→China and India - edit request: oppose with justification -- please make the claimed information explicity and source it accordingly. |
|||
Line 766: | Line 766: | ||
:::Thank you. There are no more uncoloured overseas territories on the map. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::Thank you. There are no more uncoloured overseas territories on the map. [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== China and India - edit request == |
== China and India - edit request (contested) == |
||
{{tlx|editprotect}} Commented out the editprotect, as per its own regulations, it is not an edit that reflects consensus, as it is being opposed. --06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{editprotect}} |
|||
Replace this |
Replace this |
||
Line 812: | Line 812: | ||
'''Unrelated Comment''': Can you guys put one edit request per section please? Also, I am sure Lavrov has said that Kosova is illegal, and today he said that he does not support the constitution, etc etc. [[User:Kosova2008|Ari d'Kosova]] ([[User talk:Kosova2008|talk]]) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
'''Unrelated Comment''': Can you guys put one edit request per section please? Also, I am sure Lavrov has said that Kosova is illegal, and today he said that he does not support the constitution, etc etc. [[User:Kosova2008|Ari d'Kosova]] ([[User talk:Kosova2008|talk]]) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Oppose.''' I just discovered that since making this editprotect request, [[User:Avala]] has altered the designation for China (having dones so earlier already for India) on the [[:Image:Kosovo_relations.svg]] map. It is evident that this proposed editprotect forms the sole justification for China, India map designation chages. I think that this is an unwise, slippery-slope way of changing crucial Wikipedia content, and I oppose this editprotect request on those grounds. |
|||
Nothing in the proposed editprotect explicitly informs that these 2 countires have performed official refusal to recognize Kosovo's independence. If that is the case, the editprotects should make this clear, instead of failing to do so. |
|||
The communique that aledgedly speaks for all three countries and comes from the mouth of the Russian Foreign Minister and is quoted here from a Russian newspaper/website, seems to stop short of that, and calls on both sides to carry on negotiations within the 1244 Resolution framework. The color on Commons map legend for that is '''orange''', not '''red'''. I cannot support an editprotect that introduces ambiguities on English Wikipedia that are used in turn by the proposer to justify dubious Commons content changes, which affect several Wikipedia projects using that map for illustration. In effect, the proposer is proposing one thing on English Wikipedia, and effecting different changes on other projects. |
|||
As I said in my comments, India and China should be explicitly and clearly sourced to their respective government statements. If these are not available, their positions are de jure unsettled. Using Russian newspapers to imply that these states have officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence is therefore OR. Such extraordinary implication deserves a careful, noncontested, official source any country. Russian does not speak for anyone but Russia. --[[User:Mareklug|Mareklug]] <sup>[[User talk:Mareklug|<b>talk</b>]]</sup> 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
Revision as of 06:21, 18 June 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Put new text under old text. .
Cuba link maintenance
{{editprotect}}
Please change the current entry from:
| Cuba[1] || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[1] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[2] || |-
to:
| Cuba || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[3] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[4][5] ||
This is a non-controversial edit request. --Tocino 19:34, 5 June 2008 9UTC)
- Agreed Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Done - Revolving Bugbear 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you had no standing to carry out that proposed edit before editors could react to it. The time elapsed between the user proposing the edit and your "Done" is about half an hour, 32 minutes, to be precise. As it happens, I have serious misgivings about this item, including its actual content and discrepancies between what it says and what its sources say, and I spent all of that half hour and more researching and making notes, and attempting to read the sources, one of which is in some unidentified language. Now, coming here to write it on the page, I discover that it was expeditet. This is highly irregualr and unjustifed. My reasoning follows shortly. I suggest you self-revert in good faith. --Mareklug talk 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was a non-controversial edit Marek. So thats why he performed the edit. If it had been something controversial, he would have waited for others to respond. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your saying so does not make it so, I'm sorry, Ian. I just took the time to write about this at length on Revolving Bugbear's talk page, and requested that he revert himself. I suggest everybody reads what I wrote. I will not copy and paste it here, for clarity's sake. But the edit was not in the least what it was represented to be, a straightforward "link maintenance". Sources were dropped and replaced. A source in a strange language replaced a source in Spanish. Switching sources without saying so is not link maintenance. And I am not even addressing the fact, of what the Cuba entry claims, or what the sources actually say, which happens to be at odds with what the entry says. We have a mess here. More on this later. I can't keep up with bogus editprotects Tocino is coming up with and you are rubberstanping without examining the content. Some editing. --Mareklug talk 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Undone - Revolving Bugbear 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@Marek. Good point, i didn't look at it like that. Switching source can be controversial. Im not sure if the edit should still go ahead. Yes the sources was presented as "non-controversial", which is not 100% true. What should we do from here? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Start a new section on Cuba.
- Read the sources carefully. (Where they do exist, or are accessible. The ones we have and the new ones Tocino switched to.)
- Obtain translation for the foreign source(s).
- Write down point-by-point what Wikipedia writeup says and what the sources say. This could be done in a table.
- Remove any OR (stuff that we can't source).
- Decide if there's anything there to keep.
- Issue an editprotect.
- I think that covers it, without prejudicing what we actually determine, although I have a very good idea of what to expect, as I spent a long time examining all this just now. But I'll bide my time. --Mareklug talk 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- With out sounding stupid. From the sources, what is Cuba's position? They disagree why? As i think the most encyclopedic piece of information to include, is why Cuba doesn't recognise Kosovo. Im not too sure myself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't tell if the sources say anything at all about Cuba's position. The Spanish one is gone - broken link. The other source we use (we use two, one twice) is probably in English, but I can't tell, because its says: "You are not authorized to read this content. Please log in". That is how we source Cuba right now. As for Tocino's sources (there are 3), 2 are in English and they don't say anything about Kosovo. They talk about Castro retiring and how Cuba will be governed and stuff like that. They date from 24 February, when he retired, or about then. The remainisn source is in a language related to Spanish, but different. It might be Catalan. It might be Valencian. But I can't tell exactly what it says. I asked Tocino to tell us what it says. Maybe it says that Cuba has a position, or at least that Castro's essay is Cuba's position. But I don't know. I have been unable to find any source, except for the St. Kitts-Nevis foreign ministry, that would sourcve Cuba's official reaction. --Mareklug talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- With out sounding stupid. From the sources, what is Cuba's position? They disagree why? As i think the most encyclopedic piece of information to include, is why Cuba doesn't recognise Kosovo. Im not too sure myself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to Google, it is Catalan. - Revolving Bugbear 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Who knows? Perhaps it's because they respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of fellow nations. Maybe it's because they want to do the opposite of USA. Maybe it's a bit of both. All we know is that Fidel Castro, a foreign policy advisor and a highly influential character, has written very negatively about the declaration. --Tocino 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note that these speculations are wild OR on your part, and it is telling that all you can tell about Castro's essay is that he wrote negatively, but even you have no idea what he wrote, since a) our Spanish link to what he wrote is gone, b) the non-Spanish link no one can understand (but it is short enough so we know it is not what he wrote only some note about it). And lastly, his writing even very negatively about hte declaration (which you haven't documented yet, either) in no way automatically is Cuba's official position. In fact, St. Kitts-Nevis tells us, that it is not. So we have evidence, which you and user Avala have been suppressing -- that Cuba, in fact, has not acted officially. This is good enough reason to rollback your stealth editprotect which you falsely labeled "link maintenance" and seriously, thoroughly examine what we know about Cuba and how it is sourced. And, perhaps, find other sources. --Mareklug talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The non-Spanish link is Catalan. Catalan is one of the most popular WPs as it has over 100,000 articles, so to call it an odd language is insulting. It says the same thing that the previous link said, that Fidel thinks Javier is lousy and father of independence of Kosovo, and that the declaration may influence Catalonia and Euskal Herria to proclaim independence. You say that Sergey Lavrov does not speak on behalf of the Big Three (Russia, China, India) when the other two foreign ministers are sitting right besides him and nodding their heads in agreement, while Lavrov declares, "Speaking on behald of Russia, China, and India..." yet you believe that little St. Kitts & Nevis can speak on behalf of all of the Carribean nations when it provides no evidence for its position. --Tocino 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is unreasonable to provide the only link for a crucial claim in Catalan without even identifying the language. The cite family of templates has a nifty slot just for that, plus the
{{ca icon}}
is used manually on external links to sources in Catalan. If anything is insulting, it is neglecting to provide this required mark-up and finding fault in fellow editors for having difficulty decyphering what language is encoding the content like a cypher. And no Catalan autotranslation tools are conspicuous and freely available on the net that I could find, so extracting sense from your source for an English-speaking reader is quite a proposition, and being able to make out vaguely what it might be saying is not acceptable transparency of sourcing. I find it ironic that such impediment and obfuscation (for that is what it amounts to) was matter of course offered by an editor who loudly argued how a certain spelling of Kosovo's capital is unacceptable because it's not in English. Furthermore, even the synopsis given above (especially what Castro is aleged to have written) in no way corresponds to the original research on your and Avala's part, where a passage to the effect "Fidel Castro spoke in his capacity as..." tries hard to make it seem to be more than it was sourced to be. Any OR needs to be struck from the article, and doing so requires no furhter consensus-building -- OR violates Wikipedia policy and any reading administrator may remove it on sight, since any editor is obligated to do so whenever possible. I hope this is done swiftly, and we can move on to discussing Cuba on the merits of sourced information. Which brings me to this request: please don't confuse the representing of other countries with the reporting of what other ountries did. One of the functions of diplomats is monitoring diplomatic activity in the region. Clearly, an assessment of no such activity having taken place regarding the Kosovo declaration of independence is both plausible and verifiable by linking what a regional Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially said on this score, in its own document. --Mareklug talk 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)- You say no OR, but you are the editor who insisted on having Macedonia in the "About to recognize" category when all they said was "we would consider the position of NATO/EU allies". You were making an assumption that recognition was imminent just because of this comment, despite the fact that NATO/EU allies and neighbours such as Greece and Romania both opposed. A few months have passed and Macedonia has done nothing. Thankfully, you did not get your way on this. --Tocino 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even if I, or anyone else, made some other mistake, somewhere, which is certainly possible, you are now making an obfuscating comment, trying to lead us astray like a mother fox leading the hunters away from her lodge. Macedonia does not have anything to do with justifying your Cuba edit. We are talking about Cuba. And if your best defense is, well you make mistakes too, then that amounts to an admission that OR is what we have here, and that it should be removed from the article expeditiously. As for the Macedonia circumstance, aside from the fact that a country may be about to recognize indefinitely (look at Saudi Arabia -- and the Czech Republic did it overnight, as did Lithuania after a long wait), the Macedonia writeup came about from a complex situation, and a misreading of a date for a meeting that took place on the same day in 2007 and 2008. At the time of the edit I thought I was sourcing today's news, not the one from a year ago. This was explained in the talk page, and we found other content during that epizode, which oddly was fully congruent with the 2007 item, as all Kosovo recognition content on Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently invokes its full supporting the Ahtisaari plan (de facto independence). And we ended up using that 2007 item, to give full context some newer item, which we would not have found, had we not had to look closely. Furthermore, I admited my error at the time. It's all in the archives. It would be equally appropriate, if you ould back out of defending your untennable OR edits, and let us fix the article without further delay. Please. --Mareklug talk 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- About to recognize indifinitely is an oxymoron. The article would be well served if the title was changed back to the original version of "States which have declared formal intent to recognize" which is better English, more definite, and leaves less wiggle room. But that is a seperate can of worms. Meanwhile there is no OR in the current Cuba entry. You are the only one who is making the claim that Fidel is not a powerful person and who's words are hollow. Fidel, a foreign policy advisor, writes negatively about the declaration constitutes a reaction from the nation of Cuba. Now it would be appropriate if you stopped your obstructing and allowed us to fix dead links in the article. Please. --Tocino 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even if I, or anyone else, made some other mistake, somewhere, which is certainly possible, you are now making an obfuscating comment, trying to lead us astray like a mother fox leading the hunters away from her lodge. Macedonia does not have anything to do with justifying your Cuba edit. We are talking about Cuba. And if your best defense is, well you make mistakes too, then that amounts to an admission that OR is what we have here, and that it should be removed from the article expeditiously. As for the Macedonia circumstance, aside from the fact that a country may be about to recognize indefinitely (look at Saudi Arabia -- and the Czech Republic did it overnight, as did Lithuania after a long wait), the Macedonia writeup came about from a complex situation, and a misreading of a date for a meeting that took place on the same day in 2007 and 2008. At the time of the edit I thought I was sourcing today's news, not the one from a year ago. This was explained in the talk page, and we found other content during that epizode, which oddly was fully congruent with the 2007 item, as all Kosovo recognition content on Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently invokes its full supporting the Ahtisaari plan (de facto independence). And we ended up using that 2007 item, to give full context some newer item, which we would not have found, had we not had to look closely. Furthermore, I admited my error at the time. It's all in the archives. It would be equally appropriate, if you ould back out of defending your untennable OR edits, and let us fix the article without further delay. Please. --Mareklug talk 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- You say no OR, but you are the editor who insisted on having Macedonia in the "About to recognize" category when all they said was "we would consider the position of NATO/EU allies". You were making an assumption that recognition was imminent just because of this comment, despite the fact that NATO/EU allies and neighbours such as Greece and Romania both opposed. A few months have passed and Macedonia has done nothing. Thankfully, you did not get your way on this. --Tocino 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is unreasonable to provide the only link for a crucial claim in Catalan without even identifying the language. The cite family of templates has a nifty slot just for that, plus the
- The non-Spanish link is Catalan. Catalan is one of the most popular WPs as it has over 100,000 articles, so to call it an odd language is insulting. It says the same thing that the previous link said, that Fidel thinks Javier is lousy and father of independence of Kosovo, and that the declaration may influence Catalonia and Euskal Herria to proclaim independence. You say that Sergey Lavrov does not speak on behalf of the Big Three (Russia, China, India) when the other two foreign ministers are sitting right besides him and nodding their heads in agreement, while Lavrov declares, "Speaking on behald of Russia, China, and India..." yet you believe that little St. Kitts & Nevis can speak on behalf of all of the Carribean nations when it provides no evidence for its position. --Tocino 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note that these speculations are wild OR on your part, and it is telling that all you can tell about Castro's essay is that he wrote negatively, but even you have no idea what he wrote, since a) our Spanish link to what he wrote is gone, b) the non-Spanish link no one can understand (but it is short enough so we know it is not what he wrote only some note about it). And lastly, his writing even very negatively about hte declaration (which you haven't documented yet, either) in no way automatically is Cuba's official position. In fact, St. Kitts-Nevis tells us, that it is not. So we have evidence, which you and user Avala have been suppressing -- that Cuba, in fact, has not acted officially. This is good enough reason to rollback your stealth editprotect which you falsely labeled "link maintenance" and seriously, thoroughly examine what we know about Cuba and how it is sourced. And, perhaps, find other sources. --Mareklug talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Who knows? Perhaps it's because they respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of fellow nations. Maybe it's because they want to do the opposite of USA. Maybe it's a bit of both. All we know is that Fidel Castro, a foreign policy advisor and a highly influential character, has written very negatively about the declaration. --Tocino 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is a reaction from Cuba, and only that. No one has sourced it to be an official reaction BY Cuba, the state, the government. But we have on hand a source by a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs that implies it was not. Please allow these facts to be represented in the article as they are, not as you would like them to be, or outright censoring the second one. And please don't lie. I already documented on this talk page, which is archived, that the phrasing you called then and now "original" was your edit and about a tenth way that grouping was designated. Please let us remove OR from Cuba write-up. And please stop moving text on this talk page to make it less readable. --Mareklug talk 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for admitting that Fidel's words are a reaction from Cuba. Now that we have this issue settled can we move on? Also the original title "States which are have declared formal intent to recognize" was in place for months, without objection, until you changed it in a massive edit of yours shortly before the article was locked. And finally would you please stop moving your comments ahead of mine. I responded to ljanderson six hours before you did, so I am entitled to having my comments below his. --Tocino 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tocino, no one ever denied that Fidel Castro is in Cuba. We had reactioins, many, from Czech Republic, before we had a reaction by the Czech Republic, which obviated them all. We have no reaction though yet by Cuba. Your glossing this is clutching at OR. This OR needs to go. You have been unable to source your OR that Castro's journalistic activity is synonymous with official activity by Cuba's government. And we have St. Kitts-Nevis report, that implies that it is not. We have nothing that implies that it is. Once again, no lies, please: Your introduction of the title you want was perhaps unchanged for a long time, but information has no tenure on WIkipedia, and improvements are welcome. Why I improved this particular section head is obvious and has been defended to death, and is in the archive. Basically, there is nothing formal in diplomacy regarding intent. Intent is subjective, and often concealed. We are only interested in culling the long list of every state that has not yet officially recognized and present a short cache of those that are about to. That's all. Ascribing any other significance to that list is unjustified, just as it's unjustified for you to feel a sense of entitlement for having answered first, and placing things in chronological rather than readable order. You server the reader badly by orphaning my small reply with Bugbear's addendum, moving it way out from the text it addresses, making the indentation pointless. Whereas this thread follows next with no harm. DO no harm, Tocino. Quit ORing. ORing is doing harm. --Mareklug talk 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fidel is a foreign policy advisor therefore his reaction is also that of the Cuban government's. --Tocino 22:46, 9 June 2008 )(UTC)
- And Hillary is a US Senator, but that does not make her campaigning for US Presidency an act of U.S. Senate! And Rafa Nadal is a Citizen of Spain, but that does not mean Spain won French Open! Stop insisting on your OR that Castro's journalistic activity = Cuba's official state, diplomatic activity. --Mareklug talk 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Terrible comparison. Fidel is not some random senator. If anything Fidel is like what Condolezza Rice was during the majority of the Bush 43 presidency, a foreign policy adviser who is highly influential. --Tocino 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- And Hillary is a US Senator, but that does not make her campaigning for US Presidency an act of U.S. Senate! And Rafa Nadal is a Citizen of Spain, but that does not mean Spain won French Open! Stop insisting on your OR that Castro's journalistic activity = Cuba's official state, diplomatic activity. --Mareklug talk 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fidel is a foreign policy advisor therefore his reaction is also that of the Cuban government's. --Tocino 22:46, 9 June 2008 )(UTC)
- When the powerful Condi Rice stopped during those days at a local Starbucks and got a moccha grande, it was Condi getting a coffee, not the Government of the United States of America! DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE YET? Please stop the harmful text rearrangements on this talk page. It makes no sense to orphan small texts many screens from the immediate predecessor, while this idiotic subthread is only growing longer and longer and evidences your lack of evidence for your Cuba edits. You did remove the sentence Leobudonov as well as I kept returning to the article, that Cuba's MFA did not produce any traffic. That was one of the last edits before article was locked. So we have full context that you are POVing this entry to the point of censorship. Do stop with the OR already -- no evidence of official government action to go along with the journalistic reaction, period. Evidence of the lack of offical Cuba action, certainly (via St. Kitts-Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs monitoring of regional diplomatic activity). You have produced 0 sources for your take on the matter. --Mareklug talk 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fidel is not getting coffee from Starbucks; he's writing an essay on current events as highly influential foreign policy adviser. --Tocino 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Writing an essay does not constitute an official statement by the government. That's OR. There is no evidence to support it (citations), but there is evidence countering that, it being the St. Kitts-Nevis MFA assessment of regional lack of formal statements for or against Kosovo's independence covering all of the Carribean. St. Kitts-Nevis is almost a neighboring country, physically, and we have no reason to doubt its neutrality or competence. Please provide a source that indicates that Castro's journalistic endeavor is official Cuban policy. I propose keeping it as a notable reaction from within Cuba, but not Cuba's. (i.e., in keeping with verifiable evidence). --Mareklug talk 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ummm, yes it does. An essay is about as formal and official as you can get. --Tocino 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- If such were the case, you would have no trouble sourcing this assertion, and you would have already, but instead we have this tiresome polemic. Please do provide verifiable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policies on reporting only verifiable information. Until you do, this characterization remains original research on your part (and User:Avala's). Might I add, sitting presidents of the Czech Republic and of the Republic of Poland have written essays, produced documents and speeches on the subject of Kosovo's independence, as you have attempted several times to insert links to these into this article. In neither case do these endeavors represent the official positions taken up in the end by the governments of CR or PL. Presumably the same may entail Cuba's position, when it finally does take one up. Please produce sources, or unsourced Cuba-related OR will be struck. --Mareklug talk 01:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ummm, yes it does. An essay is about as formal and official as you can get. --Tocino 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Cyprus
New statement from Cyprus.--Avala (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Russia, Cyprus say Kosovo self-rule failing to improve stability[1]
14:51 | 09/ 06/ 2008
"Cyprus does not intend to recognize Kosovo as an independent state," Kyprianou said, adding that the decision on Kosovo "should be reached within the UN framework and with Serbia's direct participation."
So, essentially, a reiteration of their old position. Nothing new here. --alchaemia (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The meeting between Russia and Cyprus also called for fresh talks between Prishtina & Belgrade. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Has the proposal been accepted by Pristina and Belgrade? What does it suggest?--Avala (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure but in exchange Russia has to grant Republic of Chechnya independence. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is, as User:Mareklug would say, "bullshit". Chechnya is a proud member of the Russian Federation and nothing suggests that the opposite is true. --Tocino 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's called sarcasm my dear Serbian friend, please do not get so worked up over one sentence. I hope you do not condemn my sentence as you did above. In hope that you will see the sunny side of this I will include a smiley face, ;) . Kosova2008 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- If nothing else, Tocino is, at the very least, funny. A proud member of the Russian Federation? Haha... not even Monty Python could make me laugh like this. --alchaemia (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The less such proud members we have the better, both for us and for them. However, this is not a forum. Colchicum (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is, as User:Mareklug would say, "bullshit". Chechnya is a proud member of the Russian Federation and nothing suggests that the opposite is true. --Tocino 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure but in exchange Russia has to grant Republic of Chechnya independence. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Has the proposal been accepted by Pristina and Belgrade? What does it suggest?--Avala (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm i always thought Tocino was American not Serbian? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And I thought that Tito was German. Come on man, it's as plain as the nose in the face that he is a Serb, and a hardline one at that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously Tocino is American. Ask him. Look what he said here ::I'm not going to continue this tit-for-tat either but just for full disclosure I am not Serbian and I do not have a drop of Slavic blood in my system as far as I know, but I do confess to having a strong interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Tocino 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to be Serbian to oppose Kosovo. And you can be Serbian and support Kosovo too. Amazing isn't it. Freedom of speech Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously Tocino is American. Ask him. Look what he said here ::I'm not going to continue this tit-for-tat either but just for full disclosure I am not Serbian and I do not have a drop of Slavic blood in my system as far as I know, but I do confess to having a strong interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Tocino 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Serbia's Reaction
This source kosova.com is reporting this:
- "Pas 15 qershorit mund të rritet numri i vendeve që do ta njohin pavarësinë e Kosovës
- Beograd, 9 qershor - Edhe Beogradi zyrtar pranon se pas 15 qershorit mund të rritet numri i vendeve që do ta njohin pavarësinë e Kosovës. Shefi i diplomacisë serbe thotë se ka informacione se "po rritet presioni" mbi disa vende që deri më tani nuk e kanë njohur Kosovën. Pas shpalljes së Kushtetutës njohje të reja mund të arrijnë nga Amerika e Jugut, vendet afrikane madje edhe nga rajoni, shkruan gazeta serbe "Veçernje novosti". "Që nga fundi i vitit të kaluar po vazhdon aksioni i koordinuar i Prishtinës, Brukselit dhe Uashingtonit që deri në fund të vitit 2008 Kosovën si shtet ta njohin 100 shtete", ka deklaruar Dushan Janjiq, nga Forumi për Marrëdhënie Etnike në Beograd.
Më shumë lajme nga Kosova"
English: Simply the newspaper "Veçernje Novosti" has reported that Dushan Janjiq from Forum of Ethnic Relations in Belgrade has said that there is a growing pressure form countries which previously were not planning on recognizing the Republic of Kosova and after June 15th it is possible for the number of recognitions to rise (from S. America, Africa, and "from the region"). What's unclear is when it says (direct quote) from "Veçernje Novosti", "from the end of last year coordinated efforts of Prishtina, Brussel and Washington have continued to raise 100 recogntions by the end of year 2008." Why would these 3 capitals lobby for recognitions before the Declaration of Kosova happened? Anyways, I think this should be included in the entry for Republic of Serbia. I'll try and find another source to back www.Kosova.com --Kosova2008 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Which did that include?84.134.79.151 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Will anybody answer me?84.134.107.244 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Hello? Anyone there?84.134.115.224 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have asked a question!84.134.55.136 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Calm down! What do you mean "which did that include"??? Which did what include? Nobody has answered you because your question does not make sense! Bazonka (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me. Which states did that include? 84.134.74.11 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting comments from Montenegrin leaders
The Vice President of the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists, Svetozar Marović has said: "We are in a specific situation, because Montenegro is populated by both Serbs and Albanians and this issue must be approached with a lot of attention and sensitivity. All the more so because the reality in Kosovo is contrary to international standards. Our policy must be oriented towards internal stability and we must bear in mind historic and good neighborly and economic links with Serbia. We must also take care not to jeopardize Serbia's economic stability by any gesture of ours." The part about Kosovo not meeting international standards stands out.
Also Prime Minister Milo Đukanović said: "We are aware that there were many instances throughout history when Montenegro followed interests of others, and we have great respect for our joint history with the Serb nation as we have jointly inhabited this region for centuries, but this does not give anyone the right to expect, not even Serbia, that Montenegro will sacrifice its interests to those of Serbia. Our interests are the European Union and NATO and we are aware that, on that path, we should develop the maximum of cooperation in the region and we are fully prepared for this. We are not ready to share illusions and follow anyone's delusions, regardless of from where they are coming. We may be prepared to understand them, but not to follow them and thus demonstrate closeness." So the PM is saying that they will not fold to pressure from Serbia or USA/EU/NATO, yet Montenegro wants to cooperate with both of these entities.
Source: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=09&nav_id=50950
--Tocino 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- So basically they are trying not to upset anyone and that they will not be persuaded by anyone. Their decision will be Montenegro's, not anyone else's Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Basically. But I think Marović's comments in particular suggest that Montenegro is leaning towards not recognizing. --Tocino 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, its just that they have both Serbian and Albanian populations. Montenegro really wants NATO and EU intergration. They probably will recognise eventually, they are just going to take a long time about doing it. A really long time. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- However who knows ? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah it's speculation at this point. But do you think the comments warrant a place in the article? --Tocino 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- You want speculations to be put in the article? Montenegro will follow EU/NATO majority. Media also speculated that they will recognize in 16 June. There was a meeting between foreign minister of both countries Kosovo and Montenegro this month. --Digitalpaper (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
@Tocinohmmm Well what 2 or 3 points could we add to Montenegro first? Lets pick out the main points from that source. What do you think should be added to Montenegro? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree to add the source, its just statement after statement, If yes then lets bring back Ukraine latest statement position, and all other sources that have been found and not being agreed to be updated. I propose to wait and see what happens after 16 June. --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- fair enough. Ive just got this feeling that Montenegro wont recognise then. Even though i want them to ;( Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh they will, they will, believe me. They want to become members of the EU and NATO, and we all know how things are run there and who has the main voice in those bodies. --alchaemia (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So far as to what has been said by Montenegro and speculated, this is nothing new. They indeed face a conundrum: recognize and fall in line with Euro-Atlantic institutions which they seek to join plus pleasing the Albanian population inside their borders, or risk inflaming their Serbian constituencies and close historic and cultural ties to Serbia. I can only imagine that this issue presents a hard decision to make. I wouldn't want to have to be in the place of anyone who has a say in recognizing or not in that nation. The evidence, including this new info, suggests a still non-committal response and should be regarded as such. It is the reaction that most nations outside the Euro-Atlantic structures or economic powers (but some friendly to said counties), or those whom are wavering on recognition have set as policy: Calling for new negotiations or delaying or not even taking action. I wouldn't be surprised if either they recognized or didn't. Both are equally possible, considering Montenegro's history, location, future aspirations, and economics. Being an EU or NATO member doesn't say you have to recognize Kosovo, as Romania, Slovakia, Malta, Spain, Portugal (iffy), Cyprus, and Greece have shown. The UN is a similar, but different story (enough of the General Assembly vote to seat Kosovo, it can override a security council veto, but that is hard to attain), but still Montenegro is under no obligations to either recognize or not recognize, even if the UN seats Kosovo (example Israel, which is not universally recognized even though it is a UN member, as to EU/NATO, I see a veto from some non-recognizing nation under the current circumstances a la the Greece-Macedonia situation). I am not going to speculate further than this. Just my 2 Cents/2 Kopecs/2 Centavos/(or fill in whatever else monetary subdivision here :P). Ajbenj (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Good analysis Ajbenj. I'm inclined to believe that they will recognize, but it remains unclear in what timeframe. It could be soon... it could be in months, years. I'm sure that they are hesitant - and with good reason. A lot of their population is ethnically Serb and they are still not hapy about Montenegro's independence. On the other hand, there is a sizable Albanian minority as well, and they are situated in the very strategically important (for tourism) town of Ulqin/Ulcinj. A lot of Montengro's tourists are also Kosovar, so that might play some role as well. At the very least, they'll recognize the documents issues by the Republic which should offer some tacit support. All in all, it is tricky and how it'll play out - remains to be seen. I'm sure, however, that Montenegro will eventually recognize. No matter how much they deny it, there is pressure and it is groing. --alchaemia (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Back to the European Parliament
Ok so I've already posted this but nobody seems to have noticed it or wanted to further disscus it...
Shouldn't we replace:
| European Parliament || On 30 May 2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution.[6][7]
with something like:
| European Parliament || During an inter-parliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the Kosovo assembly on 28 May 2008 the Kosovo delegation appeared under the flag of independent Kosovo. This has been interpreted by some, including Jelko Kacin, the EP reporter for Serbia, as the parliament's recognition of Kosovo's independence. However, there has been no official statement from the European Parliament itself.[8][9]
I believe these secondary sources are not acceptable, at least not as the entry currently reads. We can't say the EP recognized independence without any real, official sources or statements or something from the EP as a whole and not a few of it's members or officials. As i get it there was no vote, it was just a joint interparliamentary session or something, not a full session of the EP. There was a vote on Ahtisaari's plan some time ago and it passed, but that's something wholly different, whatever Doris Pack says. The plan didn't mention unilateral independence, i'm sure. Further, are we sure the EP can even 'recognize' the independence in the real meaning of it? Not 'treat Kosovo as a independent state in it's dealings' (maybe 'de facto recognition') but officially recognize? I believe those are rather different things and we should distinguish them. Is the EP technically even a international organisation? I would rather say it's an institution of an another organisation, the EU. Can individual institutions recognize a state? Even if they can, should we use the term 'recognize'? Neozeks (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Interpret by some" is not acceptable, there is a special term in WP about articles that say, "some say this" or "some x". You can't say that it is interpreted by Jelko Kacin, he is a EU official, that's a pretty [EU] direct reaction. I would oppose this change, it's too long and it's not encyclopedic Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean there are no sources? The EP adopted, by a two-thirds majority, a motion accepting the Ahtisaari Plan as the most viable solution. Independence is a by-product of said plan. --alchaemia (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Kosova2008 on the wording of it Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Neozeks's wording. This is a more balanced approach. Not everyone in European Parliament accepts independence of Kosovo. --Tocino 21:3 7, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- yeh not everyone agreed. But 66% on;y was needed 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- disagree Saying that Jelko Kacin interpreted it, is User:Neozeks's WP:POV. We need to maintain WP:NPOV on this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But how is then the current text NPOV? Was there a official announcement? Was there a vote on recognition? I see no sources for that. Just a few persons saying it has recognized. Important persons, no doubt, but that's not enough. Was Jelko Kacin authorised to speak in the name of the EP? Say a US senator said something was accepted in the Senate but there was no mention on a true vote taking place. Would you say it was right saying the Senate accepted that something? Yes, the EP accepted the Ahtisaari plan, i have no problem with that. But the plan was a UN sponsored plan, it was supposed to go through UN mechanisms and be accepted by the Security Council. Nowhere did the plan mention a unilateral declaration of independence. I'm not questioning that the EP supported supervised independence for Kosovo, just that supervised independence brought about through the UN decision making process and a unilateral declaration of independence are two very different things. Now, i'm not saying it won't officially recognize unilateral independence in the future(or that it has maybe de facto already recognized it), just that it doesn't follow from the past vote on the plan that it has already done so. So, until a new vote, I believe the current text doesn't stand. Neozeks (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sierra Leone in group 2 ?
Sierra Leone seems to be another country in the process of formally recognizing - according to this document. Hapsala (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good morning (well here in the Pacific time zone anyways!). Kosova Live is reporting that SL has indeed recognized (viewable here: [2]). The article is dated 13 June 2008. However Kosovo Thanjks You is awaiting confirmation from the SL MoFA and other SL diplomatic sources at this time. Ajbenj (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The first document posted by Hapsala was released by the Kosovar Foreign Ministry so I'm sure there's some type of communication between them and Sierra Leone. It's about time to put an end to this Sierra Leone waiting! :) --alchaemia (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just one caveat: What does the Kosovo MoFA document say in English? Translation please? Ajbenj (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
i tried to translate, hope i didn't made many mistakes and you could understand the text:
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Republic of Sierra Leone, has informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo through a verbal note, that Republic of Sierra Leone has recognized Republic of Kosovo as independent and sovereign state. The Government of Sierra Leone welcomes the Republic of Kosovo in the union of nations, is said in the verbal note of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Republic of Sierra Leone. Among other things said in the same verbal note, the Government of Sierra Leone has especially noticed the guaranties that Republic of Kosovo will be democratic and multiethnic state which will ensure the minority rights and defend the cultural heritage.
Sierra Leone is the 43rd state that has officially recognized the Republic of Kosovo as independent and sovereign state.
Albana Beqiri -
Media adviser of minister Hyseni"
If it is not clear in some parts i could rewrite it.Lilonius
Thanks for the translation. Just saw on Kosova Press's site that SL recognized and used a similar translation. Here is the source: [3].
So far, I have found 2 in-Kosovo sources saying SL has recognized, 1 in-Kosovo source attempting to confirm with SL. The translation has some grammar errors, but I can understand it. It appears, from the Kosovo government's standpoint, that SL has indeed recognized. Ajbenj (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be so. They (the Kosovo MoFA) went as far as publishing an official document stating that recognition has happened. We'll find out soon. --alchaemia (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Please add to the list of countries, which have recognised.
| 43 || Sierra Leone[10] || 2008-05-31 || || |-
Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The source is okay, but I think I will await a few hours before handling this edit request. That is because I've just checked enthusiastic Kosovo-recognition website kosovothanksyou.com and they state that they still don't have a definite confirmation of Sierra Leone's recognition. Therefore, I think it's better to see some feedback from other users on the suitability of this edit request for the moment. Húsönd 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Hapsala that Sierra Leone should be put under "States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo" until formal recognition has been confirmed. Right now, Sierra Leone is not included in any of the lists of the article. --217.21.232.237 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- New Developement: The Kosovo President website lists Sierra Leone as a recognizing country: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748 Exo (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeh add SL to states which have recognised and update UN to 43 Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Please change the date of Sierra Leone's recognition from 31st May to 13th June. (Please take more care in future when requesting additions.)
Also the 2nd paragraph in the article must change to "As of June 13 2008, 43 of 192..."
Change the UN section to read "Member states (43/192)".
Sierra Leone is a member of the OIC, so update the OIC section to read "Member states (6/57)" and add an asterisk after Sierra Leone's name in the list of states (hidden until Show is clicked).
Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't thoruugh Bazonka. Did I miss any of your request? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - two bits still to do. In the UN section, update the numbers to read "Member states (43/192)". And add an asterisk after Sierra Leone in the OIC section. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I got em (I didn't scroll down far enough). Let me know if I'm still inaccurate/inept :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - two bits still to do. In the UN section, update the numbers to read "Member states (43/192)". And add an asterisk after Sierra Leone in the OIC section. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not one reputable, non-biased source amongst that lot. I want to see something from Sierra Leone or an independent source. Just because Kosovo separatist government says something doesn't make it true. Look at how many times they've said that Macedonia will recognize and Macedonia never does. --Tocino 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- But they have never falsly accused Macedonia or anyone of actually recognizing. Separatist or not, they are a government, not a commercial news agency, and as such they are less likely to spill unconfirmed unofficial stories that would cause them diplomatic embarrassement and which they'd later have to retract. They are as good as source as any country--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, dem separatists like to lie a lot. See, they got our 'friend' Tocino upset... --alchaemia (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we have been slightly hasty in adding SL to the list - but I think that a Kosovo Foreign Ministry statement has a lot more weight behind it than a news site report. I think we're OK. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Kosovo and Metohija Foreign Ministry is based in Belgrade and they have made no statements about Sierra Leone. Meanwhile the separatist government is an illegitimate body and desperate for recognition so they will say anything. --Tocino 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since when does the Kosovo and Metohija Foreign Ministry ever report on countries that recognize Kosovo independence? The legitimacy or illegitimacy of Kosovo's government is a political pov and is entirely irrelevant, as is the notion that just because they are separatists they will "say anything. The same argumnent can be made of Serbia. But the reality is, both Serbia and Kosovo are equally likely to report official facts as facts and not lie about something confirmable like political recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The separatist government has a terrible track record. Besides claiming that Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize every other week, right around the time of the declaration separatist leaders promised that Kosovo and Metohija would be recognized as an independent state by over 100 countries within months. Fast forward a half a year and consider with the pace they're on right now, they'll be lucky to get to 60 when all is said and done. Obstreperous best describes Kosovo Albanian supporters as they are the ones who are in the vocal minority. The vast majority of nations support Serbian sovereignty and are opposed to separatism. --Tocino 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your points have nothing to do with their reputability in reporting official government facts, only that they are overly enthusiastic about their future. ALL governments spew propaganda, but that is not the same as releasing a statement about an official government act. There is no reason to believe they would lie about this, and every rson to believe they wouldn't lie about it, as it would seriously hurt their political interests.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- To call the Kosovo separatist government an "official government" is POV considering that 150 out of 192 UN member states don't recognize it as an "official government". The Kosovo separatist government has no authority to report about recognition of a Serbian province. --Tocino 13, June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't call them an "official government," read more carefully you are taking the phrase out of context. I was talking about their reporting on the official acts of other governments, i.e., Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone recognizing Kosovo is an official government act by Sierra Leone. Both "official" and "government" are adjectives describing the noun "act," in reference to the act of recognition. And it is not POV to differentiate between something that Kosovo does officially, and something it does unofficially, the issue is not whether they are legally right, that is irrelevant, the issue is their stated aim and intention, which is Kosovo's official position regardless of who is sovereign over Kosovo, and their reliability as a source given that intention. As I said, their political aims are not compatible with lying about who recognized them, that would cause scandal and embarassement--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be colored in on the map.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- @ Tocino Yes you are correct that their predictions have been wrong, but they have never been wrong at reporting things. Also i have done the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see Sierra Leone colored in.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the edit, the source seems good. There is a big difference between a news agency that retracted its story, and the Kosovo Foreign Ministry.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- @ Tocino Your criticizing the Rep of Kosovo's predictions. So what if they have been wrong. I agree with you that they will only get around 60 by the end of the year. But the President of Kosovo's site is only producing what has happened, not predictions. So stop going in to "forum mode", if you wish to criticize their predictions, go to a blog, not this article talk page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am criticizing this edit request because it relies on biased sources with a track record of bad predictions. --Tocino 18;36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- A track record of bad predictions? And this matters because??? George Bush has a track record of bad predictions on Iraq, but if he releases a statement saying he authorized 1000 more troops, I have no reason to think he is lying. A prediction and an official report are two completely and utterly unrelated things, apples and oranges. The source is good because it is official. It is not in Kosovo's political interests to go around claiming recognition from countries that don't, since any country could easily respond that they are lying.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the President of Kosovo's site a bad source? Is it because he said something and it hasn't happened. I think everyone has said something and its not happened. You can't predict the future. There is nothing wrong with the President of Kosovo's site as a source. Also he hasn't predicted that SL will recognise, hes said that they have recognised. So he isn't predicting anything at the moment. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we are all (with the notable exception of one) agreed that the Kosovo Foreign Ministry statement is reliable and worthy of a mention. However, the article doesn't link to it - only to a Kosova Press article. Can we also put in a reference to the FM statement? Hapsala's link to it (at the top of this section) goes to Kosovothanksyou. Is it available elsewhere? Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Note to Tocino Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should not disrupt this discussion just to assert your point that the government of the Republic of Kosovo lacks legitimacy and that the government of the province of Kosovo and Metohija "is based in Belgrade". It is perfectly valid and logical that the government of the Republic of Kosovo makes an official statement announcing its recognition by a nation. After all, it was that government that requested recognition through letters sent to the governments of all nations. If those nations accept to grant recognition, they reply to the government that requested it. Hence the validity of the source. Húsönd 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but despite the fact that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority, these people have been spreading lies before, including claiming that their neighbors Montenegro and Macedonia will recognize when in reality they won't recognize and also saying that 100 countries will recognize when in reality they haven't come anywhere close to that number. --Tocino 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tocino, again, please read WP:SOAP (for your "but despite the fact that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority" indicates you haven't). Claiming that Montenegro and Macedonia will recognize Kosovo cannot be considered a "lie", rather speculation, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia due to WP:CRYSTAL. Much unlike an official statement claiming that something has already occurred and therefore no longer within the scope of wishful speculation. Yet again, please read WP:SOAP. Húsönd 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just calling a spade a spade. Keep in mind, calling Kosovo and Metohija the "Republic of Kosovo" may be offensive to those of us who respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. This is not the main issue though. We should've waited for a better, unbiased source. --Tocino 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for interjecting, but I think it is worth ponting out, the question of nomenclature in this case is encyclopedic, and is not about political preference. The names "Republic of Kosovo" and "Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija" denote two different, de facto political entities. The entity calling itself "Republic of Kosovo," not the government of the Serbian province, asked for and received recognition from certain foreign governments. It is neither POV nor offensive to state the fact of which entity did what, and to call it by its name. That is separate from the question of legitimacy, which is left to the reader's opinion. I disagree with the legality of the Southern Secession during the US Civil War, but I can't demand that the article remove every reference to the Confederate States of America as if it didn't exist--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't start with the "offensive". If you're going to be offended with notions that are antagonistic to yours, then you must carefully ponder your participation in controversial topics on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I must note that international law is subject to each one's interpretation. What you or a group of people or a state understand as respect for international law may not be quite such for others. Húsönd 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- So then why did you accuse me of WP:SOAP when I said "the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority" ? Also this international law is pretty well defined and at the time it was accepted by all sides: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. --Tocino 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- «Sigh». One thing is to have different interpretations of international law (and it's good that you have yours), but another thing is to come here and promote them as if this were a forum. It is not. Myself, I could provide multiple interpretations for the ad-nauseamly discussed Resolution 1244, but that is simply not for here. Húsönd 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Tocino cares about international law. But not Wikipedia rules Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which rules? --Tocino 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NPA, WP:DBN, ect. Ok i suppose they are more like guidelines rather than rules, but you get what im saying ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well what I am arguing is that by putting up Sierra Leone so fast, without an independent or Sierra Leonean-based source, we have violated :WP:POV and WP:NPOV rules. :) --Tocino 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, we haven't. Could you please clarify what exactly in WP:POV and WP:NPOV we could have violated by doing so? Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Using the Kosovo Albanian separatist government's website as a source is a terrible violation of WP:POV and WP:NPOV especially considering their terrible reputation of making things up (that Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize for example). --Tocino 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Which sentence of WP:POV or WP:NPOV does it contradict? Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Please read: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly the Kosovo Albanian separatist government is biased and is not reliable and us using them as a lone source is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 23:06,13 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you can find another source, feel free to propose it. So far this has been the only significant view that has been published by reliable sources. Every source is biased (or at least we can never make sure that a source is not biased), that's why the NPOV policy exists. Re-read it carefully. As to its reliability, feel free to discuss it at WP:RSN, and we will see. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Please read: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly the Kosovo Albanian separatist government is biased and is not reliable and us using them as a lone source is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 23:06,13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Which sentence of WP:POV or WP:NPOV does it contradict? Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Using the Kosovo Albanian separatist government's website as a source is a terrible violation of WP:POV and WP:NPOV especially considering their terrible reputation of making things up (that Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize for example). --Tocino 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, we haven't. Could you please clarify what exactly in WP:POV and WP:NPOV we could have violated by doing so? Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well what I am arguing is that by putting up Sierra Leone so fast, without an independent or Sierra Leonean-based source, we have violated :WP:POV and WP:NPOV rules. :) --Tocino 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- To suggest that the President of Kosovo site is not NPOV, is POV itself. Stalemate! Govt sites are reliable sources. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- But the President of Kosovo is Boris Tadić and he has made no statements about Sierra Leone recently! If you are talking about one of the leaders of the Kosovo Albanian separatist government then I would say that these people have made too many factually incorrect statements in the past so they should not be trusted anymore. --Tocino 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Boris Tadic has been supported by few percent of Kosovo's population at best, so then he is an usurper. This is not a forum and not a soapbox, however, so please stop. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah and Kosovo independence is supported by 20% of the Serbian population (including Kosovo and Metohija) at best, so the separatists don't have very much support do they? ---Tocino 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- What matters is the opinion of those living individuals who live or lived in Kosovo (including refugees), this is their home after all. And their opinion is pretty clear. The opinion of the Serbian (or Albanian) population outside Kosovo matters as much as mine or yours. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah and Kosovo independence is supported by 20% of the Serbian population (including Kosovo and Metohija) at best, so the separatists don't have very much support do they? ---Tocino 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Boris Tadic has been supported by few percent of Kosovo's population at best, so then he is an usurper. This is not a forum and not a soapbox, however, so please stop. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- But the President of Kosovo is Boris Tadić and he has made no statements about Sierra Leone recently! If you are talking about one of the leaders of the Kosovo Albanian separatist government then I would say that these people have made too many factually incorrect statements in the past so they should not be trusted anymore. --Tocino 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough thats your POV. But do not inflict your POV into the article. Please will you give an example of factual incorrect statement made by the most gracious Boris Tadić? ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No seriously, please give an example of a factual incorrect statement made by the Republic of Kosovo .Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a day or so. I am using someone else's computer right now and I am about to go eat. --Tocino 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No seriously, please give an example of a factual incorrect statement made by the Republic of Kosovo .Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I will give you time to think up some rubbish ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. Thats quite clearly a prediction. Please explain how that is a fact? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Direct quote from The Snake: "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration, and now we must work on the international recognition for the state of Kosovo. We will have a powerful, massive, and consolidated recognition." That sounds an awful lot like a statement of fact to me. --Tocino 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes i read that. Just because he said that does not make that fact, its a prediction because it has not happened yet. I think its best to end this discussion because you obviously do not understand what the basic word "fact" means. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are having a difficult time comprehending The Snake's words. He says, with emphasis, "I can only reconfirm," as if he is highly confident that the following: ",we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" is true. --Tocino 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Tocino, according to your logic of thinking -- which I find flawed, may I add -- the Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic has also made "factually incorrect statements" as found in this The Times of London piece: "Vuk Jeremic, the Serbian Foreign Minister, has predicted that international recognitions for Kosovo will peak at 40..." [5] (also found here and here too). This is a statement/prediction that time has shown to be incorrect whether you include Sierra Leone's recognition or not. Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on the other hand has predicted that Kosovo will be recognised by about 100 countries and, contrary to Jeremic, time might, just might, prove that he was right. He never gave a firm date although he used the term immediate, however unlike Jeremic Prime Minister Hashim Thaci might be proved correct if Kosovo is recognised by about 100 countries, albeit with the too optimistic time-scale. In other words, you're not fooling anyone -- if Prime Minister Hashim Thaci has said "Republic of Kosovo has been recognised by 100 countries" you might have had a point, but he hasn't said that and you don't have a valid point. Kind regards, Kosovar (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, this is a second warning
Please refrain from using words such as "separatists" and calling the PM of Kosova a "snake". Kosova2008 (talk)
- Please refrain from calling the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija as "Kosova" or "Republic of Kosovo". Also, PM of Kosovo separatist government got his nickname from his fellow KLA terrorists. --Tocino 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- An example of a factual incorrect statement would be if he said "There are 191 members in the UN". That would be factually incorrect. You can't be factual about something thats not happened. Also WP:SOAP Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, here are three points I would like to make here:
1) Whether Sierra Leone has recognized Kosovo or not doesn't depend on the content of the Wikipedia article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and on your efforts here. If there is any relation, it is other way round.
2) With over 90% of Kosovo's population opposing the alleged Serbian sovereignty over it, the only way to make Kosovo de facto part of Serbia is genocide. I sincerely hope you wouldn't support this.
3) This is not a forum.
Bye. Colchicum (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a forum, right? Well then what does you accusing me of supporting genocide have anything to do with improving this article? See you later. --Tocino 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
@ admins: Until what point do you keep tolerating something whose only contribution to this article is POV views and insults? Someone who has turned this discussion page into his personal propaganda soapbox? Of course I mean Tocino. Please, do something. --82.114.65.222 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- A simple look at his talk page shows Tocino has been warned five times so far in connection with the three-revert rule, incivility, inappropriate edit summaries and personal attacks, so it is not true that editors/admins haven't done anything in response. If you think another warning is appropriate, you can add the appropriate user warning template yourself to his talk page; if you think this is insufficient - either now or any time in the future - you can make a report at WP:WQA, WP:RFC/USER or WP:ANI AndrewRT(Talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia on map
Should we add maybe in light green those countries which have confirmed that they will recognize Kosovo? kwami (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia has, apparently, confirmed that through its ambassador to Austria, but I don't think we need to change it until it happens. --alchaemia (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Until what happens? Until SA confirms that it will recognize? We state that it already has. kwami (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
edit request update
{{editprotect}}
please do the following.
- Update the UN to 43 states.
- Change Sierra Leone to 13 June 2008, instead of 31 May 2008
Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No need to deal with this as already mentioned above. (Think we added similar requests at the same time.) Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit request +add reaction to Bangladesh
{{editprotect}}
The folowing notable reaction was reported from a group in Bangladesh, not its government, but urging its government to recognize Kosovo. It should be added to the international reaction from Bangladesh: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/06/14/news0364.htm
Please replace:
|- | Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[11] || |-
with the following addtion:
|- | Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[12] On 14 June 2008 a Bangladeshi independent newspaper The New Nation reported that Salim Prodhan, chairman of the Japan-Bangladesh Group, urged the Bangladeshi governement to recognise Kosovo's independence for economic reasons while likening the liberation of Kosovo to Bangladesh's own liberation from Pakistan in 1971.[13]|| |-
We source nongovernmental reaction in the case of Cuba by an influential person on the basis that he is an advisor to the government speaking in the media. This sort of is in the same category, as the group is an international relations group, advising its government, also via the media. --Mareklug talk 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Slight disagree. I'm not really sure that you can compare a government advisor (Fidel Castro) with the chairman of a private company (see http://jbgroupbd.org/index.htm). I don't think that this is worth mentioning, although I wouldn't object too strongly if it was. (PS I have fixed some typos in the suggested new text above.) Bazonka (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that the two are not comparable. Castro's inclusion is valid as an official government advisor, not to mention brother to the president, and former ruler of 50 years, who likely is still paramount leader behind the scenes, or at the very least possesses the clout to dictate Cuban foreign policy--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree - There is an established precedent for ignoring comments by private groups or persons. We have previously rejected statements by people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and a respected Japanese-based think tank. This is no different--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Disagree. Salim Prodhan is not a Bangladeshi government official. --Tocino 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree. Addition makes the statement much clearer. --Digitalpaper (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree Such an influential person obviously merits a mention. --alchaemia (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sockpuppets? 12 minutes between each similar edits. --Tocino 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because you don't like my opinion on the matter does not mean I'm a sockpuppet, Tocino. --alchaemia (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not done There is significant division, and therefore no consensus. I suggest filing a request for comment and receive outside opinions. That will give clearer consensus either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Constitution
Today, on the 15th, the Constitution has entered into force[6]. I think it's important to mention that in the article. --alchaemia (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see how a constitution of Kosovo is classed as an "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's a delicate question. I agree with Mareklug because inserting info on the constitution, and reactions to it, in the artcle intro, can easily derail the topic; however, if reactions to the constitution carry significant reference to the legality of Kosovo's independence, aside from simply calling the constitution itself illegal, then such statements should be included in that country's reaction section, otherwise, the Kosovo Constitution can be adressed in its own article and in the Kosovo article.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Pristina
Now it's finally and officially safe to use Pristina I guess.--Avala (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- good good. Hopefully people will respect neutrality of the spelling from now on ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala you are getting carried away. Wikipedia is not your playground to enforce rules set out from the Constitution of the Republic of Kosova. It is not official to use pristina over Prishtina, sir. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly the opposite. This is not the playground for everyone to pursue their personal spelling. There is one official spelling in English and it's Pristina. Now maybe you spell it Prischteena but honestly we don't care.--Avala (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree - with Avala. Nothing is more official than a Constitution--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but only after we define Kosovo as an independent and sovereign parliamentary republic. That too, is in the Constitution as well. --alchaemia (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Agree with Avala Yes I support Kosovo , but I support my own language too, which is English. I don't want to see Albanian/ Serbian spellings on an English site. If I see an Albanian/ Serbian spelling, I will see it as an insult to the English language, which is a part of my culture. Some may call that racist. Use English on English Wikipedia. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"Your" language is only as good as the words that preceded it; it doesn't create new words, it merely adopts and adapts them. Even though you say you don't want to use Albanian/Serbian names, you are, in fact, advocating using a Serbian name (Pristina is Priština without the "š"). So, yeah, good going there. --alchaemia (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- And why don't we use "š", because it does not feature in the English language. Well the English language decided to adopt "Pristina". So deal with it instead of inflicting Albanian Propaganda into this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Crikey Ijanderson, that's a bit strong. I'm English too, and so I'd obviously prefer to use English spellings, but if a foreigner uses a foreign spelling then is it really an insult? It may be POV or it may be a simple mistake, but I'm sure they're not out to insult the integrity of our language.
- I have an old (British) atlas from the 60s where it's spelt Prǐstina. Is that an insult? No, just a mistake.
- And Alchaemia has a valid point - English is a bastard language that draws influences from everywhere. I'm pretty sure our spelling of "Pristina" comes directly from the Serbian "Priština" - we just don't understand diacritics so we tend to ignore them, and hence we pronounce it with a flat S sound. If we'd taken the Albanian "Prishtina" we'd understand the spelling and pronunciation and so continue to call it "Prishtina". But that's irrelevant - there's all sorts of historical things hidden in the etymologies of English words that don't hold true nowadays. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough i was a bit extreme, but ive had this discussion many of times. Then we get all these people saying, well Kosovo is Albanian, should we should spell things in Albanian. I admit there is no de jure English spelling for the city. However over time it has become de facto "Pristina" in english. It is also the most neutral as it isn't the same as the Albanian or Serbian version. Even the Kosovo Govt and their constitution spell it "Pristina". Also by this, we should spell it as "Pristina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Avala, yeah no it isn't, because the Albanian (and Serbian) version takes precedence over the English version of the Constitution. Only the Albanian and Serbian versions are official, seeing as they are the only two official languages of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't really care what the official languages of Kosovo are in this discussion. We are on about the English language. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
fact Audio Help /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
As long as you are presenting facts you have to present things that exist, i.e. Albanian/Serbian. 72.161.213.179 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey,Ijanderson977, maybe you should tone down your arrogance a bit. I was talking about the officialism of those names; English, simply, is not an official language in Kosova/o, hence it is not possible to classify Pristina as official. Common usage maybe, but not official. Try to take a walk and calm down next time you go on a rant. --alchaemia (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have never said that English was the official language of Kosovo. So what are you on about? Pristina is what people in the English speaking world call the city. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think now would be a good time to stop this conversation. Bazonka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed [7] Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How much can be written on this!
Seriously, 35 Talk pages in archives, once this becomes too long, 36, all on the International Reaction to Kosovo becoming independent. It can't be that amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.98.196 (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but it is very controversial. And there are awkward POV contributors out there, so lots of talk needed to get the right balance - but I agree, sometimes too much. Bazonka (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at some of the archive pages, there sometimes only 6 things in them. So its not really 35 archives pages. Its more like 15, but just split into 35. Also as Bazonka said, it is very controversial article and there updates made every day and because the page is locked, we have to discuss things before an update can be made. I'll sort out the archives better. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
ARCHIVES 25 TO 35 ARE EMPTY I merged some of the archives together, because there was hardly anything in some of them. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I hope you appreciate the irony: complaining about how long the archives are, and at the same time coming in here to post a personal reflection not pertaining to the article. =) There are plenty of articles with long histories, that is not unusual.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo in the nearest future
Cardinal Walter Casper of Vatican during the visit to Moscow stated that Vatican hasn't recognized Kosovo and has no intention to do so. Here is the original document from Russian agency InterFax Ватикан не намерен признавать независимость Косово and a bit poor translation from Macedonian Agency MINA Vatican will not recognize Kosovo. Now let's decide how to put this into the article. --Avala (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Cardinal Walter Casper said this. He is the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unit. So what diplomatic responsibilities does he have? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Representative of Vatican. They have a bit different diplomatic representatives than secular states.--Avala (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The quotes we have are:
- "Until this moment, the Wholly Synod has not recognized Kosovo as an independent country, and has no intention to do so"
- "Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church are worried with Kosovo" and admit that Kosovo is "craddle of the Serbian Orthodox Church".
- "each national minority as a right on social, religios and cultural existence, including the Kosovo Albanians as well as the Serbian minorities that live today on Kosovo's territory".
How to right it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Macedonian translation is bad. First of all it's Holy Synod not Wholly Synod and then it's an Orthodox name, not Catholic.--Avala (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is my proposal (with correcting names Holy Synod to Holy See and Papal Council for Christian Reunification to Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Casper to Kasper):
In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has stated that "the Holy See has not recognized Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so".[14]
I would keep out his comments on support to ROC as it's not directly related to this article which is reaction to the declaration of independence.
I think this is a fine proposal. Any comments?
--Avala (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Slight disagree, as it has not been clarified what "the nearest future" means. I am Russian, and I can translate this piece literally.
- "На данный момент Святой Престол не признал Косово как независимое государство и в ближайшее время делать этого не планирует", - заявил Каспер в интервью, опубликованном в журнале "Итоги".
- "For the time being, the Holy See hasn't recognized Kosovo as an independent state and is not planning to do so in the nearest future", - claimed Kasper in an interview published in the Itogi magazine.
- Curiously enough, the Macedonian news agency has omitted this. Colchicum (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the original Itogi article of June 16: [8] Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just Use the English source though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then lets get the correct wording done first. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll translate Kasper's original answer soon, and then let's decide. But as of now Avala's wording seems tendentious. Here is the piece in Russian:
- - В продолжение темы: считаете ли вы ту модель, согласно которой в Европе была решена проблема Косово, удачной? Признал ли Святой престол новое государство - Республику Косово?
- - Мы понимаем ту озабоченность, которую выражала Россия и Русская православная церковь по поводу косовской проблемы. Мы также понимаем, что Косово является колыбелью Сербской православной церкви. Наша позиция такова, что любые национальные меньшинства имеют право на социальную, религиозную и культурную самобытность, в том числе и косовские албанцы, и сербское меньшинство, проживающее сегодня на территории Косово. Последнее серьезно ограничено в реализации этих прав. А если говорить об осквернении христианских святынь и памятников в Косово, то это свидетельствует о большой нетерпимости в отношениях между двумя религиозными общинами. На данный момент Святой престол не признал Косово как независимое государство и в ближайшее время делать этого не планирует. Colchicum (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then lets get the correct wording done first. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's tendentious. He scours the net for news against recognition, and when that news partially materializes, he makes it appear as if the Vatican has said they will 'never' recognize, whereas they simply said 'in the nearest future.' --alchaemia (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- - Proceeding with the topic, do you consider the framework of solving the Kosovo problem adopted in Europe fortunate? Has the Holy See recognized the new state, the Republic of Kosovo?
- - We understand the concern expressed by Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church about the Kosovo problem. We also understand that Kosovo is the cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Our position is that all ethnic minorities are entitled to have their social, religious and cultural distinctiveness, including both the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbian minority living in the territory of Kosovo today. The latter is seriously restricted from exercising their rights. As to the desecration of Christian sanctuaries and monuments in Kosovo, this is evidence of the strong intolerance between the two religious communities. For the time being, the Holy See hasn't recognized Kosovo as an independent state and is not planning to do so in the nearest future.
- Dybsky, Kirill. We should meet more often. Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008.
- That's all. Let's decide. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this?
In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[15]
Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree - nice and simple. But I would change "has stated that" to just "stated that". Also, shouldn't it be Cardinal Walter Kasper, not Walter Cardinal Kasper? Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I have also included an unofficial translation in the reference. Have a look. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit request Vatican
{{editprotect}}
Please change the Vatican from this
| Vatican City[16] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [17][18] |-
to this
| Vatican City[19] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [17][18] In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[20][21] |-
We have a consensus i believe. See above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a short notice in English in a Serbian media outlet: [9]. However, I suggest that we leave the Russian original as well, as it provides some useful context and is published offline (i.e. will never expire). Colchicum (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have included both references now Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
AgreeIt's an accurate description of what he said. Slightly off-topic; 'does not plan to do so in the near future' has a double meaning: Vatican will not recognize now, but will do so eventually. At least that's my understanding of it. --alchaemia (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree - --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree.--Avala (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Restore Iraq
It appears in previous edits bui it has been deleted. Robin Hood 1212 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- What is their position? Kosova2008 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is because the reference had nothing to do with the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. If you find a relevant source, we will update the article with Iraq. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the statement of Iraqi minister was about the independence declaration (you can react on political events in advance, only natural disasters can have postreaction. He made a statement a few days before the declaration). But now someone needs to find the statement which is lost.--Avala (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Link is here [22] (NB it is a bit of a funny website - you may have to click the link, choose English, then return to this page and try again). The Iraqi statement is not, as Avala says, "about the independence declaration" in particular - it was "Iraq's stance on the issue of Kosovo". Nowhere in the article is the independence declaration (or intention to declare) mentioned. And how can you react to something that hasn't happened yet??? The word you are looking for is "preparation". Bazonka (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's a known fact. Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead so yes anyone could react in advance because the declaration wasn't in question.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- They didn't announce anything; even the official request for the special parliamentary meeting was submitted on the 17th - and hour later it was held and the majority decided to put t up for a vote. All of it went on from around 12:00h to 13:50h. Everyone *knew*, but no official confirmation was given until that very day. So, no, they did not announce it days ahead. --alchaemia (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Celebration schedule including fireworks was revealed days ahead so please don't spread misinformation, it doesn't help anyone.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even if the Iraqis knew the declaration was coming, they still didn't respond to it - they pre-empted it. You could say they responded to the expectation, but that's not the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I never said that it was a secret, I simply said that your statement "Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead" is false. If you think it's right, please prove it with a link or other source. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- [10] - ... "Predviđeno je da se građanima u 22.50 obrati predsednik i premijer Kosova, a svačanost povodom proglašenja nezavisnosti biće završena u 23 časa vatrometom u Prištini" which is "It has been planned that the President and the Prime Minister of Kosovo will address the people in 22:50, and a ceremony on the occasion of independence pronouncement will be completed in 23:00 with fireworks in Pristina." False, eh? --Avala (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I never said that it was a secret, I simply said that your statement "Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead" is false. If you think it's right, please prove it with a link or other source. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- They didn't announce anything; even the official request for the special parliamentary meeting was submitted on the 17th - and hour later it was held and the majority decided to put t up for a vote. All of it went on from around 12:00h to 13:50h. Everyone *knew*, but no official confirmation was given until that very day. So, no, they did not announce it days ahead. --alchaemia (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's a known fact. Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead so yes anyone could react in advance because the declaration wasn't in question.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Link is here [22] (NB it is a bit of a funny website - you may have to click the link, choose English, then return to this page and try again). The Iraqi statement is not, as Avala says, "about the independence declaration" in particular - it was "Iraq's stance on the issue of Kosovo". Nowhere in the article is the independence declaration (or intention to declare) mentioned. And how can you react to something that hasn't happened yet??? The word you are looking for is "preparation". Bazonka (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the statement of Iraqi minister was about the independence declaration (you can react on political events in advance, only natural disasters can have postreaction. He made a statement a few days before the declaration). But now someone needs to find the statement which is lost.--Avala (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is because the reference had nothing to do with the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. If you find a relevant source, we will update the article with Iraq. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) So Avala, even the Serbs say KOSOVA not kosovo...you said "i premijer Kosova". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Cuba's opposition
After "In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana", there should be a comma. Just a little something, since the page is protected. Green caterpillar (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
You're quite right - if a little pedantic :)
Add a comma in the Cuba entry, after "Javier Solana". Uncontroversial edit. Bazonka (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done (this was much easier than the last one I botched along with :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kosovar
Why does the intro refer to "kosovan"..what is a kosovan? The English speaking world refers to a person from Kosova Kosovo or Republic of Kosova(o) as a Kosovar not "kosovan". Happy Melone has changed this and I want it changed to its' previous form...and my argument is what it has been argued here before that the world uses Kosovar precedentedly over kosovan.
The intro: "follows Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on February 17, 2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour"
Ari d'Kosova (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to the CIA World Factbook[23]: Kosovar is an Albanian term, Kosovac is a Serbian term, and Kosovan is a neutral (English language) term that's sometimes used (remember what language this article is written in!). Kosovar is therefore POV, but as it's commonly used in English I'd be happy for either Kosovar or Kosovan to be used. Bazonka (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Nationality noun: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovac (Serbian)
- adjective: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovski (Serbian) (note: Kosovan, a neutral term, is sometimes also used as a noun or adjective)"
- The Factbook itself says "sometimes" used as a noun or adjective, but shows the main entry for nationality noun as "Kosovar." As you correctly point out, "Kosovar" has entered common usage, as seen in the press. It may be technically grammatically correct (for now) that the two terms are interchangeable as far as noun and adjective, but usage seems to be favoring two distinct forms for two distinct purposes. Also, while I trust the Factbook's technical accuracy, it is not a grammar source. An Oxford quote would be ideal, but who knows how soon that will be available.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Kosovar" is a noun, while "Kosovan" is an adjective. In other words, a Kosovan person is known as a Kosovar. A Kosovar is a person from Kosovo, while all things generally related to Kosovo are "Kosovan."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" in front of me where both Kosovar and Kosovan are listed. Here is my explanation in very simple terms:
- (i) Kosovars are celebrating; just like Croats are celebrating of Serbs are celebrating, ie I would say "I am a Kosovar", a person from Croatia would say "I am a Croat" and a person from Serbia would say "I am a Serb."
- (ii) Kosovan wine; just like Croatian wine or Serbian wine.
- So, (i) Kosovar is equivalent of the noun Croat from Croatia or Serb from Serbia.
- And, (ii) Kosovan is equivalent of the adjective Croatian from Croatia or Serbian from Serbia.
- There is no standard in English language for the nouns and adjectives derived from countries or territories. Take a look at Netherlands, ie Dutch. Also, a very interesting case (similar to Kosovo) is Spain where we get Spanish and Spaniard -- equivalent to Kosovan and Kosovar, respectively. In the case of most countries though you have the same word describing both, for example Lithuanian from Lithuania. Hope this helps, Kosovar (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have that one as well. What I meant to say was, who knows how long it will be before we get a revised version that takes into account the explosion of English-language references to Kosovan matters, including possible changes in common usage, following Kosovo's independence. But thank you for reiterating what I said. I think my explanation was more "simple," but yours was more clear. ;)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" in front of me where both Kosovar and Kosovan are listed. Here is my explanation in very simple terms:
I don't care, the only reason why we are using pristina over Prishtina is because it's COMMON in English. Since when are we using CIA and another encyclopedia to formulate our facts? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You "don't care?" that's a great rebuttal to people's detailed ad logical arguments, I guess it makes you right, you are very convincing.
- In English, the most common term is, by definition, the correct term.
- Pristina? I thought we were talking about "Kosovan" and "Kosovar."
- The CIA Factbook we quoted says "Kosovar" is correct, it makes no sense for you to oppose it.
- The last quote was the Oxford English Dictionary, the premier world authority on the English language--you have a problem with us using that formulate our facts on a language dispute? You don't make sense.
- We don't care that you have a problem with "Kosovan," if you won't recognize the reasons and the context in which it is used, and if cannot come up with a resonable argument for why it is wrong or offensive, other than it just seems that way to you. Unlike the Pristina/Prishtina debate, this has nothing to do with things remotely resembling Serbian, so it should not a source of indignation, just a technical question.
- It seems you are merely reacting and getting upset without really reading or understanding, or caring to understand, the arguments.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of data points - the UK Guardian's style guide mandates the use of "Kosovan", not "Kosovar". [11]. Having said that, a book search reveals that "Kosovar" is somewhat more commonly used than "Kosovan". [12] [13] I'd say that it's probably too early to call either term definitively established - the spelling hasn't settled down yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya Ari d'Kosova, well Prishtina best illustrates the illogical approach taken by some with regards to naming in English. Here is a short-ish explanation:
- (i) The name of the city in Albanian is Prishtinë -- although the definite form is Prishtina.
- (ii) The name of the city in Serbian is Приштина -- letter-by-letter (in latin -- and English language is latin-based) P R I SH T I N A. The key here is the letter Ш which is cyrillic for SH.
- Hence, the Albanian definite form of the name and the Serbian name completely match. Why not use this name then?
- The problem arises when the Serbian name of the city in converted to the latin version of Serbo-Croatian (formerly the official language of Yugoslavia) where SH is written as Š which is then simplified into latin as S. Thus, PRISHTINA becomes PRIŠTINA which, in turn, becomes PRISTINA.
- In other words, PRISHTINA would be the name that matches the Serbian name, does not match the Albanian name but it does match the Albanian definite form name and would have been the intuitive and logical name to be used in the English language.
- To best demonstrate that what I am talking makes sense and it is used elsewhere in English language and, in fact, even in Wikipedia look at the case of -- say -- Andrei Arshavin whose last name is Аршавин. Note the letter ш in his last name which is written as sh in English. There are countless other examples of Cyrillic Ш converted into Latin SH, countless.
- For this reason, it is incorrect and false to state that Pristina is the English name of Prishtina when clearly Pristina is the transliteration of Serbo-Croat Priština, which in turn is a transliteration of Приштина, which is the Serbian name of the city. The connection is clear for everyone to see and the case unimpeachable that Pristina is the Serbian-borrowed name of the city which does not do justice neither to the Serbian name nor to the Albanian name. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct to say that the English name of the city should be "Prishtina". But should be doesn't mean is. In English it's called "Pristina". We're wrong to call it that; but that's what we call it, and we're unlikely to change. Learn to live with it. Bazonka (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Bazonka, I am not saying that Prishtina in English is called Prishtina, but I pointed out an inconsistency. So, if the common use of Pristina makes it "the English name" of the city then why not apply the same standard to the term Kosovar which is by far more widely used than Kosovan. Yours, Kosovar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the English language is full of inconsistencies. We have over 10 pronunciations for the letters ough for example. Just because things aren't consistent doesn't make them wrong. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- With due respect, this has nothing to do with the English language as such. Even less so with the pronunciations. For God's sake, pronunciations! The point in question is what is the Latin alphabets equivalent for Cyrillic letter Ш? If for the Russian city Asha (Cyrillic: Aшa) and for the Bulgarian city Shumen (Cyrillic: Шумен) the Cyrillic letter ш is written as sh in Latin alphabet then why for Prishtina it is written as s without the h? It just makes no sense. Funnily enough, you mentioned the pronunciations and Prishtina both in Albanian and Serbian is pronounced the same using sh, which is both languages is different to s alone. It wasn't some linguist in a library who decided "oh well, in case of Prishtina we shall use s for ш" nor has it to do with the English language because the same inconsistency is found in Italian language, for example. Now, you're not going to tell me that the Italian language is also full of inconsistencies and I must live with it. I am living with it. Someone raised this issue and I responded with my opinion. Anyhow, the so-called "English names" for places do change from time to time, such as Moldova and Moldavia where the i was dropped. In the future, the h could be added to Pristina, but I am not loosing any sleep about it. Yours, Kosovar (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the English language is full of inconsistencies. We have over 10 pronunciations for the letters ough for example. Just because things aren't consistent doesn't make them wrong. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Bazonka, I am not saying that Prishtina in English is called Prishtina, but I pointed out an inconsistency. So, if the common use of Pristina makes it "the English name" of the city then why not apply the same standard to the term Kosovar which is by far more widely used than Kosovan. Yours, Kosovar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct to say that the English name of the city should be "Prishtina". But should be doesn't mean is. In English it's called "Pristina". We're wrong to call it that; but that's what we call it, and we're unlikely to change. Learn to live with it. Bazonka (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya Ari d'Kosova, well Prishtina best illustrates the illogical approach taken by some with regards to naming in English. Here is a short-ish explanation:
Bazonka and SuperSexy I do not have to give rebuttal because I am the one who is correct and it is the position of both users to give better arguments to keep this "kosovan". I do remember correctly that until recently the intro read correctly until a certain admin decided to take actions into his own hands and change Kosovar --> Kosovan and Declaration of Independence ---> Unilateral declaration of independence. I have noticed that WP does not recognize guidlines or rules, instead, it recognizes precendents ---- it recognizes "what is common in the english language because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia." In English the common term is Kosovar; the end, the same argument is being used to keep PRISTINA over PRISHTINA. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody, on any side of any argument, is ever "right" simply because they say they are right. People have to back up their claims, especially if they want others to agree on a course of action. Neither you or anyone in the source of all truth.
- You are the one demanding an edit, you are the one who has to demonstrate why it is justified.
- As a simple matter of civilized discussion, if other people have given clear, logical arguments for their views, and presented them in a polite, respectful manner, then it is on you to show why they are wrong and you are right, otherwise, there is no point in even talking.
- You claim that wikipedia follows precedent over guidelines or rules. Prove it. What official guideline or rule of the English language states that "Kosovan" is not a real word and that only "Kosovar" should be used? Where may I find these rules and who is authorized to make them?
- In case you are not aware, not all languages are governed by official, government-based, nationalist bodies that dictate correct vocabulary and grammar, like the French and Spanish Academies of language. English is a democratic language where usage dictates the correct form. The publishers of dictionaries have boards of scholarly advisors made up of academics from different fields and walks of life, ranging from writers to professors to scientists to media journalists, in other words, people who read a lot. They make recommendations based on what they consider to be common public usage, based on their readings. By far the most prestegious of these publishers is Oxford University, source of the Oxford English Dictionary, which also respects and recognizes the different vocabularies and rules of usage in different Anglophone regions.
- We already quoted the highest known authority of English, the Oxford English Dictionary, and it clearly states that both words are correct, and that they are two different words, one is a noun, and one is an adjective. Nobody here is climing that "Kosovar" is wrong, far from it, we have all supported it's use, as a nationality noun for a person from Kosovo. What part of this do you not understand or find erroneous and why?--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Missing green regions on the map
As France recognized Kosovo on 2/18, the French regions Martinique, Guadelope; and Réunion should accordingly be colored green. Hapsala (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- The map does not show small French overseas territories. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is that so...? What else than Réunion is represented by the unfilled dot to the east of Madagascar? Hapsala (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- So there is, i'll fix that Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Cuba edit request -- remove OR, return removed content (now sourced) and replace broken sources
Please see the section Cuba link maintenance above for discussion. The current write-up contains original research. The article, just before it was locked, was impoverished by removing a statement in the Cuba section, stating that the MFA has not reacted. While there is still no evidence as of 17 June 2008 that Cuba has reacted officially, there is evidence to the contrary from the St. Kitts-Nevis MFA, a neighboring island: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."[24] So, we only have a reaction from a prominent Cuban, but none from Cuba the state. This reaction dates from 29 February 2008, which is being explicitly added to the writeup. Also, a broken link is being replaced with a new source, in Catalan (old, no longer available, was in Spanish). An English-language source by a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs is sourced. --Mareklug talk 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotect}}
Please replace:
|- | Cuba[1] || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[1] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[25] || |-
with the following:
|- | Cuba|| In a news article on the 29 February 2008, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[1] The neighboring MFA of St. Kitts-Nevis stated on 27 March 2008: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."[24] || |-
--Mareklug talk 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree It was an unethically performed edit and should be strongly condemned. I agree with the new proposal. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree because expansion of India entry was vetoed by Mareklug even though we had a photo of the meeting where the joint declaration on behalf of Russia, China and India was read by Russian Foreign Minister (could have been any of the three though). So if that wasn't good enough than this is certainly not good enough. St. Kitts & Nevis statement goes to St. Kitts & Nevis as he spoke on his behalf, not after a meeting with Cuban officials. And I will repeat once more - Fidel Castro is not retired, he is an elected Cuban official (he was retired for week or so between these two posts of President and Foreign Policy Advisor to whom Raul Castro vowed to listen). --Avala (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect This objection does not address: a) removal of OR, b) fixing broken link, c) adding date in February when Castro made his statement (and none since) and most of all, d) opposes because some other edit was opposed -- it's an ad hominen response based on who proposed the edit, and does not address the issues raised or fixes needed. Fidel Castro's retirement never came up -- it's a straw man issue. The editprotect removes OR, adds a contextual date, and adds a dated, germane statemenent from a neighboring MFA (verifiable evidence). It does nothing else. --Mareklug talk 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Re: "it does nothing else" - I am confused as to why the line "Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba" was ommitted, and why some users insist on demoting Castro to mere "prominent Cuban," which seems a bit of a stretch.
- Personally, I would say, if Fidel Castro does not dictate Cuban foreign policy, after ruling the island for 50 years, then my name is Tinkerbell. But that is obviously my POV and I wouldn't want to article propagandize it. Still, we must be realistic and not go to the opposite extreme of suppressing/minimizing relevant facts, and pretending that Castro is just another Cuban citizen with no authority. That is worse than POV, it is distortion. Fidel Castro is a Cuban government official--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect What has India got to do with Cuba? Avala seems to be disagreeing in bad faith and therefore in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Agree: I like the new proposal. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Disagree. First of all let me say that I am very disappointed that an admin has decided to confirm this controversial edit request less than two hours after it was originally submitted and after only three responses had been posted. You know, some of us can't monitor this article 24/7, so leaving that little of time before confirming a controversial edit request is an abuse of power. As for my opposition, I do not believe that St. Kitts and Nevis speaks on behalf of Cuba unless Cuba gives them permission beforehand. Also, why was the sentence explaining Fidel Castro's role as a foreign policy advisor deleted? There was no reason to delete this crucial bit of information. Finally, the proposer failed to get a new functioning source for the old dead link of the first citation of the entry. -- Tocino 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Disagree (with edit) - Agree with Tocino - Link issues do not address arbitrary removal of other content.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Mauritius has NOT recognised!!!
<rant> Some bright spark (I won't name who... read above if you want to find out) has coloured Mauritius in green on the map, thinking that it was the French territory of Réunion. It isn't. (Please can someone with map skills revert this change!) This is not the first time that we've falsely shown a country to have recognised. PLEASE can you take more care in future before making rash changes. </rant> Bazonka (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. A simple revert in the upload history does the trick. --Mareklug talk 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oooops seems my geography around that area is not too good. Hapsala confused me. I even said small over sea territories are not shown on the map, but Hapsala confused me (see above). Sorry about that. My mistake ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
China and India - edit request (contested)
{{editprotect}}
Commented out the editprotect, as per its own regulations, it is not an edit that reflects consensus, as it is being opposed. --06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Replace this
|- | People's Republic of China || The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favourable conditions for that".[26][27] || permanent member of the UNSC |-
with this
|- | People's Republic of China || The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favourable conditions for that".[28][29] On May 15, Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement regarding Kosovo during the conference in Ekaterinburg. It was read by the host minister, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[30] || permanent member of the UNSC |-
and this
|- | India || "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[31]|| |-
with this
|- | India || In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo, official spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[32] On May 15, Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement regarding Kosovo during the conference in Ekaterinburg. It was read by the host minister, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[30] || |-
Thanks. --Avala (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree We all know it will be many and many of years before these two recognise. Please do the references properly before the edit is performed. I know this infomation/ content to be true. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment1 China and India should not be sourced to a Russian newspaper but to their governments. This is sloppy sourcing. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is a joint declaration to the press so the press reports.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment2 Repeated source should be marked up using the ref name=value / tag. (with a slash). Not repeating the whole reference. This, too, is slopy sourcing. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment3 It is far from clear to me what India's and China's official positions are. Our writeups should make this crystal clear sourcing the official Indian and Chinese governments. Anything else looks like massaging reality with a POV in mind. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Look at comment1. This is the joint declaration read by the host minister as explained in the edit request for the crystal clearness.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Let it be clear what moron Lavrov is. Colchicum (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated Comment: Can you guys put one edit request per section please? Also, I am sure Lavrov has said that Kosova is illegal, and today he said that he does not support the constitution, etc etc. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I just discovered that since making this editprotect request, User:Avala has altered the designation for China (having dones so earlier already for India) on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map. It is evident that this proposed editprotect forms the sole justification for China, India map designation chages. I think that this is an unwise, slippery-slope way of changing crucial Wikipedia content, and I oppose this editprotect request on those grounds.
Nothing in the proposed editprotect explicitly informs that these 2 countires have performed official refusal to recognize Kosovo's independence. If that is the case, the editprotects should make this clear, instead of failing to do so.
The communique that aledgedly speaks for all three countries and comes from the mouth of the Russian Foreign Minister and is quoted here from a Russian newspaper/website, seems to stop short of that, and calls on both sides to carry on negotiations within the 1244 Resolution framework. The color on Commons map legend for that is orange, not red. I cannot support an editprotect that introduces ambiguities on English Wikipedia that are used in turn by the proposer to justify dubious Commons content changes, which affect several Wikipedia projects using that map for illustration. In effect, the proposer is proposing one thing on English Wikipedia, and effecting different changes on other projects.
As I said in my comments, India and China should be explicitly and clearly sourced to their respective government statements. If these are not available, their positions are de jure unsettled. Using Russian newspapers to imply that these states have officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence is therefore OR. Such extraordinary implication deserves a careful, noncontested, official source any country. Russian does not speak for anyone but Russia. --Mareklug talk 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e "Ataques al "padre" de la secesión de Kosovo". Compañía Tipográfica Yucateca. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-03-01.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) Cite error: The named reference "cuba" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ Raúl shares his seat with Fidel
- ^ "Castro diu que la independència de Kòsovo és un precedent per a Catalunya i Euskadi". COMRàdio. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Castro leaves Cuba stage to brother". TVNZ. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Raul Castro named Cuban president". Al Jazeera. 2008-02-24. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
- ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
- ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
- ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
- ^ "SIERRA LEONE RECOGNIZED KOSOVA" kosovapress.com 13 June 2008 Link accessed 13/06/08
- ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
- ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
- ^ "Japan-Bangladesh Group urges to recognise Kosovo". The New Nation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Mainul Hosein. 2008-06-14. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
- ^ Ватикан не намерен признавать независимость Косово
- ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian) For the unofficial translation, click here
- ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
- ^ a b "Vatican calls for moderation in Kosovo and Serbia". Christian Today. 2008-02-18.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ a b "Vatican advises moderation in response to Kosovo independence". Catholic News Agency. 2008-02-19.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
- ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian)
- ^ "Vatican Does Not Intend To Recognize Kosovo Soon, Casper", Tanjug, 16 June 2008 Link accessed 16/06/08
- ^ http://www.mofa.gov.iq/english/news/display.aspx?newsid=4298
- ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kv.html#People
- ^ a b "Kosovo's Declaration of Independence". SKNVibes. St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-03-27. Retrieved 2008-06-17.
- ^ Raúl shares his seat with Fidel
- ^ "afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3P7GRr55t2l7VZqxiWweagLgJqw".
- ^ "www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t408032.htm".
- ^ "afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3P7GRr55t2l7VZqxiWweagLgJqw".
- ^ "www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t408032.htm".
- ^ a b "Russia, China & India insist Kosovo and Serbia resume talks", Russia Today, Ekaterinburg, 15 May 2008. Link accessed 18 June 2008
- ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
- ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.