Talk:Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence

iran-kosovo phone convo.
Per this WP:AGF edit the info on kosovo's response was taken out. I think it is relevant here because it is a direct reference to the conversation between the two and it is explicitly mentioning Iran in response and would thus be inappopriate in a specific kosovo response.Lihaas (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a phone call, the world call in this context means to "ask". Therefore Kosovo is asking for Iran to recognise Kosovo. I don't think we should include it, because it isn't Iran's reaction to the ICJ. IJA (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the source it was a one-on-one conversation and response.Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I only read the part in red which had been deleted. I didn't read the full part. Yes it should be restored. IJA (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ (by who i dont know)Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WP banner
Don't make edits of this nature anymore removing from the talkpage a WikiProject that wants to follow an article. The scope of WikiProject Albania is such to include all the articles related to the Albanians per consensus of the WikiProject and per right of WikiProject to set the scope as large as consensus decides. If you take once again WP Albania out, I will consider it disruptive editing and vandalism and will report it as such. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a scope of WP Albania (as opposed albanians or the larger diaspora) regardless of what "you consider..." It is the scope of kosovo, serbia, Politics (IR) and law. There are opinions by numerous countries and cant list all or even the "important" ones like Bosnia and Armenia.Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per agreement of WP Albania all articles where Albanians are concerned are within the scope, but I guess I'll put this in the publicwatchlist without having to deal with incivil people, who remind me how less important my country is. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal emotions dont have room for arguement here whatsoever. If you want to retort to your opinion you can do so on your own weblog or a forum. In no way was the message in reply to your post uncivil simply because you dont like it. If you want to discuss the issue then do so, in the meanwhile there was nothign to discuss in your last post.
 * WP:NPA may be of some useLihaas (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a dive at what a wikiproject means. Please read WikiProject_Council/Guide. A scope of a WikiProject is decided exclusively by its members. If you are not a member of a WikiProject, please don't feel entitled to remove a WikiProject banner without any explanation. Even if the placement of the WP Albania were impertinent, which I don't think it's the case, the policy says However, on occasion, someone clearly places the wrong banner on an article. When this happens, it is polite to ask either that individual or that project why the banner was placed. So long. --  S undefined ulmues (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page so discuss it here without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. I explained my objection and on what grounds.Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Page reorg.
per this edit I think the old format was better because it better reflects the stance of each and also elucidated the notable reactions as summarised ont he main page. Despite recognition (or not) countries still had conflicting responses.Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, with Lihaas, please go back to the old format.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that version is some countries were listed as opposing the verdict when in fact they did not express opposition to it and others made statements that could not be read one way or the other. We can say with certainty who has and hasn't recognized Kosovo and in a sense it is actually more helpful, because countries that recognize Kosovo are of less interest than those that do not. This way if someone is interested more in positions of countries that have recognized Kosovo they can simply look at that section.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but then I would suggest three categories: clear support, clear opposition, unclear. Does that make sense?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I think countries do not recognise Kosovo are far more important in their reactions (as in the non-state actors). There aren't many neutral respondents (Iran being one), perhaps as Gautier lebon a central "neutral" response for the handful in thereLihaas (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep the article the way it is, with countries sorted between "countries that recognise Kosovo" and "countries that do not recognise Kosovo". The thing is, if you look carefully at the reaction of countries like China, Greece, and Ukraine (which do not recognise Kosovo), you cannot describe the reactions of those countries as opposing the Court's opinion. For that matter, even Indonesia's reaction (as described in the article) is not really in opposition to the Court's ruling. Keep in mind, the ICJ did not say "Kosovo is legally independent", or "all countries should recognize Kosovo", or anything like that. So if a country like Greece says "despite the advisory opinion of the ICJ, we are not going to recognise Kosovo", you can't read that as opposing the ICJ's opinion. —Mathew5000 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathew is correct, the ICJ opinion says nothing one way or the other about recognition. That's precisly why it seems strange to me to break down the reactions by whether or not a country has recognized the independence of Kosovo.  It seems more logical to me to break down the reactions according to whether or not they say that they agree with the court's analysis.  Most reactions aren't that explict, so they should go into a separate category.  I don't think that "neutral" is the right term.  Maybe "indeterminate".  The correct expression in French would be "langue de bois", which could be translated as "diplomatic double-speak" but I suppose that we have to maintain political correctness.  How about "not obviously agreeing or opposing the ICJ's analysis".--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gautier lebon's suggesting bring a possible accomodation. instead of support/oppose maybe agree/disagree? And then Undecided or indeterminate, at any rate Iran seems the only one at the moment
 * Still no one's come with a solution for Bosnia.(Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)).
 * Lihaas, are you saying that Iran's reaction is the only one that falls under "undecided/indeterminate"? On the contrary, there are many reactions in the table that neither agree nor disagree with the ICJ decision. For example, look carefully at Azerbaijan's response. It's just saying that the decision has a narrow focus; Azerbaijan doesn't criticize the decision or express disagreement with it. Similarly with China, Cyprus, Greece, and in fact the majority of the countries whose reaction is listed in the article. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oudent. May I suggest that Lihass post on this page his (I presume, even if Lihass' web page does not explicitly give the gender) proposal for a breakdown. Mathew and others can then comment and mabe there will be a consensus. I still think that breaking down by recognition/non-recognition is not appropriate.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not saying Iran was the only one, just the one that first came to mind (i believe i added that). Im not sure i agree with Azerbaijan for the reasons well known, likewise Cyprus and Greece were buried in such language. China disagrees because it takes the decision to "respect Serbia's integrity" Likewise Greece and Cyprus said in effect that the decision is irrelevant. Im still in support of the prior version although for countries such as Iran and of couse Bosnia is something we need to discuss further. But sayin countries that do/do not recognise is more set for organisation of International recognition of Kosovo than here. (btw-i hope there a link from there to here, its very related)Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lihaas, I'm still confused about what you're saying. The article does not refer to any criticism of the ICJ opinion by Azerbaijan, China, Cyprus, Greece, Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, or Ukraine. Mathew5000 (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not criticism perhaps, but disagreement. Its difference between the 2 (however subtle). Not criticising the decision is not equal to agreeing. Am i being clearer?Lihaas (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those countries I mentioned are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the court decision. They say things like, "the court decision has not caused us to change our policy on recognizing Kosovo". They don't say "we disagree with the court decision" (at least not as recounted in the article). —Mathew5000 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is a disagreements. Otherwise based on the court's reading they would recognise the legitimacy thereof.Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are misunderstanding what the Court said. The Court did not say that Kosovo should be recognized as an independent state. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathew is correct. The court specifically stated that its opinion says nothing about whether Kosovo should or should not be recognized as an independent state.  That said, I still think it would be better to organize the section as somehow indicating which countries agreed with the decision and which did not, if countries actually explicitly said something to that effect.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Section title
I made a suggestion on the old page but no one seems to have replied (although consensus cant wait forever), the last section on nationalsits/non-state actors is a bit dodgy because both titles dont fit. I suggested non-state actors be listed here and the political parties be moved into a bullet point of the countries if they are a whole part of the political process (catalonia, SNP, basques)(Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)).
 * I support your proposal.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So who want to be WP:Bold to move? Sanction thereof?Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

reaction from the US State Department
Some of the sources relating to US reaction are pretty weak, namely rawstory.com, blic.rs, and b92.net. Why not just quote the statement Hillary Clinton made on July 22? —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's comments should be removed? Some comparisons with elsewhere are importantLihaas (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove the stuff that's cited to rawstory.com, blic.rs, and b92.net. (Those aren't good sources for the official reaction of the US government, particularly when the article already uses the State Department web site as a source.) —Mathew5000 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

UNGA meet
In addition to that of albania, the resolution passed needs mentioned.
 * Armenia reaction Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Armenian statement about Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental and indispensable right enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The advisory opinion adopted by the Intemational Court of Justice in July, reaffirmed the wisdom of the founders of this organization that made sure that one of the fundamental principles for maintaining peace and security in the world, the right of peoples to self-determination, can not be underrated in any way compared with the other principles of intemationallaw."
 * And Moldova (Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)).

Tatarstan
Lihas that woman from Tatarstan has no credibility. She is not an important leader of a separatist movement. The Tatarstan "movement" is very weak and it is not that powerful at all. This Fauzia Bayramova is just a woman interviewed not by the movement but by Radio Free Europe. She is not credible Lihas and as a result I have no choice but to just remove her from here. I have no choice. I don't know where you got your source from but in my opinion that woman is not credible at all. (Rokoop) (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100727210534/http://www.balkaninsight.com:80/en/main/news/29686/ to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/29686/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100726122244/http://www.balkaninsight.com:80/en/main/news/29647 to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/29647/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100725082928/http://rawstory.com:80/news/afp/US_asks_Europe_to_unite_after_Kosov_07222010.html to http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_asks_Europe_to_unite_after_Kosov_07222010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)