Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Interesting evidence that Georgia will eventually recognize

An Estonian newspaper conducted an interview with the PM of Georgia, and very thoughtfully posted an mp3 of the relevant part of the interview (which you can download and listen to), in which the PM says that "in due course, Georgia will recognize Kosovo" and the reason why they haven't already is that they've "...been busy, very busy." The interview and article are in English. [6] Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from the article you've posted..... "After that press conference, a spokesman for the Georgian PM came out and said that the PM “was misinterpreted” by the journalist." The Foreign Minister of Georgia has said that his country is united (across party lines) in its opposition to recognizing Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. It would be really counter-productive for Georgia to recognize considering the situation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Tocino 02:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I listened to the mp3, they were speaking English and he DID say that Georgia would recognize. I do not see how he could have been "misinterpreted." Further, I did not say that recognition was imminent or even that it would actually happen. You may have noticed that the title of my little section here says, "evidence that Georgia will eventually recognize." I didn't say, 'ZOMG Georgia is recognizing!!!!111lol!!11! We gotta change teh article right nows!" I put the link up because it was interesting and relevant. Countries do things all the time that don't make any sense. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well according to the article the opposition party broke the news in Georgia about the remarks the PM made to an obsure Estonian journalist, and immediately afterwards the government was backtracking from the bizarre comments. It would be diplomatic suicide for them to recognize Kosovo because Russia, Serbia, and non-NATO countries would respond by recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia and only God knows what would happen after then.--Tocino 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Bobby you cease to amaze me. That's all the proof I needed. You really think America is going to let Georgia into NATO without first recognizing Rep. of Kosova? Kosova2008 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. This is not a forum, friends. Let's limit ourselves to improving the article text. --Mareklug ^talk 07:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If these claims were denied by Georgian Government I also see no point in further discussion on this issue as Wikipedia indeed is not a forum. There are many reasons for this to happen among others that Georgian PM is not fluent in English. Condoleezza Rice for an example said in Russian she will be running for a president but after realizing what she said she explained it was a misunderstanding. --Avala (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He has better english than me. That also wasn't a slip he mentioned something about being coordinated with his allies. 69.179.180.146 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll choose to trust Georgian Government over a claim by IP user.--Avala (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala isn't the Georgian PM part of the "Georgian Government"? You can hear the Georgian PM say "in the do course we will recognize Kosova as our friends in Europe. The reporter asks if he is worried that Kosova, the PM quickly disrupts him and says that [Kosova] "is no precedent..." and goes on to draw parallel between Slobodan Milosevic and Georgian government. You provide that an advisor to Cuba is an official stance but an audio interview between Georgian PM talking about Kosova's due recognition and an Estonian reporter is not enough to constitute a reaction? Kosova2008 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC) PS: The Georgian PM is speaking perfect English.

Do you understand that there was a reaction, a denial from Georgian Government afterwards? I am not doubting the interview but if they denied it what is the point of further discussion? Should we list Condoleezza Rice under presidential candidates for what she said even though she later explain a misunderstanding. I don't know why or what Georgian PM said and meant but if he denied Georgia was about to recognize what are we discussing here? We could add "Georgian PM said in an interview to Estonian press that Georgia will soon recognize Kosovo but later that day Georgian Government released a statement which stated that PM was misinterpreted". --Avala (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting articles about things that might, could or should happen. Let us just focus on facts. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jawohl that comment was really unnecessary. Everybody is doing their best to have this article as accurate as possible. Sources indicating things that might, could or should happen are perfectly valid when they're official predictions or assumptions. Húsönd 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Husond. Given the level of unrestrained and nearly arbitrary sourcing, quoting, and speculation that takes place in these talk pages on a regular basis, to gang up on Canadian Bobby over an actual sound recording purported to be by a Georgian MP, and tell him this is "not a forum" is laughably illogical and inconsistent. Canadian Bobby's info filfills the purpose of this talk section: for editors to present and discuss scources and evidence, judge their significance to this article, and arrive at a majority opinion with regard to possible content modifications. If an editor says, "I do not agree that this source is sufficient evidence to modify the article," that is appropriate; if an editor says, "Don't post this here in the first place because this is not a forum," that is an irrelevant. If anything, such a reply constitutes a greater misuse of the talk pages than the data in question. Like it or not, the data is at least sufficiently relevant to be discussed and critiqued in and of itself.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear not. I will not post anything here again. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, Robert. Resilience, resilience. These are trying times, and you're inputs are valuable. My own comment "this is not a forum" was directed at spin a la "at least we treat our minorities better than", truly irrelevant to this article in every way. Please keep on doing. --Mareklug ^talk 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are getting so worked out about a sources saying that Georgia may recognise Kosovo in the future. Get over it. I read and listened to it, and it was rather clear about a possible recognition in the future. We can wait and tell if Georgia recognises or not. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why we aren't sourcing the Georgian PM? We know it was the PM himself because the next day the other side came out and disclaimed their own PM --- so common sense tells me it was him. We also know he said himself that Georgia will recognize Kosova because the opposition said that they have no clue what he is talking about because Georgia has no plan of doing this. I know we have a lot of stances here that state what the parliament thinks and what the PM thinks. I think its' important we source the Georgian PM's position as well. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From Avala's and Ev's exchange 2 sections below, sounds like we should. Why don't you prepare an exact candidate for an editprotect request, complete with references, and we will discuss adding it. --Mareklug ^talk 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion :

On April 4 Estonian newspaper Postimees has released an audio file of part of an interview with Georgian Prime Minister, Lado Gurgenidze in which he said "in due course we of course will recognize Kosovo.". On April 5, Avtandil Pavlenishvili, the Government’s spokesman said that "The Georgian government’s position is clear for everyone: the Georgian government does not intend to recognize the Kosovo’s independence" and said that "the PM was misinterpreted by the journalist".

--Avala (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 2:

On April 4 a newspaper released an audio file of part of an interview with Georgian Prime Minister, Lado Gurgenidze in which he said "in due course we of course will recognise Kosovo.".
(People will be able to tell its from a Estonian newspaper Postimees from the reference)
Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And what you suggest we put a full stop after that? Without mentioning the government calling it a misinterpretation. Hopefully not because we are not here to cover up anything.--Avala (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to mention the error of the PM and the Estonian journalist. This is not noteworthy because the government denied that they were going to recognize immediately after the story broke. --Tocino 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume the Prime Minister is insane or unstable, and his interview shows perfectly lucid observations, made in fluent English. Furthermore, they did not amount to "Georgia will recognize immediately", so painting it that way is spin and has nothing to do with reality. The government spokesman's issue from the following day may be indicative of splits within the government, and thus, of the situation being rather more fluid than we have been lead to believe when editors made the Georgia entry. Certainly, including a mention of the Prime Minister's say about eventual recognition and acknowledging that Georgia's friends have recognized, with a link to his actual conversation, is not going to deteriorate the article, and will only enhance it by providing more information and allow the readers to make up their minds. We should definitely include it. --Mareklug ^talk 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to mention that the Georgian PM says he will like "his partners in Europe" and the fact that today his government is calling for his resignation or impeachment, I can't understand this language well enough to know the difference. I just know that they want him gone now. This is all new information and adding it only brings the article up to date and more accurate Kosova2008 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a point in adding the information on something that has been officially refuted by the Government.--Avala (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

the statement has not been refuted officially; it has only been refuted by a spokesman of the government, while the statement was made by its Prime Minister, who, I believe, has not recanted! And the reported calling for his impeachment (that means suing him in court/parliament for breach of duty) or resignation is making it all into a very newsworthy and interesting development. Definitely this needs to be added, not hidden. Avala, you cry about hiding information only when you approve of it, but otherwise, hide away... If we are documenting reactions, certainly an mp3 recording of several minutes' worth of discussion on the subject by the Prime Minister of Georgia indicating future recognition and reasons for it -- is entirely on topic, and not interpreted by anyone with an axe to grind, but the real deal straight from the horse's mouth. --Mareklug ^talk 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the opposition asking for his resignation not his Government or President as far as I've seen. Spokespersons usually don't act on their own will but reflect the will of the Government. For an example in Serbia, Prime Minister, usually explains his positions through statements of spokespersons and they usually are such one liners or denials or just something the PM is not willing to come out and talk about himself at that point. Even in the USA Sean McCormack is the one who appears more often to make comments and reflect the opinion of the department. You don't see a press conference of Condoleezza Rice every day but you do see Sean McCormack every day.--Avala (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point: spokesmen usually speak for the leaders, not to deny what they just said. We have no other evidence that the Prima Minister recanted or said he misspoke. The situation is curious and there is less harm in acknowledging, with a link to the conversation, than in ignoring it. The situation in Georgia is colored by murky foreign relations and pressure from Russia, in fact, probably something akin to blackmail regarding recognizing parts of Georgia as independent states. We don't know what is behind the scenes, and we owe it to ourselves to report fully the international reaction. --Mareklug ^talk 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"spokesmen usually speak for the leaders, not to deny what they just said" - He did not refute the position of PM, but the interpretation of the press.--Avala (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Macedonia

{{editprotected}}

A few things;

Please put this text in the list of UN member states that have not granted recognition yet

| North Macedonia || "The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President Branko Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo, but he pointed out that nations in the two organizations have to yet to assume a common stance. The Democratic Party of Albanians left the government coalition on March 13 2008 after it failed to meet their six demands, recognizing Kosovo's independence being one of them. However, it returned on 24 March 2008 after demanding the recognition of Kosovo. On 27 March 2008, Macedonian minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Milošoski issed the following statement: "In welcoming the constructive position of the Republic of Macedonia concerning Kosovo, the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament has expressed concern because of delay in the technical demarcation of the Republic of Macedonia-Kosovo borderline and has asked that this issue be solved in accordance with the Ahtisaari proposal.". This reiterated Macedonia's support for the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo, which was endorsed by the foreign affairs ministry a year earlier, on 30 March 2007.||EU candidate country
NATO candidate country

Also, please remove this from the intro:

"and on 30 March 2007, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center published a press release with the following content concerning Kosovo: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue."[5]"

BalkanFever 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Even though sourcing a 19 March state of confusion after just having sourced a 24 March return to lesser state of confusion seems half-assed. Perhaps that sentence re: as of 19 March and politicians negotiating should be struck or folded under the reference from the March 24 return to the coalition of the Albanians? --Mareklug ^talk 13:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. You do it this time ;). BalkanFever 13:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a simple cut. Done. Ok with you? --Mareklug ^talk 13:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed BalkanFever 13:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Number of countries that are against

Can someone change the number of countries that are against independence. At the beggining of the article it says "Some 25 UN member states have either officially declined to extend their recognition, or are unlikely to do so". That number has since gone up to 30. Thank you.Top Gun

Let's see a list of these purported 30 first. An acceptable source would also be nice to have, per Wikipedia standards of article quality. --Mareklug ^talk 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cuba, Cyprus, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam. --Tocino 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino "Slovakia will take four months to arrive at an official position to recognise or not recognize Kosovo's independence" therrfore your list is incorrect. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977 in regards to that statement about four months to decide for Slovakia, Robert Fico reacted to that calling it "only a technical deadline" and said "I do not exclude the possibility that Slovakia will never recognize Kosovo. Kosovo is not some independent territory, it is an integral part of Serbia where Serbs, and members of the Albanian ethnic minority live." And Mareklug if you want a reference for that statement check the article it's right there.Top Gun 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "a reference for that statement" does not exist in the article, "that statement" being your proposed editrequest, of course. In fact, even the statement alledging 25 countries as officially rejecting or likely too is an unsourced one. The only source in that paragraph is the Guardian source discussing Putin and sourcing Russian position. It contains no information about other states. Please provide a source, and better yet, please provide the exact editprotect candidate edit, so we can examine what it is you precisely wish to include. As to Slovakia, the country is formally reviewing the Kosovo matter, and at best can be said not to have recognized it yet. Spinning Robert Fico with selective quoting won't change that. Other quotes from Slovakia can be produced that talk about the world reaction moving toward recognition, and how Slovakia is a realist country, etc. --Mareklug ^talk 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to POV possibilities I think we should remove that altogether. --Avala (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Avala i agree with there. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. We really do not need to go into this discussion all over again. Jawohl (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Avala. That sentence is rather speculative and doesn't really add much to the quality of the article. Most readers understand that if 36 countries have recognized, the rest have not. And as we have seen, even skeptical countries may resort to recognition. --Camptown (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it's a pleasure to be able to say it, hope to be able to say it all the time: I agree with Avala. --Mareklug ^talk 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning how many countries are 'against' and 'for' isn't very encyclopedic, I think we should remove them as Avala mentioned. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so much about being unencyclopedic but redundant. We already have all the information in the article and we've also agreed to avoid unnecessary summaries because they can only cause troubles.--Avala (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, the agreement is on the idea of removing the following text: "Some 25 UN member states have either officially declined to extend their recognition, or are unlikely to do so, and". Did I get it right ? - Ev (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Capitalize the "s" in "several" that follows. --Mareklug ^talk 19:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done diff. Ev (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I only fought if there is a number of those that are for there should be a number of those explicitly against. And I think I made a mistake in that case. It's 31 not 30, if we include Slovakia which has said on three different occasions it's against. Thanks Tocino for the correction. And if you want to remove the number of those against then remove the number of those who are for. Top Gun 15:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The characterization of positions of states on this list of 31 is contested throughout this talk page and in the article itself. Countries such as Brazil have deferred their formal position to future UN SC action; other countries such as Portugal are more aptly characterized as not having recognized yet, but leaning in that direction, and we have sourced the Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates stating precisely that. Yet other countries given on this list, such as Morocco, are not properly documented at all – in this case we have an in-passing press account reference to Marocco being worried, nothing from Morocco itself. Such evidence does not support your claim. In general, this list is padded with arguable cases, and no source has been produced yet that states this information outside the Wikipedia. Therefore, it represents synthesis by Wikipedians, and on those grounds alone, it fails the test of admissible text. --Mareklug ^talk 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good moment to remember that statements included in an article must be directly, explicitly, unambiguously supported by a reliable source. - Ev (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

May I again of course remind that this article name is International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence so we are not including information about those countries which have recognized only but all international reactions by representatives of governments and relevant international bodies. --Avala (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Avala. As long as the reaction is worthy of mention (as in "of value for our readership", common sense applies) and properly sourced, it can be added. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Monaco and Senegal

Isn't it a little bit odd that Monaco and Senegal recognize an independent Kosovo but do not recognize an independent Montenegro? Well according to the Foreign relations of Montenegro article Monaco and Senegal are not listed amongst states that recognize Montenegro, a country which achieved independence democratically and without violence. Perhaps many more countries, including Monaco and Senegal, have actually recognized Montenegro but it just hasn't made the news???? --Tocino 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized this.... according to Monaco and Senegal, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia and Montenegro. LOL. -- Tocino 19:38, 6 APril 2008(UTC)

Did Monaco recognize Serbia, or does Serbia rely on recognitions inherited from the communist era? --Camptown (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbia is the successor state to Serbia and Montenegro, which was also the successor state of Yugoslavia. Serbia is already fully reocgnized similar to the way Russia was immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. --Tocino 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this talk page is already cluttered with unnecessary remarks. Could you please continue this discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of Montenegro or in your personal talk pages ? Thank you already, Ev (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not just about Montenegro. Why are Monaco and Senegal recognizing Kosovo when they haven't even recognized Montenegro? Is it because the American govt., NATO, etc. hasn't promised them any money in return for recognition of Montenegro? --Tocino 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Camptown, Serbia did not inherit recognition from the communist era. Tocino, you are incorrect if you believe that Serbia and Montenegro was the successor state to Yugoslavia. Considering how finely everyone on this article studies things, I think it should be noted that Serbia and Montenegro was not the successor state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but rather a newly constituted state called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Clicking on the member section of the UN website will clarify this. Serbia did definitely not receive recognition in the same manner as Russia did after the dissolution of the USSR 124.191.101.75 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, why don't you ask the respective government representatives? We do not know. Jawohl (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

States that have explicitly recognised the Republic of Montenegro. So they will have recognised Montenegro, just not explicit about doing so unlike with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is just baseless speculation based on another Wikipedia article, with Wikipedia being most definitely not a reliable source. How exactly does this discussion help to improve this article ? Until you have facts supported by adequate sources, I will ask everyone to move this discussion to personal talk pages, please. - Ev (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know there are two types of recognition. One where everyone knows about it and it is explicit and the other type is kept quiet. I wonder how many governments are secretly recognizing the Republic of Serbian Krajina.... --Tocino 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some countries automatically recognized Montenegro when it joined the UN but we have no sources for that. Simple as that. If you really need details contact Montenegrin MFA. Some countries with low developed diplomacies haven't sent any letters to Montenegrin MFA to make their recognition known to everyone though. But you should know that there are many countries which have policy to recognize only UN members but when some country joins the UN it's almost an automatic process. --Avala (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Montenegrin law [7] their MFA is obliged to answer to such questions in eight days. E-mail: mip@mn.yu --Avala (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with improving the article? --Jakezing (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, joining the UN does not make you a nation. It's a mile-stone, a great achievement, but not a requirement to be a country. Now I have to let you know that Serbia is not the "successor" state, the only way for Serbia to gain that title is if all the ex-yugo countries recognized that title of Serbia (which they don't). The question about Senegal, we don't know, we can't really answer that. The question about self-proclaimed "serbian republic" there is absolutely no chance of becoming a country. Please don't reply to this, if you do, do it in my talk page. Let's end this now..we've used up too much space. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Many African states see UN as the only protection and they don't wish to undermine it's authority.--Avala (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It has gotten long and useless but maybe RoK was recognized by the aforementioned countries because it is a unique case (as suggested) while montenegro was just another case. Jawohl (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So Montenegro needs to support terrorism against Serbs and become a major drug smuggling capital in order for it to get recognized by these two nations? Ok. --Tocino 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, you really are quite immature. If things don't go your way or if people don't see things your way, then you either lash out at someone or post idiotic statements like this. Outburst like that really only devalue the good contributions you are capable of making or have made! 124.191.101.75 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@Avala, some countries do this, some countries do that, we aren't here to discuss what African countries think. Can someone ban Tocino for his 13 year old comments. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria - edit request

It is not a region. It's a secessionist movement.--Dojarca (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ok Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is the unrecognized secessionist government of Chechnya. So obviously it doesn't belong to "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence" but "Political parties". Move it there and change the title as well to "Political parties and organizations". Thanks, --Avala (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We could just rename the title to "Regions/ secessionist movements striving for more autonomy or independence" Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am against putting them all together because they differ quite a lot. If we make distinction between UN members and nonmembers then we should make difference between regions and organizations. --Avala (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. If they have a de facto control over their territory, then they are a region; if they don't have de facto control over their territory, then they are merely a movement. Chechnya was a de facto state until the fall of Grozny in 2000, when Russia reasserted control. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is currently just an independence movement--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was titled "Unrecognised republics and regions striving for more autonomy or independence," however User:Mareklug, in his quest to change every little detail in order to suit his POV, removed the "Unrecognised republics" part of the title just before the article was locked. Truth is that there is no active movement inside Chechnya these days that wants independence.... there is a government-in-exile that proclaims soverignty of Chechnya, however it is unrecognised, therefore it can be classified as an unrecognised republic. Also, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyrpus, Western Sahara, etc. are not just regions striving for more autonomy or independence, they are already de-facto independent so they are "unrecognised republics". --Tocino 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not unrecognized republic as Abkhazia for example. It's political movement at the moment. Chechnya is not striving for independence now, so saying they do is pure misinformation.--Dojarca (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see a clear consensus here on exactly what to do. Please, read the instructions on how to use the {{editprotected}} template: First you discuss an issue and try to reach agreement. Only after a consensus is formed use the {{editprotected}} template, followed by a specific description of the request. And there's no need to add "edit request" to the section's title. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

I read in a news paper article last night about why Lithuania has not recognised Kosovo yet. It was the opposition in the Lithuanian Parliament opposing for the sake of opposing. Not really opposing because they disagree on recognising Kosovo, they just want to give the party in power a hard time. The next Seimas in the Lithuanian Government is not until 17 April i think. Lithuania may recognise then apparently. If i find that article again I'll post it on here. But hopefully that answers peoples questions on why Lithuania has not recognised yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How can opposition have a majority to oppose?--Avala (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not that, they are having to discuss it first. I don't know exactly how the Lithuania parliamentary system works. But its something like that. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the country and on the type of legislation. Not all legislative acts of parliament or congress require a simple 50%+1 majority. Sometimes they require a 2/3 majority, or 3/4, or something else. So, depending on what kind of political process is involved in Kosovo recognition, the opposing party in Lithuania might easily be able to defeat it without a majority. And there are other possibilities too, other mechanisms, like committees and whatnot, including, as anderson already noted, the power in some instances to postpone a vote with endless debate. It all depends on the constitutional particulars of that country.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That article im on about was in the Baltic Times. I cant find it though Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read about the situation in Lithuania at [8]. There are serious problems facing the attempts to recognize Kosovo - a major portion of it is business. Lithuania wants to open a business center in the Balkans and Serbia was supposed to be the place to go. The recognition would cause troubles to these things. At any rate, the Wikipedia article is using decisions done 2 months ago to argue that the country is "about to recognize" Kosovo. It is bizarre. If something doesn't happen for 2 months, it is not really "going to happen very soon". I recommend Lithuania to be moved to the undecided countries, and kindly ask an administrator to read the article linked above and rewrite the description of the Lithuanian position, with an increased focus on more recent events. --Lumidek (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it, and to me it's still an "about to recognize" situation. In fact this blog entry (and we don't source vanilla blogs) portrays the Seimas as comprising many frivolous and personal gain-motivated individuals, with the lot of them out attending some libation and/or making capricious requests. Even so, this blog entry clearly quotes the Seimas committee chairman saying that the recognition will pass full Seimas after some amendments are added. Nothing to alter the article for, and certainly not based on info from this blog or sourcing it. --Mareklug ^talk 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia - edit request

Why this country is not on the list of the countires that have not yet recognised kosova or are yet to decide? In particular since their king has said today they will recognise it, see here http://www.kosova.com/artikulli/45659 . I would be happy to add it on the list, but don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

On April 7, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has promised his country will recognize Kosovo. The King confirmed his stance during a meeting that he held with Albania's parliament speaker, Jozefina Topalli in Riyadh.

--Avala (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heres an english reference to support that [9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the one I used as well.--Avala (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff source in EN [10] Kosova2008 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We have had that sources 3 times now haha Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, 2 times. Me and Avala. I didn't have time since I was going to work and was in a hurry. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is caused by the simple fact that many users don't care to read what's written before they click on the edit button. That's why some things have to be repeated countlessly.--Avala (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Avala. For clarity, the source is:
"Saudi King: We will recognize Kosovo", New Kosova Report, April 7, 2008.
Regards, Ev (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Three details:

• The article does not mention the date of the interview. I would remove the date or attribute the text by adding "On April 7, the information portal New Kosova Report reported that...".
• The source itself: New Kosova Report, "a non-profit information portal about Kosovo/a". Are you all fine with using it instead of waiting for another more traditional one to repeat the king's promise ?
• The text is copied verbatim. That's fine, since the original is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States license. But it also means that we must pay attention not to alter, transform, or build upon it, now or later. And that's not what our own GFDL license aims for.

Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think besides CCA that this text cannot be changed too much. It's so simple and factual without too much creativity that we can't change it a lot. Also I don't think there will be any derivative work considering it's a news about one event. There will not be anything to add. Only to expand the section with future news but without touching info on this meeting. I think we should believe it. There is a photo in the first source (in Albanian) from the meeting and considering there are two sources already I doubt it was made up. I agree with your first suggestion. --Avala (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh just add something like "Saudi King Promised recognition for Kosovo". Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rather paranoid about copyright this week, never mind. Ok, after reading the report again, how about this version:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has promised that his country will recognize Kosovo. He confirmed this stance in early April, during a meeting he held in Riyadh with Albania's parliament speaker, Jozefina Topalli.

Would that be ok ? - Ev (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be OK with me. But only as a countries position, not on the about to recognize table. Jawohl (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AGREE Seems good to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. And I think it should go to "about to recognize" - because "the King of Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia's head of state and absolute monarch." so if he said that there is 0 chance it is not a position of Saudi Arabia.--Avala (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The edit should be made. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Of course, the administrator carrying out the editprotect request needs to add the appropriate flag template for Saudi Arabia, put the suggested text within the correct table (States that are about to formally recognise Kosovo, as Avala suggests above), an add the annotation in the Notes column that it is an OIC state. --Mareklug ^talk 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Saudi Arabia added to "States that are about to formally recognise Kosovo" (diff.). For consistency I did not mention OIC membership, since this fact isn't indicated in the case of any other state. Should it be added to all members? - Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know that is one of the disputes which led to article lock (whether to include OIC or not). Thanks for editing. --Avala (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia, Montenegro to recognise (apparently)

[11] Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree but it seems he made that statement by himself. No representatives of these countries were standing next to him when he said that which makes it difficult to add it to the article.--Avala (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, he has said that about them two countries about 5 times already. They probably will eventually. But they won't announce it beforehand. They will try not to draw any attention. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I read news from B92 and I rarely believe what I read. I read I think in January this detailed plan by B92 how there would be 3 waves of recogntion. The first wave would be all Islamic countries and so on...man did those lies get exposed. Don't believe B92 much unless you find the similar fact in another news agency. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the Serbian propaganda machine funded from the US. Now please stop polluting every section with your POV on B92. --Avala (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Avala. What you getting at? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

B92 is funded from the US. It's often called anti-Serbian in Serbia which is one of the reasons hooligans attacked B92 on the same night as the US embassy consular office was torched. But Kosova2008 user insists B92 is Serbian propaganda machine that should be trusted under no circumstances and inserts these remarks in many sections of this talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with these predictions. If they do it, when they do it, we will put it up. And then of course someone has to explain to Tocino why thy did it :) Jawohl (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I regard B92 as being quite a neutral source. They usually provide only facts in their reports, no biased commentary. And Jawohl, again, please stop ordering users to quit providing valid reports on most relevant recognition predictions. Húsönd 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, B92 in its original guise may well have been in the past a "quite a neutral source", as well as a target of chauvinistic Serbian hooligans and nationalists or even Serbian governmetn repraisals and shuttdowns, and while it has won awards and been funded by Soros and other European/Western sources, of late its B92.net operation has published very slanted and even misleading information, titled with biased, inaccurate headlines.

Here is a recent example: "UN: Kosovo heart of Balkan drug route" from 26 March 2008, 17:12 (time), sourced to "Tanjug". This dispatch starts with this passage: "NEW YORK -- The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has released a new report. It warned that the axis between South American drug cartels and the Albanian mafia have reached "alarming proportions", while reports by several intelligence agencies show that Kosovo is a distribution center on the crossroads of global routes and pathways of drug trafficking." If you study this carefully, you will note that the article text does not support that UNODC blamed Kosovo for drug running in Europe or said anything about Kosovo being the heart of Balkan drug route, as the headline claims. In fact, if you got to the UNDOC website and search for "Kosovo", and order the results by date [12], the latest and only result that is a report is "[PDF] Report 2007", International Narcotics Control Board report 2007. The entries that follow are translations or come from earlier years (whatever are the 2008 dates shown with these results, those being the last modification of the document). And if you search the report itself, you will see it mentions Kosovo exactly once, on page 34 (PDF document page #46): "During 2007, the Board offered such training to national drug control administrators from a number of countries, including Canada, Cuba, Ghana, Jordan and the United States, as well as to representatives of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo."

So. I have clearly documented, above, unethical, lying, propagandistic use of media, as it appears on a B92-managed web resource, the one used for sourcing this Wikipedia article. I think that this example of the lack of impartiality and accurate reporting suffices to discredit B92 as far as sourcing Serbia/Kosovo-related items, as do the generic guidelines codified by WP:VER and WP:NPOV, which clearly insist on using only unimpeachable neutral sources lacking any appearance of conflict of interest. Clearly something is amiss in B92.net's reporting, perhaps not all the time, but at lest this one time, and its geographical location is subject to conflict of interest restrictions. --Mareklug ^talk 20:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you stop for a second to think they are not referring to that particular document?--Avala (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Produce it. There isn't any other on the website. --Mareklug ^talk 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to produce anything. It's not what I do. I rely on real things, not produces of imagination of users around here.--Avala (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that they meant another report is not relying on real things. Here is another report of theirs, from a different section of their website, titled "World Drug Report - Global Illicit Drug Trends", and which contains reports for every year from 1997 to 2007. The 2007 report, produced even earlier, World Drug Report 2007, does not mention Kosovo even once. It mentions Albania 8 times, and 9 times Serbia & Montenegro. I looked at all of them -- none pertain to Kosovo but to the named countries in general, like in tables od amount o drugs seized per country, etc. --Mareklug ^talk 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, the reason why I do that is simple: Almost every time, until now, when we had a prediction we ended up in endless discussions which led nowhere. That is why I think we started to discuss only proceedings which had been initiated, cancelled or frozen. That way the mood is more relaxed and we have time for other things. I did not do it in bad faith. Jawohl (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not have done it in bad faith, but some people, such as myself, may take it as a slap in the face for trying to be helpful. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well sorry for the slap, if that is how you perceive it. I was just trying to prevent additional multiple slaps from happening. :) Jawohl (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

EU - edit request

{{editprotected}}

EU officials have approved Kosovo's Constitution .
(Please add this onto the end of the EU Notes.) Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you source it a little more encyclopedically? A naked URL to a repackaged paraphrase on a website (with glaring typos) is not the best we can do. How about EUbusiness.com or something like Associated Press or Reuters? --Mareklug ^talk 22:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest then,i belive it is important to mention the EU has aproved Kosovos constitution. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a list of sources proving that the EU has approved Kosovo's Constitution.

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

So can we add to the EU section please that it has approved Kosovo's Constitution. Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now, although it looks like a good addition. Please be more specific about the wikitext you wish to add, and where it is to be added. Any passing admin can easily complete a "please replace the text: lorem ipsum dolor sit amet with the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" request, but "can we add to the EU section" requires knowledge of the topic. You are unnecessarily restricting the domain of admins who are capable of making the request. Mareklug also correctly points out the need to ensure that the addition is sourced reliably, and that the citations are of an appropriate form, preferably using a citation template. You will get much more accurate and efficient results if you provide a full example of the text you want added, and where you want it placed. Happy‑melon 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of states that have recognized is lower than expected

Vuk Jeremić confirms what Daniel Serwer, vice-president of the United States Institute of Peace (an institution established and funded by the U.S. Congress), had to say on March 15 [17], which is that, "The number of countries that recognized Kosovo's unilateral secession is lower than expected." Jeremić has said [18] that "The wave of recognition which took place after the unilateral declaration, is a lot smaller than anyone foresaw it would be." Serbia is confident that they will get a majority of U.N. member states to support their stance. I believe that the failure to achieve widespread recognition deserves a mention in the introduction. --Tocino 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So?--Jakezing (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ok Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's not what we are looking for in the article. I agree that there were expectations regarding Muslim states which haven't realized (mostly due to the disagreement by 3 out of 4 influential Muslim states) but it's all hypothetical and not something that can find it's place in this article. You should move this discussion to Kosovo declaration of independence talk page because that article should go outside of the scope of raw facts that we are looking for here.--Avala (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think an extra sentence belongs on the end of this paragraph? "As of 28 March 2008, 36 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (18 of 27); EU member states decide individually whether to recognise Kosovo, whereas the EU has commissioned the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) to ensure peace and continued external oversight." All I am proposing is that we add to the end of the paragraph a short sentence that reads something to the effect of, "A geopolitical expert and top Serbian official agree that the number of countries that have recognized is lower than expected." --Tocino 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We could put it, but it might change and then it also might not. On the other hand, the number of countries which have or have not recognized is quite a subjective matter. For some it might be a lot, because they compare it with Croatia and for others not because they compare it with Montenegro. Then we might have the issue that you can not compare between Montenegro and Croatia because each one of them went through a different process. I think we should leave it as it is. Jawohl (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It took Serbia over 9 years to become internationally recognised as independent from the Ottoman Empire. Kosovo isn't even two months old yet. Give it time ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that "lower than expected" is entirely subjective and pov. I could just as easily claim that the number of countries is higher than expected. "Expected" by whom? Where is this stated? Have we passed some official dealine? Does 36 countries in 2 months constitute a low rate of recognition, or is it a high and enthusiastic rate? Someone told me that the EU, or US, I don't know who, supposedly stated that their (the initial group of recognizing countries) official goal was 100 states by the end of the year. If that could be sourced, then it would be encyclopedic and it could be added, without prejudice or mention of any "probable" outcome before it happens. As for it being an "expert" and an "official" making this assertion, that is immaterial; anybody can find a statement from someone reputable that supports an opinion, but such declarations are inconsequential if used merely support a pov, unless you are going to draw up a list of every nation's pov on that particular question, which would be silly in this case. It's difficult enough keeping track of who intends to or doesn't intend to recognize, much less worrying about how fast the recognition is coming along in the view of officials from a particular country. Reaction to Kosovo independence is one thing; commentary by one side of the table on how fast it's cvoming along, is quite something else. The proposed final sentence should not be added.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jakezing (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even though even the Kosovo PM himself made statements how 100 countries will recognize in month or two after independence, it is not a material for this article. It should be thoroughly explained and sourced in article regarding independence declaration.--Avala (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering shouldn't Serbia be taken off from this article since this article is about international reaction? Having Serbia and it's stance is like having the Kosovo and its' stance. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Orthodox Churches

{{editprotected}} Request that under religious organizations Other Orthodox churches:

From: "Support Serbia. No Orthodox Church has voiced their support for Kosovo's independence." To: "No Orthodox Church has voiced support for Kosovo's indepence."

Reason: the first part assumes that the churches support Serbia, that may not necessarily be true. Neutrality is the interpretation i took from sources 220 and 221.

HawkShark (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done does not have consensus at this time. Happy‑melon 10:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AGREE seems good to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, unless a source can be found that explicitly states support for Serbia's position. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a source for every church before the merge. Look through the article history.--Avala (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no neutrality. You either support Serbia, or support Kosovo. What's neutrality? Is cat dead, or is it alive? Or is it 50% dead and 50% alive? How can that be? If Kosovo declares independence but everyone stays neutral, does Kosovo have 50% of international support? No, it has exactly zero. Therefore, if no Orthodox Church supports Kosovo, it supports Serbia. You can only say that there is missing data on some Orthodox Churches, but that's not neutrality, it's "uknown" state. Which, technically, is not pro-Kosovo anyway. JosipMac (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You sir i think are sorely mistaken. About an action i can AGREE,DISAGREE, or be indifferent IE: a Church deems that it should not have stance in a political matter...HawkShark (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not having stance in something means being pro status quo. JosipMac (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Hungarian Liaison office

{{editprotected}} We might want to insert the following bit in the column of the status of reciprocal diplomatic missions:

Liaison office of Hungary in Prishtina<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kulkepviselet/Pristina/en/mainpage.htm|title=Liaison office in Pristina - Kosovo|publisher=Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs|accessdate=2008-04-07}}</ref>

Gugganij (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mareklug ^talk 21:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Seems good to me, hoever spell it as "Pristina" Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support with conditions I will support the change only if the city is spelled by the name in which WP uses and that is Priština or Pristina. --Tocino 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed With the others sans Tocino. Jawohl (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The name Hungarians and Wikipedia use is...

The name the Hungarians and Wikipedia use is Pristina.... not the Albanian version of Prishtina. --Tocino 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Hungarian Wikipedia uses Prishtina [19]: "Prishtina (albánul Prishtinë / Prishtina; szerbül: Приштина / Priština) Koszovó fővárosa, egyben legnépesebb települése. Az ENSZ ellenőrzése alatt áll."

As for the English Wikipedia, the article currently uses 3 spellings, but since an article has to be placed under some one title, for now, the old Serbian name is where it is lodged, despite 2 earlier attempts to move it by vote to Pristina: o"Priština, also spelled Pristina or Prishtina ( Albanian: Prishtinë or Prishtina, listen (help·info) , Serbian: Приштина, Priština) is the capital and the largest city of Kosovo, a partially recognized country in the Balkans that declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008. It is the administrative center of the homonymous municipality and district."

Furthermore, also on the English Wikipedia, the proposed policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles) addresses the subject of this city's name twice:

1. "Internationally, localities in Kosovo are most often known by Serbian names, often spelled without diacritics in English-language publications (e.g. Pristina rather than (S) Priština). The prevalence of Serbian names in non-Serbian sources is due to mapping usually being based on Serbian sources, which used the Serbian or Serbo-Croat forms of Kosovo placenames.[2] However, very recently published maps and guidebooks do now use Albanian placenames primarily, with Serbian placenames given secondarily (see e.g. Gizi Map's Kosovo Geographical Map (ISBN 9789630039208) or Bradt's Kosovo guidebook (ISBN 1841621994), both published in 2007)."
2. "Native names rendered in English-language sources using the same spelling but omitting diacritics, such as "Pristina" for (S) Priština, are not conventionally counted as being anglicised. Properly anglicised names can be distinguished by their having undergone significant modifications to spelling (e.g. "Belgrade" for (S) Beograd)."

Finally, also on English Wikipedia, we have generic policies already in place, which suggest using common English use names or how the place represents itself in the English langauge. The proposed policy quoted from above already explains that no English common use name exists in this case, only impoverished renditions of the Serbian name. The article about the city notes that fact of life by giving this spelling as one of three used in the English language, without passing judgment on its merits. It's merely descriptive. As for how the city represents itself in Albanian, Serbian, and English, we can look on its official website (link in the Wikipedia article). It definitely tailors the name to all three languages:

1. Albanian: Prishtinë (choose Shqip),
2. Serbian: Priština (choose Srpski),
3. English: Prishtina (choose English, site is under construction, but contains an English banner with this spelling).

Please note that the new Coat of Arms of Prishtina contains the word "Prishtina", visible in that form on all three language versions of the website.

Also, undeniably, the name of the city sounds like "Prishtina" and that is how it is pronounced by everybody. Accordingly, other Wikipedias use local notation to evidence this, for example, on the Polish Wikipedia the spelling is Prisztina (sz is the sh sound), and on Esperanto it is Priŝtino (again ŝ is the sh sound), while on the Russian it is Приштина (again, ш is the sh sound), and on Turkish it is Priştine (again, ş is the sh sound), while many others simplify the name by omitting the diacritic that indicates the "sh" sound in Serbian, or use the Serbian with the diacritic intact, as the case may be.

I trust this exhaustively and precisely documents why we consistently use Prishtina in this article, and so did User:Gugganij, in his editprotect request. In another article, we may use Priština, for example, an article about Serbia's history. But this article is about the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo and it specifically treats the city in its contemporary context as its capital. --Mareklug ^talk 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We use it just because someone used edit/replace and put Prishtina everywhere. It's not even the name of the article, it's not even an English spelling but you insist on it regardless of the fact there is a compromise solution in Pristina which is

a)It is English spelling

b)It's not Serbian spelling

c)It's not Albanian spelling

--Avala (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't added anything substantial to the discussion, I'm affraid, as all your contentions are thoroughly rebuffed above and on the talk page of the city's article by several persuasive editors' explications. The idea that an article's title determines automatically that this is the only way it may be referenced, especially in cases where several equivalent variants or historically context-sensitive alternatives apply, or in fact that context plays no role in name choice, is not a Wikipedia reality or policy. The Gdańsk/Danzig rule is one counterexample. As for the alledged compromise nature of Pristina in English, it would be more apt to label it compromised – as in typographically challenged, incomplete, adulterated representation of Priština, made of convenience, a bastardization unworthy of an encyclopedia, except to note its prevalent use. Again, this point has already been documented by knowledgable Wikipedians. And certainly making all references uniform in our article was the right thing to do, rather than suffer inconsistency. And any links are piped, referencing the city's article under its name, whatever it is this week, and will be no doubt re-piped, or de-piped, should it be moved next week (very likely, as the proposed Kosovo naming policy I linked to above becomes a binding one). This is a non-issue, save for partisan attempts to practice reality denial. Please note the movement in newly published sources to Prishtina, already documented above. --Mareklug ^talk 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesnt really matter how it is spelled in Hungarian as this is English wikipedia. So can we will add (with english spellings)-

Liaison office of Hungary in Pristina<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kulkepviselet/Pristina/en/mainpage.htm|title=Liaison office in Pristina - Kosovo|publisher=Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs|accessdate=2008-04-07}}</ref>

Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose that's the wrong spelling. 128.206.48.6 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How about now?

Liaison office of Hungary in Prishtina<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kulkepviselet/Pristina/en/mainpage.htm|title=Liaison office in Pristina - Kosovo|publisher=Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs|accessdate=2008-04-07}}</ref>

Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed --Cradel 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation Request

I found an editorial in the Diari d'Andorra (Andorra Diary) newspaper written by a former Prime Minister about Kosovo. It's in Catalan, which I can't read. I'm hoping we can gleam some information about Andorra's position if someone can translate it. Thanks! By the way, please resist the temptation to gang up on me this time.[20] Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Canadian, I speak French and Spanish so I can make out most of the info from the context. Most of the article isn't about Kosovo itself, but rather the process of realpolitik. Here's the meaty section of that article about Kosovo:

És cert que en el cas de Kosovo, els Estats a favor de la declaració unilateral de secessió, com és habitual a la realpolitik, es donen suport! Com no! De paraula en l’universal dret dels pobles a l’autodeterminació. De moment no hi ha res a dir. Però caldrà veure la seva posició, quan es presenti (en alguns casos ja s’ha presentat) a Txetxènia, Abkhàzia, Geòrgia, amb població majoritàriament musulmana. O el Transniéster que aspira a incorporar-se a Moldàvia, etcètera. O més proper: Escòcia, Valonia. I encara més a prop: Catalunya, el País Basc o Còrsega, etcètera. De moment alguns dels seus líders independentistes ho han celebrat, amb xampany en alguns casos i amb cava altres. I no és menys cert que aquests Estats europeus mancats d’una argumentació coherent que no sigui de realpolitik es valen de la pomposa afirmació que el cas de Kosovo no és comparable amb qualsevol altre del continent europeu. I la pregunta que s’imposa i que ells no expliquen: per què no són comparables si es reconeix el dret a la lliure determinació dels pobles? Segur que arribat el dia ja trobaran l’argumentació adequada conforme a la realpolitik d’aquell moment, per explicar que no és procedent o sí que ho és. Dependrà dels interessos. I escrivint aquesta opinió, se m’acut una altra reflexió. Aquesta situació a Kosovo pot comparar-se, encara que sigui remotament, amb el cas andorrà? És ben clar que no. La conjuntura és ben diferent, però (hi ha un però). Kosovo, bressol de la Sèrbia ortodoxa, ha rebut la immigració massiva dels musulmans d’Albània, que amb el temps han esdevingut majoritaris, fet que els dóna, conforme a les normes internacionals, el dret a poder decidir el seu destí, que ha estat avui la independència, però que podia haver estat la seva incorporació a Albània. I aquí sí que es pot trobar un indici de similitud no tan remota.

Based on what I can get out of it, a pretty poor English translation is: "It is true that in the case of Kosovo, the states in favor of the unilateral declaration of secession as is habitual in practicing realpolitik is to give support! Of course! In the name of the univeral right of peoples for self determination. Right now there is nothing to say (?). But every group has its own position which is presented (or in certain cases altready has been presented) in Txetxenia, Abkazia, Georgia, with majority Muslim populations. Or the Transniester that wishes to separate from Moldova, etc. Or better: Escoscia (Scotland), Valonia [not sure on this one]. Or even more properly: Cataluña, Basque country, or Corsega (?) etc. Right now, several of their independent leaders have celebrated it [I think he means Kosovo's independence] with champagne and in other cases with other Cataluñian champagnes. And it is not less true that those European States are lacking a coherent argument that does not follow realpolitik is worth an arrogant affirmation that the case of Kosovo is not comparable with whatever other case on the continent [bad translation, basically saying that pro-Kosovo states cannot claim that Kosovo has the right to secede when other groups don't]. And the question that begs and that those countries have not answered: why are they not comparable circumstances if it is recognized that all peoples have the right to self-determination? I am sure that the day has already arrived where they [all countries involved] discovered an adequate argument that conforms to the realpolitik at that moment, by explaining that Kosovo is not a precedent or that it is. It depends on the interests of the countries involved. And I have written this opinion, and I have found myself another thought [really not sure on this one]. Can this situation be compared, although remotely, with the case of Andorra? It clearly cannot. The conjuncture is very different (here, there is a however) [no sense to me]. Kosovo, cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Church, has received a massive influx of Muslim immigrants from Albania, that with time have become the majority, the action that they have taken, conforming to international norms, the right to decide your own destiny, that has been to gain independence, but that can become a state incorporated to Albania. And here it is where one cannot find a situation remote to that of Andorra."

By the way, I accidentally added this to the references section and I have no idea how to get rid of it. Can someone do that for me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.17.123 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is all of this really needed?

Is it really necessary to have a statement from every country in the world? Wouldn't it make more sense simply to have a general discussion of the reaction of the international community? A list of countries which have officially recognized Kosovo seems relevant, but do we really need long quotes from Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Libya, Slovakia, etc.? How about the New-Flemish Alliance, Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania, or the Scottish National Party? If these, why not every party in every country in the world? Is this really necessary? Furthermore, this talk page has 28 archives. 28! United States only has 30, and that page has been in existence since 2001, a period of over 6 years. This article has barely been in existence for 6 weeks and has almost the same number. Is it really that important that every statement by this or that country be recorded in pedantic detail? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on writing an article in a standard format, with paragraphs divided up into sections like any other articles instead of this ridiculously detailed list? At the very least it seems silly to have to have nearly 30 pages of arguments over all the tiny details of this.

I propose that we instead limit the scope of the article and worry about the general picture of Kosovo's foreign relations rather than an unmanagable list like this. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary to have an article like this when there is already a Foreign Relations of Kosovo article, one which I might add could use some additional detail (although not to the degree of this list. We should merge this article into the foreign relations article, with a focus on creating a prose article of typical style, rather than an insanely detailed list.

Let me know your thoughts. NoIdeaNick (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its just a rather detailed page thats all.Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't make difference between countries. Wikipedia makes no differences between statements from the United States and from Azerbaijan. Also an official English Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so we have no reason to cut the content. Who would make a decision in such an article you are proposing positions of which countries are worthy to determine the general picture? --Avala (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question in the case of Libya, evidently yes, we do need its statement, as User:Avala has had it sourced so far only to a) Serbian State Television and b) Serbia's Foreign Ministry! More generally, if Wikipedia won't produce this tabular derailed documentation, where do you propose it be lodged, and who will aggregate it for the world? The sort of précis you are calling for has a place: in the foreign relations of Kosovo, prepended with a {{main|International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence}}. And I thank you for bringing it up; we obviously need to have it written, once the dust begins to settle, perhaps after the UN General Assembly vote in the Fall. --Mareklug ^talk 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

If this were the Kosovo article, I might agree, but this article deals with international reaction, so the analogy between Kosovo and USA is a false analogy. This is a current geopolitical event that is considered important by many nations. The level of importance it is given internationally, in political debate, and in the news media, naturally also generates discussion and controversy in the talk pages. The article should not be limited as a consequence, there is nothing wrong with a long and comprehensive list of facts, I do not see the relevance of your observation that the article contains reactions from every country, it is no more detrimental than the article "List of Popes."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I overstated my point. I wasn't trying to suggest that Azerbaijan and Libya and aren't important countries with legitimate views on the situation in Kosovo, simply that a complete cataloging doesn't seem productive, especially when so many of the statements are along the lines of "We will watch these events carefully as they unfold". I probably shouldn't have listed individual countries, since that really distracts from what I was trying to say. The article the way it is written is difficult to follow, although I suppose if I were to think of this as a list rather than an article that would be more understandable. I wasn't really expecting a list at an article with this title, but an encyclopedia article describing the international reaction in straightforward prose, which necessarily requires some limit to the number of countries and leaders whose views can be quoted, simply for the sake of readability. What is unfortunate is that there is so much attention to detail here and that the kind of prose I was hoping for does not exist, either here or at Foreign relations of Kosovo.

My point about the length of the discussion was separate. I wasn't attempting to suggest that there shouldn't be discussion, simply that the amount of bickering over the tiny details of which quotes should be included is unfortunate, and to some degree unworkable. There controversies over the United States article too, but it doesn't result in page after page of fighting or in full page protection. ( Btw, United States was just the first article I could think of with a large number of talk archives and wasn't meant as a comparison of the worth of nations). I was also somewhat concerned at the speed at which the talk page is growing. I suppose at some point the level of editing here will die down, but it seems to me that there could easily be over a hundred talk archives by the point that happens. The sheer volume of writing there makes it hard for an outside observer to follow the disputes here. I would hope that the disputes here could be settled without having to resort to that length of argument over each and every detail. Maybe some more general agreement can be reached that would make the number of comments here unnecessary.

Anyway, it was just a thought, and I apologize if it came off as if I were denigrating any particular countries, which was not my intent in the least. As an outside observer it simply seemed to me that the article was unwieldy, and that perhaps by focusing on general reaction instead of listing every country in the world, a more readable and ultimately more useful article could be written. NoIdeaNick (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly could be, and should be, and I invite you to get started. The correct place for it is as you have identified it yourself, Foreign relations of Kosovo. Presently it restates a portion of this talk page's article. Let's replace that with prose to similar but more succint effect. --Mareklug ^talk 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request America

{{editprotected}}

American Embassy in Prishtina it is no longer a liason office. Kosova2008 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No AGF? Here [21] Kosova2008 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok wikipedia is giving me serious errors. at first i put an albanian source and i guess that didn't show up, it showed up for me

and when i read ljanders977 comment my source wasnt there. Now I cant edit my own words, im trying to delete the "no agf" but i understand that my previous didn't show. Kosova2008 (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

• AGREED Yeh i support changing the USA to embassy at diplomatic level. Write it like this yeh?
  

Embassy of US in Prishtina from [[8 April]]<ref>http://pristina.usembassy.gov/</ref>

The website of the U.S. embassy is here --DaQuirin (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed ref. Who agrees please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a consensus, just change the article about the American Embassy. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Change Jawohl (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

good. can we agree on Hungarian Liaison office too please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed title has the incorrect spelling of "Prishtina" when both English WP and the U.S. government use Pristina. --Tocino 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFT --Cradel 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The article says (emph. mine): "Accordingly, on 27 February 2008, Germany became the first country to formalise its recognition of Kosovo by renaming its diplomatic office in Prishtina as an embassy". OTOH, in the table it says "Embassy of Albania in Prishtina from 19 February 2008". Both cannot be right. — EJ (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too, as far as I know Albanian hasn't opened its embassy yet but will soon, plus , instead of Arben Cejku i think Islam Lauka was proposed for the ambassador --Cradel 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What ever, we can just change dates when it does open. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST - Can we please use the English Language as this is English Wikipedia

{{editprotected}}

 Not done please establish consensus, preferably at the RfC Happy‑melon 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a rather simple point. This is English wikipedia. So if you want to use another language, use the wikipedia for that language not English wikipedia. So that means spelling in English.

• "Pristina" CORRECT English spelling
  
• "Prishtina"INCORRECT English spelling
  

It is WP:POV to write Pristina with a "H" in it and wikipedia is meant to be WP:NPOV.
We don't have things written in German or Arabic or Zulu, so why should we have things written in Albanian, its POV writing in Albanian. It is English wikipedia we are using, therefore commonsense tells me that we should spell things in English, not any other language.
We need to need to have all the "Prishtina" changed into "Pristina" as this is NPOV and correct.
We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's ConstitutionIjanderson977 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The thing is Pristina isnt the right spelling in english, in fact there is none, pristina is just used in replacment of Priština, but without the diacritic (for more information see previous discussions).And if there isn't a spelling in english we must use the name in wich the country identifies itself , in this case Prishtina, see Zürich--Cradel 18:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support- if the constitution says it, so do I --Cradel 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a draft. Here is its presentation by its author, a professor. Note how he characterizes it. And it will be revised, with local input. It's not a definite authority on the matter of Prishtina. [22] --Mareklug ^talk 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Google news hits... Pristina gets 1,638 hits [23], "Prishtina" gets 49 hits [24]. English speakers overwhemingly prefer Pristina. Pristina is also neutral as it's not the Serbian or Albanian spelling. Almost all of the governments that recognize Kosovo use Pristina (see [25] [26] [27], etc.). --Tocino 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  
• CIA WORLD FACT BOOK [28]
• BBC Country Profiles [29]

These two are both very important in the English speaking world and they spell Pristina without the "H" therefore so should we. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• usaid.gov [30] also spells it without a H. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Practically everybody (except for our distinguished editors here) use Pristina. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even Kosovo's Constitution says the capital of Kosovo is "Pristina" Chapter 1, Article 13 [31] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument should be taking place on the Pri(s/š/sh)tina article's discussion page, and this article should use whatever that one does (currently Priština). If it's decided that the spelling there should change, then it should be changed here too. Personally I have no preference, but Wikipedia (and I mean all of it, not just this one article) should be consistent. Bazonka (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article used Priština for over a month, but shortly before the article was locked it was changed to "Prishtina". And might I add there was no consensus to change it to "Prishtina" yet it was changed anyways. --Tocino 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a disputed name, and a different name is to be used in different contexts, so your point about consistency only goes as far as that. In the context on one article it certainly should be consistent, and is.--Mareklug ^talk 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• IF THE CONSTITUTION OF KOSOVO WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO SPELLS IT AS "PRISTINA", THEN WE SHOULD SPELL IT LIKE THAT TOOKosovo's Constitution Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is very important information. Add it to your first post.--Avala (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "How do you know it's not a typo? In any event, our own article specifies 3 spellings, being agnostic right in the definition as to which one is preferred. It is our guidelines and discourse around it that makes a choice. And one of the factor's is the city's own municipality's webpage representation in Engish, and other languages.--Mareklug ^talk 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Typo in a constitution? Are you joking?--Avala (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not the final document, but only a draft. Constitutions can contian mistakes. Polish constitution for example makes a far more serious mistake than a typo by referring to the country's Coat of Arms (herb) as insignia (godło). And everybody concedes this problem. And the white on the Polish flag is defined only in CIE XYZ parameters, with a Delta E parameter of 82, which makes it light gray. Another infidelity of you would think most basic law. But it goes uncorrected for decades now. Legislative acts of even great importance can be imperfect. And the Kosovo constitution is only a draft. --Mareklug ^talk 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The situation has been patiently and thoroughly documented even on this talk page, under #The name Hungarians and Wikipedia use is.... You could have at east mentioned it. Submitting an editprotect request in these crcumstances is at least gobsmacking inconsiderate, not to mention, prohibited by the template's own instructions as shown clearly on the template. Prishtina is one of the 3 spellings used in the English language, therefore, in English. Our own Wikipedia article about this city -- much contested -- never was contested on that score, and makes that case right in its definition of Prishtina. --Mareklug ^talk 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If your opposition was right and if it represented the majority we would have an article Prishtina not Priština. For the time being Priština (the article name) comes as the best solution and Pristina as second best (compromise solution).--Avala (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for what I said earlier. Current Wikipedia article uses Priština and alternative English spelling is Pristina. I suggest using Pristina so it wouldn't be Albanian only (Prishtina) or match the Serbian spelling (Priština) but it would still stay English. And I don't care what the majority of Pristinians call their city. Majority of Greeks call their county Helas but we have an article called Greece. --Avala (talk)

Current Wikipedia article is parked under Priština and uses all three spellings. It can only be parked under one name. Furthermore, it is a disputed name, contextually-sensitive, and has uses under Prishtina and Priština, context depending. Pristina spelling has been shown to be an inferior although popular representation of one of the two names, not a bonafide English common name.--Mareklug ^talk 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that why all encyclopedias including Wikipedia park it on Priština? Also if you are fighting for consistency so much why would we have a different name for the same city in different articles? If the article name is Priština then use that, or the official term Pristina which is also an alternative English spelling.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• If Kosovo's Government spells it as "Pristina" then that is how it is. I know its not a typo as Pristina is repeated several times.

Please read Chapter 1 article 13. That is how Pristina is spelled. If you disagree go complain to the Republic of Kosovo Government. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• • By the same measure, complain to the Municipality of Prishtina, that it does not know it's own name in English. This is known as conflicting evidence. --Mareklug ^talk 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If you knew the simplest thing about law (almost a common sense) you'd know that constitution is above municipal website content.--Avala (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you knew the simplest things, you would know that it is a draft document, and not a constitution per se. Perhaps you do, and if so, your failing to mention it and use false, spun argument is really uncalled for. --Mareklug ^talk 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support "Prishtina" is not common English usage. At least not yet. Húsönd 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Evidence from at least some of the latest geographical sources shows you are wrong about "not yet". Already is. --Mareklug ^talk 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • On one side we have Kosovo constitution and on the other side we have your statement without sources. I can just now claim it's already spelled as Prissstina and put a full stop but that would be my imagination which would be against the word of the constitution.--Avala (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Your charcterization of my say is wrong. I even provided ISBN numbers, surely unimpeachable sources, as written in the proposed Wikipedia naming policy on Kosovo, authored by the most senior Wikipedian in these matters. And I provided links to the official websites of the Municipality of Prishtina, and the Coat of Arms, all official uses. Finally, I referenced the 2 move discussions on the city's talk page, rife with expert opinion why "Pristina" is a bad spelling, only a common one, but unworthy of encyclopedia use. Our encyclopedia merely notes its existence. But our own use should be strictly correct.--Mareklug ^talk 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Strong Oppose: In Shqip (AL) it is Prishtinë and in Serbski (Sr) it is PriStina (special S). Correct spelling is PRISHTINA whether you like it or not. The support for this push comes from A)BBC which does not even recognize Kosova as a country and B) a draft constitution nothing official whereases the city itself has websites and signs officially as PRISHTINA Kosova2008 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "BBC which does not even recognize Kosova as a country"? For your information BBC doesn't do these things. It's not part of their jobs to recognize countries. Constitution has been approved so it is official. Websites are legally below constitution. I know this is the first constitution of Kosovo and I know it's hard for it's citizens including you to understand how important document that is but trust me if the constitution says the capital of Kosovo is Prizren then it's Prizren. It's the supreme legal document and websites cannot be compared to it. And in this case the constitution says Pristina so it's Pristina. --Avala (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala, the constitution isn't in effect until EULEX start operating --- until it does the official website of the municipal city also the capital of Kosova (Prishtina) should and will be used. We don't report what can's or should be, we report FACTS. Until the draft constitution is passed it's still a draft not the final version. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been approved by the EU, it is no longer a draft, its official. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And as of tomorrow 8 AM it will no longer be aa officialy signed final proposal of constitution but Constitution of Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet more evidence: Radio Prishtina's website, with English: "Click here: Radio Prishtina broadcasting..." [32] --Mareklug ^talk 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Still more recent evidence -- the English language-version of the web page of Prishtina Jazz Festival '07 [33] --Mareklug ^talk 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is documented contemporary use from international air traffic, airprishtina.com's website in English (and other languages, including German) -- consistently 'Prishtina -- you can't have a more current and common English use than scheduled international air travel: [34] --Mareklug ^talk 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Constitution is senior to local radio website or a website of a jazz fest from 2007.--Avala (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And more local evidence, French Cultural Center in Prishtina -- they got it exactly "Prishtina" in both French and English. Presumbably being local, they got it right. Presumably not having a political axe to grind, they didn't. [35] --Mareklug ^talk 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure French Cultural Center knows English term for the city the best. Listen Mareklug enough with this. Nobody is denying Prishtina exists as a spelling variation but English language spelling is Pristina.--Avala (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It sure is not, strictly speaking, though it was widespread, when representing the Serbian notation inadequately, but poor typesetting practices are not enshrined on encyclopedias. They are at most described as having been progulgated widely, but in encyclopedic use, omitted in favor of strict correctness. You are just smuggling the Serbian variant past dupes who don't know any better. I'd rather spell it in Serbian correctly, if that were the only choice, but it is not: The Prime Minister's website seems to agree: The Portal of the Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosova -- and please note the "a" at the end -- why not accuse the minster of spreading misinformation? --Mareklug ^talk 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And the ministry of education is only building their English website, but they already filled in the contact link on the main page: it says Prishtina. I guess they are just confused and don't know any better, those educators and their webmaster [36]? By the way, it says "Prishtina" in the Serbian contact address version, too. --Mareklug ^talk 05:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's constitution spells "PRISTINA" as so

We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Multiplying your point in sections, and shouting it in capps is immature and does not make it any stronger on merits. Please remove the editprotect template and behave like a mature editor. --18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mareklug. You can not disagree with it though. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug you should be behaving more mature then opposing for the sake of opposition. Saying that it could be a typo in a constitution is beyond all your previous opposing reasons. It almost deserves an Oscar for the funniest excuse to oppose the article improvement. Silver medal goes to opposing expanding Iran section because Iranian journalists probably don't know English. --Avala (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Iran comment is a half-truth and spin, and neglects to mention that I opposed your paraphrase, which used language such as "has decided", absent in the original. Once Ev redacted your spin, and suggested adding a nearly literal paraphrase to existing entry, instead of obliterating it as you wanted, I was the first to agree. Please don't spin, misrepresent, fabricate (Brazil) -- or for that matter, misparaphrase -- and then I will have no reason to oppose. --Mareklug ^talk 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So can you point at spinning, misrepresentation, fabrication, misparaphrasing in this case? Since you say you wont oppose if these are absent and I don't see them. Or is it another case of you trying to claim how we are making things up but when asked to point at the word we made up you go silent?--Avala (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can and do. For starters, this is a draft constitution document, not the final version. It's exactly those sort of things -- if not far greater modifications -- that will be teased out. So let's be very clear about what it is we're talking about. For another, this is not my idiosyncratic opinion, but opinion reflected by the most reasonable and expert voices on encyclopedia, and they are all featured on either the city's talk page or in the proposed policy on Kosovo naming. I'm merely representing this meritorious position in this discussion. Portraying me as a rogue is pointless, untrue, and serves other interests. --Mareklug ^talk 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a draft constitution not because it was written on toilet paper but because some things might change. But those things are content wise not letter wise. For an example will Kosovo be divided into cantons or municipalities. But it's not going to include the sentence "Kosvo is divindid in kantons". Your position is arrogant. What do you think those people who wrote it are? Plumbers? No they are legal experts from the European Union. And also it has been approved yesterday, meaning it's no longer a draft but a final version.--Avala (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet 100% that it will be called "Prishtina" in the Albainian version of the final copy and i also bet 100% that it will be called "Pristina" in the English version of the final copy, as that is what "Prishtina" is translated into english and there are loads of references to support that. The only English language sites which use "Prishtina" are pro Kosovo sites, which are not NPOV such as www.kosovothanksyou.com . Its time to accept that in English the city is called "Pristina". Get used to it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

from the official page [37] (Pristina) --Cradel 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cradel has presented the final copy above, that too spells it as "Pristina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LJANDERSON stop saying that what you are presenting is the constitution, that's a lie --- the document is a draft-constitution. Also you are also sourcing BBC, a new agency, do you mind if I source Kosova.com? or Kosovapress.com, or Kosovalive.com? If you want an official position go to the city's official website, the www.PRISHTINA-komuna.org notice, go here It's PRISHTINA, get used to it. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a final copy of the constitution Kosovo's Constitution FINAL COPY. This too spells the city as Pristina. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The constitution has been approved by the EU and according to news it will be adopted tomorrow in Kosovo parliament. It's a done deal. There will be no further changes.--Avala (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Therefore you can not disagree with the spelling. Now we must update the articles accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The constitution draft has been approved by a local EU official. The constitution is still a draft and will continue to be one, subject to revision, until it is passed. Here is the home page of the article Cradel references above. It makes a clear representation of the draft nature of this document [38] (type home). And here is the subpage where the draft is introduced and put in context of future changes by its author: [39] (type Home > Documents > Constitution Draft). --Mareklug ^talk 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? The whole site spells it as Pristina Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I do know that the official Prishtina Municipality page spells it in English Prishtina, and that the coat of arms of the city, in every language representation, features a sheild with some ancient artifact and the text "Prishtina" immediately above it. Taken together, this is the official Coat of Arms of the City. I think you should put some weight in this. --Mareklug ^talk 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be no change, be assured of that:

The Kosovo parliament is set to hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday morning to adopt, without any debate, the new constitution of Kosovo, the parliament's presidency decided on Tuesday.[40]

So are you suggest waiting until morning in expectation that something extraordinarily shocking might happen?

The truth is that tomorrow at 8:15 the capital of Kosovo will be officially called Pristina by countries that recognized it's independence and Pristina or Priština by those who didn't. --Avala (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I say wait till tomorrow and see what happens, no need to hurry --Cradel 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it is signed so it is a final version (no longer a draft).--Avala (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all baseless posing, as the constitution does not make any official declaration how Prishtina should be spelled, that is, it passes no binding law in that regard. It merely mentions it using the Serbian spelling without the diacritic. Equally well we may think of it as broken in that way. Constitutions are not automagically mistake-proof, as shown in this discussion with the example of Polish Constitution in force. --Mareklug ^talk 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong, it does give a sentence The capital city of Kosovo is Pristina. Now listen I don't care if you think they are idiots who misspelled their constitution text and I don't care what happened with Polish constitution because this is not Poland but Kosovo so all this information about Poland and insinuations how they might have misspelled it changes absolutely nothing. Your POV on the text of the constitution is by all means of much lower importance than the constitution itself. Constitution is indeed a binding legal document for all other documents in the country. It is that way in every country with a constitution. I could say "from today there will be no more freedom of speech in the USA" but apart from such fantasy world there will be a strong reality which is guaranteed by constitutional amendments (1st one I believe).--Avala (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all beating up on a straw man, as there is no constitution (only a draft), and it merely defines the capital to be a city which it referes to, in no way explicitly setting into law how it should be spelled in English. this draft is only a document, with all the foibles a single document may have in its draft form. Whereas I pointed to the Coat of Arms and official webpage in English of the Municipality of Prishtina. Neither do I think anyone an idiot, nor do I have a POV. I am representing the considered linguistic/geographic opinion of several trustworthy senior Wikipedia editors and the content of the proposed Kosovo naming policy, as well as the recommendation of the existing general policy on using hte name the entity uses for itself in English. You should not beat up on the messenger if you don't like the message. --Mareklug ^talk 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You call it a draft but the EU and Kosovo Government call it an official final version which will be adopted in couple of hours. Constitution is in legal hierarchy above the following you mention as a source: Coat of Arms, official webpage and senior Wikipedia editors. None of them can compare to a constitution in what is official spelling or whatever regarding Kosovo. Simple as that.--Avala (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the name of the capital is city is one thing they will not get wrong Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the city's official airport would also not get its name wrong: Prishtina International Airport, official web page in English, complete with graphic banner, Flash movie, names of metorological office, name of the corporation governing the airport, etc.: [41]. --Mareklug ^talk 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Even more to the point, on the airport's Flash movie you can glimpse an old photo of the terminal facade with the sign "PRISTINA AIRPORT" clearly visible. Put the two together, esp. texts on the webpage with directions "From Prishtina to Skopje" and "From Skopje to Prishtina" and decide which way the usage is going. --Mareklug ^talk

This is getting out of hand. The place to debate this issue is Talk:Priština, not Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Talk:Priština already has had a lengthy discussion on the naming issue and decided on Priština. If you oppose this, then discuss it at Talk:Priština. We already have close to 30 pages of archives in the space of a few weeks. If the Wikipedia article on the capital of Kosovo says Priština, we should use Priština in this article and throughout Wikipedia. If the article is changed, it should be changed everywhere else. Again, this is not the place to discuss a separate article. --Scotchorama (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to those spinning it ad nauseam. As for you, you don't appear to know very much how disputed city names are handled on Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on the Gdańsk/Danzig rule, and better yet, read the Danzig article itself (a redirect to Gdańsk), which is used much in the way Prishtina could be used, except that I piped our article's links to Priština, so there would be no redirecting. One name makes sense in historical Serbian contexts, and another in contemporary Kosovan. Its as simple as that. In the case of Danzig, that name is used for certain, narrowly and precisely defined historical contexts, while the present name of the city is used otherwise. This is a very telling analogy for us, because neither the Polish/German nor the Kosovar/Serbian city has an accepted English common name, Pristina being a simplified diacritic-less typographical representation of Priština, which falsifies its pronounciation, something the other two English spellings defined on the Wikipedia do not suffer from. --Mareklug ^talk 09:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Where an article is parked has no bearing on which name is used, if there are competing names defined in the article definition, as they are here, and if they apply to different contexts, which they do. It's the context, s_______, to paraphrase a famous American political slogan of yesteryear. --Mareklug ^talk 09:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to your assumptions and tone. Put whatever you what, a bot will adapt it to the proper name, whatever it is, once it is chosen. The place to influence the choice (for the moment) is Talk:Priština until it is moved. If it changes, so it changes. Discussing it here is off-topic and useless. Now suit yourself; I couldn't care less.--Scotchorama (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have nothing to talk about, since you refuse to acknowledge that cities may require more than one name. What bot might be unleashed to adjudicate and enforce mixed context-sensitive name use at present borders (?) on intractable, but perhaps the idea of sorting it out by machine intelligence of table lookup or adaptive algorithms might indeed accomplish the feat the present crew of human editors is not yet converging to :). --Mareklug ^talk 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request: Change Prishtina to Pristina

{{editprotected}}

It has been established that the correct english spelling of the city is "Pristina". So it needs to be changed form the incorrect "Prishtina" to the correct "Pristina". So the article needs changing accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus, preferably at the RfC Happy‑melon 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. this is just a repetive presentation of the same editprotect request, which is being opposed, reflecting the meritorious position taken by knowledgable editors on the city article's talk page in the 2 move request discussions, and by the proposed Wikipedia naming policy for Kosovo. As for Kosovo events, its constitution is not yet one. It is a draft. --Mareklug ^talk 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current count is 5-2 in favor with only you and Kosova2008 opposing. But hey, at least ljanderson saught consensus, instead of just changing it on his own (kind of like how you did by changing it from Priština to Prishtina). --Tocino 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It was discussed before and there is no consensus to change the name from Prishtina to Pristina. It makes no sense to repeat this request again and again. --Tubesship (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus. The vote is 5-3 in favor of moving it. Most importantly the opposition has provided no reasonable justification for keeping it as "Prishtina" other than saying the Kosovo Albanian government may have made a typo in their constitution (which is a faulty logic to say the least). --Tocino 22:54, 8 April 2008 UTC)

No, my main reason is that it is pronunciate by Albanians AND by Serbs with an "sh", so the writing with an "s" could easily lead to an mispronunciation.--Tubesship (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Only Mareklug opposes this edit request, no other user does. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We listen to the merit of arguments. Please dont' force the issue on such basis. One valid, logical, well-sourced opposing voice of reason is all it takes. You are misusing hte editprotect template. You have littered this page with several -- all about this one change. This is grossly inappropriate behavior, not in keeping with what the editprotect mechanism itself allows. --Mareklug ^talk 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• • There will be no change, be assured of that, not only because it's signed but because it is getting officially adopted in less than 12 hours.

The Kosovo parliament is set to hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday morning to adopt, without any debate, the new constitution of Kosovo, the parliament's presidency decided on Tuesday.[42]

So are you suggesting waiting until morning in expectation that something extraordinarily shocking might happen?

The truth is that tomorrow at 8:15 the capital of Kosovo will be officially called Pristina by countries that recognized it's independence and Pristina or Priština by those who didn't. --Avala (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As you are so fond of repeating, Wikipedia is no crystal ball. But then, you have already represented Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, Bosnia, Slovakia on Commons maps as having officially rejected the Kosovo independence, despite no evidence of that, and so who are you to be an authority of what is going to happen in the future? Certainly it has not happened. --Mareklug ^talk 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the Kosovo Declaration of Independence was signed in "Pristina" [43] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The country represents itself as Republic of Kosova, yet we don't do this on Wikipedia. So this argument is selectively chosen and does not reflect principled linguistic considerations. --Mareklug ^talk 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Again I am not sure if you are trying to fool editors or you are just not informed yourself. Either way it's malicious to claim something that you don't know anything about or you know it's wrong but you still claim it's right. Anyone can open a link with the text of the constitution and see the Article 1: "The Republic of Kosovo is an independent, sovereign, democratic, unique and indivisible state." and not "The Republic of Kosova is an independent, sovereign, democratic, unique and indivisible state.". So please stop with spreading misinformation. --Avala (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How about spreading information? That's is what the President's Office of Information is supposed to do [44]. As you can see plainly, it spells Republic of Kosova with an a, twice. And the main page referes to "Prishtina". I suppose the president's webmaster is guilty of all this, but just the same, this is presently officially disseminated information. I did not make it up and I am spreading information. --Mareklug ^talk 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds can you oppose apart for the sake of opposition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The grounds are documented painstakenly on this page, if only under the "Hungarians and Wikipedia use the" or whatever section. As I said, my opposition is principled on representing only the most accurate encyclopedic knowledge, and it represents the considered opinion of experts on Wikipedia in this matter, and unlike that of several editors, it is not motivated by nationalistic or anti-Kosovo or anti-Serbia sentiments. I just want the most exact usage in the appropriate context. I would fight for the Serbian spelling in a Serbian context with equal vigor. --Mareklug ^talk 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On the ground that Pristina is POV because it is an easier spelling of the serbian pristina. (That's my opposition). Kosova2008 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

However on an English context aproved by the Kosovo Government the name is "Pristina" Therefore the most exact usage in the appropriate context is "Pristina"Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This draft is marked on its title page as "As Approved by The Constitutional Commission for Public Discussion", and on the download page it is marked as 17 February 2008. Why, may I ask, are you having a meltdown on 8 April 2008 about this stale text? --Mareklug ^talk 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because i would rather have English on this article instead of another language as it is English Wikipedia. May i ask why you insist to use foreign languages on English wikipedia. In Germany they call it Deutschland, should we add that on the article too? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed already in detail. We have common, established English names for "Germany", "Hanover", "Munich", and then we use German names for cases where we don't. Pristina is a poor rendition of a Serbian name, and it fails even to indicate the way it should be pronounced, which Priština and Prishtina both do. The Coat of Arms of the city features Prishtina, as does its English-language website. There is disconnect between these official uses and the official postal use, a leftover from Serbian times and American-run military occupation, which may explain its use by some well-meaning person, unaware of the lingustic considerations, or the official city self-representation to the world. --Mareklug ^talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Constitution is in legal hierarchy above the following you mention as a source: Coat of Arms, official webpage and senior Wikipedia editors. None of them can compare to a constitution in what is official spelling or whatever regarding Kosovo. Simple as that.--Avala (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, proper language use in English is not legislated by any constitution, especially one which has not been passed yet, or for that matter, applied yet (it won't apply on passing -- there will be a future date -- this is just for exactness' sake; the constitution is immaterial here, esp. as it makes no law in this regard). --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Mareklug: However in the English language the City is called "Pristina". Obviously its going to say "Prishtina" on the coat of arms of the city as its an Albanian speaking city, however when translated into English Prishtina is Pristina. No matter how much you argue and refuse to accept its correct English spelling at the end of the day it is called Pristina weather you like it or not. Just accept it ok Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True. Imagine having Roma on Rome coa, or Wien on Vienna coa would you insist that this local version should be used on English Wikipedia? Citing coat of arms as a reason for your opposition is rather invalid. Official English translation of the Constitution is above any local coat of arms.--Avala (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms may be in Albanian, but the English-language page on the Municipality of Prishtina's webpage states Municipality of Prishtina. 2 recent Kosovo geographical publications in English (ISBNs given above) standarized on Prishtina. I am not making anything up, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Pristina may be a prevalent representation, but it is not strictly correct, as explicated on the Kosovo naming Wikipedia proposed policy page by an identified expert. --Mareklug ^talk 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what does municipality website says? Is it some kind of reliable and important source? Especially if there if it stands against the constitution. --Avala (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mareklug FYI: the Municipality of Pristina is not more important than the Constitution of Kosovo. The constitution of Kosovo is extremely senior, far more higher than a Municipality of Pristina Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ijanderson977, in legal sense, if we were talking about a law about selling booze on Sundays or not selling, you would be right -- but as far as documenting who is using language correctly, I think we would say that those closer to the phenomenon hold more sway. And newer, over older. The draft, as I pointed it out, is from 17 February 2008. In its Serbian version it has the city misspelled without a diacritic in the address box. Or maybe it is using the postal spelling. However, in the Albanian version the address box has the name given as "Prishtina" not Pristina" (version form 17 Feb). In fact, tis item differs in Albanian between the versions from 17 Feb and 22 Feb, on the download page [45]! So, here you go -- inconsistencies and changes in the very draft you are talking about. --Mareklug ^talk 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to look at Serbian or Albanian versions used but to look at the English version that is used. You are referring to independence declaration or some early draft but why are they important now that we have a final version which will be adopted in 8 hours?--Avala (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are here to look only at information Avala wants us to look at, that much is clear. Forgive me if I beg to differ. The draft inconsistencies even in the native tongue of the persons preparing it are clearly indicative of the unreliability of it as library reference in the matter of spelling Prishtina. And crystal balling is truly pathethic, esp. for an editor who advocated against it repeatedly in other contexts. Amazing. --Mareklug ^talk 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More information to look at: The official web page of the University of Prishtina (with prepared masthead in that spelling). Surely the local university knows how to spell its name? :) [46] --Mareklug ^talk 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes the University is surely more important than a country's constitution. --Avala (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the University. Which consititution do you mean exactly? Observe: "Kosovo's parliament will consider approving a draft constitution at an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday. Experts said MPs would undoubtedly approve the draft. In this scenario, Kosovo's constitution will come into effect on June 15. That quote is from the very Russian RIA-Novosti news agency, last night's edition, here [47]. Seems that there is no imminent prospect of an actutal constitution for the Republic of Kosovo, any time soon. There might be such law of the land by the midsummer, assuming the authors fix all the typos, and the parliamentarians agree to enshrine into law any remaining ones. :) All this is paperchase for now. --Mareklug ^talk 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because the constitution will come into effect on June 15 doesnt mean they will change all the spellings over night. It already is "Pristina" in English, it has been way before Kosovo declraed independence and always will be. When the constitiution comes to power is pointless as to the correct English spelling. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit Request "Prishtina" is, at most, only sporadically used in the English language when compared with "Pristina" (which is by far the most common name in English for this city). Húsönd 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: It's a mixed bag, but if you qualify your count by noticing where it is used, you'll see Prishtina on the ground in Prishtina, as well as concentrated in the newest uses, and official government webpages of Republic of Kosovo (President's, Premier's, Governemnt's), it's main infrastructure (Post Office (POSTA), International Airport, University) and various NGOs (A.I. Prishtina) and foreign cultural missions (French, American English cultural centers). That would imply a weighed preference for this spelling on merits by those in the know. I discount US government, because for some reason they have an axe to grind, I'm just not sure what motivates it -- maybe just wishing to keep in agreement with military maps in and preserve cross-agency tranparency? USA imposes feet in air traffic worldwide, so I'd not be surprised at clinging to Pristina because that's they way they keyed it into their systems long time ago. --Mareklug ^talk 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about this here again?--Jakezing (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Slovenia embassy

{{editprotect}}

---

Please add the following under States that have formally recognised Kosovo's independence, under Slovenia, in the column about diplomatic missions:

Slovenia and the Kosovar Government began diplomatic relations at embassy level on 8 April 2008.

---

Slovenian diplomatic relations with Kosovar Government [48] Slovenia might open an embassy in Kosova in near future, I think this piece of info is important. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please formulate your edit request. Don't just open an edit request in form of letting us know about interesting news you find.--Avala (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala you are continually discouraging members here such as Canadian Bobby, myself, and others. Please be a little more understanding, this is important, whether you think so or not. Expect an embassy really soon. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to formulate your edit request. To formulate what do you want to be added into the article. Opening a discussion with editprotect tag is not productive.--Avala (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

because of TROLLS i had to retry 4 times to post this, every time there was an edit conflict, someone was posting at the same time, and I have had problems with WP all day, either couldn't add text or delete, I'm glad that edit request made it through. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008 I must remind you of WP:Civil. Please refrain from addressing other users in such terms. Thank you. Húsönd 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Kosova2008 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I agree. It's much better.--Avala (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best if we wait until they an embassy or office is opened first. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just why can't we include, "Slovenia and the Kosovar Government began diplomatic relations at embassy level on 8 April, 2008" ? The section is called "Status of reciprocal diplomatic missions " , it's useful information. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• AGREE Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. --Mareklug ^talk 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (I added a full citation to the above.)
• Agree --Cradel 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request: Olympic Recognition

{{editprotect}}

Under the section of IOC membership it is noted that the requirement that Kosovo must be recognized as an independent state is questionable as Taiwan and Palestine participate in the Olympics but are not sovereign states. The insinuation that Kosovo is being unfairly barred from participating under its own flag is unfounded and references to the contrary should be removed from the Wikipedia entry for the following reasons:

 Not done What, exactly, do you want changed, and where is the consensus for it? Happy‑melon 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1. IOC spokesperson Emmanuelle Moreau did not say that Kosovo need be an "independent state," only that it is up to the UN to determine its status. Presumably, that would mean that the UN would have to recognize Kosovo in some capacity, either as a member state, an observer, or as a self-governing territory (such as Hong Kong).

2. The insinuation that Kosovo is being falsely barred from participating in the Olympics is negated by the fact that there are many Olympics committees representing non-sovereign states, but all are represented and/or recognized at the UN in some capacity:

• A. Palestine, represented by the PLO, has been an official observer since 1974 (as was Switzerland until 2002).

• B. Taiwan is allowed to participate as "Chinese Taipei" under an arrangement with the People's Republic of China. Since the island of Taiwan is officially recognized as part of the territory of the PRC, it does have official representation at the UN. Its status within the IOC is similar to that of the Chinese territory of Hong Kong. The situation is also similar to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands which are members of the IOC under arrangements made as territories of the United States, which is responsible for the islands' international relations.

• C. Kosovo could technically participate as its own entity within the IOC, akin to the examples cited in section B, if recognition were granted by Serbia. Kosovo is still considered by the UN to be a region within Serbia and would therefore need the member state's approval for its own official Olympic committee. Since that option is extremely unlikely, in order for Kosovo to join the IOC without Serbian approval, it would need to be recognized by the UN either as a non-state, self-governing territory such as Palestine or else become a sovereign UN member state.

3. Reference #215 is dead. Alternate copy of the story available at ABCNews: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=4306795

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.47.126 (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

After seeing the substantial amount of discussion and dispute over the spelling of Prishtina/Pristina/Priština above, I have created Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/City naming, a Request for Comment on the issue by outside editors. All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion and provide evidence and sources that may be relevant. Please, however, try to avoid duplicating the dozens of pages of text above - arguments on Wikipedia cannot be 'won' simply by drowning the opponent in discussion. Happy‑melon 11:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link of the Netherlands...

As recognition of new countries is in the Dutch situation something on the Kingdom level, i.e. Aruba is also part of the countries recognizing Kosovo, I suggest changing the link with the word Netherlands here to the Kingdom of the Netherlands rather than to the Netherlands.

(situation could be compared to having a link to the Conus rather than to the United States of America.

*Disagree The Netherlands Antilles conducts foreign affairs primarily through the Dutch government, not threw Aruba itself as it doesn't have a MOFA. If we were to add that we might as well add England, Scotland, Wales N Ireland, Gibraltar and all the other over sea protectorates and crown dependencies and thats just for the UK. We could add Porte Rico for the USA and other countries ect. Theres not much point. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Greenland for Denmark Kosova2008 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As cited by Ian and Kosova2008, Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, Puerto Rico et al. are external territories that do not have the sovereign capacity to conduct their own foreign relations and are integral parts of their respective countries. They may have internal autonomy, but in foreign relations they are represented by the latter. The designation should remain unchanged. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it's just a minor matter, BUT the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of three countries (The Netherlands, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba). Although the former, due to its sheer size, is practically dominating the federation, the latter two are legally not external territories but countries with equal rights. According to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the constitutional document governing the relationship between the three constituent countries) External Affairs are a Kingdom matter. If we really want to be precise the link should be changed. EDIT: On the other hand it's just a technicality. Gugganij (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• AGREE I have changed my opinion. The MOFA of the Netherlands also represents over sea areas which are classed as countries, so the Netherlands should be renamed as Kingdom of the Netherlands Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Map errors

I've noticed some problems with the map (Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png):

• Wallis and Futuna (a part of France) is marked in gray. Shouldn't it be green, together with the rest of France?
• The same goes for Réunion.
• There are lots of gray dots in the Caribbean. Some of these actually seem to belong to the Netherlands or France (and some maybe also to the UK), and should probably be green.
• Cayman Islands (a part of the UK) is marked in gray. This should probably be green instead. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
• AGREED I agree to have this corrected. We need to have the correct island filled in. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'd correct them myself if i knew where they were, but those small(if not tiny) islands dont really matter much --Cradel 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that is wrong. Wallis and Fortuna aren't shown on the map, you might be mistaking those islands with Tuvalu, an independent nation. Same for Réunion, not on the map, you might be mistaking it with another independent nation, Mauritius. No gray dots on the Caribbean represent European territories, all of them represent independent island nations. As for the Cayman Islands, not a glimpse (and I even touched the screen with my nose while trying to spot the tiniest gray smudge on their location). Húsönd 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, got to say im not too good with European over sea territories haha Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This map obviously doesn't show overseas territories. --Avala (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It just shows the bigger ones (Puerto Rico, French Guiana), and they are coloured green. We shouldn't clutter the map with tiny green dots, if they do not represent independent states. Gugganij (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Czech R. agreed to recognize Kosovo after Serbia's elections, FA Minister says

The Czech FA Minister after meeting with the French FA Minister in Paris let on that his government has arrived at consensus to recognize Kosovo after the Serbian elections scheduled for 11 May. This is reported in English in CeskeNoviny.cz – I'd paste in the link but can't on an iPod. Just Google News for it. It's dated 9 April and has boycott Olympics in the headline. --Mareklug ^talk 06:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only find news about the new constitution that has been adopted.--Avala (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=306598 . It is all the way down in the article. Jawohl (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough to move the Czech Republic to the group which initiated the formal process. Schwarzenberg already promised recognition many times but with no avail. I think moving Saudi-Arabia was also a bit too early, we don't really know whether recognition will happen in the near future or not. Zello (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I share the same thought with you about Czech republic and had the same opinion about the Saudi Arabia, since even Pakistan made a "supporting" declaration but that did not mean anything. I think that we should update Czech with a recent statement/development and leave it were it is. Jawohl (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd even wait with that a day or two, to gauge the opinion of the others in the government; there might be interesting reactions to the FA Minister-attributed characterization. It might even come out that they really decided this on the 2nd. Or we might hear a denial. On reflection, Saudi Arabia needs moving, they're in the same boat as Pakistan, Macedonia, Montenegro – while light blue, not documented as poised to recognize immediately. --Mareklug ^talk 12:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is because you changed a very nice heading to a murky "about to" formulation. It's now only causing trouble.--Avala (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the number of times Czech Republic has been moved from one section to another is enough to demonstrate that the only reliable long-term strategy is to leave it where it is now (possibly updating the comments) until we get a clear official decision by the government. — EJ (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do we Agree? On updating Czech in two days and removing Saudi Arabia back to the rest? Jawohl (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No because Pakistan said that they just support Kosovo people. It was given as part of Muslim solidarity which doesn't necessarily mean Pakistan will recognize. For an example Algeria supports the people of Kosovo but has no plans to recognize the republic of kosovo itself. On the other hand Saudi King specifically talked about the recognition.--Avala (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no point discussing what colour to put Czech Republic on this page as this has the green/ grey map. Go onto a different page to discuss colour for that crappy POV map.

However what we can discuss is how to re-write the Czech notes section. I propose we add on the Czech Rep and keep it in the same table for now, unless we get more confirmation

"Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg has claimed that the Czech Republic will recognise Kosovo after the Serbian Elections."

Agree?
Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he said absolutely the same thing for April 2 but it didn't happen. --Avala (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know he has, thats why i have written "has claimed", therefore suggesting its not 100%. But its still important to mention it as it is related to the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Czech Republic (Keep in same table)

{{editprotect}}

From

"On 2 April, Czech Government has postponed a decision on Kosovo. Recognition is supported by the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and the European Affairs Minister Alexandr Vondra but President Václav Klaus, a part of the ruling Civic Democratic Party party, coalition partners Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, the opposition Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the Czech Social Democratic Party oppose it."

To

"Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg has claimed that the Czech Republic will recognise Kosovo after the Serbian Elections. Recognition is supported by the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and the European Affairs Minister Alexandr Vondra but President Václav Klaus, a part of the ruling Civic Democratic Party party, coalition partners Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, the opposition Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the Czech Social Democratic Party oppose it."

Who Agrees? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's update it like any other. Plus making a request should look like the thing you want in the article meaning all the [[ and ]].

How about this?

On April 2, Czech Government has postponed a decision on Kosovo. Recognition was supported by the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and the European Affairs Minister Alexandr Vondra but President Václav Klaus, a part of the ruling Civic Democratic Party party, coalition partners Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party, the opposition Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the Czech Social Democratic Party opposed it.

On April 10, Karel Schwarzenberg said that the Czech government has decided to recognise Kosovo after the Serbian elections.

--Avala (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• AGREED Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• No, as I'm sure all the sources used here can be in English (even if entirely Czech in origin) and the citations should be fleshed out and contain all requisite information. Why necessitate future cleanup; do it right to begin with. And all the details of the Czech political makeup have no bearing on the foretold outcome. Reduce bloat. --Mareklug ^talk 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Some thoughts: (1) Recognition is supported by the Prime Minister etc. etc., and President etc. etc. oppose it. There's no reason to suddenly switch to past tense, as the proposal is still on the table just as it was two days ago. (2) As I am tired of repeating over and over again, the President has no power over the decision. The opinion of government ministers and/or their parties is relevant, the opinion of anybody else is not. Hence, at the very least, the mention of Václav Klaus should be moved after the Christian and Democratic Union. Optimally however, we should scrap Klaus, Communists, and Social Democrats altogether. (3) There's no such thing as "European Affairs Minister". Vondra is the "Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs", the short form of which is "Deputy Prime Minister". I understand that it is the European Affairs part of the office title which is more relevant to the affair at hand, nevertheless I don't think it is correct to give it as "European Affairs Minister". (4) As Mareklug mentioned, the citations are suboptimal. I don't see anything wrong in using Czech sources per se if it can't be helped, but the one given is redundant, all the relevant info is in the English source. (5) "Serbian elections" is kind of unclear term, it could do with a link so that the reader can at least find the date. — EJ (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• DISAGREE No need to write in the past tense as that implies they no longer support Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done. First achieve consensus, then do the editprotected requests. --David Göthberg (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

UN

The Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-Moon has said Kosovo won't be part of Serbia again. We should add this to the UN section on this article.
[49]
Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He said "There is no going back to the status quo in Kosovo" and somehow they interpreted it into a title "UN Chief: Kosovo Won't Be Serbian Again".--Avala (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

“It is essential to address the issue by understanding the fact that a return to a status-quo is impossible and impractical...” “...It is now necessary to find other ways regarding this complicated issue.” In context, that is exactly what he said, that Kosovo won't be Serbian again, in his opinion, there's no other logical way to interpret it, he's just phrasing it in diplomatic language.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he is proposing new talks on final status of Kosovo. Here is the excerpt from The Times [50]: "Mr Ban may also be pressured into naming a facilitator to attempt to renew talks between the Serbs and Kosovans, diplomats say. There is speculation that Mr Ban will name Jean-Marie Guéhenno, the departing French head of UN peacekeeping, to such a post. The result would be that, despite its declaration of independence on February 17, and recognition by dozens of other nations, Kosovo could find itself in another “temporary period” with an uncertain status."--Avala (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Mr. Ban is telling Russia (and Serbia) to move on in solving this problem. The headline is not distorting that part. He said the situation can't be rolled back. His position should be sourced to something in clear, exact English. --Mareklug ^talk 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

EU edit request

{{editprotected}}

I propose we add this to the end of the EU section-

"On the 2 April senior EU official Pieter Feith approved the constitution proposed by the Kosovo Government and Feith said "Kosovo will have a modern Constitution guaranteeing full respect of individual and community rights, including those of Kosovo Serbs." "

Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• No. You should only propose additions with complete citations. Naked URLs break the citation style of the article and Manual of Style, and worse, don't tell the reader everything she is entited to know, including the access date, title, work cited (International Herald Tribune in one instance, I believe). Also, isn't there a newer version of the constitution text on that website? Isn't this newer: http://www.kushtetutakosoves.info/repository/docs/Constitution.of.the.Republic.of.Kosovo.pdf Again, fully attribute the source by name. And to be strict about it, only Pieter Feith approved it, so you might as well say that explicitly. --Mareklug ^talk 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you re-right the correct version. I used the draft copy because that was the copy approved by the EU Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

http://kushtetutakosoves.info/repository/docs/Constitution.of.the.Republic.of.Kosovo.pdf

How about this then?

From

| EU || The European Union does not possess the legal capacity to diplomatically recognise any state; member states do so individually. The majority of member states have recognised Kosovo. To articulate a common EU policy of either support or opposition to Kosovan independence would require unanimity on the subject from all 27 member states, which does not presently exist. On 18 February, the EU officially stated that it would take note of the resolution of the Kosovo assembly. The EU is sending a EULEX mission to Kosovo, which includes a special representative and 2000 police and judicial personnel.

Member states (18 / 27) Candidates (2 / 3)

Austria* • Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Cyprus** • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • Finland* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Ireland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania • Luxembourg* • Malta • Netherlands* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Sweden* • United Kingdom*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|-

To

| EU || The European Union does not possess the legal capacity to diplomatically recognise any state; member states do so individually. The majority of member states have recognised Kosovo. To articulate a common EU policy of either support or opposition to Kosovan independence would require unanimity on the subject from all 27 member states, which does not presently exist. On 18 February, the EU officially stated that it would take note of the resolution of the Kosovo assembly. The EU is sending a EULEX mission to Kosovo, which includes a special representative and 2000 police and judicial personnel. On the 2 April senior EU official Pieter Feith approved the constitution proposed by the Kosovo Government and Feith said "Kosovo will have a modern Constitution guaranteeing full respect of individual and community rights, including those of Kosovo Serbs."

Member states (18 / 27) Candidates (2 / 3)

Austria* • Belgium* • Bulgaria* • Cyprus** • Czech Republic • Denmark* • Estonia* • Finland* • France* • Germany* • Greece • Hungary* • Ireland* • Italy* • Latvia* • Lithuania • Luxembourg* • Malta • Netherlands* • Poland* • Portugal • Romania** • Slovakia • Slovenia* • Spain** • Sweden* • United Kingdom*

* - Have already accepted Kosovo's independence separately.

** - Have stated they will not recognise Kosovo.

|-

Agree now? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done, for now. First discuss and achieve consensus, then do the editprotected requests to flag down an admin to do the actual cut and paste into the article. --David Göthberg (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

@Ijanderson977: The citation is still incomplete. Please look at complete examples of citations -- nearly all citations we have are more or less complete. Let me restate: Just giving the URL is not good enough. Just giving the URL and the name of the newspaper ("EUbusiness.com") also is not good enough. Plese fix and resubmit. --Mareklug ^talk 04:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mareklug- please would you give it a go for me? Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea on country categories

Ok. I'm putting this out as an idea, so don't go nuts.

Since we seem to have to haggle over this issue quite frequently, we *could* change the headings from "Countries about to recognize Kosovo" and such to, "Countries that have expressed support for Kosovo," "Countries that have expressed opposition to Kosovo's independence" and "Countries with no stated opinion/position on Kosovo's independence" or words to the effect of the preceeding. I think it would be more practical to do it this way, that way we can stop arguing over whether a country really really means to recognize or not and just put them into support/oppose/maybe-no opinion categories and it would be no biggie to move them once they recognized, since we would not have stated that recognition is imminent.

Again, this is just an idea, so kindly refrain from ganging up on me as though I'm a mortal threat to the integrity of the status quo. I'd like to see what everybody else thinks, if you can all think of something better or would just prefer to just leave things alone. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go in the opposite direction, and nuke everything except the categories we use on the map. Then the map and the text will be one. And all sorts of nuances and descriptions and vacillations and shades of meanings and qualified support, or qualified lack of support, or mutual love peace and understanding promoting, and just exactly what sort of negotiations and on what principles ia country advocates -- will be individually characterized for that particular country. That way if Serbia invents a new way to save face and recognize Kosovo provided that something happens, we won't upset the apple cart, only adjust Serbia's entry. And new recognitions will continue to accrue on the map and in the sortable table of official recognizers. What do you think of that idea? --Mareklug ^talk 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You certainly have a good idea, but this is an 'international reaction' page, so just to have "recognize" and "don't recognize" would be too simple and would lack the nuance that pervades diplomacy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Judging from your response, I may have not expressed myself clearly enough. I don't want to remove content of reactions, whatever they are. I just want to make our state categories and tables conform to the legend of the map we are using. The idea here is that reducing, not incresing, categories of states, eliminates conflict over placement of states in categories. After all, we did this on the map, so why not in the text. Since one category is king, in the sense of having unequivocable membership criteria, I propsoe keeping it, while lumping the gray states together -- as we do on the map. The actual information other than that would not be reduced. Content would be as it is now, only categorized as a) officially recognizing (UN members and Other states) and b) Other states (UN members and Other states), c) Regions and d) Other entities with its subsections. Perhaps titles of sections could be tweaked, so we don't have "Other states" three times, but I am fond of "other states" for, um, other states. :) --Mareklug ^talk 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree becuase some people in the government of a county may supprt Kosovo and others may not. So it is POV as to which countries support and which dont. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request: "Western Sahara" or SADR

{{editprotected}}

It would be more accurate to list the Polisario Front's reaction as being the reaction of the 'Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic.' It is currently listed as the reaction of Western Sahara. Western Sahara is only a geographic term for a former Spanish colony that is now a disputed territory; it is not a proper political term. Therefore, the entry currently listed for Western Sahara should be relisted as the 'Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).'141.166.153.48 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• AGREED Rename it 'Sawrahi Arab Democratic Republic' Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, people, it is Sahrawi. A mnemonic is that the adjective is derived from Sahara, not Saraha. — EJ (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo141.166.229.164 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

However, that doesn't make SADR=Western Sahara, that is perhaps unless the 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic' changes its name to the 'Western Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.' If 'Sahrawi' is derived from ' Sahara' it still doesn't change the fact that 'Western Sahara' is but only a geographical term; while SADR is the (partially-recognized) state. 141.166.229.164 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I AGREE with the edit request. — EJ (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• ADREED With "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• • This needs submission of exact stuff to be replaced with exact stuff that is to replace it. The edit is nontrivial because we want to put in this: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Need to tell admin where in the article, explicitly. Commented editprotect out for now. --Mareklug ^talk 04:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

In the section "Other states", please change the text

| Western Sahara ||The Polisario Front, which governs the partially recognised (by 45 states) Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, has stated that the speedy recognition of Kosovo's independence by many countries shows the double standards of the international community, considering that the Western Sahara issue remains unsolved after three decades.

to

| Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic ||The Polisario Front, which governs the partially recognised (by 45 states) Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, has stated that the speedy recognition of Kosovo's independence by many countries shows the double standards of the international community, considering that the Western Sahara issue remains unsolved after three decades.

Discussion:

• I hope it is now as explicit as it can be. Apart from the title change, I also unlinked the second occurrence of "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" in the subsequent text per MOS:LINK, and I formated the reference. — EJ (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now we have something to work with! Mareklug is right, we admins need to know the exact code to cut and paste since we usually do not know the subject well enough to "write the article for you". (The request seemed uncontroversial but I was to tired yesterday to write a response.) I'll look into this now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Ouch, this article takes ages to load on my old computer due the humongous amount of reference code, in spite that I have a 2 Mbit/s ADSL connection. I think we need some kind of new system where articles like this have their references on a separate subpage. Users on old modems probably have serious problems to load this article. --David Göthberg (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the flags -- these things take forever and a half (I timed it with a klepsydra :)) to load for virgin users such as yourself. The regular seawolves in these here parts have 'em cached already, and don't experience the overhead, but new readers will have them scaled and pngfied by MediaWIki. --Mareklug ^talk 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurdistan

“ Kurdistan - The Kurdish newspapers announced that many people welcomed Kosovo's independence from Serbia ”

I do not believe this fits in the list. There is no "Kurdistan" (not even a defacto or exiled one) that seeks to be independent at the moment.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a source which says that the Kurdish people do not wish to become independent? Kosova2008 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only independent countries (defacto or dejure) belongs to that list. The only Kurdistan that we can claim to exist is "Iraqi Kurdistan" which is recognised to be a federal state of Iraq and does not claim to be anything more than that. Therefore Iraqi Kurdistan has no more say than North Carolina or Utah on international affairs. The second a "Kurdistan" declares independence and make such an official statement they can be added to the list like other such defacto countries. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL we cannot speculate to this end one way or another. -- Cat ^chi? 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Only independent countries belong on that list? The list in question is Regions striving for more autonomy or independence and, I believe, Kurdistan as a region fullfills that premise. Actually, it had been corrected to Iraqi Kurdistan but since reverted in edit warring, but the source used describes Iraqi Kurdistan and talks about Iraqi Kurdistan's desires in the context of Iraq. Having said that, a source for a note that local people rejoiced is rather subpar as far as indicating reactions of entities. It's unlikely we will see any Iranian or Syrian Kurdistani reactions as those are suppressed. But there are relatively free Kurdish newspapers in Turkey. Both Kurdistan and Morocco need more substantive annotations and sourcing. --Mareklug ^talk 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

For today's Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic stated that Montenegro doesn't recognize Kosovo following its own national interests, alarming that its independence is a source of instability not only for Serbia, but the entire region. He stated that in due time there will be an open parliamentary discussion and that in the end the Government of Montenegro will make a final decision. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This says that they will make a decison after the Serb elections. [51] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That (decison after the Serb elections) was said by the leader of Albanians in Montenegro, not by the Prime Minister. Btw Macedonian Government finally fell after disputes with Albanian party and elections will be held in June.--Avala (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would have read the source, you would have noticed that it said "Montenegrin Prime Minister, Milo Dukanovic, responding to the Bosnian daily Dnevni Ava..." It has nothing to do with Albanians. Thats what the Prime Minister said. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it wasn't the PM mentioning that but two politicians one of them the leader of Albanian parties.--Avala (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, the point's the Parliament will open up a discussion after Serbian elections, that the Government will decide on it and that the PM is worried about it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to all of this or any change you guys want to make in this article? Kosova2008 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

President Filip Vujanovic said that Montenegro will declare it's position once that conditions for that are met and that making a decision at this moment would be hasty and not good for national relations within the country.[52] --Avala (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Please split into four subarticles. Guidelines call for articles over 60 KB to be split and this one is 121,922 bytes and is very slow to load because of all the tiny flag graphics. It takes four minutes on dialup. It can easily be split into:

1. States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent
2. States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide
3. Regions striving for more autonomy or independence
4. Other entities

199.125.109.64 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whos up for removing "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence" as they are not really needed for this article? And delete political parties too? What do we all think? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in splitting. I don't believe it would take 4 minutes to load this article as it would mean it has about 1,3 mb. And regarding regions I wouldn't remove them as again this is not a paper encyclopedia so we are not obliged to cut on anything. It's valuable information.--Avala (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on removing regions striving for autonomy/independence, and I also oppose splitting, this would only make things less comprehensive --Cradel 11:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

still say we should remove the Religious organisations one, since in all honesty, what the serbian orthodox church and the Other Orthodox Churches, and the RCC say, dosn't really matter here. What importance does it matter if thje RRC, supports it, or even the pope, leader of that church, supports or dosn't, because either way it SHOULDN'T affect a countries decision.--Jakezing (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on removing the religious organizations as well --Cradel 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the general international reaction and those churches are international organizations.--Avala (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the churches, remove the sports organizations. The latter in particular are for the most part not reactions at all: the tennis and handball associations have had Kosovo as separate entity for years, and Kosovo has been an observer at FIS for years also. The IOC reaction could be made into a short sentece+reference in the lead, somewhere near the bottom. As for other ways to shorten the article, we may need to farm out more {{main}} subarticles like I did for Serbia, particularly for wordy entries that will only grow in time, such as Slovakia (4 more months of deciding ahead for them, and it's not obvious they even started their clock, per the President's quotes). --Mareklug ^talk 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Slovakia, Prime Minister has already decided and 4 month period is a technical deadline (of the EULEX transfer). President has no power over this issue. His statements are added just to get the whole picture of the Slovak reaction.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the web page with all the needed files has about 1.7MB. Some 1.1MB of that are indeed images, while the article itself has about 420KB (not 120K, the HTML is much more wordy than the wikitext). So, the solution for the anon is to disable automatic loading of images in his/her browser (that's a good idea anyway on a slow dial-up). For us, it means that apart from removing this or that organization, we can reduce the download size of the article to a fraction thereof simply by deleting all the flag icons. — EJ (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It loads immediately for me and my connection is not fast at all. On contrary it's rather slow so I believe this page can only cause trouble for users on 14k dial-up modem.--Avala (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to splitting up the article or deleting sourced information. This is an important article and the more information the better. If you still have dialup then that's your problem and not everyone else's. --Tocino 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it as it is. Its well sourced and is full of valuable information. It can't take 4 min to load. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does take 4 minutes to load. Exactly 4 minutes. And it takes 2 minutes 11 seconds to load from cache. And no I'm not going to turn off images or anything of the sort. I'm going to ask that any article longer than 40 KB you should start to think of splitting and any article over 60 KB definitely should be split. I'm on a 56 kB/s dial-up. I guarantee that there are still people out there on 1200/2400 Baud modems. Wikipedia articles over 60 KB have no excuse for not splitting unless they are a single list that has to be sortable and has to all be in one file. And even then you can offer two versions, one that is split up and one that is sortable. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we delete valuable information from this article, just so it loads faster on your computer. It is not our problme that you have a bad internet. It loads in less than a second on my internet. So i see no reason to downgrade this article for your convenience. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, on my laptop it loads fine. In other computers I've used it loads up fine. Are you telling me that it took you 4 minutes to load one single page? I think its' time for you to buy a computer made in the 21st century, whatever you have sounds like garbage *no insult*. Kosova2008 (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This page hardly takes any time to load on my laptop. Look at sites such as myspace, they are well bigger and have music and other features and they load instantly too. The computer's at my work and college i use load it quickly too. We are not to delete any off this information, we are not a paper encyclopedia so we don't have to limit the content. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs is meeting Presidents of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Salvador and with Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs so I guess we can expect a few more additions to this article.--Avala (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting taking out even one character. I am suggesting creating sub-articles and splitting the article up into manageable sections. That way I don't have to wait for the sections that I am not interested to load to find the information that I am interested in finding. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Im affraid this is one article you will have to put up waiting to load as i doubt that users will agree to reach a consensus to put it in subarticles. Sorry anyway. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Czech Rep not to recognise for at least 1 month

This was confirmed last night in Prague by that country's vice premier Petr Nečas.[53] Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they had said not until after the Serbian elections. Montenegro has said the same thing, as previously discussed. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mexico strongly against unilateral independence

Mexico won't be recognising any time soon, as the Serbian MOFA met today with Mexican officials. [54] Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We can use the website of the Mexican SRE (their Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to find out what the Mexicans said. Sooner of later, what the Serbian Government said will be confirmed by other governments (as what I found out in the case of the Japanese), but for the sake of transparency and neutrality, we should at least print what the Mexican said from Mexican officials (or Mexican papers). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they will publish more than a report "Serbian FM met Mexican FM" because I've noticed some Latin American countries don't go beyond that. For an example Serbian FM had a meeting with Argentine FM a few days ago and Serbian MFA website published a long report of the meeting while Argentine MFA website only posts notifications of meetings that were held and subjects that were discussed but without conclusions. --Avala (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes well that is more or less what we have in the article at the moment just in more diplomatic vocabulary from the more sensitive moment on February 19. Serbian Foreign Minister is meeting with Felipe Calderón today as well.--Avala (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And the website of the Mexican presidency will be more in depth than what the Mexican SRE might post. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though they are meeting at the World Economic Forum. It's not a state visit obviously (Foreign Minister meeting the President).--Avala (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Molossia recognises Kosovo

The Republic of Molossia recognised Kosovo on 18 April 2008. [55] Molossia is only recognised by partially recognised countries itself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not really sure that this particular information should be added to the article. Maybe if Kosovo decides to recognize Molossia. --Avala (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be listed in "Regions striving for more autonomy or independence"? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if we have Ichkeria maybe we should add this too.--Avala (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

agreed seems fair to me Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

shall i put in an edit request? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um...this is a micronation within the US, looks like a one man gig. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeh, Haha! Now that ive looked into it properly, it seems to be a false country, which some land owner has created as a joke. It shouldn't be added to the article. 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)