Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 17

Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
This guy is a very interesting expert. Check out his 12 March 2008 article "Ogaden – the African Kosovo ready for Independence". In our context, it's an invaluble source of potential separatist/national group reactions to Kosovo independence (see the infobox in the article). --Mareklug talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read this. You guys are just posting every day articles just because they have the name Kosova in them. Who in the world cares what the Orthodox church thinks or the Serbian Muslims? This section is called "International reaction to the '08 Kosovo" and yet there is plenty of information that shouldn't be here. I also am noticing that some genius took Malaysia off the list. You do know that Malaysia was the first one to recognize Republic of Kosova in 91 0r 92?Kosova2008 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Ahem. Plesae don't patronize. I posted this article for the legitimate reasons I indicated. While I agree that Church/Islamic community in Serbia reactions are not ency, the identities of national groups or separatist movements that we don't have yet listed are nice to have, and this article does that (apart from being a very interesting synopsis of history). And it seems that Malaysia removal by Avala is not supported by all the evidence taken together, even though I remind you, that I was the first one to suggest removing Malaysia based on the machine translation fo the press release. But we have more than the press release today. --Mareklug talk 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should go to Gjakova, Prishtina, Peja and every city in Kosova and ask the head of the mosques how they feel about Kosova just so I can flood this page with pro-Kosovar comments and stances. Shouldn't the information for Malaysia mention the fact that it was the first to recognize the unilateral of declaration in 91/92? That is important information. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * Please give a verifiable source, and it will be added. I guarantee it. --Mareklug talk
 * I will conduct interviews with all the head of mosques and report. It won't be soon but I will do it. Heck, how about I interview people here in my community in America and present all them and than we can add the LA Baptist something something is for, and the NY Albanian Catholic priest is for it.68.114.197.88 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Mali - red?
I came across a mention of Mali's position in this article: "New governments of Spain and Cyprus will refuse Kosovo recognition". But, I was not able to confirm it yet on either the FA Ministry or the Presidency websites, or on the websites of Malian papers. Since Mali has an ongoing ethnic-economic conflict with the Tuaregs in the north of the country, one might expect Mali to withhold Kosovo's recognition, even though Mali's president is a US ally, who visited Washington just last month. --Mareklug talk 08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, your article states that Malaysia recognized Kosovo. 84.119.45.93 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say light orange. They weren't clear enough for red. --Avala (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the basis of this sole source, I'm afraid it's khaki as "unclear, ambiguous", because we really don't know what they meant - preserving the territorial integrity of Serbia or preserving the territorial integrity of a new state which has arisen in accordance with the UN Charter-mandated right to self-determination of peoples. :) I'll be the first to color Mali red, if there's a shred of official indication stating the position unambiguously. I added them as khaki; Avala overwrote with orange, IMHO without cause, because they are not calling on continuing the failed "Serbia vs. Serbia's province" negotiation framework, like Brazil and China do, who are justifiably orange on exactly those grounds. --Mareklug talk 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia does recognise Kosovo and loads of evidence too
There are many sources saying that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. So it should be on the list of countries who have recognised Kosovo. "Reference 1". "Reference 2". "reference 3". "reference 4". ("reference 5 says that 27 countries have recognized Kosovo, yet we only list 26. Our missing country is Kosovo).

Here is five valid and reliable sources to prove that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. That translation is out of date. So lets do the right thing and put it in the list with the other countries that have recognised Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The map should be updated accordingly. --Camptown (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it should. I can't do it on my laptop though. Could you do it please?Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the map updated. Anyway, the discussion seems weired. Why whould the Government of Malaysia say that its representation in Pristina will be transformed into an embassy if Malaysia hadn't recognized Kosovo in the first place? --Camptown (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your saying there? Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Foreign Ministry has not said it recognizes Kosovo, as evidenced by their statement which was translated above, infact the FM says they want all parties to work together to find a solution. Also, they are making no changes to their Liaison Office which implies that until a later decision comes about, Malaysia's position is the same that it was before the declaration, which is helping with international aid, but no recognition. --Tocino 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like recognition (?): "Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability," according to a statement from the Foreign Ministry."  The Malaysian Liason Office in Prstina gives as "host country" Kosovo  --DaQuirin (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: "UNMIK's Media Highlights": "Malaysia announced recognition of Kosovo through its representative to Kosovo, Mustafa J. Mansor." --DaQuirin (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The words of the Foreign Ministry take precedent over what a third party website says. Also, welcoming is different from official recognition. Please read the entire statement from the Malaysia FM... Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/Malay translation. There is nothing in that statement about recognition. --Tocino 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) HEY TOCINO, THE TRANSLATION IS DATED 20/03/08, THAT REFERENCE IS DATED 21/03/08. THE TRANSLATION IS NOW USELESS AS IT IS OUT OF DATE! Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but has the Malaysia FM released any other statements about Kosovo since then? --Tocino 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tocino and Avala, a country is not required to post that they recognise Kosovo on their The Foreign Ministry website to recognise Kosovo. For all you know they may have, but just not in English. Yes there was that translation, but thats over three weeks old, so things have happened since then. There was over 3 references proving that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. Every news station is reporting that 27 countries have recognised Kosovo, there is 26 in our list. I'll let you guess which country is missing. Another thing, you two are not the authority around here. So stop acting like it. Everyone is equal. What you two are doing is vandalism. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Foreign Ministry website says it clearly enough, I think. The procedure of recognition may take different forms. The Malaysian Foreign Ministry obviously sees Kosovo as an independent state, see their list of missions abroad . Thank you to all of you, trying to figure things out and keeping everybody update! --DaQuirin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but certainly whenever a FM puts out a statement, that statement is the definite words of the government. And in this case you have the FM of Malaysia saying one thing, and third party websites saying another. --Tocino 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa J. Mansor is the representative of Malaysia in Kosovo. He announced Malaysia's recognition of Kosovo. The third party that you talk of is the UN, i seriously doubt that they are going to lie. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Also that translation says that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo has been working with UNMIK in Kosovo and will change its status at the right time. UNMIK (United Nations Mission In Kosovo) has stated that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo (Mustafa J. Mansor) has announced Malaysia Recognition, so Malaysia has now changed its Status. That is an extremely reliable and valid reference. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Serbian media (source: Tanjug, 11 March) did understand that Malaysia did in fact officially recognize Kosovo, see here. --DaQuirin (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic community of Serbia, which one?
Could someone clarify this group as there are two Islamic "communities" in Serbia; one led by the Islamic Community in Serbia and the other by rival Islamic Community of Serbia, led by Adem Ziklic.--PG-Rated (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"neutral" Slovakia
These are the statements by Robert Fico, Slovakian PM on Kosovo interpreted as neutral by user Mareklug. Of course as in every other country there are opposing forces, in Croatia for an example two deputy PMs are against recognition but the PM has the final say and he decided that Croatia will recognize so in Slovakia PM decides too, not the president not the FM but PM.

"Historians liken the events in Serbia to those in Munich in 1938 or to the Vienna Arbitration," said the premier, expressing much the same view as his coalition partner, Slovak National Party (SNS) chairman Jan Slota. '''Fico added that Slovakia has no other option but to point verbally to the fact that a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contravenes international law. Until this issue is resolved, Slovakia won't recognise Kosovo as a state, he added.''' Referring to the four-month period that Slovak Foreign Minister Jan Kubis said is necessary for Slovakia to consider recognising Kosovo, Fico stressed that this doesn't mean that the country will automatically acknowledge Kosovo's independence when the given period expires. Fico also said that Slovakia has the right to its own stance, and shares the same view on Kosovo with several other EU-member states, including Spain. [The Munich Agreement, signed by Germany, France, Britain and Italy in Munich in 1938, paved the way for Germany's annexation of the Czechoslovak Sudetenland in the same year. Under the First Vienna Arbitration (1938), which came as a direct consequence of the Munich Agreement, territory in southern Slovakia that was home to a high proportion of ethnic Hungarians was transferred to Hungary. - ed. note]. 

Now he says that Slovakia might recognize until the international law issue is solved and here is what Putin said:

'''Russia could only recognize Kosovo's independence within the framework of international law, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday. "If such a compromise is found, we will agree,"''' Putin was quoted by Russian news agencies as telling the press after meeting with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first foreign leader to visit Russia since the country's March 2 presidential election. 

Fico said they have the same position as Spain and here is what they said in Spain

"The government of Spain will not recognize the unilateral act proclaimed yesterday by the assembly of Kosovo", Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters on arrival for a meeting of EU foreign ministers. "We will not recognize because we consider this does not respect international law", he said, adding that to be legal, secession from Serbia required either an agreement between the parties or a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Ambiguous or not? If Slovakia is then Spain and Russia are too. --Avala 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem. For the relevant quote from the same sources, see my talk page on Commons, under "Russia", where User:Avala engaged me on Slovakia. Please note, what was said by Slovakia's Prime Minister, referring to what his Foreign Minister said in turn, concerning the next 4 months, as the time to be taken by Slovakia to consider the situation fully and then make a ruling. By definition, that is not neutral -- no one claims that Slovakia is neutral -- that is "delaying decision in order to evaluate", which happens to fall under "khaki" and that is how we also marked Armenia and Canada. --Mareklug talk 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But considering the same statements were given by Russia and that Slovakians themselves said they have the same position as Spain why are these three countries not in the same colour? Oh and btw Fico said that on February 25, 2008. so it's not some outdated statement as you claim and considering he has no issues he doesn't come up with Kosovo on every news conference so that his previous statement doesn't become "outdated". Feb 25 is pretty recent I think. --Avala (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but both questions are based on false premises:
 * Russia presented its formal position at the UN Security Council. As formally as possible, they have refuted the declaration of independence as illegal. Slovakia and Spain have not.
 * Spain has not, to my knowledge, embarked on a delineated, 4-month long period of considering whether to recognize. In fact, Spain is motivated by internal politics, it seems, whereas Slovakia, given the on-record statements of its Hungarian minority party, is more thoughtfully considering the implications to the world-order of such declarations. The two positions are not the same at all. --Mareklug talk 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it comes to choice between your interpretation and Robert Fico's words. With all due respect I think PM of Slovakia, Robert Fico, knows the position of Slovakia better. --Avala (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting above, in a box, the evidence of Slovak government's position on Kosovo, which has already been included on this talk page, under "Slovakia...", and you damn well know it. The words of the Foreign Minister, are the same words which his boss, Mr. Fico, has clearly referenced and endorsed. However, you managed to lose them, in all your quoting and emboldening. Cordially, --Mareklug talk 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said FM is below the PM. Kubis actually suggested that Slovakia should recognize Kosovo couple of months ago but Fico disagreed, just like he disagrees now. And to answer your probable question - no Fico is not going to sack Kubis over one disagreement. Slovakia is not a banana authoritarian dictatorship where everyone who think different get removed but a democratic parliamentary country in EU. And on top of it Kubis has softened and is now only suggesting future review but he is not advocating recognition anymore. So we come back to my unanswered question - what should we choose between your interpretation and Robert Fico's words? --Avala (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we just quote what you and I wrote on Commons and let people read what Mr. Fico said, instead of you telling us what he said (in bold):


 * quoted from commons:User talk:Mareklug:

So you want SKtoday? Fico: Slovakia Won't Recognise Kosovo's Unilaterally-Declared Independence and Fico: Kosovo's Independence Resembles Munich Agreement Fico also said that Slovakia has the right to its own stance, and shares the same view on Kosovo with several other EU-member states, including Spain. So are you still saying Slovakia is neutral? --Avala 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let us consider your evidence presented here for the first time:


 * The first source is from 10 December 2007. I dismiss it as outdated, and of no consequnce to determining Slovakia's position TODAY.
 * The second source contains this sentence: "Referring to the four-month period that Slovak Foreign Minister Jan Kubis said is necessary for Slovakia to consider recognising Kosovo, Fico stressed that this doesn't mean that the country will automatically acknowledge Kosovo's independence when the given period expires."


 * Dear Avala. That means that for the next 4 months they are by definition khaki as in delaying decision by evaluating it. Please come to your senses. --Mareklug  talk  14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So it comes to choice between your interpretation and Robert Fico's words. With all due respect I think PM of Slovakia, Robert Fico, knows the position of Slovakia better. --Avala 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What "your interpretation"? Did I interpret? Read the words from the source you gave: "Referring to the four-month period that Slovak Foreign Minister Jan Kubis said is necessary for Slovakia to consider recognising Kosovo, Fico stressed that this doesn't mean that the country will automatically acknowledge Kosovo's independence when the given period expires.". Come back 4 months from now, cuz that's when Slovakia will recognize or not. Until then, "delaying recognition" = khaki. --Mareklug talk

Right here : "Spain has not, to my knowledge, embarked on a delineated, 4-month long period of considering whether to recognize. In fact, Spain is motivated by internal politics, it seems, whereas Slovakia, given the on-record statements of its Hungarian minority party, is more thoughtfully considering the implications to the world-order of such declarations. >>>The two positions are not the same at all.<<<"    vs. "Fico also said that Slovakia has the right to its own stance, and >>>shares the same view<<< on Kosovo with several other EU-member states, >>>including Spain.<<<" So he says they are the same and you said they are not the same at all. That IS your interpretation. Come on, is it that hard to say - "I've made a mistake, sorry, now I see that Slovakia is against independence and not neutral"? Is it really THAT hard and is it easier to write lengthy posts and engage in edit wars instead? --Avala (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you pretending to be stupid, or teasing? How would anything that I or anybody else writes by way of an explication alter what the government has said about taking 4 months to make up its mind? FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS SLOVAKIA IS KHAKI BECAUSE IT IS FORMALLY DECIDING ALL THAT TIME.


 * Is it really THAT hard and is it easier to write lengthy posts and engage in edit wars instead? --Avala My point, exactly. Please answer your own question. In fact, why don't you just commence debating yourself, because I get the strong sense I'm talking to a sophisticated computer loop. EOT. --Mareklug talk 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only because I am not a confrontational kind of person that I haven't reported your continued personal attacks which you use whenever you loose other arguments. I would really like my question answered though. Why are Spain and Slovakia in different colours on your map if the PM of Slovakia said that Slovakia shares the same view on Kosovo with Spain? --Avala (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because "sharing a view" is a metaphor, and actual state position is a quantum state, denoted by color.
 * Spain's is: "rejected, will keep on rejecting, even after convening our new government" and
 * Slovakia's is: "not recognizing yet. will take 4 months to make up our mind (the president even is quoted as saying the 4 months haven's started yet.)".
 * And, if we must be robotic about words, you wrote: Fico also said that Slovakia has the right to its own stance, and >>>shares the same view<<< on Kosovo with several other EU-member states. Why aren't all these several states colored red on your map, Avala? You only colored red Serbia, Slovakia, Cyprus, Spain and Bosnia.


 * Bosnia, as has been shown in the Evidence column in the table entry for Bosnia, is actually lacking an official position -- that means they are khaki as ambiguous -- due to internal splits on the subject, and its current Bosniak president says what its previous Croat president said: "Bosnia won't recognize soon", which is NOT the same as "will never recognize", which is the red of Serbia and Russia. Also, to be robotic about what it means to "share a view": Slovakia and Spain may share a view, but in addition to that shared view, each may well hold additional views, many, in fact. All about Kosovo. Now, EOT, I hope?. --Mareklug talk 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

With Fico and the Slovak government being very clear about Slovakia's opposition to the unilateral declaration, they belong in the will not recognize category (red). If we go by what the Head of States say then the Czech Republic belongs in the will not recognize category (red) as well because Václav Klaus is opposed to recognizing Kosovo. --Tocino 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fico and the Slovak government are very clear: They wish to take 4 months, which according to their President, has not even started, to decide. Then they will tell us and the world, if they will recognize or not. As for Klaus and the Czech Republic, as has been noted on this page before, he is a ceremonial figurehead, just like the genteleman holding the same job in Poland. He, too, is against the recognition of Kosovo, yet Poland is a deep blue state. And Mr. Topolanek, Prime Minister of Czechia, and his second in command, have said that the country will recognize Kosovo after Easter. And then both presidents, Polish and Czech, will be equally irrelevant on this score, and both countries will be deep blue.  Any more stupid questions and explications, Mr. Tocino?  Why don't you go and revert Malaysia one more time, as unrecognizing Kosovo.... --Mareklug talk 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes they are clear. They are opposed, just as Cuba and Bosnia and Herzegovina are whether you like it or not. The reason why I brought up the Head of States is because in this article the reaction of Ivan Gašparovič is posted but the reaction of Klaus is not (well, actually it was on the article earlier, but now it is not, I wonder who deleted it?... Hmmm...) In fact maybe I'll go deleted Gašparovič's reaction right now to be fair, because Slovakia is deep red. Got any more idiotic comments, Mr. Polack Fascist? --Tocino 20:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though Mareklug provokes with name calling I don't think other users should fall into that trap and return the fire. Be calm and don't insult him back. It's not going to help the article. Anyway back to the topic...--Avala (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Bosnia, is actually lacking an official position" - so the reaction of two out of three presidency members is not official? Funny.
 * "which is NOT the same as "will never recognize", which is the red of Serbia and Russia." - But Putin said that they will recognize if that is agreed and if it's according to the international law.
 * So how come Spain and Slovakia which according to the Slovakian PM have the same view on Kosovo are painted in different colours? (and no Slovakian PM is not schizophrenic as you imply when you say he probably has countless positions on Kosovo). --Avala (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute on Commons re: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png -- please help build consensus and then update the maps
I am hereby bringing up the issue of which version of these maps is factual, according to sources used in this article, mine or User:Avala's, and which is to be preferred, if either. While this has to do with a Commons content dispute, because the locus of wikipedistic activity on this issue that I am aware of is here, in this article, and English is the common language of our discussion, I believe this is the correct venue for building consensus. And I invite you to participate in the map updates on Commons, so it is not a Mareklug vs. Avala revert war. I have no desire to lock up the pages again, or get banned for edit warring. Please participate and make your considered opinion known, and please act on it. --Mareklug talk 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing it up. One version uses cites sources while the other one uses POV (which is clearly shown through the fact that countries that said they share position of another country are not painted with the same colour). --Avala (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new so I'm not sure what's going on. Do I vote somewhere or participate? Kosova2008 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Wikipedia solves things with argumented consensus not voting. --Avala (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Click on the above images. Compare them carefully. Come back here and write in plain English which one is more correct, or if neither is correct enough :), write in detail what is wrong with them. Itemize. Be sure to note which version (by time and date) you are talking about (see file upload history below the image; the top one is the one currently viewable).
 * Register on Commons. Learn how to upload graphics. Or click on "(revert)" to make that version be the current one. Click on the date in the upload history to view the version uploaded then.
 * That's it. --Mareklug talk 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently numerous factual inaccuracies on the map. To correct these problems the following needs to be done... --Tocino 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia, and Cuba need to be colored red
 * Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, Macedonia need to be colored khaki
 * Kuwait and Portugal need to be colored orange

As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball according to the official policy, we are depicting the current situation so we need Chile, New Zealand, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Portugal and Indonesia in light orange. Bosnia, Uruguay, Cuba and Slovakia in red. Montenegro and Macedonia in khaki. And India in light orange and Pakistan in light blue. It's all sourced in the article. --Avala (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like nobody objects so feel free to make the corrections. --Tocino 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: Avala's edit summary for the upload on Commons:
 * 14 March 2008 Avala (Talk | contribs) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Kosovo relations.svg": there is no opposing voices except for mareklug on enwiki talk page. other users obviously agree with previously reached consensus)

His "corrections" include altering Portugal, Tunesia, Mali, Bosnia, Cuba, Montenegro, Macedonia, New Zealand, Kuweit, Chile, Uruguay, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan, Slovakia -- all of them to seemingly more pro-Serbia coloring. Most of these are notably disputed, and some never were discussed, while their evidence as lodged in this article indicate different state from the one indicated by Avala. So much for truth of "previously reached consensus".

The Wikipedians have only themselves to blame for lack of participation and letting blatant Serb POV-pushing skew the graphical map record used on many Wikipedias. Not that more than a few hours was allowed for the discussion to take place before forcing the change on Commons (again). --Mareklug talk 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia
Democratic Party of Albanians has left the Government of Macedonia, among other reasons because the government hasn't recognized Kosovo independence. This probably means government falling down or the new coalaition as they have no majority in the parliament anymore. --Avala (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Australian Community
This article here in ALBANIAN is for the Albanian Australian Community welcoming the independence of Kosova. The head person Meriton Rexha wrote an article in this newsletter which specifically says, "Më lejoni pra që un tjua uroj i pari pavarsinë e Kosovës. Vll. Meriton Rexha"

"Allow me to congratulate the independence of Kosova VII. Meriton Rexha"

Page 13 Kosova2008 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

So?--Avala (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't belong here. The Serbian Canadian community's response was once posted on this article, but it got deleted, so the precedent is that the response of "Albanian/Serbian community of Nation X" is irrelevant to this article. --Tocino 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually Albanian Muslims of Austrila, not just some people. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

There are Serbian, Albanian and Kosovar communities all over the world, there is no point mentioning a single one, as it rather obvious what they are to say. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is completely useless to put what all this comunities have to say. We know the outcome. It will be like an eurovision song contest :) Jawohl (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We have I think 3 entries in the "entity" of Orthodox, what they think but having anyone else who disagrees with their statement is "useless". If that isn't a double standart or a POV agenda then I don't know what is. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * I removed the Canadian Serbian community's protests in Canada's annotation, and so I support not including Australian Albanian community's position in Australia's. Seems like you have a green light on scrounging up any and all Orthodox and otherwise Churches and Islamic communities, as well as Jewish, Protestant, Hinduist, Sikh, Buddhist, Animistic, Pagan, Neopagan as well as, presumably, organized atheistic communities' positions, so what are you waiting for? Go to it. --Mareklug talk 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Date for Hungarian recognition
The Hungarian Wikipedia version of this very article lists March 19th as the expected date of Hungary's recognition of Kosovo. However, the sources cited are in Hungarian, and I can't find a decent online translator to check that. Could anyone who speaks Hungarian confirm this?

Ajbenj (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "A kabinet valószínűleg március 19-én jelenti be a döntést." All i can make out there is the "cabinet and 19th March". I'll find someone hungarian to translate it for us. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked KissL if he would translate it into English for us. He seems a good choice. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It means: "The cabinet will probably announce the decision on 19 March." But basically it is only a guess by the newspaper becase Bernadett Budai, speaker of the government didn't confirm the information. Zello (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yhanks and thanks for adding the rumor date to the article. One more question about this, as that the FM has formally asked Parliament to initiate the recognition process, shouldn't Hungary be in up with Norway, Croatia, and Lithuania? Or is that too soon? Ajbenj (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just saw the latest revision. Talk about timing! Ajbenj (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes
Don't mean to be petty but does the Algeria section really require a "the moor next door blog states"? the source is given in the references section, if yes why was this not added to the Tunisia section ??? (Neostinker (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

While the article by the Moor Next Door is great, I don't think that it has to be mentioned. However, should the blog have sources, we should source the Moor's statements and use those instead. Blogs aren't official statements of policy. If they quote an official in a direct, on the record interview (and can prove it somehow) or cite another source, they should be treated like traditional newsmedia. Ajbenj (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Norway
The decision to recognize Kosovo is ready to be signed by the King as a Royal Resulution, but not no such steps were taken at today's State Council meeting. It is now beleived that the Norwegian government has postponed the formal procedure of recognizing Kosovo till after the Serbian election on May 11. --Camptown (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Orthodox Church?
How are ALL orthodox churches supporting Serbia when the Albanian Orthodox Church, and Albanian Catholics in Kosovo and elsewhere, have voiced support for its independence? Did someone somehow get a confirmation from every single orthodox church? Either state which churches have voiced opposition - if a majority, say MOST - or disband the section alltogether.--PG-Rated (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course they didn't get the reaction from all Orthodox churches. We did have a list of each church which expressed opposition but it was morphed into a short little entry to please the editors on this article who are viciously pro-Kosovo Albanian. What do you expect from a bunch of propagandists like User:Mareklug? --Tocino 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the official source of the opinion of Albanian Orthodox Church? JosipMac (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the positions of religious organizations are irrelevant for this article, unless we are talking about those which are directly related, such as the Serbian Orthodox Church whose property is located, among other places, in Kosovo. Otherwise these religious groups do not have any legal influence on the international scene (recognize states or sue them). I would note the position of the Holy See as it is an international entity with the same perks as states. Tocino, there's a flip side to that coin.
 * JosipMac, I do not believe that the Albanian Orthodox Church has made an official statement (in English language media at least) but I did find the following source:
 * The Rev. Spero L. Page, pastor emeritus of St. Mary’s Albanian Orthodox Church in Worcester, said Kosovar independence from Serbia is proper because the ethnic Albanians outnumber Serbs by 10 to 1. Regarding the slaughter of Kosovars, the son of Albanian immigrants said the Serbs, who are Orthodox Christians as he is, were wrong. “It’s wrong because of our Christian teachings.  --PG-Rated (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source of the Albanian Orthodox Church in the region (Albania included), it should be included in the article. According to the current text: "(other orthodox churches) support Serbia. No Orthodox Church has voiced their support for Kosovo independence". This doesn't seem correct should the Albanian church have vioced its support for Kosovo. --Camptown (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you can put "All Orthodox Churches except Albanian one...". However, I'm still asking, is there official source of an opinion of Albanian Orthodox Church? I am not familiar with a hierarchy of Orthodox Churches. Somehow I don't think the quote of that pastor up there is an official word from Albanian Orthodox Church, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. JosipMac (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Albanian orthodox Church seems to be more interested in religious affairs then political ones. They do not have any official statement as far as I can see. Jawohl (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point :) JosipMac (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevent info, needs to be removed
Yes Polish President Kaczynski once remarked during press conference that it is perhaps too early to reckognise freedom of Albanians from the Serbian regime. However this was just a minor statement and not anything notable. Many comments were made in many countries, we don't need to mention them all. Overall Poland due to similiar historical experience of being occupied by Russia, Germany quickly acknowledged self-determination of Albanian people from Serb state. This is the essential part of the information, we don't need to detail all comments made in Poland regarding it. --Molobo (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully agreeJawohl (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. The opinion of a Head of State is relevant to this article. Also, other Heads of States are listed in this article such as the Slovak, Czech, and Greek presidents, even though they don't have final say on government policy. --Tocino 21:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Presidents usually give a sign about the country's position but not always. Kaczyński and Klaus are a bit arbitrary. They often disagree with the government and like to make their personal statements public. --Avala (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply put, Kaczyński and Klaus are irrelevant to their countries recognition of Kosovo's independence, at best, having a delaying effect. Poland is a done-gone deal, and in any event, we never list any info about how the position was arrived at in the case of countries that have officially recognized, so the Polish Head-of-State quote sticks out ridiculously from the rest of that table. Greek and Slovak presidents actually work together with their governments, and their statements are highly indicative and augmenting to any official statements or statements by Foreign Ministers. Clearly Tocino is not looking at any of this from dispassionate, information-gathering POV but wishes to document as much as possible a pro-Serbia government world, in any department, including the listing of officially recognizing states. --Mareklug talk 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For you information, Klaus is of the same party that makes up the current Czech government. Also in Greece, the president is a socialist and the government is currently controlled by conservatives. --Tocino 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So what if he disagreed. Theres nothing h can do about it, therefore its pointless information to put on this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Polish president is removed then there is a precedent set... Heads of States don't belong so that means the responses of the Slovak, Czech, Greek, Macedonian, etc. presidents all must be deleted. --Tocino 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think issue here is that Poland has recognized Kosovo thus what the President had or has to say does not really change the outcome while in the case of the countries you mention there is yet no outcome therefore they need to stay. Not everything needs to be either black or white. Jawohl (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadas position
the info on canadas position should be changed with this additional information: "Canada's Supreme Court, in a landmark 1998 ruling on Quebec secession, said the right to unilaterally declare independence is only an option for a people facing oppression or exploitation from a colonial master, and denied any meaningful self-determination." taken from this link http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=317400. Also it is very irrelevant what a former prime minister has to say in the issue since in the case of Poland it did not even matter what the president had to say while this Supreme Court ruling addresses exactly the issue of Quebec and in a way Kosovo. Jawohl (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What has 1998 decision on Quebec and colonial oppression got to do with Kosovo? --Avala (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Canadas supreme court overruled Quebecs request for secession based on the arguments above. This means the Quebec and Kosovo are different cases for Canada and recognition is being delayed for other reasons and not for Quebec. And you Avala: What has a former politician got to do with Canada aside from the fact that he is former...?Jawohl (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if Serbia is a colonial oppressor then yes but I think it was regarding North American colonies secession. --Avala (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * People facing oppression is the first case mentioned which is what albanians faced. Or do you also deny them that? You still did not answer my question about why is a statement of a former PM more relevant than a supreme court ruling? Jawohl (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

governments in exile - include them or not? Chechen Ichkeria, Republika Srpska Krajina etc.
Didn't we agree not to include governments in exile ie. the statement by Usman Ferzauli, the Foreign Minister of the Chechen government in exile and the statement by the Republic of Serbian Krajina in exile? I am having a feeling mareklug is now reverting all my edits just for the sake of it because afair he was removing these Krajina and other "governments" a couple of days ago. --Avala (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We already had a discussion about Krajina". Don't start it again, unless you want edit-wars, vandalizing as well as flame wars. JosipMac (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I want them removed but mareklug wants Chechen government in exile back. So yes or no for these exile governments? And no we don't have discussion about Krajina, it's archived. --Avala (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is another falsifying skew by Avala. The entry for Chechnya pre-dated a recent edit by a third editor, converting the entry to an attribution by a government in exile. After which, Avala removed the entire Chechnya entry, which happens to by strongly anti-Serbia. Imagine that. User:JosipMac objects to the lack of legitimacy and the war-crime character of the Kraina outfit, and IMHO this cannot be construed as demand to ban all government-in-exile entities.  Again, convenient misinterpretation by Avala, in accordance with pushing Serbia POV. How can Chechens have Russia-based quotes, when their country is being annihilated by Russian military for years now? There is no other way in cases such as Chechnya or West Papua to source opposition but by sourcing expat, exiled sources! --Mareklug talk 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok apart from mentioning "Serbia POV" and "falsifying skew" in every reply do you have any arguments? I removed entry about the statement by Chechen government in exile, not current government of Chechenia but Chechen government in exile. There is a huge difference. Now how could some RSK make their statements if not through the exile government? But I repeat I don't agree with including RSK in the article but neither I do with Chechen exile govt.--Avala (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, goodie. I too dont' want the fringe murderers from Kraina quoted in this article. However, the independence freedom fighters of Chechnya, representing an entire nation oppressed by Russia which administers the region with a puppet regime, are not in the same boat, so kindly lay off independence-minded Chechnya, and don't removed their entry. If you wish to undo the third editor's explicit attribution to a government in exile, do that. Don't be obtuse. --Mareklug talk 01:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to waste my time on this. In short, I'm OK with Chechnya being there (but it's not that I care to be honest), but I am not ok with Krajina on the list as well. And I have already argumented why these two cases are different. Who wants to know will check the Archive, and only cares about POVs will cover eyes. Let's just say that after my argumentation of the difference between Krajina and Chechnya, no one had any counter-arguments. JosipMac (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia again
Source: ''Slovak Foreign Affairs Minister Ján Kubiš has chosen his words on Kosovo more carefully. '''Kubiš said that Slovakia cannot recognise Kosovo at this point, but state officials will continue to monitor the situation closely. "We will return to the issue after evaluating the developments in Kosovo, the region and the position of the international community,"''' he told the Slovak Radio on February 18. "We will do so in about a hundred and twenty days."

Article: Slovak Foreign Affairs Minister '''Ján Kubiš said that Slovakia cannot recognise Kosovo at this point, but state officials will continue to monitor the situation closely. "We will return to the issue after evaluating the developments in Kosovo, the region and the position of the international community. We will do so in about a hundred and twenty days"''', he said.

User:Mareklug removes it and says "bad-faith, POV edit. User removed sourced quoted FM statement, skewsing the overall sense."

Oh and User:Mareklug also removed "I am sure that it will take not a year or two, but maybe even ten years, until countries can take a final position on Kosovo."

in source : "I am sure that it will take not a year or two, but maybe even ten years, until countries can take a final position on Kosovo," Gašparovič said after meeting with Kubiš as quoted by the aktualne.sk website on February 20. "And today, no one knows which standpoint is right."

and also removed

Deputy Prime Minister Dušan Čaplovič, said that by declaring independence without Serbian consent, Kosovo broke international law and created a precedent. Čaplovič declared a connection between Kosovo and the problem of organised crime.

in source

Deputy Prime Minister Dušan Čaplovič was much sharper in his criticism than Kubiš or even the prime minister.

By declaring independence without Serbian consent, Kosovo broke international law and created a precedent, Čaplovič told the private TV JOJ on February 19.

Čaplovič declared a connection between Kosovo and the problem of organised crim

Am I missing something? Last time mareklug accused me of falsifying and editing quotes I asked him to point at the specific word I changed and he couldn't so am asking here for the same thing - point at the word I changed or stop disruptive edits. --Avala (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are missing something: honest, impartial sourcing:
 * You removed a later, sourced quote by the Foreign Minister, replacing it with an earlier one (21st vs. 18th February). The 21st Feb quote specifically had the benefit of other countries' reacting, and the FA Minister was commenting on recognition of Kosovo in that light. His later quote, the one removed, was far more pro-recognition, in tone and content. Such selective replacement of material is falsifying and editing quotes.
 * The President's quote, already sourced, was added to with the quoted text from another source, yet the resultant Frankenstein-quote was still attributed to the old source! Furthermore, in this case as well, selectively, the most pro-Serbia fragment was included. Had the included new text been expanded for the sentence that followed, its impact would have been far more NPOV than pro-Serbia POV. Another example of falsifying and altering quotes.
 * The Deputy Minister later in the source is quoted with extremely POV quote of calling Kosovo "DRUG-ovo". That was ommitted. Inclusion of that, would have correctly characterized the extreme POV nature of this politician's say, possibly discrediting him. Furhtermore, down the page in the source, the Deputy FM is discredited by a different political party as well as by an independent Slovak expert, who contends that organized crime in Kosovo is no more prominent than in other countries. He further gives a rational explanation for crime rates in Kosovo, among other interesting information that is basically neutral in tone and appears factual. However, it did not fit in with the POV-pushing by Avala, so it was omitted. Another example of faslsifying and editing quotes.

Hope that suffice. A skillful surgery with sources, even quoting accurately yet selectively, and replacing sources with others to alter tone, and splicing quotes from diverse sources while still labeling them with the earlier source -- are all falsifying and altering. Not to mention, removing later quotes in favor of earlies ones, as in the case of Foreign Affairs Minister Jan Kubis. --Mareklug talk 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For an example you failed to add this into Kubis's quote "It would be best, if the solution is recognised by the UN Security Council". It could mean a lot but you failed to include it with the rest of the thing. Why would you leave only this out? Hmm and I am asking you again to stop saying I am altering sources if you cannot point at the single word I altered. --Avala (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's you entire reaction to itemized list of trangressions? Ha ha ha ha. Even Condi Rice, USA State Secretary, I'm sure, has said many a times that it would be best, if the solution is recognizeed by the UN Security Council. Ha ha ha.

I am asking you to stop falsifying and altering information by selective sourcing, including replacing newer ones by earlier ones that alter the information presented according to your POV, and to stop splicing quotes from two sources while attributing them to the former source. Clear enough? It's not the single words that you alter in your sourcing -- you alter entire sense of presented information, a far greater crime. --Mareklug talk 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have copy/pasted the source content and what I added to the article and anyone can see that they are the same text. So it turns out that just like with Cuba you are trying to put on other editors that they are misquoting which is simply not true. Why are you doing this? --Avala (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above represents the Slovakia entry after Avala's initial edit (without summarizing the changes he made) to which I objected, and which I reverted, which he reverted again, and then started this section. He has since altered it. My objections are restated below.
 * Accurate copying and pasting of snippets is resulting in an inaccurate portrayal of Slovakia's position. This was done by the combination of the following:
 * Replacing a 21 February 2008, sourced statement with a 18 February 2008 statement from a different source, in order to radically alter the tone and content of the speaker's position by suppressing information. (FA Minister Jan Kubis)
 * Combining a sourced existing statement with new content obtained from a different source, then making the splice into one continued statement attributed to the original source. (President)
 * Selectively including only the texts that promote a pro-Serbia POV
 * (President -- by not including the sentence in the new source that immediately followed)
 * (FA Deputy Minister -- by not including his "DRUG-ovo" for "Kosovo", and by not including the discrediting of his credibility by other named politicians and by other information describing his positions, and by not including the discrediting of his quoted claims by the statement of a Slovak expert, who also went on to say other relevant things weighing in against the claims of the FA Deputy Minister)


 * Selective filtering: Of all the possible information contained in this one multi-faceted source, selective snippets were used to advance a POV; even the title of this particualr source talks about conflicted Slovaks, yet the net effect the edit was to reinforce an anti-Kosovo independence and pro-Serbia government view.
 * Obliterating the central and undisputable fact that Slovakia is taking the next 4 months to make up its mind officially, and only then issuing official recognition or denying it -- in favor of phrasing that implies that Slovakia has already officially rejected, and will only revisit this decision 120 days from now.

The NPOV view would convey the information that Slovakia won't issue an official ruling in the matter for an extended period of time, and use the source to portray a range of opinion in Slovakia. --Mareklug talk 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Content in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines must include citations of reliable sources which are not be used to lend undue weight (see Neutral point of view) to material which departs from the main topic of the article.

This article is international in scope. It is not dedicated to an in-depth analysis of specifically Slovakian views of Kosovo's independence. If the latter topic is notable enough, it either already has an article or will.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉  06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Skewed portrayals of Armenia, Bosnia, Cuba, Uruguay, Brazil
Furthermore, distorting edits were not limited to Slovakia. --Mareklug talk 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Armenia
Armenia was initially portrayed as not recognizing Kosovo officialy, largely on the basis of a source's headline, but also through editing the quotes attributed to its Foreign Minister, notably by omission of the trailing "yet" and the sentence that immediately followed. Both unequivocally amounted to: an official statement of Armenia's position on Kosovo is forthcoming, and that the matter is still being discussed. Instead, the source was used to portray Armenia as a state which already officially rejected Kosovo's declaration of independence. Yet, as of a few days ago, the Armenia President is on record as floating the idea of recognizing Kosovo's independence after all, and I am the editor who included that documentation, reversing the showing od Armenia in red, showing it in khaki (as delaying recognition) on the Commons maps.--Mareklug talk

Brazil
In the case of Brazil, whose position was recently altered to make it seem to be an officially rejecting state, this time statements were misattributed to its Foreign Minister. The attributed to him statements are not in the source (a Portuguese popular website), the only reference. Yet, an official authoritative statement, mentioned by this source, is available in English on the official website of the relevant ministry. This statement does not quote the minister at all; instead, it contains different content. It does not address "protests" in Serbia per se, as was characterized on Wikipedia, but instead narrowly addresses the violence in Belgrade allowed to take place against embassies, and concluded by urging a peaceful continuation of the previous negotiation framework of Serbia with its province; our Commons map color for such is orange. However, now Brazil is shown in red, the color of states officially rejecting Kosovo's independence.

The sole source used to support this change itself reads: the FA Minister has been defending the position of Brazil as delaying making its official position known, waiting for a ruling from the UN Security Council. And the statements attributed on Wikipedia to the Minister by are a synopsis construed by the source's authors, who in turn attribute unnamed diplomatic sources. The map change to red, an upload on Commons, is annotated by only the Portuguese headline, a figment of the website editors, reminiscent of using the headline to justify assuming red in the case of Armenia. --Mareklug talk 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay and Cuba
The Brazil misstatement is analogous to current Commons map portrayal of Uruguay, already colored red, but the supporting evidence on Wikipedia consists of unnamed sources quoted on a Spanish-language website. No official state position -- which is also the case for Cuba -- has ever been sourced. --Mareklug talk

Bosnia
Meanwhile, as soon as I documented the neutrality of Bosnia's Foreign Affairs Ministry on Kosovo, by sourcing its official press releases, and absence of relevant new ones, my addition was removed by User:Tocino as "irrelevant jargon", in his assessment made irrelevant by quotes already attributed to presidents as individuals. In other edits, Tocino repeatedly removed statements sourced to the Slovakian president, claiming that the president is not the government and therefore irrelevant. --Mareklug talk

Summary
The only consistency in these edits is an aggressive promotion of a Serb government POV and failure to acurately report official position of states. Since all Kosovo-related articles are on probation by the Arbitration Committee, promoting a nationalist POV at odds with neutral reporting of reality can be construed as disruptive editing, subject to sanction by administrators. --Mareklug talk


 * I agree completely. There are loads of little pro Serbia things in this article making it not NPOV. When ever something is added to the article and is not liked by pro Serbian users, it is sometimes deleted as they don't want it on the article, User Tocino does this often. Parts of this article need to be rewritten in a neutral way. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also pro serbian users find the stupidest excuse to delete something or include something as it suits their POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is bordering pathological lying. You say "No official state position -- which is also the case for Cuba -- has ever been sourced". And how do you call this [=http://www.yucatan.com.mx/noticia.asp?cx=99$1410000000$3761853&f=20080301] - (ref. 101)? I can't believe you can actually quote the article all with sources given and then coldly state that there are no sources. Who do you think you are going to fool? It's obvious everyone can see that there is a link next to the quoted statement and they can open this link from references and see that source is valid. Please tell me how can you make such a post? I also want to remind other editors why am I loosing my temper, because this is probably 15th time this user is starting the same discussion - it's a pattern. First someone adds something, mareklug reverts, then other users warn him not to blank sourced content he doesn't like and then he goes to the article talk page making statements how sources are falsified and when asked to point at falsification he goes silent. It's a pattern everyone can see repeating. --Avala (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Oh and I suggest users to search the talk page for these words "Serbia POV" and "falsifying skew". Pattern too. --Avala (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala there, as a country is not required to say it doesn't recognise Kosovo, for it not to recognise Kosovo. Thtas why i like the map and tables the way they are as they give a neutral perspective of the recognition of Kosovo. But the way some things are interpreted are not always neutral. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I have got very tired of explaining that too. If a country wants to recognize they need to publish an official document, otherwise they are not obliged to even make a statement as they legally consider the situation unchanged. --Avala (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to Cuba's Foreign Ministry website (in English) and a sample Statement -- this is what you need to source

 * Well, don't agree too readily. Cuba has a very vocal and well-maintained Foreign Ministry website, which it uses whenever it pleases, such as in this case: "Cuban Foreign Ministry Statement". Sourcing a Mexican newspaper site writing about "an article written by Fidel Castro" is not sourcing an official state position of Cuba, esp. in the case of a rant by Fidel Castro after stpping down as President. Sure he is imortant, but there's a difference between speaking and speaking as a state. The Foreign Ministry, rest assured, has plenty of his rants functioning as official statements. If so, why isn't there any about Kosovo? Go ahead, have a look -- this is the link to the top-level site of the Ministry: Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Republic of Cuba. --Mareklug talk 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discuss this further if you continue to diminish him by stating that he is having a rant. You are disrespectful. But I guess it made sense to you when you added Bjork's position over Kosovo, as if she was an important international representative and not a pop-star. That wasn't a rant but an important official reaction right? Maybe Britney Spears of Liam Gallagher also have a position but I don't see any reason to add them. --Avala (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and you are lying again - "Cuba has a very vocal and well-maintained Foreign Ministry website" and then I open the link and see the last statement was made on 24/01/08 but the statement before that was made on 16/07/07. So active that they make a statement once a year. --Avala (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fidel Castro is an official foreign policy advisor of Cuba to whom Raul Castro vowed to listen. --Avala (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, presumably he also goes to the bathroom, but we don't quote those sounds... A private person expressing opinion, no matter how influential the person, is just that. And a communication by the state. These are easy enough for you to distinguish, when you want to -- such as when quoting Foreign Ministries when it is convenient. Cuba has a Ministry and a foreign policy and a website in Spanish and English, full of texts (other than the statements). They can clearly say they don't recognize Kosovo in a heartbeat. The point is, you have not source that. And not for Brazil, either. Or Uruguay. Or Bosnia. But that does not stop you. --Mareklug talk 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fidel Castro is not a private person but an elected official foreign policy advisor of Cuba to whom Raul Castro vowed to listen.--Avala (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You just go ahead and type it in for a third time, so it will make it that much truer. Cuba has a President, a Foreign Minister, a Foreign Ministry and ambassadors, and newspapers and websites. Mr. Fidel Castro spoke as Fidel Castro, and while Raul Castro has vowed to listen, it would be nice, if you listened to common sense and used the same standard of evidence in all cases, not as is convenient to bend the truth to your POV's needs. --Mareklug talk 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala is right. And you should do something with your addiction to formalities. Recognizing Kosovo is the only formality here that matters. JosipMac (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, could someone remove the former PM's statement about Canadas position. Whoever put it, it does not serve the purpose. It is not official. Jawohl (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia, continued
And what is this? We have "no original research" official policy. No editor here can write in the article Bosnia is neutral if there was no such statement but by personal interpretation of MFA press releases.

The official neutrality of Bosnia as a state is underscored by the absence of any recent press realeases on this issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry issues its press releases in Serbian/Croatian and English, and maintains them as an archive. Its last statement on Kosovo is from 19 November 2007:

I have removed that and left only sourced statements of presidency members and minister of foreign affairs (if minister made a statement about Kosovo don't you think that can substitute the press release on lack of which you claim Bosnian neutrality?)

--Avala (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I take issue with your unreasonable and POV deletion of my carefully NPOV and sourced documentation. Also, conveniently, you removed a sourced, signed correspondence published in Sri Lanka, where "neutral" is actually stated in the text. So, which is OR? My documenting the "neutral" that is used in a valid source, or your suppressing all that, including the quote with "neutral" and the source? Lucky for me, my version is shown above on this page, so people can readily assess how you doctor information to your POV tastes by censoring whatever does not conveniently fit. --Mareklug talk 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um what? You did not copy paste this - "The official neutrality of Bosnia as a state is underscored by the absence of any recent press realeases on this issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." - from a source but you wrote it so it is OR. And I searched the Sri Lanka source for word "neutral" and found nothing so you are lying again. I am disgusted. --Avala (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, another false accusation of Mareklug by Avala. Next will come Mr. Tocino and for a third time call me a fascist, and a Polack (on this talk page).


 * As for you, maybe, if you took off those eye shades they put on horses and POV-pushing editors, you'd notice this paragraph: As to the political aspect of Kosovo's looming independence, Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to some of the reactions of its officials so far, will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country.. As to the text I wrote, I remind you, that editors are actually encouraged to write articles, not just paste quotes. :) --Mareklug talk 16:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Mareklug: "if you took off those eye shades they put on horses" - pathetic. After lying three times to us in three edits you go back to personal insults. You have just lost all credibility. Goodbye. --Avala (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What a curious way of phrasing: "Oops, I concede I overlooked the neutral in the article used as a source for the quotation and reference, which it is now quite obvious I had removed for no good reason. I'm sorry to have accused you without any basis of lying, as well as for making disruptive reverts that only impoverished Wikipedia, removing content at odds with my personal viewpoint." Is this by any chance a regionalized dialect? I'm always keen on learning the nuances of globalized English. --Mareklug talk 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You really can't control yourself and stop lying, can you? Everyone can open a source for Sri Lanka and see there is no word "neutral" in it and you can repeat million times there is but there still wont be. --Avala (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about this, and it is this that you have been removing, and this source is where, you claim, there is no word neutral: Apart from statements from the three presidents, "Bosnia and Herzegovina [...] will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country."[13]. --Mareklug talk 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about those unsourced original research where you came up with the "fact" that Bosnia is neutral because there are no new press releases from Bosnian MFA, even though we've heard from all three members of the presidency and from the minister of foreign affairs? So it's 4 statetements vs. your interpretation of the situation. --Avala (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I would like a more explicit apology for repeatedly calling me a liar, now that you admit there was no basis for that.
 * Second, as an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia, you are expected to know the concept and accordingly not abuse the accusation of "unsourced original research" for rhetorical purposes, because that's demagogy.
 * The very fact that the Serb President has a marked pro-Serbia position, while the other two concede that internal opposition by Serbs in Bosnia will delay recognition of Kosovo (both used the phrrase "soon", as in "not soon"), and the fact that the Foreign Minister has collaborated the 2 Presidents' statements (and he is the foreign policy instrument, not them, especially not those currently not in office), combined with the evidence of the news dispatch and analysis in NewKerala.com and the fact that the Bosnian MFA issues a prodigous stream of press releases about every little thing, in two languages, and maintains all of them on line from today to many months back -- all of these things factually corroborate what I wrote. Writing text in Wikipedia is not original research, and if you don't know that, shut up and learn.
 * Again, you owe me an apology for making yet another false accusation, this time "original research". If you can produce any official document by the state of Bosnia and Herzegowina that supersedes what I have documented in detail, be my guest. But you have not done it so far -- you have been removing, or corrupting (as documented in the section below, under ) the entirely correct and NPOV Wikipedia Evidence entry I have produced for Bosnia. I have already before exhaustively Google-searched all available documents from the MFA, and and have now provided the references for your "fact" templates. There is no original research here, only your and Tocino's unwillingness to register reality. --Mareklug talk

I think you should apologize to all Wikipedia editors for trying to fool them by lying there is no source for Cuba while there is, then lying how Cuban MFA is very active while they release a statement once in a year and then putting Sri Lanka to create confusion into your claims about Bosnian neutrality, claims based on your personal feeling that Bosnia is neutral because their MFA didn't make a press release even though we have statements by 3 out of 3 presidency members and FA minister. "If you can produce any official document by the state of Bosnia and Herzegowina what I have documented in detail, be my guest. But you have not done it so far -..." - yes there are three sources regarding statements by presidency members and one for MFA statement so it's completely sourced but you are again lying to other editors by claiming there is no official response from Bosnia while anyone who takes a look at the article will see there is a response from the highest level of power. --Avala (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) "if you took off those eye shades they put on horses", "shut up and learn" - you've really got no manners whatsoever but it's not my fault but of those who learned you to use these foul words when you lack on arguments. --Avala (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The official neutrality of Bosnia as a state is underscored by the absence of any recent press realeases on this issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." That sentence is not only OR but also pushing POV. The statements by the three premiers are sufficient information. If I had my way then I would also delete this sentence, "Apart from statements from the three presidents, "Bosnia and Herzegovina [...] will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country," because its source is dubious ( before the quote it says "some officials say..." and it's the only source on the internet that suggests some sort of neutrality for the staunchly opposed BiH).  --Tocino 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lech Kaczyński
I fail to see the need/ importance of mentioning that Lech Kaczyński opposed the recognition of Kosovo but "had" to accept. The only purpose of it i can see is that it is anti Kosovo propaganda, therefore it isn't NPOV. It should be removed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about international reaction, right? Kaczyński is an international political leader. Other leaders are listed on this article even though they may not have legislative powers, such as Branko Crvenkovski, Ivan Gašparovič, Václav Klaus, Karolos Papoulias,  and Georgi Parvanov. So why should only the Polish president be excluded?


 * I fail to see the need/ importance of mentioning that Slovenia is the "first country of the former Yugoslavia to recognize Kosovo"... we don't say for Costa Rica that is was the first American country to recognize or for Afghanistan, that it was the first Muslim country to recognize. The only purpose of adding the Yugoslav note to Slovenia I can see is that it is anti Serbian propaganda, therefore it isn't NPOV. It should be removed. :) --Tocino 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be removed because it is a minor statement, which isn't important because its just Lech Kaczyński's personal view on the situation in Kosovo. That statement doesn't affect Poland's position on Kosovo. I never said that it should be removed because he was Polish, which you implied was the reason why I wanted it removed.


 * As to the first Yugoslav note, i agree with you. It should be removed as well. That is also not needed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Lech Kaczyński is not an international political leader. He is the national political leader of Poland, not the international political leader of the world or several countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Kosovo
Should this article be merged with "Foreign relations of Kosovo". It makes sense if you ask me and the title is more suitable too. Also there is not much information on "Foreign relations of Kosovo" so not much would be added to this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * YesJawohl (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the article is much too long since it includes basically every country, religious group, declared state, separatist party, independence-seeking province, and international organization to offer an opinion up to now. Including the map and those which have recognized on that article also is obviously ok, but the whole thing? No.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

False or nonexistent edit summaries
Several editors do not provide any summaries. MediaWiki software pre-fills the summary with the name of the edited section, but the editor is required to characterize the changes made, especially controversial edits, reverts, substantial additions and deletions. Users are also making false summaries:

User:Tocino twice removed the following text with an edit summary "removing jargon". User:Avala twice removed it with edit summaries of "WP:NOR" or alleging "OR". The removed text (in blue):


 * Apart from statements from the three presidents, "Bosnia and Herzegovina [...] will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country." The official neutrality of Bosnia as a state is underscored by the absence of any recent press realeases on this issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry issues its press releases in Serbian/Croatian and English, and maintains them as an archive. Its last statement on Kosovo is from 19 November 2007: "[Foreign Affairs] Minister Sven Alkalaj emphasized that the position of our country regarding Kosovo status is that BIH supports any solution reached by mutual agreement between Belgrade and Pristina, and expressed hope that reached solution will be equally acceptable both for Belgrade and Pristina." Although the Serbian/Croatian versions for its most current releases outpace the English versions, and although there are many press releases from the days immediately following the declaration up to today, the only reference to MFA's position on Kosovo was made on 19 February 2008 in passing: U pogledu regionalne saradnje razmjenjena su mišljenja o razvoju situacije nakon proglašavanja nezavisnosti Kosova. (In the context of regional cooperation, positions were exchanged about situation after declaration of Kosovo's independence.) Accordingly, the MFA of Bosnia has maintained an official diplomatic silence, which is its official reaction as of 16 March 2008. ||

The above "jargon" was not rephrased with better English, only removed. The removed information was not replaced. The above does not constitue original research, as it is properly sourced, supported by facts, and includes quotes from high quality sources. The references are complete and properly formatted.

Stripped of its context and date in text -- the Foreign Minister's statement from 19 November 2007 -- was retained by User:Avala in a creative splice that does constitute WP:OR, because it falsely makes it look like a reaction to Kosovo's independence here, whereas it predates the Kosovo independence by several months. As the last press release by Bosnia Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating its position on Kosovo's independence, it was on-topic, sourced and truthfully labeled.

Other removed text included a sourced quote, properly referenced, from a signed and hihgly informative NewKerala.com news and analysis dispatch from Bosnia, written by an identified local journalist. The quote contains the word neutral describing Bosnia's official position on Kosovo's independence. This source continues to function as an excellent exposition, providing both an indication and an explanation of Bosnia's official position. Its removal is completely unwarranted by either justification used by Tocino or Avala.

Accordingly, I am restoring this text, and my edit summary will contain a wkilink to this talk page section. --Mareklug talk 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan
As you may know earlier we had a debate over whether the opinion of Lech Kaczyński is relevant to this article. It was decided that his opinion had no effect on Poland recognizing Kosovo, therefore Kaczyński's opinion is not noteworthy. As for Afghanistan this AP article has a quote from a prominent member of an Afghan think-tank which explains the reasoning behind Afghanistan's hasty recognition of Kosovo. The quote is.... Afghanistan has "no economic or commercial links with Kosovo whatsoever. The reason for the recognition was just to keep America happy. Since America wanted Kosovo independent, they put this on the Afghans' shoulders." This is very valuable information and it is relevant to the article because it explains the Afghan govt.'s actions. --Tocino 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean it makes US look nasty, which is important to you. Jawohl (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is called internation reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independance. So why should a group of Afghan interlectuals be mentioned in this article. They are not even an international organisation. They do not represent Afganistan politicaly. If we include them in the article, where does it stop? We might as well include local boy scouts opinion on why Russia has chosen not recognise Kosovo. Not important is it. Be more realistic and cut the anti Kosovo Propagada. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kaczyński's words don't explain the actions of Poland, but Dr. Medhi's words explain the actions of Afghanistan. There are no CATO or Brookings Institutes in Afghanistan, so what Dr. Medhi represents is the closest Afghanistan has to those think-tanks. If this person was not creditable, then surely a respected organization like the AP would not feel comfortable using his opinion in a article that is read by thousands. And do you really expect the Afghan govt to come out and explain the real reason why they recognized? --Tocino 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would I want to make my own country look bad? This information makes the American govt. look powerful and the Afghans like a bunch of weak and corrupt lap dogs... kind of like the Kosovo Albanian government. --Tocino 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is really not a nice thing to say. If you want to put the reason of Afganistans recognition then you will find it in their recognition text. But then you will need to do the same thing for all the other countries that recognized Kosovo. Knowing how very "objective" you are, as you just showed, I do not think that you will like the arguments. But go ahead, put the Afghani reason and add another 26 reason to the article. Jawohl (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think American is more like a bunch of weak and corrupt lap dogs, but thats nowt to do with this article. Dr. Medhi is of no importance, just like Bjork. Hes hardly leader of Afghanistan is he? For all i care he say what he wants on Kosovo, but does that mean we have to include it in this article. no we dont. Anyway its paddies day, im going to get drunk. We can talk about the really super important, magnificent, respected, significant, world changing, mighty powerful Dr Medhi later. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan ROC on the map?
I don't want to re-ignite the Taiwan debate, but according to the categories, Taiwan should not be in green on the map. It is inconsistent to have Taiwan in green, but not Abkhazia or Ichkeria. Since the map doesn't take these regions into account, Taiwan should be in grey. Again this is not a question of POV, just consistency--Scotchorama (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia and Ichkeria really do have a different status than Taiwan.--Avala (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "according to the categories" -that really does pose the question as to why Taiwan has been lumped together with Abkhazia.  While the ROC has formal recognition from 23 countries it is treated as a de-facto independent state by many more.   Abkhazia  is by contrast near universally regarded as rogue state.Dejvid (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be green because it is partially recognised. It is self administrated and governed, and the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, just claimed it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to go through this again? You cannot be npov with taiwan and politicalness. Either it favors the prc or it favors the roc. Leaving it gren is nuetral.--Jakezing (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as it is, the map is wrong: if Abkhazia and Ichkeria really do have a different status than Taiwan, then they should not be lumped together under the same category. This map is in the States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent section, thereby implying that the green areas are states that do recognise Kosovo as independent. I don't care if Taiwain is in that section or not: all I am saying is that the map should correspond to the categories. In the List of unrecognized countries article, both Taiwan and TRNC are under the Partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory heaing. On the other hand, Israel is not recognized by 39 states: in this case why is Israel in the "full state" category? Yes, it is a UN member, so is that the criteria? In that case, Taiwan shouldn't be in green.--Scotchorama (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I regard parts of this discussion about Taiwan as biased. Please, stop this immedietaly. There are many Taiwanese who reads here too. and what do they think about these POV and biased comments which are politically directed against their country? Please accept the reality that Taiwan is an independent country which effectively controls its own territory. It is one of the UN charter members and shall be treated with the same respect as anyone else. This is just a couple of my bronze pennies for now --Den-femte-ryttaren (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is now under "Unrecognised or partially recognised states, seceded regions, and national independence movements" so I don't see the problem. But I agree about the map. Even very pro-Kosovo website kosovothanksyou.com doesn't show Taiwan on the map. --Avala (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But were not kosovothanksyou.com now are we avala. And the fact isreal isn't recognized by 23 countries, it's recognized by the majority of the world, therfor, it's green. The ROC has a special status in the world.--Jakezing (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vatican City State isn't a UN member. Should it be listed in a special category? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
 * No but it has observer status. --Avala (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the papal states not being a un member have to do with it being a full fledged nation?--Jakezing (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The ROC may have a special status in the world, but at least an explanation is warranted on the map key. As I said, I am not discussing the categories, just the relation between article and map. As it currently stands, the map is erroneous, as it is just below the heading: States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent. Therefore, according to the map, Taiwan is a State, like any other, such as France, the UK, etc...--Scotchorama (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly what Taiwan is. An independent state which effectively controls its own territory. Please stop this biased POV crusade against it. Just accept its rightful existence. Please remember that Taiwan is one of the charter members of the UN in 1945. I feel sorry for all Taiwanese who have to read all these biased POV's against it. --Den-femte-ryttaren (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusing me of being POV: if you do believe Taiwan should be in green, then add it to the list of States. For the moment, it ISN'T in the list: I am not advocating a POV, I am just trying to tie the map to the lists. I really couldn't care less in the discussion if Taiwan is an indepedent state or not. Just make some sense in the lists and the map. According to the article, it isn't a fully independent state, according to the map, it is. That's my point of concern here.--Scotchorama (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Few countries are fully independant.--Jakezing (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia fiction text and outdated souce
The source from February 17, before any of the high officials from the presidency and MFA made their statements, says:
 * As to the political aspect of Kosovo's looming independence, Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to some of the reactions of its officials so far, will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country.

But the article says this (" citing " that source):
 * Apart from statements from the three presidents, "Bosnia and Herzegovina [...] will try to keep a neutral position due to a complex domestic political scene and numerous unsolved political and economic issues in the country."

Notice the difference between these two (maybe I should even say "falsifying skew" ;)).

Questions are:
 * says who? is there a name of the person making this statement?
 * when? on february 17 before all other statements or afterwards?
 * where did we come up with speech marks if there is no quoted statement in the source?

--Avala (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia-Herzegovina obviously needs to be re-written. We need to collect together some up-to date references on BiH's stance of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Then discuss how BiH is to re-written. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick to quoted statements is the only way to go. I have removed all the speculations and left only statements by high officials--Avala (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least it needed to be re-written. The sentence made it seem like it was an official statement by the government, when in fact it was hearsay from unidentified "officials". Since that article, which was written before the unilateral declaration, all three premiers, Serbian, Bosniak, and Croatian have since said that BiH won't recognize. And please don't cry, "Suppression of evidence!" because there has been sourced information in the Polish and Afghan entries, yet it has all been deleted because the information supposedly wasn't relevant or reliable. Well in this case the source isn't relevant anymore and it never was really reliable in the first place. --Tocino 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)a

Tocino, no need for personnel attacks you naughty boy x x x x x x x :-) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)