Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 21

Edit request India
editprotected

Please add this to India next to the existing text:

On March 31, Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup, said that "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries. We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue."

Original content is: Indian Ambassador to Serbia Ajay Swarup confirmed his country's stance on Kosovo in an interview published today. "India's position on Kosovo has been and still is consistent, and that is that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country must be fully respected by all other countries," Swarup told the daily Večernje Novosti. "We believed that the Kosovo issue could be resolved in a peaceful manner, by way of dialogue and consultations, and our stand has remained unchanged ever since 1999, when India upheld UN Resolution 1244, which ended the war," the ambassador continued. "We have always believed in peaceful solutions, because there is no issue that cannot be resolved through consultations and dialogue," Swarup insisted. He added that a "high level of India's support to Serbia" can be seen from the comments and articles which appeared in the Indian press following the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo's independence. Swarup also pointed out that Kosovo "can set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases around the world".

--Avala (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: And the source comes from (drumroll please) "B92 is a radio and television station in Belgrade, Serbia. I will not oppose if you can find a non-Alb/Ser article or from an Indian Govt Website. []" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Solution: - http://www.embassyofindiabelgrade.org/ - ssindemb@eunet.yu and Indemb@eunet.yu +381 11 2664127, 266 1034, 266 1029 Or the ambassador himself - +381113674208.


 * Only if they tell you this source is all made up propaganda by evil Serbs and that ambassador didn't say that I will consider your opposition valid. Until then it's not. --Avala (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * B92 is in itself a source which may be used to back up claims. Just because its Serbian doesn't mean that it is not trustworthy. Otherwise we have to kick out all references to Kosovar media as well. Although I have to admit that I'd prefer to include only (not just in the case of India) statements by government officials, such as government ministers, presidents etc. Gugganij (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

B92 is accused of being anti-Serbian in Serbia but in here you say it can't be used because it's from Serbia? What kind of discrimination is that? Let's than remove all sources from Kosovo press. Or maybe not? And what do you expect? Indian ambassador to Belgrade to give an interview to Dominican daily? It's an interview - it's never going to be found on the website of Indian government. --Avala (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, India is a nation (sic) and Indians know how to run websites (sic) and we have sourced the Foreign Ministry's in particular. There's no reason not do so again. It should dawn on you by now, that statements made by foreign politicians/ambassadors in Serbia, or in consultations/press conferences with Serbian Foreign Minister, etcetera, are out of plain diplomatic courtesy colored with Serbian this and that. Let's just wait for India to announce its reaction on its website, as it obviously is capable od doing. As is Cuba, incidentally. Thinking these powers incapable of communicating unambiguously is presumptious in the worst way. Sourcing Macedonia's reaction by Kosovar president or prime minister's statements is just as unsaviory. So, relent already, will you? We can do, and should do, without either Serbian and Kosovar sourcing, other than the positions of Kosovo and Serbia themselves. --Mareklug talk 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.s. You made these edit-requests without consulting with anyone, rather arrogantly, whereas their boilerplate expressly states that they are to be used for obvious or noncontested edits. You should remove them now, as they won't be fulfilled by any sane administrator, and only cause annoyance by populating a category and by doing so, crying wolf, reducing the likelihood that noncontested editprotects from this talk page will be serviced, and interfereing with edit protects elsewhere on Wikipedia. That I have to instruct an administrator of these obvious administrative basics is frankly galling... --Mareklug talk 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you oppose it doesn't mean it wont be added. Opposing always needs to be valid and making impossible requests is not a valid opposition.--Avala (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian ambassador to Belgrade gave an interview to a Belgrade daily. Now I don't think I am the only one puzzled by your idea to wait for an interview he will give to his own government. I have never seen an ambassador giving interview to his own government. We are waiting for the first such interview in recent history I guess.

"that statements made by politicians/ambassadors in Serbia, in consultations with Serbian Foreign Minister, etcetera, are out of plain courtesy colored with Serbian this and that" - ambassadors make statements in consultations with their Foreign Minister not Serbian. Do you think of India as a banana state where ambassadors act outside of the scope of their own ministry? And I haven't seen much courtesy from German, US etc. ambassadors. I am sorry but what you wrote is nonsense. Foreign Ambassadors don't make statements after consulting the host minister. It just doesn't go that way.

And I said add this next to the current content of India. Not replace it.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't want ambassador's statements made in Serbia. We want the MFA's careful official webpage statement, of the sort we have now. When they produce a change of position, we will be sure to source it. This editprotect request is contested and your removal of the notice from the section heading does not change that fact, and only speaks poorly of your treatment of fellow editors' considered input. --Mareklug talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Is this article name "official statetements by MFA webpages" or the "international reaction". This is a valid reaction so please stop abusing your edit powers.--Avala (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

❌. The comments by the Indian Ambassador merely repeat, almost verbatim, the official position of India as stated in the February 18 press release of their Ministry of External Affairs, a position that is already mentioned in the article. Thus, the ambassador's comments add nothing new, except for indicating that India's position has not changed between February 18 and the end of March. Besides, having already an official press release from the Ministry of External Affairs, an interview to an ambassador is comparatively insignificant. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

With the only intention of indicating that India's position remains unchanged, we could think of adding to the existing text something along the lines of:

In late March the Indian Ambassador to Serbia, Ajay Swarup, confirmed his country's stance on the issue.1

Source:

1 - "Ambassador: India's Kosovo stand consistent", by Tanjug, B92, Belgrade, March 31, 2008.

Note that March 31 is the date in which the interview was published by Večernje Novosti, not the one in which the comment was made.

Personally, I think that such an addition would be redundant and unnecessary. There's no need to have two references for each individual country, one indicating its stand on the issue, and another one indicating the last time this position was confirmed. But the possibility is there. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed this with Avala. Although not particularly fond of this addition, I can live with it. Does anyone objects to it ? - Ev (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ev, you are overlooking the principled opposition expressed both here and elsewhere on the talk page against sourcing via Kosovar or Serbian government or media of non-Kosovar and non-Serbian reactions. The issue is avoidance of appearance of POV conflict of interest and preserving every semblance of neutrality. If the same information can be sourced by other means, then the issue is as you portrayed it, an unexciting, unneeded restatement -- in your variant. I believe Avala needs this addition to support his re-coloring India on the Commons maps from neutral/ambivalent/delaying recognition/unclear khaki to the officially rejecting the independence declaration red. Of course, with you recasting the edit as restatement of the old, he loses the force of the edit as he conceives of it, but without any addition, he has simply no basis to alter the depiction of India from the map on formal grounds -- i.e., nothing changed, not a bit, in the description of the country's position. Be that as it may, if you cannot source this information through any other means, then the objection that the event is being unreliably reported comes into play, as documented in other contexts by another user on this talk page.  Suffice to say, sourcing by way of Tanjung or B92 -- in this case Tanjung, as repackaged/reprinted by B92, is just not acceptible, and will not be.  The idea is to remove Kosovar and Serbian sourcing that we already have, not make additions in that department.  Hope this seems more reasoned and reasonable to you than it has to Avala, who dismises all these objections out of hand. --Mareklug talk 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did overlook it, Mareklug, my apologies for that. I will look into that discussion on "local" sources. - Ev (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to listen to what you say. You are requesting let`s say Canadian press to report on the interview by ambassador of India in Belgrade. That is impossible and you know it that is why I guess you put that as a reason for opposition. --Avala (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly aware of what I am saying. As to your contention, that only Serbian press will cover the Indian ambassador to Serbia's statements/interviews/activities, perhaps you have a point, yet, I submit, nothing stops Indian press from covering them also, and those accounts would not have any appearance of conflict of interest. Neither would the MFA of India's account of it, should they make a note of it. In fact, suppose they did -- by sourcing a Serbian account in the Serbian media (not inconceivable) -- I'd have to concede that it being an official communication of India constitutes endorsement an validation. Alas, we are not beneficiaries of any of this -- the sources are plainly falling under WP:NPOV restrictions in sourcing in conflict of interest situations. And, you have not owned up at all to having already changed India's color on Commons map Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png from khaki to red. On what basis, may I ask? On the basis of this very source and none other?  My point confirmed, if so. --Mareklug talk 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Avala, I find it hard to believe that of over 1 billion Indians Swarup is the only one to comment on his country's stance on the issue. For the time being, while the issue of "local" sources is discussed, just look for other sources. - Ev (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is bunch of discussion there but none of these politicians are such representatives of whole India. MPs can state their opinion freely but ambassadors must always speak in the name of their government.--Avala (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you avoiding the a) issues I detailed, b) direct questions re: maps? I feel like you are clinching (as in boxing). This is very hard. What you are saying is irrelevant. Other things are blocking your edit. Not the least of which is your Commons maps change of India. Please address my concerns. --Mareklug talk 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps on commons have little to do with development of the article on English Wikipedia. I am not going to allow another topic to go off topic.--Avala (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But your maps on Commons are justified by the developments taking place in this article on English Wikipedia -- you wrote so on Commons talk page and you source your changes there on the basis of changes made in this article! And your push for this India edit is exactly motivated by need to cover your ass on Commons. Because without this sanctioned on Commons, your have no basis for your map! Case in point:
 * When we were blocked for edit warring on map uploads, your first upload/revert of my map -- which in the interim was reverted to by the neutral user Patstuart while we were being blocked by user:abf, after you came out of that 3RR block, was annotated with this comment: "I am taking a new approach in order to avoid future edit wars and misunderstandings. It means that any edit to the map must be justified by the source given and in accordance with map legend. So all of my edits to the map have been added on the talk page"
 * Your India color change form khaki to red was annotated in file upload history like so: "India - http://www.b92.net/eng/news/in_focus.php?id=91&start=0&nav_id=48973 (quote in the talk)" (here's the diff where on Commons map talk you fixed the above link to the correct one, the one we are discussing here on wikipedia )
 * The abovementioned quote in talk is the very India editprotect you are pushing for here, even when Ev changes your version of it to seemingly useless to you statement that nothing basically has changed; that the ambassador is restating the position already described earlier by the Ministry. No matter, what you need is for this SOURCE to be included in the Wikipedia article, because you already used it on Commons to justify changes. And why would this Wikipedia/Commons tie-in matter?
 * It matters, because on the map's talk page you yourself made the Wikipedia article the basis of your Commons edits : "Unfortunately keeping sources only at English Wikipedia brought us a lot of misunderstanding here and allowed malicious edits to be made. It is very unusual and rare for admins to revert the article in content dispute before full locking but this has happened with International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article today on Wikipedia so I believe it is a version we can trust."


 * I rest my case. You not only called my map edits malicious, but you set up yourself to source this article to justify the map changes. And so the maps and the Wikipedia article which no longer makes use of it (other articles still do), are intimately connected, and you need the Serbian source, with whatever text hangs off of it, to make your red India legal. All the while leading Ev on to believe that you accept his characterization that the ambassador is merely restating what is a known quantity. Ev does not know he is being duped by you to support your Commons map agenda.  I welcome any rebuttals of these facts.  The Commons diffs and texts are in plain sight.  The images in questions are Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and its talk page, and Image:Kosovo_relations.png (nothing interesting on its talk page, but do study the upload history comments).


 * Let me just add, thank goodness Husond's regime of Assume Good Faith or be banned for 24 hours did not come to pass on this talk page, because I would not have been able to document this abuse. Yes, abuse. --Mareklug talk 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course but I am afraid your actions made us remove that map from usage on Wikipedia so the article and the map are no longer directly connected. I am sad about that fact but that's the changed reality. I have no intention of going any further into details here about the map which is not used here. --Avala (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request, Croatia and Macedonia
Could somebody please change the candidacy of Croatia in EU and NATO from "country" to "state". Somebody please add Macedonia as a EU candidate and NATO candidate. --PG-Rated (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

EU potential candidate states
Maybe, this should be added: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognised as potential candidates. Kosovo has been granted similar status. --Camptown (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its an idea, but I think its going into rather deep detail there. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really want to go into details then only Albania, Croatia and Macedonia should be mentioned since they are the ones that have the MSA signed. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago some editors were complaining that the article is getting too cluttered and so that was one of the main reasons why OIC status was removed from nations. --Tocino 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are fully capable of browsing through the archive and understanding why OIC was removed. No need to be cynical here, EU candidate countries need not be mentioned. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we don't need to add EU potential candidate status either, especially when one of the main reasons why OIC was removed was because the article was supposedly getting too cluttered. --Tocino 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to read what I just posted above: EU candidate countries need not be mentioned. And no, OIC was NOT removed only because the article was getting cluttered. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article deals with "international reaction of the DOI" therefor it should mention countries/states reaction. If we add OIC/potential X member than we are showing importance --- which means the reaction of one country is more important than the others. If that is the case than this article should only include European countries, America, and Russia. We should completely remove all the "member of ..." and just leave the evidence of the current nation's stance. Also, this article is getting cluttered and too confusing. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Kosovo (International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence)
1.1 - States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo - Lithuania Insert after "Pending": The parliament decided on 2 April not to approve or reject the recognition of Kosovo resolution, but instead to return the project requesting the text to be improved. Jakro64 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your link does not seem to work. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's about Kosovo but in Lithuanian and I have no idea what does it say. I must admit I am a bit puzzled by actions of Lithuania.--Avala (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we wait for confirmation of this information before changing anything? Like Avala, I have no idea why Lithuania hasn't moved forward with recognition.  Everything seems to be in alignment for it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it says just what Jakro told us: The ... text needs to be improved. We will wait and see. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop asking why and just wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The link should work, but there is no English translation. Yesterday most parliamentarians in Vilnius were busy (in a 50th anniversary party somewhere else in the city) and it seems that those 62 left in the parliament did not really know what to do but to return the one-sentence resolution proposal text which essensially said something like "Lithuania recognizes Kosovo as an independent and sovereign country". It is quite embarrasing and President Adamkus is quite furious ... It is now expected the recognition will come on 17 April and that the text will include a request to the government to initiate diplomatic relations with Kosovo. Jakro64 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Andorra
People! Monaco and Liechtenstein have recognized. San Marino is staying neutral. But what about the mighty Principality of Andorra?

After all, France has recognized while Spain apparently refuses to. Andorra is kinda in the middle there. Yet, Andorra is also Catalan and the Republican Left of Catalonia appears to be pro-recognition.

So does anyone know anything about Andorra's reaction? 141.166.241.20 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I emailed the Andorran Embassy in Brussels on Monday enquiring about their position on Kosovo. When I receive a reply I will pass it on.  I've communicated with them in the past so I'm confident in receiving a reply.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
The source for the evidence, can that be from the Kosovar Government websites for countries which have yet themselves made little to no comment on their reaction to the Kosova's DOI? EX: Kosovar Govt website reads, "Mongolia which has been quiet, we have learned that they will recognize, the Mongolian govt has stated that they will not make a press statement until after the recognition." Would that be enough to put that Mongolia will recognize?

We should come up with a guideline to constitute what classifies as a reaction and what does not. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there can be too much wishful thinking in the claims of the Kosovar Government. International and local media are more reliable sources. Zello (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the Serbian Government and their wishful thinking. I found here another questionable evidence. This country is based on Serbian govt "source" and the other source comes from a Serbian tv station which is known for its' propaganda. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If such a press release was made after a meeting with Mongolian officials then yes, otherwise no. --Avala (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Serbian website (govt) doesn't make sense. It's all DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSDDDDDD, I think I have the right font. Mongolia has no press release, no news, nothing. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Well where did they come up with Mongolia's position? They couldn't just make it up, especially consider Mongolia being sandwiched between China and Russia. There should be a great reason to believe that they are about to recognize. --Avala (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Click Me Kosova2008 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a link to the Mongolia info that you refered to in your first entry?Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was using mongolia as an example. I am opposed to a lot of stances stated here in WP based on the Serbian website..like LIBYA. Libya has 2 sources. One source is the Serbian website which is biased. The title reads "does not" but in the middle it is skewed and says "will not" --- point is that it's not reliable. The second source leads to RTV-Serbia. Anyone who knows anything about this place is that RTV-Serbia is the biggest propaganda channel (in Serbia). I even found this information on the WP page. What's even more bothering is that I can't find any place to translate the Serbian text. So both sources are invalid and can't be used. Whomever added the stance of Libya was doing a little part-time POV editing. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. It's not a propaganda channel (even though it was during Milosevic, 10 years ago). Today it's a respected EBU member. Unless you have a counterproof I suggest you don't ever open such sections again. Making up these things about Mongolia was rude and puts all your edits under a shade. And I gave you an instruction how to avoid error page on that website but why would you read that? No, it's just better to repost the same problem over and over again. So I will repost it three times, maybe you will bother to read it - Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. Choose English in the top part and then reopen the link and it will work. --Avala (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Avala I haven't used WP because I was busy (work) for the last few days so I'm replying now. I want you to know something, I didn't escape a genocide to listen to your speeches. That link a few days ago was not working, do you really think I don't know how to read a link? I'm majoring in Computer Science. Also read next time what i said, I clearly said, "EX:" which in engles it translates "example".Kosova2008 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that an amassador or other government official speaking in first person is not sufficient. They have to be representing their whole country. Please be careful. Beam 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request Brazil (contested)

 * ❌ This change needs a clear consensus here before implementation, which is notably absent. Happy‑melon 17:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Original: "The Brazilian government will recognise the independence of Kosovo only if Serbia does. The Brazilian government reaffirms its belief that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and the legal framework of Resolution 1244 of the Council Security. In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on the matter of Kosovo's independence.[97]"

Proposing:Brazil's is not ready to recognize.

Reason:This was given yesterday in a meeting between Serbian FM and Brazilian FM. It is the most recent and ends all disputes about the position of Brazil. The new statement mentions no resolution, no dialogue, or anything just that Brazil is not ready yet to recognize the newly democratic Republic.

Source: Serbian Official Website

Kosova2008 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If the Serbian Foreign Ministry now titles its press release "Brazil not ready to acknowledge unilateral independence of Kosovo", that is a marked change in position from what Wikipedia article represents based on a older Portuguese sources. It remains to be seen, how this is cast by an independent source, or an official Brazilian one. I oppose sourcing any country's of any non-Kosovo/Serbia entity's position or reaction in the Wikipedia to either the Kosovar or Serbian Ministry as blatantly disregarding the principles of neutral sourcing (WP:VER). Just the same, this points out yet another country User:Avala has painted red (meaning, the country has already officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence) on Commons Image:Kosovo_relations.png/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg which even by Serbian government MFA press release IS NOT. More skew. --Mareklug talk 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you must make up your mind. Is Serbian government a reliable source or not? And yes, I believe if we have a statement from Brazil itself there is no need to use Serbian sources. Use them only if we can't find any others. So can you spot a difference between these two; Brazil says "we are not ready to recognize if Serbia doesn't" and Serbia says "We appreciate Brazil's position - that they are not ready to recognize". It seems more like a statement coming onto the previous one than a difference.--Avala (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT, disregard of WP:VER, POV reality adjustment (Brazil is on record as having deferred its official position until UN SC takes up its position -- we even source this now in the article!), and certainly a rather depressing absence of any WikiLove. :) --Mareklug talk 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that I have finally reached to you. Don't abuse this space by caps lock and bold if it's not some kind of final conclusion. I will now remove it as you've realized your mistakes. --Avala (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, seamlessly, surgically removing your own example of WP:POINT from the discussion, without leaving behind even a marker, and making the thread look like the WP:POINT never happened, while orphaning the reply to it, so that now it looks completely irrelevant and disorienting and makes no sense -- because the thing it was commenting on is no longer there' -- is not exactly the most ethical edit. Neither is putting words in my mouth, about me realizing my mistakes. Such sophistry is unworthy of an administrator on any Wikipedia. Surely such tricks is not what passes for transparent, archived discourse over yon? --18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding conflict issues requiring consensus -- please answer these questions and add new ones as need be
''This text was before under the last section on Czechia/Czech Repubic. I'm moving it to a separate section at the bottom of the page, as the most pressing item for disucssion, expressly requesting users who took part in contested edits, including User:Tocino --Mareklug talk 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)''


 * @Avala: I'm not so worried about adding material that is stacking up, but rather about the likley rash of removals and forcible obliterations that awaits us, along the lines of your removal of information for Cuba without so much as an edit summary, just before the article was locked. This is edit-warring.  This article is locked because of edit-warring.  Just something to think about. Even in the clear-cut case of falsified data for Uruguay, you have been uncompromising and we have no reason to expect any give-and-take, only plowing on. And the issue of fabricated Brazil, which version Tocino keeps forcibly reverting to, is still a thorn.  All these issues need discussing and forming an explicit consensus, and the admins would be fools to unlock now, without any consensus-building having taken place yet. I somehow doubt that posting a section "Mareklug is a troll" went a long way towards satisfying the conditions stipulated by the boilerplate of the lock template displayed over the article now. Perhaps some people should read that text carefully and ponder it.  Unless, of course, the admins are simply silently readying to ban future reverters en masse, which is another way to stabilize "content exchange". :/ --Mareklug talk 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think more has yet to be discussed before everyone rushes and starts editing again. Its be locked for a reason. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And what does any of this (previous news on Czech R, Lumidek's personal opinion and Cuba) have to do with recent developments in Czech Government? And I don't see how can you be asking for dialogue when you called proposals by editors "a bullshit". Let's not abuse this space for the release of personal frustrations, OK? --Avala (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't weasel your way away from answering on conrete issues: Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay, headline content, date format in table, Prishtina, on a technicality, that we are discussing in the wrong section. Cut and paste to a new one, if you like. But do talk. If you are explicitly refusing to discuss this, I guess that tells the world we are deadlocked. --Mareklug talk 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've answered them enough times already. It's just that you can't accept an answer which is different to your opinion as an answer. If you describe the official of another country as a retired person having a rant I can't think of it as a good will for dialogue. --Avala (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Avala. I think it is important that you have a good read of WP:AGF before you take part in future discussions on Wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't assume good faith if someone proposes dialogue but disses all proposals by others calling them bullshit at the some time.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult not to get exasperated at your misrepresentations and your refusal to address concrete issues squarely. Point: The only thing I called bullshit is the phrase "declare formal intent". We have been through this already, since you asked whether I considered somebody's edit bullshit, and I explained precisely what I meant. However, my having done so is of no consequence to you, and you prefer to distort and misrepresent. Be that as it may, the following issues have been contentious and require agreement:
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Do you agree that Uruguay is presently falsely sourced as already officially rejecting recognition? Do you agree that the source does not contain "Uruguay will not recognize" but instead "Uruguay has not recognized", which puts it in among states with ambiguous or unclear status (khaki-colored)? Do you agree that this entry's content is attributed currently only to unnamed sources? --Mareklug talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the current description of Brazil is factual and correct? Do you concede3 that the version being forcibly reverted to that contains a long direct quote attributed to the Foreign Affairs Minister is not in the Portuguese source, and therefore, should not be brought back? --Mareklug talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that dates of the form "2008-02-12" are fine because they can be sorted correctly, for the sortable table column of officially recognizing countries, and do you agree not to revert them to another format that won't sort correctly?
 * Do you agree to keep the name of the Kosovan capital written as "Prishtina" throughout this article? --Mareklug talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you agree to return the sentence you removed from Cuba's description in the table, re: Cuban Foreign Ministry not having issued any official traffic re: Kosovo yet?
 * Do you agree to not have "declare formal extent" appear in the headline of the section where we list states which are about to recognize? --Mareklug talk 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is the section on Czechia and not other things I will respond:


 * 1) I don't agree it's falsely sourced as the article clearly explains what is the source and what did it say. There is nothing unclear about it, except for the fact we don't know the name of the person from Uruguayan government who made this statement but that is well noted in the article.
 * 2) Yes I agree that the current description of Brazil is factual and correct. Actually I said I don't see the reason for all the reverts considering there is little difference between two versions. The current one can stay, I have no complaints.
 * 3) I have no opinion on date sorting as I never made any edits regarding this issue. It's a technical issue and I agree to whatever is a Wikipedia official style.
 * 4) No. The article on the capital is named Priština not Prishtina. But as a part of a compromise I suggested using alternative English spelling Pristina which is neither Albanian (Prishtina) nor Serbian (Priština).
 * 5) As there is no source for this sentence I can't agree to it. Fidel Castro is a foreign policy advisor to the President so there is no need for MFA to act as well especially knowing it's Cuba and that chances that MFA will disagree with Castro brothers is 0. And they might have made a statement but their website gets news once a year so we can't really know.
 * 6) I explained my opinion on the example of Lithuania.
 * On 18 February 2008 the President initiated parliamentary proceedings at the Seimas. (declaring formal intent to recognize)
 * Parliament (Seimas): Foreign relations committee unanimous approval on 22 February 2008.[78] (initiating formal process)
 * Parliament decision: ... (concluding formal process or recognition)

--Avala (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week submitted his regular report on the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK.

In his report he writes Mitrovicë / Mitrovica for the capital city the word is Prishtinë / Priština. The Albaniani comes first because it is what 95% (19/20) speak. When I read "kosovska mitrovica" that is incorrect. I have time and again pointed at you that UNMIK clearly uses diff names than in wikipedia. We need to change it from Priština --> Prishtina. How are you reporting an article about RoK and not report the name that the government uses which is PRISHTINA? The report can be read here (PDF)68.114.197.88 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO
Has said that "A stable and multi-ethnical Kosovo is another objective of NATO" Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked
When is the page going to be unblocked? have disputes been resolved yet? Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is almost no chance that the disputes on this article will be resolved. Compared to other Kosovo related articles, this one is really unimportant and still no agreement. I suggest to send this discussion page to all those countries which prefer/urge further discussion on the status and let them see the results. I think Wikipedia needs to change its policies when it comes to disputable articles, and there are plenty. Jawohl (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. But should we request for this page to be unblocked? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? I understand that the latest blocking was introduced by an admin who were not so familiar with the article anyway. --Camptown (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's why not: we are to expect reverts in a number of areas, as soon as editing is possible, and out of 6 asked questions on contested topics, 4 are deadlocked, 1 is agreed to, and 1 is a don't care. And that's with User:Tocino ignoring the questions altogether, and he is on record as fixing to, well, fix all six to not what they currently are. Also, most of the outstanding editprotect requests are contested (by the editprotect template instructions, that invalidates them on the spot). All this, unlike the first time the article was locked for long, shows little consensus. And there's motion afoot to chuck all non-neutral sourcing, such as the ministries of the Kosovo and Serbia or the media from these countries. A number of positions are sourced that way. And the admins familiar with this article actually appear to have distanced themselves from it. --Mareklug talk 11:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There should not be any unblocking until everything is sorted out and that might take a very long time. Jawohl (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The anti-Kosovar or anti-independence camp has been using QUESTIONABLE sources coming from a)serbian media b)serbian govt. Sources from B92, RTV-Serbija, and Serbianna aren't valid, reliable, and I am severely against it. If the reactions are "formal" they should come from MFA or the country's govt website. I know in the beginning we sourced everything, no matter what it was, but then we started to re-source the same quotes from different articles. How can I trust India's reaction when it comes from B92? I can't find any webpage which backs up the claims coming out the Belgrade run B92. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should anyone believe what you say? Even your user name shouts bias from the start. There is no evidence to suggest that these sources are lying. Just because you don't like the fact that your province is only recognized as independent by less than 1/4ths of U.N. member states does not mean you can come on WP and try to hide these facts. --Tocino 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You just turned a discussion into an insult. Also you are wrong these so called "sources" are lying because B92, tanjung, Serbianna.com are propaganda websites, and any Belgrade based propaganda machine is full of inaccuracies and biasness. I will not tolerate Serbian Propaganda here to call my country a "province", last time I checked serbia was a partially recognized piece of territory. "U.N. member states does not mean you can come on WP and try to hide these facts." What facts? Those are LIES, blatantly lies that are being presented as facts. I will not respond to your trolling..buh bye. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008 will not tolerate Serbian Propaganda here to call my country a "province", last time I checked serbia was a partially recognized piece of territory. It may be that you are too biased to work on Wiki articles dealing with Kosovo. Serbia is a recognized country, and we can represent its point of view. How can you not tolerate that? Beam 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbs in Kosovo let down - by Serbia
Suspended Serb prison workers from Lipljan are continuing their blockade of the Coordination Center in Gračanica. They claim that Belgrade, the Kosovo Ministry specifically, has not paid them money promised for leaving the Kosovo institutions.. If this is true, it may be included in the Serbian reaction. --Camptown (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, you can make that edit even now, as I managed to migrate Serbia's reaction to its own article, Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, leaving here only a synopsis and links to articles, and those aren't edit warred. --Mareklug talk 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian govt submits plan to UNMIK suggesting its division into cantons

 * Serbian Minister on Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic has submitted to UNMIK a plan suggesting Kosovo's division into cantons along ethnic lines. . This is the second time in a few weeks the minister submits formal applications of Kosovo's division to the UN... --Camptown (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the same plan but tanjung (serbian media agency) just worded it different. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see... Tanjug also exclusively reported about the massacre in Timisoara 1989 that never occurred... --Camptown (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

local theater of absurd
Just how far we are from having a functional body of editors editing here is shown by the following: not only has an editor made editprotect requests entirely on his own without considering that they may be contested, when they were contested, he instigated a campaign of discrediting the opposing editors on talk pages of various admins and noticeboards; declared their objections invalid; misrepresented their objections, and is now waging a ludicrous campaign of writing all that nonsense into lengthy section headings of this talk page.

So, not only is it ok to mistranslate, misquote, misparaphrase, fabricate quotes, or even represent a sovereign country's position by pronouncements made by the Serbia's Foreign Ministry or the Serbian State TV, but it is also not allowed to object to any of this, because any such objections are "invalid". And the opposing considerations will be misrepresented as something else, because, words of editors themselves are insufficient; they have to be interpreted for them to the world. :) --Mareklug talk 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but pity it's another poor attempt to fool other editors and release personal frustrations. You didn't care to make your edit here - Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence but when I opened an edit request for the same thing you made a problem out of it (ridiculous one saying that Iranians must have poor translators but still) and now you claim "an editor made editprotect requests entirely on his own without considering that they may be contested". Do you ever feel ashamed for just making things up like that?

Claiming we shouldn't add news from Iran because it must be a poor translation by journalists (without giving anything but your personal POV about Iranian news agency as a reason) in the news agency is invalid.

--Avala (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The objection is in the main to your inaccurate and unnecessary paraphrase, dear Avala. No amount of misrepresenting that, short of blanking my actual objection, will change the evidence. Lucky for me, our administrators can read with comprehension. --Mareklug talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Also, the source is Iranian, so nuances of tense and meaning could conceivably not have survived intact the translation from Persian." - yes they can read this statement of yours. And they can also read how you falsely accuse of making edit request without previous discussion. I am waiting for your apology on this one. --Avala (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to one of your talk pages, guys. We don't need this here.  Balkan Fever  16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree but I have to respond to unfounded accusations which pop out from Mareklug all the time. It seems that because he makes extremely lengthy posts no admin ever cares to deal with him.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request for Macedonia (augmented, resubmitted below)
Please move Macedonia to the list of UN member states that have not granted recognition yet, with this text


 * 🇲🇰 || "The Republic of Macedonia will decide its view when we deem it most appropriate for our interests," said President Branko Crvenkovski. Crvenkovski said that Macedonia would follow the position of NATO and the European Union on Kosovo, but he pointed out that nations in the two organizations have to yet to assume a common stance. The Democratic Party of Albanians left the government coalition on March 13 after it failed to meet their six demands, recognizing Kosovo's independence being one of them. However, it returned on 24 March after demanding the recognition of Kosovo. The various politicians involved are busy conducting negotiations and their outcome remains unsettled as of 19 March 2008. ||EU candidate country NATO candidate country

Also, in the intro, please remove

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

as it is quite obviously out of context.  Balkan Fever  15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened to your agreeing to source the MFA's pro-Ahtisaari plan language from two press releases, 2007 and 2008, taken together as additional information? The ones included on the talk page, upstairs? This was in the previous discussion of Macedonia, where you said that it might be a dodge on part of the ministry, but you did not mind including it. Why is it not tacked on to the end of the above editprotect request? Woulnd't sourcing current MFA position be an asset? --Mareklug talk 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something from 2007 does not fit into a category of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.--Avala (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you have insisted on sourcing the Greek President's speech in Romania on the day before the independence declaration. And the "something from 2007" happens to be continually displayed today, not in any archive but in the main webspace of the foreign ministry of the government of Macedonia, and its language is echoed and alluded to in a 5-day-old "something from 2008". I propose adding that evidence, taken as a unit, to the sourcing for Macedonia, as it is a) current, b) official, c) unambiguous, and d) says things which the other assembled description glosses over. In fact, it is a strong implication of recognizing Kosovo's independence. I submit that the information displayed on the MFA's website belongs as pertinent documentation. --Mareklug talk 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Day before he spoke about the independence declaration and not year before about Ahtisaari plan. This is not the article called International reaction to the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo. Please I hope you can see the difference. --Avala (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we go by years old statements, then back in 2006 the head of the EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, said that Kosovo independence would create a precedent and it could have a negative impact on Georgia's territorial integrity. Can we add this to the EU's entry? --Tocino 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is what I propose to add to the tail end of the above editprotect request:

As for the official publications, the latest on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center addressing Kosovo's independence is this year-old 30 March 2007 press release: "in the context of the resolution of the future Kosovo issue, Minister Milososki reiterated that the Republic of Macedonia supports the proposal by Special Envoy Ahtisaari, and the unison EU position on this issue." The Ahtisaari plan continues to be invoked today, in the 27 March 2008 press release:"In welcoming the constructive position of the Republic of Macedonia concerning Kosovo, the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament has expressed concern because of delay in the technical demarcation of the Republic of Macedonia-Kosovo borderline and has asked that this issue be solved in accordance with the Ahtisaari proposal."

--Mareklug talk 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Marek, you asked for sourcing of my proposal to revert back to "unsettled as of 19 March" and I have. Maybe we should add "on [insert date], the Macedonian foreign ministry reiterated its support for the Ahtisaari proposal for peace in Kosovo" or something to that effect. But of paramount importance is what was said after February 2008 - not reiteration, but an actual reaction. Macedonia has not recognised Kosovo independence, and is not "about to" either. The outcome is unsettled as of today, but sticking to the sources, it is unsettled as of 19 March.  Balkan Fever  07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you're saying that there is nothing from the ministry since last year, and they haven't reiterated anything after the declaration of independence, it definitely should not be included. It simply does not count.  Balkan Fever  07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No information vs. documenting all the information there is, including a 27 March 2008 press release, are materially different. After all, it is our only sourcing for official governmental communiations on this subject. Why would you say that this should definitively not be included? MFA is consistently sticking by the Ahtisaari plan. That's a reaction, a very safe one, and the longer they do, the more it converges to recognizing the status quo in the long run. IMHO letting the reader decide is the best option here, per earlier comment by User:Ev in the Iran context. --Mareklug talk 23:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is in the intro: "The Joint Macedonian-Kosovar Commission on Border Demarcation began operating on 25 March 2008 in Skopje,[4] and on 30 March 2007, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia website's Media Center published a press release......". Do you not see how stupid that looks? It is worded as if it happened after the demarcation talks, even though it is dated a year ago. If they said something in March 2008, that must be included, i.e. "Macedonia reiterated their 2007 position" but right now everything about Macedonia is grossly out of context. Putting Macedonia as "about to recognise" citing only something from 2007 (and you know when Kosovo declared independence), is just plain stupid. Where is your 2008 source? There is nothing in the article about Macedonia from 2008. What you are doing is making up the readers mind for them: telling them Macedonia will recognise, without any proper sources. Please fix it, or we go back to the original version, which is fairly up to date and correct.  Balkan Fever  09:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * hold your horses/apples and oranges/you're being unfair/you're actually delaying this edit–I don't know which I want to say first. You 'do' realize that the reason Macedonia is cast the way it is is a result of misreading the date, the EU holding the same meeting on that day both years, the page being locked, and a date-correcting editprotect having been applied to fix the factual error? The reason the mistaken edit was triggered in the first place is the entirely reasonable desire to source Macedonia with its government's official communications. Your editrequest as proposed fails to address that desire, and your subsequent objection to augmenting it reasonably with such caused another delay in getting it wrapped-up to go. Now you're wasting time fuming at the lead which no one wants anyway, beating up on the straw man of its having emerged. We're not talking about the lead or about moving Macedonia back to the appropriate listing. We are negotiating weather to source the MFA at all, because the last thing you said before disappearing for a while was "absolutely not". Which spawned more consensus building, rather than ending it. We could have had the fix applied hours ago. We don't want the current Wrong Version or the previous Wrong Version. And if I could have, I would have fixed it. Please operate within the physics of the local spacetime, as it is unlikely that a supernatural event will do it for you (i.e. an admin edit). There's nothing in the article about Macedonia in 2008 yet, because you got in the way of finishing adding The Right Stuff, with the process being slo-moed by consequences of edit warring, page protection+hands off attitude by admins, reticent to make contestable changes. Frustration venting won't fix it any faster. Please endorse an MFA-inclusive phrasing, and we'll try to get, say, Ev to make it stick, is my best advice, taking all reasonable editors' contributions and concerns into account. --Mareklug talk 11:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me the exact text of your proposal, so that I know what the hell is going on. And then I will endorse it. Probably.  Balkan Fever  11:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already on the page; direct your eyes slightly above. It's meant for the table, but you're welcome to adapt it to the lead. Or not. --Mareklug talk 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I am an idiot. I never completely read what you said about putting it on the tail end. My bad. Maybe reword it so that it says something along the lines of "in 2008 >quote< they reiterated the 2007 thing, which was >quote<". Do we agree it shouldn't be in the "about to recognise" table? Because for the reader to decide, it can't be there. With the lead, maybe we should just stop at border demarcation. Mentioning anything from 2007 there just looks stupid IMO.  Balkan Fever  11:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my only modification of your request. If you wish to keep tweaking it, go ahead, but you are delaying the Fix. Suggestion: Compose a new editprotect request, remove/nowiki-disable the presently used template, add a new section with the new request, and write an email to Ev, asking to carry it out. Speed of light or almost. :) --Mareklug talk 11:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've struck out this edit request. Feel free to tweak my next one :)

Edit request for Albania and Croatia
I believe these two countries are NATO members now, as opposed to candidates  Balkan Fever  15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The don't become NATO members until next year some time. They have just been invited to become members. Im gutted about Macedonia though :-( Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. Yeah, I'm a bit pissed off, but what can you do :(.  Balkan Fever  15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh Greece needs to grow up. I thought they were meant to be inviting countries based on criteria for NATO membership, not based on what the countries name is. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a stain on Greece's reputation. Greeks seem unable to understand that their petty dispute is earning them nothing but a bad image. Does anyone know when exactly will Croatia and Albania become NATO members? Hús  ö  nd  17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not been decided yet, they are still working on a date. Its sometime in 2009 Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop being pov... Greece is a Greek War of Independence since 1832 and can do whatever they feel like, how is greece being immature?--Jakezing (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want to change for Albania and Croatia? Are you trying to add "potential NATO members"? Jakezing, ljanderson, that's a great discussion to be made in a talk page. Let's refrain from taking anymore space on this page. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Greece is being immature because it thinks it has Copy write on a countries name, when it doesn't. And is vetoing the Republic of Macedonia because of that. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Czech Repuiblic
...needs updating. The Foreign Minister proposed recognition of independence of Kosovo - yesterday (the text says he will do it yesterday), and it was rejected by the Government. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an edit request, and not even the most creative trolls could come up with an opposing claim, but no admin has reacted so far. --Avala (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For context: the edit request was at Edit request Czech Republic. - Ev (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Your continued reference to opposing viewpoints as trolling nad those editors as trolls constitues a personal attack. (WP:ATTACK Keep this up, and the reaction of the admins you will invoke might leave you locally ineffable. --Mareklug talk 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am referring to intentional disruptions not opposing viewpoints.--Avala (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want? An unintentional disruption? An opposing viewpoint is blocking your edit. Get over it. You can't keep forcing your way on Wikipedia. This is a meritocracy, not stubborn-o-cracy, where the last forcible revert wins. Calling others trolls not in the program. --Mareklug talk 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "You can't keep forcing your way on Wikipedia." - Mareklug. This is hilarious coming from you of all people. You are the one who is holding this article hostage. You have no intentions to compromise and you are the main reason why this article is currently blocked. Congratulations. -- Tocino 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "You are the one who is holding this article hostage." - Tocino. This is hilarious coming from you of all people. You are the main reason why this article is currently blocked. Congratulations. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can say that all you want and he won;'t listen to the truth...--Jakezing (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, The Truth... :-) - Ev (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I want your response. I've asked you to make your proposal and not just come in and oppose and leave. Of course I haven't seen any proposal so far because your intention doesn't seem to be to improve the article but to oppose left and right just for the sake of opposing without giving any suggestions at all. I'd be glad to see you proving me wrong on this one. --Avala (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My considered recommendation re: Iran and India is not to modify our descriptions at this time, for lack of comparable quality sourcing to what we have in place. IMHO these edits will damage the quality of the presented information. For Macedonia, I prepared an addition to the proposed editprotect, that augments the revert (for that is what this editprotect request is), by sourcing the Macedonian MFA website, which continues to be the right thing to do, even if the original edit was made mistaking the year. As described already, a thorough review of the MFA published and current traffic shows there's information there pertinent to recognizing Kosovo. On the Czech Republic and Croatia/Albania editprotect requests (the latter needs the template added), I support both, except that the Czech Republic one should be sourced to the Prague Monitor article, not B92. I support Kosova2008's contention to stay away from Kosovar and Serbian media when sourcing states other than Kosovo and Serbia. Am I forgetting anything? Oh yes, Tocino has yet to address the 6 points you already addressed in the seeking consensus section. --Mareklug talk 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that shows that B92 is lying or making stuff up? --Tocino 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that shows that the Kosovar prime minister or president is lying or making stuff up? You woudn't source Macdenia's recognition of Kosovo to their statements, even though you might want to read them, and neither should you source a Serbian radiostation in equivalent transactions of providing neutral reference devoid of even an appearance of conflict of interest. Please read WP:VER and the guideline pages linked from it, which taken together show how to properly source on Wikipedia. The central point is that often context determines the suitability or lack of it of a source. WP:REDFLAG in particular cautions that extraordinary claims require using extraordinary sources, and any Serbian claim of no recognition of a part of Serbia falling off is certainly extraordinary, and must be sourced neutrally, with utmost care, and avoiding even an appearance of bias. --Mareklug talk 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you don't have any evidence that shows B92 is lying then. --Tocino 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said that proposing hiding information is out of question. Now propose how are we going to add information on Iran and India. --Avala (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of B92
I have evidence that B92 is a unprofessional news agency. A week ago they published an article, which they had copy pasted from Tanjug, on the drug crimes and smuggling done by Albanians. The article mentioned profits worth 7 bn. Euros which Albanians used to buy out their independence. According to B92, this was all to be read on the latest report of the UN agency on drugs and crime (UNODC). Guess what, I downloaded the report and there was not one word about albanians being involved in drug smuggling, and when I poninted out to that fact and asked B92 to give me the link of the document, they just removed the article without any explanation. To me that is bad and amateur style of journalism. That is why I do not trust them anymore. Jawohl (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * B92 is highly respected media in the west for their legacy. They were the only media in Serbia to fight Milosevic propaganda for which their journalists were harassed and their frequencies were often shut down under some Milosevic law which prohibited "anti-patriotic" press. Even today they are harassed for being "anti Serbian". Please pass along with your evidence as it's almost an insult, like saying you have evidence Radio Free Europe is a stronghold of communists.--Avala (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are harassed, no one is arguing on that one with you but I was replying to Tocino's request for proof. For me, after the publishing of that article, they are not serious and therefor not trustworthy. If you want you can find the article in TANJUG (which is probably for you also a serious agency) and then check for the original report of UNDOC. The fact that they removed it makes them more responsible but the fact that they published it without double checking the source makes them unreliable and and not trustworthy. Here is the link to the report. pdf. http://www.unodc.org/documents/about-unodc/AR08_WEB.pdf and here is the article link: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=26&nav_id=48825

Jawohl (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse this comment by Avala. For the story about the Czech decisions it doesn't matter because there are other, more Czech sources such as Prague Monitor that are probably better for these local news purposes. But next time, I fully support B92 being treated as a full-fledged reliable source at the level of Western MSM media. It is very pro-liberal and pro-Western, with a fame going back to anti-Miloševič struggles. --Lumidek (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will disagree using B92 as the only reference as long as there is no other source which verifies their claim. And by other source I mean not one from Serbia. B92 has lost its credibility for me, based on the example above. Everyone can acces, both the B92 article and the related document wich they "quote" and see for them selfs how "professional" and "objective" B92 is. Continuing to use B92 as the only source by any user will bring serious doubts about their jugdment capabilities. Jawohl (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This anti-B92 point has already been made also by Kosova2008 and me. And using it in this article is at odds with WP:VER and WP:NPOV, not to mention common sense and decency, as in, avoiding any appearance of bias and respecting the sensibilities of others. Editors who write remarks about criminals running Kosovo now reap the credibility hit that such remarks brought with it. --Mareklug talk 12:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am anti sources which are based on bad journalism and not anti-b92. And as already explanied B92 has fallen under the category of bad journalism due their recent articles. Jawohl (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all based on your stories how B92 published something and then removed. I think you should understand a simple fact that B92 is respected media worldwide and that what you say here cannot change it. You can't put a shade on multi awarded media house that easily. I could easily try to put the same shade on CNN (post a photo of their article where they mix up Switzerland for Czech Republic etc.) but it wont change the reality.--Avala (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will paste this here although I still think Wikipedia users are not eligible to make a verdict on issues like this one. Sources should be checked on case by case basis. For an example CNN mixes up European countries, on a map Slovakia becomes Switzerland or similar but it doesn't mean we should stop using CNN as a source.Anyway B92 is mostly funded from the US and the first time I've heard someone calling them Serbian propaganda was by that Kosovo2008 users here. I think B92 would be delighted to read that actually considering under how many attacks they are constantly. After Kosovo declared independence hooligans stormed the US embassy but what do you think was their 2nd target which survived only because of the extremely heavy police presence around the building? Yes, you've guessed it, B92 headquarters.--Avala (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Video footage when anti Kosovo hooligans started gathering around B92 - here. Serbian nationalist member of the government called a B92 journalist "mentally disturbed" and threatened to kill her and her editor. After a public scandal and an outcry in the media and the public, the government called an emergency session to discuss the issue. Another B92 journalist was called a monster by him. I wont even go into details of how the extreme right wing call B92.--Avala (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Avala, did you read the article and the document. If you, after reading them, still think that B92 should be regarded as trustworthy then you clearly lack a sense for reality. I have worked with B92 people in the days when they were still getting money from Press Now and they were not so famous. And I know that Mr. Matic tries hard but their recent web editors simply suck. CNN does not say: all the members of the X nation are criminals who smugle drugs and rape women based on official UN document, which btw does not mention a word of it. B92 did it. And yes I thought they had taken the article down and was happy for it, but that was not the case. Jawohl (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility enforcement
It seems that many users are progressively getting too carried away here and incivility is a constant, so I suggest that this talk page be placed under strict civility probation to prevent continued attacks from part to part. Any user could be promptly blocked for 24 hours for directing an attack at other user, whatever its nature. Please comment on whether such measure would be adequate or draconian. Thanks. Hús ö  nd  18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You would still not be able to solve the problems. The users which caused trouble should have been warned and banned long time ago. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly constitutes an attack? It seems rather relative with our particular group.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An attack would be an aggressive comment directed at other user(s). Hús  ö  nd  20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to any change in the status quo. The standard procedures should be maintained.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: is this an attack? discussing Brazil
"User:X fabricated the Brazil entry. The Portuguese source he uses does not contain the quote he ascribed to the Minister. In turn, the Minister did not say any of this in any press statement re: any protests, as the fabrication has him say it. A lot of information here has been recombined and formed into quotes with wrong attribution. User:X has not acknowledged this problem to this day. Another User:Y keeps forcibly reverting to this version. User:Y does not acknowledge the fabrication either, but this version repeates itself, becaue User:Y, reacting to the allegation of fabrication, spliced the content and added it to the fabrication, never copyedited the result, and only keeps on reverting to it." <-- Would this be an attack on users X and Y? Or an admissible discussion on merits?


 * 🇧🇷 || "The Brazilian government does not support the independence of Kosovo and would only recognise if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations. The Brazilian government reaffirms its belief that a peaceful solution for the issue of Kosovo must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiation, under the auspices of the United Nations and the legal framework of Resolution 1244 of the Council Security" was stated by Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil, in statement regarding protests against Kosovo independence in Serbia. He also said that countries that have recognised the independence of Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place." Brazil previously expressed concern that the independence of Kosovo may have worldwide cascade effect. In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations Celso Amorim defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on the matter of Kosovo's independence. However, according to the same source, unnamed diplomats are confirming that Brazil would only recognise Kosovo if such a political agreement was made with Serbia, under the conduct of the United Nations. ||

--Mareklug talk 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it could be an attack if we were to be strict about no attacks of any sort. Users would be obliged to respect WP:AGF and therefore could not accuse others of deliberate misconduct as e.g. to enforce an agenda. The user accusing user X of fabricating the Brazil entry should instead explain why he disagrees with user X's actions rather than make a bad assumption about him or her (which would lead to an escalating conflict and so on). Hús  ö  nd  20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Explain why he disagrees with user C's actions". But the hypothetical example above is cast as a series of facts that explain why the narrator disagreees with the user:X (and user:Y) edits. Fabrication is a fact, verifiable by any reader. Would it be any different if instead of "fabrication" the words used were his creation", "created from whole cloth"? I must say, your verdict saddens me, because it means that truth couldn't be told, if the merit of content can't be described. How are good edits to be differentiated from bad edits? Good propositions from bad propositions? It would mean that there would be no longer freedom to compare work and proposed work on merit.

Perhaps a more effective remedy would be just to draw lots, say "Mareklug/Kosova2008/Ijanderson977" vs "Avala/Tocino/Top Gun", and the loser team loses the right to edit this article for hte next 6 months? Complete randomness is preferrable to injustice. --Mareklug talk 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a verdict, it's an opinion. I tried to come up with a solution that I recall one of my teachers back in high school once used because we were quite an uncivil class, students were always calling names to each other. So one day that teacher got sick of that behavior and said that from that day on, whenever a student were uncivil towards another, he or she would be expelled from the class that day. Reasons for expulsion would include saying things like "shut up!" or "don't be stupid". So during the first week there was a lot of people being ordered out of the class. So during the second. But from the third week on, everyone was nice and polite. The end. So you see, I just tried to come up with a solution. But it's fine with me if you guys want things to remain as they are. Just don't be surprised when discussions get unpleasant. Hús  ö  nd  21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And Brazil was not the only issue we had, India and Canada to name few but worst of all was the Tibet case. 85.144.179.57 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Let me ask this question: In an environment where you have to assume good faith or be banned for 24 hours, how do you comment on edits such as listing Tibet with its Free Tibet! Flag next to information quoting the Russian Foreign Minister, blaming indepenent Kosovo for the Chinese soldiers shooting to kill Tibetan monks and other people on the street? The same user twice on this page asserted that Tibet is not a nation, and that, like Kosovo in Serbia, it is only a province of China. And that Tibetan separatists are too stupid to have a web site.  I can understand not commenting at all on the outrageous statements, but what do you do about the outrageous edits? Why is that not being considered as immediate grounds for at least a formal warning on the user's page, under the already established Arbitration Committee probation alledgedly formally enforced on this talk page? --Mareklug talk 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the opposite side not trying to take constructive criticism. I cannot stress this enough, there are sources in this article which com from Belgrade run websites..which are used for Propaganda Machines. The best way I can prove that they are propaganda-run by nature is that the information that they represent can't be found anywhere. The most cited I have found is B92. Then comes Serbian Govt Website and RTV-Serbija. These sources need to be replaced since they present "facts" which can't be verified by other sources (see VER):

#27

#77

#102

#108

#132

#157

#189

I ask everyone who was in charge of editing and whom put these sources forward to either find other articles which state the same facts or remove them. Husond, I did ask you to review this page so I am asking you to look at all these countries being sourced from B92. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Could someone please revert the edit in which all the dates were changed to the current 2008-08-02 format, which is fine for users with preferences, but for those without and more importantly for non-users (i.e. the majority of people viewing it most likely), they see this unsightly and confusing format. This is certainly not in form with the MoS, and I ask that the dates been changed back to the euro date format they were in before. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose: The change was made to enable proper sorting. Sorting this column with dates with spaces embedded creates nonsensical outcomes. --Mareklug talk 12:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose, too, for the same reasons as Mareklug. --Tubesship (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Wikipedia is for the readers, and seeing a load of strange dates looks very unprofessional. I really don't think the ordinary reader cares that much about sorting. Also, I doubt the MoS suggests the current format.--UpDown (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of doubting or claiming that it certainly does not (without basis), look it up! Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The actual Manual of Style has the following note: ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison. The present state certainly allows not only "ease of comparison" and matches the "useful in long lists and tables" and "conciseness" criteria of the Manual of Style, but it preserves sortability, which may become very useful when we have more than 36 entries, and works in text browsers, which may be unimportant to you, but is crucial to blind people using text readers and users browsing in unix in shell or other purely textual situations.


 * As I said below already, pick your poison, but the revert to the previous state reintroduces a broken solution, and as you see, the current solution is fully within MoS guidelines, and restores intended operability (sorting). --Mareklug talk 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's only just within guidelines (I don't think the current list of that long, although I know it could get longer), and as I say its very, very unprofessional and looks awfully (and like it or not the appearance of articles does matter). I also don't see the need for sorting in this regard, you either view from top or bottom!--UpDown (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

''Note: The following reply was made when the text above still showed "I also don't need the need for sorting in this regard." -- which was seemlessly altered by the user without alteration of the timestamp.'' --Mareklug talk 15:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your lack of meta-need noted, do kindly remove the editrequest template or nowikify it, as it clearly is stated by the template itself, not to use it if the modification request lacks consensus. Its presence only annoys the admins (populating a technical category) and serves as chaf decoying our other editprotect requests, the ones we all are anxious to see served.


 * As to the essence of the mater, if we removed sortability on dates, that would be a completely different editprotect request. Hint hint. --Mareklug talk 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We could employ the but then the people with text browsers will see the sort key anyway as well as the rest. And we could just disable sorting by dates. You decide what tradeoff you want. The old state was broken. --Mareklug talk 12:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to whatever is the official way to write dates according to WP Manual of Style.--Avala (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support... the new format looks less professional. --Tocino 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ Mareklug took the words right out of my mouth. Please decide on what you want to do before adding the editprotected tag, or disable it when it appears that the edit might not be uncontroversial.  Please establish a consensus for what you want done with the dates, and then readd the template to get it done. Happy‑melon 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never actually added the editprotected tag, so please don't accuse me of doing so. I was starting a discussion, someone else added the tag.--UpDown (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality Check
I know this article is titled "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence," and because of that people are bending over backwards trying to cite, interpret, catalogue, and debate every single statement, report, and rumor issued by every state and organization, their representative, their cousin, their dog, and their dog's unofficial spokesperson. But, the majority of reactions are so vague as to be completely meaningless for all practical purposes. So, what this article really comes down to is this: countries that formally recognize Kosovo vs. countries that don't. All other issues and discussions and disputes regarding who might or might not or wants to or refuses to or probably will or won't recognize Kosovo as an independent state either tomorrow, or next month, in the morning or in the evening of the Apocalypse, are, in the end, mooted by whatever official events actually do transpire. At the end of the day, a given country either will or will not initiate formal diplomatic relations with Kosovo. If a country does recognize, all of the preceeding discussion becomes irrelevant; if it does not, all of the preceeding discussion becomes irrelevant. In this context, I see such vehement, hostile argumentation and personal feuding as a big waste of time and effort. Let's just see what happens, and then document it.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true and that is the reason why I restrain from such discussions. And the meaningless of recognitions will become even clearer if you look at Taiwan, a country that has far less recognition than Kosova but nevertheless is a very successfull independent, sovereign country. So long. --Tubesship (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC) BTW: Nevertheless do not get me wrong about this article, I find it very useful and informative! Thank you, Mareklug! --Tubesship (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we could merge this article with Foreign relations of Kosovo, which has already been suggested. Or, we could simply the whole position listing process by having "Yes," "No," or "Maybe" and nothing else, but with links to references.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of you but you have to understand that some editors act as if they might influence some undecided governments while all they do is waste our time, falsify the reality and feed people with wrong hopes and informations. In the case of Canada, where someone had put the statement of the former FM and the former coalition party (which used Quebec as a reasoning for non recognition), I asked to put the ruling of the supreme court regarding Quebec. My request was rejected stating that it was irrelevant, yet Canada recognized and I am sure that the supreme courts decision also cleared some of the way for that recognition. Jawohl (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Party wants to recognise Kosovo
Jovanovic, who heads the pro-Western Liberal Democratic Party, LDP, has repeatedly offered Tadic a hand in forming a new government after the May 11 elections, providing the DS change its policy on Kosovo, in recognising Kosovo as an independent state. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Coalition of parties including LDP won 5% on the last coalition. On May 2008 election they are going alone and polls are predicting that they will win around 3%. The threshold to enter parliament is 5%. I am not sure how notable they are. --Avala (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the above, I could make some funny / tragic / biting / sad / sarcastic / flippant / melancholic / angry / incredulous / dismissive / thoughtful / *fill in your own word here* remarks about Serbians.
 * But I won't. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the LDP bypass the 5% threshold by joining the pro-western coalition? --Camptown (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro-Western coalition has submitted their application without LDP over disagreement on Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the "pro-Western" coalition is opposed to Kosovo Albanian separatism, although they don't seem as strong on the issue as the DSS, SRS, SPS do. -- Tocino 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And that includes you, since you fail to mention the turks, bosniaks and romas who voted for that declaration. Or maybe they are just an unimportant minority compared to the serb minority. Why is it that every time you write here you have to provoke? I really wonder. Jawohl (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We respect our minorities more than most of the countries that recognised Kosovo. And what are you talking about provoking? Nobody is provoking anybody here, except you.-- Top Gun] 4 April 2008
 * This is not a forum, take this off this page, please. We need consensus building on article text. --Mareklug talk 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Relatively recent estimates of the May elections results show that SRS Radicals plus Kostunica's DSS would almost get a majority. LDP may be nice for someone but it is irrelevant, unlikely to get to the Parliament, and this relatively unimportant party shouldn't be blown up out of proportion here because it would be POV. --Lumidek (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

European Union officials have approved Kosovo's constitution
European Union officials have approved Kosovo's constitution adding that it fully respects international standards and guarantees individual and community rights, Novinite.com informs.

EU representative in Kosovo Pieter Feith declared that now, Kosovo citizens can build up a stable and multiethnic society. The document will enter into force on June 15, once EULEX, EU's mission in Kosovo will take over the UN mission there.

However, it is not clear yet when the actual transfer of power will be made, as the UN did not give its concent and critics argue Kosovo is breaching international law. 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

North Cyprus
...is missing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) no its not Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the official name is "Turkish Cyprus" not "North Cyprus". Kosova2008 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Northern Cyprus's opinion isn't big enough to be on that map, and the fact it's ONLY recognized by turkey means we won't add it to the map, same as the other break way's.--Jakezing (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't we already have our drama and angst over how to classify Northern Cyprus and whether to put it on the map or not? I seem to remember us talking about it before.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, we have made an agreement before - as Chris stated, the momentum of separation between separatist entities into two groups is as following:
 * 1) Partially recognized; which happens when at least 1 internationally-recognized country recognizes it: those are Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Western Sahara and Kosovo. Possibly also Taiwan falls under this category.
 * 2) Unrecognized; which are those without recognition from internationally-recognized states (Abkhazia, South Ossettia and Transnistria).
 * Taking about some sort of percentages isn't really real - and we should stick to the compromise. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This presentation is not neutral and violates WP:NPOV, because it presents the view of supporters of Taiwanese independence, who also at the same time oppose Palestinian independence. Taiwan is recognized by 23 countries - that's "not that big either". Next to that, both the Cyprot and Taiwanese Presidents support reunification. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get your information about Taiwan, but President Chen Shui-bien leans more towards independence. Also, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou may be more in favor in preserving the status quo than reunification. Please make sure you have done proper research before making a statement. --K kc chan (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doesnt matter yet any way as neither Cyprus or TRNC have recognised Kosovo. So the whole island is grey anyway. So silly argument we have going on here. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PaxEquiibrium, the current set up is in no way POV: it simply notes whether a country is a UN member or not. As for what a country it, it uses a de facto measure. In particular, I fail to see how this is anti-Palestinian independence, because it lists [Palestine among the states. As for Taiwan, whether Beijing likes it or not, it is a de facto state. The issue of whether it deserves to have that status is not relevant to an article discussing 'international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.' 141.166.228.155 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PaxEquilibrium is right insofar as Northern Cyprus should be marked on the map. And it is not. It is on the Commons SVG maps (I added it there). And Ijanderson977 is right, in that both Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are gray on the map we use here now. The bit about 1 state's recognition needed to make an entity be formally a state is also reasonable, and has been made and been justified before, and in fact is the basis of the current state of organizing states vs. regions in this article, with states further divided as to the UN membership criterion, which also makes sense, because UN members vote and make international law by doing so. --Mareklug talk 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's just the point - TRNC did recognize Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * News to me. Source, please. --Mareklug talk 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo recognized by Northern Cyprus. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for something more convincing than the adlib by a Transnitria newscource, a biased reporter if there ever was one. The passage "With these words, the country extends formal international recognition to Kosovo. Like Pridnestrovie, Northern Cyprus is an unrecognized state which was founded on the right to self-determination of its people." should tip you off, that there's home-cooking going on. I'm somewhat disappointed that you would think this sourcing in accordance with the WP:VER and WP:NPOV considerations. Can you confirm this claim of official recognition by the state, as opposed to personal welcoming by the president, with an official North Cypriot source? We have discussed this, and even had a North Cypriot Wikipedian on this talk page, advising us that nothing official has transpired, in part because the authorities are anxious to cooperate with Cyprus on possible reunification. We also have had our share of presidents of countries, figureheads all, spout of on Kosovo sometimes with contrary reactions to the official state ones. --Mareklug talk 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. But still, North Cyprus should be drawn. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Brunei is probably missing too (these two I added on the Commons map, so it stand to reason they aren't here). --Mareklug talk 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added a border on the island of Cyprus, separating it into two states. Brunei is already on the map. --Mareklug talk 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Kitts and Nevis foreign ministry comment indicates indirectly that Cuba has not officially said anything about Kosovo
This little item, "Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence" authored "By the St. Kitts-Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and published in the islands' own SKNVibes, contains this telling statement: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."

Last I looked, Cuba is part of the Caribbean. I'd trust a foreign ministry of a country in the region to know the regional situation and not to lie about it. So, this is more evidence that User:Avala has manufactured Cuba's non-recognition of Kosovo, and that painting Cuba red on the Kosovo_relations maps is not justified, and his silent removal of information other editors have included under Cuba about no official traffic from its Foreign Affairs mMinistry is blatant falsification of Cuba's position. The latest removal was done shortly before the article was blocked for edit warring. --Mareklug talk 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cuba opposes. Fidel Castro has said that it sets a precedent for Catalonia and Basque Country and also that it is a creation of Javier Solana who he labels as an unreasonable person. --Tocino 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Cuban Foreign Ministry releases about an average of three statements a year according to their website. http://www.cubaminrex.cu/english/Statements/Statements_index.htm --Tocino 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, "three statements a year". 18 in 2006, 11 in 2007, so far in 2008, the last late in March. http://america.cubaminrex.cu/Declaraciones/inicio_declaraciones.asp Do they have to do so in English, for it to be official? Clearly they have not addressed Kosovo, and not because somebody there lost the server password and can't update their website. --Mareklug talk 02:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They have not released a statement saying anything about post-February 17, 2008 Kosovo and Metohija and neither has Macedonia or Czechia yet that didn't stop you from putting both of them in the formal intent to recognize category. --Tocino 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since they haven't (Cuba), clearly saying they have officially not recognized is false. As for CR, they were about to recognize (they ended up postponing it), so what's your beef? And the category is "about to recognize". Now we have moved them back. It's ebb and flow. And Macedonia was moved up by mistake, 2007 and not 2008. The EU had the same meeting in both years. In any case, on 27 March 2008 they released a press release indicating continuing embrace of the Ahtisaari plan and negotiating the border with Kosovo. The Ahtisaari plan = supervised independence. So even with mistaken moving them up to "about to recognize", they are still officially on track to recognize. Th Ahtisaari plan is now an emerging reality, and the Republic of Kosovo is fulfilling all its provisions, step by step. All observers agree about that. So. Macedonia supporting the Ahtisaari plan is supporting the emerging status quo. In any case, we are discussing Cuba, and other than your and Avala's opinion, there is no indication that Cuba has officially rejected the Republic of Kosovo, and a foreign ministry in the region indirectly confirms it. Ok? --Mareklug talk 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fidel Castro doesn't mince his words. It's pretty clear that if Fidel has any say (which he does), Cuba opposes. And the category is labelled "formal intent to recognize" for over a month and as soon as this article is unlocked it will be changed back to the original and correct title. --Tocino 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrators please note: the above is a declaration of formal intent to edit war by means of forcible reverts. And, it is obvious that the user is impervious to reasoned persuasion by evidence. --Mareklug talk 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, Fidel Castro is no longer leader of cuba, so what he say's isn't the decleration that cuba dosn't recognize kosovo or recognizes. Cuba is in the grey area of nations who don't recognize kosovo but havn't gotten around to saying anything yet.--Jakezing (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fidel is a foreign policy advisor. --Tocino 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not announced intention to edit war, rather I have announced intention to correct the title back to the consensus-based text. There is no consensus for your title which is a less professional, less definite, and bad English, so I am going to change it back to the original title which no editors, besides yourself, had problems with. Now if you decide to revert without consensus, well, that is not up to me. Keep in mind, though, that if you decide to do any forcible reverts, that the admins are watching. --Tocino 18:11. 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't think your use of the word "consensus" at all matches Wikipedia's and Wikipedians'. The very fact of my opposition means there is no consensus. Furthermore, other editors, at least 3, have at one time or another endorsed my version or, at the very least, doing away with the version you wish to forcibly impose (again). They are: Canadian Bobby, Kosova2008 and an anonymous IP editor who commented in one of the sections where you raised this issue already, and he said, that the phrase "declare formal intent" doesn't really mean anything. My point exactly: it can't be reliably applied to all countries, nor is there a need for that.  And why is this phrase important to you?  I think we both can agree why: to exclude countries from appearing to be pro-Kosovo independence.  The fewer such countries in that particular list, the happier editor you are.  Yes? Whereas to me, it is evident that this is the imminent list. And semantics of such a list are clear and immediate. And so is the membership, which can change overnight, as evidenced by us consensually moving the Czech Republic and Macedonia off this list using editprotect mechanism, which, as you well know, I could have prevented by opposing. --Mareklug talk 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the original title ("States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo") there is less wiggle room, it is clear cut, more encyclopedic, and better English than "States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo". With the new sloppy title there is too much room for interpretation (because the phrase "about to" is too broad and not definite enough) of different editors as evidenced by the foolish moves of Czechia and Macedonia to the list when they were properly placed under the category of "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide". --Tocino 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

← starting form the margin (I need the space for the following exposé :) Not the original title.
 * 1) Here is the original title: ("States planning to recognise Kosovo");
 * 2) here is a later snapshot in the history of the article: ("States in the process of formally recognising the independent Republic of Kosovo");
 * 3) here is this list yet later: ("States that have initiated proceedings to recognise the independent Republic of Kosovo (17)");
 * 4) yet later still: ("UN Member States that have initiated proceedings to recognise the independent Republic of Kosovo");
 * 5) continuing in time - about here was the first block of page, and as a result of it, a period without this category: (none);
 * 6) then back to the familiar (when Nergaal was pushing a many-table form, against Avala): ("States which intend to recognise independent Kosovo");
 * 7) then on March 7 Leoboudv introduced ("States that will recognise Kosovo in the near term");
 * 8) and shortly thereafter, The Devil's Advocate subdivided it further into ("States that will recognise Kosovo in the near term", "States in the process of recognizing Kosovo");
 * 9) and then I made this simplification: ("States which will recognise Kosovo soon");
 * 10) and two edits later, it was you, Tocino who introduced this language (earlier you claimed another editor did it and you merely supported him - untrue): ("States that declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo") -- and your edit summary was: "states which have declared FORMAL intent to recognize is more concrete and doesn't give room for editors interpretations which cause edit wars... also added more descriptive title", the descriptive title being corrupting the "Other states" in the map legend with "{{legend|#CDC3CC|States which currently recognise Kosovo as a province of Serbia}}", which of course we fought off successfully, both this time and all the other times Chefc was changing it once a day. That was on March 7.

So. What do you say to all that true history, showing you, supporting consensus -- of yourself only :)? --Mareklug talk 00:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That edit summary proves my point. The section was titled for the vast majority of time either, "States in the process of formally recognising...", "States that have initiated proceedings to recognise...", "UN Member States that have initiated proceedings to recognise...", or "States in the process of recognizing...". All of those titles are very explicit and definite by stating the criteria in which a country belongs on the list. The country must have declared formal intent to recognize or started proceedings of official recognition. Then you changed it to a much dumbed down version of "States that are about to recognize", which as I have said just above, it is too broad and open to editor's interpretations. Then I responded by changing the title back to a more defined format, albeit with slightly different wording. And I must note that the title that I put was in place for almost a month without objections. --Tocino 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as tenure for information. Bad information is removed, inferior phrasings are replaced -- whevever. Better late than never. And I would not call constant reverting, often to thoughless, inferior texts, such as with Brazil, an editing environment "without objections". Disruptive edits prevented getting to this little gem. And you are on notice, that there is no consensus for any empty-headed, vacuous, officious phrasing, which does nothing for increasing precision or usability of this list, and cannot be applied to all the countries out there with any generality.  This is the immiment recognizers list, and while a rose by any other name smells as sweet -- we must choose the most apt name, because editors like you play games of exclusion based on word-play. So. All the artificial barriers to listing countries that editors genuinely think will recognize any day now are uncalled for. --Mareklug talk 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your title is bad English, less definite, too open to editors' interpretations as evidenced by the moves of Czechia and Macedonia, and not consensus-supported. You have shown no sufficient reasons as to why we should keep this sloppy title. You are on notice. --Tocino 16:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "about to" is "bad English" is rubbish. Here is a link to a BBC page discussing, of all things, Standard English, signed by Professor David Crystal, a world authority on linguistics and the English language, therefore, not an anonymous blob of poorly edited webtext, and it uses "about to" twice "Language and Time", "3. Standard English": "Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the cage-door was about to be opened by Noah Webster, who was proposing a different set of linguistic norms for American English." + "As the eighteenth century reached its close, English had either been established, or was about to be established...". On the other hand, the phrase "declare formal intent to recognize" is spurious and does not reflect common practice diplomatically, and is being advocated only to restrict listing of countries here, thereby, it reflects Serbian POV. Czech Republic was properly moved to this list and later moved back, each time based on real and justified, sourced developments. Its listing in this table was a help to the readers. Macedonia's listing was a mistake borne of misreading the year on a date, and no other reason. You have no case, and furthermore, no consensus to push for this officious babble. I suggest you start a section and solicit support for concrete phrasings, or even, for what this list is to represent, or if we are to have it at all, if you wish to change the article. Forcible revert will not be tolerated. --Mareklug talk 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "About to" isn't bad English when it's used in the proper context but in this case it sounds sloppy and less professional. "States which are about to formally recognise..." Yuck. Meanwhile there is nothing spurious about the original title. "Formal intent to recognise..." is very clear in its meaning, unlike "About to". Your title reflects Kosovo Albanian-POV as its intent is to try to make it seem like certain countries are imminently recognizing, but in reality they are still undecided. --Tocino 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to rephrasing, and stop alluding to the originality of your title. The title history is posted just above, with diff links for all to see.
 * There is no POV in listing states that are really about to recognize; there's only POV in witholding or adding states that aren't. Then there are genuine errors. There's nothing professional about introducing obfuscation unreasonable bureacracy, unless you're being paid for your effort. As for the original title, I don't particularly mind reverting to it: "States planning to recognise Kosovo" --Mareklug talk 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you cared to read the article you would see that right after he stopped being a president he was elected to be a foreign policy advisor to Raul Castro. So he is Cuban official. And this article is about international reaction not about documents issued by MFAs because international reaction can be a statement by a high official of a country too.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, you have no evidence whatsoever other than your OR that he spoke representing the official Cuba. And on that basis, colored Cuba red on Commons maps, maps still used in Wikipedia Kosovo articles, if not here anymore. President of Poland is also an official of his country :), yet his opinion, at odds with the government's, is not even listed in this article, as it proved irrelevant. No reason to treat any other country or official any different, regardless of preconceived notions as to what their real importance in decision-making may be. For all we know, Raul Castro might have violently disagreed with his more famous brother on this topic, and that is why the Carribean nation has not acted officially. As you see, anyone can do OR, and spin it six ways to Sunday, as we say in America. OR does not belong on the Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.s. Another, even more plausible example, is the already considered by us welcoming of Kosovo's independence spiel of the President of Northern Cyprus. We decided that there was no evidence we could source independently, that it constituted official recognition by Northern Cyprus. Nonetheless, just yesterday, PaxEquilibrium submitted an 18 February 2008 Transnitria website, as evidence that Northern Cyprus recognized Kosovo. It was an article reporting this welcoming, and the authors of the article portrayed it in their own words as official recognition. Be it authors of articles, or authors of Wikipedia articles -- such characterizations are not good information. --Mareklug talk 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All this is nice bunch of text without real content. Who do you think a Cuban high official spoke for? In the name of Cuba says the commons sense and sources prove it. On the other hand you have doubts. Based on nothing whatsoever. You base your doubts on your personal view that Fidel Castro is a retiree having a rant (states numerously before). Nothing can convince you in opposite. Even if Cuba went over their obligation and their parliament adopted an official document of nonrecognition and put it on the MFA webpage you'd probably say nah nah it's still some rant, it can't be true, let's check if the translation is good. In all this actions you always forget the title - "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and if Cuban official spoke about Kosovo it is certainly not a potato but a reaction. The name of this article is not "Official documents adopted by Ministries of Foreign Affairs regarding 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". I think the fact you have a problem understanding the article title is the root of all your dissatisfaction with the article content. --Avala (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Another, even more plausible example, is the already considered by us welcoming of Kosovo's independence spiel of the President of Northern Cyprus. We decided that there was no evidence we could source independently, that it constituted official recognition by Northern Cyprus." - for 101th time now - states that have decided to recognize are, unlike those that don't, legally obliged to adopt an official document regarding the recognition. You can see evidence for this in Croatian recognition which clearly states that Croatia is recognizing based on law xy. Law of nonrecognition does not exist.--Avala (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong on the non existence of the nonrecognition law. Serbia based it's nonrecognition also on the XY law. Jawohl (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No that's wrong. Serbian Parliament adopted a declaration of annulling of the decision made by a parliament of the autonomous province. It's not a non recognition law. --Avala (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Avala, can you stay out of ONE kof these debates, your also always on the same side as tocino, EACH TIME.--Jakezing (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala is playing the double standards by applying that an adviser is an official reaction, which is not. He also seems to be in dire need of a dictionary to understand that the word reaction means, "action in response to some influence, event, etc.: the nation's reaction to the President's speech" and thus if we have no information of that nation towards Kosova's DOI it does not automatically satisfy a negative or oppose stance as he keeps reiterating. Furthemor he and his buddies have been using Serbian Propaganda from websites to base lies as facts/evidence. I am still awaiting a response from the Serbian POV team to back all those B92 "facts" with other sources. I dare you to prove me wrong. Look Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independenceKosova2008 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * B92 Serbian propaganda? But really, that media is world-renown for its neutrality and, as you know, was created as an American-backed organization to fight for democracy and against Slobodan Milosevic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that some of the rioters targeted B92 headquarters in Belgrade on the night the embassies were attacked, so that shows that B92, in Serbia, is seen as a "pro-Western" outlet. However just because they are Serbian means all of their information is null and void according to the user aptly named Kosova2008. --Tocino 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is something we can't uise either ,since that would state that any news from a country supporting kosovo is a lie also.--Jakezing (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

B92 is not to be trusted as a single source any longer and I have posted the links (with facts) in the Czech article above, after Tocino asked for proof. Jawohl (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)