not lead to the article improvement.--Avala (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what's needed here is good editing, and you simply didn't provide one. Both of your sources on Slovakia are not in English - this is neither the Slovak nor the Serbian Wiki, so you can't expect people to read the sources in their original language. How about you provide what's needed and cut the sarcastic crap? --alchaemia (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided what is needed - information and sources. You are the one providing us with your views on Slovakian Government as not serious bunch of scaremongers and that is exactly what we don't need here. Take your POV and rants elsewhere, this is not a forum.--Avala (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You did not provide a source in English, for the English wiki. You may have provided one in Serbian, but that's one you need to take elsewhere. On the English wiki we need a source in English. --alchaemia (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be so ignorant - Slovak language is not the same thing as Serbian language. You can't pick sources, if no English agency published this then there is no English source - it is that simple.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. I'm very familiar with both Slovak and Serbian and do know the distinction (znam ja razliku, druze kapetane). The point is that you're using TWO sources for an article, yet NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS IN ENGLISH. Since this is the English Wiki, it is only customary and logical to use sources in English. I remember a couple of recognitions being put on hold until we found a source in English, and I don't see how this is different. Your edit is, quite simply, not a good one. --alchaemia (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Were the international wiki that uses english. just because the source isn't englisch--Jakezing (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

how will the passport look like?

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200807141041/Politics/Kosovo-to-issue-new-passports.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why India is added on the rejection sentence ?

On the sentece says, supported by US, UK, France, rejected by India, China and Russia?

Why India? if india is added..that Germany and Japan should have their place as supporters there along with Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is distorted info.

Besides, only Russia has explicitly rejected independence.

Neither China should be addd there. The info is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only distortion here is your misinterpretation of China and India's position. They both reject unilateral independence and have recently called for new negotiations. Besides, if you add Japan, Germany, and Australia, then you should also add Spain, Brazil, and Indonesia to those who reject. Right now in the intro we have three who support and three who oppose. That seems pretty fair to me. --Tocino 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that India and China "rejected" independence. It refers to a statement, which is sourced, released by the three countries at a summit thingie in Ekatarinburg back in May saying that negotiations should be resumed. This is not biased information. Read the source. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

the guests don't seem to understand that by not saying they recognize the republic of kosovo, they reject it.--Jakezing (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

US, UK, FRANCE are UNSC along with CHINA and Russia.

India has no place in it.. If india is added. certainly Japan should be placed there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Otherwise, it is pretty biased, lenient and lacks of proper sources. Yea, torncino, pretty fair, as long as india is out of there. If india is there, so shall be japan.

This is a non-issue. You're bored, aren't you? Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this. If India (who's not a member of UNSC) is there, Japan and Australia (and Germany) should be there as well. --alchaemia (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

your not listining are you? we put 3 supporters of independance and 3 non asupporters, why at 3-5 more but leave the of examples of people not supporting it at 3, then its biased still. hell, lets just remove all 3 or add albania and serbia and remove the rest, as albania and serbia are the two primary things here, albanians and serbs.--Jakezing (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a hard line to balance as it wouldn't fit to add every countries position, that would be the fair thing to do if anything. Or better yet the position of every person in the world, as I suspect just because your government does or does not recognize you don't have to agree. — chandler — 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with having India included in this. This is not about balancing things. Germany and Japan are huge powers in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arab countries

Can we include that somewhere?

[22] 84.134.62.4 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

can you make a account sand do it yourself?--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?84.134.86.183 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovan passports

The Montenegrin Foreign Ministry has just issued a statement that they will immediately recognize them and apply them. Skopje is, so far, undecided on the issue. Albania already recognized it, and Serbia officially decided it to be as if the person who uses these documents bears none. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find Serbia's position a little big strange. How can you pretend like someone has no papers if he's offering you papers? keep in mind that these are passports, and they will have to be presented at the border - in neutral territory still - so it's not like the person is already in Serbia. They could simply say "we don't accept those documents" and that's it. This whole "they don't exist" thing they got going is akin to sci-fi movie. --alchaemia (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian citizens can get Serbian passports. What's so strange about that? --Tocino 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/11675/

Skopje did too....Their foreign minister even confirmed that before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Who added Greece to the soon to recognize list? There's no source, not to mention that the English used is pretty poor. --alchaemia (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to corroborate the Greek president's statement. Saying that that is the Greek position is misleading. 99.234.28.230 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No references, shoddy English, and not even an EU membership notation in the rightmost column. Perhaps it was best when any changes made to this article were discussed and debated on this talk page first before being added by a mod. Show us a reference please. Barring that, someone please revert the article to a previous state where Greece was in the non-recognition column. Ajbenj (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added an article from Greek media citing its president by saying that Greece should make small steps towards recognition. I don't know why the source is not in the article. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.express.gr/news/news-in-english/47954oz_2008070347954.php3 --Lilonius (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with Armenia - although at least this has a reference. Based on the information added, it looks highly likely that they'll recognise - but it doesn't explicitly state this. Armenia should be moved out of the "ready to recognise" section. Probably Greece too, but I haven't read the article above yet. Bazonka (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If so we can move Czech R. back to the list of countries that don't recognize because Greek president has the same power as the Czech one. But in reality the decision on this lies in the Government.--Avala (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The president is in the goverment though...--Jakezing (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With only ceremonial powers since 1986. Plus I doubt Milosevic's pal Papoulias would turn against Serbia. --Avala (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: I guess your personal doubting is not a good source, while the Greek media [23] saying Papoulias is taking small step toward recognition is pretty strong source ;) --Lilonius (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess your personal view is not a good source either as Papoulias can't take such a step as it could be considered a coup if the president decides to break the constitutional bounds.--Avala (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not my statement or my personal view. I am just citing what Greek president said, and as far as i remember president is a representative body of its state. The following statement directly indicates a will to work towards recognition, which could happen in 1 month or 5 years. Depends on what small steps means to Papoulias (or Greece). --Lilonius (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party from Serbia??

I think the part of Political Parties is POV. It only states the parties which give negative connotation to Kosova independence. Why there is no any reaction of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Cedomir Jovanovic who is known as pro-independence? I think that either this section should be removed entirely, or we should add LDP's reaction too [24] I gave only one source to his reactions, but if you want i believe i can find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilonius (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ultiamtly removing it would be best, since theres so amny parties. that, and serbia's party reaction, depending on the pov of the veiwer, is iehter internal or external, if you recognize kosovo or not.--Jakezing (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative connotations? What are you talking about? Here are two examples of the reactions:

"The vice president of the Catalan government and president of the pro-independence party ERC, Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira, sent congratulations to the prime minister of Kosovo because his country had achieved independence and freedom.[271] Also, a popular campaign for recognition of Kosovo as an independent state has been initiated.[272]" "Scottish National Party Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament that congratulated Kosovo on its decision to separate from Serbia.[273] "

Seems pretty complimentary towards the Kosovo Albanian separatists to me. BTW, the parties that are listed are popular amongst their respective communities. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democratic Party is a tiny minority party that is generally looked down upon by the rest of the Serbian public. --Tocino 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: first of all, you have to read between the lines if for instance you think that Catalan government statement is positive. Most probable way of interpreting this is that Kosova independence might trigger similar wishes to Catalan party. And please don't insult my intelligence trying to convince me otherwise (although i don't write much on this article i read the discussions daily, so i know your approach here).

And second LDP is not so tiny, it went on the elections alone with no coalition and passed the census, this means they have pretty much votes. At least they have more votes than Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians. And the statement of Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians again gives negative connotation to Kosova independence since it implies further complications in other parts of Balkan as a cause of declaration of independence.

I think this section should be removed, but if not, LDP opinions should be here.--Lilonius (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Parties have to be removed. First of all, none of these is a position adopted formally by a party, but only an individual's statement or action. It's is complete POV to portray these reactions as reactions of parties. Tocino I believe added parties, and tehre has never been wide support for keeping them. --Mareklug ^talk 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There has never been wide support for deleting 7 entries and 12 sources either. --Tocino 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Show us the 'wide support' for including them, then we'll talk about the support needed for deleting them. You added them arbitrarily - without discussing with anyone - and now want 'wide support' to remove them? It's laughable. I support their removal as entirely irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show why they should be removed. --Tocino 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The burden is on YOU tocino to give us a reason as to why we needed them in the first place, do that, and we will bother with a reason to remove. I support removing.--Jakezing (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you support it. I can already predict who else will show up here in support. But generally you need to explain the reasons for deleting 7 entries and 12 sources before you can go ahead with this drastic action. User:Mareklug's warped logic that party officials do not speak on behalf of their respective parties is about as weak as the Kosovo economy. Saying that these leaders do not speak on behalf of their parties is like saying that Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of the Democratic Party. Also, "Tocino added them, so I oppose," is not a legit reason. --Tocino 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

did you just assume you know me tocino, did you? YOU DO NOT FUCKING KNOW ME, so do not assume bullshit about anybody else either. i support iot because why bother, those political parties have no influence until they lead the country or have a majority in that nations legislative. and it sure seems like obama dosnt represent his party totaly, alot of those democrats are moving to mccain just to not support obama.--Jakezing (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The SNP, PNV, and New Flemish Alliance are all in government in local or national level. Barack Obama speaks on behalf of the Democratic Party as a senator and their presumptive presidential nominee whether spoiled Clinton supporters like it or not. Same can be said for those who are listed under the political parties section in this article. They are members of their parties so they can speak on behalf of them. --Tocino 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let's be civil (WP:CIVIL) and no personal attacks. As far as the parties, I do support removing them all, and the eclectics as well. Tocino you made me laugh with the joke of the weak, "is about as weak as the Kosovo economy." Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino, I seriously do not give a hoot about your "7 entries and 12 sources" - they are not needed, as they are not an international reaction. Political parties are national, NOT SUPRANATIONAL bodies, thus they cannot react at an INTERNATIONAL level. They have no place in this article, and if they do, many parties should, including the LDP which you dismissed so nonchalantly and frivolously. The fact that there are sources (as there should always be) does not mean that your biased entry is relevant - it is not, and IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. --alchaemia (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• Calm down people, NOTHING that has been said here justifies retorts of foul language or personal flaming against fellow users.
• Any large-scale modification merits discussion.
• The hysterical degree of belligerence found in these talk pages, more and more commonly seen in reaction to certain unpopular POVs, is patently ridiculous.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The upshot of this particular thread is as follows:

1. Only Tocino is for keeping the parties. He added them without discussion in the first place.
2. My formal point, that the parties themselves are not formally represented by these statements in any of the accrued cases, goes ignored. Please note, that these are statements made by individuals, speaking on their own behalf, not documents issued by parties, manifests, etc. These individuals, prominent or not (varies), just happen to have this or that party affiliation, sometimes one of many affiliations (they are also church members and geographically belong to populations, or may be elected or appointed and function accordingly). It's entirely unclear, what significance their utterances and actions have for the parties. Parties usually adopt platforms at conventions or thorugh documents, and have web pages with position papers. Individuals have mouths, and mouthe off. Tocino gathered some mouthings off, that's all. At the time, he even adorned each with a state flag (Scotland, etc., for "clarity"). There is no clarity here. There is no significance or notability, either. Take the woman in the Scottish Parliament, who only introduced a motion. Anyone can introduce a motion, and it's the commonest, most elementary, dime-a-dozen beginnning of debate manouver in parliaments. It certainly dos not represent the Scottish Party of This or That, as it has been made out to represent. This motion may not have even carried. We don't know. We do know, that there was oppositon, another numbered motion, which Tocino conveniently ignored, because it did not fit his preconceived notion of going out and representing parties. Even though it was pointed out in the discussion at the time he wanted to do "link maintenance" and we couldn't find "Kosovo" in the source, because it happened to read "Kosova". Stuff like that.
3. This entire section is dubious, hopelessly non-representative of all the parties that are out there, and does not portray the reactions which it says it does.
4. Several editors -- everyone else who took up a position in the discussion -- demanded removal of the parties. Tocino says this is so many items with so many sources. That by itself is no argument, if it is bogus information. It is bogus.
5. Let's do remove this cruft at last. --Mareklug ^talk 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There was not opposition within the SNP towards Aileen Campbell's resolution. The opposition was from some members of Scottish Labour. --Tocino 01:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to remove the section! In contrary, we should add LDP and other parties if necessary.--Lilonius (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you only want to add the LDP? Why don't you want to add the other Serbian parties such as: DS, SRS, DSS, SPS, NS, PUPS, SPO, JS, SSJ, etc. ? --Tocino 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely why i would like to remove this article! If we add parties, we should not select only those that Tocino likes, like why should we put Hungarian Party of Vojvodina and not LDP??? Doesn't this show something about your POV Tocino? Because the Hungarian party statement sounds like Kosovo independence might trigger some kind of violence in Vojvodina, which gives negative connotation to Kosovo issue. And, as for LDP, it is good to know that it is not true that 100% of Serbians think Kosovo is part of Serbia, which is the statement of other Serbian parties. User Tocino wants to put only parties that he likes and we all know what he liks and what he hates, so i STRONGLY AGREE TO REMOVE THIS ARTICLE! I beg other user to participate in this and make their statement what should be done with this article --Lilonius (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the selected parties are there is because they are in regions with some degree of separatism so the Kosovo Albanian's declaration will have had some inpact on their local politics. --Tocino 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo applied to join IMF and World Bank

The status should be changed in the table stating that Kosovo applied for membership in these organizations [25]. I think there are no issues to prevent updating this?! --Lilonius (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what Kosova did not the IMF and World Bank therefore this is not a reaction. This should be included in another article, I think it's called the Foreign relations etc etc. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the IMF and World Bank will react to Kosovo's application. Whether they approve or reject should be mentioned in this article. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The IMF and WB (world bank) should not be included in this article. They are not reacting towards the 2008 declaration of independence --- unless they come out with a transcript saying explicitly something along the lines that the IMF/WB considers Kosova a part of Serbia. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But if Kosovo is accepted as a member, then that's tacit recognition that it's an independent nation. Therefore, an (indirect) reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That should go into Foreign Relations not here. This article isn't putting indirect reactions...if we did that we'd source as well about Kosovar Passport. Macedonia is going to accept them, Greece, both countries which do not recognize Kosova, and Montenegro. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the Foreign Relations article on Saturday :-P Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The IMF has recognised Kosovo. [26] Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you read? This is only about application.--Dojarca (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can: In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state. Can you be more civil? Colchicum (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Montenegro should be removed from the states that have declared formal intent to recognize. This reference has Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic stating that Montenegro has not yet come to a decision on recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelsioreverupward (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I still haven't figured out how to make links work. The link is here: http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/11808/ on Balkan Insight. If someone could put it in the references for me and update the page, I'd appreciate it. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Excelsioreverupward

I have already moved them. --Tocino 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone check for socket puppet. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I have nothing to hide. I wonder the same about you though. --Tocino 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excelsioreverupward your ref link works, just look at the bottom of the page (or follow the link from the [4]) — chandler — 05:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible an antikosovo, proserb, nonneutral person like torncino is allowed to move montenegro and not allow Greece?

what has happened to wikipedia? shameful..shameful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

States that have declared intent to recognise the Republic of Kosovo

I think Bahrein should be in this section.84.134.125.114 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Present a RS and it will be added — chandler — 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You only need to read the text and then our headlines and than you notice where Bahrein belongs. And if you really need that link, here is one: [27] -84.134.125.114 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Our headlines, {{In_the_news}} I don't see anything there... — chandler — 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

can you stop posting this, make your own account, and it it yourself you vandal.--Jakezing (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling me that? There was an important thing to this topic, I informed the people with my message to help but then someone deleted that, and now you are calling me an vandal.

you've done it 3 times, and your a vandal cause you keep abusing the fact your ip never stays the same--Jakezing (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not abusing anything. I've never lied about who I am. But I can't do anything against these changing. Or have you an idea?84.134.105.197 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

heres one, SIGN YOUR ASS UP TO WIKIPEDIA AND USE A REAL ACCOUNT YOU DAMN GUEST.--Jakezing (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL at all times, Jakezing. Such language is inexcusable. If you believe this user is a vandal, please provide evidence and all due measures shall be taken. But there is no justification for this response. Please calm down and again, be civil. Thank you. Húsönd 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no rules, which is against guests. So WHY ARE YOU BEHAVING THIS WAY ?84.134.105.197 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

you wanna help wikipedia? sign up, stop waiting for us, and stop chaning ips —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, I have an account and I never make changes myself; I do agree for our guest to get an account because all these numbers look sloppy and bad, and it's an eye soar to look at. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@Jakezing: the anonymous user probably recieves a dynamically allocated IP address and has no choice in the matter. --Mareklug ^talk 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania decides to enter diplomatic relations with Kosovo

Today Lithuanian government decided to enter diplomatic relations with Kosovo [28]. Please add. --Digitalpaper (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. But it would be nicer to have an English-language source, albeit the one you gave is the national radio and tv. --Mareklug ^talk 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Change needed here

At the top of the second paragraph on the page it says:

"As of June 13, 2008, 43 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo; this amounts to roughly one sixth of the world's population."

How can anyone know how many individuals in each of the 43 countries supported Kosovo? "1/6 of the world's population" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

we take tje world population and then add the population of the 43 countries together.--Jakezing (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But you are assuming every person in those countries agreed with independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the OR about 1/6 of the world's population. Any list of states that recognize has no relation to how many people on the planet actually support Kosovo's independence. This only created an illusion of informing. --Mareklug ^talk 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF RECOGNIZED

right here. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2008/pr08179.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7653466 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: "The application for admission to membership in the IMF from Kosovo will be considered in due course." I bet Russia, China, India, Spain, Romania, and the neverending list of nations which support Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity will have something to say about this. --Tocino 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

tocino do you have to make all your posts involve something about serbia and kosovo. serbia is soverign even witrhout kosovo, kosovo, isn't. your confusing your words now. pathetic.--Jakezing (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Metohija is recognized as a territory of the Republic of Serbia by 150 out of the 192 UN member states. --Tocino 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The name is Republic Kosovo. And thats 149 to 43.84.134.86.183 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, Kosovo will be soon (not sure when) accepted into the IMF. There is no doubt there and there is absolutely no way to stop it - there is a needed majority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it says on the IMF website. --Tocino 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems pretty uncontroversial, the IMF recognizes Kosovo as an independent nation their voting process gives voting weight to the amount of money put in the organization not the size or number of countries so Kosovo's backers are basically certain to rubber-stamp its membership:

"It has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state," the IMF said in a statement.

Reuters--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF has openly recognizes the Republic of Kosovo. I come to a conclusion that wikipedia is losing credibility by allowing folks like Torcino to ruin the values of democracy. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) To get back to the core question of this section. What the IMF website and newsreports refering to it says is the following;

• IMF no longer considers Kosovo a part of Serbia. Its important to state that IMF is not a diplomatic body in the same sense as the UN, this assertion is a guideline for IMF work in the region, not a diplomatic de-recognition.
• IMF has received a membership application from the Republic of Kosovo. Notably the IMF statement refers to the Republic of Kosovo as 'Kosovo' in the second passage. This might not be an altogether conscious markation, but it does gives some intentions of the IMF. Note that the guys writing this press statement are not exactly the same as those who take a decision on the membership application of RoK.
• No decision is taken in regards to the membership application.

Based on this, it is wrong to state that 'Kosovo has been recognized by IMF'. What we can write in the article is that RoK has submitted a membership application to IMF and that the application is being processed. Once we know the outcome we should write about it. I would strongly argue against going into details about speculations on the semantic intentions of the IMF External Relations Department in the article mainspace, that would be crystalballing. --Soman (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

i'v torched most of the fiscussion as it wasnt about improving the article.--Jakezing (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It has recognized it's secession, hence it has recognized it. Reuters is also claiming this, and I'd think that they are better experts on deciphring press released than you and I can be. So we'll stick with IMF has recognized Kosovo's secession and call it a day. --alchaemia (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, your wrong. The IFM can recognize that kosovo isn't part of serbia, that dosn't mean they recognize the country called the republic of kosovo. its the middle ground between recognizing that kosovo isn't serbian anymore, but that it isn't what it calls itself, i can't remember the other nations like that.--Jakezing (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind and I'm seeing things, but the IMF press release clearly states 'Republic of Kosovo.' It doesn't state that they recognize it as a country - they don't have to state that. The very fact that they recognize that secession has occurred implies that. I cite:

In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state.

Obviously they recognize that Kosovo has seceded and is an independent state - and as such, its application will be reviewed in due course. Reuters says the same, and many other agencies do. No need for you people to re-invent the wheel and "interpret" what they said. It's as plain as the nose in the face. --alchaemia (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF is not a state. It does not trade recognition with other states. What is the question here is membership in an international multilateral organisation. Granting membership can be seen as a form of 'recognition', but that is not directly analogous to the diplomatic recognitions awarded between states. It is well possible that an organisation like IMF might settle for a compromise, recognizing de facto separation but not awarding full recognition in terms of membership (like the Taiwanese Olympic Committee). It will be interesting to see the outcome of the membership application process. At this stage we can conclude that RoK has applied for membership and that decision will be taken later. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course the decision will be taken later, but meanwhile IMF has stated clearly that

In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state.

. This is so simple, and yet you are trying to remove this information! Why can we put the whole quote and let the readers decide themselves what they want to believe???? --Lilonius (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the first sensible suggestion I've seen all day. Bazonka (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It cannot say that IMF has recognized the RoK in the article mainspace. The IMF press release is clearly sympathetic to the the independence claims, but it is not the IMF External Relations Department who decides on membership matters. As I understand no formal discussion have yet taken place on the membership issue, and until have actually have a decision on the matter we should avoid going into speculations. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It says now: "On July 15, 2008 the IMF put out a statement saying "It has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state," signaling their recognition of Kosovo's independence. The IMF said it was now considering Kosovo's membership in the organization.[248] IMF presently provides technical assistance and monitors the economic development of Kosovo.[249]" I checked the content of the sources, and the phrasing, about IMF recognizing, is accurate. For its purposes, IMF has recognized Kosovo's independence, and said so. It needed to state this, in order to proceed with contemplating Kosovo's membership, which it will do now. Your point? --Mareklug ^talk 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ok with "signaling their recognition of Kosovo's independence". The word 'recognition' can have multiple meanings, and the recognition that the press release offers is that IMF recognizes that a separate state has been formed. Noone, not even the Serbian government disputes this fact. But this is not 'recognition' in the sense of diplomatic recognition, and since large parts of the article deals with diplomatic recognition the word 'recognition' must be avoided in the passage to avoid confusion. The question of diplomatic recognition is not whether there exists a state structure claiming to be the government of Kosovo, but whether that state structure is legitimate or not. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider "acknowledging Kosovo's independence as sufficient for its purposes" to be a fair replacement? --Mareklug ^talk 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'acknowledge' is a much better word, although i'm not sure what is meant by 'sufficient for its purposes'. --Soman (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Soman, in your view, what did the IMF say? --alchaemia (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I read that IMF for practical purposes no longer sees Kosovo as a part of Serbia, it acknowledges the existance of a new and separate state, the new state has submitted a membership application, no decision is yet to be taken regarding the membership application. This might be splitting hairs, but the IMF statement is not a 'recognition' in the diplomatic sense. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-state actors generally do not recognize "in the diplomatic sense" so I'm not sure what your point is. The IMF recognized that a new state has been born/created and it recognized RoK is no longer associated to that state. That's all the recognition one needs from the IMF. The very fact that the application is being considered is a direct consequence of said recognition. No need to deny the reality here. --alchaemia (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's recognition of a de facto independent state. I don't hink IMF could or would acknowledge it as de jure independent. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article is tagged for lack of neutrality. I can imagine that the tag was put there by a dicontented person with sympathy for the Serbian cause, a person who are not very happy with the development. Anyway - What exactly can be done to have the tag removed? 213.50.111.114 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You may imagine whatever you like, but I would suggest that you first read the tag carefully, then follow where it leads (the words "talk page" are linked to the relevant section of this page's discussion). It was I who put the tag in place, and I am one of the main contributors to this article. You are in fact encouraged to help neutralize the article, which is why the tag is there. To do so directly, you will have to log in, as the administrators chose to limit editing to established users only (a matter of trust). Alternatively, you may post on this talk page to influence editing. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was I who put the tag in place"--please, forgive me, I simply can't resist saying this, but, the instant I read it, all I could think was, "It was I who allowed the Alliance to know the location of the shield generator!" ;)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. --Mareklug ^talk 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. at. all. READ THIS TALK page, the IMF recognize discussion is a good one, and read the archives.--Jakezing (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dont SCREAM... The particular discussion might be hard to find... I think it should be possible to remove the tag if the article only included two lists: recognized and not recognized along relevant remarks about the basis of the standpoint in question. --Hapsala (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we'v gotten 27 archives in a few months, thats more archives then almost all the oldest atricles on wikipedia. Read the archives, we wont have a nuetral tag removed for a long time,--Jakezing (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Embassy

I was on the process of changing the entry but the code is so confusing. Please update Czech to [embassy please. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Media also reports [29] reference from Idnes.cz --Digitalpaper (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So did Vaclav Klaus sign the appointment? I think not because the embassy is led by "chargé d'affaires" instead of the ambassador. --Avala (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many embassies were led by charge d'affaires; the US is one example of this, another is France. Vaclav's reign is not infinite; his term will expire. The important thing is the recognition and the embassy - everything else is irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The government's reign is not indefinite either. The opposition is opposed to recognition, so one of their first acts when they get in power could be to annul recognition of Kosovo. --Tocino 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognitions are rarely, if every, rescinded without a good reason. I seriously doubt that the Czechs would do that; it would damage their reputation and standing in the international community. After all, Kosovo is not Taiwan, and Serbia does not have the clout of China. --alchaemia (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But do you know that as a fact? nope, so stop your pov, and crystal ball pushing tocino.--Jakezing (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very few countries ever withdraw recognition of another country. It's controversial in political theory if once you recognise a state you even can de-recognise it. For the CR to do so would make them look very silly. Countries don't very easily swallow their pride and say, "Oops!" Dream on, Tocino. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Czechs aren't proud of their government's decision to stab a long time ally in the back. --Tocino 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

since when do goverments ever make the right choice to everybody though tocino. --Jakezing (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You've spoken to all the Czechs? Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am going by a opinion poll which showed that most Czech are opposed to the declaration, and a large majority think it will have negative impact on dialogue between Serbs and Albanians. [30] Also, judging by the hostile reaction from the opposition parties to this move, I would guess that derecognition would be one of the top priorities of the next government. --Tocino 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, a opinion poll, did this poll ask EVERY single czech citizen or just a smaller group like ALL polls?and guess what, once they reco0gnize, you very rarely unrecognize a country, ROC is a exception.--Jakezing (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

People are emotionful and these tough decisions are let to the government. What do Czech people know about Kosova or their government. Their politicians are continuously updated on Kosova and are more informed through lobbyists. It serves under their best interest to recognize RoK. I doubt they will ever de-recognize. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian President Crvenkovski says that Macedonia will make its decision soon

According to a KosovaPress article, Crvenkovski, who's on an official visit to Albania, has said that the government will make its decision known in the very first cabinet meeting after being confirmed by the Parliament. Now, the source in Albanian is a bit longer than the one in English, but they both carry the core information. I'll try to find a better source soon. --alchaemia (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re protecting

It seems the experiment in unprotection has failed, we have tocino destroying any concensous by not listining, all talks to remove first are ignore,d he turns almost all discussions he is in into a battle, and we have general fighting on the article. Time ot re-protect--Jakezing (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Seems like we have one problem editor. Much less invasive means are available to the community to handle this ...problem. --Mareklug ^talk 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

then tyhe arby that we had should deal with this trouble user.--Jakezing (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspend, ban, etc. I really want to cooperate with this person but he seems irrational or too emotionful towards these edits. One editor may not stop the process of editing in this article. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

thats why theres 10+ of us--Jakezing (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the modus operandi of the Kosovo Albanian separatists and their supporters. They want to ban anyone who dares to disagrees with them. They cannot fight alone. They could not handle the Serbs by themselves so they had to get NATO to do the dirty work for them. They are a pathetic group of people. --Tocino 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

copies thjat for future use against tocino. tocino, its hard to fight back when your enemy has guns, you dont, and forces your strong to be killed or forced into a camp. What serbia did isn't something the serbs, the world, anybody, is proud of tocino, so i don't see how you are.--Jakezing (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have no problem with this page other than an editor that is biased, as displayed for all to see above. Tocino has no purpose here other than to be a saboteur. I would move for him to be banned from participating on this page. We do not require the services of Serbian nationalists here. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At least they ban, not ethnicly cleanse the entire population that disagrees with them.And I am sure Serbia CAN fight alone, since they have Russia doing all the dirty work for them. If it wasn't for Russia and China the Serbs would be the one fighting for recognition not Kosovo. The cheek some people have, bitching about the very same things they do themselves. The Serbia can not handle reality themselves that is why they have the Russians and Chinese to make the lending on earth easier. (129.44.172.211 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

now please, lets not be crazy, serbia has been a natuion for a very long time,--Jakezing (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure your edits are covered with sources and it should be fine.--Avala (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what is going on - why are some of the entries in the part with regions selectively removed? Who can make a decision on which regions should stay and which regions should go? It's a hilarious form of vandalism when few ill intentioned users make a "consensus" on talk page to go on a removal rampage. But rather than calling it a consensus I suggest calling it a "conspiracy to destroy". Next time a couple of users agree about an idea to cut the article's content, please call it by a real name. Also please be brave enough to write the truth in the edit summary in the future so write "removing content for fun" rather than edit per consensus, see talk, rv 3rr or whatever one coward user may come up with to cover up the malicious edit.--Avala (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There was quite the opposite happening. The selectively chosen group of regions and parties was removed by consensus (with the exception of the hard-core nationalist wing here). Frankly speaking, one could add a thousand regions and provincial party organizations all over the world commenting on Kosovo's independence. This article should clearly focus on states, state-like entitites and International Organizations. There is no veto power here for the hard-core nationalists. Otherwise we should seek mediation or stop editing the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I said - "consensus" was created to selectively remove some states and leave others. And we have the situation that "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" which is just a government in exile is considered a state by consensus makers but Scotland or Quebec are not states. Extremely hilarious thing on Wikipedia when we get consensus to vandalize and it should be stopped.--Avala (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we had a bunch pf political parties that WERE THE MAJORITY AGAINST--Jakezing (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: Your discussion is inflammatory and lacks merit: No evidence for actions of the Government of Scotland or the Government of Quebec were ever lodged in this article or sourced. Your claim that this was the case, and that information was wrongfully removed, is libel among others on me and a boldfaced lie. It's you who better apologize, not DaQuirin, who has been factual and nonpartisan, and who is just stating the truth. Aside from making untrue allegations on talk pages, you need to apologize for your for chronic failure to write an encyclopedia but a Serbian government propaganda mechanism instead. I noticed you colored China on your Commons-maintained map, Image:Kosovo_relations.svg red as officially not-recognizing Kosovo. May I ask on what basis, what Chinese government sources? You provided no annotation in the upload except for "(+PRC)". But you fought like a lion to have this article include a Russian Foreign Minister press conference statement in our China and India write-ups. Indeed, singlehandedly (or with help from user:Tocino), you added them to this article, in the process soliciting from a completely new admin that she remove article protection so that you could circumvent talk page lack of consensus for these additions. In the process, you portrayed me as a vandal and a person with an agenda making unreasonable demands and standing in the way of progress on updating the article -- another libel, you should apologize for. Apparently, being able to make that edit was all the support evidence you needed to inject, to interpret on other Wikimedia projects that India and China (among several other dubious case, Uruguay being one, Cuba another, Bosnia yet another) as states that already officially rejected Kosovo's independence. This is all factual misrepresentation, as none of them have yet. You, Avala, are damaging Wikimedia projects materially, and you should be stripped by Serbian Wikipedia steward of your adminship on the Serbian Wikipedia, as well as disciplined on English Wikipedia one by the Arbitration Committee for the cumulative impact of your Kosovo-related edits. And what about this: You logged in on the Polish Wikipedia last night, and with your first edit as "Avala" (from your unified Wikimedia account), in the pl:Kosovo article, without any explanation on the talk page or providing an edit summary (even in Serbian, let alone English or Polish, which you can write, as you have addressed to me in reasonable Polish), changed the map reference to your pet map where you lie about Kosovo recognition, in the process removing the one that was in the article for months now, the one that tries to be NPOV. This was vandalism on the Polish Wikipedia, and I imagine, that it was a form of retaliation for my personal role in having Political Parties section discussed and removed a day earlier from this article. Very curious timing, this. In sum, like Tocino, you have been extremely damaging to Wikipedia in the Serbian-Kosovan context, which is a shame, given your many thousands of edits, no doubt many very useful, and not on this project only. However, this indictment needed to be made, so that admins and stewards may contemplate taking corrective as well as preventive actions, while the reading and editing community for this article, including new people, is made fully aware of your damaging actions, actions completely not in keeping with the trust bestowed upon you as administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia, trust which implied, among other things, that you would behave helpfully on Commons and on other Wikipedias. Sadly, the consensus on this talk page is that you have been an obstacle and an impediment to presenting true information. What do you say to this? Please consider changing the way you edit Kosovo-related content, or if you cannot, please abstain from editing it, right after you make your apology to me and to the community. Yes, we need knowledgeable editors, but only if they choose to "wear white hats" with their edits. --Mareklug ^talk 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I have just seen a block of slander.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No avala, its all true, you were this articles tocino before he showed up and brought npov to its knee's here.--Jakezing (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

missing reference

The link we use to justify the first part of the Russian entry:

Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo's unilaterally declared independence by several major world powers as "a terrible precedent" that "breaks up the entire system of international relations" that have taken "centuries to evolve", and "undoubtedly, it may entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences to other regions in the world" that will come back to hit the West "in the face".

is nonexistent. I tried searching the Interfax archive (using both the internal search function and Google), but I didn't find anything remotely relevant to the alleged Putin quote on Kosovo near the given date. I think that puting words into the mouth of one of the most important world leaders is a serious enough issue that we should either find a real reference, or delete the paragraph. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Control youself, there is no putting words into Putin's mouth. Just because Interfax website is not working well it doesn't mean that this can't be found elsewhere for an example [31] -

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday described the declaration of independence by Kosovo as a "terrible precedent" that will come back to hit the West "in the face."

"The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries," Putin told a Moscow meeting of regional leaders.

"They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face," Putin said, in comments later broadcast on state television.

There you go.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A precedent for what? After six months how many new states declared their independence? None. You are spreading your nationalist propaganda here again and again, like your comrade-in-arms Tocino. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This what Vladimir Putin said not me. Now that I have explained it to you either apologize or I will report you for personal attack. p.s. Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared independence. --Avala (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't apologize for anything. You are the one to apologize for calling those editors "vandals" who are seriously trying to improve the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User Emil J. has opened a section here about the current reference not working and suggested that quotes were not real and I provided the new source and I have shown the quotes from the new source. Next time check out what is the discussion in the talk section all about before turning on the attack mode after seeing words like "Putin" or "precedent". I didn't post them for fun but because that was the subject of discussion.--Avala (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the link, but what the hell do you mean by "control yourself"? I suggest that you control your paranoia. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 13:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It means that if I found a new source in 3s I can assume you opened this section will intent to state how these quotes could be falsified while in reality it's more than easy to check that they are not. I consider this to be the purposeful waste of our time. Maybe I am wrong but that is how I feel. --Avala (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sub issues

@Avala There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. What you said some days earlier. I am still waiting for any example for this phenomenon. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[32] - For an example Macedonia-Taiwan issue.--Avala (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(added here) As I tried to explain earlier the China / Taiwan issue - both representing "China" (and so far Taiwan has not declared independence from the Chinese nation) - is not an appropriate example. In German history we had a similar problem with the Hallstein Doctrine, especially in German-Yugoslav-relations. Yugoslavia recognized the GDR in 1957, (West) Germany broke off relations and so on. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If "Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared (their) independence", as you write, where can I find these documents? Which state did or will recognize these "new states" as you suggest? --DaQuirin (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[33] - Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has called upon the international community to recognize its independence. In the opinion of the parliament the self-proclaimed republic of South Ossetia, "the Kosovo precedent presents a convincing argument" for recognition of its own independence. Happy?--Avala (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have declared independence before Kosovo did, not as a result of Kosovo's declaration. Stop spreading misinformation. --alchaemia (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify Kosova's independence beyond moral arguments? A country's territory breaking off and being recognized is against all member STATES norms and a breach to individual member STATES rights. Kosova's independence won't be a precedent in any shape because all the countries which were out to separate have already done so, but, it's validity as "the right thing to do" is questionable. If I were Serbia I would send me army, not make chit-chatter in UNSC. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More cleanup needed

There is some more cleanup needed. What about the "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (Crimea in Ukraine)". The relevant entry does not say anything relevant here (what is he actually saying?), it's more like "we are following things closely". And what about "Richard Samuelson, Co-Director of the Free West Papua Campaign, based in Oxford, published a letter" etc. etc. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, anything they can find to "discredit" Kosovo's independence. It doesn't matter if it's "Richard Samuelson, Co-Director of the Free West Papua Campaign, based in Oxford" or Micky Mouse with a popsicle stick in his hand. --alchaemia (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the Tatar People write-up, and I have not looked at it closely, so I have nothing to say about it here yet. But I did add the Free West Papua Campaign one. The anglophone community of West Papua independence movement is very limited on the net, but the independence-minded activity within Indonesia is active and savagely persecuted and suppressed, probably still, the new democratic government of Indonesia notwithstanding. The Oxford group referenced by the source is one very legitimate and active outpost. I still think, that if we are going to have independence movements and places where people are fighting for independence listed at all, that this particular entry is legit. I would only delete it if the entire section was deleted. And I am sure there are additions that could be made. --Mareklug ^talk 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be said against the Papuans. But does it have a real impact on the topic here, influence on the decisions concerning Kosovo's declared independence (maybe indirectly for the position of Indonesia, but this could be included above). The whole "Kosovo precedent" stuff is also dealt with in the separate article Controversy over Kosovo independence (what is this?). --DaQuirin (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the vector of your questioning. Isn't this an article about international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration? The West Papuans quoted here reacted to it, and their reaction, directed chiefly at Great Britain's UN representative, is: what about us? The western half of Papua and its indigenous people is not justifiably a part of Indonesia, in moral terms (I don't pretent do analize justification according to existing internationa law). It became part of Indonesia in a forcible land grab, made with tacit anti-communist/domino theory-motivated U.S. consent, albeit the takeover was conducted under the auspices of the UN, in 1975, being a takeover of another Dutch colony. If Papuans were just a stable Indonesian population, I could see including them under Indonesia, but they are in great measure under occupation, experiencing disenfranchisement and ethnic and economic onslaught (massive state-orchestrated transmigration, exploitation of gold and copper by global mining concerns paying taxes to Indonesia, operating without local consent, destroying the environment). --Mareklug ^talk 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and NPOV

What up Gentlemen? I just stopped by and noticed some questionable statements made by some of you in this talk page. I'd like to reiterate that NPOV and CONSENSUS are the only manners to be used in creating this article. Yes it's a very contentious article but if a group of members could form consensus on the actual Kosovo article, I believe it can be done here too.

Anyway, try to show love even if you disagree. I'll try to help out here more in the future, I've watch listed the article to begin with. Beam 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some mediation here from time to time would be welcome. It's a hard-fought article indeed (though very interesting). --DaQuirin (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

since the admisn wont let us get rid of the only trouble user, tocino, i suggest we just re protect this, its 3easy to tell that their experiment to unprotect was a failure.--Jakezing (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some initative has been taken to end the mess. "Ein bisschen Ordnung muss sein." as we say in German :;) --DaQuirin (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was? Mein deutsch ist, O.K,. but not that good, whats that say?--Jakezing (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not easy to translate (?), something like "A bit of organization / regularity (or even sanction) is needed." It's a favourite quote of Russia's (German-speaking) Ex-President Putin by the way ("Ordnung muss sein"). --DaQuirin (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I resubmeited the article ot a protection, really its either tocino is banned from here or we go back to full protection.--Jakezing (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection isn't necessary. There's enough of us here to prevent Tocino from wrecking the article. Please remove your request, if this article gets protected it hurts us all. Beam 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

thats called edit warring--Jakezing (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Beam 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FIFA

I welcome the removal of the religious organizations. Their reactions would be interesting if they differ from their national governments maybe. I don't see that. Concerning sport federations, I ask myself whether we should not include FIFA, even if there is not much information available - football matters in that part of the world... --DaQuirin (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FIFA hasn't acted yet on the official Kosovo application for membership, but it publicly acknowledged getting it. Since they just had their world meeting in Sydney, where it did not come up on the agenda after all, it's unlikely they will do a thing for a while. But you can see the links to sources when I proposed adding FIFA, in the archives. A FIFA entry with a note about all this certainly would not hurt the article. --Mareklug ^talk 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is information about this in the article about the Kosovo national football team. It's important, somehow a short summary or wiki link seems to be missing in our article. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I'm biased for loving football, and thinking football is the most important thing in the world ;). I think FIFA and UEFA (i doubt they'd go for any other) official positions should be added, when they exist. My feeling is that getting into FIFA would be a big step for Kosovo to legitimise them selfs. — chandler — 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Organizations

The Religious Organizations should be eliminated too. The Vatican is also a state and can be included above. The Orthodox churches are repeating what their governments say (or is there any little nuance that I miss?). --DaQuirin (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They were. Please read more carefully (the section above with "please discuss"). If you're going to do cleanup, could I ask you to do it right, and remove the re-added Political Parties and Religious Organizations cleanly, instead of noodling with surgery in Vatican?... --Mareklug ^talk 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious organizations are international organizations just like International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles and the International Weightlifting Federation are. Why don't you want to delete these two too? --Tocino 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

do we really need the IFAW?--Jakezing (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug: The Catholic Church and Vatican are now separated and included twice. Why? Makes no sense. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@DaQuirin: I am of the opinion, that mentioning Vatican (Holy See) under states exhausts this topic. Cherry-picking religions and having 2 orthodox churches and Holy See listed again, when in truth, thousands of Muslim clerics worldwide have no doubt spoken on this issue but are not listed, is complete injustice. One of the reasons why I persuaded for chucking Religious organizations section. Tocino just re-added the parties under a morphed listing, and re-added the Catholic church. Basically, one person is running the gauntlet of consensus and making truly terrible edits. Since when does truth become flexible and political parties morph into independence movements? This is dicking with Wikipedia, IMHO. We need to remove the garbage. And it takes a village, as Hillary said. --Mareklug ^talk 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious organizations are international organizations The Serbian Orthodox Church is not an International Organization. This is nonsense. Some of the (minor relevant) sports organizations should be removed as well. What about the Fédération Internationale de Philatélie? This article should really focus on states, state-like entities and International Organizations. Fully agree with Canadian Bobby (see above). To Mareklug: The Vatican is a subject of international law (therefore not "exhausting the topic") famous privilege for the Catholic church... --DaQuirin (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Re "Vatican", I meant to say, that we mention it under states, and that suffices, as it pertains to the international law you cite.
• Re "minor sports federations" -- when Kosovans may only see their sports teams display "Kosovo" on the jerseys, the minor sports federation become major. Sports is a means of national self-identity, unfortunately, a modern ersatz means of waging war, it seems, to judge from flag-waving even at tennis venues, never mind full-blown ethnic riots over soccer/football. And who is to say which one is major? We list them all or we list none. Same with organized religion. --Mareklug ^talk 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian Orthodox Church is not an international organization? Why don't you just read the WP article about it. The Serbian church has a presence in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Republic of Macedonia, United States, Canada, European Union, and Australia. It has over 20 million followers and last I checked there weren't 20 million Serbs. --Tocino 18:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the church where the popes blessed the Serbian "army" soldiers to go into Racak massacre and Srebrenica, two that come into mind. One thing you didn't know is that this institution has POSSESSIONS in those countries, not thousands of churches as you portray it to be. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

new idea, lets ignore all [posts by tocino,--Jakezing (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed ;)-- CD 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican statement is worded so as to represent the opinions of both the Vatican as a country and the Roman Catholic Church, as a religious organization. Both facets of the Vatican's reaction are relevant - particularly since the Roman Catholic Church is the world's largest religious organization. I strongly oppose the removal of the section regarding the Roman Catholic Church and ask that it be restored. 71.63.76.95 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added the Catholic Church in the first place, not Tocino. The Church's position is known and relevant. Further, its presence adds a non-Orthodox Church to the list. Unless this article intends to exclude non-Orthodox Christian churches, it should include the Vatican's reaction. And I'm sorry ppl, but the reaction of the Vatican City, as a (tiny) country, and the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church (as a giant religious organization) are gonna be one and the same because the Pope is absolute leader of both. Unless y'all intend to scrap the religious organizations section entirely, you ought to restore the blurb about the Roman Catholic Church. 71.63.76.95 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have (at least for the time being) restored the entry for the Roman Catholic Church. The only alteration I made on the original was to replace the image of the Christian Cross used before with the image of the Papal Cross. RIVA02906 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion partly underscores the undesirability of having this section (Religious organizations) in the first place. The 3 listed organizations have been selected to be represented, whereas the vast majority of the religious entities that make up the world are completely neglected. Furthermore, we are talking about a overwhelmingly irreligious society (Kosovans) who are nominally Muslim. Yet another angle: the Serbian Orthodox Church views this territory as containing its relics, holy ruins, traditional lands, as well as extant monastic entities. They have a biased, political take on the issue, as they would rather not have an independent Muslim government ethnically alien to their tradition control these lands. Why is this so hard to acknowledge? The Serbian anything, including the Church, will be opposed; that is a given. Many others will be for -- but they are omitted. It will be more encyclopedic and less far less reality-distorting to omit this sorry display of prejudice, special interest lodging, and incomplete, shoddy scholarship. We mustn't allow editors with vested sectarian and nationalistic takes on the matter of Kosovo to run the roost. The international reaction we are reporting is essentially anchored to the notion of states and organizations representing states, with a nod to UNPO, as the organization of people denied having a state. Subnational entities and largely Serbian entities need not be listed. --Mareklug ^talk 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference given for the Russian Orthodox Church is dated December 15, 2007, thus it is no reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Mareklug: I recognize your concern about religious roganizations and agree that if the section on religious organizations had serious issues. Until someone here is able to provide additional entries (e.g. reactions for the Church of England, The UCC, the Chabad Movement of Judaism, the Dalai Lama, Muslim organizations, etc), the section on religious organizations may as well be excluded. However, I disagree with the notion that the article should include only the reaction of state entities (and sub-tate entities and international agencies). The article is titled "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence." Nothing in that title limits the article to state and state-like entities. So long as an organization is international and reasonably noteworthy, its reaction should be included. Most religious organizations are international and overall, religious opinions are noteworthy for their influence on public opinion. I thus propose that users propose new entries for other religious organizations; including both other Christian organizations and non-Christian religious organizations. If a reasonably diverse list of responses can be accumulated, then the 'religious organizations' section should be restored. The restored section should then include these new entries plus the old entries for the Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. RIVA02906 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro Reaction

Belgrade - Montenegrin Police Minister Jusuf Kalamperovic said yesterday that as a member of the United Nations, Montenegro would accept the new Kosovo passports and that "Montenegro is not even considering closing its borders to citizens and goods from Kosovo." [34] Ari 0384 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ussualy you dont close the borders to a people you recognize the passport of.--Jakezing (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be included in the entry since Montenegro hasn't recognized RoK but will recognize it's official documents and its' people. Ari 0384 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Political parties and religious organizations have been removed: please discuss

Removed as irrelevant, after compelling arguments presented on this talk page (much of it archived). Not only irrelevant, but cherry-picked, and most likely, not in fact official positions of these entities. I.e., it was WP:OR all along, especially for the political parties. I expect other editors to back me up on this and revert anticipated reinstatements of this bogus content. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Digitalpaper (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. --alchaemia (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree - We should focus on state and near-state level actors. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing irrelevant about their comments and resolutions about the Kosovo declaration of independence. This article is titled International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence... those religious organizations are international organizations and the parties are entitled to respond positively, negatively, or neutrally to this event. --Tocino 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a single resolution or an official party document was produced in those Political parties entries. That section was pure OR on your part, where you made attribution of positions to certain cherry-picked parties based on individual politician quotes. Some of the party activity amounted to an average party legislator introducing a motion in the local parliament. Others included quoting a Belgian minister who just happens to be a member of a party, as well as other things. Stuff like that. Ditto for religious organizations -- they were clearly cherry-picked. Lots of Muslim clerics preaching all over the world were omitted. Plus, in the infobox for Kosovo navigation pointing to this article, it says "diplomatic recognition". Parties and churches have nothing to do with this, and we chose not to quote individuals, other than government officials speaking for their countries, and even that is a bit dodgy -- we really want official state positions. Curiously, when those are available (Romania), the entries are short and to the point. When they are not (Slovakia), entire collages of quotations have been artfully prepared to make the point on their behalf according to the editor's POV. "Other relevant entities" IMHO are those, which pertain to the national status of Kosovo, such as sports organizations deciding to allow Kosovo representation, or perhaps, non-governmental organization representing people without governments, striving to have them, and those people reacting. --Mareklug ^talk

Do you have any evidence that shows that the political parties which are listed are having their positions and words manipulated? I am interested to see this. --Tocino 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You have used as sources exclusively press accounts (in one case, aggregate parliamentary record of motions) of individuals' actions or quotes attributed to individuals. Therefore, you have manipulated the content of the article to pretend that it represents parties. There is no sourced basis for what you assembled and branded as "Political parties", and now forcibly reinstated, despite everybody's wishes. No one has supported your acitivity here. --Mareklug ^talk 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence that the words and positions that are listed contradict the written policies of the respective parties? Any evidence at all? Or just more hot air as usual? --Tocino 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence of the written policies of the respective parties??? I'm sure some random people in, say, Alaska have opinions that don't contradict them! We don't know what the positions of these parties is; there may be none. OR as usual? --Mareklug ^talk 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if we can no longer have any so-and-so said then we should delete over half of the entries on here, including Bangladesh, Malta, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia because they have only verbally committed to something instead of writing an official policy. --Tocino 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We should definitely delete Bosnia, Slovakia, Uruguay, Cuba, Morocco -- none of these have produced an ounce of national policy on Kosovo. However, we are talking about parties, and you have not produced any evidence of the written policies of parties. But you yourself brought them up. So, put up or, kindly, remove this cruft. --Mareklug ^talk 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we do allow so-and-so said in the countries which don't recognize and countries which declared intent to recognize, we also allow so-and-so said for political parties. You have provided no evidence that suggests that the words and resolutions that are listed contradict other statements coming from the parties. If you had done so then we could easily put them up on the article. --Tocino 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence from parties. If you had done so, we could then discuss whether having Political Parties section is a good thing (everyone but you agrees that it isn't!). Right now, we are discussing your injection of misrepresentation into mainspace Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is my evidence:

Now where is yours? --Tocino 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As expected, User:Tocino reverted this removal, but did not acknowledge doing so here. I am not going to get into edit wars over this. I fully expect Tocino to become topic-banned on Kosovo in due course. Please help with maintaining the quality of the article's content. --Mareklug ^talk 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

it would be a good thing if we didn;'t have tocino, maybe then we wouldnt have a off topic fight about things.--Jakezing (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when two entire sections with tons of sources are deleted without good reason, that is grounds for a speedy revert. --Tocino 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

not if those sources are for something unimportant, political parties don't have much power til they have a majority,--Jakezing (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Three Four of the parties listed are in government at national or regional level. --Tocino 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At most 2 - Belgian government collapsed 2 days ago. Again, you have not produced any materials attributable to parties as such. --Mareklug ^talk 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SNP - in charge at regional level. PNV - in charge at regional level. RMDSz - in coalition at national level. New Flemish Alliance - in coalition at national level up until the past few days, and they are likely to return in power because Flemish parties almost always form the basis of Belgian government. Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians - supports national government. --Tocino] 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not produced any materials attributable to parties as such. --Mareklug ^talk 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They're in the article. --Tocino 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't. You have quoted individuals and descrived individual actions. --Mareklug ^talk 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources: tocinoparty1 tocinoparty2 tocinoparty3 tocinoparty4 tocinoparty5 tocinoparty6 tocinoparty7 tocinoparty8 tocinoparty9 tocinoparty10 tocinoparty11 --Tocino 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)For starters, I labeled each reference you have above (you have given 11 in all) and wrote just before it that name -- all in the interest of easier reference. Now I will examine them in turn, to see if each one informs about a party position. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty1 -- this IHT link does not mention parties at all. It contains no occurrence of the string "party" or "parties" and was written on 20 Feb to summarize state reactions. Giving this as a source for parties is a complete misrepresentation. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoted straight from the source: "The Basque government welcomed the developments in Pristina as a "new example of the right of self-determination" and criticized Spain for not granting formal recognition." In case you didn't know, the PNV is the Basque government. --Tocino 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty2 -- this link to GARA is not in English. Not in Spanish. I think it may be Catalan. I don't know what it says, frankly, though I can make out some of it, cuz it's similar to Spanish. I did notice a mention of Basque country, but nothing about any party. The article is in first person and is attributed to "Ibai Trebio Miembro de Kamaradak Sarea". And there is a repeated phrase "me gustar" which I think means "I like" or "it pleases me". I did get this reference: "opresion de los criminales serbios". But I don't see how this reference in any way documents any party's position, or in fact, what party we would be talking about. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't read the language. This is nobody's fault but your own. --Tocino 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you read it? --Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty3 -- this VOA dispatch mentions concerned Hungarians living in Serbia, but it does not inform of any party positions. A party official is interviewed, and the article says who he is and what he personally does not favor: "Istvan Pastor is president of the political party Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians, an ethnic Hungarian party with seats in the provincial and national parliaments. Pastor told VOA he wasn't pleased with Hungary's decision to recognize Kosovo." This is the closest yet to describing a party position, but it falls short of that. What's portrayed here is the obvious concern of Hungarians living in Serbia, worried about being killed by Serbs. It does not source any party's platform or position It only says that a certain Mr. Pastor isn't pleased about prospects of living in Serbia for local Hungarians, after Hungary recognized Kosovo, that's all. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Mr. Pastor is the head of his party, those words carry extra weight. --Tocino 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But that dosn't mean thats the party's position, 1 persom isn't a party tocinom not even its leader.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty4 -- this link is in Dutch. I have no idea what it says. But the string "Kosovo" occurs only 3 times, all in this paragraph, so maybe someone can tell us, what it says: "Zondag verklaarde de voormalige Servische provincie Kosovo zich onafhankelijk. Daags nadien onderschreef Vlaams minister van Buitenlands Beleid Geert Bourgeois deze onafhankelijkheidsverklaring en steunde de erkenningsbeslissing van de federale regering. Meer nog: hij stuurt een delegatie om te onderzoeken hoe Vlaanderen en Kosovo in de toekomst kunnen samenwerken. Uiteraard leidde dit woensdag tot een debat, waarbij Balkan- en Kosovokenner Kris Van Dijck voor onze fractie het woord voerde. Hij verwees naar twee resoluties (van 1999 en 2001) die in het Vlaams parlement onder zijn impuls tot stand kwamen. Hij citeerde ook wijlen Ibrahim Rugova, waarmee Kris meermaals persoonlijk contact had. Tot slot toonde Kris zich zeer tevreden met de houding van minister Bourgeois: Vlaanderen moet op een volwassen wijze kunnen samenwerken met deze nieuwe staat." --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, complaining that you can't read the language. --Tocino 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

heres a translation; "Sunday declared the former Serbian province Kosovo self independently. Daily afterwards Flemish minister of Foreign Administration endorsed Honored in a bourgeois way these independences explanation and supported the acknowledgements decision of the federal government. More yet: he steers a delegation to examine how Flanders and Kosovo in the future can work together. Naturally this Wednesday led till a debate, by which Balkans and Kosovokenner Kris Van Dijck led for our fraction the word. He referred came that to two resolutions (of 1999 and 2001) in the Flemish parliament below its impulse till position. He quoted also late Ibrahim Rugova with which Kris had several times personal contact. Until end showed Kris self very satisfied with the attitude of minister Bourgeois: Vlaanderen must be able to work together new state on an adult manner with this." It's not a good one but its a direct from a online trans i use. [35] --Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty5 -- This source is mislabeled. It is a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. dispatch from Feb 18, but its Wikipedia writeup says it is from 17th and that it was accesssed on teh 17th. The source has a completely different title from what Wikipedia says it is. But it contains, lodged within a report of countries' reactions and some reporting of the Canadian viewpoint, this sentence: "The Parti Québécois sent congratulations to Kosovars on Sunday." In light of what we know about what prominent Canadian separatists have said since, namely disovowing any connection between (or precedent being set due to) Kosovo's declaration of independence and possible Quebec independence, it is at best tangential information. Why source a separatist in Canada who says that Kosovo has no relevance to Canada? The source's date and title misattribution need fixing in any case. --Mareklug ^talk 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the date is off by one day. Feel free to fix it. --Tocino 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

its a old source tocino, the situation chaged.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty6 -- This Canadian news dispatch from 19 February quotes a Bloc Québécois leader, Mr. Duceppe, saying that Kosovo is irrelevant to Quebec, and that Canada should recognize Kosovo, since the overwhelming majority of Kosovars want independence. Canada eventually did, and now none of this is news. The title and the subtitle taken together tell the story: "Canada should recognize Kosovo: Duceppe; Recognizing Balkan state won't change rules for Quebec". Why is this even used? It's irrelevant and contributes to article bloat. --Mareklug ^talk 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this used? Because it is an reaction, a positive one, to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --Tocino 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

same party though.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty7 -- another Canadian dispatch, after Canada recognized. Some Albanian Candians are happy, some Serbian Candians are sad. Mr. Trump of Parti Québécois is happy, thinks the recognition shows same thing can happen in Canada, that recognizing a new split-off country where the old country does not approve of the split is a new thing with implications for Quebec. But the foreign minister says it isn't, that Kosovo is a special case, where there were atrocities and the UN had to intervene, and Canada was a part of it, and now it took a long time to check the situation out on the ground. Again, why is this even sourced? --Mareklug ^talk 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact same reason why we use source #6 and all of the rest. It is a reaction. it is positive. See, in your urge to delete, delete, delete, you are also proposing to delete pro-separatist information. --Tocino 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

were not making a distinction on pro and anti here, its the SAME partie as the last 2.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty8 -- yet another Canadian dispatch, also filed after Canada recognized. One might think that Canada and Canadians provided the most relevant and complicated international reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence! This is the entirety of what this source, Toronto's Globe and Mail, says: "Kosovo recognition has no bearing on Quebec, PM says
  INGRID PERITZ
  With a report from Rhéal Séguin in Quebec City
  MONTREAL -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his government's recognition of an independent Kosovo yesterday even as sovereigntists in Quebec celebrated the move as a precedent-setting boost for their movement.
  The full text of this article has 562 words.
  To continue reading this article, you will need to purchase this article." Not only does this not say anthing interesting or useful to our article -- Canada has recognized, and no more Canadian information is of interest, just as in the case of Poland or Afghanistan, but as a source, using it is squarely against Wikipedia policy, as it is a pay-for source. It is also completely unnecessary and duplicates the tocinoparty7 source and further contributes to the article bloat. --Mareklug ^talk 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this needs some link maintenance. You should be aware that this article was not pay-to-view when it was first printed. The Globe and Mail, like the New York Times, makes people pay to see their archives. Hopefully we can find a free web service that has the same information, but for now it stays. --Tocino 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

we have 4 sources on basicly one party, that makes sence.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty9 - This source is in Catalan. It mentions some world regions that may be striving for independence (Scotland, Quebec, Flanders, Catalonia), and contains an offi cial letter written by the vicepresident the regional Catalan government, congratulating the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo on his country's independence:
  "La missiva del vicepresident:
  
  Sr. Hashim Thaçi,
  Primer ministre
  Oficina del Primer Ministre de la República de Kosovo
  Edifici del Govern
  Prístina, Kosovo
  
  És per a mi un gran honor, com a responsable d’Afers Exteriors del govern de Catalunya, poder felicitar-lo pel seu recent nomenament com a primer ministre, alhora que voldria donar-li la nostra enhorabona per l’assoliment de la independència de Kosovo. És, per tant, una gran satisfacció poder felicitar-lo davant la nova etapa de llibertat que inicia el poble kosovar, resultat de la proclamació del seu Parlament, alhora que voldria animar-lo a respectar l’esperit democràtic i multiètnic del país.<br /
  Rebi una cordial salutació,
  
  Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira
  Barcelona, 18 de febrer 2008"
  
  While this source makes references to the Government of Catalonia, it mentions no parties, from what I could decypher, and so it is irrelevant to sourcing party reactions. --Mareklug ^talk 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation tells about a letter that the leader of the Republican Left of Catalonia party wrote to Hashim Thaci. A picture of the letter is on the right side of the screen. --Tocino 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

you dont get it tocino, the party leader dosn't represent the bveiws of a party unless they all agree, parties arn't a dictatorship where one person decides it all.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they do to. Rarely, if ever, does a party leader get rebuked over his views over things like this. Also, why aren't you proposing deletion of the entries for Bangladesh, Malta, Qatar, Saudi Arabia because they have written no policies about Kosovo... just verbal commitments??? --Tocino 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty10 - Yet another source in Catalan, but, mercifully, it provides an English translation of the gist of the matter, a letter to "People of Kosovo" sent to Kosovo's President: "People of Kosovë,
  
  I, as a Catalan, embrace you warmly and recognize Kosovo as a new state in the world. As you know, Catalans are also working continuously to become independent and hope to achieve this very soon.
  
  The fight of a nation is one of dignity and courage, which is why we admire the effort and courage you showed in facing terror and tyranny.
  
  I hope that soon we will meet as free nations and take decisions worthy of our people and our History.
  
  I send you warm Catalan greetings and wish you all the best!".
  
  I confess, that is is unclear to me from the page formatting, who exactly is writing here. But, again, whereas there are references to Catalonia, Catalans and the Catalan independence, there is no mention of any parties. For sourcing parties, this source is entirely irrelevant. --Mareklug ^talk 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. There is no reference to any party there and I will remove it from the article at once. --Tocino 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty11 - this source is "Business Bulletin No. 32/2008: Monday 25 February 2008, Section F – Motions and Amendments", basically, a catalogue of all the motions lodged that day in the Scottish Parliament. It does not represent or even try to represent positions of parties. It is a dump of legislative activity at a regional parliament for a day. On the subject of Kosovo, it lists 3 motions, which I will list here in the order they appear in the document, but you should realize that this is just a tiny portion of a huge irrelevant list of activity:
  
  S3M-1373 George Foulkes: Kosovo—That the Parliament believes that Kosovo is now safe and stable because of the NATO-led campaign in 1999 after aggressions there resulted in the death of around 10,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 ethnic Serbians; remembers that Alex Salmond described this action as "misguided policy" and "unpardonable folly"; believes that the conclusive action of the Labour-led UK Government helped to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the Balkans, further loss of life and a humanitarian crisis; considers that it is in part because of this decisive action in stark contrast to the SNP’s defeatist approach at the time that we see Kosovans celebrating independence in the streets of Pristina waving Union Jacks and American flags; further believes that the international intervention took place because of the atrocities against an ethnic minority within Serbia, not in order to free an oppressed nation from occupation; accepts that unilateral independence for Kosovo was not the ideal solution, and considers that the celebratory tone of Aileen Campbell’s motion, S3M-1363, is misguided at best and political opportunism in the extreme.
  Supported by: Iain Gray, Michael McMahon, Mary Mulligan, Marilyn Livingstone, Dr Richard Simpson, Andy Kerr, Trish Godman
  
  ...
  
  S3M-1363 Aileen Campbell: Kosovan Independence—That the Parliament congratulates Kosova on achieving her independence; notes that the will of the people of Kosova has prevailed; fully recognises Kosova as a member of the international community; believes that independence in Europe is the normal state for European nations, and further believes that there should to be a future for both Kosova and Serbia within the European Union.
  Supported by: Christine Grahame, Bill Wilson, Christina McKelvie, Kenneth Gibson, Sandra White, Robin Harper, Rob Gibson, Bill Kidd, Alex Neil, Dave Thompson, Alasdair Allan, Bashir Ahmad, Jamie Hepburn, Gil Paterson, Michael Matheson*
  
  ...
  
  S3M-1363.1 Murdo Fraser: Kosovan Independence—As an amendment to motion (S3M-1363) in the name of Aileen Campbell, leave out from "believes that independence" to end and insert "and welcomes the sudden interest being taken by SNP politicians in the welfare of the people of Kosova which stands in stark contrast to the First Minister who, as SNP Leader in 1999, condemned as "unpardonable folly" the NATO intervention to protect the Kosovan people against Serbian aggression."
  Supported by: David McLetchie, John Lamont, Jamie McGrigor, Andy Kerr, Jackson Carlaw, Margaret Mitchell, Ted Brocklebank
  
  Again, what does this waste of our time have to do with sourcing party positions? This spew does not even tell us who is in what party, let alone what some Scottish parties think about Kosovo. It's just a glimpse of all the preliminary parliamentary motions made by Scottish parliamentarians on a given day. It does not tell us, what happened to these 3 Kosovo motions, if they were even discussed further, or if they produced any legislation. In all, completely irrelevant stuff. --Mareklug ^talk 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why I only put the most important information, that Aileen Campbell lodged a motion to congratulate the Kosovo Albanians. The sparing between the SNP and Scottish Labour has no buisness being on here. --Tocino 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: 10 of the 11 party sources you gave are bogus as far as sourcing parties is concerned. The 11th is in Dutch, and even you have yet to tell us what it says. Therefore, you providing these sources for sourcing parties constitutes obfuscation and amounts to a lie.

I took issue with this when I removed the parties from the article, even before examining in detail these 11 sources: No party positions have been represented here, despite your claims to the contrary. Some opinions of individuals (or actions on behalf of regional governments) have been misrepresented by you as reactions/positions of political parties.

You have just wasted my time, which could have been used for constructively editing Wikipedia, and you continue to falsely represent reality, while providing inappropriate sources in the article space of the Wikipedia. This activity is harmful to the project. --Mareklug ^talk 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You only take issue with 5 out of the 11 sources. OK, so you found one source that needs to be completely removed altogether. Every other objection of yours falls short. Many of them are laughable. There's one objection because the date is wrong by a day. Two of the objections are based on the fact that your ignorant of the local languages. For the first source you apparently were not aware that the Basque Nationalist Party currently controls the Basque government. Finally, the objection to the Hungarian source is just bizarre. A leader of a party doesn't have the authority to speak on behalf of his party according to you. Weird. OK, you've seen my sources, now let's see yours. I want to see where these statements by these parties are contradicted with other statements by the same parties. --Tocino 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Note: Revised at 05:29 to respond to User:Mareklug's latest edits.

Completely Agree, please remove it. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AGREE! Finally someone explained in details why that article is not good. And BTW there are 5 votes to delete the entry, and only 1 opposing! Can we ultimately remove the article? --Lilonius (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree too. Just too much info. Exo (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

agree and to many quebec stuff, we have, 3-4 reactions from i na s a source.

i couldnt find the dutch source 11 to translate.--Jakezing (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

well, 6-7 agree to remove and 1 keep. looks like we have a majority, anybody think we should wait anylonger?--Jakezing (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree (removal): I base my opinion on Marelug's arguments which are very coherent. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree per Mareklug's reasoning. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You Kosovo Albanian separatist supporters realize that your actions on this page will never make the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija an independent state, right? --Tocino 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You Serbian supporters realize that your actions on this page will never make the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija Real again, right?--Jakezing (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo Albanian separatist state is fake and illegal according the the vast majority of nations, the UN, and almost every other international organization. --Tocino 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So?--Jakezing (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still chugging along. Belgrade still hasn't flown you in for that medal ceremony, has it? Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree remove them Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent developments

[[36]] What can we do to incarpate such things?84.134.85.102 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That article is for pay-per-view customers, me included. Below you will read the article:

17 July 2008 Civil activists are taking the initiative to encourage a greater number of countries to recognise Kosovo as an independent state.

By Krenar Gashi in Pristina Every morning, Genc Kastrati checks the websites of the foreign ministries of countries that are expected to recognise Kosovo. He doesn’t do it only out of curiosity, but also because he has to update the kosovothanksyou.com website.

Just after Kosovo declared its formal independence from Serbia on February 17, Genc and his friend Betim Deva, set up a comprehensive website listing and thanking all the countries that have recognised Kosovo.

Soon after, this website supported by a network of people, mostly Kosovar students studying abroad, became the first address for diplomats, journalists, scholars and any interested bystanders who wanted to check the process of recognition of the newborn country.

“We wanted to show a new face to the world, and thank them for being behind us,’’ said Genc, a young Kosovar who studies computer science in Geneva, Switzerland.

During the second half of February some 21 countries recognised Kosovo. In March, another 14 countries joined this group. The number of countries recognising Kosovo has since declined steadily, with 4 recognitions registered in May and only one – by Sierra Leone – in June.

Although many in Kosovo expected more states to recognise their country’s independence after Kosovo’s constitution entered into force on June 15, this has not happened.

Many look forward for the meeting on July 21 of Kosovo’s President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci with US President George W. Bush.

“The meeting with Bush will be followed by another round of recognitions,’’ a source in Thaci’s government said.

Prime Minister Thaci claims Kosovo should be satisfied with the recognition process. “Two thirds of the EU and NATO member countries have recognised us. Also 7 countries of the G8 group did the same,’’ he told deputies in parliament.

But the opposition and civil society groups have criticised the government and Prime Minister Thaci for not doing enough to encourage recognition.

“Even the current recognition by 43 countries is not due to the merit of the government,’’ said Ardian Gjini, an MP from the opposition Alliance for Future of Kosovo, AAK, led by Ramush Haradinaj.

“Some 30 out of 43 countries that have recognised us, in principle were part of the independence process and so it was certain they would recognise us,’’ Gjini said in a debate organised by BIRN on July 10.

Further more, the government is being criticised for not establishing Kosovo embassies in the countries that have already recognised Kosovo, and use these as a diplomatic base to lobby for further recognition.

Avni Dervishi, a Kosovar-Swedish politician, criticised the government for not opening embassies and for not drafting a strategy for Kosovo’s recognition.

“Recognition won’t happen unless we have a functional state, which we don’t have,’’ said Dervishi.

Bekim Sejdiu, senior adviser to Kosovo’s foreign minister Skender Hyseni, admits that the government could do more, but insists that Kosovo’s recognition is proceeding relatively well “if compared to the recognition of other states in the region when they declared independence”.

Days before the declaration of independence, Thaci had promised Kosovars that 100 countries will recognise Kosovo.

One month after the last recognition took place, on July 15, Thaci said in Kosovo’s parliament that “not 100, but 193 countries will recognise Kosovo”.

But this does not seem to be happening.

Luan Shllaku, head of Kosovo Fund of Open Society, KFOS, a member-organisation of the SOROS network, says this is due to the negative image that Kosovo has abroad.

“In discussions used in countries that haven’t recognised us yet, Kosovo is being referred to as a frozen conflict, not as a country in need of recognition,’’ says Shllaku.

“This is because of the strong lobbying efforts conducted by Serbia and Russia in order to prevent recognition,’’ he explains.

Serbia has consistently opposed Kosovo’s independence. The newly formed government in Serbia has set a priority to halt Kosovo’s recognition.

Forumi 2015, a local think tank of representatives of many NGOs in Kosovo, including Luan Shllaku, has tried to challenge this phenomenon.

Last week this think tank in co-operation with the Al Quds Centre for Political Studies organised a conference in Jordan to tackle Kosovo’s recognition with representatives of Arabic countries.

Forumi 2015 was represented by Veton Surroi, a former politician and founder of the KOHA media group in Kosovo and Muhamet Mustafa, an economist from the Riinvest institute.

Shllaku explains that Forumi 2015 has neither funds nor resources to lobby for recognition. “But we can do something to improve Kosovo’s image,’’ he says.

In the meantime, Shllaku’s organisation is drafting a larger-scale project to improve Kosovo’s image.

The project, which is most likely to get sponsoring from George Soros, will involve well known diplomats such as former Finnish President and UN special Envoy for Kosovo Martti Ahtisaari, Austrian diplomat Albert Rohan, and others, to lobby for Kosovo’s image.

“It’s civil society’s task to set up initial contacts with countries that haven’t recognised us yet. They should know more about Kosovo, about our art, sports, culture,” said Shllaku.

“It will be much easier for Kosovo’s diplomacy to lobby for recognition if we have a good image in these countries,’’ he concluded.

Genc Kastrati agrees. He says the first objective of the website he updates regularly, is to “provide the most useful information about Kosovo and to also help improve the image of our state”.

He remains eager to update his website with more countries that have recognised Kosovo. They want to be the first to announce any new recognitions.

“Betim is in the USA while I’m in Europe. We cover all time zones,’’ he says.

Krenar Gashi is BIRN Kosovo Editor. Muhamet Hajrullahu, BIRN Kosovo Journalist, also contributed to this article. Balkan Insight is BIRN’s online publication.

--Ari 0384 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thank you for posting it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting but I am not sure if this is legal.--Avala (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not plan on capitalizing from someone else's work. And you're all welcome. Ari 0384 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

full protection

i submitted the article for a full protection, as its easy to tell this article cannot benefit from a semi or no protection, things were somewhat good when we were protected, then that went away and the same problems resumed.--Jakezing (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I still respectfully disagree with seeking full protection. The only editors pushing concertedly nationalistic agenda and not editing truthful, balanced accounting are User:Tocino and User:Avala, and all other editing activity is at least subject to discussions and consensus on this talk page. There are some unresolved issues (churches, particular country accounts), but nothing such that normal Wikipedia consensus-building won't fix and settle amicably, if allowed to proceed. As for Tocino, a link quoted above shows an admin review in progress, with relief in sight. The only unaddressed problem is edits of Avala. The bias of his edits, and what he does on their basis outside this article on other Wikimedia projects remains completely unaddressed, except for my opposition further up on this talk page and in its archives, and the opposition by other editors. --Mareklug ^talk 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop the slander already! You have spent months in Wikipedia talking about skewing, hidden agendas, nationalistic falsifications, bias, destruction etc. but in reality you can't point at it because it's the product of your imagination. May I remind everyone else how you claimed that I have changed the text of some quotes but when I asked you to point at the single letter changed you went silent. It's like that all the time, you just slander by making vicious things up about other uses. Mareklug, may I remind you that you were blocked before for insulting me? Can't you stop? Can't you get your urge to insult and slander under contol?--Avala (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander?

• Your edit on pl Wiki last night in article pl:Kosowo.
• Your current representing of the following countries as having already officially rejected Kosovo's independence: Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba, Bosnia, Slovakia, India, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Libya (so far sourced -- by you -- only to Serbian government and TV), Algeria. Your recoloring Malaysia, of all things, from light blue (will recognize, already welcomed officially) to khaki (ambiguous, postponing decision, or neutral); your coloring New Zealand orange (it is so neutral it hurts; just read the quoted Prime Minister).
• Your characterization of me on admin Gwen Gale's talk page, when seeking, behind everybody's back, to have this article unprotected (becaue you failed to get consensus for your proposed edits when it was protected).
• Consensus opinion on this talk page as to the merit of your edits on Kosovo.
• Your manufactured quotes for Brazilian Foreign Minister (he never said what you had him say) and for Armenia's (he said more, but you chopped it off, chaning thee meaning; when adding Algeria, you also left out "yet", changing the meaing. Someone else readded it. I fixed Brazil and Armenia, after harrowing opposition form you and Tocino).

This is just a small sample of the top of my head. In a disciplinary proceedings against you, it will be fully documented with diffs, but assembling a case takes a lot of time, time away from editing this article sensibly. But rest easy, nothing gets lost on Wikipedia. And I was blocked on Commons with you, engaged in a revert war, which was settled finally by my spawning off Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg to edit that alongside with you editing the original Kosovo_relations.svg. Your email representations to the blocking admin, including representing yoruself as a Sr Wiki admin, resulted in his altering hte symmetry of our blocks, all the while I was not even aware I was blocked. After I was able to make my case, I was unblocked, too. But your raid on pl Wiki to impose your version of the map (with no discussion or edit summary) does not speak well of you observing my attempt at conflict resolution, such as it was. --Mareklug ^talk 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But until they are gone we have to have a protection to avoid more warring, and you know the admins wont do anything.--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The admins will react to meritorious, well-articulated, sourced and diffed evidence. The admins want this article to succeed and be a credit to Wikipedia, as all of us do, even Avala (it's just that he seems unable to do it impartially). Please help doing that, and we will have peace here, too. 6 months show, that apart from these two users, we have had the usual Wikipedian collaboration going forward more or less cohesively. --Mareklug ^talk 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

When the protection was lifted from this article, I was adamant that it was an exercise in futility and we'd be right back here again. That was I believe at least a month ago. I've kept the article watchlisted, and frankly, I've been extremely pleased with the progress the article has made by dedicated editors. Please don't be too discouraged, the article has lots of eyes on it, actions will be taken when needed. (It's only Wikipedia, and even here, the "garbage" gets taken to the curb efficiently enough). I would not support a re-protection at this time, because it would have to be a full-protection, effectively shutting out all the good editors with the few POV-pushers. Like giving the whole class detention because one kid can't stop throwing spitballs. Keeper ǀ 76 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't "throw" spitballs! Also, I agree. Protecting an article with this many good editors (me!) willing to watch it and dedicate time to it is pretty stupid. No offense. Beam 03:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious organisations REMOVED. Please talk about it.

The following arguments show that our Religious Organisations section was not a justifiable part of this article:

• Of the 3 entries, we had: Serbian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Churches (with 2 sources) and Catholic Church; no Muslim representation whatsover. No Protestant representation whatsoever. No atheistic organizations representation whatsover. No nondenominational organizations representation whatsover. No African, animist, bhuddist, hindu, taoist, nothing.
• One of the references used for Orthodox Churches was from last year, not a reaction to a 17 February 2008 declaration of independence.
• The Catholic Church is already completely represented with the Vatican (Holy See) entry under states.
• The Serbian Orthodox Church was represented with a quote by a local Serbian cleric, whose district covers Kosovo, a Serb, calling in our quote on Serbia to militarily take over the region and seek armaments from Russia, in an interview for a Serbian publication. I hardly think domestic voices in Serbia, callling for violence by a Serbian nationalists who happens to be a church oficials, consitutes international reaction, or is justified for inclusion here.
• During the months that this article has been up, no additional material accrued or was proposed. It stands to reason, there really i no international religious reaction, other than clerical Serbs disapproving, and other clerics sharing their religion. Vatican is already covered elsewhere. Disapproving Serbs are already noted under Serbia.

Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Removal of Religious Entities - There has to be a line drawn at this article, Religious Organizations is past the line imho. Beam 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2. You know, I was just thinking, what could possible make this article even more contentious? I know, let's add religion to the article!. Support continued removal, for reasons laid out by Mareklug. Unreferenced (and frankly, unreferencable to date). Keeper ǀ 76 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3. As I said, I fully agree. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, removal, just because religions within them selfs are not 100% in agreement of pro or against. I'm sure Serbian [insert religion #1 here] are against and Albanian [insert religion #1 here] are pro, etc. If someone who speaks for a whole religion (Im not sure how many religions have this, Catholics ofc), says something about the independence it might be worth noting... Can't really get out what I mean... Let's just say if Jesus, Muhammed, Moses and Buddah come and give their statements about independence we can re-add the section — chandler — 18:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support (removal): the sources seemed cherry-picked and not to mention that the section only had 2 or 3 reactions; one was not even about 17 Feb, 2008. Seemed redundant to add church reactions on the INTERNATIONAL reaction to .... Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support removal! --Lilonius (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support removal! --Digitalpaper (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Removal I think we wont be getting much of a no repsponce.--Jakezing (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Ditto Bazonka (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Removal Exo (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Removal - along with sports federations, which I think are even less relevant to the article than religious groups.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    @Supersexyspacemonkey - sports teams are related to a form of nationalism, and are therefore relevant. For many people, the only type of foreign relations that they're interested in are brought on through sports. Kosovo's recognition by a major sports federation (e.g. FIFA) would be a real smack in the face for Serbia. You mustn't underestimate its importance. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

12. Support Removal of Religious Entities Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Removal (and Ian) Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Removal! --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I have removed the section before, and I am glad other users are starting to realize that section is not needed in this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia - ambassadors

Serbia will probably return ambassadors to EU countries [37] (and reading further in Serbian media it is done mostly to help negotiate the EULEX plan and it was also decided after a meeting with Russian FM Lavrov). So the ambassadors will be pulled out indefinitely only from Albania, Australia, Canada, Croatia, Japan, Norway, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. The article should be updated accordingly after this takes place.--Avala (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it will be "indefinitely" as you put it. New government, new rules. Ari 0384 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New government but the same Foreign Minister who ordered the return of ambassadors.--Avala (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's foreign affairs aren't handpicked by Jeremic. He is not God, only a minister that was re-selected. Like EU, Serbia will need to have continual contact with the rest of the world. Ari 0384 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if he specifically said that ambassadors wont be returned to non EU countries then I see no reason for doubt at this point.--Avala (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Avala must you argue with everything? This man also said that he would recall every ambassador from every country that would recognize Kosovo's DOI; guess what, now he is reversing it from some of them. Destroying contact with the rest of the world does not represent Serbian interests, it may not be this guy, or this government, but like the current decision it will be reversed. Ari 0384 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are speculating and this is not a forum. We are dealing with facts here and those are the statements by Foreign Minister and not the Ari 0384 POV arguing on what would be the best thing. I don't understand how you can't comprehend that we don't need anyone's private opinion on issues here as it is absolutely irrelevant to the subject "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". We are only looking for the official reaction (at least until the name of the article is not "What Wikipedia users think about the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence")--Avala (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Avala is right. All this should be more about 'taking notice' etc. and not about commenting. Though it's an interesting decision Serbia making a difference here between EU countries and the rest ('punishing Switzerland', just kidding). --87.160.207.24 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is due to multilayer relations which exist with countries like Germany where a lot of Serbs live and which is important for Serbia-EU bonds. On the other hand Serbia has basically no other than diplomatic relations with Peru and considering these only relations are harmed there is a low chance of them getting back to normal.--Avala (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made this a forum just as much as you have. If you want to keep a closer eye on this due so but don't blame others of soapboxing when you insert in your first comment Avala's point-of-view

So the ambassadors will be pulled out indefinitely only from Albania, Australia, Canada, Croatia, Japan, Norway, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. Avala (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

--Ari 0384 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So how many times do I need to write that those are the words of the FM not me for you to finally get it?!--Avala (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously are reading a different article. Even if you do provide an article where Jeremic is quoted saying such a thing, so what? He said he was revoking every country's ambassador that recognizes, it's been 90 maybe 100 days and he's already revoking his decision. Pardon me if I'm not taking someone whose answer to the recognition of RoK is by walking out in international events. Ari 0384 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia recalled ambassadors for consultations from states recognizing Kosovo. This diplomatic procedure is by definition a temporary measure, all the ambassadors will be back sooner or later. 100 days is actually quite a lot. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)