Talk:International recognition of Kosovo and Hilda L. Solis: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
redirects cannot be stubs
 
Line 1: Line 1:
#Redirect [[Hilda Solis]]
{{talkheader}}
{{British-English}}
{| colspan=2 style="width:80%; {{#switch: {{{color scheme}}}|grey= background:silver; border:1px solid grey; color:black;|red= background:#E34234; border:1px solid #800000; color:#801818;|blue= background:#6495ED; border:1px solid blue; color:#003153;|green= background:#D1E231; border:1px solid #2E8B57; color:#465945;|#default= background:black; border:1px solid grey; color:white;}} padding:3px; margin-bottom:.4em;" align={{{align|center}}}
|colspan=1 style="width:4%;"|[[Image:Emblem-important.svg|{{#if: {{{1|}}}|40px|40px}}]]
|<center><font color="#FFCC00">'''ARCHIVES 30 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY A BOT IN 29 ONWARDS!
'''</center></font> {{{1|}}}
|}
{{Calm talk}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WikiProject Kosovo|class=B|importance=high}}
|2={{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=high}}
|3={{WikiProjectPolitics|class=B|importance=mid}}
|4={{WPIR|class=B|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 29
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{notaforum}}
{{Template:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo Archive}}
<big><big> '''Put new text under old text.''' <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{TALKPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit&section=new Click here to start a new topic]</span>.</big></big>

== Macedonia ==

I can't help but notice that 25 September has already passed. Any news from Macedonia? And any news from Arab countries, for that matter? For Ramadan is also nearly over. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:As the Macedonian PM said, nothing new. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::According to [[Rasim Ljajić]] Arab countries will mostly abstain from this issue.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::What are the rules when there are a lot of members abstaining? I mean, what is the required majority, if, for example, 50 states abstain out of 192? --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Simple majority. Those who abstain just reduce the number of votes needed.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I see. But isn't there a certain number of votes needed? I mean, theoretically 100 nations can abstain, for example, leaving 92 nations voting. Then we have a simple "majority" of 47 votes needed to pass something. It seems kind of low and undemocratic. I'm not referring solely to this case, just discussing in general. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 18:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Abstain from the UN vote yes but recognising soon.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.105.86|84.134.105.86]] ([[User talk:84.134.105.86|talk]]) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:Do you work for them, do you decide what they do ? Nope, therfor, your Crystaling there max.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 15:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for these periodic sections. Macedonia announced that there is nothing new in their position and I can imagine it will stay that way until they announce something new so there is no need to ask the same thing on and on because this is not an info forum of the Macedonian MFA.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But there will be something soon.

* [[http://www.emportal.co.yu/en/news/serbia/64122.html]]

[[Special:Contributions/84.134.126.193|84.134.126.193]] ([[User talk:84.134.126.193|talk]]) 18:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:"''Something''" Does not mean it will recognize.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:When there actually ''is'' something, tell us. Stop saying something will happen "soon". It's been more than half a year since Macedonia was reportedly going to "recognise soon". And "something" could be the exact opposite of recognition. I suggest you stop [[WP:CRYSTALBALL|trying to tell the future]] by [[WP:OR|presenting your opinion as fact]]. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 02:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

* [http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/macedonian-president-again-hints-at-recognition-of-kosovo/id_32025/catid_68]]

They are going to recognize in the next days.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please move Macedonia.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

:Dude, relax. Macedonia may recognize or it may not in the future couple days, but it is not that important in the general scheme of things. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.93.18|84.134.93.18]] ([[User talk:84.134.93.18|talk]]) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::You keep on citing speculation which is itself based on speculation, all from foreign sources. Please, learn Macedonian and ask Branko or Nikola or Antonio directly, because I sure as hell won't. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 12:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Since everyone else gets to speculate, I'll have a go. ''If'' I were to take that source seriously, then I would conclude Macedonia will definitely not recognise Kosovo, because it says Kosovo will not (might not) use the constitutional name. There is no way that Macedonia is going to sign a document from Kosovo that contains "FYROM". No way. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 12:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats just speculation on your part. It is clearly stated by the president that they will recognize. [[Special:Contributions/84.134.94.98|84.134.94.98]] ([[User talk:84.134.94.98|talk]]) 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:You don't read much do you max? This may be insulting, but your insulting yourself by not reading the comment all the way. second, i did a count, countign this section, theres NINE, neun, 9, whatever spanish nine is, entirely independant section for macedonia, who knows how many made by max here.
I think, can we call this bad behaviour?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::And then there's the archives. [[Oy vey]]. Normally I would ignore him and hope he'd go away, but passers-by might interpret his reply-less comments as "uncontroversial" and add the crap to the article (in good faith, I assume). And I'm too lazy to actually pursue getting rid of him, so here I am, doing the same shit I do everywhere else on wiki: explain to users who don't know any English why they are wrong about Macedonia. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the whole text. I have insulted no one. You are still looking for a way to let me look bad. If thats no bad behaviour I don't know what else.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.94.98|84.134.94.98]] ([[User talk:84.134.94.98|talk]]) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*"Since everyone else gets to speculate, I'll have a go" As said by balkan.
*"Thats just speculation on your part" Reply by max.

Lets see..., ya... you din't insult him, you insulted yourself by pointing out the exact same thing he said he was going to do, Speculate, now, is their a urther point to this spammed sction name, or can we close this debat?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:I doubt Macedonia will state before hand if they are going to recognise Kosovo, because this will make it harder for them. ''If'' they do recognise, they will just randomly do it with out warning first. Therefore it will make it easier for Macedonia to cope with. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::That's quite correct. It's very unlikely that Macedonia will need to be moved to "imminent recognisers". It would just jump up to the "recognisers" section. I'd laugh if they already recognised but are too scared to say so. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::We should get rid of the imminent recognisers section. It only causes problems. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== ICJ ==

Serbia claims to have a majority.

* [[http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=29&nav_id=53838]]

[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hurray!!! Does this mean something?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 13:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. Please stop asking stupid questions and being agressive to me.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::Second, they arbn't claiming anything, i looked in it, the very first words, say that a test poll, not serbia, shows it has majority support. Also, it's not surprising they have 120 nations...
- :"As of 15 September 2008, 47 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo." 120 nations supporting serbia also falls in that remaining non recognition area.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again as with Macedonia and Malaysia we will wait for the event to take place. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. You should be officially warned for spamming this page now.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm not spamming. [[Special:Contributions/84.134.118.38|84.134.118.38]] ([[User talk:84.134.118.38|talk]]) 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::Warn the kid in Gheg Albanian, he obviously can't understand English. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearly understanding english, I'm not albanian and not a kid.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.118.38|84.134.118.38]] ([[User talk:84.134.118.38|talk]]) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:Well what ''is'' your native language, old man? It sure will make things easier, because there is no doubt that you don't understand much of what Jakezing or I say, and we are both native speakers, so we would know. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearly understanding every word you both said.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.118.38|84.134.118.38]] ([[User talk:84.134.118.38|talk]]) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think that you do understand these words completely because you keep opening crystal ball sections.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I exactly understand them.[[Special:Contributions/84.134.118.38|84.134.118.38]] ([[User talk:84.134.118.38|talk]]) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:ok ok , calm down ;) --[[User:Cradel| <font color="gray">'''C'''</font>]][[User Talk:Cradel|<font color="grey">'''D'''</font>]] 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you react if people try to provoke you?[[Special:Contributions/84.134.118.38|84.134.118.38]] ([[User talk:84.134.118.38|talk]]) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:Prove that you understand them by not opening another section on Macedonia.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::Why don't we wait and see who has the majority? When its actually happened. Not before. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And even if the court rules in Serbia's favor, [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlAYFqYMP6GLp6jqcc-kj2ghHQdgD93H20HO0 their decisions takes a few years and also non-binding], according to the AP. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is "non-binding" because they have no means of enforcing the ruling but nonetheless it is the highest authority for international cases which are not involving genocide charges.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== states that don't recognize Kosovo ==

well as you can see on this website http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm . Kosovo according to international law is part of Serbia. Thefore, the states that continue to support this view are acting according to international law. Thus, they should be identified as such since its much more appropriate because it's factual. Lastly, this is just for some information for the people who are actually interested in this topic. It has nothing to do with my claim. This website provides general information about the issue. Hopefully it will help in there editing. http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/chandler.pdf [[User:Mike Babic|Mike Babic]] ([[User talk:Mike Babic|talk]]) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:What your trying to do is inflict [[WP:POV]] on this controversial article. Therefore you are in gross violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. We do not want your opinion included in this article. By doing so you are vandalising the page. Please stick to wikipeidia's guidelines and do not re-add your ''propaganda'' or I will report you. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Please be willing to discuss the topic at hand. I don't see why i shouldn't state my facts. Essentially, I'm disappointed in your response. You provide no critical insight or argument why you think otherwise. You're just basically accusing me as an editor of vandalizing an article. Meanwhile, I have fully explain my reasoning why I have added the statement. In the future, please refrain from attacking me by labeling me a vandal. Lastly,I can't think of why you don't want by editing. I can only assume that you still don't believe that my information is untrue. Therefore, i will add more sources, perhaps this will satisfy your inquisition.[[Special:Contributions/24.36.19.38|24.36.19.38]] ([[User talk:24.36.19.38|talk]]) 09:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The UN has stated that it holds a strictly neutral position on the status issues (it can't do otherwhise when the Security Council is blocked). There are completely contradictory views on the legal matters, and it is pointless trying to introduce any one-sided view into the article. Please use only neutral wording. --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] ([[User talk:DaQuirin|talk]]) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Its POV to state that countries which don't recognise Kosovo as "honoring international law", Iraq, BiH, Serbia, Russia, Georgia, China, Isreal, Libya, Vietnam ect have all violated international law, yet you have labeled them a from them as respecting and honoring international law for not recognising Kosovo. Double Standards? We don't want your propagandistic nationalism on this article. Please stick to consensuses and wikipedia's polices. Reinstall your POV edit and I will report you. Also its not because your are a Serb, user Avala is Serbian and he edits this article frequently and I rarely ever revert his edits because he knows how to edit neutrally. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 10:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oh great after IP84 spreading pro Kosovo spam now we have the IP24 spreading pro Serbia spam. I think the article should be finally relocked for IP and newbie users.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes i believe semi-protection would be best to stop anonymous users and newly created accounts from damaging this article. There has been several incidents where this article has been vandalised lately by newbies and IPs. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Absolutely. Although IP24 is Mike Babic and IP84 is Max Mux, both autoconfirmed, so semi-protection might only force them to log in, rather than stopping them. For that we need admins to issue blocks. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty well known that the declaration of independence by the separatists and subsequent recognition by a small minority of nations is a blatent violation of international law. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 18:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:So was what serbia did to kosovo in the 90's...so was what russia basicly did in georgia, so was alot of vietnam. Only a small group of countries can really claim to be upholders of international law, and the big players in the world, they arn't on that list. So we can't play the "International law" thing. Also, the UN decision for kosovo, was back in 1999, nearly 10 years BEFORE kosovo made this declaration, so it isn'ty a reaction anyways.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::I didn't realize that UN resolutions nullify after 9 years in effect. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 00:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::And yet, is it a reaction to this topic? Nope, its a reaction to ANOTHER declaration. tHERFOR, ISN'T REALLY SUTIBLE FOR THIS article--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== How imminent is "imminent"? ==

In light of Bazonka's comment in the last of the million Macedonia sections, what is the point of the "imminent recognisers" section? The four that are in there have been there for a ''long'' time, and we keep on getting annoying requests (well, demands, really) to move countries there. The section seems useless; either you've recognised or you haven't. And if we didn't have it, we'd stop getting this agglomeration of stupid sections. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 12:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent It means, likely to happen at any moment; overhanging. Which means it can keep that way indefinitely, but if it happens next minute, you were expecting it. IMHO eminently useful distinction. For example, I don't think Mexico or Bosnia fit the bill. But Macedonia and Montenegro, they sure do now. It's a comprehension aid, nothing more. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:I absolutely agree with BalkanFever. The section made sort of sense in February when there were at any given time a few states in the middle of the recognition process (e.g., waiting for approval of the head of state). It is obvious that no such process is actually going on in the countries which have been in the section for months. The section is only a source of trouble, and it does not provide any meaningful factual information, it is essentially [[WP:BALL]] excused by quotes. The section is totally unreliable, in recent months there was almost no correlation between its contents and the actual states which eventually recognised (the only exception being Malta). —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@User:EmilJ: Thats not true. I agree with [[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]][[Special:Contributions/84.134.66.101|84.134.66.101]] ([[User talk:84.134.66.101|talk]]) 14:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Oh yes, it is true. Seriously, how about supplying valid arguments for your cause instead of half-sentence shouts, for a change? —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Balkan, I forgot to suggest, that another way to put an end to this agglomeration of stupid sections would be to react by moving the two M's to imminent recognizers already. If you stick your hand out the window of a speeding car, don't complain that the wind bends it back. @EmilJ: think of this as computer's [[memory cache]]. Its performance has been compromised by swapping in or out grossly wrong page sets, based on partisan conviction, not best available information. Czechia, your own country, would have been a stable exemplar of a resident member, had it not been pushed out by partisan editors. Presently, Montenegro and Macedonia are imminent recognizers, and this is borne out by press quotes ascribed to Serbian politicians, warning them off. Let's look at the matter objectively: it is helpful to select the set of states basically expected to recognize at any moment, based on good information expert editors have accrued, that the unfamilar reader will not have. Good information is mathematically defensible. Your beef is with incorrect decision-making, not the tool. How helpfully we present known information, is a measure of our success at serving the reader's needs, as opposed to appeasing partisan editors. I would agree with Ian, that Imminent recognizers ought to sit under Other states, per map legend and article organization reflecting it cohesively.--[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::LOL, "mathematically defensible"? The fact of the matter is, the "good information expert editors have accrued" so far turns out to be terribly bad. As I already pointed out, the only country which appeared in the section since April or so, and whose inclusion proved later to be justified by recognition, was Malta. It is clear by now that Saudi Arabia, for example, is no more "imminent" to recognize than most of other UN states, the old stray quote to which we stick in the article notwithstanding. And conversely, none of the last 10 or so recognizing countries (save Malta) ever appeared in the section. Empirically, the section thus totally failed to deliver the information it promises. Why? Because it is not a matter of "correct decision making" or "presenting known information". It is an attempt to look into future, which is inherently impossible to know with any reasonable success rate. The division of nonrecognizing states into the two sections does not and cannot "aid comprehension" for the reader, it can only create a false impression of such comprehension which is in reality grossly misleading.
::::Lithuania was also one of the countries in the list which did, in fact, recognize. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::As for Montenegro and Macedonia, there is no objective reason for them to be marked as imminent recognizers, even by the poor and unreliable standards the section is based on. What we only have on them are rumors and hearsay, which appears regularly ever since the independence declaration (especially for Macedonia), and with the same regularity turns out to be completely bogus. All the supposed dates of the expected recognition proved to be wrong so far. Wikipedia is not in the business of reporting such third party guesses, and especially not presenting it as a kind of fact. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Agree with BalkanFever & EmilJ: I believe we should have two groups for UN states. A: UN states which recognise Kosovo B: UN states which don't recognise Kosovo. This way its more NPOV becuase it isn't someones interpretation of sources weather they will recognise soon or not, leave this up to the reader. Also it corresponds with the map. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with consensus to scrap the section. It's been almost 8 months since the declaration. These so-called imminent recognizers have had plenty of time to recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state, yet they haven't despite their dubious statements which have been attributed to Kosovo Albanian politicans and the NewKosovoReport.com website. Ultimately either you recognize or you don't and currently Bangladesh, Haiti, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are amongst the vast majority of nations which do not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:'Tis done. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It indeed makes much less sense to have it since February when things were going at a much faster pace. Now it sounds more like a "could be but doesn't have to".--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Marek, what difference is there between expecting recognition from a country and not expecting it? It's still not recognition. And what difference would there be between recognition we expected and recognition we didn't expect? It would still be recognition. I'm not complaining about the wind, I'm just annoyed with the guy next to me telling me that my arm will break off because he heard it from his friend and therefore it ''must'' be true. My arm might break off if I try grab the pillar of the next bridge, but until then I still have my arm. And then of course there's the driver threatening "promaja" will kill me. <small>(Don't worry about the last part; Avala should get it ;)</small> '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hehe so true.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 09:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict|Several species of small furry Balkan Presidents gathered together by a radio and grooving with a Pict]] ==

Fine, fine, I believe in consensus and no skin off my nose. But ask Avala why he keeps coloring his maps with redder shades as time goes on...

Meanwhile, this is especially for you, Emil (and, again, for your [[:Image:Kosovo_relations.svg]]/[[:Image:Kosovo_relations.png]] maps, Avala):

;The skinny
# Bosnia - Bosniak president support independent Kosovo <span style="color: #cdcd9c; background-color: black">'''khaki'''</span> or <span style="color: #a3a3a3; background-color: black">'''gray'''</span>
# Bosnia - Bosniak president opposes Serbia going to ICJ over Kosovo
# Montenegro - Montenegrin president says Montenegro '''will''' recognize Kosovo in due time. <span style="color: #5fadff; background-color: black">'''light blue'''</span>

* [[Voice of America]] aired interviews with several Balkan presidents.
* reprinted here: http://www.sindhtoday.net/prs/24086.htm - Sindh Today (India)

;The full text
<blockquote>
;VOA Interviews Balkan Presidents on Kosovo
;Sep 27th, 2008 | By Sindh Today | Category -- Press Release
<br /><br />
Washington, D.C., September 26, 2008 -Kosovan President Fatmir Sejdiu, in an interview today with the Voice of America (VOA), said he continues to lobby his Balkan neighbors to officially recognize his country’s independence from Serbia.
<br /><br />
In separate interviews with VOA, '''Bosnian President Haris Silajdzic''' and Albanian President Bamir Topi said they '''support Kosovo’s independence''' and are '''opposed to Serbia’s request that the International Court of Justice issue an opinion on the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence'''.
<br /><br />
But '''Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic told VOA''', “Since the debate on Serbia’s initiative is scheduled for the first part of October, I do not see the need to express my country’s position.” He said his country sought good relations with both Serbia and Kosovo, and '''recognition of Kosovo would come “at the appropriate time.”'''
<br /><br />
Kosovo’s Sejdiu said he hoped the Balkan states, Macedonia and Montenegro, in particular, would back Kosovo, which has the recognition of 47 countries, including the United States. Serbia viewed Kosovo’s February 2008 declaration of independence as an act of secession.
<br /><br />
” This would be very important for us, as it would complete the cycle of recognition from the neighboring countries, with the exception of Serbia, and would be a very positive signal for the countries that are far away from Kosovo,” Sejdiu said.
<br /><br />
Earlier this week VOA interviewed Serbian President Boris Tadic. All of the interviews were featured in newscasts reaching the Balkan nations and can be viewed by selecting the appropriate language on VOA’s main website at www.VOANews.com.
<br /><br />
The Voice of America, which first went on the air in 1942, is a multimedia international broadcasting service funded by the U.S. government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors. VOA broadcasts approximately 1,500 hours of news, information, educational, and cultural programming every week to an estimated worldwide audience of more than 134 million people. Programs are produced in 45 languages.
</blockquote>
-- [[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:All I have to say is that any decision in Bosnia can be blocked by any of the three nations. I wrote about this before but you think no one saw it so you are trying to do it again. But sorry I am not going to allow any attempts to deceive wikipedia editors. 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.''' This arrangement is unpopular in Bosnia among the Bosniaks, but ironically attempts to change it would have to be approved by the chamber itself.

:So just like with the speech of Haris Silajdzic at the UN, what he said here is not approved by Serbs and Croats and is his personal view only.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 09:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::Can we stop arguing over this? Just wait, right now, the position is not recognize, even those "nuetral" countries know that they are saying they don't recognize kosovo as independant.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Archives ==

Does anyone know what's going on with the archives for this talk page? The bot doesn't appear to have moved anything for ages. I've just moved a few bits manually to Archive 28 (which already has some things in it), but only 27 archive links appear on the talk page.
<br/>I think this may be something to do with the article name change - some code at the top of this talk page refers to
"International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", but I don't understand how it works. Can anyone fix or explain this? Thanks. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:I managed to fix the Archive 28 link, but I have no idea how to persuade the bot to resume archiving. I asked the [[User:Misza13|bot operator]] for help. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Montenegro ==

* here ya go http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=188335 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.187.140.5|68.187.140.5]] ([[User talk:68.187.140.5|talk]]) 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* and here is today's news (3 Oct.) from the debate in the Montenegrin Parliament: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3cjz14X3Q9UHXtG_Tn2DfAnVd3g
<blockquote>
;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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
Serbian officials have appealed to neighbouring states to refrain from recognising Kosovo.
<br /><br />
In a latest bid to maintain claim on the region, Serbia has moved to question Kosovo independence at the International Court of Justice.
<br /><br />
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".'''
<br /><br />
He said it was up to individual countries to decide whether to recognise Kosovo or not.
<br /><br />
In Pristina, Kosovo's President Fatmir Sejdiu urged Montenegro and Macedonia, another former Yugoslav republic, to recognise Kosovo's independence quickly.
<br /><br />
"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. <br /><br />Kosovo has been run by a UN administration since a 1998-99 war.
</blockquote> --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

----

* Looks like more article updating is called for (link reference prepared with {{tlx|cite web}} for easy copy-and-paste into our article: {{cite web | url=http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n154961 | title=Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation | work=Focus | publisher=[[Focus News Agency]] (Bulgaria) | location=[[Sofia]] | date=2008-10-04 | accessdate=2008-10-04 | languge=English }}
<blockquote>
'''Blic: Montenegro ready to reach decision on Kosovo within European Orientation'''
<br /><br />
4 October 2008 | 11:25 | FOCUS News Agency
<br /><br />
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.
</blockquote> --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

----

* 7 October 2008, more indication from the horse's mouth (the President) of imminent recognition by Montenegro:
{{cite web | title=Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/07/europe/EU-Montenegro-Serbia-Kosovo.php | work=[[International Herald Tribune]] | publisher=The New York Times Company | location=[[New York]] | author=[[Associated Press]] | date=2008-10-07 | accessdate=2008-10-07 }}
<blockquote>
;Montenegro indicates it will recognize Kosovo
;The Associated Press
Published: October 7, 2008
<br /><br />
PODGORICA, Montenegro: Montenegro's president has indicated his tiny Balkan state will recognize Kosovo's independence despite bitter opposition from traditional ally Serbia.
<br /><br />
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.
<br /><br />
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."
<br /><br />
Serbia and Montenegro have close historical and cultural ties and comprised a single state until 2006.
</blockquote>

== Setting Poland straight: why it matters to get this right ==

Dear [[User:DaQuirin]], I threw out your attempt to appease a chronically injecting partisan edits Wikipedian, who through '''sustained edit-warring''' (and now, unfortunately, your assistance) had introduced dangerous [[WP:Original research]] regarding Poland, its diplomacy on Kosovo, and [[Lech Kaczyński]]. (Why didn't any of you warn him on his talk page, or blocked him for it, or topic-ban, in accordance with the Arbitration Committee's probation extended as protection from such abuses to all Kosovo content?)

As I conscientiously and fully disclosed in my edit summary, I restored Poland according to this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo&diff=241301098&oldid=241298309 diff of a revert performed by User:Aotearoa].
It so happens, that [[User:Aotearoa]], who seldom if ever edits here, is a geographer with interests in political theory and other related content on the Polish Wikipedia. In fact, I will say it plainly, he and I are at loggerheads on Kosovo on the Polish Wiki. For one thing, he instituted a [[User:Mike Babic]]-like one-sided characterization of what international law states in the matter of Serbia and Kosovo, in the [[:pl:Kosovo]] article, which doubles as that Wiki's equivalent of this [[international recognition of Kosovo]] article. Nonetheless, even so, his overlooked revert in the matter of Poland and Lech Kaczyński '''purportedly blocking''' anything in the way of diplomatic relations of Poland and Kosovo is particularly spot-on, and his edit summary needs is so lucid and decisive, that ordinarily it would brook no further discussion.

However, I would like to point out that this particular unnoticed edit war comprised (so far) '''four''' introductions of the same stubborn OR, reverted by '''four different editors''' (I, once again, a johnny-come-lately, by removing the unfortunate content DaQuirin allowed himself to be talked into, make it now '''five different editors reverting one and the same User's dubious edit in a span of a few days''').

This editing-by-attrition, until we all drop exhausted and give in, '''is why the article is disputed''', because, in truth, it contains false portrayals intermixed with accurte ones.

Consider: Lech Kaczyński has not blocked a thing. He ''has preemptively vowed'' (see source title: ''I will not sign my name under an Ambassador to Kosovo's credentials'') not to sign an executive order assigning credentials to any Polish Ambassador designated to represent Poland in Kosovo. The only problem is, that this vow is a [[counterfactual]] of no significance, as the government, as User:Aotearoa lucidly pointed out, has no intention of sending and ambassador to Kosovo! Kaczyński, a man of unquestionable hot air, whatever else one may think of him, may as well vow to not send Polish cosmonauts to Mars. Will we then write, that he blocked Polish space program?

What particularly troubles me, is that the edit-warring Wikipedian proved to be impervious to this evidence and reasoned correction of his edit, and only continued stubbornly to re-introduce his pet OR. This shows intransigence and inability to collaborate with editors.

As we all painfully know, this was just the latest in great many disruptions of this article, making unnecessarily onerous and difficult the process of setting article content to a neutral viewpoint. Leaving this contribution in place would have only damaged this article further, where one editor injects unnecessary or misleading content, claiming that it is impeccably sourced! Meanwhile, as this situation amply shows, these injections serve to create an alternative reality, an impression that obfuscates, instead of elucidating and serving to inform the reader. Worse, before, in exactly analogous situations in March pertaining to Castro/Cuba and Armenia, my earlier attempts to simply remove bogus content met with accusation of "article blanking, vandalism, and removal of sourced information". Please see my archived talk page. A complaint was even made against me on the Administrators' Noticeboard to seek sanction against me for these transgressions of mine. Editors, this situation needs to be addressed finally, and the latest little tidy edit war the admins did not notice, which was sustained disruptively by one editor against many, presents evidence clearly, all easy to verify. I call on all of you, admins and nonadmins alike, to be watchful and care.

Editors of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose, but your chains of inaccuracies, accrued through inaction. Stand up for your informative Wikipedia. ''Stand up, Mimi, stand up!'' :) <ref>a paraphrase of that famous call from the [[Communist Manifesto]] and an apt quote from a cool Canadian song y'all should download, by [[Jane Siberry]] from her album ''[[No Borders here]]'', "[[Mimi on the Beach]]"</ref> :) --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for your interesting comment. But I beg to disagree (at least partly). One could have changed this into a more correct "threatened to" formula, but the "pompous gasbag" (your words) <now I see you removed this characterization :) > is the elected President of Poland and went so far as to discuss this inner-Polish debate during his stay in New York [http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13448/]. Since Poland has recognized Kosovo, and the Polish President called this decision (again) "legitimate", the whole debate in my view is not too relevant anyway. But why not find a (better) neutral wording to include this nuance which has an impact on the diplomatic relations between Poland and Kosovo. Many other states opened embassies, Poland not - so there is some need for explanation... ? --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] ([[User talk:DaQuirin|talk]]) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::I thought better of my "pompous gasbag", and was editing it out forsooth :) when you must have written your answer, with those first words of mine still in evidence. :/ On reflection, my candid characterization of the Polish President is not germane to my case. As largely ceremonial figure, at odds with his government, he, but not only he, often aspires to self-importance. [[Vaclav Havel]] he ain't. The current Czech President suffers from a similar affliction, and I have been told, so does the Portuguese. Ceremonial Presidents seem to have a difficult time being entirely relevant. :) I would agree to ''some'' treatment, were it only relevant to the Polish/Kosovan diplomacy, but it is not. The government, as Aotearoa wrote in his edit summary, has no such plans. The point is moot. However, my larger point, sadly, is a continuing problem for us. You do see that, dear daQurin.... --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::One more thing (as you added that last question): there is no great mystery as to why Poland is behind on diplomacy with Kosovo. The government is indolent. Press reported they lost the passport samples they were sent by Kosovo, and they requested later the Polish embassy in Skopje to procure some. There is no burning desire to further offend Serbia. Serbs are popular in Poland, in part for commonly fought wars, and those pesky Christianity-based sympathies, and that idiotic Slavic brotherhood of smaller nations that like to lord it over some even smaller ones :/, and so on. Plus Poles ''genuinely like'' Serbs, as long as they are like [[Ana Ivanović]] and [[Novak Djoković]] :) A diplomatic mission in "Prisztina" and the Polish recognition of Kosovan passports are all coming. Just no ambassador. Give it more time, and then source ''that'', when we are in a position to do so. In diplomacy, Poles are not the conscientious Estonians or the no-nonsense Czechs. Are we not men? We are [[Devo]]! :) --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::What in the world are you talking about? This is not a blog.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::As far as I can see, the fact that Poland has not yet opened an embassy in Pristina has nothing to do with Lech Kaczyński and his threats. IIRC the Czech president also threatened not to appoint an ambassador to Kosovo, which the government simply ignored and opened an embassy anyway with a chargé d'affaires in charge. Note that no one suggested to mention that in the article. So, I agree with Marek that Kaczyński's statement is irrelevant, and should not be mentioned in the article either. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::So how is a threat by Kaczynsky (future action) different from all those entries - "embassy to open" (also future action)?--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It's different in that the Embassy will actually open (there is a clear decision for that), while Kaczynsky was being hypothetical; the government has decided not to open an Embassy before he made his "threat." --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is a clear decision by Kaczynsky to block. Government will not announce the plan to open in order not cause internal fights and popularity points for President but it is irrelevant.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::No there isn't. A decision can only be taken for or against something if that something has happened. For example, if the Polish government had decided it wanted to open an embassy and sent an official for accreditation, and Kaczynski blocked it, that would be a decision. Simply expressing a will to block something does not mean that a decision has been taken. I've no doubt that he would block it had he been offered the chance - but he wasn't, so nothing of the sort you describe in the infobox has actually happened. Not to mention that the English used is not up to Wikipedia standards. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You gave me a great idea Marek: you, Avala, Emil and I should all unite under mother Russia and take over Europe :D '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 12:21, 2 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... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.139.105.213|85.139.105.213]] ([[User talk:85.139.105.213|talk]]) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



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

::hes not crystal balling Jakezing. [http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=2431][http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/u_fokusu.php?id=24] Russia is saying that Portugal might recognise soon due to pressure from the West. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|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... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.139.105.213|85.139.105.213]] ([[User talk:85.139.105.213|talk]]) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::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.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk: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]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 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...[[http://www.tvi.iol.pt/informacao/noticia.php?id=997697]][[http://dn.sapo.pt/2008/10/03/nacional/governo_pronto_a_aceitar_a_independe.html]][[http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1344796&idCanal=12]]Want more? ([[User:Gomes89|Gomes89]] ([[User talk:Gomes89|talk]]) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

:::::: Here we go, with Earthtimes.org translating today's (3 Oct) ''Publico'' dispatch: [http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/235247,portugal-preparing-to-recognize-kosovo-reports.html Portugal preparing to recognize Kosovo: reports] ("Posted: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:36:10 GMT")
<blockquote>
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. <br /><br />Amado is currently holding meetings with the parliamentary parties to discuss the issue. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.
</blockquote>
::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."'' [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. ([[User:Gomes89|Gomes89]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Is there anything of merit in this article? [[http://dn.sapo.pt/2008/10/07/nacional/ps_e_preparados_para_seguir_aliados_.html]] As far as I can tell, Portugal has still not recognised. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Here you go, courtesy of translate.google.com:
<blockquote>
;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.
<br /><br />
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."
<br /><br />
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."
<br /><br />
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."
<br /><br />
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.
</blockquote> --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk: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. [http://diario.iol.pt/politica/kosovo-independencia-portugal-europa-ue-portugaldiario/999525-4072.html] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} based on one more source provided in a new section below. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;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--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Are you more versed as well?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Not at all, nor do I act like it, in contrast to you and your shouting. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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? '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 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.” <nowiki>Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.</nowiki>
:--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of shortening the section using the three Rs: rewording, rearranging, and removing. '''[[User:BalkanFever|<font color="black">Balkan</font>]][[User talk:BalkanFever|<font color="#008">Fever</font>]]''' 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]]. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|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--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

== Updates made for Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Libya ==

I could not give you a head's up earlier, since i was busy communicating at length with administrator [[User:Husond]]. Please check all 4 countries for possible shortening. I purposefully did not remove anything there while adding new information, in order to avoid edit-warring. But these were significant position-changing additions, all. I see [[User:BalkanFever]] already did some further improving to Macedonia. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)




== Koov ==

Guys, {{user|Bidn}}, {{user|Sidn}}, {{user|Dibn}}, {{user|Jikn}}, {{user|Enlip}} and others with similar habits who are active here are all socks of banned {{user|Koov}} and are to be reverted and blocked on the spot. [[User:Colchicum|Colchicum]] ([[User talk:Colchicum|talk]]) 14:23, 3 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. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|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... --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|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 {{tlx|cite web}} and its ilk: '''<nowiki><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></nowiki>''' and '''<nowiki><ref name=This is a reference" /></nowiki>''' 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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Ijanderson. Cutting and shortening is the violation of WP policies.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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]]. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Exo|Exo]] ([[User talk: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)'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo&diff=242840063&oldid=242833612 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:

{| class="wikitable"
! State
! Evidence
! International organisations
|-
| {{BIH}} || 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.<ref>{{ cite web | url=http://www.sindhtoday.net/prs/24086.htm | title=VOA Interviews Balkan Presidents on Kosovo | language=English | author=[[Voice of America]] press release | published=[[Sindh Today ]] (India) | date=2008-09-27 | accessdate=2008-10-03 }}</ref>
||
|-
|} --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


One more thing. I cringe when I see news headlines such as this one: [http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1262 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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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'''.

--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tocino|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.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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).--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== UN decision ==

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

* {{cite web | url=http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=07&nav_id=54031 | title=Macedonia to abstain from UN GA vote | work=[[Tanjug]] | publisher=[[B92]] radio | location=[[Belgrade]] | date=2008-10-07 | accessdate=2008-10-07 }}

[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] ([[User talk:Jakezing|talk]]) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I fixed the badly put external link, so it has the {{tlx|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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I've already suggested we should create and article on it. Any name suggestions? [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|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? [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]])

:::::It depends what happens - let's wait and see. I'm not sure we need a new article. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Here is another source:

::::::* {{cite web | url=http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13767/ | title=Macedonia 'to Abstain' From UN Kosovo Vote | work= [[Balkan Insight]] | publisher=Balkan Insight | location=[[Skopje]] | date=2008-10-07 | accessdate=2008-10-07 }}

::::::[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk: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]].--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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.

{| class="wikitable sortable" width=100% align=center
! !! width=175px | [[Country]]<ref name="Official who recognized Kosovo list, Office of the President of the Republic of Kosovo">{{cite web | url=http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748 | title=List of countries that have recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo | work=Official website | publisher=Office of the President of the Republic of Kosovo | year=2008 | accessdate=2008-09-20 | language=English, Albania, Serbian }}</ref> !! [[Diplomatic recognition|Date of recognition]] !! Status of reciprocal [[diplomatic relations]] !! class="unsortable"|International organisations membership !! Voting in the UN GA
|-
| 1 || {{AFG}}<ref name="Afghanistan foreign affairs">{{cite web|title=The Statement of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on the Recognition of Independence of Kosovo|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Afghanistan | location=[[Kabul]], [[Afghanistan]] |date=2008-02-18 | accessdate=2008-05-09 | url=http://www.mfa.gov.af/detail.asp?Lang=e&Cat=2&ContID=562}}</ref> || [[2008-02-18]] First country to recognise Kosovo based on [[UTC]]|| || ||Against
|-
| 2 || {{CRI}}<ref name="costa rican foreign ministry">{{cite web|title=Costa Rica se pronuncia por la independencia de Kósovo|publisher=Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto|url=http://www.rree.go.cr/ministerio/files/CostaRicaKosovo.doc|language=Spanish|format=DOC|date=[[2008-02-17]]|accessdate=2008-02-18}}</ref> || [[2008-02-18]] (17 February 2008 local time) || || {{flagicon|United Nations}} [[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? [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 16:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea. Lets make it so.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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: [http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810061280/Henry-H.-Perritt/Does-the-ICJ-Matter.html "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.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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) --[[User:Cradel| <font color="gray">'''C'''</font>]][[User Talk:Cradel|<font color="grey">'''D'''</font>]] 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.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Im pretty sure pressure would soon mount up against Denmark if it considered that [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I thnik we should stick with ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) idea. And we should be quick with deciding. The voting will be today.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

77-6 in favor. There will be some new quotes El Salvador, Singapore etc.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:It was 77 for, 6 against, and '''74 abstaining.''' Don't forget the last crucial bit. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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. —&nbsp;[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|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. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Two words : '''Simple majority'''.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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:

<blockquote>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'''.</blockquote>

:It will be a tough battle, for sure ;) --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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

[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Portugal recognizes Kosovo ==

Portugal is recognizing today Kosovo's independence [http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1345232&idCanal=12]. Page will require a swift update. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Here's another source [http://diario.iol.pt/politica/kosovo-independencia-portugal-europa-ue-portugaldiario/999525-4072.html] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yep, seems like Kosovo's been recognized already by my country. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I updated the map --[[User:Cradel| <font color="gray">'''C'''</font>]][[User Talk:Cradel|<font color="grey">'''D'''</font>]] 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. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::This is an uncontroversial edit. Go for it. [[User:Canadian Bobby|Canadian Bobby]] ([[User talk:Canadian Bobby|talk]]) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{done}} --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we have an official source from the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [http://www.mne.gov.pt/mne/pt/noticias/200810072015.htm] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tocino|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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[[WP:SOAP]] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems you're the one who is "baiting," Tocino.
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.--[[User:Supersexyspacemonkey|Supersexyspacemonkey]] ([[User talk:Supersexyspacemonkey|talk]]) 19:52, 8 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? [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Most certainly. Esp. since they are used to advance POV. Zap 'em. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Zapped. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk: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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.94.46.65|74.94.46.65]] ([[User talk:74.94.46.65|talk]]) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

http://rtklive.com/?newsId=27091 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.94.46.65|74.94.46.65]] ([[User talk:74.94.46.65|talk]]) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Let the Slovaks speak for themselves. [http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2392709&title=Slovakia_Not_to.html] [http://dnes.atlas.sk/slovensko/vlada-a-parlament/210737/slovensko-neuzna-ani-kosovske-pasy] Also I doubt Romania would recognize these separatist papers. Romania is strongly opposed to separatism. --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 16:13, 8 OCtober 2008 (UTC)

Please don't astart again with that talking about "seperatism". [[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.newkosovareport.com/200810081290/Region/Romania-and-Slovakia-recognize-Kosovar-Passports.html] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Another one from a non-Kosovan source. [http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13844/] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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:
* {{cite web |url=http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/13844/ | title=Romania, Slovakia Honour Kosovo Passports | date=2008-10-08 | accessdate=2008-10-08 | publisher=Balkan Investigative Reporting Network | work=[[Balkan Insight]] | location=[[Bosnia]] }} --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== UN positions ==

I have made a few snapshots and this is what I can read from it (before the official table with all countries comes out):

{{Inc-up}}

New information bolded:

AGAINST:
*USA
*Marshall Islands
*Nauru
*Albania

but also!:

*'''Palau'''
*'''Micronesia'''

FOR:

*Mexico
*'''Madagascar'''
*Philippines
*Romania
*Russia
*'''Timor-Leste'''
*'''Mauritius'''
*Montenegro
*'''Tanzania'''
*'''Mynamar'''
*'''Namibia'''
*Singapore
*'''Zambia'''
*'''Zimbabwe'''
*'''Nicaragua'''
*'''Niger'''
*'''Nigeria'''
*'''Solomon Islands'''
*Viet Nam
*Spain
*Sri Lanka
*Sudan
*Slovakia
*South Africa
*'''Panama'''
*Uruguay
*Greece
*Comoros
*Iran
*Algeria
*Indonesia
*Cuba
*Argentina
*'''El Salvador'''
*Belarus
*Georgia
*Azerbaijan
*Kazakhstan
*Kyrgyzstan
*Tajikistan
*Brazil
*Argentina
*India
*China

but also!:

*Liechtenstein
*Costa Rica
*Iceland
*Norway

ABSTAIN:
*Lithuania
*Peru
*Poland
*Portugal
*Republic of Korea
*United Kingdom
*France
*Australia
*Slovenia
*Sierra Leone
*Sweden
*Switzerland
*Netherlands
*San Marino
*Senegal
*Monaco
*Colombia
*Denmark
*Finland

*Moldova
*Thailand
*FYR Macedonia
*Malaysia
*Qatar
*Togo
*Trinidad-Tobago
*Uganda
*Ukraine
*UA Emirates
*Samoa
*Mongolia
*Saudi Arabia
*Tuvalu
*Yemen
*New Zealand
*Morocco
*Vanuatu
*Armenia

Stuck in traffic:
*Turkmenistan
*Mali
*Maldives
*Malawi
*Libyan AR
*Turkey
*Tunisia
*Tonga
*Rwanda
*Saint Kitts and Nevis
*Saint Vincent
*Mauritania
*Uzbekistan
*Sao Tome
*Mozambique
*Seychelles
*Venezuela
*Somalia
*Nepal

Not allowed to vote (due to not paying any budget fees for years):
*Liberia

Also some who didn't speak much spoke today so we will have new quotes. Salvador for an example.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Where are you getting this? I can't find anything anywhere! :-( [[User:Canadian Bobby|Canadian Bobby]] ([[User talk:Canadian Bobby|talk]]) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::I made snapshots from the TV when they shown the scoreboard (they didn't show the A-L btw though they did mention some countries in that group like Australia, Greece, Cuba etc.). This is purely for the curious because we still need to wait for the official table. But it does allow us to start preparing new entries on Palau, Micronesia, Salvador etc.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It's an interesting list, to say the least. Libya and Venezuela, two opponents of independence (the first according to Serbia) didn't even show up for the vote. While on the other hand, Moldova and Morocco abstained. It's also interesting that Timor-Leste voted for it, although the similarities between it and Kosovo are pretty big. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well it is weird but obviously could mean a lot of things (countries that opposed independence or didn't recognise and those that recognised or supported being mixed together in all groups (except for the absent it seems)). No presence by Venezuela doesn't mean much because they aren't shy of expressing their views. Probably it's one of the countries that really were stuck in traffic.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Turkey was actually there, it just didn't partake in the voting. Its representative participated in the debate and said that Turkey supports Kosovo and believes in the legitimacy of its independence. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Oh well maybe Turkish ambassador forgot to push the button. Who knows.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::No, he clearly said that they're not going to take part in the vote (not even abstain). Also, Liberia voted against but the machine didn't work and for some reason they didn't count their vote even though their representative made a fuss about it. I'm getting all of this information from the webcast posted here [http://www.un.org/webcast/2008.html] --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK thanks I will look into that. I have started creating a map, hopefully there will be some source which will list all countries soon.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::A map would work, but it would be hard to identify some of the smaller states that voted for/against. How about a list? Or we could do both... --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk:Alchaemia|talk]]) 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK here is the map I started creating (only UN members so I erased Vatican and HK) [[:Image:United Nations General Assembly vote on resolution A63L.2.PNG]]. But obviously too many are still missing.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which Korea are you talking about? There is only one listed and it voted to abstain so I assume that would be South Korea. Was DPRK stuck in traffic? --[[User:Tocino|Tocino]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:RKorea because DPRKorea is in A-L list. Btw I have added Micronesia and Palau because their positions are new and strong so that it was reported even by Spanish media that they voted against.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did
# Iceland
# Norway

come from? I am not sure if they voted for. --[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:I put them in. I watched the UN video and during the explanation of vote segment both countries spoke and stated that they had voted for the proposal. [[User:Canadian Bobby|Canadian Bobby]] ([[User talk:Canadian Bobby|talk]]) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I have also found some other countries in the Russian news so will add them in a minute.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk:Avala|talk]]) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK the list is out. I will update the article.--[[User:Avala|Avala]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Alchaemia|alchaemia]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] ([[User talk: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 it at all. It is only a procedural vote in the UN which some editors have chosen to elevate to completely out of its significane in the real world. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:42, 10 October 2008

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=244472587"