Talk:Advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

No urgent procedure

This has been denied now by Serbia's foreign minister, according to the Russian news agency report (only in German available so far, it seems). Cvetkovic is quoted that the ICJ assessed that they will not use the urgent procedure - "Therefore we will wait for years (to come) for the respective decision“. --DaQuirin (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See now also this report. I will remove the respective paragraph. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

Yesterday I proposed this article for deletion stating that: "The ICJ opinion will not be made for some time - several years possibly. This article merely contains details of the vote at the UN that led to this issue being raised with the ICJ. All of this information is already in the article International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo#International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings - there's absolutely nothing extra here. When the ICJ makes its decision, there may be merit for reinstating this article, but until then all information will be better situated elsewhere."
User:Avala then removed the deletion template stating: "sorry but just because its upcoming doesn't mean delete it.see United States presidential election, 2008 for an example.wikipedia is not an ency about the past events(btw this one already began)".
I wish Avala had read more than the first sentence of my proposal reasons. I did not propose deletion because it is about an event that hasn't happened yet per se.
To clarify my reasoning:

• Despite its title, the content of this article is not about the ICJ opinion. It's about the UN GA vote that led to the issue being raised at the ICJ. Whilst related, this is not the same thing - it is merely a footnote in the Kosovo story (WP:UNDUE). We have no information about the ICJ's opinion yet, and are not likely to get any for some considerable time. We could add speculation, but that would be unencyclopaedic - WP:CRYSTAL. (This is, of course, a very different situation from the US election where there are vast quantities of info about the goings-on. You cannot sensibly compare the two.)
• All of the information in this article can already be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, namely International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo#International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings. I do not object to this information being on Wikipedia, but it is bad practice to duplicate it and this will lead to inconsistencies - indeed, this article is not well maintained already as it states "international support will be undertaken at the United Nations General Assembly". The International Reaction article has a broader scope than this and is, to my mind, a more appropriate place for information about a UN (international) vote (reaction) than here which, as stated earlier, should be about the ICJ's opinion, not the UN.
• The only articles that link to this one are International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, which as we have seen already contains exactly the same content, and Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence where the link appears only in a template. So, on your way to find this article, you would almost certainly have already found the information you're looking for.
• The title is ridiculously long. (OK, so that's not a reason for deletion, but it does make the article look silly.)

Bazonka (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it has no information about the advisory opinion itself yet because it wasn't made yet but the UNGA vote is an intro and important information for the beginning.
• This is the main article and other articles are shortened version linking to this one through {{main|International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence}}
• So what if only several articles link here? It will expand over time.
• Again, that is not even an argument. The article name was made based on existing International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons article.

--Avala (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "it has no information about the advisory opinion itself yet", and no information is likely to become apparent for quite a long time. In the meantime, it's unnecessary. The nuclear weapons article that you proudly cited contains no information about the make-up of the UN GA decision that raised it - it's merely a footnote to the ICJ opinion. Same situation here. Whilst valuable, the UN GA information is best placed in the International Reaction article... because it's an international reaction, not an ICJ opinion.

Second point, this is not the main article, the International Reaction one is. Other articles should link there not here. When the ICJ makes an opinion (in several years time perhaps) then this may be the best place for information about the decision, but I reiterate until I'm blue in the face, there is nothing we can say about the ICJ opinion yet that isn't WP:CRYSTAL. This article has no content. Not needed. Bazonka (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand. <-- Direct quote from WP:Deletion policy#Merging.

Nothing Avala said indicates that this article is not "otherwise redundant": As Bazonka lucidly points out, it its information duplicates that contained elsewhere, where more editors have given it aand continue to give it loving atention. Most importantly, there is no opinion.

The article Avala points to as a model for this one describes an opinion issued in 1999. We will revisit this when the opinion is issued. For now, the edit history will stay intact, because I will merely implement a hard redirect to the Kosovo international reaction article. This is a reasonable compromise between Bazonka and Avala.

This also nips in the bud an edit war by Tocino, who unreasonably twice reverted an obviously superior improvement, even restoring needless removed empty lines. I would have had to revert him, had I not been redirecting the article, which most likely would have generated another forcible revert by Tocino, as his pattern of editing on Kosovo bears out.

While Tocino's actions show an unwillingness to edit in detail, and a propensity to undo other's work without consideration, unlike Tocino, I am not undoing Avala's work on this article, because the article is not being deleted, only, so to speak, being put on hold, until reality caches up to it. Per WP:Crystal ball, an article about a court opinion which is many years in the future is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, as Bazonka already noted. It is not needed now, and it will not be justifiable for the forseeable future. The preservation of its edit history and its existence as a redirect will also prevent regeneration of it prematurely. Meanwhile, Avala's work on this article is being preserved and improved upon in the Kosovo reaction article (the imminent target of the redirect). --Mareklug ^talk 15:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is a good decision. Bazonka (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Better article

Not having seen this article because it is a) badly titled and b) not linked anywhere I've just spent this afternoon creating an article based on templates for ICJ cases. Now I see someone has cleared the entire thing, redirected it here, and copied a whole load of the content. All with no discussion on the Talk page.

The title is very poor English. The content was better at the other article: Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo which is the correct form for naming an ICJ case page. Lets void this page, delete it, whatever, and leave the other article in place. PolScribe (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor English? Maybe you should check other articles on ICJ advisory opinion because this one was named in the same style as they were.--Avala (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no need for this article at all. Its content is already in the International recognition of Kosovo article. When this case develops, there may be justification to recreate this article, but until there is more news, there is no need. Bazonka (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Now there are more news. This was the argument when the process began.--Avala (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

James Dancer comments

Article says:

According to James Dancer, a former British diplomat, the possibility exists that a verdict at the ICJ against Kosovo independence, though advisory, could trigger the withdrawal of recognition by leading states.

However, if we read his letter, he never talks about the ICJ case. He does say that recognition could be withdrawn, but rather than in the context of the ICJ case, he is suggesting that if the Pristina authorities fail to make sufficient progress in protecting the rights of Serb minorities, and trying allegations of war crimes by the KLA, then recognition should be withdrawn as a consequence. His comments have essentially nothing to do with the ICJ case, so I will remove them. --SJK (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New ICJ press release today

A press release from the ICJ today talking about the public hearings and the process so far. [1] 90.193.97.18 (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added information to the article.--Avala (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to split written statements on the court

We need to split written statements on the court.

Russia, Brazial, China have decided to abstain from further participation at ICJ. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Split to what? We have written statements section which covers that part of the process and now we have the public hearings section which covers that part of the process. There is no need to split anything. Those countries did not abstain from further participation, they just didn't supply comments on other written statements.--Avala (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oral hearing timetable

The ICJ has published its timetable for the oral hearings: [3]. Burundi and Laos are to participate, but they are not listed in the article as having presented written statements. Did they? Bazonka (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think all countries were invited to take part in oral statements regardless of their involvement in written part.--Avala (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the new map for the proceedings so it's clearer which states took part in written proceedings only, oral proceedings only or both. Apart from Burundi and Laos - Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam are also joining in.--Avala (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Laos and Bahrain

I think it is important to mention that both Bahrain and Laos intended to participate at the Oral pat of the ICJ case, however in the end they didn't participate. IJA (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we know why they didn't? Bazonka (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's relevant since there doesn't seem to be any publicly stated reason. They just gave up as far as we know.--Avala (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title

The article's title, "advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence", is biased. The article title suggests the court is asked to judge the legality of their independence, whereas the case title "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence" suggests the court is asked to judge the legality of their declaration of independence. There is a subtle difference between these two - its independence is a continuing fact, whereas the declaration of it is a past fact; and a declaration of independence is not the same as independence itself (one could argue it is a mere political statement, without inherent legal effect). The court was only asked to rule on, and therefore can only rule, the legality of the declaration of independence, not the legality of its actual independence. Given a number of States have argued that declarations of independence themselves are not illegal (or even acts which international law should concern itself with), if the Court was only to consider the declaration and not the results of the declaration that might have a significant impact on the outcome. So I think the wording of the article title should be changed to match the case title. --SJK (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although a shorter title wouldn't be a bad thing either, perhaps "ICJ opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence". Bazonka (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been chewed over and over again. The title of the article is based on precedent article titles dealing with ICJ cases and they in turn were named after how those cases are referred to by the ICJ.--Avala (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so by that logic it should be renamed to "ICJ advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence". Bazonka (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Bazonka's title. Otherwise, the unquestionably neutral title would be just to use the official case title as the article title, as long as it is. So, let's go ahead and rename? Any objections? --SJK (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the present title and the new title blatantly violate our basic naming policy (WP:NC): Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. Nobody in his right mind (except for an ICJ legal document) would call the subject of this article "ICJ advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence", this is just ridiculous. Bazonka's short title is much better. — Emil J. 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the shorter title I suggested is best. There may well be a precedent that articles on ICJ cases should use the full official case name, but I'm not sure that must be rigidly stuck to, particularly when the case name is very long. Precedents can be changed. All that matters is that the title we use unambiguously describes what the article is about. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Precedents are supposed to be changed where they were made. If you disagree with the naming policy of articles then you propose it where it was created, not here, otherwise this article will fall out of the ordinary naming and will look out of line.--Avala (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Precedents aren't deliberately "made" - they just happen. Where do you suggest we take this discussion? And if you look at Category:International Court of Justice cases, you'll see there's a whole range of different types of article name, from the similarly long (and presumably official) International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons to the briefer Bosnian Genocide Case and LaGrand case. I don't think the precedent argument really stacks up. I'm sure nobody (present company excepted) would bat an eyelid if this title were changed to ICJ opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence. Bazonka (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this has all gone quiet, I assume that no-one would object to the article being renamed to "ICJ opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence" as discussed above? I'll rename it tomorrow if no-one disagrees (and if I remember). Bazonka (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that ICJ is appropriate, neither is opinion as it is an advisory opinion. No need to loose the detail with unnecessary shortening. It should say International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence.--Avala (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that. Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ICJ to deliver advisory opinion on Thursday, July 22

Official announcement that the ruling will be read next Thursday, the 22nd, at 3pm Central European Time. [4] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For all interested here will be the live streaming from 15:00 to 18:00 (GMT +2) - [5] --Avala (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict tomorrow

Events regarding this article are very likely to develop tomorrow. Can I ask for all regular contributors to keep an eye out on the article, watch out for vandalism and controversial edits. Also can I ask for everyone to keep NPOV in mind and to get a consensus before making certain edits to the article, which could possibly be controversial. Cheers IJA (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to keep the article stable as it will be in the spotlight so please everyone refrain from making some major edits right now and tomorrow keep the head cool, perhaps it will be the best to discuss everything here. The decision might be complex so it might take some time to understand it fully, so don't try to finalize the article before it's actually possible. There are rumours that there will be false reporting as well, so keep an eye on that. Admins reading - watch this article tomorrow, semilock might not be enough and full lock wouldn't be good. The goal should be to have this news on the ITN but for that we need a stable normal article. Thanks--Avala (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

can't false report when the visuals are there to see. Anyhoo, WP:Bold calls for edits to made. (and the decision has been out for some 45 mins now)Lihaas (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to this article. I found it very informative and well organized. I look forward to your further contributions, in particular regarding what the judgement says (other than the one-liner that we have at this time). The detailed reasoning might well be more significant than the one-liner.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis should be forthcoming in the next hours and days. Hope to get all sides represented (i expect even a new page if this grows (and very well may))Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

new section

should we have a seperate section for pre-verdict reactions, ive already found 3 in this regard that are of historical significance to show the stances and views of states? As of now, ive merged it all into the same "reactions" section.Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they will give a reaction after the decision so we can just decide then whether to keep the pre-ruling position in addition to the post-ruling position or whether the position after the ruling should be the only one included. No need for separate sections.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i did the right thing then, for now anyways ;)

also a reading on Macedonia before the ruling (although not official comments, its more analysis...and theres gonna be plenty, Polisario, Hamas, Transnistria, Moro, Bolivia, etc, etc) [6]

some more for an eventual analysis section [7] + [8]Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

kosovo/kosova

per this edit, it is not technically correct to say kosovo (i used to this it was kosovar). As per usage on allcountries (eg: american for united states, russian for russia, etc, etc) the norm is not to use the countries' name proper.Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In Albanian it is called Kosova, but in English it is (rightly or wrongly) called Kosovo. This is English-language Wikipedia so we use the English name. Bazonka (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The country perhaps, but what about the people/language/nationality in english? i doubt its the exactly the same as the country (that would be a first, and another exception like the holland/netherlands/dutch)Lihaas (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That varies between English-language sources, but the majority seem to use Kosovan as a general adjective (compare Spanish), and Kosovar as a name for the people (compare Spaniards). This is also the approach taken by (most?) Wikipedia articles at the moment. Bazonka (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be the approach we take then. Kosovan. (although there is an article that i suggested page move, becasue the country name is not adequate)Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I find

I find this page very useful and one of the bests I have read in Wikipedia. I ask if some kind of star or any similar symbol saying that article is great or anything like that could be placed here. Thank you everyone for writing this wonderful article! Thom--Thom977 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe it can be promoted above "unassessed" status.Lihaas (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judges

Do we know which way the Judges voted? I think we should include this information to the article. Can someone help me out please? IJA (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a link somewhere to a page that listed the pdf to each judges opinion (dissenting and not), i cant rememebr it off hand but if you look around you should find it.

Shouldnt be too hard to find the dissenters. Perhaps wait for the ICJ website to be freed up from the backlog.Lihaas (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is right in the decision, p. 43-44: [9]. Colchicum (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo, nature of dispute

I have a disagreement with Avala regarding Kosovo's nature of dispute. I guess Avala is mistakenly mixing the name of the case (Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo) and the names of disputant parties.

He insists that the territory of Kosovo is disputed between Serbia and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo while in reality it is disputed between the Republic of Serbia and the (self-proclaimed) Republic of Kosovo (see Template:Kosovo-note for more info). While it is true that the PISG declared the independence but they (Kosovo institutions) do not self-identify as PISG anymore.

So Avala, talking in terms of present tense (as is the paragraph of our dispute), is it the PISG or the RoK, the disputant party?

Cheers. kedadial 18:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess this depends on your point of view. From the pro-Albanian POV, the PISG ceased to exist when Kosovo declared independence, becoming the government of RoK; from the pro-Serb POV, since RoK does not exist, the PISG still operates. Wikipedia should find the neutral ground between these opinions. The ICJ managed to do this by referring to this party as the "authors of the unilateral declaration of independence", and I think we should follow suit. Bazonka (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is no longer subject to dispute. Paragraphs 102 through 109 of the ICJ's Advisory Opinion examine it. Paragraph 109 states the Court's answer, "The Court thus arrives at the conclusion that, taking all factors together, the authors of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration." Mcarling (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Armenia

What exactly does "political party WITHIN" mean? It is an explanation of the user Lihaas to why he keeps adding the statement of some Armenian National Congress as the official view of the Republic of Armenia, even though this Armenian National Congress clearly criticizes the MFA of Armenia for not paying "enough attention to this". I do not see why should it be added to reactions of countries instead to reaction of parties as whatever Armenian National Congress is, it is not the official state body of the Republic of Armenia. And an unclear explanation "political party WITHIN" does not convince me to the opposite.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(i had previously written something but lost in an edit conflict, trying to recollect what i said)

i have asked for opinion in this regard above as to such placement

Political party within means it is an established system in the country and not an extralegal "other entity" as in the case of NKR. It part and parcel of the Armenian legal political system. ANC are political party (as you asked earlier in the summary). The reactions list are not limited to official state reactions they are reaction withing a state (as can be seen on other such reaction lists)

Further, as per above, the the status of Scotland and the Basque party also need to be clarified because they are not an "extralegal/de factp entity"Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

supporting/opposed to verdict

How do you tell between the reactions in favor and against the ruling? I don't think that this is justified. For instance, Mihai Ghimpu, Acting President, said that "the decision of the International Court in The Hague regarding the independence of Kosovo will not affect the process of reintegration of Moldova" – that is clearly a neutral statement and not an evaluation of the ruling, which wasn't supposed to affect the process of reintegration of Moldova in the first place. The same is true of President Sergei Bagapsh stated that the decision of the ICJ has once again confirmed the right to self-determination of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and that South Ossetia and Abkhazia have more historical and legal grounds for independence than Kosovo and most other reactions. Assigning them to either category is OR. Very few governments would condemn an ICJ decision outright anyway. I am not even sure that a section for verbal reactions is needed here at all, as they are of little consequence, but that's admittedly another matter. Colchicum (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the reactions are quite pertinent. For instance, Armenia clearly supported the verdict, despite not recognizing Kosovo and then you have comments from Srpska, which are significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, those closely related nations' reactions and a summary of others should stay in the article, but the (fucking gigantic) table of (themselves often lengthy) reactions should be split off to a list or table of Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence. On a 1024x768 layout, the Reactions table takes up one-fourth of the page! Same with the public hearings. They're too, um, table-y, and have too much detail for this page (although the systemic bias that might take hold if they're moved is a legit concern too). --an odd name 01:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

...and that separate article is apparently already under construction. Um...carry on then. --an odd name 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This article is the most comprehensive that I've ever seen! Good work! Hang Li Po (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There was mention above to split the page, but i didnt do it officially yet pending more responses. I suppose with the page growth we can split it now>?Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

The introductory sentence is: The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence was an act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government Assembly of Kosovo, adopted on 17 February 2008, which declared Kosovo independent from Serbia. This has now been explicitly denied by the Court ("representatives of the people of Kosovo", inofficial body), so this sentence should be modified. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See below -- we seem to have a lot of similar conversation in different sections.Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i.e.

i.e. albania enlarged. --195.74.255.109 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm? Zazaban (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

reaction list - organisation

i suggested splitting the reactions by the side they are on as in International recognition of Kosovo a good faith edit though otherwise, so i brought it here for discussionLihaas (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be split.

On another note, a single British MEP cannot represent the official opinion of the UK and some Basque dude cannot represent the official opinion of Spain. Find something better or remove those quotes. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how one MEP can speak on the behalf of the UK. The SNP doesn't even operate throughout the whole UK. IJA (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why where they listed under UK and Spain? Initially they were put under Basque and Scotland although I would personally keep them out of the table and if others agree I suggest we add them below the tables as text.--Avala (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically it mentions reactions, not official responses, though I don't really have a problem with the change. Still, these reactions are definitely significant and need to be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with the need to include them as Devil's Advocate suggested, the current status quo as different seems good.

Also, should Srpska go in this section then or does it represent enough of Bosnia. (is quite a power player in the latter's decision)

One more thing as per the "non-state actors" it seems a bit dodgy to list political parties as non-state actors (when they are part of the country (as Armenia's current view)), and then have an actual non-state actor referred as in NKR. Perhaps Put Basque country and Scotland as a compromise? Lihaas (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Politics of Bosnia the Srpska reaction should go under the Bosnia section instead of "non state actors" because they are state actors and a part of the political process.

For the same reason "non-state actors" can't have political parties and political reaction because they are state actors and a part of the political process (right now it seems only Crimea, Hungarians in Romania and NKR are non-state actors (though i dont know much about the former)). The Catalan party reaction is certainly a "state action," a new paragraph under spain would be more fitting.

I tried something different (highlighting political party reaction within the country). How does this look? I also added the Serbian Church's reaction the same way, but feel free to move this if you think it is a legitimate "non-state actor" Lihaas (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, a single MEP can't really represent even the Scottish National Party, let alone the government of Scotland. As such, it should really be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackharman (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about removal, but with an added caveat youd be fair. I would be WP:CENSOR, or at least allegation thereof.Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We now have a problem with Bosnia as it is split with Srpska opposing and the Bosnia/Herzegovina supporting.(Lihaas (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal arguments in support of the declaration of independence

I am concerned about the entire paragraph and its contents in this section. It appears than not a single piece listed is based on the court's findings and all presented in the form of original research (eg. "five principles"); the sources used are drawn from documentation published before the recent apologetic testament by the court: I use the term "apologetic" advisedly in that I and many others expected an analysis as to the grounds on why the move was legal or illegal and instead heard a mouthful of badly scripted rhetoric from the judicial spokesman who gave no information at all, so he could have saved a lot of time by saying "move was legal, matter concluded". It had stated that the amendment of the constitution affecting Kosovo was "illegal", but what charter higher than a constitution exists in the first place dictating the content of that same statute, and what parts can and cannot be amended? And by the same argument, it can be said that the ratifications of the 1974 constitution were themselves "illegal" in that they devolved power from one republic to two local territories. The same paragraph when explaining Kosovo's status after 1974 continues to use such comparative statements such as "crucially held the same power" or "essentially the same as". What is crucially and essentially if nothing more than technical jargon covering up something damaging. We don't say that "Bosnia crucially held the same power as Macedonia", it simply "held the same powers"; likewise, Croatia was not "essentially" the same as Slovenia but rather identical in its status. Looking the other way, although the above section "arguments against independence" does contain an actual quote to justify the position, everyone knows that legal terminology is open to interpretation and is a game for some people. Both sections are nothing more than paragraphs giving rise to the editor to play the lawyer which is against WP rules, I suggest remove them. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I also say that all these issues are raised, rightly or wrongly, in the public hearings section, all in more detail. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I suggest we keep them as these were argued before the court. If the court chose not to take note of them, that is a different matter. IJA (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems a dodgy call but per Evlekis it seems to me too to be redundant where the arguements either are or could be listed in the "public hearings" section.Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have given the section some thought, and perhaps we can keep the paragraphs but tidy them so as to improve the article. What I feel is important however is to put this piece into perspective; it is obviously a preview into the upcoming verdict, drafted before the big day. But I find that neither the information in those paragraphs nor the comments submitted by the government representatives seem to conform to anything "legal", so I would just use the plain terms "arguments for" and "arguments against"; once again, people have evaded a true legal investigation by presenting their own personal views. To give you an example, one person says "xyz is legal", and another says "xyz is not legal"; another says, "xyz is legal, but what we actually had was acb, 123, not so much xyz", then another says "xyz is not legal, however in this case..." and so on. Any intelligent observer knows that this is all rubbish; you present something as legal by citing its chapter and clause; you except particular circumstances again by reciting the relevant footnotes and elaborating where they can be found; and even then, the whole story is 101% subjective. Nobody affiliated to the FRY authorities that took part in the 1990s incidents against Albanians will accept "human rights abuses" happened and nobody linked to the KLA/Kosovan Albanian authorities will admit that the "will of the maiority" is ethnically motivated either. And who dictates that human rights abuses bar a state from the right to govern a people; or that referenda are only valid when not ethnically driven?! The whole purpose of a referendum is for the voter to decide what he/she wants, the grounds are down to the individual. I feel that we can introduce a third section that will make light of the real case issues: ambiguity from top to bottom. Just to give one example: Milošević - as Serbian leader within Yugoslavia - amended the Kosovan autonomy devolving powers back to SR Serbia, where was Yugolslavia at the time? Formed, yes; there to see the Slovene authorities criticise the move, yes; but the true authority at the helm? Almost totally dissolved by now. But life has to go on, and nobody can argue whether such an act was legal, illegal, constitutional, unconstitutional and in accordance with what? Then there is the question of Kosovo's status with the SFRY; the same internal powers as the republics but officially, not a republic itself. I'm not an international lawyer and it is not our job to be, this is how I feel that we can introduce a third section and tidy up both the other paragraphs. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is 110% subjective ;) But i think we can do away with those section all together and tack some prose on the section with the tables instead. Tables really cover the details as it should be covered by who argued what.Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

page split

the page is already 65k and rapidly growing, i suppose with national/supranational reaction along with analysis it will spill over. already 10k has been added in 2-3 hours. I've gone ahead and created Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, however i have not quite linked to this yet pending certification. But i think its an inevitability as with others like Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid or event he itnernational recognition for the kosovo declaration.Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At 125k, ive moved the reaction list off this page.Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Significance

Again, bravo to the editors of this article, you are doing a great job. I have not yet been able to read the decision itself, the ICJ server seems to be overloaded. But I have read carefully the official summary at [10]. It is clear that there is much scope to discuss what the significance will be of this decision. It is probably too early to do that yet, because there aren't yet secondary sources that discuss the point. For example, I found it fascinating that the detailed discussion concludes (1) that the declaration was in accordance with general international law (emphasis added) and (2) that the declaration was in accordance with applicable international law (emphasis added), meaning that Resolution 1244 did not apply to the declaration, yet the operative part states that the declaration was in accordace with international law. The statement in the operative part is clearly broader than conclusions in the detailed discussion. And this could have quite a impact on the significance of the decision. Again, I'm not suggesting to add anything like this to the article now, anything along these lines would have to be based on analysis or commentary found in secondary sources.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The documents are available, for example here. As to Resolution 1244: The Advisory Opinion ends (No. 122) with the following statement: "The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law." --DaQuirin --DaQuirin (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "in accordance with int'l law" and did not violate int'l law" (the latter being the ruling where "international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence.").

But that aside i posted 2-3 links above about some analysis, but we need to discuss something to put together (and there will be lot, particularly when the next month of political/academic journals come out.

One thing im looking for is analysis on Slovakia's stance (perhaps in the vernacular). I would have understood this 2-3 months ago, but after the Slovak parliamentary election, 2010 and the constituents of the new government (Hungarian-minority party) it seems all the more perplexing. Maybe 2 different responses. As of not, though, of course, Srpska, is the big news coming out.Lihaas (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no such difference - if the declaration of independence is not violating international law, it is in accordance with international law. On the other hand, the Court refrained from discussing the legal consequences of the declaration of independence. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it is a difference, law is all about technicalities. In hearing the first 40 mins of the opinion the issue of what the questions means itself shows the subtleties of law.Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Either it is against the law or not, there is no third status in between. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

not according to the court, but anyhoo, thats turning this into WP:NOTAFORUMLihaas (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You were the one speculating... --DaQuirin (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the court's ruling, but i dont mind continuing this conversation on one of our talk pages.Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. This is just your speculation. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise the other way around is yours ;)Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What you put emphasis on (rightly), is that the Opinion is of course a complex and tricky one. There are still many important parts missing in our article. The Court discussed not only "general international law", but also Resolution 1244 (no violation) and the Constitutional Framework (applicable rule, but no violation). Interestingly (see the Question put by the General Assembly), the judges concluded that the authors of the declaration were not acting as the Assembly of Kosovo or the "Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo", but outside the framework as the representatives of Kosovo. Very complicated (and controversial) indeed. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. From the summary of the judgement one can infer that the majority of the court decided that "does not violate" is the same as "in accordance with". As several of the dissenting judges point out, that is not at all an obvious inference. It corresponds to the principle "anything that is not prohibited is permitted" as opposed to the principle "anything that is not permitted is prohibited". The court might have concluded that there was a grey area between "does not violate" and "is in accordance with". But they did not. Hence I fully agree with those who have stated that this judgment covers some very complicated issues and will likely to raise some controversy. I look forward to reading the summaries of the analyses that are sure to be published in political and legal journals (which I don't read).--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding black and white distinctions such as it is either illegal or legal, that does apply to criminal law. If an act is not explicitly prohibited by criminal law, then it is not criminal. But the situation is not so clear for areas other than criminal law. In other areas, there can be gaps in the law, and actions can be neither obviously illegal nor obviously legal. In such cases, the judge will usually fill the gap in some way or another.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Black and white". From what you infer (or some of the dissenting opinions), this would mean that the Court did not rightly answer the Question put by the General Assembly ("is in accordance with international law"). You will indeed find voices claming that this is the case. But from what is in the Opinion, one can see that the Court tried another way. The declaration itself is not illegal, but then giving not much room or explanation for what true legal effects may stem from that. In the end, they found a way to play the ball back into the political field... --DaQuirin (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed and it is bad as now it's up to the UNGA to answer the political question in its assessment of the ICJ legal answer to its question in September. As Romanian MFA states, the answer is too narrow, it merely deals with the text of the resolution and not the secession itself.--Avala (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both DaQuirin and Lihass. Another key issue that the UNGA will have to cope with is that the UNGA Resolution requesting the opinion was based on the premise that the declaration was issued by the Provisional Authorities (and indeed the text of the question posed by the UNGA includes that element), but the Court decided to examine the question of who issued the declaration and concluded (1) that it was not the Provisional Authorities and (2) that that fact was material to the determination of the legality of the declaration. So the court really did hand it back to the UNGA. However, the Court's judgement may well be construed as creating precedent that could favor other unilateral declarations of independence, and I'm looking forward to reading analysis of that issue.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis links

For one we create the section for external/academic/think-thank analyses.

[11] [12] + [13] + Court's Kosovo ruling could resonate around globe A boost for Quebec secession? >> ICJ verdict on Kosovo must be precedent for NKR’s international recognition (already in the page for NKR) ICJ Kosovo Ruling Passes The Rubicon for New State Kosovo statehood a special case: No parallel to Tamil Tiger-remnants’ demand for statehood in Sri Lanka (flagrant bias though) Kosovo and beyond… Court of Justice put the right of nations to self-determination above the principle of territorial integrity >> ICJ On Kosovo: An African Perspective >> As territorial tensions increase, will empires rise? >> Kosovo freedom signal paves way for others >> Does Kosovo’s status give green light to separatist movements? >> A precedent ICJ’s Kosovo decision is vague and very limited Kosovo ruling 'does not justify' use of force as basis of independence OPINION - Dan Diker: From flag to statehood? - Jerusalem Post, Israel After Kosovo: Secession in the Middle East* The ICJ ruling - a blow for freedom Editorial: Talking about Kosovo Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to seek ICJ ruling over its status Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to find now reactions from the academic field (this takes a bit of time of course). So far (and what you listed above), there are only newspaper articles, more political comment than "analysis". The best thing would to have a good and sober article that is mainly quoting the most important findings of the Advisory Opinion. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with, at least for now. Of course in due course more would come up. But it is for some consideration whether to include "readings" (especially editorials) of the repercussions, if you must.Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

The article says in the background section:

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence was an act of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government Assembly of Kosovo,

But the court's decision is completely opposite: it found that this declaration was not by the Assembly of Kosovo or Provisional Institutions of Self-Government.--MathFacts (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but the UNGA thought that the declaration was an act of the Provisional Institutions, see the UNGA Resolution requesting the Court's opinion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Its "Background" and its cited by a WP:RS so its certainly not "POV Vandalism." On what basis is the BBC source cited clearly and in reference to what came BEFORE the case "POV Vandalism." The changed edit seems to have reverted RS sources to insert his flagrant POV that is not reflective "by the democratically elected..." Perhaps he can link to the elections where there would be sources? Or alternatively add the results of the ruling to the respective section entitled "Opinion issued" (which is a de fact "results" section)

At any rate, the courts decision came after, it was NOT "background"Lihaas (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am not about that edit, I do not like it either. My point is that it should at least mention that the court did not agree with it.--MathFacts (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, dont have a problem with that. But it should be in the relevant section about the "opinion/verdict." Go ahead and add that.Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already there. My point is that in the introductory section the article says without reservations that it was adopted by the Kosovo Assembly and then in the "opinion" section says the court decided opposite. Looks like if the court took incorrect or contrafactual decision or something.--MathFacts (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Maybe add a requisite caveat of "contemperaneously" or something.Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Chinese Abstention result?

Where is the Chinese Abstention result? Can I or somebody add in that result? The ICJ body consist of 15 judges, NOT 14. This include all the so-called 5P (Security Council Permanent members) judges. Apart from the 1st of the 3 rulings Xue Hanqin votes, he did not take part in the voting for 2nd and 3rd ruling http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1.119.234.150.199 (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, add it in. The table lists the judges and i guess you can add the other judge with a gray tab across it showing he didnt vote.Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Now addressed, although I cannot find why China's judge didn't participate. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Xue Hanqin is a woman. 2. She probably abstained because she had presented China's position opposing the declaration last year (she was only last month made a judge at the ICJ).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for gender mistake. Didn't look at her name in Chinese char. Thought Hanqin sound like a guy. Anyway, China abstained because, from their usual UN acts, their government don't want to be a spoiler unless the situation is directly against their interest (e.g. anybody treat Taiwan or other "PRC rebels" as a friend instead of outcast/pariah). Of course the case could impact their problem with restive regions such as Xinjiang, but "not yet over their red line". Kosovo Albanians are slient on Taiwan. If they recognized Taiwan, China would had vote against it. China vetoed Macedonia Peacekeeping force extending another period, after Macedonia maintain ties with Taiwan. China abstained UNSC 1244 though, as China have close relation with Republic of Albania. mmm... You are right about her case presentation before she became ICJ judge... That would had meant a conflict of interest so she abstained.119.234.215.129 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit I think the caveat of the replaced judge is important because it happened during the process/hearing. perhaps reword this slightly differently and shorten the note?Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Howsabout this? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, nice ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that Xue Hanqin abstained in this matter. When you say that someone abstained, it means they had an opportunity to vote but declined to do so. Xue Hanqin was not a member of the court at the time of oral submissions, therefore she could not participate in the court's decision. (In general, a judge hearing a case is never permitted to "abstain" she can decline to decide certain points, or she can recuse herself, but neither of those is the same as "abstaining".) —Mathew5000 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about the other Chinese judge who was a member of the court? How do you classify their non-participation? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned at paragraph 16 of the Court's opinion[14], Shi Jiuyong was present for the oral arguments, but resigned before the opinion was rendered. I don't know whether Article 33 of the Rules of Court[15] (read in conjuction with Article 102) and Article 13 Section 3 of the Statute[16] apply to a member of the Court who has resigned; it seems that those provisions are addressed to the situation of a judge whose term has expired rather than a resignation. But regardless, a judge does not "abstain" in a case. The correct terminology is "does not participate". Mathew5000 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to read the judges' separate opinions?

--MathFacts (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They're all in the one PDF (there aren't separate files). Also, WP:NOTFORUM. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. They are not in the PDF.--MathFacts (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, could have sworn...Anyway: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=21&case=141&code=kos&p3=4 --Cybercobra (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

i have asked for Wikipedia:Peer review/International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence/archive1. Would be nice, and appreciated, to have any comments to improve this page.

Perhaps we can make the reaction page a Features List. Lihaas (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just off the bat we could use some "further readings." Clean up refs (like the pdf's) and then the EL's could be turned to Further reading for the transcripts. What do folk think of adding an analysis/readings section per the editorials linked to above and other academic journals that will surely come with readings in the next issues.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

lead

per this edit "ordering is weird; mentioning "the case" before saying what case it is"

I think as per the general lead the full title needs to come first and the result can follow. It figures that the result came after the case. Maybe move an explanation of the case to the upper para to be with the title and announce the verdict later. Or alternatively merge all into 1 para and then put the result at the end of the para?Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done --Cybercobra (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, quick and easy ;)Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

UN GA Resolution

There's nothing here on the receiving UN General Assembly Resolution, the one adopted through acclamation and proposed by the EU and Serbia. Someone should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.245.216 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Weasel wording

I see we're back to the old "unilateral" problem. [17] Alas, no matter how much one side of the debate wants to qualify the declaration of independence, reliable sources generally don't add that qualifier. The best sources simply say that Kosovo declared independence; simple. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do add that qualifier, and it is necessary. Zetatrans (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

...and it still gets reverted. Why the determination to insert weasel wording? Can't we just stick to what sources say? bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are these not reliable enough for you? ICJ, Guardian, BBC, UN? Zetatrans (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You should publish your own glossary, when you say weasel wording you specifically mean terms you don't agree with that harm your "facts". Zetatrans (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Be very careful. This constitutes a revert and you know the ropes. Zetatrans (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Supervision/unilateral

I am ok with the lifting of supervision chapter being included but it should still say "unilateral" per the sources and per relevance. Zetatrans (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ok with it. It is controversial and clearly created to paint a sovereign picture. Staro Gusle (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Beware, the article has been shipped back and forth and usually with no consensus or none that I can find. It made its way to the proper title through this 2009 edit. Yet Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo is a full official title. There's no escaping "unilateral". Zetatrans (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is more common? We'll use whatever is prescribed by WP:COMMONNAME. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost all declarations of independence are unilateral, that's in the nature of history. constantly adding it and placing neutral editors in the position of having to run close to 3RR to maintain the higher principle of NPOV is not an acceptable way of editing. All credit to those who've been keeping this out. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting annoying. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is included in all the sources and its removal where one editor is concerned is purely for whitewashing purposes. TippyGoomba entered the debate to mediate but reverted to a revision introduced after a long quiet period and is therefore now involved (ie. has lost neutrality status). Meanwhile, In The Blink Of An Eye, don't concern yourself with what personally annoys you, you may report anything you suspect to be inproper. Making allegations concerning an editor's background does not rebut the argument presented by him nor lend credence to the opposing view one presents. Furthermore, no editor can be on the brink of 3RR without having been taken there either by one or more contributors, and as every person nearing 60,000 edits knows, it is still edit-warring. Rules are universal. Meanwhile, back to the issue at hand, it is correct that all declarations of independence are unilateral, but they are not all cited continuously as being so. In the case of Republic of Kosovo, it is for a reason, the controversy that has surrounded the move these past five years - so sources continue to use the term. 188.29.9.220 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very suspicious, tell us about your other accounts. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For all enquiries please contact the admins, they have a fantastic system called Checkuser which they believe is divine; who can argue with them? For now, let's talk about this topic. Let it not be said that even an IP can be a reasonable person. Why don't you want "unilateral" mentioned on the article? 92.41.187.113 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor who is now banned added it. The point where it was added is within a wikilink where the word isn't used. If someone thinks it adds some kind of clarity, then perhaps it should be reintroduced. In my opinion, it's redundant. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)