Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

ARCHIVES 30 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY A BOT IN 29 ONWARDS!

Template:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo Archive Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Montenegro

• here ya go http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=188335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.140.5 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• and here is today's news (3 Oct.) from the debate in the Montenegrin Parliament: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3cjz14X3Q9UHXtG_Tn2DfAnVd3g

Kosovo independence is 'a reality'

The Press Association (in Google aggregate)

13 minutes ago (0955 CST USA 3 Oct 2008)

Kosovo's independence is a reality, Montenegro's foreign minister has said, suggesting his government would recognise the new state even though that would anger traditional ally Serbia.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February. It has won recognition from the US and most nations in the European Union. But Serbia - backed by Russia - has refused to acknowledge the split.

Montenegrin recognition of Kosovo would be a major blow to Serbia, because the two Balkan republics have close historical and cultural ties. Montenegro was the only former Yugoslav republic which stayed in the union with Serbia after the federation broke up in 1991. Montenegro split from Serbia in 2006.

Serbian officials have appealed to neighbouring states to refrain from recognising Kosovo.

In a latest bid to maintain claim on the region, Serbia has moved to question Kosovo independence at the International Court of Justice.

But Montenegrin foreign minister Milan Rocen said during a parliamentary debate that "an independent Kosovo is a political reality ... and Montenegro has no right to close its eyes before that fact".

He said it was up to individual countries to decide whether to recognise Kosovo or not.

In Pristina, Kosovo's President Fatmir Sejdiu urged Montenegro and Macedonia, another former Yugoslav republic, to recognise Kosovo's independence quickly.

"It is a good answer from countries that are now sovereign and with which we were in a state union that is now destroyed and does not exist," Sejdiu said.

Kosovo has been run by a UN administration since a 1998-99 war.

--Mareklug ^talk 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Looks like more article updating is called for (link reference prepared with {{cite web}} for easy copy-and-paste into our article: "Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation". Focus. Sofia: Focus News Agency (Bulgaria). 2008-10-04. Retrieved 2008-10-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |languge= ignored (help)

Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation

4 October 2008 | 11:25 | FOCUS News Agency

Podgorica. The Parliament of Montenegro adopted a resolution for speeding the European Integration with a position that the European orientation would be a position for the solution of the issue with the independence of Kosovo, the Serbian daily Blic reports. The resolution, which was qualified by the opposition as formal recognition of the independence of Kosovo was supported by 45 MPs from the ruling coalition.

--Mareklug ^talk 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• 7 October 2008, more indication from the horse's mouth (the President) of imminent recognition by Montenegro:

Associated Press (2008-10-07). "Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo". International Herald Tribune. New York: The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-10-07.

Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo

The Associated Press

Published: October 7, 2008

PODGORICA, Montenegro: Montenegro's president has indicated his tiny Balkan state will recognize Kosovo's independence despite bitter opposition from traditional ally Serbia.

President Filip Vujanovic said Tuesday that the decision will have to be made soon because of Montenegro's desire to become an European Union and NATO member. He said recognition of Kosovo is an "obvious condition" for integration.

Serbia's Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic on Monday warned Montenegro against recognizing Kosovo, which split from Serbia in February, saying it would represent "a stab in the back."

Serbia and Montenegro have close historical and cultural ties and comprised a single state until 2006.

This article [1] says that today Macedonia and Montenegro will decide about recognising Kosovo. here is the english article too [2]. BTW it is b92.net source. --Lilonius (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro recognized http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/09/europe/EU-Montenegro-Kosovo-Serbia.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.125 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source Re Montenegro and Macedonia recognizing Kosovo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122358590057620353.html 141.166.230.9 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal

Hi there, i'm from Portugal, sorry if i do not know how to work with wikipedia, but today the news here said that Portugal, is going to declare either it recognizes Kosovo, or it doesn't, next Tuesday (7th October) many political analysts here say that, this declaration will obviously recognize Kosovo's independence, because if it didn't, there wouldn't be any declaration. Well, just thought you should know, I'll report back next Tuesday then, see ya... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.213 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No Crystal Balling please.--Jakezing (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

hes not crystal balling Jakezing. [3][4] Russia is saying that Portugal might recognise soon due to pressure from the West. Ijanderson (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Crystal balling? I'm just giving information, I'm not assuming anything... And further all, i live here, i believe i know the portuguese reality better than you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.105.213 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And i live in the US, and yet i don't know half my countries foriegn policy, though thats more fromn a lack of interest comapred to my normal studies.--Jakezing (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To the IP address, crystal balling is where we guess on the future, almost like fortune telling. As for what I found, nothing from government websites. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the IP address, and thanks for the explanation Zscout, but i did know what the expression meant lol, as for you Jakezing, I understand you have given many and valuable contributes to Wikipedia, nevertheless you shouldn't denigrate other peoples information, if you wanted links for this, i can give you plenty, in portuguese though...[[5]][[6]][[7]]Want more? (Gomes89 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Here we go, with Earthtimes.org translating today's (3 Oct) Publico dispatch: Portugal preparing to recognize Kosovo: reports ("Posted: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:36:10 GMT")

Lisbon - Portugal is preparing to recognize the independence of Kosovo, media reported Friday. Foreign Minister Luis Amado may disclose the date of recognition on Tuesday, when he will inform a parliamentary foreign affairs commission about Portugal's stance, the daily Publico said.

Amado is currently holding meetings with the parliamentary parties to discuss the issue.

Portugal wanted align itself with most other European Union countries, which have backed the February 17 independence declaration of the former Serbian province, the daily said.

The EU was believed to seek a unified position before the United Nations General Assembly discusses a Serbian request for a legal review of Kosovo's unilateral independence declaration on October 8.

Serbia's ambassador to Portugal, Dusko Lopandic, urged Portugal not to modify its position at the "sensitive juncture of the process" before the UN meeting.

Yes, it certainly looks like Portugal is going to recognise, but there are no direct quotes in the article above, or in any of the Portuguese articles that Gomes89 referenced (thanks Gomes). Let's wait till Tuesday when we should get something direct from the horse's mouth.

Incidentally, the 2nd of Gomes89's articles (DN Online) contains the following (translated badly by Google):

"When returned to New York, cited in Belgrade, the Serbian president said for the first time that it will accept the division of Kosovo as a last chance, if all the other failed. That would mean that the part of the Kosovo territory north of the river Ibar would be linked to Serbia. This is a chance that EU and U.S. would be willing to accept, western diplomatic sources told the newspaper Blic, ahead that we must, first, there is consensus among the Europeans." Bazonka (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It won't hurt to add something along these lines to the article under Portugal, now. Before, when Maltese Foreign Minister asserted that Portugal will recognize, editors here said, let's wait, until we have it confirmed from Portuguese source. Well, we do now. On Tuesday we can refine what we have further still.

As for the quoted bit, we can now find in Google News lots of texts written in English, pointing out that this partition of Kosovo idea has been firmly rejected by the USA and Germany. Angela Merkel said as much at the recent Berlin visit, where it was floated by the Serbian President. --Mareklug ^talk 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's today, Portugal will become the 48th country to recognize Kosovo's Independence, so I think it would be a good idea moving Portugal to the right list and put Portugal (don't forget Azores and Madeira) on the recogniton map. (Gomes89 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

It'll be moved when we have official confirmation, ideally from a Portuguese or Kosovan government source. Let us know if you spot anything in the Portuguese media stating that they have actually recognised - something saying that they are going to recognise today is unfortunately not strong enough evidence. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything of merit in this article? [[8]] As far as I can tell, Portugal has still not recognised. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, courtesy of translate.google.com:

Translation of Portuguese into English

Title -- PS and PSD prepared to follow allies in recognizing Kosovo

Author -- EVA CABRAL

Parliament. Amado explained to MPs today the position of the Portuguese Government The foreign minister will today explain to Members of the Parliamentary Committee for the development of the Portuguese position on the recognition of the Kosovo. Amado should remember the importance of pragmatism in international relations, and the fact that most partners of Portugal in NATO and the EU have already recognized the independence of Kosovo.

Jose Lello, responsible for international relations of the PS, said the DN that "foreign policy is directly linked with the real, ie with the interest and business in the country." Pointing out that most Portuguese allies have recognized Kosovo, a region where Australia has a military mission, the Socialist leader stressed that "until now the military contingent has not suffered reprisals by the fact that Portugal does not recognize the country, it is worrying the maintenance of this type of position. " According Jose Lello if "they were only by a sentimental or ideological position" certainly does not recognize the independence, adding that the level of international law "the UN already rewrite the history of Kosovo."

Also Jose Cesario, Deputy Coordinator of the Social Democrats in the Parliamentary Committee of Foreign Affairs ensures that "will listen very carefully to the explanations that Luis Amado.." The deputy Social Democrat recognizes that "foreign policy is always dominated by pragmatism" and so "in the case of Kosovo is necessary to assess the situation and see what is the most suitable time to recognize the country, taking into account the position already taken by partners of Portugal in the EU and NATO. " With regard to the presence of a military contingent in Kosovo Jose Cesario says that this is "a situation that is not new," not so "that we must change the position Portuguese."

Also towards the recognition of Kosovo is the PS MEP Ana Gomes who blog in Our Cause says that the recognition "is the conclusion that bring enhanced the end of a day to visit Serb enclaves within Kosovo, including the northern part of Mitrovica and to talk with senior local, Albanians, Serbs and international. " The MEP assumes that impressed "particularly the quality policy of the Mayor of Mitrovica, Bajram Rexhepi, and their efforts, even informally, maintain contact and seek work with the authorities in the northern part of the area that comply with Belgrade."

It is recalled that in the EU 21 countries have recognized Kosovo, missing only Spain, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Cyprus. In this list the Portuguese are not the only ones who have problems such as ethnic or territorial argument. Portugal was initially planned to enter the second round of European countries to recognize the independence, but the government preferred to wait, and the PR stressed the need to respect international law and attention to creating a precedent.

--Mareklug ^talk 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried the Google translator too. It seems a bit weird though... where did the mention of Australia come from??? There doesn't seem to be anything remotely similar in the original. Anyway, it would appear that there is no new news. Bazonka (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird how the translator put in "Australia" for "Portugal", otherwise not changing the sentence meaning. Anyway, Husond already confirmed that they recognized, and the article has been updated, map too. We're done here, at long last.

Here's a source that saya "Portugal recognizes Kosovo's independence" in Portuguese. I hope someone can offer a full translation. [9] --alchaemia (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done based on one more source provided in a new section below. --Mareklug ^talk 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia nearing recognition decision

This is according to the president. Here's the article: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/3794/2/ It seems we are close to getting Montenegro and Macedonia's positions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

for the love of god, this is just spam, evne if it was max who made it.WE WILL ADD IT ONCE THEY ANNOUNCE, NO MOVING, TIL THEN--Jakezing (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, Jakezing, I've yet to see you do anything of any value around here. I mean, you always comment on these talk pages but never in a helpful tone. When's the last time you brought some INSIGHT into a discussion rather than shouting and just jib-jab? The same thing is being reported on BalkanInsight and there's a video of him saying it. I'd say that the president of Macedonia has a pretty clear picture of how things will go vis-a-vis recognition and that we can take his word for it. This is not Ali Ahmeti or Menduch Thaci who, as Albanians, are predisposed to "making things up", according to some editors here. This is the president of the country and I'm sure that he's more versed in matters of Macedonian policy than you are. --alchaemia (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you more versed as well?--Jakezing (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, nor do I act like it, in contrast to you and your shouting. --alchaemia (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this from A1 too. Either way, he said there will soon be a decision, not that there will soon be recognition. We can speculate that it probably will be recognition, but does anyone think anything should be added to the article? BalkanFever 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you are seeking consensus and opinion of other editors but Mareklug has already expanded the article with this:

2 October 2008 in Brussels, Macedonia’s President Branko Crvenkovski stated that Macedonia’s government will very soon announce its decision on recognising Kosovo’s independence, as the time for reflection and analysis regarding the independence of Kosovo has passed and it is time for decision: “I expect from the government, which has the constitutional competence regarding this, to announce very soon the stance of our country concerning the independence of Kosovo.” Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

--Avala (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we've put other statements by Crvenkovski, I see no harm in including something to the tune of "President Crvenskoski has said that the government will soon reach a decision" adding that "the time for reflection has passed, now is the time for action." (I'm paraphrasing, of course). --alchaemia (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of shortening the section using the three Rs: rewording, rearranging, and removing. BalkanFever 10:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree with Jakezing that we should wait, however its not spam and Jakezing needs to keep calm and remain WP:CIVIL. Ijanderson (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, the caps... that was a weird thing with the kkeyboard fing up and not letting me turn off caps. and don't tell me that then don't remind that to our ip/user freind who is overly kosovar supporting--Jakezing (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean me?Max Mux (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (and Montenegro) recognized: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122358590057620353.html 141.166.230.9 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the positions of countries

We should not do this as it violates WP:NOTPAPER. If we have longer parts to the article, it is more detailed and richer in information. Ijanderson (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian, all things considered, if we were talking about good texts, sure. But these are haphazard, POV assemblies, carefully stitched together to create an impression. And in many cases, not important. If we want fair and cohesive, in most cases it will entail chucking what is there, in favor of ultimately shorter entires. And, as states recognize... --Mareklug ^talk 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but we should still take WP:NOTPAPER in to account when shortening, but I understand what you mean. Ijanderson (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for long, Featured Article content. :) But that takes a lot of dedicated editing. Incidentally, Ian, make sure you use {{cite web}} and its ilk: <ref name="This is a reference">{{cite web | url=http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=188335 | title=Montenegro to Decide on Kosovo Recognition Soon | work: [[Javno]] | publisher=Javno.com | location=[[Zagreb]], [[Croatia]] | date=2008-10-03 | accessdate=2008-10-03 | language=English}}</ref> and <ref name=This is a reference" /> for reuse. Using these consistently will not only make the References uniform but will allow switching the appearance should preference-based bibliographic schemes be ever incorporated into Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that you should not really use "language=English". English is the default on English WP, the parameter "language=" is there for foreign language sources. — Emil J. 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Ijanderson. Cutting and shortening is the violation of WP policies.--Avala (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutting and shortening in order to remove accumulated WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV and WP:VER violations, as well as to remove WP:OR is precisely in keeping with decent work, not just in writing encyclopedias, of which Wikipedia is one. It's easy to invoke WP:PAPER in order to shield dubious scholarship. As well as dubious poetry: If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter -- T.S. Eliot. We aspire to be editors, and that implies incisive edits, not spew forthwith as hacks. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Although there is an ongoing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. -- Wikipedia:Policies. --Mareklug ^talk 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been in favor of shortenings for quite some time now. Indeed we should not leave any room for POV while changes are made, but these changes will need to come because new statements keep coming and the older ones become irrelevant or repetitive. It makes the stance of a country confusing and inefficiently explained. Exo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia 2

Dear editors and readers:

I was dismayed by the recent edit marked with an edit summary of (unless there is a hierarchy reason we should stick to time and remove haris from bosnia per (mareklug will not object, he dislikes unofficial speeches)- http://www.24sata.info/17224) diff

• Practically from the inception of this topic back in Febuary 2008, Bosnia has been bitterly upehld and forcibly portrayed (despite reasoned opposition) on the basis of this article, and continues to be portrayed so on Image:Kosovo_relations.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg in red, as one of the "States that have stated they official do not recognize independent Kosovo".
• I and others have been meanwhile pointing out repeatedly, that Bosnia, like Cuba or Uruguay or Armenia, has not acted as states to this day in the matter of Kosovo recognition.
• The fact that Bosnia has not acted, and the assertion: "if there is deadlock, there is no action", were recently admitted to by the same editor, on this talk page (see #Bosnia from September 2008, above on the talk page, or already archived when you read this).
• He committed himself to correct those maps. He has not.
• What is being argued by him to this day, is crystal-balling along the lines: "Bosnia can't recognize Kosovo, because if it did, it would lose 1/2 of its territory. Or: Bosnia will never recoginise Kosovo, because its parliamentary structure prevents it from doing so. This is all, forgive me, outrageous and self-serving synthesis, unsupported by necessary instruments stipulated by the Wikipedia policy known as WP:VER, if only for the significant reason, that no source asserting this coupling was ever given in support of it.
• For the entire duration of this article, this editor and maybe 2 others, have insisted that Bosnia's alleged rejection of Kosovo independence (that is, Bosnia acting as one state in unison) was supported by one of those troublesome collages, weaved of quotes attributed to individual politicians. No one cared then, how official each quote was -- be it from official speeches, or revelations made by private partisan Serbian websites, or quotes quoted or paraphrased in neutral Turkish newspapers.
• I recently uncovered an unnanounced by anybody on this page interview given by the current Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia to Voice of America, which, according to the Indian website that reprinted the VOA press release, shows it to be not the speech given by him at the UN General Assembly in September 2008, but a separate interview given in his native tongue (one of them) and broadcast back to Bosnia. This item was removed in this edit, which otherwise involved putting items in a timeline. Nothing else was removed in this edit.
• The link given as justification in the edit summary makes no mention of VOA (the link is not in English). It is another Serb politician in Bosnia's, also member of collective Bosnian Presidency, individual take on how unofficial the his Bosniak counterpart's speech was at the UN GA, that the Bosniak only spoke as himself. Be that as it may, so ever has this Serbian-Bosnian! So have been all the politicians in our Bosnia write-up, except, perhaps, the FM, when announcing why, for technical reasons of local law, he can't accept Kosovan passports on his own, and defers the matter to the Bosnian Presidency. It certainly provides no justification for removing this significant departure from the assumed postion that Bosnia has been tarred with on Wikipedia, and continues to be represented as such at least on this talk page, and on the aforementioned maps of commons (inconistently with the map legend), therefore, misprepresented on other Wikipedia langauge versions that use these maps!
• Removal of this information, for the reasons given in the edit summary, strikes me as yet another unfortunate edit in a chronic series of such edits.

That is all I'm going to say on the score of this edit.

But I exhort the editors editing here should be particularly vigilant that NPOV and accurate relevant sourcing are used at all times. If we were to really remove unofficial speeches, unoffical species of speeches, in order to perform a normative cleanup/improvement, we mustn't start doing so by selectively removing only what this, which is forcing us to perhaps revise our long held cherished, hardened, partisan points of view.

Bosnia has not acted officially as a state. Deadlock, if there is one, does not formally imply the country as a country having taken a position. Bosnia cannot in good faith be represented on any Kosovo relations map, as one of the countries that have stated that they refuse to recognize Kosovo. They have stated nothing.

The removed content, reinstated to the article and reproduced below, mustn't be removed, as long as Bosnia-the-state continues to be portrayed on the basis of this article to have done what in fact it has yet to do.

This item presents a tangible suppressed evidence, and constitues a needed correction, indicating that within Bosnia and Herzegovina, its current President supports Kosovo independence (while the country's government has yet to act in the matter), and has told so his own people, in the local language, beyond and above any speeches he may have delivered or will deliver while addresing the UN General Assembly:

State	Evidence	International organisations
Bosnia and Herzegovina	On 26 September 2008 while attending General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, Bosnian President Haris Silajdžić said in a Voice of America interview broadcast back to Bosnia in local language that he supports Kosovo's independence and is opposed to Serbia's request that the International Court of Justice issue an opinion on the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence.

--Mareklug ^talk 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I cringe when I see news headlines such as this one: More on wikipedia abuse. (In tis case, it's a blog, but indexed by Google News, so very public, and it quotes a bonafide Register.co.uk article). Do we want our article to get singled out as Wikipedia abuse? I don't think so. Please edit accordingly. --Mareklug ^talk 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not good to ignore things. For an example you can see that I have posted this a couple of times yet you ignored it each time. I wont give up though. This is the reality, not the repetitive text blocks:

The House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 15 members equally distributed among the three ethnic groups in Bosnia: 5 Bosniaks, 5 Serbs, and 5 Croats. The members are appointed by the parliaments of the constituent republics. Their duty is to make sure that no law is passed unless all three groups agree on it.

--Avala (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BiH is a federation (and a very weak one at that), not a dictatorship. Haris Silajdžić has little influence as a result. --Tocino 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Even to represent Bosnia, the president of the presidency needs the allowance of the other two let alone make decisions.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there is a deadlock and no action has been taken. Therefore BiH is neutral, and has not officially rejected recognition by an act of a decree or declaration. As such, there is no need to color it red as having officially rejected recognition. I'm glad we agree. --alchaemia (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not neutral. Any recognition idea has been vetoed by Republika Srpska which means the answer from Bosnia is negative. They have said that they would leave BiH federation in case Bosnia would recognise Kosovo after which most of the Croatian and Bosniak politicians have decided not to support Kosovo (Silajdzic is not one of them obviously).--Avala (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm sorry but Republika Srpska is not in charge of foreign affairs; the presidency of BiH is, and the presidency has so far been divided on it, with Silajdzic supporting it, Komsic appearing neutral and Radmanovic against it. There's a deadlock, and when there's a deadlock, there's simply no action. Try not to sell Republika Srpska as a competent authority in charge of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it isn't. You simply can't claim that any decision on foreign affairs (or otherwise) has to be be a consensus decision of the presidency of BiH and then also claim that recognition was rejected when we clearly know, from the horse's mouth, that at least one member supports it. According to the sources we have, and the only ones that are valid, Bosnia is neutral and has not, to date, officially rejected recognition by an act of decree on the part of the presidency of Bosnia, the competent authority in charge of Foreign Affairs, among other things. --alchaemia (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

UN decision

I thought we should make a article about it. Macedonia for example will abstain.

• "Macedonia to abstain from UN GA vote". Tanjug. Belgrade: B92 radio. 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2008-10-07.

Max Mux (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree if avala and Ian agree to it... also, why macedonia, WHY, why couldn't you have found any other country saying so.--Jakezing (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the badly put external link, so it has the {{cite web}} form suitable for inclusion in main article. Max Mux, please make note of it. As for the actual news, it further aligns Macedonia with the EU majority. Hasn't EU decided to uniformly abstain? I propose adding one-sentence update to Macedonia writeup, but would prefer a Macedonian or neutral source. --Mareklug ^talk 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already suggested we should create and article on it. Any name suggestions? Ijanderson (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How about an article with the name "International Voting at the UN General Assembly for a World Court ruling on the legality of Kosovo's Independence" or "International Voting at the UN General Assembly for an ICJ ruling on the legality of Kosovo's Independence"? Any other suggestions? Ijanderson (talk)

It depends what happens - let's wait and see. I'm not sure we need a new article. Bazonka (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It would be interesting to see the positions of the different countries so or the other way.Max Mux (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source:

• "Macedonia 'to Abstain' From UN Kosovo Vote". Balkan Insight. Skopje: Balkan Insight. 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2008-10-07.

Max Mux (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons for an example International Court of Justice advisory opinion on declaration of independence by Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite as a model is about an OPINION, delivered, not about a possible opinion in some crystal-balling future! ""Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was an advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996.[1]". That's the article intro. ICJ might altogether refuse to hear the case!!! Jeez. --Mareklug ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea

We should add an extra column to say what they voted for at the UN GA. For example like this below.

	Country	Date of recognition	Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations	International organisations membership	Voting in the UN GA
1	Afghanistan	2008-02-18 First country to recognise Kosovo based on UTC			Against
2	Costa Rica	2008-02-18 (17 February 2008 local time)		United Nations Security Council (UNSC) non-permanent member at time of declaration	For

We can do the same for UN states which don't reccognise Kosovo. We could always changing the wording if need be. What you think? Ijanderson (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea. Lets make it so.Max Mux (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian, you have to make it absolutely clear, that this is a vote in the matter of referring to ICJ for legal advice in a non-binding way the question of legality of Kosovo declaration of independence. It is not a vote on the legality of declaration itself, and is not a straightforward reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence. It will only become obvious, if the header is linked to the appropriate yet-to-be-written article. And, as this vote is not "a reaction to the UDI", I have misgivings about coupling it with the reaction tables directly. Like I said before, a state may vote for this particular measure without any bearing on its recognition or lack of it. --Mareklug ^talk 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) P.s. This article discusses the ramifications and possible outcomes of the ICJ opinion, and also tells why Serbia asked for "advisory non-binding" ruling: "Does the ICJ matter?". quote: "But the point is not the merits of the case; the point is that an ICJ decision on Kosovo’s independence will take years. A case involving the genocide convention between Serbia and Croatia was filed in 1999 and has not been decided yet. The protracted nature of the ICJ process will give Serbia and Russia exactly what they want: more uncertainty."

I think that there will be a debate which means some new quotes. Also most of the countries that recognised (ie. EU and US) will abstain from voting. US said that they consider the initiative inappropriate but that they respect ICJ so that they will abstain and the UK provided an idea for the President of UNGA to work on a more precise question. Greece and Finland announced they can't vote against but that EU will probably abstain. Countries that implied that they can derecognise if the ICJ rules in Serbian favor are Costa Rica and Denmark. That's what I know.--Avala (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Costa Rica, but Denmark's prime minister was in Kosovo about 10 days ago and he clearly stated that Denmark will not "derecognize." Where did you get that information? --alchaemia (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, that was all over the news : "Denmark will not change their decision on the the recognition of Kosovo" (the headlines) -- CD 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He said that Denmark will not change merely over the vote in the UN but also that any change in a position would require an ICJ ruling as a cause.--Avala (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When did he say that? Because I'm pretty sure he said Denmark's recognition will not be withdrawn no matter what ICJ rules. --alchaemia (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty sure pressure would soon mount up against Denmark if it considered that Ijanderson (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thnik we should stick with (talk) idea. And we should be quick with deciding. The voting will be today.Max Mux (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the hurry? We don't know what's going to happen yet. If hundreds of countries vote, then it may be worth creating a new article or adding a new column to this one; but perhaps all countries except Serbia and Russia will abstain, in which case we can just add a bit extra to Serbia and Russia's text. We just don't know. My point is: let's wait until we know what we're dealing with, then we can find an appropriate way to portray it. Bazonka (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

77-6 in favor. There will be some new quotes El Salvador, Singapore etc.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was 77 for, 6 against, and 74 abstaining. Don't forget the last crucial bit. --alchaemia (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it crucial? Many countries were not present during the vote and it is also "abstain" even if the representative got stuck in the traffic.--Avala (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's crucial because it shows that, while the General Assembly usually votes overwhelmingly to send something to the ICJ, it did not do so this time, passing the resolution with less than 50% for and with more nations voting against or abstaining than voting for. An absence is not an abstaining vote so please don't try to make it sound so. If a country did not show up, it did not form part of the quorum. Its vote does not count at all. Among the nations either against or abstaining, 6 voted against, 74 were present but did not vote at all - i.e. were neutral. It's crucial when you have more nations neutral or against the resolution then for, even if the resolution did pass on procedural grounds. --alchaemia (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

77 + 6 + 74 = 157 < 192. Representatives who got stuck in the traffic are apparently among the remaining 35. — Emil J. 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as NATO isn't bombing Serbian civilians and Chinese embassies, or the KLA isn't terrorizing the Serbian public, what happens in peacetime Serbia is not the most crucial issue on the international stage. The vast majority of nations however are supportive of Serbia's initiative. --Tocino 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words : Simple majority.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, of course, though your "majority" consisted of 77 states out of 150+ in attendance so I wouldn't be really proud of it. Then we also have the issue of the Court's jurisdiction and its acceptance/refusal of the case. From the ICJ page I quote:

Generally, the Court has been most successful resolving border delineation and the use of oceans and waterways. While the Court has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State espoused on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Court has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force.

It will be a tough battle, for sure ;) --alchaemia (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain: have voted in favor

the 22 other EU states: abstain

• http://news.smh.com.au/world/general-assembly-refers-kosovo-independence-to-world-court-20081009-4wwi.html

USA and Albania: voted against it

• http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49780C20081008?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Turkey: abstain

* http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=08&nav_id=54059

Max Mux (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugal recognizes Kosovo

Portugal is recognizing today Kosovo's independence [10]. Page will require a swift update. Húsönd 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source [11] --alchaemia (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems like Kosovo's been recognized already by my country. :-) Húsönd 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I updated the map -- CD 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the page is protected. I can update it if everyone would agree that would be an uncontroversial edit. Húsönd 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an uncontroversial edit. Go for it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Mareklug ^talk 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Somebody else get the map updated. :)

Actually, it was just move-protected. Mareklug took the initiative and updated the article. Húsönd 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we have an official source from the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [12] --alchaemia (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to post this information on the talkpage other than to bait those who respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia? The article is not blocked from editing. --Tocino 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's posted here to form consensus and provide veritable sources before editing this article, something which you still have to master. --alchaemia (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is posted here in a gloating form by an admin who advertizes all over his user page how much he loves NATO/EU. The first citation was fine, there was nothing to debate about. It was clear that the so-called "socialists" in Portugal got tired of getting their arms twisted by USA/EU/NATO so they folded and betrayed socialist values in the process by recognizing this fake and illegal entity in Serbia. --Tocino 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP --alchaemia (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleade stop that kind of talking.Max Mux (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, it seems you're the one who is "baiting." To gripe about 3 sources is quite an exaggeration. That's a pretty modest and reasonable number for an edit, especially a recognition edit. You are just repeating your political ideology ad nauseum without adding new info, either to vent or to push buttons rather than to make a real point.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Max, asking tocino to stop is impossible, he dosn't listen to us.--Jakezing (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

EU, NATO, OIC lists - POV?

In the International Organisations section, the EU, NATO and OIC sections can be expanded to show their member states. States that have recognised Kosovo are denoted with an asterisk; states that "have stated they will not recognise Kosovo" are denoted with a double asterisk. Since we removed such distinctions from the map on the grounds of POV, I think we should remove the asterisks from the "will nots" in these lists also. Agree? Bazonka (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly. Esp. since they are used to advance POV. Zap 'em. --Mareklug ^talk 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Zapped. Bazonka (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Romania and Slovakia recognize Kosovo Passports

“Ky është një sinjal i qartë se mbështetja dhe njohjet do të vazhdojnë. Në të njëjtën kohë konfirmoj edhe zotimin dhe qëndrimin e dy vendeve tjera anëtarë te BE-së dhe NATO-së, Rumanisë dhe Sllovakisë që të pranojnë pasaportat e Republikës së Kosovës." http://rtklive.com/?categoryId=1&newsId=27091

Kryeministri i Kosovës, Hashim Thaçi falënderoi Portugalinë për njohjen e shtetit të Kosovës dhe Rumaninë e Sllovakinë për njohjen e pasaportës kosovare, ndërsa ia dërgoi një mesazh Beogradit zyrtar, se pavarësia e Kosovës është çështje e kryer dhe vetëm fuqitë mbinatyrore, siç tha ai, mund ta zhbëjnë atë.

kosovalive.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.46.65 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

http://rtklive.com/?newsId=27091 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.46.65 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the Slovaks speak for themselves. [13] [14] Also I doubt Romania would recognize these separatist papers. Romania is strongly opposed to separatism. --Tocino 16:13, 8 OCtober 2008 (UTC)

Please don't astart again with that talking about "seperatism". Max Mux (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of Passports was relayed by foreign ministers of both countries! Your link is old. This has happened yesterday.

Link in English [15] --alchaemia (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one from a non-Kosovan source. [16] --alchaemia (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is confirming link in English, from Balkan Insight. I looked briefly on Slovak MFA site, but they maintain radio silence, and the USA Slovak embassy page says to contact the embassy for countries not listed - and Kosovo is one of them. :) I think it's time to update the article for Slovakia and Romania, esp. Slovakia, which continues to display outdated, opposite, information. Also, the source plainly names Greece among countries that have recognized the Kosovan passport:

• "Romania, Slovakia Honour Kosovo Passports". Balkan Insight. Bosnia: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2008-10-08. --Mareklug ^talk 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, I posted that Balkan Insight article just before you posted. :) I think it's time we update the information box on Romania and Slovakia, as well as Greece. --alchaemia (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there was an edit conflict, and in any case, I missed seeing your second link. Sorry for the duplication. I did update Romania and Slovakia, but did not touch Greece myself. --Mareklug ^talk 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UN positions

some irrelevant discussion (made so by the publishing and inclusion in the article of the list of voters/absentees) removed for the sake of readable and topical archives.

OK the list is out. I will update the article.--Avala (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that map belongs there, and certainly not before the recognition map. You can create a new article if you'd like, but I disagree with putting that map there. --alchaemia (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Second map

I am not sure about the second map (maybe a separate article on that topic?) to be included on top of the main part. Serbia's wish to ask for an ICJ opinion was not to be denied (every state should have the right to ask for legal advice). But what does it say about the recognition itself? I don't think a separate map makes sense (or is even misleading readers) because the decision to accept Serbia's legitimate wish did not imply a decision on Kosovo's recognition. It would be the least to ask for consensus here before changing the basic structure of the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So I removed the map until we can reach consensus here (sorry, I was not logged in). --DaQuirin (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I am entirely sure that the second map (now, the first map) is entirely off-topic and its placement lends this episodic item undue weight (per WP:Undue weight and the rest of the WP:NPOV). Please remove it from this article and put it in its own article. This new article mustn't be made to represent this "case" as an existing opinion of ICJ. ICJ may well choose not to hear this case at all. This was only a procedural vote in the UN General Assembly, where 77 of 192 elegible votes were cast for it, which some editors have chosen to elevate to something significant. It's true influence remains unassessed and largely unknown. --Mareklug ^talk 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Still hoping that we will finish having a 'real article' (not only a list with a map) I suggest that we integrate the text ("Among its reactions ... The United Nations General Assembly adopted this proposal on 8 October 2008 with 77 votes in favor, six votes against and 74 abstentions, of 192 possible.") into the first part (maybe in a summed-up version). The map could be included into a separate article on the ICJ legal opinion. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to throw this discussion far off-topic, but no, ICJ may not choose not to hear this case, understanding of course that this is not a "case" to begin with. General Assembly has the right to request advisory opinions from ICJ, and when it exercises that right, like it did yesterday, with a nearly 95% majority (inform yourself of procedures), it gets the opinion. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with just figuring out how to display the first map. I still don't know if the article consensus is PNG or SVG. Now, a second map wants to be introduced. For the sake of simplicity, please, no second map. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK if the decision is to keep one map then so be it. Btw the ICJ can choose not to hear if they consider the question not to be about law but it's not the case here it seems. They have already spoke to the media that the decision could be made in months not years as some suggested and that they might invite Kosovo representatives to present their story and that they are interested only in legal issues not political.--Avala (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ad PNG vs SVG: not sure there is a clear consensus, most people do not seem to care at all. However, when I put the SVG map in the article, it was reverted within an hour, so I assume we'd better stick to PNG for now. — Emil J. 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that PNG is far easier to edit because SVG files are heavy and require special software.--Avala (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself, but it's the other way around. You need an image editor to edit a PNG file. On the other hand, thanks to whoever created the blank SVG map, you can easily edit the SVG map using any text editor (notepad, emacs, vi, ...). There is a list of ISO two-letter codes of the recognizing countries near the beginning of the file, you insert a new one there, and that's it. — Emil J. 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG files are annoying though because they save as checkboard images on these computers--Jakezing (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Checkboard images"? What on earth do you mean by that?

Anyway, a new attempt by Hapsala to use the SVG map was reverted by Cradel with the edit summary "you can hardly see the borders in the svg". To address the issue, I have increased the thickness of the borders by half. Are there other outstanding visual problems with the SVG map? — Emil J. 13:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tested the map Cradel reverted and the PNG he favors on the [[iPhone touch], and the SVG works no worse, and is a far more detailed map, showing all the Greek islands, instead of a monolithic blob, for example. And so i would think the version Emil prepared with thickened borders is even better in this context. I confirm that editing in a text editor is very easy and no software whatsover is needed. Unfamiliarity with this should not be used as a reason to oppose the SVG when the SVG gives better results. --Mareklug ^talk 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

There are now only three Western European countries that do not recognize Kosovo: Spain, Vatican City, and Andorra. I don't doubt it is difficult to find news about Andorra and I know its reaction isn't especially important but it would be good to find what reaction, if any, they have made regarding Kosovo's declaration of independence so that it could be included in the article. Does anyone know what Andorra's reaction is? 141.166.230.9 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see even closely related to those two countries is that they both use the Euro as their currency and that is it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Divided between France and Spain, two countries that have a different opinion on this issue, Andorra is neutral.--Avala (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And nuetral is the same thing as not recognizing.--Jakezing (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But have they made an official statement about their opinion, something that can be posted in the main article? 141.166.230.9 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No... but in the end, they are still saying "we don't recognize kosovo". there is no middle ground here, for some countries, kosovo is an unimportant matter, for others, massive. Andorra, would it to suddenly recognize, wouldn't affect global politics, if russia were to, and it has all the ground it needs to do so since it's base is gone, we would see ALOT of recognizers show up.--Jakezing (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I am not claiming that Andorran recognition or non-recogniton has any affect on global politics but it is within the purview of this article. Further, since its the only western European country without a stated reaction, it does, in its own small way, stand out. It would be appropriate therefor to include a short entry on them. 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.230.9 (talk)

That entry would entail to say, that they tried very hard not to say a word. The Andorran FM visited Croatia after C. already recognized Kosovo, and in the joint statement, she said nothing. --Mareklug ^talk 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's reaction

Considering the section called "Serbia's Reaction": In a sense, I fail to see why Serbia's reaction should be preceding that of the other countries which are listed alphabetically. However, I'm willing to overlook that if its section is kept as tight as possible and excess information is delegated to other articles. As it stands, the section is unnecessarily overburdened with the names of 77 states that voted for the resolution in the GA on October 8th, while we have 6 names that voted against, and 3 out of 74 that abstained. If we are to list states that voted, we should either list all, or list none. To list only the ones that voted for and then list half a dozen (out of 80) that voted against or abstained is disingenuous and POV. I suggest we wither remove them all or include them all but at the bottom of the article, after International Organizations. --alchaemia (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I returned the article to the pre-POV addition of some country listings in that UN GA vote. IMHO a listing of all 35 states that chose to ignore the vote is just as telling. And the vote roster/absentee list is not congruent with Serbia's non-recognition. A case could equally be made that getting 77 votes for out of possible 192 constitutes an international rebuke to Serbia's efforts to delegalize independent Kosovo, or at least an international yawn on the part of the world. At any rate, this complete listing is not to be made in quite this spot. Somewhere in the UN writeup, as a {{show}} collapsed listing, maybe. It mustn't be given undue prominence. It's just a procedural preliminary vote with no direct bearing to state recognitions of Kosovo. It certainly was no referendum on Kosovo, which it appears to be portrayed as by some editors. --Mareklug ^talk 04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A country choosing to abstain chooses to abstain, i.e. not to rebuke anything. Precisely six powers constitute your imaginary alliance for an international rebuke to Serbia's efforts, namely Albania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the U.S. You're really twisting things here. For example, the remaining tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors are abstaining from discussing this page. They really are not rebuking any side --- they just don't have an opinion. Anyway, a full listing may be too much in the context of this article. A small picture as an illustration along with this paragraph may be appropriate. Read the title of the article; General Assembly is kinda international and this vote is kinda "international reaction", 8 months later. Not the same as individual recognition, but certainly relevant and certainly worth more than one sentence, given the obvious possible ramifications of the ICJ opinion, whichever way it goes. --Dzordzm (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is ridiculous. The hundreds of thousands of possible editors of Wikipedia cannot even be enumerated by one person conveniently, let alone be bothered to know of the existence of this article, yet we are talking about an organization with 192 member states, gathered together in one building, where 30+ decided to ignore the vote for political reasons. These states deserve to be listed in any accounting, to preserve NPOV and to give the reader all the information congruent with this particular UN GA procedure. The procedure did not amount to international reaction to Kosovo UDI as such, but reflected complex behind-the-scenes dealings and power brokering of today. Such a linkage is far more indirect and uncertain, given the development of the global international situation, and of Kosovo's own situation, since 17 February 2008. This was not a referendum on legality of independent Kosovo. To let on that it was is harmful OR. And this vote was not tantamount to the ICJ even holding a preliminary hearing on the subject of the legality of independent Kosovo, let alone taking up this concretely referred to it case. It was only a preliminary procedure for that reason, albeit a final vote on the subject in this session of the UN GA. This motion elicited support of 77 out of 192 members, not even a majority mandate! For motions of this sort, which historically pass with huge margins, it is an appalling failure. You can put together a table of passing measures at UN GA and compare the margins and see where this vote falls. It's rather easy to ascertain. --Mareklug ^talk 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The last such case (West Bank barrier) was referred to ICJ by GA by something like 90 to 8. Given that the whole Arab League was obviously behind that proposal, that is roughly the same kind of vote. Of course, these two votes have something in common --- namely, one particular country against. Guess which one? Anyway. To label this vote an appalling failure is utter OR. You discredit yourself with every post and make this page unbearable for good-faith editors. Hope you enjoy your POV result, it makes for a wonderful Wikipedia. --Dzordzm (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That was my own opinion, which I took care not to inject into the Wikipedia main space, unlike some other editors' practice. But, heavens, 77 out of possible 192 votes, is a paltry result, where more abstained and voted no and 34 boycotted it as the most safe thing to do. No matter what lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a pig. :) And I note your good will as further lending credence to your say. Why, I am just one of the most essential builders and maintainers of this article, and dare I say, without my opposition, it would have been silently run over by partisan edits. Or so it seems to me. --Mareklug ^talk 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Either have this list or have the table expanded with one liners about countries which voted this way or another. I think the short list is far better than a heavy table. Mareklug called it a "preliminary vote" which is wrong, because the preliminary vote was held week ago and then 120 states supported the initiative.--Avala (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a column on how the respective states voted during the GA voting on the request for an advisory opinion re Kosovo?

Should we add a column on how the respective states voted during the GA voting on the request for an advisory opinion re Kosovo? Bgdboy011 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.Max Mux (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have returned the list of countries who voted. I think it is far better than expanding the table with 30 new countries with content only being one line and that is how they voted in the UNGA.--Avala (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would propose to just add a column to the table, indicating a yes, no or abstention vote on the matter.Bgdboy011 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That would still require an expansion of the table for countries like Antigua and Barbuda which didn't react on Kosovo apart from this vote.--Avala (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala that the article is better organized using lists in the "International Court of Justice" section, not expansion of the tables. — Emil J. 11:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Placement of "International Court of Justice" section gives undue weight to these votes and makes it seem as more important than the actual Recognition statuses. Sure the vote is a form of "international reaction" but it is of secondary importance to the actual Recognition Status and is more of a reaction to a Diplomacy event than to the actual DI of KOSOVO. Maybe its better to move it down after the Status Tables. Emetko (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with you as well. — Emil J. 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mismatch

The current lists of countries voting in UN GA, based on [17], are incorrect. I just counted the countries, and it adds up to 75 for, 6 against, 69 abstain, and 36+1 absent, which is markedly different from the official numbers (77, 6, 74, 35). Can we get a better source for the lists? — Emil J. 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbia was missing on the first list, which brings it up to 76. We are still missing 1 country for and 5 countries abstaining, and we have 2 extra countries listed as absent. — Emil J. 12:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I found [18]. Their lists have 77 for and 74 abstained as expected, so I'll assume they got these right. They give only 29 countries as absent, so I will just remove Saudi Arabia and Senegal in accordance with the abstainee's list, and assume the other 6 are missing by accident. — Emil J. 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Emil, if I understand correctly, after your adjustments, we still cannot account for some countries, which clearly have a seat at the UN and even were on hand at this GA session. What do we do about that? --Mareklug ^talk 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) The current listing in the article accounts for 192 states, temporarily (?) listing Liberia with the absentees and making note of its technical predicament. Will this vote be readjusted to account for Liberia's intention? --Mareklug ^talk 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All sources we have count Liberia as absent. Intentions are one thing, and official results of the vote another. I don't think we should make any readjustments on our own. — Emil J. 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, the www.un.org source does not really include Liberia on the list of absentees, but that's also true of six other countries (CAR, Comoros, Guinea Bissau, Sao Tome etc, Somalia, Tajikistan), apparently for no good reason. The point is that Liberia is not listed among those who voted against either. It is widely reported in news media that 6 countries voted against, not 7. — Emil J. 15:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberia wanted to vote against but was not allowed to vote at all due to not paying some UN fees. And Georgia, how did they vote?--Avala (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If your information as to reasons is true, this is quite a story: UN prevents a poor African nation from expressing its vote for capitalistic reasons of falling behind on rent. Great testimonial to freedom @the UN. :) --Mareklug ^talk 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is funny because the US doesn't pay fees too afaik. The UNGA president said "Liberia can not vote" which shocked the British representative.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgia abstained. The story about Liberia not being allowed because of not paying appears to be an urban legend. Do you have any reputable sources for that? We have: [19] "He added that Liberia did vote, but its vote was not recognized because of technical difficulties", [20] "Liberija nije glasala kada je bilo vreme za glasanje, a kasnije je izjavila da je protiv", [21] "A Liberian diplomat complained that her vote was not counted due to a technical malfunction, but the assembly president deemed the vote legitimate", [22] "despite a Liberian diplomat's complaint that her vote was not counted because of a technical malfunction", etc. (the latter two formulations are repeated in many other media). No one mentions any unpaid fees. — Emil J. 16:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just Avala trying to discredit Liberi's No vote using urban legends and OR. He gave no source whatsoever for that claim. --alchaemia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to forget, that Avala is discrediting the USA, which historically supported UN activities out of any proportion, excessively underwriting all UN agencies, and that has been going on since the inception of the United Nations. --Mareklug ^talk 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Head's up - expect Macedonia/Montenegro action today

Editors, expect possible recognitions today from these two states, owing to parliamentary debate currently underway in both, with proposed legislation supported by majority parties, and rumors of concerted action a la Hungary/Bulgaria/Croatia of some months ago.

• Ivana Sekularac (2008-10-09). "Serbia faces new setback in Kosovo diplomacy". Reuters. New York: Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2008-10-09. --Mareklug ^talk 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro Recognizes Kosovo (Oct 9)

• http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13885/ Exo (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• [23] --alchaemia (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.mtsmondo.com/news/vesti/text.php?vest=112056 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvonimirIvanovic (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810091297/Politics/Montenegro-recognizes-Kosovo.html M.M.S. (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did they recognize after the UN General Assembly vote? Does anybody know the reason for this? --DaQuirin (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well they only voted for Serbia's proposal simply to soften the blow a bit. A couple days earlier their foreign minister clearly said that Montenegro considers that the ICJ opinion will not actually change anything. --alchaemia (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

@DaQuirin: this underscores the fallacy of equating the vote (which garnered sub-majority support, indicating limited interest) with reacting to the UDI. States may have distinct reasons for supporting this measure, irrespective of their actual or implicit recognition of Kosovo. --Mareklug ^talk 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your comments. The UN vote was not without any meaning at all, I think, but it sent mixed signals. As for our article: Montenegro, it seems (?), is now the only state that recognized but voted with Serbia on the ICJ case? --DaQuirin (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And Iceland? The country that wishes to borrow 4 bln euro from Russia? :) --Mareklug ^talk 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your Russophobia elsewhere, Polska. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, what are you saying? Isn't Iceland's vote logically connected to asking Russia for 4 billion euro (which, apparently, they have announced as obtained, but haven't, according to latest news)? Why are you painting me with your ethnic brush and calling me "Poland" in Polish? You are not contributing here any insights, only ethnic hatred, as near as I can tell, and neither is your trolling nixing our matter-of-fact {{MKD}} usage from our state tables. No one had a problem with that through months of editing around Macedonia. Like I said, take your Greek nationalistic agenda to the pages, where country code templates are made. We only use what is given. Your say is far from level, alleging "rusophobia" for mentioning the obvious and directing your stridency along ethnic lines. --Mareklug ^talk 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Shall I remind you who has been engaging in ethnic trolling? Instead of proferring a serious argument against the use of the constitutional name, which also happens to be the actual article location and Wikipedia's established term for the country, you rushed into a torrent of anti-Greek abuse. One could very plausibly argue that your double slur against Iceland and Russia is "logically connected" to your being Polish. Do you propose that we take such trash seriously? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you a making a federal case out of my remark? We don't care for partisan edits, and have seen them from Chinese, Serbs, Kosovars, and now an editor with Greek letters. What am I to think? As for the Republic of Macedonia, we are -- I certainly am -- agnostic as to its naming woes and running soap opera titled "What can the world call this country?" -- we just use {{MKD}}, and have done so for months without any issues. Please note that I just re-added the earlier today-removed mention of the Republic of Macedonia -- in those words, linked exactly that way from the intro. It was there all along. It is there now, again. I hope this does justice to the rule you cite about not introducing Macedonia without its official name being used first. Good grief. :) And how can linking Iceland's foreign policy to Russia's be a "slur" at either? It's realpolitik, that's the spirit in which the comment was offered. If you find this linkage unseemly, complain to Icelanders, the former wealthy among nations. --Mareklug ^talk 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A "federal case"? How fittingly American of you. What's wrong with Greek letters anyway? Have you ever wondered where the "Polish alphabet" actually came from? And what makes you think you're immune to partisanship? Your ethnic slurs certainly suggest otherwise. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Listen, if a guy with an ethnic alphabet on en wiki comes to partisan-pillage on any topic, I call'em as I see'em, be they Polish letters in his handle or any other. So much for that. I hope you can relent now, O Cradle of Polish Letterforms Personified. :) Maybe you perceive too many slurs, and not enough good diction? My original objection pertained to a perceived partisanship. If you claim not to be partisan, welcome to the club. --Mareklug ^talk 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic alfabet"? Now I've seen it all. As opposed to your decidedly non-"ethnic" handle, right? Clearly, a partisan par excełłence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ethinic alphabet. What of it? If you had a differential equation in Reverse Polish Notation as your handle, I guess we would need to perform a generalization from "ethnic" to "ethnic and geeky". My handle is a straightworward disambig of my first name by tacking on just enough of my last name to fit into a unix login. Mystery solved? --Mareklug ^talk 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Still looks pretty "ethnic" to me. Why are you so obsessed with Kosovo anyway? I'm visualizing a bearded Polish guy who masturbates over every conceivable Russian "defeat". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's coming over loud and clear that your discussion here has nothing to contribute to reporting on Kosovo recognition, and has now debauched into explicating your lurid fantasies, based no doubt on elementary cyberstalking and ad hominem remarks? Meanwhile, you keep yourself under a digital burkah. But why do you hate Poles, Americans, and love visions of masturbating bearded rusophobes? Is this on topic for betterment of this article? Looks like trolling and asking for a block to me, esp. all this ethnic baiting. I fail to see any constructive content in any of your edits in this article or on its talk page. Someone needs to tell you that plain and straight. --Mareklug ^talk 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's about as on-topic as your Icelandic roubles, I'd say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine was an honest answer to an honest question. --Mareklug ^talk 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia is set to recognize

OK, according to the official Montenegrin Government source confirming Kosovo's recognition by Montenegro, Macedonia and Montenegro have undertaken a joint recognition process and are in constant communication. I quote the press release from Montenegro's Website (which is, unfortunately, only in Montenegrin right now and which Avala could confirm):

Vlada Crne Gore je na današnjoj sjednici jednoglasno donijela Odluku o priznanju Republike Kosovo. Ova Odluka je donešena u skladu sa ustavnom nadležnošću Vlade da odlučuje o priznanju drugih država (Član 100 Ustava Crne Gore). Vlada je takođe usvojila zajedničku izjavu vlada Crne Gore i Makedonije o istovremenom priznanju. U stalnoj smo komunikaciji sa Skopljem. Vlada Makedonije će zasijedati nešto kasnije i usvojiti već usaglašeni tekst zajedničke izjave, koja će nakon toga biti postavljena i na sajt naše, i na sajt makedonske Vlade.

My translation:

The Government of Montenegro has, in today's meeting, taken the unanimous decision of recognizing the Republic of Kosovo. This decision was taken in full agreement with the competence of the Government of granting recognition to other states (Heading 100 of the Constitution of Montenegro). The government has also adopted a joint statement of the Montenegrin and Macedonian governments outlining joint recognition. We are in constant communication with Skopje. The Government of Macedonia will hold its meeting a little later and adopt the already-agreed upon text of our joint statement, which will also be published on our, as well as the website of the Macedonian government.

Remember, this is only a rough translation and not as polished as I would have liked. Avala or any other Serbian/Montenegrin speaking editor can confirm or deny the validity of my translation. Here's the source [24] --alchaemia (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Macedonian Parliament just announced their vote on the resolution to recognize Kosovo: 85 for, 1 against, and 16 abstained. This will now go to the Government which is expected to recognize tonight. [25] --alchaemia (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Balkan Insight, a neutral source, in cite web format, suitable for inclusion in the article:

• "BREAKING : Macedonia Adopts Kosovo Resolution". Balkan Insight. Bosnia: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-09. --Mareklug ^talk 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia recognized Kosovo

The earth times has reported that Macedonia has recognised Kosovo? [26] But im not sure if this is true Ijanderson (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1. 22:50 Македонија го призна Косово http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?lId=1
2. http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810091298/Politics/Macedonia-recognizes-Kosovo-despite-UN-vote.html
3. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/236284,montenegro-macedonia-recognize-kosovo--summary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
4. http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/montenegro-and-macedonia-recognise-kosovo/id_32278/catid_66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
5. http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=09&nav_id=322641 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add: 50th country.

Added.--Avala (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an English-language reference from Macedonia media, suitable for referencing in the article (cite web template used):

• "Macedonia recognizes Kosovo". MIA.com.mk. Skopje: Macedonian Information Agency. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

--Mareklug ^talk 21:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one very good thing about this - NO MORE GAZILLION MACEDONIA SECTIONS! :D --Avala (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL Ijanderson (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad that is over and done with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're telling me. Well, I don't see how I could possibly be of any more help here; have fun guys :). BalkanFever 08:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia refutes Thaci

Slovakian MFA swiftly refuted words of Hashim Thaci and said that they do not recognise Kosovo passports. Kosovské pasy neakceptujeme --Avala (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Thaci was "misunderstood" according to the Government's spokesman. He only said that Slovakia had promised that they will recognize them, not that they already have. --alchaemia (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly commend the edit under Slovakia, that used this source and added the information dementing the report in the press cited for 8 October -- under Slovakia. But this addition, sourcing the Slovak paper re: Slovakia, under Romania strikes me as ridiculous: "Romanian officials did not comment on this but the Slovakian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement which said that such information came from the Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and that it is incorrect.[223]" --Mareklug ^talk 16:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Thaci was misunderstood so we can assume he was misunderstood on both countries which he grouped together.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we go by what we "assume" and not what can be sourced? --alchaemia (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that inferring something about Romania from this Slovak source is unacceptable OR. Nevertheless, the Slovak debunking clearly shows that Thaçi's statement is highly dubious. IMO the best strategy would be to delete both from the Romania entry, and possibly from the Slovak entry as well. — Emil J. 16:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete on what formal grounds? It is a fact that international press (not Thaci) reported this. And we source it. --Mareklug ^talk 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course press reported and not Thaci. That's how things go. He makes a statement and then agencies report. Prime Minister usually doesn't do the journalist's job. I agree with erasing. It might not be dubious as EmilJ said though. He was simply misunderstood as he said today according to alchaemia. So maybe Thaci didn't say a lie, it seems to be some misunderstanding. He said these countries promised him to recognise passports in the future. --Avala (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete on grounds of being unreliable. We do not have to include all kind of crap just because it appeared in international press, especially if there is evidence that it may be mistaken. — Emil J. 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that the statement re: Romania is untrue. Romania has not said a word. So, it stands to reason, that removing information that Romania agreed to recognize Kosovo passports is not the best practice, and your calling this information unreliable, is also a kind of OR. I suggest we keep Slovakia writeup as it currently reads: both the statement and its dementing are included in a time sequence. I would add to that only a superscripted reference containing the source listed below, for completeness and for the explication, how the original statement came to be. Slovakia did not dement the revelation that it will later silently start processing the passport without making any hay or annoucing it, it just demented that it already has done so. And so I would suggest, like you Emil, that we remove the blatant OR from Romania, allowing the 8 October news to stand there on its own, until further news if any. Emil, doesn't that strike you as the most sensible and full disclosure? --Mareklug ^talk 00:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It strikes me as useless spamming to include in the (already quite long) Slovakia writeup a bogus statement together with its dementi. Note also that they did not confirm that they "will later silently start processing the passport", they merely stated that they will discuss further actions after the current UNMIK documents expire ("Keď ich platnosť vyprší, potom zvážime, ako budeme postupovať ďalej").

As for Romania, we have a one-sentence claim about both Slovakia and Romania, out of which the Slovakia bit turned out to be wrong. To me, that seems as quite enough evidence that the Romania bit is equally untrustworthy. I admit though that Romania is perfectly capable of making its own dementis, yet didn't exercise that option so far. Nevertheless, I'd be more happy to see a confirmation in another independent source before taking the statement for fact. — Emil J. 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe using and linking this English-language source would be better practice? Note new info on Kosovan passport aceptance by Hungary and Latvia. It appears that Thaçi is innocent of spreading crap in this instance:

• "Slovakia Denies Kosovo Passport Reports". Balkan Insight. Bosnia: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

09 October 2008 Pristina _ Slovakia has denied comments made by Kosovo’s Prime Minister that they will recognise Kosovo’s passports, while Hungary and Latvia have agreed to do so.

Slovakia rebuked Prime Minister Hashim Thaci’s remarks.

“We still see as valid only documents issued from United Nations administration in Kosovo,” said Jan Skoda, a spokesman for Slovakia’s Foreign Ministry told Bratislava daily, Hospodarske noviny.

Speaking to Balkan Insight, Kosovo government spokesman, Memli Krasniqi said Thaci’s comments had been misinterpreted by local media in Kosovo.

“The Prime Minister alleged he was promised from Slovakia that they would recognise the new passports very soon, without declaring it as a fact,” Krasniqi said.

Slovakia continues to reject Kosovo’s independence claiming it to be a breach of international law.

On Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly, Slovakia broke ranks with the majority of European Union countries and voted to support Serbia’s bid to seek the International Court of Justice’s opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s independence. Read more:

Meanwhile on Thursday, Hungary and Latvia said they will recognise Kosovo’s new passports.

The two European Union members recognised Kosovo’s independence earlier this year.

--Mareklug ^talk 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move the passport issue to the article related to the Kosovar Passport. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:Tocino from this topic as per WP:ARBMAC

After noticing the attacks Tocino directed at me at the "Portugal Recognizes Kosovo" section above, I've decided to request feedback on an eventual ban of this user from Kosovo-related articles and respective talk pages. Main reasons for the ban are:

• continuous use of talk pages as a forum or soapbox;
• continuous assumptions of bad faith;
• repeated incivility, hostility, and eventually personal and/or xenophobic attacks against other users;
• edit warring;
• trolling;

I would've banned Tocino right away but since I was the target of his latest attacks I shall refrain from doing so as that might be viewed as admin abuse. Still, I will appreciate other admins looking into this, as well as community feedback on a possible (and necessary) ban. Patience has a limit, and on this particular topic (that, let's not forget, is under the scope of a strict Arbcom probation) Tocino has gone way over that limit. Húsönd 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with and support your initiative. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion and request that it be extended to other Wikimedia projects, including in particular Commons, where Tocino has resorted to repeated reality denial and edit warring in the map of EU members wrt Kosovo recognition (officially). --Mareklug ^talk 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't these confrontations be solved through mediation process? When I was attacked you told me to resolve it with counterarguments but I think mediations would be the best.--Avala (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You were not attacked, AFAIK. The dubious merit of your edits in the matter of Kosovo recognition continues to be disparaged by a number of editors, even today, of whom I am one. --Mareklug ^talk 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When I warned you after you called me obtuse Husond didn't hesitate to tell you that my warnings are right: "Mareklug, Avala is right in his complaints here. Please do not remove his comments from the talk page, and always observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Regards, Húsönd 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)" --Avala (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I remarked in passing "must you be obtuse?" when referring to your not fixing a typo and making a meal of it. I later apologized for carelessly using a word which you, as a speaker of English as a third language (?), may misinterpret, not to mention, make a meal of it. :) Please stick to the facts: Your edits are harmful, and these edits have caused contention. Alleging on my talk page that I have an issue with Serbia, or templating my talk page while singling me out from all the editors who revert and remove your contributions, sourced or missourced, is the problem. Your false portrayal of Kosovo recognition or lack of it on Kosovo_relations maps on Commons is an ongoing chronic problem -- you even wrote on this talk page that you will correct them at long last (to avoid controversy, you said), and nothing came of it. Please address the issues, and don't create animosities with your faulty editing. As for Tocino, an editor who without any repercussions wrote in March 2008 on this page: "Polack fascist Mareklug" is beyond redemption. There is no one to mediate here with. We kick such editors out, period. This proposed corrective action is way overdue. --Mareklug ^talk 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Tocino had many chances to reform himself. Colchicum (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Husond. I might not take part in the disscussion page often but I read them almost every day and would say his behaviour is at best annoying. (Bacterius (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

He won't change his misbehaviour here, so I agree with the proposal. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others. Tocino should be banned from this site. Often enough have I tried to show him thats werong what he is doing. Max Mux (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Max, we tried the same thing. but more so, what were you telling him was wrong? second, i suggested something like this before, we have done it before, it never went through.--Jakezing (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Present some relevant edits of User:Tocino to these accusations please. From a guick look in his talk page i didn't notice any recent advice or warning with or without further explanation also. That's just to say that this discussion is not only between editors who consider the reasons of the above accusations and the proposed action obvious. I consider most of the editors involved here pro-Kosovo, not so much in an ethnic sense or politically but because they are affected from the view of the problem and background that was promoted in their countries, bad intentions are not the issue so much. I don't know much about Tocino's work and had no communication whatsoever with him. What i do know is that without the Serbian POV and the editors that have an obvious interest defending it the neutrality of this and other relevant articles is fucked, there's seems to be excessive tolerance to disruptive behaviours in this topic in general, looks like a virtual brothel sometimes to me for the last 30 days or so that i've been checking. I've been personally attacked by a user participating in these discussions when raising objections on the way the Greek reaction was handled. So at least be very specific about this user's actions that require such a measure.--Zakronian (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just tread his comments on this page and you know why.Max Mux (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't know anything so why are you posting? He has held this article hostage to his POV, insulted us, and the kosovars, I'm all for having a pro-serbian user, thats what we have avala for. But tocino here REAPTEDLY has gone against concensus, against everything your supposed to do, engaged in alot of edit wars.--Jakezing (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attack me again. I know enough that I can edit to this theme otherwiese I wouldn't. Don't think I'm stupid.Max Mux (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you proposing to ban Tocino from this topic, you should treat him fairly, therefore by providing evidence against him. Yes he does cause trouble now and again, but I'm sure many uses are guilty of that. Also if he has violated some of wikipedia's policies, you should chose the appropriate punishment. I think banning him permanently from this topic is too harsh, however banning him for a week would be more suitable and appropriate. Whatever is done, do it fairly and don't gang up on him for having different views. Ijanderson (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to you max and you have your own troubles to deal with. Personnaly, I have

nothing, NOTHING Against Tocino. Why? Because my own logic to support it i don't know myself, i jsut do.--Jakezing (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Mux was right. Diffs are hardly necessary in this case, as this talk page and its archives will effortlessly render plenty of evidence. In fact, one can't tread the talk page without repeatedly bumping into Tocino's soap, trolling and incivility. Block log and warnings on Tocino's talk page make the rest of the evidence. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And many users were banned for much less. If there's anyone treated unfairly, that would be the rest of the participants in this topic who have to constantly put up with him. Húsönd 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for something simple. [27], [28]

Alternatively, if you can distinguish the two cockteasers private part swelling instigators that were on my back with their useless comments in the above two discussions you might be able to judge Tocino fairly also. Note that i finally sorted the issue with the help of Avala and Mareklug, although Mareklug considered my objections a product of a "nationalistic sense of oneness of Serbs and Greeks" untill near the end, a pretty much polite way to say what the others were saying with insults, i don't blame him as i already explained in my previous comment.--Zakronian (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Zakronian What the hell has that got to do with Tocino, you have just gone off at a tangent, please be more helpful in future, instead of bring up irrelevant things. Also referring to someone as a "cockteaser" is in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, so I would watch what you are writing in future, as it could be you getting banned. Ijanderson (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting banned for what reason ? Did i call any specific user a "cockteaser" ? Did i point out to anyone ? I was trying to make a point, this is the word closer to the phrase we use in Greece for people who behave like that. If Husond understands what i'm trying to say he doesn't even have to answer to whom i may be referring to. But i don't think he will anyway, that's why he should refrain from making a decision for an indef ban. Not at all a tangent issue making a point about involvement, neutrality and fair judgement. Understood ? If not change the word to troll or whatever you think appropriate.--Zakronian (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should offer some valid counter-reasons as to why Tocino shouldn't be banned instead of spraying this discussion with an uncivil vocabulary. --alchaemia (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see the reasons first. If everything is obvious why don't you turn this discussion into mere voting to get it over with.--Zakronian (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons are posted above, by Husond himself. Just because you choose to not read them, does not mean we have to waste time explaining things to you. --alchaemia (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These are accusations linked with the "obvious". If the edits were presented to the conversation quite possibly i might have agreed or not even bothered to write here, there is obviously some problem with the user, that i can understand showing good faith to all the editors participating untill now. But i don't like the way the matter is dealt at all.--Zakronian (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming. You simply need to read it first. I can't help you with that. --alchaemia (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know you can't help me in general, we had to exchange three comments to agree that no evidence is put forth in this discussion, even as an example. Nevermind, you can finish last now with a smart sentence. --Zakronian (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not the judge of this case; the evidence has been presented to you but in desire to defend your buddy, you are ignoring it and playing smart. That's a shame that we won't have your very-much valued "approval." --alchaemia (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not smart. --Zakronian (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbian reaction

Did anyone notice whether Serbia recalled, or is going to recall, its ambassadors from Lisbon, Podgorica, and Skopje? The question is especially interesting in the case of Portugal, because on the one hand Serbia has consistently recalled all ambassadors it could, and on the other hand, it already decided to return ambassadors to EU countries, so the Portuguese one may be considered preemptively returned as well. (Actually, in the Montenegro and Macedonia case, it may well happen that the Serbian ambassadors to these countries will be declared personae non gratae as a reciprocal reaction to Serbia having done the same yesterday, so the Serbs may not get the chance to recall the ambassadors anyway.) — Emil J. 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday Serbia decided to resend all of its ambassadors to all countries which recognised Kosovo, even non EU states. Ijanderson (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, that's interesting, I wonder whether the move has anything to do with the UN vote. Do you have a source? We should update the "Serbia's reaction" section in the article. — Emil J. 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source [29]. Serbia has started to expel envoys from countries who recognise Kosovo after the UN GA ICJ vote. Ijanderson (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that Avala has just reworded the section. — Emil J. 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Martti Ahtisaari awarded Nobel Prize for Peace 2008

Surely the timing constitutes no less a partial reaction to the Kosovo UDI? Essentially Ahtisaari plan was put into action over the objection of Serbia/Russia, and we now have the world situation that we have. Surely the success of this work played a role in giving him the prize this year, as well as a desire to further nurture peace in Europe? I don't see this award as divorced from this article. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to squeeze it in. Perhaps it should be noted in Kosovo article not here.--Avala (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about one sentence at the bottom of the introduction:

"For his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts", including the Kosovo conflict resolution (the Ahtisaari plan 2005-2008, negotiations in 1999) former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari received the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize.

The above addition would make a suitable note of it, as far as international reaction to the Kosovo UDI goes, without lending it undue weight or assessing his contributions. --Mareklug ^talk 16:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no, the crucial part -- including the Kosovo conflict resolution (the Ahtisaari plan 2005-2008, negotiations in 1999) -- is not referenced and is probably wrong (because it is too recent). And those who are awarded Nobel Peace Prize tend to be freaks or at best people whose peacemaking efforts ultimately failed, so I don't understand why you want to bring this here. Colchicum (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:OR, unless you find a reliable source claiming that the award is a reaction to Kosovo's independence. Colchicum (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your reasoning given here to be rather dubious and tendentious -- Jimmy Carter or Al Gore are neither failures or freaks, for two recent examples, and neither is Amnesty International, or the recent Kenyan recipient, who got hers for very recent work as well. As for sourcing, I have not even looked yet, but here is the Associated Press dispatch of the top of Google News, where Kostunica and Thaci both put Kosovo spin on the award: [30].

Well, ok, I think Gore is a freak (at least as to his global warming alarmism), and I am not very fond of Carter either, so it is sad to see Ahtisaari among them, but you probably disagree and this is off-topic. Anyway, we need sources, preferably from the Nobel Committee. Colchicum (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, sir, (and I added the ref to the proposed addition above), a source with telling quotes, complete with the Nobel Committee taking a stance on Kosovo independence as well as Ahtissari's work in that department. Also, other assessments of the same topic. A fuller statement from the Nobel Committee is usually made available at the time of presenting the award. Everything they have officially issued on the net has been linked already. Here is the relevant part of the new source, AFP:

In Europe he was deeply involved in Kosovo , even though his mediation efforts failed to clinch an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo. Pristina in February this year unilaterally declared its independence.
And in May 2000 the British government appointed Ahtisaari to co-head, with Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, the inspection of IRA arms' dumps in Northern Ireland.
"He never gives up ... The world needs more people like him," Nobel committee head Ole Danbolt Mjoes said.
Although he most recently displayed his talents as a mediator in Europe, Ahtisaari cut his diplomatic teeth in Africa, where he was appointed Finland's ambassador to Tanzania in 1973, at the age of 36, before beginning his UN work in Namibia in 1977.
In 1994, Ahtisaari became the first directly elected Finnish president.
Foreign affairs however remained his true passion, and he has likened his six-year tour in domestic politics to "an extramarital affair".
At the end of 2005, he was appointed the UN special envoy for talks on Kosovo, seven years after he played a key role in bringing an end to hostilities in the breakaway Serbian province.
He recommended independence for Kosovo, where there is an ethnic Albanian majority, but his inability to get the two sides to agree was a blow for him.
"We are not saying that everything that Ahtisaari has been involved in has led to success and a final solution to the problem," Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP.
"But he has had some marvelous successes and he has worked hard on even the most difficult problems," he said, adding that the committee believed "there is no alternative to an independent Kosovo."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, an adamant supporter of Kosovo's independence, said he saw this year's Nobel Peace Prize "as a recognition that the proposal of president Ahtisaari was the right one."
Some of the biggest names in world diplomacy were also quick to salute Ahtisaari's peacemaking efforts.
Jakarta too congratulated the man who secure its Aceh peace accord three years ago.
"Ahtisaari is the right choice to receive the Nobel prize," said presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal, describing the Finn as "fair, tough (and) solution-oriented."
Ahtisaari meanwhile said he planned to spend the 10-million-kronor (1.02 million euros, 1.42 million dollars) prize money to help finance the Crisis Management Initiative group he founded after he concluded his six-year term as Finnish president in 2000.
"I have a feeling that we could do much more than we have done so far if the core funding would be facilitated," he told a press conference.
Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen congratulated Finland's first Peace Prize laureate, saying "his commitment to peace and human rights is remarkable."
With its decision to hand the 2008 prize to Ahtisaari, the Nobel committee has returned to a more traditional interpretation of the award, after broadening the prize's boundaries in recent years to encompass environmental work, for instance.
"With this year's award the Nobel has gone back to its peace and security roots, and no better choice could possibly have been made," said Gareth Evans, the president of the International Crisis Group for which Ahtisaari previously served as chairman.

The source is: --Mareklug ^talk 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if this is relevant to the article Ijanderson (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ian, today's Los Angeles Times has a signed piece, with great qutoes by named people making the case for the Kosovo relevance, both to the 1999 negotiations that ended NATO bombing and got Serbia to cave in, precisely thnks to Ahtisaari, and the relevance of the unilaterally carried out Ahtisaari plan as the Kosovo UDI and everything in Kosovo and in the UE since then. Please read it and then decide. I added it to the article, but here it is again: --Mareklug ^talk 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about as relevant as Bjork's opinion. Serbia never agreed to the Ahtisaari plan. It was shelved. --Tocino 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is he still here?? (146.115.102.15 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Please read what world experts in Kosovo and US Diplomacy said on this subject. The plan was not shelved at all. Macedonia until the day o its recognition was using it by name. Slovakia -- review its MFA site -- was for it. What is Kosovo today is the plan put into action, over Serbia's objection. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is on record telling Agence France Press that they see no alternative to Kosovo independnece. And you have to be really braindead not to appreciate the timing. --Mareklug ^talk 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ahtisaari plan failed to pass in the UNSC. The plan was never agreed to hence the Kosovo Albanian separatists declaring independence unilaterally. --Tocino 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please not again. Wikipedia: POVMax Mux (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: The circumstance of successful or failed mediation being irrelevant, Martii Ahtissari's work on Kosovo laid the very foundation used by the UDI this article describes international reaction to. Certainly the award and timing of the Nobel Peace Prize 2008 constitues a reaction to UDI, no less that the UN GA passage of Serbia's motion to have ICJ render an opinion on its legality. The Nobel committee's citation and the secretary's interview confirm this explicitly. However, I further reworked the text that you removed, so as to make the new version explicit in the relevance to this article. The link to the citation itself (and its supporting video materials) has always been provided in the article. The official press release:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2008

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2008 to Martti Ahtisaari for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to “fraternity between nations” in Alfred Nobel’s spirit.

Throughout all his adult life, whether as a senior Finnish public servant and President or in an international capacity, often connected to the United Nations, Ahtisaari has worked for peace and reconciliation. For the past twenty years, he has figured prominently in endeavours to resolve several serious and long-lasting conflicts. In 1989-90 he played a significant part in the establishment of Namibia’s independence; in 2005 he and his organization Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) were central to the solution of the complicated Aceh question in Indonesia. In 1999 and again in 2005-07, he sought under especially difficult circumstances to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. In 2008, through the CMI and in cooperation with other institutions, Ahtisaari has tried to help find a peaceful conclusion to the problems in Iraq. He has also made constructive contributions to the resolution of conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Central Asia, and on the Horn of Africa.

Although the parties themselves have the main responsibility for avoiding war and conflict, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has on several occasions awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to mediators in international politics. Today Ahtisaari is an outstanding international mediator. Through his untiring efforts and good results, he has shown what role mediation of various kinds can play in the resolution of international conflicts. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to express the hope that others may be inspired by his efforts and his achievements.

Oslo, 10 October 2008

Please don't censor the on-topic mention of the Nobel Peace Prize 2008 from this article, lest your activity be perceived as disruptive. This item has been aired here, and it had been further refined by other editors since I introduced it. Your forcible removal of this information altogether, with the edit summary: "removed text which is irrelevant to the topic", speaks badly of your editing and comprehension of what is relevant, both of which need interact constructively with the work and good-faith understanding of others. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can put lipstick on the pig, it is still a pig though. I am not the only one on here who thinks it's irrelevant to the topic and does not warrant a whole paragraph in the introduction. BTW, WP advises that introductions be no longer than three paragraphs. --Tocino 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your remark about our overlong lead is well-taken. I have changed the lead (per NikoSilver's original desire to avoid repetitions in the lead) and carved out a "Current state" section, which will keep on changing, as the situation evolves. For now, I would ask that you refrain from forcibly removing all mentions of Nobel Peace Prize, as it very much pertains to the international reaction to the UDI. The text itself has been worked on by Bazonka and me, and no doubt, further improvements are possible. However, forcible removals by you in the name of others are NOT welcome and are likely to cause a page protection or hasten your topic ban. Please let editors edit this item. Bazonka in particular did not remove it but strove to improve it. Plesae don't edit war. --Mareklug ^talk 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks better now that it is re-organized. I have added some criticism to balance the paragraph POV-wise. --Tocino 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you approve of my efforts (and NikoSilver's). :) And, glad that you chose to annotate the Nobel, instead of suppressing the news of it. Your addition needs some grooming, though: Ahtisaari plan is an available redirect to Kosovo status process. Stuff like that. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk

Look who was trucked out to represent Russian POV on the Nobel Peace Prize 2008

From the guy's Wikipedia bio (Vladimir Zhirinovsky):

In 1999, at the start of the Second Chechen War, Zhirinovsky, the ardent supporter of the first war in Chechnya in the mid-1990s, advocated hitting some Chechen villages with tactical nuclear weapons. In 2006, in answer to the Ramzan Kadyrov's support for polygamy in Chechnya, he said it should be applied across Russia. To eradicate bird flu, Zhirinovsky proposed arming all of Russia's population and ordering them and the troops to shoot down the migrant birds returning to Russia from wintering. He has also threatened to remove restrictions on arms sales to Iran and proposed to sell the disputed Kurile Islands to Japan for $50m. Among his early threats, Zhirinovsky claimed Russia possesses "Elipton," a weapon of mass destruction supposedly more powerful than nuclear weapons.

In 2005, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan declared Zhirinovsky persona non grata on the territory of his historical homeland, due to the politician's controversial speech about the change of the Russia-Kazakhstan border, in which he questioned the Kazakh people's place in history. Zhirinovsky maintains his view, claiming that his position is backed by a number of academic works on history and geography. As of 2006, Zhirinovsky was persona non grata also in Ukraine following his statements regarding the January 2006 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute (this was revoked in 2007). In reaction to Condoleezza Rice's criticism of Russian foreign policy during the dispute, Zhirinovsky stated that "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers [and] needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied." In the past, Zhirinovsky has been expelled from Bulgaria for insulting its president and was also barred from entry to Germany.

On the November 2006 death by poisoning of Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko, Zhirinovsky said: "Any traitor must be eliminated using any methods. If you have joined the special services to work, then you should work, but to betray, to run away abroad, to give up the secrets you learned while working - all of this looks bad." Sergei Abeltsev, Zhirinovsky's former bodyguard and State Duma member from the LDPR, added: "The deserved punishment reached the traitor. I am sure his terrible death will be a warning to all the traitors that in Russia the treason is not to be forgiven. I would recommend to citizen Berezovsky to avoid any food at the commemoration for his crime accomplice Litvinenko." In the 2007 election, political patronage from Zhirinovsky enabled Litvinenko murder suspect Andrei Lugovoi to win election to the Russian parliament and thus the formal parliamentary immunity. During the resulting political row between the United Kingdom and Russia, Zhirinovsky accused Great Britain (according to him "the most barbaric country on the planet") of, among other things, fomenting the World War I, the October Revolution, World War II, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and suggested dropping nuclear bombs over the Atlantic Ocean in an effort to flood Britain.

Zhirinovsky also has a history of igniting personal violence in political contexts. In his notorious debate with Boris Nemtsov in 1995 a "juice fight" broke out. In 2003, Zhirinovsky engaged in a fistfight after a television debate with Mikhail Delyagin. In 2005, Zhirinovsky ignited a brawl in the parliament by spitting at a Rodina party legislator, Andrei Saveliyev. In 2008, he has showed himself shooting a rifle at the targets representing his political rivals. During the 2008 televised presidential debate, he threatened Nikolai Gotsa, the representative of Democratic Party of Russia candidate Andrei Bogdanov with violence, saying he's going to "smash his head" and ordering his bodyguard to "shoot that bastard over there in the corridor". Gotsa sued Zhirinovsky in civil court for 1 million rubles (approximately US$38,000) in damages and eventually received a judgment of 30,000 rubles (approximately US$1,150).

How much of this politician's say would you say constitutes WP:UNDUE? Does he speak for Russia? I would suspect the editor who quotes this guy in our article of deliberately portraying Russia (and by extension, Serbia) in bad light. It's difficult to think he is doing it unwittingly. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I am unaware of who Zhirinovsky is? He's not the only one who's given his opinion about Ahtisaari's reward. The link used as citation has statements from three other high profile Russians, one of which is in government. --Tocino 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Lavrov has commented on Ahttisaari corruption before.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a big deal. Lavrov, the foreign minister of one of the most corrupt states in the world, has "commented" on Ahtisaari's "corruption" before. We have some comedians here, ladies and gentelmen! --alchaemia (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Avala, if you can find a source, his statements would be much more appropriate to be added than Zhirinovsky's.--Zakronian (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

About Bazonka's edition

The user Bazonka think that the position of United Nations "make little sense", and remove the information about very important UN resolution from the top of the article. This is indeed very strange. Without the position of the UN AT THE TOP of this article this article will change to something ridiculous. Because the UN is the main international organisation in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Bazonka's removal of the addition that indeed made little sense. The role of UN in the world notwithstanding, all information needs to be evaluated and adjusted accordingly as being topical or not, having been lent due or undue weight, its sourcing, and its accurate, apt and neutral phrasing. The UN action you are referring to has been already adequately described. --Mareklug ^talk 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I read you again and again. But I really cannot understand you. What do you mean? You want Wikipedia to be a souce of political propaganda? Or just encyclopedia? The title of the article is "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo". The UN is the main international organisation. What is the problem? Why don't you want to include the UN reaction to the top of the article?!

I support Bazonka's edits Ijanderson (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the majority of the editors of this article have clear pro-US stance. The United States was the only large country voted against this UN resolution. I have added the brief information about voting in the aricle, and please do not change it! Guys, you may be the patriots of the USA, but this is just the Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not pro-US at all. Im pro-EU and pro-Russia, but I support Kosovo, so i disagree with you Mr.Anonymous IP82.144 Ijanderson (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear 82.144.*.*: There are plenty ways to show lack of support. 6 countries felt it was in their best interest (and the world?) to oppose. 74 chose to abstain. 34 chose to get stuck in traffic or not press any buttons (one apparently tried to press the oppose button, but couldn't). Please read the statement (in English) of the French representative (France abstained), and you will see there opposition in principle to this motion and this line of Serbia's policy, as unhelpful. There are many ways to put a spin on this vote. The main information is that out of 192 votes it recieved 77 in support, and that it passed comfortably, as measures generally do in the UN General Assembly. Such is the nature of voting there, once a vote is allowed (a measure is allowed to be voted on by some committee). This is a matter of historical record, and you can compare this vote against other votes. Meanwhile, we present all pertinent information as dispassionately as we can, ideally giving each item the weight it should have. The better editors try very hard not to let their personal points of view to color the encyclopedic texts they write. Certainly their writing on the talk pages allows us to check that against what they do in the article. --Mareklug ^talk 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you but you are not right. Let's compare this vote with the UN GA vote on the resolution on Georgia's Abkhazia http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10708.doc.htm . In that case only 14 UN states votes in favour, 11 against, other (the overwhelming majority) - abstain or didn't vote at all. However, the resolution considered adopted. Because (and this is very important!) the UN GA resolutions are considered adopted, if the votes "in favour" exceed the votes "against". If France decided to abstain it means that France consider the possibility to abolish its decision about recognition, and its desicion about recognition was not something absolute. This is a FACT. So, only 6 votes against is very important information in the article, and I will slightly edit the article to underline this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Only and any other "underlining" attempt is POV. It is already stated in the article that the resolution has passed. Moreover, it is not a resolution on legality of Kosovo's secession, it is merely an address to the ICJ. Colchicum (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) The UN is not "the main international organization". There is no such thing as the main international organization. And I am not a patriot of the U.S., I am Russian, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Member states" is also my POV??? Why did you delete all of my correctings? In UN GA 1 vote = 1 member state and it is very important to underline this fact, because readers of Wikipedia can be unaware of this. I will revert your changes, however, I will delete the word "only" because there is no consensus. Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

Also, I think that referring to UN as to major international organisation is fully right. Only the United Nations contain all legal, fully (or almost fully) recognized states in the world. All other international organistations represent only some part of the world. You can be the patriot of whatever state - I think that this is not important for our discussion. But it seems to me that you are not the patriot of Russia, because Russia wants UN to increase their role in international policy (as well as the majority of other world states) Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

You'd better shut up, to put it mildly. It is not up to you to decide whether I am a patriot of Russia or not. And it is not up to you to decide what Russia wants, it is up to the Russian citizens, including myself. And I want the UN, that useless wasteful organization, to dissolve as soon as possible. But this is not a forum, we do not discuss personal opinions of editors here. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not try to "decide", I just express my assumptions :-). OK, I agree that you are the patriot of Russia. Also, I have to state that you are very clever and courteous man :-). But, this have no relation to our discussion. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, President Nicolas Sarkozy, Foreign Minister and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner, the UN permanent representative in New Jork Jean-Maurice Ripert, all consistently criticized Serbia for this initiative. France will never "abolish its decision" (to recognize Kosovo). The permanent representative to the UN on 8 October 2008 was only the latest French official to state this clearly [31]: "Under these circumstances, France decided to recognize the new State on 18 February, and since then it has been formally recognized by 22 of the 27 EU States. Since the entry into force of the Constitution 15 June past, the Republic of Kosovo has a legal framework compliant with European standards and values, which provides a protective framework for all communities living in Kosovo. In this context, France has expressed its disagreement with the Serb draft resolution relating to the submission to the International Court of Justice regarding the legality Kosovo’s declaration of independence. France lends its full support to the Court, the main legal body of the United Nations. However, the request for an advisory opinion proposed by Serbia appears to us to be neither useful – because the situation of an independent Kosovo, recognized by 48 sovereign States seems to us devoid of any legal uncertainty – nor timely, since is does not help the necessary easing of tensions and might complicate the European perspective of the Western Balkans. France will abstain in the vote to come." Any POV underlining beyond NPOV reporting will be reverted, no matter in whose favor the underlining. --Mareklug ^talk 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of political statements, but France actually decided to do not impede Serbia to receive the decision of International Court. And this is very important! Because France wants its decision to have full legal support. And "France lends its full support to the Court". This is very important statement! Remember this statement! Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

Also, you do not want to mention the information that 1 vote in UN GA belong to 1 member state. This is very strange (because this is very important FACT), it seems to me that you do not want this article to be fully informative about the topic. You would rather prefer this article to be biased by your POV. Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

I have changed "votes" to "member state votes". Is it correct or not? It is very important to underline that 1 vote = 1 member state. Please, do not change the article to remove this mention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "decision" by the ICJ. It's an advisory opinion, and as such, has no legal or practical bearing on the situation. It's merely an opinion, a non-binding one at that. You need to grasp that fact before you start claiming that France did this, or France did that. And correctly signing your posts would also be a welcome step. --alchaemia (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to grasp the fact that France abstained (but had the possibility to vote against). All other is unhelpful. And also I think that your comment have no relation to the article at all. I think that the present wording is quite good. We have to mention that 1 vote = 1 state. We have to describe the decision. Do you have some objections to the text of article? If all your objections are just to personally me it is better to you to go to my talk page, or write me an email. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unanimous"

It's a tricky word with a history of misuse/abuse (see unanimity article's second sentence for instance). Some may define it as "all said yes and there were no neutrals/absents/boycotts", others may define it as "all said yes, period". We are not here to reply to the question which definition is correct; that would be WP:OR. We need a neutral source (i.e. not the Kosovar parliament, not Serbia, nor any of the big powers with a dog in that race) that calls the vote unanimous. I would delete the word outright because I doubt such a source can be found, but I felt I should give it a chance with a {{fact}} tag. Please source it properly. NikoSilver 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not covered by the answer in the notes within the text and I strongly object the removal of the {{fact}} tag until the word is neutrally sourced. I request the opinion of others before I delete the misleading and unsourced word "unanimous". NikoSilver 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the notion of a unanimous quorum is an established, precise term in law, rules of order, decision theory, parliamentary proceedings, and computer science. Please search Google Books for "unanimous quorum" with quotes (as a single phrase): http://books.google.com/books?q=%22unanimous+quorum%22 . An example:

Constitution Making in Indiana By Charles Kettleborough, John A. Bremer, Indiana Historical Commission - 1916 - Indiana - 265 pages
... and a majority of the Justices shall constitute a quorum to do business, and all questions must be adjudicated by not less than a unanimous quorum. ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=rWoOAAAAIAAJ

If you find the current phrasing misleading, I suggest moving the info about the 109-member size of the quorum from its present location between "unanimous" and "quorum" to a different place. Personally, I find it to be okay and unproblematic. I object to your {{fact}} as groundless: No one disputes that

• a) there was a quorum,
• b) it numbered 109 parliamentarians, and
• c) passage by unanimous quorum took place.

That is adequately sourced even now. Pray tell, what exactly is this fact template supposed to be filled with? A definition of what a "unanimous quorum" is? A neutral party confirming that a "unanimous quorum" took place? Certainly, "unanimous quorum" is a logical unit, and should be judged that way. --Mareklug ^talk 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. The fact of 11 parliamentarians representing the Serbian national minority boycotted the proceedings is noted prominently in those words in the same sentence! This boycott of this vote, and the unanimous quorum having taken place at this vote, are two separate facts. Both are now stated and sourced clearly, without any prejudice. Did I make this clearer? --Mareklug ^talk 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Something is unanimous if, at the times of its voting, all of the MPs who formed a quorum voted for it. A quorum is not 120 out of 120 possible, but however many people were present and voting. In this case it was 109, and all 109 voted for. As such, it is a quorum of 109, and a vote FOR of 109, thus a "unanimous quorum." --alchaemia (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heres another way... there are however many people there, 11 didn't vote, therfor, their vote is nulled aand as far as the vote was concerned, they didn't have the position they were said to have. So, of the people who were there and really had the right to, all voted for it.--Jakezing (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked the whole term and got rid of the 109-member part, since the rest of the sentence gives this information. Now we have unanimous quorum linking to quorum. But I did not remove the {{fact}}. Here's hoping that NikoSilver will do it himself. To me it's kind of like focusing on the silent majority and demanding that the silent be sourced to a neutral source. :) --Mareklug ^talk 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was certaintly an improvement built on valid technical arguments, you moved with narrowing the issue of the discussion by linking the "sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity" to the Albanian majority only. But you diminish the importance of the connotation of "absolute" the word unanimity has, often abused exactly because of that contradicting to nature itself connotational meaning. To put it in other words (and to my not so error-proof understanding of course) you focused on what a credible dictionary has to say about it, paired it with "quorum" to find examples of established use and brought it back to what you considered obvious from the start. While NikoSilver focused mainly to the "established" vagueness as a sum of a wider spectrum of considerations and uses using Unanimity to make an important point. Considering it a detail (meaning difficult to agree with a discussion between a few users) this issue has to be sorted with as much feedback from users as possible, stating at least their opinion as to what is to be considered obvious here. And btw i'm not able to understand the view you express in your last sentence.--Zakronian (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My last sentence was per analogiam: Let's consider the inefficacy of breaking down a technical term into its constituent parts, demanding that one of them be sourced separately. The "Silent majority" is neither, perhaps. Or maybe it is, sometimes. Like "Unanimous quorum", it is an atomic entity. Not using "unanimous quorum" atomically has created this mock controversy, I'm sure. The present sentence and its wikilinking do justice precise, complete, neutral depiction of what took place at the Assembly. Isn't that what we want, inform adroitly? --Mareklug ^talk 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, i thought of that, but didn't saw a clear purpose, it seemed to me the obvious response from the opposite would be to extend the analogy to the "silent minority", not as established term of course and probably a logical leap from my side, ok i see your point now. As for the rest, i wouldn't want to use my instinct for the final decision weighing. Be it objections still on the table you'd have to consider if the cost of not using the phrase is so important.--Zakronian (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)