Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Interesting international reaction/opinion on Kosovo

Sometimes an interesting and informative text can be found on the http://B92.net/ website, in the matter of international recognition of Kosovo. The following one, for example, might help editors cope with divergent POVs on this issue 22.:

The point is that as more countries recognize Kosovo, the less argumentative weight the ICJ process holds. First, it says to relutant countries that recognitions are occuring despite the ongoing legal process. And, second, it says that the very regional countries that are Kosovo's neighbors are recognizing us. That's significant.

There's no doubt the ICJ process will slow down the recognition efforts, but let's look beyond the curve. First, some recognitions will happen nevertheless, and are largely independent of the ICJ process. Second, the ICJ's ruling is unlikely to come up with a single opinion. It will contain lots of shades of grey. It will likely not directly use words 'it was legal, or it was illegal,' but it will contain mixed analysis and thus have a balanced opinion.

Such balancing can be used by both sides. But, it will be of greater benefit to Kosovo, since a mixed ruling, which itself is non-binding, will degrade Serbia's legalistic stance. You might say I am an optimist, but stay tuned for what happans in not too distant a future.

Third, the ICJ process itself is an attempt by the Serbian political elite to park the issue for some time, proceeding with EU integration, and hoping that Kosovo might go back on the back burner for some time.

The crux of the issue itself, regardless of the quite smart narrow formulation of the question by Serbia to ICJ, is that the ICJ cannot merely rule on whether 'the declaration' was legal or not.

Though Serbia's legalistic arguments are going to be given some weight, they are unlikely to be considered as superior at all. Reasons?

First, despite Serbia's outright rejection, the court cannot discard the issue of self-determination. Its a key question. It will probably not go as far as to affirm it in Kosovo's case, but it will need to balance the claim to territorial integrity, with the right of people to self-determination.

Second, the UN resolution itself is not a clear cut matter, as legal experts know too well. There's the argument of the respect for the Yugoslav (not Serbian) soveregnity which is only contained in the preamble part, which, according to the UN charter (make sure you read it) says is not binding on member states.

Third, even though Serbia inherited 1244 after the breakup, 1244 talked of Yugoslav soveregnity being respected, not Serbia's. That's significant. Even though there's divering opinions on this, there's an argument to be made of the fact that Serbia cannot inherit something (its claim to respect for soveregnity) which it did not have.

Fourth, the moral argument. Regardless of the fact that Serbs in general have a major issue in recognizing what their government did in the 1990s, the 'objective' opinion out there is that widespread crimes were committed on the Kosovo Albanians. Mass deportations were seen by the Serbs as a result of NATO's bombing, but why didnt Serbs in Serbia or Montenegrians flee, as bombing occured throughout? So, the moral argument of having a state kill its people is slowly weaving together a body of international law which in some "special case" can force "the international community" to take away the right to soveregnity of a government which systematically kills its own citizens.

The moral right to independence was claimed by the US from Britain. Read the declaration of independence. The moral right of Britan to govern Ireland was forefeited by way of widespread abuse. Though morality enjoys little affinity with realpolitik, the point is that it is utterly impractical to leave a 2 million population under the legal roof of a state which less than a decade ago killed them en masses.

Fifth, the sovereign right of countries to recognize others bilaterally is an important pillar of international law. Kosovo's declaration cannot be seen separately from the recognitions that followed. They were the same thing.

Sixth, there's numerous places on Earth who declared their independence long before any "international law" clinged on UN resolutions. The right of a compact territory, with a clearly defined political society, to its right to have its own state is undeniable. THe arguments of Abkhazia and SOuth Ossetia...look at their populations. Abkhazia doesnt even have 100,000 people, S/Ossetia has slightly more. We're talking about 2 million people.

Finally, the fact that Kurds or other people have a right to independence doesnt diminsh Kosovo's independence claim. The claim that Kosovo's independence will spark separatist sentiments isnt an argument. It only tells us of the persisting colonial mindset of some countries, and that the world should deal with the Kurdish issue and other pressing ones. Resolving Kosovo's case means encouraging resolving other cases. You cannot carpet issues for too long. (C, 15 October 2008 13:02)

--Mareklug ^talk 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Its very interesting, but we can't use it for this article Ijanderson (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. But we can use the insights, and look closely at the suggested reading (the UN Charter and what it says about preambles and their nonbinding character; and the matter of Yugoslavia vs. Serbia inheriting its resolutions. Stuff like that. It's offered as self-education for the editors, and as a resource, for looking for legitimately citable sources. In that spirit. --Mareklug ^talk

The issue is much more chaotic for a person to be so naive even trying to project justification or not out of his side-taking mindset. Without the political weight the US stance gives to some of the arguments mentioned they would have been lighter than air. The Balkans are in general shortage of well educated liberals, best chance finding someone to sum up at least the political and cultural nationalism and general corruption factors to the picture from a close view is with the anarchists. Objective and sincere to the last word, untill the utopian solution preaching starts. Encountering one from Cyprus helped me acknowlegde how rotten the island really is. --Zakronian (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian, certainly reasonable observers will addmit chaos and complexity to the Kosovo issue. But I want the editors, including you to examine some interesting assertions made here, that went to the best of my knowledge completely unexamined on this talk page, and that's a lot of kilobytes of discussion:

1. Does the UN Charter in fact exempt states from having to obey what is in the preamble and nowhere else of a UN SG Resolutions?
2. Does Serbia inherit Yugoslavia's recognized borders?
3. Does legalistic manouvering change the new reality, of which Dora Bakoyannis, the Greek Foreign Minister, one of the more honest and intellectual career politicians (my opinion, but not only), spoke of when mentioning European policy and work in Kosovo in her UN General Assembly speech in September?

Incidentally, seems to me that Greece, in the words of Greek President that we do quote in the article is moving to Kosovo recognition. The Kosovan passport bit confirms this. As does the Kosovan office in Athens. As do the words of Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, which have (so far) been successfully hidden from our article, only to be replaced with an in-passing older verbal transcript of Mr. MFA Spokesman's answer to an unrelated question where he mentions Kosovo, her subordinate and no policy maker (but always presented without this context!).

In our article, and in argumentation trucked out elsewhere (on Commons talk page, on solicited Wikipedia admins' talk pages) this is Greek policy and position on Kosovo. Heaven to Betsy, dear Zakronian, let's not damn proverbial anonymous Greeks bearing gifts or allegedly dumb Cypriots from Cyprus who don't harm our article in the least. What has befallen us is rather the editing done unto Wikipedia/Wikimedia by our intellectual, cosmopolitan, foreign languages-reading best local talent. This is what you ought to lament. And keep helping the rest of us, "the CNN-brainwashed", set straight. :) --Mareklug ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention to start a forum discussion, i don't doubt your intentions also although the anon comment you chose put me in temptation to start one, that's why i only focused in your "self education". The ideal thing would be to share the close view of a person who's not under any state's nationalistic umbrella, and that in the Balkans points out mainly to liberals and anarchists. Even better to find a lonely local political philosopher/analyst who doesn't belong to any political faction and hasn't yet commited suicide at an age of wisdom and in isolation. It would help built a better instinct although the "slices" of reality to be handled here would be the same, that's my opinions of course.

So no problem with the accuracy of the description, i just don't like how he tries to mix justification in it, other than that my buddy here, a PhD candidate from Piraeus, would have written almost the same things but being more cynical about the ethical part and any connection to "justice". When intepreting and applying international laws you mainly evaluate political reality, not just plain reality (chaotic in our case), and political reality has almost nothing to do with fairness.

Now for Greece, as Eleftherios Venizelos used to put it, there are no national "just purposes", only national interests. A philoamerican minister reporting on reality is one thing, but recognition is a decision to be based on a combination of factors. If the Mitsotakis' ("Doroulas'" father) fraction had the control of the ruling party things would have been easier, cause most of them think it's of strategical importance to lean to the US side in all issues. The new bridges with Russia would have probaly never been built, to be of some importance now. The only serious obstacles would be the creation of a precedent for Cyprus and the muslims of Thrace and the political cost of a nation's government to decide something to which 94-98% is opposed. Even if Greek politicians have made their minds about where things are going and that it does not serve our interests to "deny reality" still a political excuse cannot be found right now. Maybe when the number of countries recognizing triples or something, or such a decision be placed immediately next to some major improvement on another issue. The Macedonia naming dispute for instance, but given the possible solutions today, all containing 'Macedonia", i'm not so sure about that. I really don't believe we are anywhere near recognition, and that's what i'm trying to say to you, when you intepret the passport thing like that. Finally please bear in mind that the Greek government cannot be compared with the gangsters in Montenegro and does not fear of an imminent internal destabilization (or even dissolution) like in the RoM and generally isn't so dependent to the countries that favoured Kosovo from the start. That is to say, with more "democracy" and less pressure they wouldn't have recognized Kosovo either, at least not so quickly, they would know better than to alienate Serbia. Sorry for the hasty translation of my thoughts, it's Satuday and the weather is wonderfull.--Zakronian (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Law is law Mareklug and the ICJ will come out eventualy with it's verdict. And if the verdict is that the so-called independence is illegal then that's that. Those 51 countries can say all they want that they recognise them, but again international law is international law. And they would be going against it. The Kurds can also yell all they want for an independent state but they will not get it. In any case if it was put to a vote now at the UN obviously only just over a quarter of the countries would definetly vote for recognition. And even if it happens, and it won't ever, that they scrounge up just enough votes Russia or China will veto it. That is the new reality. Kosovo will most likely stay a partialy recognised state like Taiwan. Or there will be a scenario, God forbid, that the northern part of Kosovo will violently rip from the rest of the province to stay with Serbia. If you are talking about self-determination that much then the Serbs, who are the ones that mostly live in the north, have a right for self-determination to live in a country they want and nobody can force them from where they live. Also, you obviously don't know a lot about the international legal system, because Serbia has been established in the UN itself as the recognized successor state of Yugoslavia. Just like Russia was for the Soviet Union. In that case those borders belong to Serbia. Sorry to burst your buble buddy. ;-) 89.216.235.26 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But the ICJ decision will be an advisory opinion only. Not law. Bazonka (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And you are an ip sock of banned Top Gun (talk · contribs)/Guyver85 (talk · contribs). Bye. I agree that the Serbs in the North have a right to self-determination, by the way, hopefully nonviolent. Colchicum (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Top Gun banned? Who knew. Interesting, that he managed to get himself banned first of the group. Note that Top Gun did not address the preamble issue, on which hinges whether UN SG Resolution 1244 says what the Serbs claims it says, or whether it lets EU/USA off the hook entirely. I guess ICJ will sometime in 2010 give us its opinion in this matter. But if the UN Charter is clear on this issue, we could quote it in the article, and doing so would not constitute synthesis or OR. Anyone has a link to it? --Mareklug ^talk 17:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear on what exactly ? The resolution is a secondary point of reference, it's not a law, it's a political decision rooted in international law. Regarding territorial integrity, the case is not just what Serbia inherits from 1244. Even if you find something in the UN Charter that doesn't leave any space for intepretations to this issue it's still OR to define its importance. --Zakronian (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ICJ projected timeline

Just a short notice. World court will take statements from now till April 2009 and replies until July 2009 so even though the UN didn't send them a request for an urgent procedure the court itself has decided to start the process now and not in two years which apparently seems to be the timing for regular procedures there.--Avala (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, not quite. You're phrasing paints a picture that, any minute now, hard news will be generated, flowing with statements, beginning with right now, and continuing for months.

Whereas in reality, until April, there will be absolutely no news, and more no news for the summer months, with two deadlines for filing written motions, which until filed, won't be revealed, and, most likely, will be filed right at the deadline. We might not even know what will be filed after it is filed! So, again, no information will be revealed for a good long time.

Except this: The one real news is that ICJ announced it will admit Kosovo as one of the parties to make remarks and persuade. That's very significant, and where is your mention of that in your "nice", Avala?

Kosovo officials to participate at ICJ, www.B92.net

21 October 2008 reporting from Belgrade

THE HAGUE -- The ICJ has decided to invite Kosovo representatives to participate in Serbia’s case before the court.

The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to give its advisory opinion on the legality of the province’s unilaterally proclaimed independence.

International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judges have decided to invite Priština to participate in the debate on Serbia’s motion to determine whether Kosovo’s independence was declared in accordance with international law.

The decision states that given that Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence was the subject of a debate before the ICJ, which was due to give its advisory opinion, the representatives of the temporary Kosovo authorities that issued the declaration of independence should be allowed to give their side.

Therefore, it has been decided to invite them to participate in the proceedings, the statement reads.

The Priština authorities have already announced that they have hired Michael Wood, a British expert in the field of international law, to lead Kosovo’s legal team.

The court has allowed UN member-states and all interested parties to state their opinion and arguments in written form by April 17, 2009. Interested parties will also have time until July 17 to respond to the claims and arguments of other parties participating in the proceedings.

Once written motions have been dealt with, the court will hold a debate, after which the ICJ judges will give their “advisory opinion” on Kosovo’s independence.

The proceedings were launched at the request of the UN General Assembly, which supported Serbia’s initiative that the issue of Kosovo’s independence should be debated before that court.

So far Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state by 51 countries.

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is not binding and it cannot countries to change their decisions.

Nevertheless, the ICJ’s ruling will carry unquestionable legal and moral weight.

Yes, it will make for excellent bragging rights. And, the outcome is absolutely unpredictable, and could well go any which way. Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug you say "Except this: The one real news is that ICJ announced it will admit Kosovo as one of the parties to make remarks and persuade. That's very significant, and where is your mention of that in your "nice", Avala?". So does your urge to attack me without any reason EVER stop?! Ever? Seriously does it?!

This is my text in the article:

On 17 October 2008, the ICJ made an Order organising the proceedings. In its Order, the Court decided that the United Nations and its Member States as well as the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo as the authors of the declaration in question are considered likely to be able to furnish information on the question submitted to the Court. It has fixed 17 April 2009 as the time-limit within which written statements on the question may be presented to the Court and 17 July 2009 as the time-limit within which States and organisations having presented written statements may submit written comments on the other statements.

What else do you want from me? I clearly added that to the article (btw everyone knew about it even before including Serbian officials) but it doesn't stop you from firing an attack at me for supposedly not adding it. How far can your attacks can go? And I added it in the first edit. Do you attack me on regular basis because of my nationality? I would like to know what drives your urge to attack me, always like this wrongfully, without any reason whatsoever or the later apology. It's absolutely unproductive and you only intentionally cause friction here because it destroys the article talk page which is always your goal - to clog it with heaps of text and baseless accusations usually stunningly wrong as this time. And even your "not quite" is wrong. The regular procedure begins usually in two years, while this is the so called urgent procedure when they begin with it immediately after the request was filed. Of course urgent procedure doesn't mean a one day kangaroo trial as some might think. And my addition here was a short notice, not nice as I it seems mistyped. It was made under the previous section because I wasn't looking to make a fuss out of it, but now you created a whole section about it with a block of text. But I am shocked at how you always keep attacking me for things I supposedly did or did not do, always false. --Avala (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The regular procedure does not begin "in two years." It begins whenever the judges think it's prudent for it to start. By way of normal procedure, most cases are issued a ruling or an advisory opinion within two years since the case has been filed. So tone down your feelings of victimization a bit. --alchaemia (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with my complaints regarding Mareklug attacking me for supposedly not mentioning Kosovo participation while I clearly inserted that into this article. And regular procedure never begins so swiftly, at least according to the media because when they announced that the ICJ didn't receive an urgent procedure request after all they said that it means that the procedure would probably start in 2 years. I never insert OR here, I only report on what I hear or read in the media, and if they were wrong then I can't do anything about it but report on their wrongful reports. But here it doesn't seem to be the case.--Avala (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the media may have reported that, and I'm not saying that you're making this up, however, it seems that there's a misunderstanding: most cases are finished within that 2-year period, they don't start after 2 years as that would be a tremendous waste of time and effort. For example, Croatia's case against Serbia, originally filed in 1999, has not even officially begun yet. --alchaemia (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Avala, I came to the talk page directly from hunting for news, and did not visit the article, just stopped to look at the history page. So I never saw your additions, because a) there is nothing in hte edit summaries about this and there was nothing on the talk page, except your "nice" (notice). So, maybe you should make more decipherable edit summaries and mention/link (where is the link?) relevant info on the talk page? Please note, his is what the relevant page history looks like:

(cur) (last)  20:21, 21 October 2008 Shii (Talk | contribs) m (157,690 bytes) (→States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent: svg) (undo)
(cur) (last)  16:52, 21 October 2008 Avala (Talk | contribs) (157,690 bytes) (→UN member states) (undo)
(cur) (last)  16:49, 21 October 2008 Avala (Talk | contribs) (157,499 bytes) (→UN member states) (undo)
(cur) (last)  12:26, 21 October 2008 128.138.22.93 (Talk) (157,329 bytes) (→UN member states) (undo)
(cur) (last)  09:14, 21 October 2008 Ijanderson977 (Talk | contribs) (157,323 bytes) (Consistency per WP:ENGVAR) (undo)
(cur) (last)  09:13, 21 October 2008 Ijanderson977 (Talk | contribs) (157,323 bytes) (→International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings) (undo)
(cur) (last)  09:01, 21 October 2008 Avala (Talk | contribs) (157,323 bytes) (since the main article is by one man consensus now redirected here until the court makes a decision I will add new information here as well) (undo)

Why are you writing irrelevant things or nothing at all in edit summaries? Granted, I should have examined each of your unmared edits to see what you were up to, but it did't occur to me that you would not mention Kosovo representation being added -- in an edit summary. As Alchaemia said, don't play a victim. I certainly had no information that you silently added something about ICJ and Kosovo already. Sorry. --Mareklug ^talk 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there more info for the reaction of the Tamil Tigers?

The entry for 'Tamil Eelam' begins: "IRNA, the Islamic Republic News Agency, quoted sources reflecting the view of the Tamil movement that it hailed the independence of Kosovo." Such an indirect source for their reaction appears questionable especially as the source for this information, Iran's 'Islamic Republic News Agency,' is apparently uncorroborated. Is there any additional info to support an entry saying that Tamil Tigers declared their support for Kosovo's declaration of independence? If not, I believe this entry should be deleted. 141.166.226.143 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the Iranian source says another source reported that the Tamil Tigers had printed an editorial in their newspaper supporting Kosovo independence. Such indirect sourcing, without corroboration, appears very unreliable - all the more so since the language used in the Iranian news source appears very POV. 141.166.226.143 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an Indian source that is largely the same story. [1] However, I think this article (dated 18th Feb) may be of more use: [2] "We the LTTE as rulers of the 100% democratic, liberal, racially pure and yet to be independent state of Eelam, which has been in the making since 1919, have decided to accept Kosovo's independence and sovereignty." Bazonka (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

oh dear, "racially pure"? I wonder if should include any information about such organizations at all...--Avala (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can, what makes the remote progenitors of this article any better ? Besides, the term in not as dirty in that part of the planet.--Zakronian (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added their quote now, and removed the one from the Iranian source which only inderectly quoted a Tamil paper's editorial - the new quote from the Tamil Tigers is more appropriate. And incidentally, if you think the "racially pure" bit is crazy, you should read the whole article - it's a bit extreme! Bazonka (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka... Avala... Zakronian... people... wake up and read with understanding. This was a parody post, yet you are discussing it with mortal solemnity. Any statement that ends like so cannot be representing Tamil whatever -- it's obviously in jest: [3]

"Eelam shares much in common with Kosovo. Their President was branded a terrorist. Ours is still branded a terrorist. Their President indiscriminately killed and cleansed his territory of as many of the majority Serbs as possible. Our President accomplished this 20 years ago with a 100% success rate, unlike Kosovo which still has some Serbs lingering around. But we believe they will soon be dealt with.

It is also encouraging to know that Kosovo, like Eelam, also believes in the right to play the minority race card, steal someone else’s land, kill people and then accuse them of racism and genocide and most importantly, the right to self determination - although slightly different to our vision of self-annihilation of our own people, but nonetheless acceptable.

We too hope to one day deliver independence to the Tamil die-ass-pora so that they can come and holiday in their special racially pure Tamil-only retreat, where they can live, breath and feel fellow Tamils, sharing land with no one accept their fellow Tamils, but at the moment Pottu Amman is yet to make his down payment on his retirement house in Canadam, and Thalivar has Charly boys tuition fees to pay for" the statement went on to say.

We might as well start quoting commedian Tina Fey in wikipedistic description of Sarah Palin's positions (relevant, since Avala already broached Palin on this page). Accordingly, I'm removing this comedic impersonation from our article and the non-existent state (the statement itself says so, what state would say that of itself?) for which it stands. Until someone comes up with a Tamil Tiger official statement that appear genuine per WP:COMMON, we just won't have any. --Mareklug ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

greenland

greenland is missing from your map. scott209.244.188.136 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed - someone tried to sneak the faulty .svg file again.--Avala (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think the image is faulty, you should fix the image, rather than ranting on the talk page.  Fixed. — Emil J. 11:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all do not strike my comments. Secondly I did fix it as we agreed to use the .png version. It is your fault however not to follow that but to just simply go against others. I don't understand such an approach. Based on my experience with your adding of the fact template instead of the dead link template which was against all Wiki rules I can bet that if I added the .svg version you would have claimed the opposite version is better. Do whatever you want but just please don't destroy the article or go against the consensus just so you could show your opposition to another editor.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no sign of agreement or consensus against the svg image. It was added to the article by four different editors, not just me. And it was you who went against the most fundamental Wikipedia rules by removing the fact template, though it escapes me how is that relevant to the image issue. — Emil J. 12:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No you went against the rules when you added the fact template instead of the dead link. There is even an official warning template for users who do what you did. It is relevant because your edits here seem to be opposing, regardless of what, it seems like it is just important for you to oppose other editors.--Avala (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read that talk page discussion and was laughing. At Avala. For repeatedly claiming that a deal link is a good source, and that it worked for one editor so it's fine even if it does not work for anyone else. --alchaemia (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Move article name to sort out archiving

The article was for a long time called "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and this is what the archives are based on and why they messed up once it was moved. I suggest we rename/ move the article back to International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which it was originally so that we can:

1. Sort out the archives
2. Have a shorter article title name
3. Wait for a real consensus before changing the name of the article, for example an admin changed the name of this article to "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo" (currently called this) without any of us agreeing on it and I believe this is unfair as his actions didn't have the support of the wiki-community, not to mention his move f**ked messed up the archives.

So lets go back to what the article was originally titled to sort out the archiving and to wait for a real consensus before any name changing in future. Thanks, agree? Ijanderson (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, what is the supposed old name of the article? The names you present as different are actually identical (and same as the current article name). --pabouk (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The old name was International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, I assume that's what Ian meant. It was renamed because it was grammatically incorrect (Kosovo is no adjective), which is IMO a serious argument. The move indeed broke automatic archiving, presumably because the bot would only archive to a subpage of the archived page. However, that is fixed now. Are there any other problems with the archives? It is kinda funny that part of the archives use one name, and part another name, but does it really matter? — Emil J. 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've corrected my argument, thanks Emil and Avala Ijanderson (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue so I will not comment on grammatical issues.--Avala (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The archives seem to be working now, by changing the title again we could cause further problems - if it ain't broke, don't fix it! Bazonka (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was a problem with continuity of the {{archive-nav}} links, I've fixed it. — Emil J. 13:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia considering recognizing Kosovo.

Albania Hopes Malaysia Will Recognise Kosovo

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 (Bernama) -- The Republic of Albania hopes that Malaysia will accept and recognise the independence of The Republic of Kosovo as it would help bring peace and stability in the Balkans.

Its Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Edith Harxhi said the Balkans had gone through a lot of conflicts and now was the time to forget the past and open a new chapter.

"And I was assured by the Malaysian government that they are considering recognising Kosovo as an independent nation. This is because by doing so (recognising Kosovo), it will help bring stability to the whole Balkan region," she said.

She said since 17 February 2008, when Kosovo declared itself to be a sovereign state, a total of 51 countries had recognised its independence from Serbia.

Harxhi is on a three day official visit to Malaysia to discuss bilateral relations and trade between the two countries.

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=368273

	Malaysian National News Agency

Wisma BERNAMA,

Unfortunately the hopes of another nation are not sufficient evidence for this article. Malaysia has a history of changing its mind over recognition, and until we get something definite from Malaysia or Kosovo about this, there's not much we can do. Perhaps this visit by the Albanian minister will help to move things along, but don't hold your breath. Thanks for bringing this to our attention though. Bazonka (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"And I was assured by the Malaysian government that they are considering recognising Kosovo as an independent nation. This is because by doing so (recognising Kosovo), it will help bring stability to the whole Balkan region," she said.

There's a difference between hopes and considering. This information must be entered in Malaysia's box as a new developement. Exo (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No. This is information indirectly from a country that has given very inconsistent messages in the past. It's not usable. We can only really trust Malaysia when they or Kosovo (nobody else) says that they have recognised. We've seen all this "Malaysia will recognise" stuff before and then nothing happens, or they announce the opposite. Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Serbia hope no more countries will recognise Kosovo and even withdraw recognition, should we add this information to the article too? Reliable sources please. I think every country has considered recognising Kosovo. Chances are Malaysia will recognise in the long term. No edits for now though, no need. Ijanderson (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then what is this doing there:

On 28 August 2008, the Malaysian ambassador in Belgrade, Saw Ching Hong, stated that he believed that Malaysia would back Serbia in its initiative to seek the opinion of the International Court of Justice...etc etc

It just takes space, since beliefs and hopes and perhapses aren't so relevant. Exo (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Malaysian ambassador not Albanian deputy something. I would maybe support it if it was a quote from a Kosovan politician but Albanian? It's like adding what some Russian politician thinks about Malaysian position - irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not add it, we had a case when we added Russian politician talking in name of China and India. What makes Sergej Lavror more raliable??? Here is the quote from the page:

It was read by the host minister, Sergey Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".

I mean if Sergej Lavrov can speak in name of other governments, why can't Albanian minister transmit the words said to him by the third party/governemnt. Either we should include, or delete both. I vote for either solution. --Lilonius (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is all academic now if the thread below is to be believed... Bazonka (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia recognized Kosovo

http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Home/tabid/161/ItemID/135/View/Details/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds real. Not that I could read Albanian, but the original letter at the bottom of the page is pretty clear. — Emil J. 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's good enough evidence for me. Bazonka (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source. Seems that Albania was right over been hopeful that they would recognise. Ijanderson (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Albania knew that they would recognize, but didn't announce it as they wanted to leave it to Malaysia themselves. --alchaemia (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810311351/Politics/Malaysia-recognized-Kosovo-independence.html

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/14483/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia is a founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, member of the Organization of Islamic Conference and member of the Developing 8 Countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thank god for this recognition...I won a cheap victory with the editiors. Spank spank lol. Exo (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol ok then I expect recognitions from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Palau, Micronesia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar. That is my bet and direction where we should look for news.--Avala (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw Serbian Govt has expelled the Malaysian Ambassador and in the explanation they said that Malaysia is trying to put pressure on judges of the ICJ.--Avala (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What an excuse. Jeremic is studied physic and public administration, not foreign affairs. It shall be Serbia's gravest mistake on it. Pakistan and Saudi arabia are next to recognize Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was Government who did that not Jeremic himself. Gravest mistake to expell Malaysian ambassador? Yes the world is already collapsing.--Avala (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate, it is Serbia collapsing. No mercy. --84.56.232.184 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian Government expelled the Malaysian ambassador over the recognition, so I think this is enough evidence for me to change the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Diplomat: Egypt will recognize Kosovo soon

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200811021354/Politics/Diplomat-Egypt-will-recognize-Kosovo-soon.html

The citizens of the Republic of Kosovo have no reason to worry why Egypt has not recognized Kosovo yet because the recognition will happen very soon. This was confirmed by the former deputy foreign minister of Egypt and close adviser to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Abdullah el-Esha'al who is visiting Kosovo, attending a political, social and cultural seminar organized in Prishtina about relations between Kosovo and Egypt.

He added that he will convey a powerful message to Egypt about the new reality created in Kosovo and the amazing progress that has been achieved here so the recognition process will be expedited.

During his lecture, Abdullah el-Esha'al emphasized: "I want to assure all of you Kosovar citizens that recognition of Kosovo independence will assertively come from Egypt very soon, because we [Egypt] are keen to contribute to peace and stability to this part of the world, and now we are very well informed about your history and self-determination endeavors to build your independent state."

"Egypt is aware of the tragic history of Kosovo. Liberation and independence were two inevitable processes that fulfilled the aspirations of Kosovars to establish their sovereign state," said Abdullah el-Esha'al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt is going to recognize soon.

• http://www.newkosovareport.com/200811021354/Politics/Diplomat-Egypt-will-recognize-Kosovo-soon.html

Max Mux (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great news! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree but this is not a forum.Max Mux (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have another source [4] but its in Albanian Ijanderson (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you translate it?Max Mux (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak Albanian, but a friend translated it for me. Apparently it says:

"High Egyptian Official: Egypt to recognise Kosovo soon - The former deputy Foreign Minister of Egypt and current chief adviser to Egyptian President Hossni Mubarak, Abdullah Al Eshal said that Kosovars should not worry why Egypt hasn't recognised Kosovo yet, because the recognition will happen very soon. "I ... Read more assertively confirm to all of you citizens of Kosovo that Egypt will recognise Kosovo very soon because Egypt is keen to contribute to peace and stability in this region and we are very informed about your endeavors for freedom of your country."

I'm sure another user can clarify this for me. Ijanderson (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of odd because they have a very aggressive stance on Kosovo, even didn't want to accept their passports etc. Well I suppose if they are recognising soon as they say in Albanian media we wont have to wait long for the news.--Avala (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I believe this "news" to be extremely optimistic. France and Britain have been lobbying Egypt in hope they will recognise Kosovo, so this may be a consequence, however I doubt it will happen any time soon. However if the Arab nations do get round to recognising Kosovo, Egypt may join them. But as Avala said they have been aggressive towards Kosovo independence so this news may be a "wild goose chase" Ijanderson (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The news shocked me as well. I never really put Egypt in the permanent NO category, more of like a Greece kind of NO...but nevertheless, with a strong number of Arab countries being around the corner of recognition, Egypt might be re-thinking it's strategy so that it doesn't end up in the minority of the Arab crew. I am also reminded of Lybia's stance on this matter. Previously it sounded really against independence, but around ICJ time the tone changed. Exo (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw this "Abdullah el-Esha'al" or "Abdullah Al Eshal" is mentioned solely in this case online.--Avala (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

General warning

Since some editors have resorted to discussing issues which are not tied to this particular article I am issuing a general warning:

--Avala (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: Why don't you start editing neutrally. Certainly, terrorizing editors and talk pages with "general warnings" and oficious looking templates, all the while lying about Kosovo recognition or lack of it on maps based on this article is hardly making Wikpedia work better. And just try suppressing the criticism of your edits by removing user commnets. We'll see how long you last among the editing. --Mareklug ^talk 21:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. You are the one whom I issued with warnings for such editing and those warnings were admin-endorsed. Anyway this just proves you have some comprehension problem with my warning. I issue a general warning regarding the forum-like discussion here (discussing other editors in an inappropriate way or unrelated issues) and what do you do? Obey and start discussing the subject? No way, you continue with personal attacks which are btw completely unfounded meaning you simply don't understand that what you are doing is chitchat and it deteriorates this article talk page. Just your edit summary proves it "mind your manners" directed at me, minutes after calling me a kangaroo and weeks after comparing me to a horse and calling edits you dislike "bullshit". Once again that is not the subject of this talk page. Either write about new recognitions and reactions or don't edit this page at all.--Avala (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious? Why is Egypt, Cuba, Uruguay shown as having stated they do not recognize Kosovo on a map you maintain on Wikimedia Commons? Clearly this map is to reflect your best information and is based on this article. Therefore, it is pertinent to this article. If anyone here has comprehension problems, it is persons with a short-circuit in their brains, diabling the critical faculty and ability to write neutrally and from a distance on topics close to their hearts. And asking editors to leave is considered rude, by the same admin (Husond) who you claim supports your toiletpapering my talk page. I don't think a single comment from Husond constitutes wholesale support for your dubious editing and talk page littering, but I will leave it to Husond to tell us what he thinks about things. --Mareklug ^talk 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something or your post again has got nothing to do with this article? I didn't blatantly tell anyone to leave I only said - if you can't make on topic and valuable edits on this page then do not edit it. And again with insults, this time not specifically directed, but talking about "short-circuit in their brains". After all these warnings you don't change in a slightest, insults and offtopic left and right. Btw ambassadors are above people of whom no one ever heard about before they commented on Kosovo. And Fidel Castro is an elected official on Cuba. You bring this up for a zillionth time, sigh. --Avala (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll simplify it: Comments not about recognition/reaction = not on topic and forbidden. Insults = strictly forbidden. Your edits contain both = not good.--Avala (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll simplify it also: user:Avala claims Egypt, Cuba, Uruguay all three have stated that they do not recognize Kosovo on a 2 maps he made and maintains on Commons (which he himself refered by their Wikipedia names) which are based on this article. This article does not make those characterizations at all. Thereferore, Avala's edits on this topic are lies. And Fidel Castro is not Cuba, just as the president of Bosnia (who wants to recognize Kosovo) is not Bosnia. This is strictly on topic, and you have so far failed to give a reasonable answer. --Mareklug ^talk 22:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not making my commons edits based on this article. There you go! Now you can go to sleep without troubling thoughts of a horrible problem - Avala sprads lies on other WM projects based on English Wikipedia. That's not true whoever told you that. I mean just take a look at the example of Cuba. Here it says how there was no official reaction from that country yet Cuba is painted in my map as a country that made a reaction because I supplied sources which prove F. Castro to be an elected official of Cuba. Do you need any other proof that I didn't edit based on this article? And why should I, it's not the finest article around here - it even has a POV tag! Simple as that. Of course none of the map talk is related to this article. --Avala (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem unaware of what your map is to show. Red = States which have stated that they do not recognise Kosovo as independent. Neither Cuba, nor Uruguay -- and certainly, not Egypt or Bosnia, belong under this category. The map does not show in red states which contain notable people who reacted dissing Kosovo. And it was my edits on this talk page and in this article that finally got you to change Bosnia from red to khaki (neutral or postponing reaction). So writing here by me has worked to improve your edits both here and on Commons :). And the POV template hangs here only because of your edits that we have been unable to remove yet, without triggering page protection. --Mareklug ^talk 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Avala, you lecturing us on what is and is not appropriate is the height of irony, considering that your sole purpose here is to push a pro-Serbian bias and to trash Kosovo as much as possible. Feigning surprise and indignation when we point it out is very disingenuous and doesn't convince anybody. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His reminder was appropriate. Look at the previous threads, most of them have nothing to do with the latest news regarding the subject. Instead they are are mostly started by the same vindictive user (User:Mareklug) who endlessly browbeats and baits the same well respected user (User:Avala) over and over again. This behavior borders on WP:Wikistalking and I think we should consider taking action against User:Mareklug. And Canadian Bobby don't think anybody doesn't know why you are here either. --Tocino 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing that you conceed my point by accusing me of being a foil. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't conceed your point at all. Avala's edits seem pretty NPOV to me, which is great considering the daily crap he has been dealing with on here. --Tocino 01:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you consider edits leaning towards serbian pov to be nuetral. For the maps, in relaity any coumntry not dark blue is dark orange, sayign you dont recognize and not saying either is the exact same thing as the first option, just more hidden. second, marek, avala, do what i said and take a break from the kosovo articles, cool down, we don't need to have these sections at all; how is this pertaining to helping the article.--Jakezing (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, did you just misspell "Polack fascist Mareklug" or perhaps "that fascist Mareklug", to judge from your previous output on this talk page? Or maybe you meant "vindicated"? Vindicated would be a close fit, in Hamming distance. Let's see what other editors think about that.

I just wanted to focus the community's attention on the recent file upload history of Image:Kosovo_relations.png:

current	01:31, 1 November 2008		1,425×625 (52 KB)	Alastor Moody (Talk | contribs)	(+Malaysia)
revert	16:19, 22 October 2008		1,425×625 (52 KB)	Avala (Talk | contribs)	(Ukraine neutral now)
revert	11:03, 14 October 2008		1,425×625 (34 KB)	EmilJ (Talk | contribs)	(+ UAE)
revert	15:58, 9 October 2008		1,425×625 (52 KB)	Avala (Talk | contribs)	(+Montenegro+Macedonia)
revert	11:57, 7 October 2008		1,425×625 (34 KB)	Cradel (Talk | contribs)	(Portugal recognised)
revert	03:39, 5 October 2008		1,425×625 (34 KB)	Cradel (Talk | contribs)	(Portugal - light blue : [http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1344796&idCanal=12] and in english : [http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1434601.php/Portugal_preparing_to_recognize_Kosovo_reports_ Portugal preparing to recognize Kosovo reports])
revert	07:13, 4 October 2008		1,425×625 (34 KB)	Cradel (Talk | contribs)	(Bosnia neutral (see the wikipedia article) and montenegro said after the parliament meeting that they were going to recognise soon)
revert	18:03, 15 September 2008		1,425×625 (34 KB)	Gugganij (Talk | contribs)	(+Samoa)

Please note how User:Cradel changed the depiction of two Balkan states, including Bosnia, motivating the changes by our article content. Please also note how Avala subsequently claims to be uploading a change for Ukraine (the latest on Ukraine declaring itself neutral is also in our article). However, what you don't see here, is that Avala here reverts Bosnia from Cradel's khaki to red, and that's how it is showing up now.

The section Avala wishes to have me blocked for, as irrelevant chit-chat (see my talk page, toiletpapered by Avala), shows how these maps use our article as their basis, but editors are POVing their way through them and this article.

This is shoddy editing: underhanded, lying in content, lying in edit summary/description of upload, a substantive alteration made on the sly, and thus, completely under the radar of the community. And it constitutes edit warring, to boot. I remind you, on that map, Red = States which have stated that they do not recognise Kosovo as independent.

Great majority of red states on that map have not, I repeat, have not stated this. Some, like Egypt, are about to turn deep blue, as formal recognizers. To colore them red today is a bit fat lie. And the editor who is who spreading these lies is the one holding up our progress on getting this article to neutrally reflect reality and terrorizing those who protest his edits, issuring grotesque templates to talk pages and critics alike. :) Anything, except mending his ways and editing usefully all the time, instead of only some of the time.

The editing User:Tocino would like us to consider NPOV is also the sort of editing Tocino himself famously uses when editing on Kosovo recognition. This is true of our article, as well as the related ones.

Now we are subject to a campaign of silencing the critics of these edits, as somehow misusing this talk page. Imagine that. Talk about evil editing itself is evil, we are told. But the evil editing? Why, that is just fine, as long as sources are provided. These sources can be misused, misquoted, their weight misrepresented, and the whole thing craftily manufactured to the highest specifications of nationalistic propaganda. Yet that's NPOV Wikipedia editing by a respected editor, Tocino tells us. Opposing such edits on this talk page is WP:Wikistalking by a vindictive editor, Tocino says. And Yuriy tells us that Wikipedia policies forbid it. :)

Wikipedia policies forbid manufacturing lies as its content, isn't that so? Isn't that what this is about? --Mareklug ^talk 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hysterical, long-winded rants like the one above do not help your cause. --Tocino 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Second of all, this is not a hysterical, long winded rant, it's an accurate description of the events going on here. Admins may have not noticed this, but they will now. I'll be watching this page, and if I see any violations in policy such as WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, or any other violations, I will report them. It stops now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stroke through my comment. For clarification, see the new comment far below Avala.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

settle down please

Hey y'all, I've been asked to come back and have a look. This talk page is only for talking about reliable sources having to do with International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Please keep in mind then, this not where one can talk about personal opinions or the Truth (TM) and bickering, along with other disruptive behaviour isn't allowed. Moreover, nationalistic bickering hurts the project and besides, it's boring and when I get bored, I start handing out blocks like LU biscuits on a Friday afternoon after school in Nantes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of an article is not a forum for personal opinion

(comment removed) Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of political viewpoints, or others' viewpoints of where a country stands in relation to another country. This is a discussion area on how to improve the article, and this comment was only soapboxing. Hence, it has been removed. Please read the tag at the top of this section.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "it's an accurate description of the events going on here" - but is this Wikimedia Commons? I will answer it for you - it is not. And why is this discussion going like this "Mareklug take it elsewhere" - "commons maps, cuba, red aaah" - "Mareklug please take it elsehwere " - "avala, lies, fabrications, maps" - "Mareklug don't insult other editors here" - "obtuse like a horse, kangaroo, maps, red, blue" - "Mareklug I am warning you for your behaviour" - "help me avala is after me" I do not know. That is what is going on here all the time, Mareklug inserts text block of completely irrelevant or barely relevant things spiced up with personal attacks and defamation (he stated it as a goal for other editors to revert all my edits and obviously the way to achieve it is to endlessly insult me and accuse of me of variation of things I didn't do) followed by several warnings and the continuation of the same behaviour back and forth. But if we are going into edit history let's see what words did Mareklug use around

• compared me to a horse ("if you took off those eye shades they put on horses...")
• told me to shut up ("shut up and learn")
• implied I was stupid ("Are you pretending to be stupid, or teasing?")
• called me a sophisticated computer loop ("In fact, why don't you just commence debating yourself, because I get the strong sense I'm talking to a sophisticated computer loop.")
• called other users questions stupid ("Any more stupid questions and explications?")
• claimed moral advantage of map editing on wikimedia commons ("And, lest it be forgotten, I am one of the map's attributed authors, having added the missing Northern Cyprus and Brunei in the SVG version, so I feel I have certain moral rights here, even though anyone can expressly edit them because they are Public Domain")
• claimed there were no sources given to certain segments of the article while anyone who opens the article can see reference numbers next to that text.
• described additions of other users as bullshit
• called me a kangaroo
• called me obtuse (I warned him and the warning was backed by an admin)
• made sneaky changes to the article which change the complete meaning like "It >>has been<<< India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states." to "It >>>had been<<< India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states."
• continuously accuses of me things I didn't do per what he wrote on one of the talk pages, the plan for other editors to revert all my edits, he even had one user from the Polish Wikipedia over to do such an edit.
• continuously keeps talking about certain maps which are not used here and rejects to discuss the subject - recognitions and reactions which should be added to the text of the article.
• removed my talk page comments (I warned him and the warning was backed by an admin)

To conclude - Mareklug is here on a mission, one part of it is to destroy this article as much as possible and the other part is to defame me and anyone who stands in his way.--Avala (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the only part of that comment that I agreed with was as such: Red = States which have stated that they do not recognise Kosovo as independent. Great majority of red states on that map have not, I repeat, have not stated this. I hope this clears things up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but it's irrelevant as those maps are not used here anymore. The reason why you can't make that history template to work because this image is on commons. That is what I am trying to say. Take it to the right place which would be WM Commons and try to explain there why is it when the Angolan President writes a letter of support to Serbian territorial integrity to his Serbian counterpart not a reaction etc. Not here. The issue is being discussed here solely because it's part of that plan of Mareklug's I discuss earlier which is to destroy this article by clogging the talk page with irrelevant chitchat, insults and defamation attempts. All with the goal that no one shall stand in his way while he carves the article until it becomes the AfD material.--Avala (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I doupt that hat template had anything to do with the image, because of text-wrapping problems, the page goes far off to the right, and I was trying to fix that. Either way, I am not here because of content, but because of policy violations between several editors, not to mention the edit waring, and the using this talk page as a soapbox for personal views.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I put on the warning this is not a forum only to get the forum-like discussion below. Maybe I should try the reverse psychology? -Everyone please chitchat here! This is the place where we want to hear your thoughts on a wide range of topics from the drought in Namibia over Wikimedia Commons images to the earthquakes in Pakistan. Don't forget to show us your knowledge of insults in English language!- Maybe now it is going to stop?--Avala (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting comments if against the rules, and you can't claim im advertising if i'm not, please obey rules Daedalus969m, like you have told me, which i reverted.--Jakezing (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I am, although the template I used on you was not right, you were still POV pushing in a space you are not allowed to. First, please read the above template, where it says that any and all comments that are not on topic of the current discussion, and are focused on improving the article may be removed/deleted. That is wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTFORUM, I suggest you look it up before you try to post your non-constructive look on the opinion's of others concerning neutrality and rejection. They are different things, and just because you say they are not, does not make them so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, they are different, but in the two pay option of recognition and rejection, staying nuetrla and not saying either and saying you don't recognize are the same thing in the end, either way you never said you recognize the country as independant. Listen to what i am saying and don't say it's POV. When you have only two choices, yes and no, how can you say neither? Neither is still not saying yes, so therfor you might as well have jsut said no and be done with it, is that a simple enough analogy for you? Second, your talking to me about breaking the forum rule, LOOK AT THIS WHOLE SECTION, half the arguing i read is about a map that isn't even on the damned article, how is that about improving the article? --Jakezing (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since your comment is apparently not POV pushing, despite the fact that it appears to be, can you please clarify how exactly it is helping to improve the article? I can't see it. And yes, just because you view the world in black and white, does not mean that other colors do not exist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete user comments unless they stray from WP:BLP or are blatant personal attacks. I'll block editors who keep removing comments and I'll block editors who use this page as a forum for their personal opinions. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you, Daedalus969, explain how this section is going to improve the article, because the only thing amounting from it is a long, drawn out battle between marek and avala.--Jakezing (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not evade. My question was directed at you. Two wrongs do not make a right. I shall deal with them separately later, but right now I am dealing with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So instead of dealing with the real problem you'll deal with one user, even though tocino pushs his POV more then me, or ignore the fact marek and avala keep having unrealted wars about who insulted who? Get your priorities straight buster, im not the problem ,they are, I don't "push my POv" unless it gets brought up on wether a country that says it isn't recognizing but isn't rejecting, is still reject6ing is based on the fact they havnt said they do recognizxe, it is simple logic, and simple logic cannot be POV.--Jakezing (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One way to skirt having the acronym PoV thrown at you is to cite sources, sources, sources, quoting them if need be (so your own words won't be mistaken as your own thoughts) since, when disagreements abound on a Wikipedia talk page, folks often start reading stuff a bit too quickly and get way stirred up over the least little things. It also helps not to answer a post straight off, moreover if one is feeling kinda rankled, but to take awhile and think about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, I can have him be in trouble and "ban ned" for pushing his own POV that saying you are nutral is not the same as not recognizing. it. Listen to my words ok you impossible person, If a country did npot say they recognize, and they are not blue on the map we use, explain, what is the only other catagory they can be in, understand? There are only two catagories, if a country hasn't said they yes catagory, then they have to be in the No catagory, there isn't a middle ground on this.--Jakezing (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not unless there is consensus on this talk page for those colours and choices. Simplifying/representing notions with colour keys on maps or charts can easily lead to PoV and is one of the biggest traps of dialectic reasoning. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can't have me banned or in trouble for POV pushing, as it is not my POV, it is the most commonly accepted POV by the majority of reliable sources. You however are pushing your POV, as you have stated over and over again that you feel the world exists in a black and white context. The word neutral wouldn't exist if a middle ground didn't exist. I highly suggest you read WP:NPOV, a link I have continuously supplied to you, a link you have yet to read. The fact that they are stately neutral in the matter is source-able, your point of view that anything neutral means they are against is unsourced and of your own opinion, and that does not help improve the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now if onlt NPOV existed then that policy would be practical, but unforntatly, NPOV is an impossibilty for humans. So wikipedia tries to deny human nature, and sdon't talk to me about this being off-topic, the whole damned section is offtopic anyways, --Jakezing (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will, because you are. You also have yet to answer my above question: "How does your comment improve the article?". Now, as per your most recent comment, it appears very pointy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY will say anybody is NPOv, NPOV is a idealistic impractical stupid goal. And stop asking, i have already answered with my own, more important question: how does this section at all contribute to the article? Hell, how does YOUR comment improve the article? I see no trying to improve the article in your comments so, have fun being a hypocritical idealist fool.--Jakezing (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. When you answer a question with another question, that is not an answer, but continued evasion. How was your comment contributive to the article? As far as I can see, it was disruptive, and you have yet to clarify. Your comments so far have seemed increasingly pointy, and if you continue with this behavior of refusing to explain your edits, and insulting others as you did so above, you will be blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to come into the light son and look at your own recent updates and decide how well they measure to my own rule breaking updates. I know my edits are breaking rules. Right now, I choose not to give a damn as this section and your edits do the same exact thing. Now, What I answer your question with, will be the same answer you will give. I am not "evading" your question I am trying to see if you yourself realize that you are breaking those same rules about POV pushing and Forum. You are not in the right to be talking about me breaking rules, beyond Civil; you are doing the same thing... See, my stupidity look is only a show.--Jakezing (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I have cited several polices which you have broken, not to mention now, WP:NPA, as per above. You so far have cited none. I have no point of view, as stated many many times. The world that we exist in is full of colors, you are implying that the world only consists of two colors: Those who agree with you and those who don't. Such behavior is disruptive, and does not contribute constructively to the project. You have been reported.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are step one of many. To answer your question, it improves the article by getting rid of the source of disruption. If the editors here do nothing but edit war, it is disruptive. If editors on the talk page use the talk page to promote their personal views. It is disruptive, pure and simple.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a real problem as I Really don't care about this article. I find the rule breaking and fighting amusing though, and know so many ways to fix it that would be ignored by uncaring Admins : D. By all rights, Avala and Mareklug deserve to be banned from this article, the discussion that was going on before you and me hijacked this rule breaking section is show enough, tocino cold be banned as well due to edits over the summer. In reality, I could be a Wikipedia admin if I tried and gave a damn, I just don't want to be one right now so I don't try.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs)

Your comment was disruptive. Pure and simple. You still have yet to explain it, and if you don't care about this article, then don't comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How was it disruptive? It was unexpected, and unexpected is one of my core principles of action, along with insane; confusion and giving the wrong impression as to fool them later. Second, Do you care either, I have never seen you here until recently.--Jakezing (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this really a discussion you should be having here? I won't waste my time on answering that question. If you'd like to discuss rules, use your talk pages; if you'd like to squabble, don't. And Jake, if you find rule-breaking amusing, that's all fine and dandy; however, when one of the trigger-happy admins blocks you, you probably won't find it funny. Try to be reasonable here, everyone. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The comment in question is pushing the users' point of view that states which have not recognized the state in question formally are automatically against it. I am not against it, nor am I for it. I am against his definition of it, but I am not pushing this definition on this talk page. He is. It has nothing to do with improvement of the article, and should therefore be removed, as talk pages for the articles to which they are attached are for the discussion of how to improve said articles, not for promotion or display of one's personal beliefs on the subject matter.

I originally asked Jake to explain how his comment improved the article, as he challenged my challenge of it's merit. I had originally removed it as it had nothing to do with the article's improvement as far as I could see. When he re-added it, I questioned how exactly it improved the article. He still has yet to answer. He has only been asking me basically these other people are doing wrong things too, why aren't you focusing on them?. I saw his comment first, as it stood out with its CAPITAL LETTERING, so I decided to deal with it first.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s a section that breaks rules, By all rights, anybody who talks in it is breaking the rules. To quote myself... "Now, What I answer your question with, will be the same answer you will give. I am not "evading" your question I am trying to see if you yourself realize that you are breaking those same rules about POV pushing and Forum. You are not in the right to be talking about me breaking rules, beyond Civil; you are doing the same thing...". Also, I read a above post I seemed to miss... or you added later; and IT IS a POV to say that the world does not go in black and white terms. I use both views when I use the word neutral, however, this is a black and white case; either your saying yes or your saying no. There isn't a grey course to go walk down. Even by saying nothing, you’re still not saying you recognize Kosovo as independent. I am providing simple logical proof, you are citing your views with Policies and ignoring my own, Counter-question as to how any of your recent edits to this section are improving it either, because so far its your trying to tell me I am wrong and you are right and my views are false.--Jakezing (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the place for this discussion between the two of you. Please take it elsewhere (perhaps your talk pages). This page is for discussing sources and article text, it is not for going back and forth about notions of rule-breaking, be it having to do with civility, PoV-pushing or anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Croatia's Laision Office in Prishtine becomes Embassy

Croatia becomes another country to open its embassy in Kosovo. http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Home/tabid/161/ItemID/139/View/Details/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.32.126 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference in English [5] Bazonka (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tocino

So what about Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo/Archive 30#Proposal to ban User:Tocino from this topic as per WP:ARBMAC? Tocino (talk · contribs) was going to postpone the discussion citing lack of time [6]. However, he has had enough time to continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground and to spread his rants ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Colchicum (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ban him. Just a look at his user page shows his lack of NPOV needed to work unemotionally on this or other serbian related articles. --Tubesship (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the official mediation pages not here. We are not going to have a kangaroo court.--Avala (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a link to this official mediation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.232.184 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment is where you go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

@Tubesship Your page lacks NPOV, but thats ok as user pages are allowed to be POV. I don't see any reason as to why Tocino should be banned. Many users dislike Tocino for opposing Kosovo and been pro Serbia. We can't ban him for that. Ijanderson (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the user is edit warring, then there is an ArbCom case related to Kosovo that has specific remedies for it. And, considering this is a Kosovo topic, the case applies here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to be against Kosovo's independence, but from what I've seen...Tocino has made it into an obsession. Exo (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For as long as users provide sources and references we shouldn't care about their views, whether they are pro or against something.--Avala (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could anybody please show an example of Tocino's best contributions to the mainspace? Colchicum (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think that User:Colchicum is not the administrator. If he wants to lodge a complaint about another user he has to lodge it to administrators. But he does not want to do so, instead he tries to use this talk page for such inappropriate activity. Such activity is very disruptive for Wikipedia, so I want to warn User:Colchicum about it. Independent administrator, and a member of the Mediation Committee Anthony [User:AGK] decided not to ban user:Tocino because of "From an extensive analysis of both this talk page and the recent history of the attached article, I truly am not seeing this loud-mouth, disruptive troll that seems to be being painted here". But as for me there are some other users at this talk page which can be considered as "loud-mouth, disruptive trolls". I will propose to ban such users if their disruptive activity will be continued.—Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably you will have a hard time trying to grasp this, but the only difference between Administrators and ordinary Wikipedians is that the former have access to three technical buttons: move over redirect, block and protect. That's all. Colchicum (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If he can't lodge a complaint about an editor, what gives you the right to "warn" him about it? --alchaemia (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Administrators are no more empowered to criticize users than other users. They have an added technical capability to carry out administrative actions, that is all. Clearly, being an administrator itself is no guarnatee that the person will act responsibly. As well all know, who edit this page.

• I would like to emphasize the link no. 6 given by User:Colchicum above, this. It shows, in microcosm, a sequence of events that typifies our needless aggrevation, when crafting this article, and explains why many bad situations were allowed to fester for very long time, the case of Cuba and Tocino being only one of many.

• Here: a) Tocino makes an inflamatory, biased statement, which he uses to motivate a bad edit or a proposition of making a bad edit. b) a user (I, in this case), responds factually and without animosity, showing why Tocino is mistaken. c) Tocino responds aggressively ("I don't care about your theories") and continues to spew noxious statements that hardly advance the cause of writing this article. In the main, these are not "my theories", but prevailing political science content that determine whether a state is a state. Tocino reducing them to being my pet theories both performs aggression on fellow editor and refuses to openmindedly become informed in the subject, thereby remaining an obstacle to writing this article.

• @Avala: a kangaroo court is not when editors review and criticize another's edits on the article talk page. This is Wikipedia process. A kangaroo court arose, however, when you were reverted 6 times by 5 distinct users, but you chose to persecute only one of them, in order to template his talk page, making pretend that an administrator is warning a user for offenses, while it was only you baselessly accusing another editor of blanking, with you proceeding to threaten him with blocking for it. And he was only removing your cruft, and being merely one several in the community doing so. However, you only ostracized him. That is a kangaroo court, and you were the sole kangaroo in it.

• @Avala, Tocino: You two don't seem able to perceive conflicts of interest, even in elementary matters, such as users with religious, partisan feelings about Serbia editing encyclopedic articles in the topic of Serbia losing a portion of its land, edits that call for distance and strict neutrality. This is, unfortunately, only exacerbated in the case of Tocino, because at least Avala makes reasonable and valuable edits between making entirely uncalled for ones (example: falsely claiming that President Kaczynski of Poland blocked diplomatic relationships with Kosovo, later watered down to: he was blocking them on ambassadorial level -- both of these claims were discredited as false -- these were those infamous 6 reverts performed by Avala in three days, in the service of pushing a lie, no less. This was an edit war by any name. And Avala is an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia. And he is a user of 12k+ edits on this one. This goes to show, that sometimes an article and an editor are just not well-matched in temperament to one another. This is the essence of the case for removing Tocino from editing in Kosovo matters. It's self-preservation on our part. --Mareklug ^talk 04:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Mareklug consider this a final warning for your filthy vocabulary. You compared me to a horse before and now you are calling me a kangaroo. You are crossing the red line.--Avala (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, I am with you. If you need support in this case, give me an email as sometimes I am not on Wikipedia: vote4obama-at-gmx.de --Tubesship (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Please, study policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. We have no right to discuss other users at the talk page. We have to discuss just the article here! Please, use the guidlines of Wikipedia. I reserve the right to lodge a complaint to anyone, who uses this talk page for discussing other users (not the article itself). If some of other users will continue such inappropriate use of this talk page, I will definitely use the "Request for Comment" page for such users.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with this idea. If users can't control themselves from spamming this page then they should be forced to stop with such behavior.--Avala (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Mareklug, also I want to underline that the declarative theory of statehood, which you consider as the absolute truth, is not ideal. For example, Sealand is also the state according to this theory. If you want to ban all the users, which cannot accept the declarative theory of statehood, it is very dangerous and unacceptable for Wikipedia. For example, as for me, only the UN member states are the real states. And I strongly suggest you to strictly adhere to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You are very valuable editor and it is better for you to be more tolerant--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yuriy, for heaven's sake, read with understanding, and read the policies and guidelelines you want me to adhere to strictly. :) Namely, this is what WP:RFC says:

Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved.

If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.

If the issue is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page.

• We are "simply discussing the matter on the article talk page first". And I am talking on this talk page "to the other parties involved" (see "@Avala", "@Avala, Tocino" above). These are 100% Wikipedia process-congruent actions. And, as I showed, the issues is not between two editors, because I gave an example of 5 editors reverting Avala, and Avala zeroing in on only one of them. In the end, the content Avala was adding, was false, and is not in the article anymore. Again, we are discussing edits, not editors. Avala's edit in this thread, however, is discussing editors. Perhaps you should direct emboldened comments at him???

• Yuriy, no one wants to ban anybody for discrediting the declarative theory of statehood! You are simply not reading this correctly. I showed that the the user in question aggressively dismissed a merit-based arguement, while ascribing its content as the pet theory of person presenting it, and aggressively at that. This is the sort of editing in article discussion that does not advance the cause of writing Encyclopedia. On other ocassions it was shown that the same user reverts repeatedly and staunchly defends keeping false content. This was the issue with Cuba, characterized as having officially rejected Kosovo independence. To this day it is being show that way on Image:Kosovo_relations.png map. For the longest time, editors were unable to characterize Cuba truthfully in this article, because of edits of Tocino (and edits of Avala). The current Cuba write-up took a lot of conflict and re-introduction, and page blockage by admins, before it was allowed to hang unmolested. This is unacceptable, and this is what is at the heart of this discussion.

• Yuriy, take a look at the responses on this thread alone by Avala: He is upset that he was called a horse or a kangaroo. :) Not a word from Avala addressing or defending his edits, the reason WHY his editing was (in passing) likened to "a horse with blinders on this eyes", or to a proverbial kangaroo on a kangaroo court! He writes: "filthy language". Didn't User:Avala himself introduce in this thread the characterization of Wikipedians behaving as a kangaroo court, thereby discrediting all of us, editors, and warning us off from possibly looking askance at User:Tocino's edits on Kosovo, or his own, for that matter, on this talk page?). Why would Avala's mischaracterization of the community practicing the Wikipedia process be all right with you? For that matter, why is it obviously all right with Avala? The community criticicizing Avala's or Tocino's chronic partisan editing, both in this discussion and in this article, is to be taboo on this talk page? That's what you want? It's obviously that this is what Avala wants, but no one else. And you are going to open an RFC on me or on User:Colchicum for pointing out the obvious in a substantive, edit-focused way advocated by the very RFC you threaten to use against us? Astounding. --Mareklug ^talk 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, if you want to lodge a complaint about Avala or Tocino, you have to use the RFC page. This is the main guideline of Wikipedia. You should not discuss them here. Because it is the violation of the guideline. This page is only for discussing the article. Nowdays it is all OK with the article, isn't it? There are only two maps: a) formal recognition b)Voting in the UN GA assembly. I think that it is no problem now. So, your discussion has NO RELATION to the article itself now (only to the history of the article, and to the other users, but this talk page should not be used for such discussions).--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, please stop abusing us with your complete epistles written in emboldened text! It is clear to me that you personally are unaware of "the main guideline of Wikipedia", and all the minor ones. One of them, as does unwritten canon of intenet behavior, categorically states not to embolden complete paragraphs (or write in caps, which thank goodness you have not resorted to yet).

Again, I already wrote for your benefit: WP:RFC says: Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. That is what we are doing. And we don't care to lodge complaints for the sake of complaining. We just want these two to edit reasonably, neutrally, reliably. Do you understand? The article contains unreasonable edits by them both. So no, all is not OK with the article, since you asked. --Mareklug ^talk 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, discuss the concrete drawbacks of the article here. You can also mention how user:Tocino impede you to eliminate this drawbacks. If the majority of the users will agree with you, this drawbacks will be eliminated. If user:Tocino will start the edit warring after it, you will have the right to lodge a complaint, and every administrator will ban Tocino. This is the basic principles of Wikipedia. Your stance to recall the history of this article is not fruitful. You have to discuss only the current state and the future of this article without recalling the history. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop it already. Your accusation which are completely unfounded and your insults are over the top really.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• @ Yuriy Kolodin You do know that before the UN there were states. I know its hard to believe, but UN membership is not a requirement to be a state. Kosovo is more of a state than Somalia. What is not "state like" about Kosovo? You need to ask yourself, what is a state? Kosovo has a territory, government, it conducts in diplomatic relations, it has citizens, laws, an economy, boarders, flag, national anthem, it functions exactly like a state, its is to become a member of international organisations (IMF, WB ect), it has an organised structure, it does everything which any other state does but Kosovo lacks full recognition and UN membership; therefore according to you it isn't a state because there isnt a guy sat in the UN with a little sign saying "Kosovo". Thats laughable. Take Somalia for example, its basically an anarchy, but they have a guy sat in the UN therefore making it a county, Kosovo has better and more features of a state than Somalia. The Rep of Kosovo has a institution of central government which claims ultimate authority over a given territorial area, making it a country.
  
• You do realise that threw out the cold war era many states were partially recognised and didn't have UN membership. Both Korea's, both Germany's, both China's ect. Many countries didn't join the UN for ages too Monaco, Switzerland, Andorra ect. Even non independent states were UN members such as Belarus, India, the Philippines, and Ukraine. So non-sates had full UN membership. Your theory is crazy.
  
• If Russia and China tomorrow were to both randomly recognise Kosovo then two weeks later Kosovo becomes a UN member state, why would that make Kosovo more of a state than it is at the moment?
• Been a UN member doesn't make a country a country, been a country makes a country a country. What physical difference does recognition and UN membership do? Non at all! Ijanderson (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend. Do you really think that Somalia is not a state, but occupied by US army Kosovo is the state? Well, I will try to argue the another POV. Please, read the article about Somali language [13]. It is very ancient language, and Somalian nation, Somalian culture has a very long history. I realize that now Somalia is under the state of civil war, but nevertheless, Somalia is the state with their own language, culture and so on. And what do you know about Kosovo language? :-))) What do you know about separate Kosovo culture? :-))) There is no such language! There is no such ethnic nationality as Kosovan! Kosovo has no history at all! Kosovo has no separate culture! Kosovo has no independent government at all! The term "state", "nation" is much deeper than the term "government". That is why Russia and China (the both are REAL states with the long history and ancient culture) do not recognise such states as "Independent Kosovo state". And this is not dependent on the current president of Russia, this is not dependent on Medvedev, Putin, or Eltsin. This is the will of Russian people, which are not favourable for creating the artificial states, especcially if there is no consent of the state which is the legal owner of the respective territory for such creation. Russia has recognised Abkhazia and Ossetia, but believe me that they are the countries with their own ancient language, culture and history--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You are not entitled to speak on behalf of the Russian people. Unlike you, "Yuriy Kolodin, from Ukraine, from Kiev", I am Russian at least, and I am in favor of independent Kosovo. Colchicum (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum, but I am actually discussing the article. We have the different theories of statehood, and this theories are the guidelines for the different editors to contribute to the article. We have to come to consensus about which theory has to be used in this very article. I think that declarative theory of statehood is unacceptable. This is my POV about the article. Also I have to note that Ukraine has not recognised Kosovo, and will not recognise Kosovo in future. There are some parties in Ukraine calling for recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but there is no political party in Ukraine calling for recognition of Kosovo. As a matter of fact, all Ukrainian parties oppose to the declaration of independence of Kosovo.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Statehood: The generic definition of "statehood" applies to both de jure recognized and de facto states, legal and illegal, moral and immoral alike. In this context, a state exists because it is both declared and operative, that is, it is a state in both character and function, and satisfies the aforementioned conditions of population, territory, government, and diplomatic relations (even if they are with only one other fully recognized country), as defined in the Montevideo Convention. By simple definition, Kosovo is a Partially Recognized and de facto State. This, in and of itself, does not make Kosovo a legitimate state, or an illegitimate one; it only means that it is partially recognized as legitimate or illegitimate, by different countries, but it is still a functioning state; the issues of "legitimacy" and "legality" are independent of the generic definition of statehood.

Your assertion (or so it appears) that "state" and "nation" are synonymous is incorrect and is not in line with international practice. The notion of "nation-state" is but one style of statehood, historically European, and historically post-19th-century. In ancient and medieval history, all around the world, many non-national states existed, such as city-states (many of which could be united as one culture and nationality across a broad region, but politically independent of each other, and feudal states (in which the state and the king are one and the same thing, and he ownes the territory, while the peasant population, with their culture and nationality, be it homogenous or heterogenous, live in the state by privilege rather than by right or herritage). On whether the "state" is the same thing as the government, I won't say that it necessarily is the exact same thing, but it is usually something very close to it, depending on the style of government.

• Legality: The internationally accepted definition of legal and legitimate statehood falls neither entirely within the declarative theory nor entirely within the nationalistic theory. There are fully recognized states with a historically defined national cultural identity, and there are also states that exist only because a group of people, without strong nationalistic cultural ties, declared their independence on principles of universal human rights, or won their territory through unjustified bloody conquest, or had a purely regional (not cultural) desire for self-determination, or experienced an involuntary partition by third parties, or were simply given independence for x y aznd z reason, or a combination of these and other circumstances--and other countries recognized their political right to exist. The fully recognized states of the world represent a mixture of statehood theories, and are united only in the fact that they do exist and recognize each other.

• Article: The guideline for this article should not be theoretical; it should be the international standard of political practice on statehood legitimacy, which is the following:

Regardless of the moral or legal circumstances that make the creation of a new state right or wrong, if a majority of existing states recognize it, then it should be treated as a de jure state for the purposes of encyclopedic classification. If it is not, then it should be treated as a de facto state. Either way, the pov issues surrounding its legitimacy should be footnotes after the fact.

• My POV is that any one-ended and exclusive definition, which does not take into account the particular historical, moral, political, and cultural circumstances, is unacceptable: a situation where de jure states can only exist because they are declared is anarchy, whilst a situation where de jure states can only exist because of national identity is fascism. But that's just me. Most of the world, however, recognizes both kinds of states, and other kinds as well, and so should we.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that in modern world all independent states have to be nations. Political nations (not the ethnic nationalities). This is not the fascism, because otherwise you have to conclude that United Nations is the fascist organisation. The theory of 'nation-state' is accepted by all the World, because otherwise we do not have such name as United Nations. So, I will not give up my theory and my POV that only the UN member states are the modern (not feudal or illegal) states. That is why we have to treat Kosovo as only a 'de facto' state. Such as, for example the Hamas-controlled territory of Gaza Strip--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A large number of United Nations member states are not nation-states, so no, the theory of nation-state is not accepted by "all the world." UN members are nations, yes, in a very general sense of the word (which in English can have a broad meaning, similar to "country") and they are also sovereign states, but they are not all nation-states, which is a much more specific term, applied to a specific theory, with a specific definition. The nation-state theory is that only states that form a unified cultural/ethnic national identity are entitled to be sovereign states, and all ethno-cultural nations should be sovereign and independent states. What you call "political nation" has nothing to do with the nation-state theory, you are talking about the sovereign independent state, and yes, all United Nations member states are sovereign independent states, which is synonymous with "nation" the way it is commonly used. The theory of nation-state requires that an independent state should exist for every group of people sharing a common and distinct culture and/or ethnicity. Many modern members of the United Nations are multicultural states, multiethnic states, and federal states, which by definition means they are not and cannot be nation-states. The name "United Nations" is just a title that sounds good, not an endorsement of a state theory.

The United Nations itself, as an organization, disagrees with your pov that only its members are modern and legal states, because the UN recognizes the existence of fully independent and legitimate states outside of its organization, such as The Vatican, and before it, Switzerland, and before that, several other fully recognized states that didn't immediately join the organization. The issue is recognition, not membership. Any sovereign, recognized state has the legal right to join if it wants to, and also has the legal right to not join if it doesn't want to. Your membership theory is not valid because it is factually wrong, according to UN statute, the United Nations recognizes the legality of independent states that do not wish to join. Aside from all these legal states (legal members and legal non-members), there also exists a completely separate category of de facto states, which are de facto not because they are outside of the UN, but because they are not fully recognized by a majority of nations.

I never said that "nation" were fascist, you misunderstood," I was refering to the theory of nation-state, which is not merely a union of the words "nation" and "state," it refers to the old, traditional meaning of "nation" as a group of people with a common historical origin/beliefs/practices/culture. This standard for nationhood is not recognized by the word as being the only kind of legitimate state or national existence.

And yes, you are correct, Kosovo must be treated as a de facto state, because it is not fully recognized, I never said otherwise. I have never argued that Kosovo was a fully legitimate and de jure state, at least not for the purpose of encyclopedic classification. When a majority of nations recognize it, then it will be a de jure state, because that is the near-universally accepted standard.

I do believe that Kosovo has a moral right to exist as a sovereign state, and to seek to be recognized as a de jure state, based on the circumstances of Serbia's rule, but that is my own pov and I never said that this pov should be a guideline for article treatment. My argument is the exact opposite, I'll repeat it: world recognition should determine the article, and any debate over the moral or legal controversies regarding Kosovo independence should be side issues after the fact.

Political nation is in fact a large group of people which has its territory and wants to live in united sovereign state. It can be multiethnic, multicultural (or not) - it is not really important. It should be a political nation. All modern states have to be political nations. And the name United Nations just underlining this fact. All members of United Nations are political nations, and, actually, all real, modern states in the world (i.e. political nations) are the UN members now, including Switzerland which became a member 6 years ago, but excluding Vatican, which is neither the nation nor the state, which is rather the entity which has only formal characters of the sovereign state, but does not have real statehood. I think that there is no political nation in Kosovo. So, I think that Kosovo has no moral right to became de jure state and to join the UN.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is in any way a response to what I'm writing, your statements seem a bit... random, and don't really respond to my points. Your arguments, and your use of terminology, are circular and indeciferable. So, I'll just leave it at that, I've written all I care/need to write on this topic :)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid no. There has already been a relevant arbitration case. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (i.e. the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans) if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Colchicum (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

@Yuriy Kolodin I understand what you are saying now. The US, Brazil, Mexico, Canada ect are not states either because they don't have their own language. Whats next, Britain is not a nation because their isn't a British language. Non of the Arab states are nations either because each Arab country doesn't have its own language. You don't make sense mate. I think you will find their is lots of culture and history in Kosovo, even though some of it is Albanian, but not all. They have their own national holidays, music, history ect. I never said that Somalia wasn't a state, i said that Kosovo acts more like a state and has more characteristics of a state than Somalia. Also I believe that the Ukraine will recognise Kosovo eventually, especially when its wants EU and NATO membership. Our lad David Milliband was in Kiev recently pulling a few strings for you guys, helping you out ect. Britain has been very influential in Ukraine recently my friend. Also its not just US forces in Kosovo, there forces there from all over the Europe and the world, even Russian and Ukrainian soldiers. Also your forgetting that Kosovo is gaining recognition faster than the Former Yugoslav republics (with exception of Mont.), also this is the 2nd time Kosovo has declared independence. You need to face reality my friend. Ijanderson (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As for me, you need to face reality. Not all EU and NATO members have recognized Kosovo. Read this article! What about Spain, Greece, Slovakia, Romania? Even Britain decided to be neutral in the UN GA voting. If this issue would be crucial for Britain, it would obviously vote against this resolution. Only for Bush administration it is crucial. But after Obama victory, this issue will be discussed. Please, open your eyes and see... Kosovo cannot exist without occupational forces at all! This is very strange "state", isn't it?--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

@ Yuriy - please just answer the following question: if only UN member states are real states, what was Switzerland before 2002? Khuft (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Before 2002 - not only. But after 2002 - actually only. Very simple answer. I think it is better for you and other users to discuss the current state, not the history--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference with Switzerland is that it was their decision not to join till 2002, there were no obstacles. While Kosovo can not join even though it wants to.--Avala (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Japan's Liaison Office

Does Japan have a Liaison Office in Pristina? List of diplomatic missions in Kosovo says so, but it's not mentioned in this article. Gugganij (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You may add this into the article. Thank you. --84.56.215.213 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference to this anywhere? The one in the Diplomatic Missions article doesn't work. Bazonka (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes [14] "Zyra Nderlidhese e Japonise" means "The Liasion Office of Japan" --alchaemia (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another one [15] --alchaemia (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I added it into the article. Gugganij (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Various Liaison Offices

There is quite a bit of extra/different information on liaison offices on this Kosovo government webpage: [16].
Saudi Arabia, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and China all have liaison offices in Pristina; Denmark has a representative; and Bulgaria, Croatia and Albania have liaison offices, not embassies as we currently show. I assume that this information is reliable. Bazonka (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

All of them opened before though.--Avala (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: A guy should write them and make them aware that Japan and Malaysia are not exactly republics. That shouldn't happen on a government webpage. Gugganij (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This article [17] says that Bulgaria issues visas in its Embassy in Pristina, while this one confirms that Bulgaria was to open an Embassy shortly after it recognized Kosovo [18]. This official source confirms that Croatia has upgraded its office to an Embassy [19] (there's even a photo of the foreign minister Hyseni with the new ambassador), while I'm not sure about Albania. I know they said they will upgrade their office to an Embassy 1 day after the declaration. I also know that Kosovo has an Embassy in Tirana already. We could probably contact them in this email (mission.kosova@mfa.gov.al) and ask them. --alchaemia (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This article from a couple of weeks ago confirms that Albania has yet to open an Embassy in Kosovo. Bernerd (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

EULEX

This might be relevant for the article: EU accepts Belgrade’s conditions for EULEX [20]. — Emil J. 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'll add it.--Avala (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That hasn't been confirmed yet by the EU, and its representative to Kosovo says otherwise.[21] --alchaemia (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was confirmed by the EU. Jeremic made that statement before but OK we can wait until November 11, nothing is urgent. And that source in Albanian could say anything but I don't see it being reported in English language media which did report on the EU confirmation.--Avala (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And your sources in Serbian which you use through this article can mean anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. Let's wait until the EU confirms this. Feith is denying that an agreement has been reached, and Jeremic is saying how they're "close" to an agreement. --alchaemia (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need anything more than a passing reference to this. It's really more appropriate for the EULEX article. Bazonka (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"EU Envoy Says No Serb Deal on EULEX" [22] Guess we'll have to wait a couple more days/weeks to see what is happening. --alchaemia (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, Avala, I guess your edit was premature then? Glad you're keeping your silence now. --alchaemia (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was but at the time it didn't seem to be. Reports were pretty clear. How was I supposed to know that the Leviathan EU doesn't know what is it doing and that they will start refuting each other? I said it already that I don't come here and make some ridiculous edits out of my head but based on news reports. Obviously if they are wrong then my edit is wrong too but it happens. It happens because the motto of the EU is not "united in diversity" but "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing". Also the problem was caused by Pristina which doesn't want to accept the plan agreed between Serbia and UN for which they were rebuked by Kouchener (something that I don't think anyone thought we would ever see).--Avala (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not important why it was caused, and who "rebuked" whom. There is prudence in waiting for more sources when it comes to things like that. I say the same thing when some people are quick to add X country to Y column, or vice-versa. Not saying you did this one on purpose, but sometimes more critical thinking, and less triumphalism is necessary from both sides. --alchaemia (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there were at least 5 sources and all from reliable world known media companies like IHT or AFP. But it wasn't their fault to report on it nor mine to add it here, it was the fault of the EU to act like this.--Avala (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

New recognitions are coming!

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200811051369/Politics/British-FM-Kosovo-has-its-seat-in-the-European-family.html

Max Mux (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it your suggestion to add to the article "Kosova Report says that there are many other countries in the process to announce the recognition."? And we already know and have it in the article anyway, far more detailed on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh.--Avala (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That source doesn't say much about new recognitions... Ijanderson (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkan Insight Source: Ive updated Mozambique with this source. Also in this source, Hyseni has claims that Micronesia, East Timor, and Oman are to recognise soon. I'm not sure if we can use this source to further update the article and mention Micronesia, East Timor, and Oman because it is coming from Hyseni not them. Ijanderson (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Secretariat of State of Holy See said that they have no plans of recognition.[23] To me it seems they are not looking to anger the Orthodox countries because of their unification plan. There is no unification with Islam planned so they are appeasing Serbs instead of Albanians. My idea comes from that "At the same time, the Catholic Church wishes to maintain good relations with the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) and to continue the ecumenical dialogue, which is making progress, it was stated at the State Secretariat."--Avala (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vatikan position changes daily.Especially after new Pope came to office.Before it was a more liberal position of pope John Paul II , but now Ratzinger or BENEDICT is taking a huge U-turn and is channeling his ambitions towards Orthodox churches.I believe its more important, that some countries are coming with opinion, that didnt proclaim a definite YES OR NO.One of such counties is Mozambique.If this country does in fact recognizes Kosovo, especially with geo-location and importance, this would really diminish positition of South Africa, even more towards rapidly changing their minds.Now, we all have heard conflicting news.Lybia was for some Serbs, completely pro Serbian stance on Kosovo.But then you have some Lybian foreign ministers saying other things, and saying that we support Kosovo.I believe there are are some countries, that i believe come under Conflicting sources and not Serbian ones.Some of those countries are:Egypt,Lybia and South Africa.Vatican was always leaning Pro-Serb, in its position, so gloating that such country have said that it supports decisions of Serbia, while important country like Mozambique is saying otherwise.I know for some Mozambique might not be as important as Vatican, but if you count current recognitions of Kosovo(Few of them actually are African countries).You come under serious threat towards Serbian ambition, to cut down Kosovo recognition.I believe that New Zealand will now lean Kosovar way, and believe it will recognize soon.New conservative government in office.Also, those countries that voted against Serbian resolutin on Kosovo would recognize Kosove.They are Micronesia and Palau.New Zealand is a key country towards rest of the Undecideds in the Pacific realm.If they do recognize Kosovo, it will be a huge blow to the Serbian cause, and Pacific will definately go for Kosovo, along with the rest of recognitions.This will slightly give boost to Kosovo.But i believe if Kosovo wants a Un seat, for now it must pass the 100 countries, it must and i REPEAT.It must seriously lobby towards African countries, since this is where bulk of Non-recognizers are

I was expecting some news from:Haiti, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei,Saudi's,Yemen,Lebanon

And also i want to hear some of those Carribean countries and their opinions.While Pacific is going for Kosovo, one country at a time.Carribean is without position.Bermuda,Dominica,Jamaica,and few islands and islets in those countries.Small countries that most have never heard off.This is where big gain can be accomplished, if you do a good strategy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.20.152 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vatican was not pro Serbian. It was seen as the biggest enemy of Serbia during John Paul II. But now things have changed indeed with Pope Benedict XVI. He is pro cooperation and wants to unite Christian churches. And even if Kosovo is recognised by 50 more countries (what Kosovar PM predicted to happen immediately) it would still leave Kosovo in the same status as Palestine (96 recognistions). Just as Palestinians can't enter the UN without the US, Kosovo will not be able to do it without Russia and China.--Avala (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

China has not said anything about a veto, so don't put words in their mouth. As for the Vatican, its "refusal" to recognize for now, is in no way a game changer; the Vatican is important to some spiritually, but politically it is entirely irrelevant. It's not a UN member, "so it's not even a state", as some Serbs would say ;) Obviously, recognition by anyone is welcomed by Kosovo, but right now there are bigger fish in the sea. --alchaemia (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vatican unlike Kosovo can be admitted to the UN tomorrow if they wanted to. What big fish? All big fish have made up their mind. US, UK, Germany, Japan recognised, Russia, China, India, Brazil did not. Who is left to state their opinion? Mugabe?--Avala (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Big fish in relation to Vatican. Saudi Arabia is one example. Also, I was under the impression that a country "wasn't a country until it's a member of the UN." Now we see a little bit of revisionism (to borrow the communist mantra) and now "a country is not a country if it's not a member of the UN, but Vatican is because it can become a member if it so wishes, which it doesn't." Um, okay, sure. --alchaemia (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes because Vatican is a permanent observer state which has all the rights of full membership except voting. You can't say the same about Kosovo or Taiwan.--Avala (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan WAS UN member until the 70's. Kosovo will be eventually unless serbia attacks or something. Also russia has no moral standing or any real bedrock for not recognizing kosovo since august so.--Jakezing (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan WAS UN member until the 70's. This is a misunderstanding, it was not about the recognition of a state, but about the recognition of the legitimate government of "China". There was no change of UN membership. Before 1971, the Republic of China was representing China, afterwards the People's Republic (see China and the United Nations). There is really no link with the situation of Kosovo, since Kosovo will never take Serbia's seat in the UN.... --DaQuirin (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a f**k crap about Taiwan and UN membership. The heading of this discussion is "New recognitions are coming!", I don' think Taiwan has anything to do with this. This talk page is for improvement of the article not a forum. Ijanderson (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a government is an important issue. Taiwan is often coming up in the discussions, though it is a misleading example indeed. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes well the Taiwan Question is a issue that cannot be handled with a true POV. And when did I say that Kosovo would take Serbia's position. That would be madness.--Jakezing (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Greece "Accepts Kosovo Reality"

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/14908/ They may recognise Kosovo soon. Emto (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it's not true but just like the last time it would be nice if at least some Greek media reported on it. According to them it was reported by Studio B (just watched their news, not a sign of this) that Vizion Plus reported it but not a sign on Vizion Plus news section either [24]. When I search Greek news for Bakoyannis + Kosovo nothing new comes out. --Avala (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n160110

http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/greece-accepts-kosovo-reality/id_33044/catid_68 Bulgaria and the World

Greece 'accepts Kosovo reality' 13:51 Wed 19 Nov 2008

Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis says Athens will soon recognise Kosovo's independence because it has to accept the reality of the situation.

Speaking to Albanian media, Bakoyannis declared that Greece will soon recognise Kosovo’s independence, although stop short of naming a date for this decision.

“I don’t know what will happen later. I can say that we don’t actually recognise Kosovo, but we will soon,” she stated.

Bakoyannis blamed the delayed recognition on regional conflicts and goals that have inflicted the Balkans for many years but admitted that the truth cannot be changed.

“Kosovo’s problem is one of the oldest problems of the Balkans. We do not recognise its independence based on the principle of territorial integrity, but on the other side we know that the flow of the river cannot change,” she said.

Bakoyannis added that Greece has good relations with Kosovo.

“We have opened an office there, and deal with affairs between people,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Greek foreign minister also highlighted excellent relations with Serbia.

“With Serbia, we have had excellent relations for a long time. We support their ambitions to join the European Union and hope that during the last couple of years improvements have occurred there, which will allow them to become closer to the EU,” she said.

Greece is one of the five EU member states that have still not recognised Kosovo’s independence. The others are Romania, Spain, Slovakia and Cyprus.

Since declaring independence in February of this year, Kosovo has been recognised by 52 countries around the world.

On this article the word "Soon" is Bullshit. Suadi Arabia said the same thing; back in the summer.--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek Ambassador to Belgrade Hristos Panagopulos held a conference to announce that allegations on Greek recognition and quotes supposedly made by Dora Bakoyannis are false and added that she said "Greece does not recognise Kosovo, nor will Greece do it in foreseeable future".[25]

First of all there is no need to keep the "quotes" because they are obviously misquotes. Second of all, Greek ambassador made a statement not a sentence. There is also no need to run anything through Google Translate when we have a source in English. Some media that translate news to English picked up the most important bits of the statement and published it. For an example Press talks in Serbian about ambassador saying how Karamanlis and Papoulias reiterated the position during the meeting with Cvetkovic in Athens but B92 didn't put that in their English report which clearly shows he made a longer statement than one sentence. And finally "Balkan Insight reporting on Albanian media" is much less precise than saying which media exactly and those are Vizion+ and Koha Ditore. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We should include what both sources say, thats only neutral. Ijanderson (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, why are we taking for granted what B92 reports but we are not doing the same thing for BalkanInisight? In the article it says "according to Albanian media" while it is very clear that BalkanInsight is not "Albanian media." On the other hand, it does not say "according to Serbian media" when we read the section about the Greek ambassador to Belgrade. Why the double standard? --alchaemia (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this quote by the Greek FM is pretty good and neutral and should be added to the Greek description box: “Kosovo’s problem is one of the oldest problems of the Balkans. We do not recognise its independence based on the principle of territorial integrity, but on the other side we know that the flow of the river cannot change,” she said.

Unless anyone here wants to dispute the fact that she even said those words. Exo (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

@Avala It is certainly "not obvious" that Bakoyannis' quote is false. Perhaps it isn't true, perhaps she spoke out of turn, perhaps the Albanian media invented it all - we don't know, it isn't obvious whether she said or didn't say it. If you look at my previous edit you will notice that I wrote "she is quoted as saying", not "she said" - this is a subtle but important difference. You cannot deny that she was quoted as saying those things. Ijanderson is right, in order to maintain a balanced article we must give both sides to the story. If, and only if, it becomes apparent that she definitely never said those things, then we can remove the quote. I will replace it.

Regarding removing references to Vizion+ and Koha Ditore, the source we use (Balkan Insight) simply says that Bakoyannis was "speaking to Albanian media", therefore any mention of the specifics would require a seperate source - however, I don't feel that these specifics are necessary. But I guess that this isn't that important, so I shall let this part of your edit stand.

The reason I used Google to translate the Serbian B92 article, is because that was the article that you referenced!!! (As far as I could tell, this Serbian article didn't mention the Greek Foreign Ministry.) I didn't know that an English language version existed. If you'd put a reference to this version, then of course I'd have used it. I see your latest edit now sources this English version. Bazonka (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So if some joke media in Serbia reported "GWB says - my final decision will be to derecognise Kosovo" would you fight vigorously to add it and keep it in the article, and even after the White House denied such claims?--Avala (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that depends. If it really was a joke, then it shouldn't be incuded; if it was a retraction of a previous statement, then it should. To my mind, the Bakoyannis quote is neither funny nor satirical enough to be a joke. But I honestly don't know what happened (and neither do you). I think the best thing to do is to simply record that this was reported and let the readers of the article make up their minds whether to believe it or not. Bazonka (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't knows who's to blame about these cheap games, either the Greek MFA is playing, trying to balance things with statements to both sides, each statement intepreted in a way to contradict the other, or at least one media report is full of lies. Anyhow, we are not a newsroom and freshness is not a priority, it starts to look like a press log there. Bringing info wars to this article is devaluating it if you ask me. I'll search the Greek media for any reference extensively sometime soon, nothing there with a quick look so far. --Zakronian (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Vizion+ made the whole thing up, especially since it was an interview and more than likely, they captured it on tape. I wish they would release the tape with a translation so we could see what she actually said. --alchaemia (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well i can't find any mention here, the government has some responsibility in this, regardless the degree of distortion in both statements. It leaves a negative impression of their purpose, not refuting anything. Although tangent to this specific matter i'm posting an opinion article (unfortunetely only in Greek) by a Greek expert on international affairs, Delastik. Although having strong affiliations with far-left groups (and probably being sacked from Kathimerini after US pressure because of that) he's very good at his job, widely considered reliable. He's more or less criticizing the Serb officials of showing hypocricy and submissiveness, conslusively "selling the game". It's not reflecting puclic opinion here (almost entirely pro-Serbian), but may share some common ground with the view of the political elite. It might help you understand the situation, as i said before the issue of such a decision is very complex. Cyprus, Russia, how such a move can be served to the people with minimum cost, the fact that all the opposition parties have expressed a clear negative position on a possible recognition, the government being already weak with the smallest parliamentary majority possible, that's some basic stuff summarized. I was hoping you leave the Greek position section rest untill something really concrete comes up.

http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=11826&subid=2&tag=8953&pubid=1716608 --Zakronian (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I cannot see any relation between the Greek opinion for Kosovo and the Delastik`s analysis. There is nothing about Greece in there, and as the matter of fact somebody who says "a illegal state" is surely onesided.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I said already this is an opinion article, not presented as a source for anything. Whatever you mean by "Greek opinion", i was specific that it might be an indication of how well educated on the matter prominent political figures see the situation today, nothing to say about expressed official positions, more of a political background atmosphere analysis. This in correlation with the other factors i mentioned, in other words, to say something like "we know where things are probably going but...". Clear now ?--Zakronian (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish ambassador

Is it really correct to say "Ambassador of Ireland to Kosovo, subordinate to the Embassy in Budapest from 11 November 2008"? There are (as far as I know) two sources for this. The one we are using [26] is written in crazy moon language :) and so I have no idea what it says. The second [27] seems to indicate that the Irish ambassador to Belgrade met with Kosovo's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, but it doesn't state that he's now also the Irish ambassador to Kosovo (whether subordinate or not). Unless the Albanian source says otherwise, I think we are showing false information here. Can anyone translate? Bazonka (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland has no embassy in Belgrade. This is a simple case of Irish ambassador in Hungary becoming an ambassador on non-residential basis in Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone post a translation of the Albanian article here please? Bazonka (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation is as follows:

"Irish Ambassador brings diplomatic credentials. Prishtina, November 18th, 2008 – President Sejdiu, Prime Minister Thaci and Foreign Affairs Minister Skender Hyseni have met in the joint meeting the Irish Ambassador in Budapest Mr. Martin Green who brought the diplomatic credentials. In this meeting President Sejdiu and Prime Minister Thaci have thanked Ambassador Green for the general support Ireland has and is giving to Kosovo. On the other hand Irish Ambassador Green has expressed his gratitude for being the representative of his country to Republic of Kosovo."

It seems that Irish Embassy in Budapest will also cover issues related to Kosovo--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia officially recognizes Kosovo passports

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2008&mm=11&dd=28&nav_id=331112&nav_category=640

http://vesti.krstarica.com/?rubrika=aktuelno&lang=0&sifra=7d44c1e84dda5833034d33d1ec17c7e5&dan=28&mesec=11&godina=2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Added with English Language source. Ijanderson (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should address with this development the POV issues within the Slovakia write-up. Someone mentioned the issue of undue weight in another thread. :) This write-up is skewed and undue weight has been assigned certain media quotes, out of proportion with official state communiques on the subject. Needs immediate fixing. --Mareklug ^talk

Yemen

Yemen is not in the list at all. Maybe could be put only the reaction at the IJC vote

Current state of Kosovo recognitions: the POV in this article

According to user:Avala

  Kosovo

  States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States which have stated they intend to recognise formally Kosovo as independent.

  States with undecided, unclear or ambiguous positions.

  States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations.

  States which have stated that they do not recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States with no reported position at present.

According to user:Mareklug

  Kosovo

  States formally recognising Kosovo as independent.

  States about to formally recognise.

  States with ambiguous positions, delaying recognition or remaining neutral.

  States concerned over unilateral moves or calling for negotiations in the framework Serbia vs. Serbia's province.

  States officially rejecting Kosovo's independence.

  No information.

I hope the current state of these two maps will re-justify the POV template still hanging over this article since June, and the bickering over editing still going on. --Mareklug ^talk 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Both maps are subjective. The problem with the maps is that one has too much dark orange and one has too much beige, when they should both have a lot more light orange IMHO Ijanderson (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They accurately reflect the subjectivity, don't they? It is this subjectivity which is responsible for the POV template and the bickering over editing. That was my point. --Mareklug ^talk 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had a choice for the map, it should only have four colors; Kosovo, states who said yes, states who said no, and the rest are grey. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but what is a "no"? That's the problem, and where a lot of the subjectivity comes in - it's not always obvious. There's no legal difference between a country that says no, one that says maybe, one that says will do soon, and one that says nothing at all - they're all non-recognisers. It's best (NPOV) to show just the yeses and lump all the others together. (NB. Since we are not using, or proposing to use, either of the above two maps, the argument about which is best is irrelevant here. The Stop template is entirely valid.) Bazonka (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to use Mareklugs Map. --84.56.237.136 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are, IP 84.56.237.136.

@Bazonka: I came here to catch up on the discussion, after toiling on the Polish wikipedia in various non-Kosovo contexts and elsewhere on English Wikipedia, chiefly in music biographies. And I am pleasantly surprised, that one of the two discused here Commons Kosovo_relations(2) maps, the one I maintain with several other article editors, has now been suggested for inclusion in our article.

In light of this suggestion, I find that this particular talk section has instantly become on-topic in a brand new, unintended by me way.

Accordingly, I hereby altogether remove the anonymous template advising to the contrary. Besides, that template also mentions some other, unrelated to my point graphic, and no one wishes to consider that graphic for this discussion. It was briefly injected here as violation of WP:POINT within my signed and dated statement (clearly, in a violation of the integrity of my say). At the very least, such sentiments and points of view should always be clearly marked as somebody's, not attributed to me or God. (i.e., appear miraculously in discussion:)).

In any case, unsigned, ugly template use, is universally discouraged: If one cannot say what one means, or to persuade others, in plain English, clearly such psychological tricks betray the inefficacy of one's substantive position. And these monstrosities constitute at least graphical hubris, if not terror, and lack in respect for the calm, thinking Wikipedian. Their use constitutes forcible editing, the sort that we are discussing as detrimental to Wikipedia, as is editing which spreads non-neutral characterizations of reality. Isn't this self-evident? Best wishes to all. --Mareklug ^talk 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Image:Kosovo_relations2.svg in this article, perhaps in the Other states section. --Mareklug ^talk 00:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, based on the notorious IP user we are now going to discuss returning of the map. Especially the one which completely ignores the reaction from some countries. Btw when we removed the multicoloured map this article calmed down significantly, but as I uncovered your goal below in this talk page (destruction of the article) I am not surprised you are proposing this. I wonder if the notorious IP which continues to spam this talk page is someone of the regular editors using a proxy? And you had a pre-block warning endorsed by an admin for removing comments from this talk page but you are doing it again. Should I alarm the administration you are not obeying their orders?--Avala (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am only answering, since you are talking to me, in second person. I wish to have no communications from you whatsover, and I consider your edits on my talk page harassment. I have informed of this User:Husond (an administrator, who has intervened on this page and elsewhere in related issues before), on his talk page, several weeks ago, and documented it then. At that time, I also documented with diffs your 6 reverts of 5 editors in a span of 3 days, pushing the same false content (Poland vs. Kosovo diplomatic relations). You were amazingly not disciplined then by anyone. I hope this overlooked item may be revisited.

Since you asked: I think you should calm down, and avoid making baseless insiniuations, outright lies, and refrain from injecting other unhelpful characterizations of editors, including me. Assume good faith. And leave the conspiracy theories at home. We are all equal, under Wikipedia, whether we edited never, exactly once, 12 thousand times, or anonymously, as logged in users, as administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, or whatever other class of user you care to name. While I have your ear, please kindly stop terrorizing us graphically. Do always sign your "templates", as opposed to creating an intended impression of some higher being, or police state, acting on your behalf. Above all, consider joining us in editing this Kosovo article and its related maps impartially, neutrally, solidly, calmly, and collaboratively. Without a nationalistic agenda. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only your fantasy that Polish-Kosovo diplomatic relations was "false content" and "outright lies" because it was well sourced. You not liking what Polish President said, for subjective reasons, is a completely different issue for which we simply don't care. Yes indeed we don't care about your feelings. Just because you dislike what Polish President said doesn't annul that he said it. You know, your words don't have strength to silent or reverse the words of the Polish President. It would be like if someone pushed for removal of some quote by George W. Bush he disliked by calling it a lie - that wouldn't be serious and this what you wrote above is not any more serious either.--Avala (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mareklug. He seems to mix me up with someone else. His problem, not ours. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst Mareklug's map is preferable to Avala's, there is still much scope for POV. The only NPOV solution is to show only those countries that have officially recognised. I support neither of these maps - we should keep what we have at the moment (although I think the previous PNG version looked nicer, but that's a separate argument). Bazonka (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka Avala's map includes Avala's interpretations and views, whilst Marek's map includes Mareks's interpretations and views. They are both subjective, making them both as bad as each other. The only objective map we can have on this article is the current one. Ijanderson (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maps/graphics like this can easily become yawning PoV traps. Given the history of this article, none should be used until an overwhelming consensus for one (and how it is updated) has been gathered here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As long as we don't have Mareklugs map in the article (which I regret) we should use what we have at the moment, but never Avalas map as it is extremely POVish. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree methodologically with Ian and Gwen. after all, I started this seciton to make precisely that point, and none other :). I thank Bazonka and IP 84.56.*.* for kind words. In an ideal world, reasonable people could and would agree to adhere to the map legend of my map, regardless of dialectic used, provided they checked their blinders at the door. Geography and political science literature abound in maps of precisely this sort. It is, I feel, a matter of integrity of their authorship, not a priori deficiency of map-making, when coloring the map requires honesty. --Mareklug ^talk 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@Mareklug, I fail to see how any bickering over the two maps justifies the POV template for this article, because the maps aren't in the article! Do you feel that there are other reasons for keeping the template? If not, it should be removed. Bazonka (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The bickering over maps is actually demonstration of POV-based reality assessment rampant in this article. Today's Slovakia development undersores the POV nature of the existing Slovakia write-up. It needs to be pruned of undue weight media quotes stitched together into a carpet meant to showcase Serbian viewpoint on the matter of Slovakia policy on Kosovo. I suggest we take care of it first, and then take a fresh look at India, China, New Zealand, Egypt, Libya, to name a few of the top of my head. --Mareklug ^talk

So the Slovakia entry is POV because we didn't add that they recognise Kosovo passports when they said they don't, that we didn't look in the future to find out the unfolding of events? Oh really? And maybe you should first examine Angola, Egypt, Sudan, Iran to name a few on your map before lecturing others.--Avala (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would like to find out what the Angloan MFA thinks about Kosovo, their website is not accessible to me. Maybe you will have more luck? I don't think a letter from the President to Serbian prime minister is exactly definitive of what Angola's government said, if anything, of Kosovo independence. The link: http://www.mirex.ebonet.net/ As for Iran, Sudan -- I don't think the information available justifies coloring them any definite shade. Again, lending undue weight to media quotes is not encyclopedic in determining state actions. Ditto for Egypt, which appears headed for recognition real soon now, based on its emissary's statements made in Kosovo; clearly this is no different than Indian ambassador's statements made in Serbia. Yet your coloring of your map is radically divergent in these two cases. How do you justify that? If an emissary of India saying things in Serbia for the benefit of his hosts suffices to color India red, then similar definitive words by an Egyptian in Kosovo suffices to turn Egypt light blue. But Egypt and India are both red on your map. I choose to view Indian MFA traffic as definitive on the issue, and I advise that you do the same. --Mareklug ^talk 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you want downplay the Angolan President and put the MFA above him (even though the MFA didn't even make statements which makes it even more ridiculous) doesn't mean that it is the right thing. Do you also think that Vaclav Klaus is above the Czech Govt and that his thoughts are above the Govt decision? Because it's basically the same thing to your suggestion that the Angolan MFA which didn't make a statement equals neutrality while you propose that we must ignore the words of the Angolan president. The sole reason for it to be ignored is your idea that we should ignore it. Nothing else stands behind that proposal, just your odd idea to ignore. I'd call it ignorance for the sake of it. "Emissary" of Egypt interestingly was never ever mentioned online except in those Kosovo reports and supposedly he is the former deputy FM and the advisor to the President. Quite odd don't you think? And equalizing an official ambassador to some doubtful emissary is of course ridiculous and you know it. Yes you know it but you just want to stir the discussion in the wrong direction as always in attempt to downgrade the article. I'll never understand this urge. Then you take the decision in your hands to what is definitive and what justifies the conclusion on some country's position. Only someone blinded with POV or working for the Kosovo govt can have doubts over what did Ahmadinejad think when he said that after considering the region's issues and conditions, Iran had not recognised the independence of Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please can you restrain yourselves from discussing how countries are shaded on maps that aren't in this article. This is the place to discuss the text and images in this article only. Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, my considered reply to you was strictly on topic. I was forced to defend my edits on Wikimedia projects after the topic was deflected once more to obfuscate the need for local corrections. Please make haste in showing good lead by making corrective edits in Slovakia, would you? --Mareklug ^talk 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote Shakespeare: "Much ado about nothing"

I cite: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." and furthermore: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention and from the German Wiki about "diplomatic recognition": "Trotz fehlender diplomatischer Beziehungen kann ein Staat als solcher anerkannt sein. So hat die Bundesrepublik Deutschland bis Ende der 1960er Jahre diplomatische Beziehungen zu Ländern beendet oder nicht aufgenommen, die mit der früheren DDR diplomatische Beziehungen unterhielten (Ausnahme: Sowjetunion). Der Grund war die Hallstein-Doktrin." I try to translate: "Even if there is no diplomatic recognition a state can be recognized as such. West Germany had till the end of the sixties refused diplomatic recognition of countries that had diplomatically recognized East Germany. The reason was the Hallstein Doctrine". Same thing with China and Taiwan. There are 23 countries not recognizing China but Taiwan. Is China not a country? So I really do not understand what does it matter how many or if any countries recognize another country! What is all this hysteria about? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Many countries/ governments were only partially recognised post WW2 and in the Cold War era. Why should that be any different now? Ijanderson (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between simply non recognising and disputing some county. And those mutual non recognitions during the cold war, it was not the curiosity of it, it was one of the main factors behind it, so it's not that simple issue nor a naive one. It's the tension creating issue.--Avala (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly this difference between simply non recognising and disputing is something that you, dear Avala, seem to neglect. Keeping in mind that most countries simply do not recognise does by far not mean that they are disputing something. So if you, dear Avala, compare, how many countries did recognise and how many did dispute, even you have to admit that there are many more that recognised than disputed. Most countries just don't care because it has nothing to do with the fact that Kosova is indeed an independent country. Their recognition would not change this fact, so why are you so desperately hinting about this fact that so many countries did not recognise? It seems to me you are in panic for some reason, like a person in a nightmare short time before awakening. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, interesting though this is... remember:

Bazonka (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, sorry if the discussion aim was not clear. I would appreciate if we could include in the article the fact that recogition is not necessary for a state to reach statehood. Can we agree on doing that? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does silence mean yes or no? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this addition. This article is about international reaction to the DOI of Kosovo, not about the statehood of Kosovo, thus this statement is off-topic. Furthermore, there are more theories of statehood, thus the statement is not neutral, and unless you can find published reliable sources applying this theory to Kosovo, it is also original research. (I personally agree with your interpretation, but that's not relevant.) — Emil J. 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kacin: Candidate status refers to Serbia without Kosovo

Source = emportal.co.yu

"If Serbia believes and wants to start talks on its accession in the EU, it is then Serbia without Kosovo, said Kacin, who is in Belgrade to take part in the second inter-parliamentary meeting of the EU and Serbia. European Parliament Rapporteur for Serbia Jelko Kacin on Wednesday stated that he would like to help Serbia on its way to the European Union, but underscored that the status of a candidate state for Serbia does not include Kosovo. If Serbia believes and wants to start talks on its accession in the EU, it is then Serbia without Kosovo, said Kacin, who is in Belgrade to take part in the second inter-parliamentary meeting of the EU and Serbia. He underscored that he always refers to Serbia without Kosovo, because he is in charge for Serbia without Kosovo, which, according to him, is a separate problem. I believe that at the moment there are no citizens in Serbia who believe that the status of a candidate state for Serbia would apply to Kosovo too, said Kacin. Even if there is someone who believes that, I have to say that there are no conditions in Kosovo for Kosovo to become a candidate state, either as a separate country or as part of Serbia, said Kacin."
Can we include this into the article? Ijanderson (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added in the column for Slovenia though I think we agreed to add only some kind of higher officials.--Avala (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to include this information anywhere, it should go in the European Union section. Bazonka (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

EU makes more sense Ijanderson (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's undue weight in the EU section. Some other EU MPs, namely Greek ones, have said the opposite but we don't include it.--Avala (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Support inclusion in the European Union section. It would not be undue weight. He is after all European Parliament Rapporteur for Serbia, and those Greeks,whoever they are (name them), are just MPs. To mention their stance would be undue weight (undue with regard to weight given all the other garden variety EU MPs). --Mareklug ^talk 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapporteur for Serbia with whom Serbian officials don't want to deal with - [28]--Avala (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reality denial on the part of the Government of Serbia is not congruent with reality as we know it. The EU Parliament's actions already noted in this article show this divergence in this case. --Mareklug ^talk 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are suggesting that we add that to the article? That we add "Reality denial on the part of the Government of Serbia is not congruent with reality as we know it"? But you know what I told you before, we don't want your POV here AT ALL. Sorry.--Avala (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Avala, on your user page you write that you are "Admin of Serbian wiki" and you are talking about POV? Believe me, even if you would not have written this on your page, your POVishness would have suggested just this. And yes of course, Reality denial is never congruent with reality. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)