Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

ARCHIVES 27 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE ARCHIVE IN 27 ONWARDS, BEFORE CREATING NEW ARCHIVE PAGES!

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

Notes for countries which recognize

Please don't archive (or let the bot archive) this section, since it is linked from the article with {{POV|Notes for countries which recognize}}. --Mareklug ^talk 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not archive it and simply change the link in the article to point to the archive folder??? Bazonka (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a current, not archival concern. We need to address it, not sweep it under the carpet. It's a live discussion, and I'm hoping for corrective edits and progress on the POV issue, with more editors getting involved here, so that we can remove this template. --Mareklug ^talk 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is that notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize are allowed, yet notes explaining the situation within countries that do recognize arae not allowed? For example I recently put this in the Czech Republic entry:

Significant opposition to recognition of Kosovo within the nation. Every opposition party opposed recognition and so did some of the governing ODS party, including President Václav Klaus who said he felt ashamed when the government decided to recognize. A month after announcing recognition, the decision is still highly controversial within the Czech Republic.

Yet it was deleted within 15 minutes. Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. Also those two citations explain why there is no Czech embassy in Pristina, because it is too controversial. Finally it is highly notable when a head of state says he is ashamed over actions of the government. This is valuable information that belongs on the article. --Tocino 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is simple, the formal recognition overwrites all other views held. There's always people who have different opinions. Do you suggest we add the views of Čedomir Jovanović to the official reaction of Serbia? Only in a dictatorship can one country have one view concerning one subject. The fact of the matter is that Czech Republic has formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and soverign state and you will have to learn and live with it. Getting used to things that you don't like is a process, after I while you will cope better.

Finally, your post reveals two very important points: (1) obviously, the President of the country in question holds very little power in the country and cannot influence decisions -- so, why quote an official who has no power to influence a decision that makes him feel "ashamed", a person with a moral compass would have resigned when their government's actions made her/him ashamed, that says everything one needs to know about the person you wish to quote -- and; (2) since recognitions are not set in stone then let's wait until something formally changes, if it ever does. Clearly, what you mean by valuable information is valuable only to your very strong POV. Kosovar (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And not formally recognizing overwrites all other views held. So why don't we just list the 150 UN member states which support Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity without explanation? --Tocino 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, not formally recognising overwrites all other views held. The argument works both ways, no one claimed otherwise. However, where you are wrong is describing all countries that have not recognised the Republic of Kosovo as supporting Serbia. Does Pakistan really support Serbia? There are countries that oppose the Kosovar independence and there are those that are neither supporting nor opposing the Kosovar independence and will decide what line to take in due course, as is the case of New Zealand. To complicate matters further, different people based on their POV (and you clearly have very strong POV) read differently from the same official statements of different countries. For this reason, there is a good argument to have some comments from countries that are undecided, but I would not be too concerned if they were removed, as long as someone -- you, for example -- don't suggest that they support the Serbian position on this matter. Kosovar (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately you recognize or you don't. It's been a half a year since the Kosovo Albanian separatists proclaimed unilateral declaration of independence and the 150 UN member states have had plenty of time since then to recognize. --Tocino 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple reason is that the table of recognizing countries is just that : a table. If everyone adds his personal POV on who supported and who opposed recognition (and there are both in every country), the table will become cluttered and cease to be a table. If you are really interested in extended (i.e. more than three sentences) coverage of the Czech response to Kosovan independance, consider starting a page such as "Czech repsonse to Kosovan independance". There you could, in a NPOV manner, list pro and con views on Czech recognition. Passportguy (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. No, this is not possible, recognition is, at least in the theory of international law, an irreversible act (except of the disappearance of a state by war or peaceful unification with another state etc.) which makes the relevant decisions so hard-fought here (you did not understand this important point so far, it seems). The historic example of China / Taiwan was different, because the international community did recognize only one government for all of China, and so the People's Republic replaced the Taiwan government (there was no new recognition of "China", so Beijing took the UNSC seat). Now with the recognition of a state, being irreversible, the continuing bickering for example in the Czech republic is not relevant here. And it explains why the opponents and the Serbian government are so bitter about the decision to recognize Kosovo. Again: the recognition of states must be distinguished from the recognition of governments. "New states are generally recognized as such by other states if their origin is considered legitimate and irreversible." see for example the Swiss foreign ministry website [1] or every textbook on international law. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There may not be much precedent for it, but it can be done. What are they going to do if you change your mind about recognition of a non-UN member? Kosovo Albanian separatists would complain and so would their bosses, but no serious repercussions would happen. --Tocino 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it could be done, war could be declared as well! You are not well informed about international law, so it makes it useless to enter a political debate. Whether Kosovo is a UN member or not, makes of course no difference for the act to recognize. And there are some too well known precedents for that, at least in the former Yugoslavia. With the act of recognition, all the major Western states decided to accept Kosovo as a subject of international law, like Germany or Serbia, Bulgaria or the Vatican. That is what it's all about here! The only way to annul the decision will be another war in the Balkans which should not happen for everybody's sake. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. It's highly unlikely that Czech Republic declares war against Kosovo Albanian separatists, while it's somewhat likely that the next Czech government annuls recognition. --Tocino 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they cannot. This is what you do not understand. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they can. You do not provide evidence that suggests that Czech Republci cannot annul recognition with a change of heart. -- Tocino 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From a European or Czech point of view, this would be a serious breach of international law. All your arguments are strictly political ones, which are not the issue here. One can be for or against recognition. Once the decision is taken, a state considers the origin of a recognized state as "legitimate and irreversible" (see every - including Serbian - textbook on international law). --DaQuirin (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

International law is not an issue here. If they followed international law word for word, then the European states would've never allowed Kosovo Albanians to declare independence without Serbia's consent. --Tocino 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. I am unsure if the future Czech govt will derecognize like they claim but it's not the question, the question is can they do it and the answer is yes they can.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

International law is not an issue here. Both of you should at least give one source for your claim that the Czech opposition or President Klaus will not only have "a change of heart" but are about to reconsider the recognition of Kosovo as a legitimate state. This would be interesting! --DaQuirin (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS:There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. Any example for this? --DaQuirin (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do any of you realise what message a "derecognition" of this kind would send about a country who originally recognized? It's a flip flop that would stain that country's foreign policy and undermine it's international standing to the highest degree. Which is why alot of countries have trouble regaining support with the Western crew after making serious blunders of that kind. Concerning the comments on the recognition table debacle, formal recognition overrides any kind of secondary POV regarding the process. We add the MOST FORMAL position we can come up with, and if a country legally recognizes another country, everything else is TMI. It could but it could not, maybe but perhaps, probably but who knows. Yeah, formal stance is RECOGNIZED. Why don't we also use a different shade of green on the map to reflect who agreed more to the recognition and who didn't. Exo (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I would like to add, that a lot of these "notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize" have been forced on us by User:Tocino and User:Avala, and are not really needed, or strictly defensible, but are thinly veiled OR consisting of creatively spliced point of view-pushing quotations, meant to create an appearance of a convincing, sourced reaction that essentially condemns independent Kosovo.

If a neutral observer were to audit the edits done by these editors since the article was unlocked, he or she would be dismayed to find a POV-pushing sequence of additions that continues to propagate this pattern of activity. All these additions advance the cause of representing a given country as opposing Kosovo's independence. I purposefully held back and simply sat back to see how this situation would unfold. Well, it went on unchecked, until Tocino started injecting the same POV-pushing slanting into descriptions of countries that did recognize, first in the case of the Czech Republic, and if unchecked, would have gone on to perform similar enhancements for Poland or Bulgaria, to judge from his earlier edits (before the article was locked).

I must say, that none of this strikes me as respectable writing of an encyclopedia. And so the article continues to slide into reflecting Serbian government's POV as a whole, as other editors have refused to engage in similar activity on behalf of Kosovo. Accordingly, no one has added updates for Georgia, Ukraine, or Portugal that would mention the pro-Kosovo statements and actions made by the respective prime ministers. Their reactions were amply aired on this talk page and proposed for addition, but were opposed and blocked by these editors: The Prime Minister of Portugal saying that his country will eventually recognize Kosovo; the statements of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko of Ukraine about carefully probing the issue; and the famous recorded interview in Estonia of Georgia's Prime Minister, who in perfect English famously said that as Georgia's friends have recognized Kosovo, it is only to be expected that Georgia will eventually do likewise. All these international reactions are simply missing, because no one is crusading a la Avala and Tocino, on the other side of the ledger.

I am rather disgusted with all the sewn-up "Frankenquote" explanations, as this material represents dubious scholarship, in sum, a failure to provide a balanced accounting.

If anything, I would suggest that instead of expanding these creative endeavors in the service of Serbia's government, as Tocino wants to do, or balancing them with counter-propaganda on behalf of Kosovars, Wikipedians are obligated to see to a massive revision of this sad article, drastically reducing its length: Let us dispense with point-of-view collages altogether, either pro-Serbian or pro-Kosovan, that are currently stitched all over the tables like some quilts, spliced from carefully groomed quotations.

For example, China's reaction is construed for much of its volume as what the Russian Prime Minister said, using his words -- does this practice not remind those whow were around to witness it, Tocino's outrageous installation of an entry for Free Tibet, consisting of a Kosovo-and-Tibetans-are-guilty-of-this utterance by the same Russian Foreign Minister whose words now speak for India and China in our article, after Avala's and Tocino's edits, which never received consesnus when the article was locked, so Avala lobbied an administrator to lift page protection?.

These quote collages, sort of bouquets arranged to form a suggestive picture, should simply be deleted, and only normative reactions, clearly ascribed to official publications of the government in question should be retained, without slanting, which is that happened, among others, in the case of Slovakia, where the government has not yet formally issued a formal ruling on Kosovo, and will not do so for 3 more months, but our article already paints a suggestive collage of opinion that amounts to Slovakia rejecting Kosovo -- and that, in turn, is used on Commons to color Slovakia red on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map by the very editor who prepared this suggestive collage in the first place!

In fact, the article, after corrective downsizing, would only gain on credibility and readability, sacrificing only one-sidededness and wordiness.

The editors who edit in this vein have laid down a smoke screen, arguing that they are only using sources, but in fact, they are misusing them abjectly, in the service of crafting a pre-ordained interpretation, in some cases using partisan sourcing altogether (websites located in Belgrade or in Prishtina), and in a few, outright lying as to what the source actually contains.

In Ukraine's writeup, the quote sourcing Oleg Blohin Oleh Bilorus was nontrivially abridged, thereby changing the scope of what he said, in effect misusing the source. To the naked eye, without following the link and comparing texts critically, we have here a categorical statement, a sourced quote and a properly referenced official source. The same technique was employed months earlier in the case of writing up Armenia, since corrected.

Editing of this ilk had been repeatedly protested on this talk page when the article was locked, but to no avail. Now, with the article unlocked, the fabricated Bilorus misquote lives on, while new quotes are being one-sidedly added to the pile, all "good sourcing". --Mareklug ^talk 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Fixes applied. Mareklug ^talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Improved for clarity. Mareklug ^talk 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. And I am strongly opposed to deleting information just because it may suggest that the respective nations are against recognizing. --Tocino 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was the one who brought up the Estonian story about Georgia recognising and I was set upon as though I were the most evil person in existence - not hyperbole considering our group here. I've seen many stories that I thought were worthy of mention here but didn't act because I knew our pro-Serbian delegation would metaphorically beat me to death for mentioning them. There is a certain air of intimidation pervading this topic because you know that if you broach a topic that is not pro-Serbian you will be obstructed and argued to the point of despair. And now you'll beat on me for posting this, which is de rigeur. To our pro-Serbian posters: We get it. You really, really, really hate Kosovo. You gloat over how it doesn't have widespread recognition and every bad thing that happens in Kosovo is a blessing from heaven for you. Great. Good luck with that. However, it is a polity that exists and we're trying to document it as neutrally as possible. Kindly stop accusing everybody who doesn't agree with you of being a pro-Albanian separatist and spy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an overreaction and I am genuinely baffled as to how you can feel this way. First of all there is no cabal that secretly controls and bullies this article, if anything the so-called pro-Serbian posters are outnumbered four-to-one on here. The reason why your proposed entry for Georgia failed is because less than 24 hours after the initial comments the government was backtracking and saying that the PM misspoke. --Tocino 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The PM himself never said that he misspoke, and there exists no source that he ever recanted. The only source referencing the "backtracking" did not accuse the PM of misspeaking, but alluded to him being misunderstood. So much for your accuracy. You chose to censor all this, while adding partisan-sourced and partisan-chosen quotes to further make this a one-sided accounting. So, don't be baffled at the vehemence of Canadian Bobby's say, or my denouncement of your editing practices and those of User:Avala. Furthermore, you doggedly enter these neverending threads, and simply outlast opposition. Meanwhile, the article either gets locked, or people give up, not wishing to be blocked for edit warring. --Mareklug ^talk 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Misspoke, misunderstood are the same thing basically. The fact is that less than 24 hours after the PM spoke to the obscure Estonian journalist, the opposition pounced on the comments demanding an explanation. The bizarre comments which contradict everything else that the Georgian government has been saying, obviously embarrassed those in charge since the government quickly retracted, distancing themselves from the comments, and reiterating that Georgia will not, and has no plans to recognize. So with the the entire situation explained, the comments are not worthy of being on this article. --Tocino 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God stop posting these text blocks where you attack me without any reason or proof. It's like you have turned on a "rant machine" and you type hysterical things like Blohin with heaps of other mistakes. Take a deep breath next time and don't downgrade Wikipedia with such posts as the one above.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging mistakes, and the lapse of "Oleg Blohin" instead of Oleh Bilorus. I corrected the typos and the thinko, but the gist of my accusation remains, and I stand by it. This article needs radical surgery and, frankly, delousing. It is not encyclopedic, and it is not edited with fairness in mind. --Mareklug ^talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the resistance of two certain members, namely Avala and Tocino, has been causing this article to be very heated and at times inaccurate, and most often for no reason. From Avala, the outstanding observation I have noticed right off the bet is the illusive and wishfulthinking type of writtings. Words probably or surely have been used alot out of nowhere or out of pre-conclusions over what a diplomat might have said. I could cite the Brazil episode where the explanation box was twisted in such a way to make it appear as if Brazil's opposition was as strong as Serbia or Russia. Another classic one is Cuba, where the brother of the father of the mother of the sister of the diplomat said something, and it surely must be the stance of the neighbor too. With Tocino, the oppositions are much more irratic and hilarious at the same time. He opposes pretty much anything pro-Kosovo being written in there, and while he's at it, he comes up with new goldposts and standards. My favorite episode was when he claimed that the separatist government of Kosovo has no authority or right to claim that anyone has recognized them and somehow only Belgrade has such a power. Hence, the websites of the separatist government were supposedly biased and unreliable, because they were wrong in the predictions that Macedonia and Montenegro would recognize soon. As if Tocino regulates the gears of time and is able to assert when soon is soon and when late is late, and as if somehow predictions and perhapses are the new standard for judging sources. All in all, Avala and Tocino combined, apart for causing huge and often laughable disputes in the TALK section of this article, directly or indirectly they also cause either biased, incendiary or just unnecessary layerings to appear on the main article (remember the Pristina with the Serbian "s" episode?). Lithuania moved back and forth on the list a zillion times, Qatar hasn't appeared alongside Saudi Arabia yet because of some wishful thinking diplomacy being engaged around here that somehow journalists are just expressing some personal hallucination when they report that Qatar diplomats have said they are in the process of recognizing, and Malta still doesn't appear in the about to recognize list, despite Maltese diplomats having said so during that EU meeting this month. Obviously these entries are not appearing alongside Saudi Arabia because wishful thinking is being applied, and of course if Malta or Qatar are to recognize tomorrow, then we'd just have to move them from the "Don't recognize or have yet to recognize" immediately to "Recognize", even though we knew about their intent to recognize way before hand but a few obstructive members pushed their POV in crafty manners, thus leading to an unrealistic portrayal of positions or events in the main article. The last saga strongly backed by these members now revolves around complicating and overcrowding the recognitions table by writting in every single instance when someone agreed or disagreed to the recognition prior to the decision to recognize and/or any ongoing debacle over it. As if little hissings here and there are more important than the approval and seals of the cabinets of each government. A similar scenario happened some months ago with the map as well, where they wanted to color-code the countries based on the continuously faulty or erroneous positions that have often been supplied as "official/unofficial" stances in the "Yet to recognize" table. All in all, when you add it all up, it amounts to month after month after month of schemes, complots, POV shaping and reshaping, all in a flagrant attempt to favor Serbia's stance. Just awful. Exo (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Malta again

Can somebody please translate this?84.134.112.115 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[2]

It seems to be about yesterdays parlamentary session about recognition.84.134.112.115 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:Kalindoscopy to translate it as he seems to speak Maltese -- CD 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to say anything about the meeting, only the agenda -- CD 21:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey: I've left a translation on Cradel's talkpage and a summary of the debate itself. There doesn't seem to be any official resolution from Malta just yet. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted you reply here :

Ok. That's a big chunk of debate. If you could find a transcript I'd be happy to translate, but as it is, I'm not really prepared to transcribe the whole thing.
Basically, here's an informal translation for your information only. The Minister for Foreign Affairs begins by saying that it's a very emotive situation for Serbia (there are 16000+ Serbs in Malta). The Hon. George Vella continues, saying that 'Kosovo is important because the Balkans are important' and that the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state is contentious because of the danger some European countries feel. In principle, if the Maltese government recognises Kosovo (and he personally feels uncomfortable being made to do so because of the effect it will have on Cyprus, Greece and Spain) the next issue must be what sort of help and assistance Malta can give to Kosovo. Hon. Leo Brincat follows, saying that like many of his collegues, his attitude towards the situation is 'fluid' and he feels that if all Balkan countries were absorbed into the EU it would be a 'stabiliser' in the region. He says that it is common knowledge that Serbia and Russia's position towards what the EU is trying to do in recognising Kosovo is (according to them) illegal. Hon. Beppe Fenech Adami 'for the record' says that countries of the region have 'overwhelmingly' recognised Kosovo and that this has great political weight. He is 'comforted' that the unilateral declaration of independence (and constitution) of Kosovo embraces the principles of the EU. He says that Malta must support Cyprus (as it always has) through its Northern occupation and must likewise help Kosovo, while recognising the preoccupations of Spain and Greece. He calls for the government to recognise the 'sui generis' nature of the Kosovo case but leaves any final decision (respectfully) up to the government. The Minister then concludes by saying that as a country within Europe, even if it's not a part of the EU, it must be treated as an important part of the region. He also says that Malta must help Kosovo if it is recognised.
That's the long&short of it. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

-- CD 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of "ifs." No actual decision was taken, ha? Pity. --alchaemia (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like they're leaning towards recognition but are going through the requisite hand-wringing first. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by that it will most likely mean Malta recognizing and saying that it's a unique case, like every other country which has recognized them. So it seems this is merely a matter of time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sui generes" is what the man said, and he was talking about Kosova. That's a reaction. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it seems like they're saying, "well we wouldn't normally, but its a unique case, so we have to, *cough* pressure from EU/ USA *cough*" But then again who knows. I'll believe it when i see it ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maltese dailies report that Parliament has given the green light to recognize. Government now is to announce it on July 11. Viva Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

have you got a source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing close to what the IP is suggesting, that I could find online, is this. From the text: The government believes it should recognise Kosovo as an independent country, something that has already been done by 43 nations, including 20 in the European Union ... He proposed that when Malta recognised Kosovo, it should, in support of Cyprus whose northern part was occupied, point out the unique situation of Kosovo in its declaration of recognition. So it looks like it's happening, always with one eye to Cyprus (and Spain)! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I live in Malta. I am Maltese. The spoken translation there has a lot of errors. Missing the part of when it was decided. This was live on TV. The speaker of Parliament and chairman of foreign affairs told the parliamentarian that government has the green light to recognize it.

Here is a part from our Daily paper, I am translating. The paper reports that Maltese Parliament has given the green light to the government to go ahead with recognition of Kosovo. The paper adds the decision will be formalized in a matter of days, most likely 10 or 11 July which is when the Donors’ Conference for Kosovo will take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You again! You've got to stop following me around you know ;p

Well, I did say it was an informal translation. If you'd like to point out the errors, please do so. There's no mention of 'greenlighting' in the actual recording I was working off.. the first mention of such a thing was in the news today (something the article I linked to makes pretty clear). Also, if you're a 'Maltese' and 'live in Malta' why does your IP locate you as coming from Pennsylvania, USA? The mind boggles.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

here is the link:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080709/local/malta-should-recognise-kosovo-tonio-borg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What about it>? What about? Today is July 11, what now? They haven't done it! Why?84.134.69.221 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta and Portugal to the imminent recognizers list

I propose to move Portugal immediately to (and keep Malta in) the States which have declared intention to recognise, based on this news report from today's (9 July 2008) Times of Malta article Quote:

Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Malta should recognise Kosovo - Tonio Borg

The government believes it should recognise Kosovo as an independent country, something that has already been done by 43 nations, including 20 in the European Union.

Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg told the European and Foreign Affairs Committee that the seven EU countries which had not yet recognised Kosovo had internal ethnic problems, except for Malta and Portugal. Although it has not yet recognised Kosovo, Portugal has already declared that it will.

--Mareklug ^talk 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

i have already added that Malta section in. What we need is an up to date source specifically on Portugal Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, its quit clear here. We can add it.84.134.113.80 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for imminent recognition by Portugal? Where did that come from? Húsönd 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like speculations. Same with Montenegro and Macedonia. We'll see, time will tell all. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Its no speculation its clear look under References 3.)84.134.113.80 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh should, not will Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some German politicians have said recently that "Serbia should recognize Kosovo" but we are not moving Serbia to the group of countries which have declared intent to recognise.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

High-ranking German officials have said so, not "some German politicians." Also, there's a difference between "some German politicians" talking about Serbia, and the Foreign Minister of Malta talking about, ding-a-ding, Malta. --alchaemia (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonio Borg is the Deputy Prime Minister of Malta, Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Member of Parliament for the Nationalist Party.

I think that certainly means his word on Malta is good. No one is seriously suggesting removing Malta though, I hope. However, the comments on Portugal aren't reliable. Typically the standard has been primary sources of some important official saying they will recognize. Hence why Saudi Arabia, Montenegro, and Qatar, who have had major officials announce their intent to recognize, are on the list and others like Bahrain or UAE, who though reported to be intent on recognizing have not had major foreign policy officials declare their intent, are not listed. All the same this frequent reporting that Portugal is going to recognize should be added to their entry if isn't already.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed true that there have been various reports stating that Portugal will recognize, however I would wait for a high ranking official statement just for the sake of proper sourcing. Thankfully we got some good information on what was said during Malta's Kosovo session. Exo (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New Kosova Report

So much about the seriousness of the www.newkosovareport.com/. Apparently their webpage is down because they didn't pay a bill. "This Account Has Been Suspended - Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.". Now that is a message I wouldn't expect to see at CNN or BBC to which some even try to compare NKR with.--Avala (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An account is also suspended if the bandwidth was surpassed and that's something that may happen to an enterprise smaller than CNN. I'm sure you can't wait for the first chance to jump at NKR (or any non-biased source), but it, at the very least, doesn't use the domain name of a country that doesn't exist anymore (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia mfa.gov.yu, Newspaper/Tabloid Blic blic.co.yu, Newspaper Danas danas.co.yu, etc.) --alchaemia (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was suspended due to breach of terms of service.--Avala (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like what? --alchaemia (talk) 14:01, 10 July

2008 (UTC)

.yesterday...newkosovareport was hacked by serbian hackers...

It says the website has been suspended and that owners should contact billing department. --Avala (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did this entry about the website have a point other than to try to score cheap shots? I seem to recall some rule about the discussion page not being for this sort of topic. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheap shots? Are you joking? We have witnessed pages and pages of slandering of Serbian media based solely on the fact they are Serbian here yet you didn't react back then. This is opened not for chitchat but for the purpose of determining what is a reliable source. I don't think that the media that doesn't pay it's bills or that gets it's website blocked by the provider for it's content can be trusted. That is the point.--Avala (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's on a personal crusade against anyone that doesn't buy the 'Kosovo is the Heart of Serbia' wet dreams. Of course he's trying to score cheap shots. --alchaemia (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA.--Avala (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you need to re-read that before you suggest it to anyone else. And NKR is back up. I guess they "paid their bill." --alchaemia (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Can we add that?

[3]84.134.100.168 (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really new here - Macedonia is content to try to finish the whole demarcation thing (seeing as it lands them land), and will do it with anyone that can guarantee some type of agreement and stability. --alchaemia (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No we can't add it. It has nothing to do with International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Croatia ‘Preparing Kosovo Embassy’

I think this is relevant and should be on the table! Any thoughts?

After Kosovo constitution came into force, Croatia is preparing to open its embassy in Kosovo [4] --Lilonius (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

added Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Who added Greece to the soon to recognize list? There's no source, not to mention that the English used is pretty poor. --alchaemia (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to corroborate the Greek president's statement. Saying that that is the Greek position is misleading. 99.234.28.230 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No references, shoddy English, and not even an EU membership notation in the rightmost column. Perhaps it was best when any changes made to this article were discussed and debated on this talk page first before being added by a mod. Show us a reference please. Barring that, someone please revert the article to a previous state where Greece was in the non-recognition column. Ajbenj (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added an article from Greek media citing its president by saying that Greece should make small steps towards recognition. I don't know why the source is not in the article. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.express.gr/news/news-in-english/47954oz_2008070347954.php3 --Lilonius (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with Armenia - although at least this has a reference. Based on the information added, it looks highly likely that they'll recognise - but it doesn't explicitly state this. Armenia should be moved out of the "ready to recognise" section. Probably Greece too, but I haven't read the article above yet. Bazonka (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If so we can move Czech R. back to the list of countries that don't recognize because Greek president has the same power as the Czech one. But in reality the decision on this lies in the Government.--Avala (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The president is in the goverment though...--Jakezing (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With only ceremonial powers since 1986. Plus I doubt Milosevic's pal Papoulias would turn against Serbia. --Avala (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: I guess your personal doubting is not a good source, while the Greek media [5] saying Papoulias is taking small step toward recognition is pretty strong source ;) --Lilonius (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess your personal view is not a good source either as Papoulias can't take such a step as it could be considered a coup if the president decides to break the constitutional bounds.--Avala (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not my statement or my personal view. I am just citing what Greek president said, and as far as i remember president is a representative body of its state. The following statement directly indicates a will to work towards recognition, which could happen in 1 month or 5 years. Depends on what small steps means to Papoulias (or Greece). --Lilonius (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Passports of Kosovo

I have added information to Macedonia and Slovakia about recognizing passports of Kosovo. Macedonia will recognize them as they have recognized UNMIK documents before while Slovakia will consider bearers to be illegal immigrants in Slovakia even if they poses a Schengen EU visa.--Avala (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia also recognizes UNMIK travel documents. And I find their justifications for not recognizing the passports laughable; many states don't recognize Taiwan but duly recognize their passports. But oh no, Slovakia will consider them to be "illegal immigrants." This kind of rhetoric is reminiscent of scare-mongers, not of a serious government. --alchaemia (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on the Government of Slovakia but unfortunately it's not needed here as it will not lead to the article improvement.--Avala (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what's needed here is good editing, and you simply didn't provide one. Both of your sources on Slovakia are not in English - this is neither the Slovak nor the Serbian Wiki, so you can't expect people to read the sources in their original language. How about you provide what's needed and cut the sarcastic crap? --alchaemia (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided what is needed - information and sources. You are the one providing us with your views on Slovakian Government as not serious bunch of scaremongers and that is exactly what we don't need here. Take your POV and rants elsewhere, this is not a forum.--Avala (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You did not provide a source in English, for the English wiki. You may have provided one in Serbian, but that's one you need to take elsewhere. On the English wiki we need a source in English. --alchaemia (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be so ignorant - Slovak language is not the same thing as Serbian language. You can't pick sources, if no English agency published this then there is no English source - it is that simple.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. I'm very familiar with both Slovak and Serbian and do know the distinction (znam ja razliku, druze kapetane). The point is that you're using TWO sources for an article, yet NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS IN ENGLISH. Since this is the English Wiki, it is only customary and logical to use sources in English. I remember a couple of recognitions being put on hold until we found a source in English, and I don't see how this is different. Your edit is, quite simply, not a good one. --alchaemia (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Were the international wiki that uses english. just because the source isn't englisch--Jakezing (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

how will the passport look like?

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200807141041/Politics/Kosovo-to-issue-new-passports.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.255.17 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party from Serbia??

I think the part of Political Parties is POV. It only states the parties which give negative connotation to Kosova independence. Why there is no any reaction of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Cedomir Jovanovic who is known as pro-independence? I think that either this section should be removed entirely, or we should add LDP's reaction too [6] I gave only one source to his reactions, but if you want i believe i can find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilonius (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ultiamtly removing it would be best, since theres so amny parties. that, and serbia's party reaction, depending on the pov of the veiwer, is iehter internal or external, if you recognize kosovo or not.--Jakezing (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative connotations? What are you talking about? Here are two examples of the reactions:

"The vice president of the Catalan government and president of the pro-independence party ERC, Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira, sent congratulations to the prime minister of Kosovo because his country had achieved independence and freedom.[271] Also, a popular campaign for recognition of Kosovo as an independent state has been initiated.[272]" "Scottish National Party Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament that congratulated Kosovo on its decision to separate from Serbia.[273] "

Seems pretty complimentary towards the Kosovo Albanian separatists to me. BTW, the parties that are listed are popular amongst their respective communities. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democratic Party is a tiny minority party that is generally looked down upon by the rest of the Serbian public. --Tocino 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: first of all, you have to read between the lines if for instance you think that Catalan government statement is positive. Most probable way of interpreting this is that Kosova independence might trigger similar wishes to Catalan party. And please don't insult my intelligence trying to convince me otherwise (although i don't write much on this article i read the discussions daily, so i know your approach here).

And second LDP is not so tiny, it went on the elections alone with no coalition and passed the census, this means they have pretty much votes. At least they have more votes than Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians. And the statement of Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians again gives negative connotation to Kosova independence since it implies further complications in other parts of Balkan as a cause of declaration of independence.

I think this section should be removed, but if not, LDP opinions should be here.--Lilonius (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Parties have to be removed. First of all, none of these is a position adopted formally by a party, but only an individual's statement or action. It's is complete POV to portray these reactions as reactions of parties. Tocino I believe added parties, and tehre has never been wide support for keeping them. --Mareklug ^talk 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There has never been wide support for deleting 7 entries and 12 sources either. --Tocino 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Show us the 'wide support' for including them, then we'll talk about the support needed for deleting them. You added them arbitrarily - without discussing with anyone - and now want 'wide support' to remove them? It's laughable. I support their removal as entirely irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show why they should be removed. --Tocino 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The burden is on YOU tocino to give us a reason as to why we needed them in the first place, do that, and we will bother with a reason to remove. I support removing.--Jakezing (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you support it. I can already predict who else will show up here in support. But generally you need to explain the reasons for deleting 7 entries and 12 sources before you can go ahead with this drastic action. User:Mareklug's warped logic that party officials do not speak on behalf of their respective parties is about as weak as the Kosovo economy. Saying that these leaders do not speak on behalf of their parties is like saying that Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of the Democratic Party. Also, "Tocino added them, so I oppose," is not a legit reason. --Tocino 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

did you just assume you know me tocino, did you? YOU DO NOT FUCKING KNOW ME, so do not assume bullshit about anybody else either. i support iot because why bother, those political parties have no influence until they lead the country or have a majority in that nations legislative. and it sure seems like obama dosnt represent his party totaly, alot of those democrats are moving to mccain just to not support obama.--Jakezing (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The SNP, PNV, and New Flemish Alliance are all in government in local or national level. Barack Obama speaks on behalf of the Democratic Party as a senator and their presumptive presidential nominee whether spoiled Clinton supporters like it or not. Same can be said for those who are listed under the political parties section in this article. They are members of their parties so they can speak on behalf of them. --Tocino 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let's be civil (WP:CIVIL) and no personal attacks. As far as the parties, I do support removing them all, and the eclectics as well. Tocino you made me laugh with the joke of the weak, "is about as weak as the Kosovo economy." Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino, I seriously do not give a hoot about your "7 entries and 12 sources" - they are not needed, as they are not an international reaction. Political parties are national, NOT SUPRANATIONAL bodies, thus they cannot react at an INTERNATIONAL level. They have no place in this article, and if they do, many parties should, including the LDP which you dismissed so nonchalantly and frivolously. The fact that there are sources (as there should always be) does not mean that your biased entry is relevant - it is not, and IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. --alchaemia (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• Calm down people, NOTHING that has been said here justifies retorts of foul language or personal flaming against fellow users.
• Any large-scale modification merits discussion.
• The hysterical degree of belligerence found in these talk pages, more and more commonly seen in reaction to certain unpopular POVs, is patently ridiculous.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The upshot of this particular thread is as follows:

1. Only Tocino is for keeping the parties. He added them without discussion in the first place.
2. My formal point, that the parties themselves are not formally represented by these statements in any of the accrued cases, goes ignored. Please note, that these are statements made by individuals, speaking on their own behalf, not documents issued by parties, manifests, etc. These individuals, prominent or not (varies), just happen to have this or that party affiliation, sometimes one of many affiliations (they are also church members and geographically belong to populations, or may be elected or appointed and function accordingly). It's entirely unclear, what significance their utterances and actions have for the parties. Parties usually adopt platforms at conventions or thorugh documents, and have web pages with position papers. Individuals have mouths, and mouthe off. Tocino gathered some mouthings off, that's all. At the time, he even adorned each with a state flag (Scotland, etc., for "clarity"). There is no clarity here. There is no significance or notability, either. Take the woman in the Scottish Parliament, who only introduced a motion. Anyone can introduce a motion, and it's the commonest, most elementary, dime-a-dozen beginnning of debate manouver in parliaments. It certainly dos not represent the Scottish Party of This or That, as it has been made out to represent. This motion may not have even carried. We don't know. We do know, that there was oppositon, another numbered motion, which Tocino conveniently ignored, because it did not fit his preconceived notion of going out and representing parties. Even though it was pointed out in the discussion at the time he wanted to do "link maintenance" and we couldn't find "Kosovo" in the source, because it happened to read "Kosova". Stuff like that.
3. This entire section is dubious, hopelessly non-representative of all the parties that are out there, and does not portray the reactions which it says it does.
4. Several editors -- everyone else who took up a position in the discussion -- demanded removal of the parties. Tocino says this is so many items with so many sources. That by itself is no argument, if it is bogus information. It is bogus.
5. Let's do remove this cruft at last. --Mareklug ^talk 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There was not opposition within the SNP towards Aileen Campbell's resolution. The opposition was from some members of Scottish Labour. --Tocino 01:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to remove the section! In contrary, we should add LDP and other parties if necessary.--Lilonius (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you only want to add the LDP? Why don't you want to add the other Serbian parties such as: DS, SRS, DSS, SPS, NS, PUPS, SPO, JS, SSJ, etc. ? --Tocino 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely why i would like to remove this article! If we add parties, we should not select only those that Tocino likes, like why should we put Hungarian Party of Vojvodina and not LDP??? Doesn't this show something about your POV Tocino? Because the Hungarian party statement sounds like Kosovo independence might trigger some kind of violence in Vojvodina, which gives negative connotation to Kosovo issue. And, as for LDP, it is good to know that it is not true that 100% of Serbians think Kosovo is part of Serbia, which is the statement of other Serbian parties. User Tocino wants to put only parties that he likes and we all know what he liks and what he hates, so i STRONGLY AGREE TO REMOVE THIS ARTICLE! I beg other user to participate in this and make their statement what should be done with this article --Lilonius (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the selected parties are there is because they are in regions with some degree of separatism so the Kosovo Albanian's declaration will have had some inpact on their local politics. --Tocino 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why India is added on the rejection sentence ?

On the sentece says, supported by US, UK, France, rejected by India, China and Russia?

Why India? if india is added..that Germany and Japan should have their place as supporters there along with Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is distorted info.

Besides, only Russia has explicitly rejected independence.

Neither China should be addd there. The info is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only distortion here is your misinterpretation of China and India's position. They both reject unilateral independence and have recently called for new negotiations. Besides, if you add Japan, Germany, and Australia, then you should also add Spain, Brazil, and Indonesia to those who reject. Right now in the intro we have three who support and three who oppose. That seems pretty fair to me. --Tocino 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that India and China "rejected" independence. It refers to a statement, which is sourced, released by the three countries at a summit thingie in Ekatarinburg back in May saying that negotiations should be resumed. This is not biased information. Read the source. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

the guests don't seem to understand that by not saying they recognize the republic of kosovo, they reject it.--Jakezing (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

US, UK, FRANCE are UNSC along with CHINA and Russia.

India has no place in it.. If india is added. certainly Japan should be placed there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Otherwise, it is pretty biased, lenient and lacks of proper sources. Yea, torncino, pretty fair, as long as india is out of there. If india is there, so shall be japan.

This is a non-issue. You're bored, aren't you? Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this. If India (who's not a member of UNSC) is there, Japan and Australia (and Germany) should be there as well. --alchaemia (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

your not listining are you? we put 3 supporters of independance and 3 non asupporters, why at 3-5 more but leave the of examples of people not supporting it at 3, then its biased still. hell, lets just remove all 3 or add albania and serbia and remove the rest, as albania and serbia are the two primary things here, albanians and serbs.--Jakezing (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a hard line to balance as it wouldn't fit to add every countries position, that would be the fair thing to do if anything. Or better yet the position of every person in the world, as I suspect just because your government does or does not recognize you don't have to agree. — chandler — 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with having India included in this. This is not about balancing things. Germany and Japan are huge powers in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo applied to join IMF and World Bank

The status should be changed in the table stating that Kosovo applied for membership in these organizations [7]. I think there are no issues to prevent updating this?! --Lilonius (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what Kosova did not the IMF and World Bank therefore this is not a reaction. This should be included in another article, I think it's called the Foreign relations etc etc. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the IMF and World Bank will react to Kosovo's application. Whether they approve or reject should be mentioned in this article. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The IMF and WB (world bank) should not be included in this article. They are not reacting towards the 2008 declaration of independence --- unless they come out with a transcript saying explicitly something along the lines that the IMF/WB considers Kosova a part of Serbia. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But if Kosovo is accepted as a member, then that's tacit recognition that it's an independent nation. Therefore, an (indirect) reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That should go into Foreign Relations not here. This article isn't putting indirect reactions...if we did that we'd source as well about Kosovar Passport. Macedonia is going to accept them, Greece, both countries which do not recognize Kosova, and Montenegro. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the Foreign Relations article on Saturday :-P Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The IMF has recognised Kosovo. [8] Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you read? This is only about application.--Dojarca (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can: In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state. Can you be more civil? Colchicum (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Arab countries

Can we include that somewhere?

[9] 84.134.62.4 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

can you make a account sand do it yourself?--Jakezing (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?84.134.86.183 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF RECOGNIZED

right here. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2008/pr08179.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7653466 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: "The application for admission to membership in the IMF from Kosovo will be considered in due course." I bet Russia, China, India, Spain, Romania, and the neverending list of nations which support Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity will have something to say about this. --Tocino 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

tocino do you have to make all your posts involve something about serbia and kosovo. serbia is soverign even witrhout kosovo, kosovo, isn't. your confusing your words now. pathetic.--Jakezing (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Metohija is recognized as a territory of the Republic of Serbia by 150 out of the 192 UN member states. --Tocino 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The name is Republic Kosovo. And thats 149 to 43.84.134.86.183 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, Kosovo will be soon (not sure when) accepted into the IMF. There is no doubt there and there is absolutely no way to stop it - there is a needed majority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it says on the IMF website. --Tocino 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems pretty uncontroversial, the IMF recognizes Kosovo as an independent nation their voting process gives voting weight to the amount of money put in the organization not the size or number of countries so Kosovo's backers are basically certain to rubber-stamp its membership:

"It has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state," the IMF said in a statement.

Reuters--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF has openly recognizes the Republic of Kosovo. I come to a conclusion that wikipedia is losing credibility by allowing folks like Torcino to ruin the values of democracy. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) To get back to the core question of this section. What the IMF website and newsreports refering to it says is the following;

• IMF no longer considers Kosovo a part of Serbia. Its important to state that IMF is not a diplomatic body in the same sense as the UN, this assertion is a guideline for IMF work in the region, not a diplomatic de-recognition.
• IMF has received a membership application from the Republic of Kosovo. Notably the IMF statement refers to the Republic of Kosovo as 'Kosovo' in the second passage. This might not be an altogether conscious markation, but it does gives some intentions of the IMF. Note that the guys writing this press statement are not exactly the same as those who take a decision on the membership application of RoK.
• No decision is taken in regards to the membership application.

Based on this, it is wrong to state that 'Kosovo has been recognized by IMF'. What we can write in the article is that RoK has submitted a membership application to IMF and that the application is being processed. Once we know the outcome we should write about it. I would strongly argue against going into details about speculations on the semantic intentions of the IMF External Relations Department in the article mainspace, that would be crystalballing. --Soman (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

i'v torched most of the fiscussion as it wasnt about improving the article.--Jakezing (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It has recognized it's secession, hence it has recognized it. Reuters is also claiming this, and I'd think that they are better experts on deciphring press released than you and I can be. So we'll stick with IMF has recognized Kosovo's secession and call it a day. --alchaemia (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, your wrong. The IFM can recognize that kosovo isn't part of serbia, that dosn't mean they recognize the country called the republic of kosovo. its the middle ground between recognizing that kosovo isn't serbian anymore, but that it isn't what it calls itself, i can't remember the other nations like that.--Jakezing (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind and I'm seeing things, but the IMF press release clearly states 'Republic of Kosovo.' It doesn't state that they recognize it as a country - they don't have to state that. The very fact that they recognize that secession has occurred implies that. I cite:

In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state.

Obviously they recognize that Kosovo has seceded and is an independent state - and as such, its application will be reviewed in due course. Reuters says the same, and many other agencies do. No need for you people to re-invent the wheel and "interpret" what they said. It's as plain as the nose in the face. --alchaemia (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IMF is not a state. It does not trade recognition with other states. What is the question here is membership in an international multilateral organisation. Granting membership can be seen as a form of 'recognition', but that is not directly analogous to the diplomatic recognitions awarded between states. It is well possible that an organisation like IMF might settle for a compromise, recognizing de facto separation but not awarding full recognition in terms of membership (like the Taiwanese Olympic Committee). It will be interesting to see the outcome of the membership application process. At this stage we can conclude that RoK has applied for membership and that decision will be taken later. --Soman (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course the decision will be taken later, but meanwhile IMF has stated clearly that

In the context of this application, it has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state.

. This is so simple, and yet you are trying to remove this information! Why can we put the whole quote and let the readers decide themselves what they want to believe???? --Lilonius (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the first sensible suggestion I've seen all day. Bazonka (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It cannot say that IMF has recognized the RoK in the article mainspace. The IMF press release is clearly sympathetic to the the independence claims, but it is not the IMF External Relations Department who decides on membership matters. As I understand no formal discussion have yet taken place on the membership issue, and until have actually have a decision on the matter we should avoid going into speculations. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It says now: "On July 15, 2008 the IMF put out a statement saying "It has been determined that Kosovo has seceded from Serbia as a new independent state and that Serbia is the continuing state," signaling their recognition of Kosovo's independence. The IMF said it was now considering Kosovo's membership in the organization.[248] IMF presently provides technical assistance and monitors the economic development of Kosovo.[249]" I checked the content of the sources, and the phrasing, about IMF recognizing, is accurate. For its purposes, IMF has recognized Kosovo's independence, and said so. It needed to state this, in order to proceed with contemplating Kosovo's membership, which it will do now. Your point? --Mareklug ^talk 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ok with "signaling their recognition of Kosovo's independence". The word 'recognition' can have multiple meanings, and the recognition that the press release offers is that IMF recognizes that a separate state has been formed. Noone, not even the Serbian government disputes this fact. But this is not 'recognition' in the sense of diplomatic recognition, and since large parts of the article deals with diplomatic recognition the word 'recognition' must be avoided in the passage to avoid confusion. The question of diplomatic recognition is not whether there exists a state structure claiming to be the government of Kosovo, but whether that state structure is legitimate or not. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider "acknowledging Kosovo's independence as sufficient for its purposes" to be a fair replacement? --Mareklug ^talk 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'acknowledge' is a much better word, although i'm not sure what is meant by 'sufficient for its purposes'. --Soman (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Soman, in your view, what did the IMF say? --alchaemia (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I read that IMF for practical purposes no longer sees Kosovo as a part of Serbia, it acknowledges the existance of a new and separate state, the new state has submitted a membership application, no decision is yet to be taken regarding the membership application. This might be splitting hairs, but the IMF statement is not a 'recognition' in the diplomatic sense. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovan passports

The Montenegrin Foreign Ministry has just issued a statement that they will immediately recognize them and apply them. Skopje is, so far, undecided on the issue. Albania already recognized it, and Serbia officially decided it to be as if the person who uses these documents bears none. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find Serbia's position a little big strange. How can you pretend like someone has no papers if he's offering you papers? keep in mind that these are passports, and they will have to be presented at the border - in neutral territory still - so it's not like the person is already in Serbia. They could simply say "we don't accept those documents" and that's it. This whole "they don't exist" thing they got going is akin to sci-fi movie. --alchaemia (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbian citizens can get Serbian passports. What's so strange about that? --Tocino 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/11675/

Skopje did too....Their foreign minister even confirmed that before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Montenegro should be removed from the states that have declared formal intent to recognize. This reference has Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic stating that Montenegro has not yet come to a decision on recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelsioreverupward (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I still haven't figured out how to make links work. The link is here: http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/11808/ on Balkan Insight. If someone could put it in the references for me and update the page, I'd appreciate it. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Excelsioreverupward

I have already moved them. --Tocino 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone check for socket puppet. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I have nothing to hide. I wonder the same about you though. --Tocino 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excelsioreverupward your ref link works, just look at the bottom of the page (or follow the link from the [4]) — chandler — 05:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible an antikosovo, proserb, nonneutral person like torncino is allowed to move montenegro and not allow Greece?

what has happened to wikipedia? shameful..shameful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article is tagged for lack of neutrality. I can imagine that the tag was put there by a dicontented person with sympathy for the Serbian cause, a person who are not very happy with the development. Anyway - What exactly can be done to have the tag removed? 213.50.111.114 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You may imagine whatever you like, but I would suggest that you first read the tag carefully, then follow where it leads (the words "talk page" are linked to the relevant section of this page's discussion). It was I who put the tag in place, and I am one of the main contributors to this article. You are in fact encouraged to help neutralize the article, which is why the tag is there. To do so directly, you will have to log in, as the administrators chose to limit editing to established users only (a matter of trust). Alternatively, you may post on this talk page to influence editing. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was I who put the tag in place"--please, forgive me, I simply can't resist saying this, but, the instant I read it, all I could think was, "It was I who allowed the Alliance to know the location of the shield generator!" ;)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. --Mareklug ^talk 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. at. all. READ THIS TALK page, the IMF recognize discussion is a good one, and read the archives.--Jakezing (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dont SCREAM... The particular discussion might be hard to find... I think it should be possible to remove the tag if the article only included two lists: recognized and not recognized along relevant remarks about the basis of the standpoint in question. --Hapsala (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we'v gotten 27 archives in a few months, thats more archives then almost all the oldest atricles on wikipedia. Read the archives, we wont have a nuetral tag removed for a long time,--Jakezing (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

States that have declared intent to recognise the Republic of Kosovo

I think Bahrein should be in this section.84.134.125.114 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Present a RS and it will be added — chandler — 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You only need to read the text and then our headlines and than you notice where Bahrein belongs. And if you really need that link, here is one: [10] -84.134.125.114 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Our headlines, {{In_the_news}} I don't see anything there... — chandler — 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

can you stop posting this, make your own account, and it it yourself you vandal.--Jakezing (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling me that? There was an important thing to this topic, I informed the people with my message to help but then someone deleted that, and now you are calling me an vandal.

you've done it 3 times, and your a vandal cause you keep abusing the fact your ip never stays the same--Jakezing (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not abusing anything. I've never lied about who I am. But I can't do anything against these changing. Or have you an idea?84.134.105.197 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

heres one, SIGN YOUR ASS UP TO WIKIPEDIA AND USE A REAL ACCOUNT YOU DAMN GUEST.--Jakezing (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL at all times, Jakezing. Such language is inexcusable. If you believe this user is a vandal, please provide evidence and all due measures shall be taken. But there is no justification for this response. Please calm down and again, be civil. Thank you. Húsönd 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no rules, which is against guests. So WHY ARE YOU BEHAVING THIS WAY ?84.134.105.197 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

you wanna help wikipedia? sign up, stop waiting for us, and stop chaning ips —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, I have an account and I never make changes myself; I do agree for our guest to get an account because all these numbers look sloppy and bad, and it's an eye soar to look at. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@Jakezing: the anonymous user probably recieves a dynamically allocated IP address and has no choice in the matter. --Mareklug ^talk 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Embassy

I was on the process of changing the entry but the code is so confusing. Please update Czech to [embassy please. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Media also reports [11] reference from Idnes.cz --Digitalpaper (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So did Vaclav Klaus sign the appointment? I think not because the embassy is led by "chargé d'affaires" instead of the ambassador. --Avala (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Many embassies were led by charge d'affaires; the US is one example of this, another is France. Vaclav's reign is not infinite; his term will expire. The important thing is the recognition and the embassy - everything else is irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The government's reign is not indefinite either. The opposition is opposed to recognition, so one of their first acts when they get in power could be to annul recognition of Kosovo. --Tocino 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognitions are rarely, if every, rescinded without a good reason. I seriously doubt that the Czechs would do that; it would damage their reputation and standing in the international community. After all, Kosovo is not Taiwan, and Serbia does not have the clout of China. --alchaemia (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But do you know that as a fact? nope, so stop your pov, and crystal ball pushing tocino.--Jakezing (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very few countries ever withdraw recognition of another country. It's controversial in political theory if once you recognise a state you even can de-recognise it. For the CR to do so would make them look very silly. Countries don't very easily swallow their pride and say, "Oops!" Dream on, Tocino. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Czechs aren't proud of their government's decision to stab a long time ally in the back. --Tocino 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

since when do goverments ever make the right choice to everybody though tocino. --Jakezing (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You've spoken to all the Czechs? Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am going by a opinion poll which showed that most Czech are opposed to the declaration, and a large majority think it will have negative impact on dialogue between Serbs and Albanians. [12] Also, judging by the hostile reaction from the opposition parties to this move, I would guess that derecognition would be one of the top priorities of the next government. --Tocino 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, a opinion poll, did this poll ask EVERY single czech citizen or just a smaller group like ALL polls?and guess what, once they reco0gnize, you very rarely unrecognize a country, ROC is a exception.--Jakezing (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania decides to enter diplomatic relations with Kosovo

Today Lithuanian government decided to enter diplomatic relations with Kosovo [13]. Please add. --Digitalpaper (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. But it would be nicer to have an English-language source, albeit the one you gave is the national radio and tv. --Mareklug ^talk 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Political parties and religious organizations have been removed: please discuss

Removed as irrelevant, after compelling arguments presented on this talk page (much of it archived). Not only irrelevant, but cherry-picked, and most likely, not in fact official positions of these entities. I.e., it was WP:OR all along, especially for the political parties. I expect other editors to back me up on this and revert anticipated reinstatements of this bogus content. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Digitalpaper (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. --alchaemia (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree - We should focus on state and near-state level actors. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing irrelevant about their comments and resolutions about the Kosovo declaration of independence. This article is titled International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence... those religious organizations are international organizations and the parties are entitled to respond positively, negatively, or neutrally to this event. --Tocino 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a single resolution or an official party document was produced in those Political parties entries. That section was pure OR on your part, where you made attribution of positions to certain cherry-picked parties based on individual politician quotes. Some of the party activity amounted to an average party legislator introducing a motion in the local parliament. Others included quoting a Belgian minister who just happens to be a member of a party, as well as other things. Stuff like that. Ditto for religious organizations -- they were clearly cherry-picked. Lots of Muslim clerics preaching all over the world were omitted. Plus, in the infobox for Kosovo navigation pointing to this article, it says "diplomatic recognition". Parties and churches have nothing to do with this, and we chose not to quote individuals, other than government officials speaking for their countries, and even that is a bit dodgy -- we really want official state positions. Curiously, when those are available (Romania), the entries are short and to the point. When they are not (Slovakia), entire collages of quotations have been artfully prepared to make the point on their behalf according to the editor's POV. "Other relevant entities" IMHO are those, which pertain to the national status of Kosovo, such as sports organizations deciding to allow Kosovo representation, or perhaps, non-governmental organization representing people without governments, striving to have them, and those people reacting. --Mareklug ^talk

Do you have any evidence that shows that the political parties which are listed are having their positions and words manipulated? I am interested to see this. --Tocino 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You have used as sources exclusively press accounts (in one case, aggregate parliamentary record of motions) of individuals' actions or quotes attributed to individuals. Therefore, you have manipulated the content of the article to pretend that it represents parties. There is no sourced basis for what you assembled and branded as "Political parties", and now forcibly reinstated, despite everybody's wishes. No one has supported your acitivity here. --Mareklug ^talk 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence that the words and positions that are listed contradict the written policies of the respective parties? Any evidence at all? Or just more hot air as usual? --Tocino 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence of the written policies of the respective parties??? I'm sure some random people in, say, Alaska have opinions that don't contradict them! We don't know what the positions of these parties is; there may be none. OR as usual? --Mareklug ^talk 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if we can no longer have any so-and-so said then we should delete over half of the entries on here, including Bangladesh, Malta, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia because they have only verbally committed to something instead of writing an official policy. --Tocino 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We should definitely delete Bosnia, Slovakia, Uruguay, Cuba, Morocco -- none of these have produced an ounce of national policy on Kosovo. However, we are talking about parties, and you have not produced any evidence of the written policies of parties. But you yourself brought them up. So, put up or, kindly, remove this cruft. --Mareklug ^talk 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we do allow so-and-so said in the countries which don't recognize and countries which declared intent to recognize, we also allow so-and-so said for political parties. You have provided no evidence that suggests that the words and resolutions that are listed contradict other statements coming from the parties. If you had done so then we could easily put them up on the article. --Tocino 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence from parties. If you had done so, we could then discuss whether having Political Parties section is a good thing (everyone but you agrees that it isn't!). Right now, we are discussing your injection of misrepresentation into mainspace Wikipedia. --Mareklug ^talk 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is my evidence:

Now where is yours? --Tocino 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As expected, User:Tocino reverted this removal, but did not acknowledge doing so here. I am not going to get into edit wars over this. I fully expect Tocino to become topic-banned on Kosovo in due course. Please help with maintaining the quality of the article's content. --Mareklug ^talk 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

it would be a good thing if we didn;'t have tocino, maybe then we wouldnt have a off topic fight about things.--Jakezing (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when two entire sections with tons of sources are deleted without good reason, that is grounds for a speedy revert. --Tocino 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

not if those sources are for something unimportant, political parties don't have much power til they have a majority,--Jakezing (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Three Four of the parties listed are in government at national or regional level. --Tocino 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At most 2 - Belgian government collapsed 2 days ago. Again, you have not produced any materials attributable to parties as such. --Mareklug ^talk 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SNP - in charge at regional level. PNV - in charge at regional level. RMDSz - in coalition at national level. New Flemish Alliance - in coalition at national level up until the past few days, and they are likely to return in power because Flemish parties almost always form the basis of Belgian government. Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians - supports national government. --Tocino] 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not produced any materials attributable to parties as such. --Mareklug ^talk 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They're in the article. --Tocino 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't. You have quoted individuals and descrived individual actions. --Mareklug ^talk 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources: tocinoparty1 tocinoparty2 tocinoparty3 tocinoparty4 tocinoparty5 tocinoparty6 tocinoparty7 tocinoparty8 tocinoparty9 tocinoparty10 tocinoparty11 --Tocino 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)For starters, I labeled each reference you have above (you have given 11 in all) and wrote just before it that name -- all in the interest of easier reference. Now I will examine them in turn, to see if each one informs about a party position. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty1 -- this IHT link does not mention parties at all. It contains no occurrence of the string "party" or "parties" and was written on 20 Feb to summarize state reactions. Giving this as a source for parties is a complete misrepresentation. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoted straight from the source: "The Basque government welcomed the developments in Pristina as a "new example of the right of self-determination" and criticized Spain for not granting formal recognition." In case you didn't know, the PNV is the Basque government. --Tocino 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty2 -- this link to GARA is not in English. Not in Spanish. I think it may be Catalan. I don't know what it says, frankly, though I can make out some of it, cuz it's similar to Spanish. I did notice a mention of Basque country, but nothing about any party. The article is in first person and is attributed to "Ibai Trebio Miembro de Kamaradak Sarea". And there is a repeated phrase "me gustar" which I think means "I like" or "it pleases me". I did get this reference: "opresion de los criminales serbios". But I don't see how this reference in any way documents any party's position, or in fact, what party we would be talking about. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't read the language. This is nobody's fault but your own. --Tocino 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty3 -- this VOA dispatch mentions concerned Hungarians living in Serbia, but it does not inform of any party positions. A party official is interviewed, and the article says who he is and what he personally does not favor: "Istvan Pastor is president of the political party Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians, an ethnic Hungarian party with seats in the provincial and national parliaments. Pastor told VOA he wasn't pleased with Hungary's decision to recognize Kosovo." This is the closest yet to describing a party position, but it falls short of that. What's portrayed here is the obvious concern of Hungarians living in Serbia, worried about being killed by Serbs. It does not source any party's platform or position It only says that a certain Mr. Pastor isn't pleased about prospects of living in Serbia for local Hungarians, after Hungary recognized Kosovo, that's all. --Mareklug ^talk 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Mr. Pastor is the head of his party, those words carry extra weight. --Tocino 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty4 -- this link is in Dutch. I have no idea what it says. But the string "Kosovo" occurs only 3 times, all in this paragraph, so maybe someone can tell us, what it says: "Zondag verklaarde de voormalige Servische provincie Kosovo zich onafhankelijk. Daags nadien onderschreef Vlaams minister van Buitenlands Beleid Geert Bourgeois deze onafhankelijkheidsverklaring en steunde de erkenningsbeslissing van de federale regering. Meer nog: hij stuurt een delegatie om te onderzoeken hoe Vlaanderen en Kosovo in de toekomst kunnen samenwerken. Uiteraard leidde dit woensdag tot een debat, waarbij Balkan- en Kosovokenner Kris Van Dijck voor onze fractie het woord voerde. Hij verwees naar twee resoluties (van 1999 en 2001) die in het Vlaams parlement onder zijn impuls tot stand kwamen. Hij citeerde ook wijlen Ibrahim Rugova, waarmee Kris meermaals persoonlijk contact had. Tot slot toonde Kris zich zeer tevreden met de houding van minister Bourgeois: Vlaanderen moet op een volwassen wijze kunnen samenwerken met deze nieuwe staat." --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, complaining that you can't read the language. --Tocino 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty5 -- This source is mislabeled. It is a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. dispatch from Feb 18, but its Wikipedia writeup says it is from 17th and that it was accesssed on teh 17th. The source has a completely different title from what Wikipedia says it is. But it contains, lodged within a report of countries' reactions and some reporting of the Canadian viewpoint, this sentence: "The Parti Québécois sent congratulations to Kosovars on Sunday." In light of what we know about what prominent Canadian separatists have said since, namely disovowing any connection between (or precedent being set due to) Kosovo's declaration of independence and possible Quebec independence, it is at best tangential information. Why source a separatist in Canada who says that Kosovo has no relevance to Canada? The source's date and title misattribution need fixing in any case. --Mareklug ^talk 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the date is off by one day. Feel free to fix it. --Tocino 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty6 -- This Canadian news dispatch from 19 February quotes a Bloc Québécois leader, Mr. Duceppe, saying that Kosovo is irrelevant to Quebec, and that Canada should recognize Kosovo, since the overwhelming majority of Kosovars want independence. Canada eventually did, and now none of this is news. The title and the subtitle taken together tell the story: "Canada should recognize Kosovo: Duceppe; Recognizing Balkan state won't change rules for Quebec". Why is this even used? It's irrelevant and contributes to article bloat. --Mareklug ^talk 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this used? Because it is an reaction, a positive one, to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --Tocino 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty7 -- another Canadian dispatch, after Canada recognized. Some Albanian Candians are happy, some Serbian Candians are sad. Mr. Trump of Parti Québécois is happy, thinks the recognition shows same thing can happen in Canada, that recognizing a new split-off country where the old country does not approve of the split is a new thing with implications for Quebec. But the foreign minister says it isn't, that Kosovo is a special case, where there were atrocities and the UN had to intervene, and Canada was a part of it, and now it took a long time to check the situation out on the ground. Again, why is this even sourced? --Mareklug ^talk 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact same reason why we use source #6 and all of the rest. It is a reaction. it is positive. See, in your urge to delete, delete, delete, you are also proposing to delete pro-separatist information. --Tocino 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty8 -- yet another Canadian dispatch, also filed after Canada recognized. One might think that Canada and Canadians provided the most relevant and complicated international reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence! This is the entirety of what this source, Toronto's Globe and Mail, says: "Kosovo recognition has no bearing on Quebec, PM says
  INGRID PERITZ
  With a report from Rhéal Séguin in Quebec City
  MONTREAL -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his government's recognition of an independent Kosovo yesterday even as sovereigntists in Quebec celebrated the move as a precedent-setting boost for their movement.
  The full text of this article has 562 words.
  To continue reading this article, you will need to purchase this article." Not only does this not say anthing interesting or useful to our article -- Canada has recognized, and no more Canadian information is of interest, just as in the case of Poland or Afghanistan, but as a source, using it is squarely against Wikipedia policy, as it is a pay-for source. It is also completely unnecessary and duplicates the tocinoparty7 source and further contributes to the article bloat. --Mareklug ^talk 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this needs some link maintenance. You should be aware that this article was not pay-to-view when it was first printed. The Globe and Mail, like the New York Times, makes people pay to see their archives. Hopefully we can find a free web service that has the same infromation, but for now it stays. --Tocino 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty9 - This source is in Catalan. It mentions some world regions that may be striving for independence (Scotland, Quebec, Flanders, Catalonia), and contains an offi cial letter written by the vicepresident the regional Catalan government, congratulating the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo on his country's independence:
  "La missiva del vicepresident:
  
  Sr. Hashim Thaçi,
  Primer ministre
  Oficina del Primer Ministre de la República de Kosovo
  Edifici del Govern
  Prístina, Kosovo
  
  És per a mi un gran honor, com a responsable d’Afers Exteriors del govern de Catalunya, poder felicitar-lo pel seu recent nomenament com a primer ministre, alhora que voldria donar-li la nostra enhorabona per l’assoliment de la independència de Kosovo. És, per tant, una gran satisfacció poder felicitar-lo davant la nova etapa de llibertat que inicia el poble kosovar, resultat de la proclamació del seu Parlament, alhora que voldria animar-lo a respectar l’esperit democràtic i multiètnic del país.<br /
  Rebi una cordial salutació,
  
  Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira
  Barcelona, 18 de febrer 2008"
  
  While this source makes references to the Government of Catalonia, it mentions no parties, from what I could decypher, and so it is irrelevant to sourcing party reactions. --Mareklug ^talk 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation tells about a letter that the leader of the Republican Left of Catalonia party wrote to Hashim Thaci. A picture of the letter is on the right side of the screen. --Tocino 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty10 - Yet another source in Catalan, but, mercifully, it provides an English translation of the gist of the matter, a letter to "People of Kosovo" sent to Kosovo's President: "People of Kosovë,
  
  I, as a Catalan, embrace you warmly and recognize Kosovo as a new state in the world. As you know, Catalans are also working continuously to become independent and hope to achieve this very soon.
  
  The fight of a nation is one of dignity and courage, which is why we admire the effort and courage you showed in facing terror and tyranny.
  
  I hope that soon we will meet as free nations and take decisions worthy of our people and our History.
  
  I send you warm Catalan greetings and wish you all the best!".
  
  I confess, that is is unclear to me from the page formatting, who exactly is writing here. But, again, whereas there are references to Catalonia, Catalans and the Catalan independence, there is no mention of any parties. For sourcing parties, this source is entirely irrelevant. --Mareklug ^talk 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. There is no reference to any party there and I will remove it from the article at once. --Tocino 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• tocinoparty11 - this source is "Business Bulletin No. 32/2008: Monday 25 February 2008, Section F – Motions and Amendments", basically, a catalogue of all the motions lodged that day in the Scottish Parliament. It does not represent or even try to represent positions of parties. It is a dump of legislative activity at a regional parliament for a day. On the subject of Kosovo, it lists 3 motions, which I will list here in the order they appear in the document, but you should realize that this is just a tiny portion of a huge irrelevant list of activity:
  
  S3M-1373 George Foulkes: Kosovo—That the Parliament believes that Kosovo is now safe and stable because of the NATO-led campaign in 1999 after aggressions there resulted in the death of around 10,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 ethnic Serbians; remembers that Alex Salmond described this action as "misguided policy" and "unpardonable folly"; believes that the conclusive action of the Labour-led UK Government helped to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the Balkans, further loss of life and a humanitarian crisis; considers that it is in part because of this decisive action in stark contrast to the SNP’s defeatist approach at the time that we see Kosovans celebrating independence in the streets of Pristina waving Union Jacks and American flags; further believes that the international intervention took place because of the atrocities against an ethnic minority within Serbia, not in order to free an oppressed nation from occupation; accepts that unilateral independence for Kosovo was not the ideal solution, and considers that the celebratory tone of Aileen Campbell’s motion, S3M-1363, is misguided at best and political opportunism in the extreme.
  Supported by: Iain Gray, Michael McMahon, Mary Mulligan, Marilyn Livingstone, Dr Richard Simpson, Andy Kerr, Trish Godman
  
  ...
  
  S3M-1363 Aileen Campbell: Kosovan Independence—That the Parliament congratulates Kosova on achieving her independence; notes that the will of the people of Kosova has prevailed; fully recognises Kosova as a member of the international community; believes that independence in Europe is the normal state for European nations, and further believes that there should to be a future for both Kosova and Serbia within the European Union.
  Supported by: Christine Grahame, Bill Wilson, Christina McKelvie, Kenneth Gibson, Sandra White, Robin Harper, Rob Gibson, Bill Kidd, Alex Neil, Dave Thompson, Alasdair Allan, Bashir Ahmad, Jamie Hepburn, Gil Paterson, Michael Matheson*
  
  ...
  
  S3M-1363.1 Murdo Fraser: Kosovan Independence—As an amendment to motion (S3M-1363) in the name of Aileen Campbell, leave out from "believes that independence" to end and insert "and welcomes the sudden interest being taken by SNP politicians in the welfare of the people of Kosova which stands in stark contrast to the First Minister who, as SNP Leader in 1999, condemned as "unpardonable folly" the NATO intervention to protect the Kosovan people against Serbian aggression."
  Supported by: David McLetchie, John Lamont, Jamie McGrigor, Andy Kerr, Jackson Carlaw, Margaret Mitchell, Ted Brocklebank
  
  Again, what does this waste of our time have to do with sourcing party positions? This spew does not even tell us who is in what party, let alone what some Scottish parties think about Kosovo. It's just a glimpse of all the preliminary parliamentary motions made by Scottish parliamentarians on a given day. It does not tell us, what happened to these 3 Kosovo motions, if they were even discussed further, or if they produced any legislation. In all, completely irrelevant stuff. --Mareklug ^talk 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why I only put the most important information, that Aileen Campbell lodged a motion to congratulate the Kosovo Albanians. The sparing between the SNP and Scottish Labour has no buisness being on here. --Tocino 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: 10 of the 11 party sources you gave are bogus as far as sourcing parties is concerned. The 11th is in Dutch, and even you have yet to tell us what it says. Therefore, you providing these sources for sourcing parties constitutes obfuscation and amounts to a lie.

I took issue with this when I removed the parties from the article, even before examining in detail these 11 sources: No party positions have been represented here, despite your claims to the contrary. Some opinions of individuals (or actions on behalf of regional governments) have been misrepresented by you as reactions/positions of political parties.

You have just wasted my time, which could have been used for constructively editing Wikipedia, and you continue to falsely represent reality, while providing inappropriate sources in the article space of the Wikipedia. This activity is harmful to the project. --Mareklug ^talk 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You only take issue with 5 out of the 11 sources. OK, so you found one source that needs to be completely removed altogether. Every other objection of yours falls short. Many of them are laughable. There's one objection because the date is wrong by a day. Two of the objections are based on the fact that your ignorant of the local languages. For the first source you apparently were not aware that the Basque Nationalist Party currently controls the Basque government. Finally, the objection to the Hungarian source is just bizarre. A leader of a party doesn't have the authority to speak on behalf of his party according to you. Weird. OK, you've seen my sources, now let's see yours. I want to see where these statements by these parties are contradicted with other statements by the same parties. --Tocino 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Note: Revised at 05:29 to respond to User:Mareklug's latest edits.

Completely Agree, please remove it. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AGREE! Finally someone explained in details why that article is not good. And BTW there are 5 votes to delete the entry, and only 1 opposing! Can we ultimately remove the article? --Lilonius (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree too. Just too much info. Exo (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Change needed here

At the top of the second paragraph on the page it says:

"As of June 13, 2008, 43 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo; this amounts to roughly one sixth of the world's population."

How can anyone know how many individuals in each of the 43 countries supported Kosovo? "1/6 of the world's population" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

we take tje world population and then add the population of the 43 countries together.--Jakezing (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But you are assuming every person in those countries agreed with independance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the OR about 1/6 of the world's population. Any list of states that recognize has no relation to how many people on the planet actually support Kosovo's independence. This only created an illusion of informing. --Mareklug ^talk 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)