Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Slovakia refutes Thaci

Slovakian MFA swiftly refuted words of Hashim Thaci and said that they do not recognise Kosovo passports. Kosovské pasy neakceptujeme --Avala (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Thaci was "misunderstood" according to the Government's spokesman. He only said that Slovakia had promised that they will recognize them, not that they already have. --alchaemia (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly commend the edit under Slovakia, that used this source and added the information dementing the report in the press cited for 8 October -- under Slovakia. But this addition, sourcing the Slovak paper re: Slovakia, under Romania strikes me as ridiculous: "Romanian officials did not comment on this but the Slovakian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement which said that such information came from the Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and that it is incorrect.[223]" --Mareklug ^talk 16:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Thaci was misunderstood so we can assume he was misunderstood on both countries which he grouped together.--Avala (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we go by what we "assume" and not what can be sourced? --alchaemia (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that inferring something about Romania from this Slovak source is unacceptable OR. Nevertheless, the Slovak debunking clearly shows that Thaçi's statement is highly dubious. IMO the best strategy would be to delete both from the Romania entry, and possibly from the Slovak entry as well. — Emil J. 16:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete on what formal grounds? It is a fact that international press (not Thaci) reported this. And we source it. --Mareklug ^talk 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course press reported and not Thaci. That's how things go. He makes a statement and then agencies report. Prime Minister usually doesn't do the journalist's job. I agree with erasing. It might not be dubious as EmilJ said though. He was simply misunderstood as he said today according to alchaemia. So maybe Thaci didn't say a lie, it seems to be some misunderstanding. He said these countries promised him to recognise passports in the future. --Avala (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete on grounds of being unreliable. We do not have to include all kind of crap just because it appeared in international press, especially if there is evidence that it may be mistaken. — Emil J. 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that the statement re: Romania is untrue. Romania has not said a word. So, it stands to reason, that removing information that Romania agreed to recognize Kosovo passports is not the best practice, and your calling this information unreliable, is also a kind of OR. I suggest we keep Slovakia writeup as it currently reads: both the statement and its dementing are included in a time sequence. I would add to that only a superscripted reference containing the source listed below, for completeness and for the explication, how the original statement came to be. Slovakia did not dement the revelation that it will later silently start processing the passport without making any hay or annoucing it, it just demented that it already has done so. And so I would suggest, like you Emil, that we remove the blatant OR from Romania, allowing the 8 October news to stand there on its own, until further news if any. Emil, doesn't that strike you as the most sensible and full disclosure? --Mareklug ^talk 00:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It strikes me as useless spamming to include in the (already quite long) Slovakia writeup a bogus statement together with its dementi. Note also that they did not confirm that they "will later silently start processing the passport", they merely stated that they will discuss further actions after the current UNMIK documents expire ("Keď ich platnosť vyprší, potom zvážime, ako budeme postupovať ďalej").

As for Romania, we have a one-sentence claim about both Slovakia and Romania, out of which the Slovakia bit turned out to be wrong. To me, that seems as quite enough evidence that the Romania bit is equally untrustworthy. I admit though that Romania is perfectly capable of making its own dementis, yet didn't exercise that option so far. Nevertheless, I'd be more happy to see a confirmation in another independent source before taking the statement for fact. — Emil J. 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe using and linking this English-language source would be better practice? Note new info on Kosovan passport aceptance by Hungary and Latvia. It appears that Thaçi is innocent of spreading crap in this instance:

• "Slovakia Denies Kosovo Passport Reports". Balkan Insight. Bosnia: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

09 October 2008 Pristina _ Slovakia has denied comments made by Kosovo’s Prime Minister that they will recognise Kosovo’s passports, while Hungary and Latvia have agreed to do so.

Slovakia rebuked Prime Minister Hashim Thaci’s remarks.

“We still see as valid only documents issued from United Nations administration in Kosovo,” said Jan Skoda, a spokesman for Slovakia’s Foreign Ministry told Bratislava daily, Hospodarske noviny.

Speaking to Balkan Insight, Kosovo government spokesman, Memli Krasniqi said Thaci’s comments had been misinterpreted by local media in Kosovo.

“The Prime Minister alleged he was promised from Slovakia that they would recognise the new passports very soon, without declaring it as a fact,” Krasniqi said.

Slovakia continues to reject Kosovo’s independence claiming it to be a breach of international law.

On Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly, Slovakia broke ranks with the majority of European Union countries and voted to support Serbia’s bid to seek the International Court of Justice’s opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s independence. Read more:

Meanwhile on Thursday, Hungary and Latvia said they will recognise Kosovo’s new passports.

The two European Union members recognised Kosovo’s independence earlier this year.

--Mareklug ^talk 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move the passport issue to the article related to the Kosovar Passport. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbian reaction

Did anyone notice whether Serbia recalled, or is going to recall, its ambassadors from Lisbon, Podgorica, and Skopje? The question is especially interesting in the case of Portugal, because on the one hand Serbia has consistently recalled all ambassadors it could, and on the other hand, it already decided to return ambassadors to EU countries, so the Portuguese one may be considered preemptively returned as well. (Actually, in the Montenegro and Macedonia case, it may well happen that the Serbian ambassadors to these countries will be declared personae non gratae as a reciprocal reaction to Serbia having done the same yesterday, so the Serbs may not get the chance to recall the ambassadors anyway.) — Emil J. 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday Serbia decided to resend all of its ambassadors to all countries which recognised Kosovo, even non EU states. Ijanderson (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, that's interesting, I wonder whether the move has anything to do with the UN vote. Do you have a source? We should update the "Serbia's reaction" section in the article. — Emil J. 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source [1]. Serbia has started to expel envoys from countries who recognise Kosovo after the UN GA ICJ vote. Ijanderson (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that Avala has just reworded the section. — Emil J. 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Martti Ahtisaari awarded Nobel Prize for Peace 2008

Surely the timing constitutes no less a partial reaction to the Kosovo UDI? Essentially Ahtisaari plan was put into action over the objection of Serbia/Russia, and we now have the world situation that we have. Surely the success of this work played a role in giving him the prize this year, as well as a desire to further nurture peace in Europe? I don't see this award as divorced from this article. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to squeeze it in. Perhaps it should be noted in Kosovo article not here.--Avala (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about one sentence at the bottom of the introduction:

"For his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts", including the Kosovo conflict resolution (the Ahtisaari plan 2005-2008, negotiations in 1999) former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari received the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize.

The above addition would make a suitable note of it, as far as international reaction to the Kosovo UDI goes, without lending it undue weight or assessing his contributions. --Mareklug ^talk 16:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no, the crucial part -- including the Kosovo conflict resolution (the Ahtisaari plan 2005-2008, negotiations in 1999) -- is not referenced and is probably wrong (because it is too recent). And those who are awarded Nobel Peace Prize tend to be freaks or at best people whose peacemaking efforts ultimately failed, so I don't understand why you want to bring this here. Colchicum (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:OR, unless you find a reliable source claiming that the award is a reaction to Kosovo's independence. Colchicum (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your reasoning given here to be rather dubious and tendentious -- Jimmy Carter or Al Gore are neither failures or freaks, for two recent examples, and neither is Amnesty International, or the recent Kenyan recipient, who got hers for very recent work as well. As for sourcing, I have not even looked yet, but here is the Associated Press dispatch of the top of Google News, where Kostunica and Thaci both put Kosovo spin on the award: [2].

Well, ok, I think Gore is a freak (at least as to his global warming alarmism), and I am not very fond of Carter either, so it is sad to see Ahtisaari among them, but you probably disagree and this is off-topic. Anyway, we need sources, preferably from the Nobel Committee. Colchicum (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, sir, (and I added the ref to the proposed addition above), a source with telling quotes, complete with the Nobel Committee taking a stance on Kosovo independence as well as Ahtissari's work in that department. Also, other assessments of the same topic. A fuller statement from the Nobel Committee is usually made available at the time of presenting the award. Everything they have officially issued on the net has been linked already. Here is the relevant part of the new source, AFP:

In Europe he was deeply involved in Kosovo , even though his mediation efforts failed to clinch an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo. Pristina in February this year unilaterally declared its independence.
And in May 2000 the British government appointed Ahtisaari to co-head, with Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, the inspection of IRA arms' dumps in Northern Ireland.
"He never gives up ... The world needs more people like him," Nobel committee head Ole Danbolt Mjoes said.
Although he most recently displayed his talents as a mediator in Europe, Ahtisaari cut his diplomatic teeth in Africa, where he was appointed Finland's ambassador to Tanzania in 1973, at the age of 36, before beginning his UN work in Namibia in 1977.
In 1994, Ahtisaari became the first directly elected Finnish president.
Foreign affairs however remained his true passion, and he has likened his six-year tour in domestic politics to "an extramarital affair".
At the end of 2005, he was appointed the UN special envoy for talks on Kosovo, seven years after he played a key role in bringing an end to hostilities in the breakaway Serbian province.
He recommended independence for Kosovo, where there is an ethnic Albanian majority, but his inability to get the two sides to agree was a blow for him.
"We are not saying that everything that Ahtisaari has been involved in has led to success and a final solution to the problem," Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP.
"But he has had some marvelous successes and he has worked hard on even the most difficult problems," he said, adding that the committee believed "there is no alternative to an independent Kosovo."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, an adamant supporter of Kosovo's independence, said he saw this year's Nobel Peace Prize "as a recognition that the proposal of president Ahtisaari was the right one."
Some of the biggest names in world diplomacy were also quick to salute Ahtisaari's peacemaking efforts.
Jakarta too congratulated the man who secure its Aceh peace accord three years ago.
"Ahtisaari is the right choice to receive the Nobel prize," said presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal, describing the Finn as "fair, tough (and) solution-oriented."
Ahtisaari meanwhile said he planned to spend the 10-million-kronor (1.02 million euros, 1.42 million dollars) prize money to help finance the Crisis Management Initiative group he founded after he concluded his six-year term as Finnish president in 2000.
"I have a feeling that we could do much more than we have done so far if the core funding would be facilitated," he told a press conference.
Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen congratulated Finland's first Peace Prize laureate, saying "his commitment to peace and human rights is remarkable."
With its decision to hand the 2008 prize to Ahtisaari, the Nobel committee has returned to a more traditional interpretation of the award, after broadening the prize's boundaries in recent years to encompass environmental work, for instance.
"With this year's award the Nobel has gone back to its peace and security roots, and no better choice could possibly have been made," said Gareth Evans, the president of the International Crisis Group for which Ahtisaari previously served as chairman.

The source is: --Mareklug ^talk 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if this is relevant to the article Ijanderson (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ian, today's Los Angeles Times has a signed piece, with great qutoes by named people making the case for the Kosovo relevance, both to the 1999 negotiations that ended NATO bombing and got Serbia to cave in, precisely thnks to Ahtisaari, and the relevance of the unilaterally carried out Ahtisaari plan as the Kosovo UDI and everything in Kosovo and in the UE since then. Please read it and then decide. I added it to the article, but here it is again: --Mareklug ^talk 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about as relevant as Bjork's opinion. Serbia never agreed to the Ahtisaari plan. It was shelved. --Tocino 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is he still here?? (146.115.102.15 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Please read what world experts in Kosovo and US Diplomacy said on this subject. The plan was not shelved at all. Macedonia until the day o its recognition was using it by name. Slovakia -- review its MFA site -- was for it. What is Kosovo today is the plan put into action, over Serbia's objection. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is on record telling Agence France Press that they see no alternative to Kosovo independnece. And you have to be really braindead not to appreciate the timing. --Mareklug ^talk 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ahtisaari plan failed to pass in the UNSC. The plan was never agreed to hence the Kosovo Albanian separatists declaring independence unilaterally. --Tocino 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please not again. Wikipedia: POVMax Mux (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: The circumstance of successful or failed mediation being irrelevant, Martii Ahtissari's work on Kosovo laid the very foundation used by the UDI this article describes international reaction to. Certainly the award and timing of the Nobel Peace Prize 2008 constitues a reaction to UDI, no less that the UN GA passage of Serbia's motion to have ICJ render an opinion on its legality. The Nobel committee's citation and the secretary's interview confirm this explicitly. However, I further reworked the text that you removed, so as to make the new version explicit in the relevance to this article. The link to the citation itself (and its supporting video materials) has always been provided in the article. The official press release:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2008

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2008 to Martti Ahtisaari for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to “fraternity between nations” in Alfred Nobel’s spirit.

Throughout all his adult life, whether as a senior Finnish public servant and President or in an international capacity, often connected to the United Nations, Ahtisaari has worked for peace and reconciliation. For the past twenty years, he has figured prominently in endeavours to resolve several serious and long-lasting conflicts. In 1989-90 he played a significant part in the establishment of Namibia’s independence; in 2005 he and his organization Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) were central to the solution of the complicated Aceh question in Indonesia. In 1999 and again in 2005-07, he sought under especially difficult circumstances to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. In 2008, through the CMI and in cooperation with other institutions, Ahtisaari has tried to help find a peaceful conclusion to the problems in Iraq. He has also made constructive contributions to the resolution of conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Central Asia, and on the Horn of Africa.

Although the parties themselves have the main responsibility for avoiding war and conflict, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has on several occasions awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to mediators in international politics. Today Ahtisaari is an outstanding international mediator. Through his untiring efforts and good results, he has shown what role mediation of various kinds can play in the resolution of international conflicts. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to express the hope that others may be inspired by his efforts and his achievements.

Oslo, 10 October 2008

Please don't censor the on-topic mention of the Nobel Peace Prize 2008 from this article, lest your activity be perceived as disruptive. This item has been aired here, and it had been further refined by other editors since I introduced it. Your forcible removal of this information altogether, with the edit summary: "removed text which is irrelevant to the topic", speaks badly of your editing and comprehension of what is relevant, both of which need interact constructively with the work and good-faith understanding of others. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can put lipstick on the pig, it is still a pig though. I am not the only one on here who thinks it's irrelevant to the topic and does not warrant a whole paragraph in the introduction. BTW, WP advises that introductions be no longer than three paragraphs. --Tocino 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your remark about our overlong lead is well-taken. I have changed the lead (per NikoSilver's original desire to avoid repetitions in the lead) and carved out a "Current state" section, which will keep on changing, as the situation evolves. For now, I would ask that you refrain from forcibly removing all mentions of Nobel Peace Prize, as it very much pertains to the international reaction to the UDI. The text itself has been worked on by Bazonka and me, and no doubt, further improvements are possible. However, forcible removals by you in the name of others are NOT welcome and are likely to cause a page protection or hasten your topic ban. Please let editors edit this item. Bazonka in particular did not remove it but strove to improve it. Plesae don't edit war. --Mareklug ^talk 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks better now that it is re-organized. I have added some criticism to balance the paragraph POV-wise. --Tocino 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you approve of my efforts (and NikoSilver's). :) And, glad that you chose to annotate the Nobel, instead of suppressing the news of it. Your addition needs some grooming, though: Ahtisaari plan is an available redirect to Kosovo status process. Stuff like that. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk

Look who was trucked out to represent Russian POV on the Nobel Peace Prize 2008

From the guy's Wikipedia bio (Vladimir Zhirinovsky):

In 1999, at the start of the Second Chechen War, Zhirinovsky, the ardent supporter of the first war in Chechnya in the mid-1990s, advocated hitting some Chechen villages with tactical nuclear weapons. In 2006, in answer to the Ramzan Kadyrov's support for polygamy in Chechnya, he said it should be applied across Russia. To eradicate bird flu, Zhirinovsky proposed arming all of Russia's population and ordering them and the troops to shoot down the migrant birds returning to Russia from wintering. He has also threatened to remove restrictions on arms sales to Iran and proposed to sell the disputed Kurile Islands to Japan for $50m. Among his early threats, Zhirinovsky claimed Russia possesses "Elipton," a weapon of mass destruction supposedly more powerful than nuclear weapons.

In 2005, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan declared Zhirinovsky persona non grata on the territory of his historical homeland, due to the politician's controversial speech about the change of the Russia-Kazakhstan border, in which he questioned the Kazakh people's place in history. Zhirinovsky maintains his view, claiming that his position is backed by a number of academic works on history and geography. As of 2006, Zhirinovsky was persona non grata also in Ukraine following his statements regarding the January 2006 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute (this was revoked in 2007). In reaction to Condoleezza Rice's criticism of Russian foreign policy during the dispute, Zhirinovsky stated that "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers [and] needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied." In the past, Zhirinovsky has been expelled from Bulgaria for insulting its president and was also barred from entry to Germany.

On the November 2006 death by poisoning of Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko, Zhirinovsky said: "Any traitor must be eliminated using any methods. If you have joined the special services to work, then you should work, but to betray, to run away abroad, to give up the secrets you learned while working - all of this looks bad." Sergei Abeltsev, Zhirinovsky's former bodyguard and State Duma member from the LDPR, added: "The deserved punishment reached the traitor. I am sure his terrible death will be a warning to all the traitors that in Russia the treason is not to be forgiven. I would recommend to citizen Berezovsky to avoid any food at the commemoration for his crime accomplice Litvinenko." In the 2007 election, political patronage from Zhirinovsky enabled Litvinenko murder suspect Andrei Lugovoi to win election to the Russian parliament and thus the formal parliamentary immunity. During the resulting political row between the United Kingdom and Russia, Zhirinovsky accused Great Britain (according to him "the most barbaric country on the planet") of, among other things, fomenting the World War I, the October Revolution, World War II, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and suggested dropping nuclear bombs over the Atlantic Ocean in an effort to flood Britain.

Zhirinovsky also has a history of igniting personal violence in political contexts. In his notorious debate with Boris Nemtsov in 1995 a "juice fight" broke out. In 2003, Zhirinovsky engaged in a fistfight after a television debate with Mikhail Delyagin. In 2005, Zhirinovsky ignited a brawl in the parliament by spitting at a Rodina party legislator, Andrei Saveliyev. In 2008, he has showed himself shooting a rifle at the targets representing his political rivals. During the 2008 televised presidential debate, he threatened Nikolai Gotsa, the representative of Democratic Party of Russia candidate Andrei Bogdanov with violence, saying he's going to "smash his head" and ordering his bodyguard to "shoot that bastard over there in the corridor". Gotsa sued Zhirinovsky in civil court for 1 million rubles (approximately US$38,000) in damages and eventually received a judgment of 30,000 rubles (approximately US$1,150).

How much of this politician's say would you say constitutes WP:UNDUE? Does he speak for Russia? I would suspect the editor who quotes this guy in our article of deliberately portraying Russia (and by extension, Serbia) in bad light. It's difficult to think he is doing it unwittingly. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I am unaware of who Zhirinovsky is? He's not the only one who's given his opinion about Ahtisaari's reward. The link used as citation has statements from three other high profile Russians, one of which is in government. --Tocino 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Lavrov has commented on Ahttisaari corruption before.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a big deal. Lavrov, the foreign minister of one of the most corrupt states in the world, has "commented" on Ahtisaari's "corruption" before. We have some comedians here, ladies and gentelmen! --alchaemia (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP --Tocino 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Avala, if you can find a source, his statements would be much more appropriate to be added than Zhirinovsky's.--Zakronian (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

About Bazonka's edition

The user Bazonka think that the position of United Nations "make little sense", and remove the information about very important UN resolution from the top of the article. This is indeed very strange. Without the position of the UN AT THE TOP of this article this article will change to something ridiculous. Because the UN is the main international organisation in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Bazonka's removal of the addition that indeed made little sense. The role of UN in the world notwithstanding, all information needs to be evaluated and adjusted accordingly as being topical or not, having been lent due or undue weight, its sourcing, and its accurate, apt and neutral phrasing. The UN action you are referring to has been already adequately described. --Mareklug ^talk 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I read you again and again. But I really cannot understand you. What do you mean? You want Wikipedia to be a souce of political propaganda? Or just encyclopedia? The title of the article is "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo". The UN is the main international organisation. What is the problem? Why don't you want to include the UN reaction to the top of the article?!

I support Bazonka's edits Ijanderson (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the majority of the editors of this article have clear pro-US stance. The United States was the only large country voted against this UN resolution. I have added the brief information about voting in the aricle, and please do not change it! Guys, you may be the patriots of the USA, but this is just the Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.222.133 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not pro-US at all. Im pro-EU and pro-Russia, but I support Kosovo, so i disagree with you Mr.Anonymous IP82.144 Ijanderson (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear 82.144.*.*: There are plenty ways to show lack of support. 6 countries felt it was in their best interest (and the world?) to oppose. 74 chose to abstain. 34 chose to get stuck in traffic or not press any buttons (one apparently tried to press the oppose button, but couldn't). Please read the statement (in English) of the French representative (France abstained), and you will see there opposition in principle to this motion and this line of Serbia's policy, as unhelpful. There are many ways to put a spin on this vote. The main information is that out of 192 votes it recieved 77 in support, and that it passed comfortably, as measures generally do in the UN General Assembly. Such is the nature of voting there, once a vote is allowed (a measure is allowed to be voted on by some committee). This is a matter of historical record, and you can compare this vote against other votes. Meanwhile, we present all pertinent information as dispassionately as we can, ideally giving each item the weight it should have. The better editors try very hard not to let their personal points of view to color the encyclopedic texts they write. Certainly their writing on the talk pages allows us to check that against what they do in the article. --Mareklug ^talk 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you but you are not right. Let's compare this vote with the UN GA vote on the resolution on Georgia's Abkhazia http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10708.doc.htm . In that case only 14 UN states votes in favour, 11 against, other (the overwhelming majority) - abstain or didn't vote at all. However, the resolution considered adopted. Because (and this is very important!) the UN GA resolutions are considered adopted, if the votes "in favour" exceed the votes "against". If France decided to abstain it means that France consider the possibility to abolish its decision about recognition, and its desicion about recognition was not something absolute. This is a FACT. So, only 6 votes against is very important information in the article, and I will slightly edit the article to underline this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Only and any other "underlining" attempt is POV. It is already stated in the article that the resolution has passed. Moreover, it is not a resolution on legality of Kosovo's secession, it is merely an address to the ICJ. Colchicum (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) The UN is not "the main international organization". There is no such thing as the main international organization. And I am not a patriot of the U.S., I am Russian, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Member states" is also my POV??? Why did you delete all of my correctings? In UN GA 1 vote = 1 member state and it is very important to underline this fact, because readers of Wikipedia can be unaware of this. I will revert your changes, however, I will delete the word "only" because there is no consensus. Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

Also, I think that referring to UN as to major international organisation is fully right. Only the United Nations contain all legal, fully (or almost fully) recognized states in the world. All other international organistations represent only some part of the world. You can be the patriot of whatever state - I think that this is not important for our discussion. But it seems to me that you are not the patriot of Russia, because Russia wants UN to increase their role in international policy (as well as the majority of other world states) Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

You'd better shut up, to put it mildly. It is not up to you to decide whether I am a patriot of Russia or not. And it is not up to you to decide what Russia wants, it is up to the Russian citizens, including myself. And I want the UN, that useless wasteful organization, to dissolve as soon as possible. But this is not a forum, we do not discuss personal opinions of editors here. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not try to "decide", I just express my assumptions :-). OK, I agree that you are the patriot of Russia. Also, I have to state that you are very clever and courteous man :-). But, this have no relation to our discussion. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, President Nicolas Sarkozy, Foreign Minister and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner, the UN permanent representative in New Jork Jean-Maurice Ripert, all consistently criticized Serbia for this initiative. France will never "abolish its decision" (to recognize Kosovo). The permanent representative to the UN on 8 October 2008 was only the latest French official to state this clearly [3]: "Under these circumstances, France decided to recognize the new State on 18 February, and since then it has been formally recognized by 22 of the 27 EU States. Since the entry into force of the Constitution 15 June past, the Republic of Kosovo has a legal framework compliant with European standards and values, which provides a protective framework for all communities living in Kosovo. In this context, France has expressed its disagreement with the Serb draft resolution relating to the submission to the International Court of Justice regarding the legality Kosovo’s declaration of independence. France lends its full support to the Court, the main legal body of the United Nations. However, the request for an advisory opinion proposed by Serbia appears to us to be neither useful – because the situation of an independent Kosovo, recognized by 48 sovereign States seems to us devoid of any legal uncertainty – nor timely, since is does not help the necessary easing of tensions and might complicate the European perspective of the Western Balkans. France will abstain in the vote to come." Any POV underlining beyond NPOV reporting will be reverted, no matter in whose favor the underlining. --Mareklug ^talk 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of political statements, but France actually decided to do not impede Serbia to receive the decision of International Court. And this is very important! Because France wants its decision to have full legal support. And "France lends its full support to the Court". This is very important statement! Remember this statement! Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

Also, you do not want to mention the information that 1 vote in UN GA belong to 1 member state. This is very strange (because this is very important FACT), it seems to me that you do not want this article to be fully informative about the topic. You would rather prefer this article to be biased by your POV. Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs)

I have changed "votes" to "member state votes". Is it correct or not? It is very important to underline that 1 vote = 1 member state. Please, do not change the article to remove this mention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriy Kolodin (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "decision" by the ICJ. It's an advisory opinion, and as such, has no legal or practical bearing on the situation. It's merely an opinion, a non-binding one at that. You need to grasp that fact before you start claiming that France did this, or France did that. And correctly signing your posts would also be a welcome step. --alchaemia (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to grasp the fact that France abstained (but had the possibility to vote against). All other is unhelpful. And also I think that your comment have no relation to the article at all. I think that the present wording is quite good. We have to mention that 1 vote = 1 state. We have to describe the decision. Do you have some objections to the text of article? If all your objections are just to personally me it is better to you to go to my talk page, or write me an email. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, you need to a) assume good faith, b) leave nuances of phrasing to those who write in English a bit more surely than you do (yes, even those who use "demented" instead of "issued a démenti" :) http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=d%C3%A9menti ). "member state votes" is just more words, without indicating what you want it to. After all, it does not say how many votes a member has. But that is described in the linked article about General Assembly. That is the essence of wikipedia -- it uses links instead of cramming all the implications into one sentence. :) And, may I remind you, there was a time when ZSRR could count on 3 votes: Ukraine's and Bealorus's. So. This stuff about United Nations being one state one vote is not even accurate historically. :) I am removing your crapification of the sentence as really, really not needed, but deteriorating the article. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I indeed do not know what is ZSRR (maybe my poor English (or somebody's good Polish) cannot allow me to understand). But nowdays I think that 1 vote = 1 state. Though, I realize that Marshall island or Palau are not real states (because they are fully dependent on US financial aid, and have the status of US-associated states). Also, I realize that Kosovo is not a real state. But I think that we have to reflect, first of all, the internationally recognized position. So, I think that we have to mention that UN votes are actually states, and 1 vote = 1 state now. I ask you (as you have good English) to mention this in the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, I just added this sentence: "Each vote represents one state." --Mareklug ^talk 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unanimous"

It's a tricky word with a history of misuse/abuse (see unanimity article's second sentence for instance). Some may define it as "all said yes and there were no neutrals/absents/boycotts", others may define it as "all said yes, period". We are not here to reply to the question which definition is correct; that would be WP:OR. We need a neutral source (i.e. not the Kosovar parliament, not Serbia, nor any of the big powers with a dog in that race) that calls the vote unanimous. I would delete the word outright because I doubt such a source can be found, but I felt I should give it a chance with a {{fact}} tag. Please source it properly. NikoSilver 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not covered by the answer in the notes within the text and I strongly object the removal of the {{fact}} tag until the word is neutrally sourced. I request the opinion of others before I delete the misleading and unsourced word "unanimous". NikoSilver 00:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the notion of a unanimous quorum is an established, precise term in law, rules of order, decision theory, parliamentary proceedings, and computer science. Please search Google Books for "unanimous quorum" with quotes (as a single phrase): http://books.google.com/books?q=%22unanimous+quorum%22 . An example:

Constitution Making in Indiana By Charles Kettleborough, John A. Bremer, Indiana Historical Commission - 1916 - Indiana - 265 pages
... and a majority of the Justices shall constitute a quorum to do business, and all questions must be adjudicated by not less than a unanimous quorum. ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=rWoOAAAAIAAJ

If you find the current phrasing misleading, I suggest moving the info about the 109-member size of the quorum from its present location between "unanimous" and "quorum" to a different place. Personally, I find it to be okay and unproblematic. I object to your {{fact}} as groundless: No one disputes that

• a) there was a quorum,
• b) it numbered 109 parliamentarians, and
• c) passage by unanimous quorum took place.

That is adequately sourced even now. Pray tell, what exactly is this fact template supposed to be filled with? A definition of what a "unanimous quorum" is? A neutral party confirming that a "unanimous quorum" took place? Certainly, "unanimous quorum" is a logical unit, and should be judged that way. --Mareklug ^talk 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. The fact of 11 parliamentarians representing the Serbian national minority boycotted the proceedings is noted prominently in those words in the same sentence! This boycott of this vote, and the unanimous quorum having taken place at this vote, are two separate facts. Both are now stated and sourced clearly, without any prejudice. Did I make this clearer? --Mareklug ^talk 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Something is unanimous if, at the times of its voting, all of the MPs who formed a quorum voted for it. A quorum is not 120 out of 120 possible, but however many people were present and voting. In this case it was 109, and all 109 voted for. As such, it is a quorum of 109, and a vote FOR of 109, thus a "unanimous quorum." --alchaemia (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heres another way... there are however many people there, 11 didn't vote, therfor, their vote is nulled aand as far as the vote was concerned, they didn't have the position they were said to have. So, of the people who were there and really had the right to, all voted for it.--Jakezing (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked the whole term and got rid of the 109-member part, since the rest of the sentence gives this information. Now we have unanimous quorum linking to quorum. But I did not remove the {{fact}}. Here's hoping that NikoSilver will do it himself. To me it's kind of like focusing on the silent majority and demanding that the silent be sourced to a neutral source. :) --Mareklug ^talk 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was certaintly an improvement built on valid technical arguments, you moved with narrowing the issue of the discussion by linking the "sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity" to the Albanian majority only. But you diminish the importance of the connotation of "absolute" the word unanimity has, often abused exactly because of that contradicting to nature itself connotational meaning. To put it in other words (and to my not so error-proof understanding of course) you focused on what a credible dictionary has to say about it, paired it with "quorum" to find examples of established use and brought it back to what you considered obvious from the start. While NikoSilver focused mainly to the "established" vagueness as a sum of a wider spectrum of considerations and uses using Unanimity to make an important point. Considering it a detail (meaning difficult to agree with a discussion between a few users) this issue has to be sorted with as much feedback from users as possible, stating at least their opinion as to what is to be considered obvious here. And btw i'm not able to understand the view you express in your last sentence.--Zakronian (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My last sentence was per analogiam: Let's consider the inefficacy of breaking down a technical term into its constituent parts, demanding that one of them be sourced separately. The "Silent majority" is neither, perhaps. Or maybe it is, sometimes. Like "Unanimous quorum", it is an atomic entity. Not using "unanimous quorum" atomically has created this mock controversy, I'm sure. The present sentence and its wikilinking do justice precise, complete, neutral depiction of what took place at the Assembly. Isn't that what we want, inform adroitly? --Mareklug ^talk 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, i thought of that, but didn't saw a clear purpose, it seemed to me the obvious response from the opposite would be to extend the analogy to the "silent minority", not as established term of course and probably a logical leap from my side, ok i see your point now. As for the rest, i wouldn't want to use my instinct for the final decision weighing. Be it objections still on the table you'd have to consider if the cost of not using the phrase is so important.--Zakronian (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I found and installed a BBC source. I hope it is deemed suitably neutral by NikoSilver, but even more so, I hope he relents and moves the ref to the end of the sentence, as it truly sources all of it. As to the cost, I think this is an excellent pedagogic opportunity to link unanimous quorum. If only quorum were to be expaned with an explicit exposition of this concept, we would be peaches. :) --Mareklug ^talk 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The BBC source is suitably neutral and the definitions above for "unanimous quorum" serve their purpose as well. I am covered, thanks. NikoSilver 13:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Malyasia

The comment of malyasia on IJC are written well, but the author does not continue that Malysia did not vote in favor of the serbioan resolution.

When it comes to Libya the author is quick to say that Libya did not vote.

So the author is very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.77.253 (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia abstained in the vote of the Serbian resolution on IJC. This must be refletced in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.243.72 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok added. Malaysia so far: 1)we welcome the independence - interpreted as recognition, 2)we still haven't decided 3)we support serbia 4)we support kosovo 5)we will vote for serbia 6)we abstain. Horrible.--Avala (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty bad diplomacy. But is it Malaysia or is it the parties? ;) --alchaemia (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Absent

Avala, if you paid attention above, you'd notice that the the list of absent states in this source is quite incomplete. It has nothing to do with Comoros saying this or that before the vote, they also fail to list the Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Tajikistan (and Liberia). Their other three lists (i.e., the ones actually based on who voted for what) agree with the officially stated numbers (and, mostly, with other sources), so there is no reasonable doubt about their correctness. Whoever compiled the list of absent states by taking complement of the states who voted simply fucked it up. If you do not like this "feature" of the source, I'd be happy with removing the list of absentees altogether. We do actually have another source which lists all the 7 states as absent, namely [4], but that's not an improvement, as they have their own errors in the lists (in particular, they also wrongly list Saudi Arabia and Senegal as absent). — Emil J. 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[5] has other errors such as "Antigva i Barbados". It's a very unpleasant situation where the official source is unclear. I think that absentees list should be removed too, at list until the UN fixes their page.--Avala (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I caution against outright removal of only one category's list. Logically, whatever doubts exist as to who is on this list extend to the membership of remaining lists! In particular, the abstainee list. It would be more NPOV not to list anything at all with an explanation why no listing, or best attempt listing in all categories, superscrypting each doubtful case as needed with supporting and undermining evidence we managed to uncover. A sentence about unclear official sources would also be in order. But the reader needs to know which countries chose to ignore the vote/were prevented from voting. --Mareklug ^talk 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I will try to do something along those lines.--Avala (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I can only imagine these countries had technical problems too but did not object per fact that Liberia which had technical problems is also unlisted.--Avala (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ICJ section, and Avala's new article

Since Avala has created a new article, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence, I think the lists of countries' votes (and hence the discussions about what constitutes abstention etc.) should be moved there.
Personally I don't see the necessity for a separate article. However, since it's there I suggest deleting the entire International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings section from this article. There's no point having it in two places. The stuff in the Current state section (with added wikilink) should suffice here. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Duplication only makes maintenance problematic. I'm putting the wikilink as suggested. You guys do the rest. But, without looking what is in the article, I would like the current worked out phrasing to be used there also. On that basis, I am for deleting. But not otherwise. --Mareklug ^talk 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the title of that new article is misleading. There is no opinion yet. Such titles are only used when describing opinions that exist. This needs fixing before we proceed. --Mareklug ^talk 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is a thing here on Wikipedia when you have a more detailed article but also a summary in another article linking to main article. For an example Israel#History and History of Israel.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's gotta be close to a record for the longest article name. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary is the paragraph in the Current state section - I agree that this is necessary. The International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings section is (almost) an exact duplicate of the new article. One of them must go. Bazonka (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article. It is inferior and was edited by one editor I fixed it. The same edits were improved on and continue to accept refinements. I suggest we remove it. It will sit there, away from prying eyes, gathering subtle POV omissions, such as the listing of how many absentee states there were, or the mention that there were 192 votes allowed. Note the skewing of showing that 120 voted for in a trial. As if it wa relevant, except to create an impression of more support than there was in the end. If this does not perusade, that the article is unnecessary and its solitary editing, dubious, what will? --Mareklug ^talk 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) IMHO the article is premature, as there is no opinion yet, and the map could be enclosed here, smaller, on the side. --10:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

UAE recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo

... here is the official link: [6]

and a news link: [7]. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice find. So UAE was first Arab country and not Saudi Arabia then ;) --alchaemia (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Alchaemia, this was a bit unexpected. SA recognition was supposed to lead the Arab world. The interesting point will be to see if it will be followed up by other recognitions in the region or whether it will be a one off. The Kosovar websites have now began reporting the news. I emailed Telegrafi.com [8] and the news is up and running. Another source is here: [9]. I think this should be pretty much a confirmed recognition. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, KosovaThanksYou is up and running now as well, after I've e-mailed them. They said that they confirmed it with the UAE MFA so it is a done deal. Thanks for the info. --alchaemia (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

De facto acceptance of passports is being hidden...

First of all, I encourage editors to consistently use (truthful) edit summaries. Skipping them while removing content is highly dubious and generates a perception of doing things on the sly. Laziness is no excuse, either.

Second, a growing number of states is putting up a front of not recognizing Kosovo or its passports, but in reality behaving in such a way, that having Kosovan passports allows travel to and through these countries, perhaps with some red-tape thrown in for good measure (separate sheets, avoiding stamping the Kosovan passport, treating the person as stateless). These cases must be described as de facto recognizing Kosovo passports. Because there are still states, like Serbia and Russia, where they won't let you in if you have one.

And Romania is one such example. But user:Avala removed all mention of Kosovan passports being acceptable for entering Romania -- he wrote as edit summary for his removal of Kosovan passport information: "refuted too - http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/pasapoartele-kosovare-valabile-in-romania-doar-pentru-dovedirea-identitatii.html?3614;3304398". Clearly, even machine translated at http://translate.google.com from Romanian to English, the evidence Avala used to justify his edit says something completely different from true refutation:

Translation from Romanian to English

Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by the authorities in Kosovo, informed, Monday, MFA, at the request Mediafax, adding that the Romanian authorities may recognize some of the legal documents issued by the authorities of Kosovo, including ensuring the right of movement. "Given the position of Romania's recognition of" Kosovo state ", Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by authorities in Pristina, implied or" passports "issued by the authorities in Kosovo," he said, Monday, MFA. According to the source quoted, the only valid travel documents that can be recognized by Romania in this case the passports are issued by Serbian authorities and securities issued by UNMIK travel. However, according to MFA, "Romanian authorities may recognize, based on international practice, some legal documents issued by authorities in Kosovo, including ensuring the right of movement for the inhabitants of the province, even if they present passports issued by local authorities, but this should equated with the recognition of Kosovo statehood. " MAE specify on securities issued by travel authorities in Kosovo that they are valid for purposes of proving identity of the holder, the Romanian authorities will not resort to any act which would imply recognition of sovereignty by Kosovo authorities legitimation issuing such documents, such as, for example in the passport application of the visa entry in Romania or the stamp of entry / exit from the Romanian territory. " "Basically, if a person presents, in order to obtain a visa for entry into Romania, a passport issued by authorities in Kosovo, the visa will be applied on a separate sheet of the title journey, which will attach it. In this way to avoid recognition of sovereignty by Kosovo authorities legitimation issuing identity documents or evidence of travel, indicate Ministry of Foreign Affairs. People who are identified to the Romanian authorities with passports issued by authorities in Pristina will have the legal regime of stateless persons, their being the applicable rules governing the regime of foreigners in Romania. MAE has made these clarifications after the site New Kosova Report reported that the Prime Minister in Pristina, Hashim Thaci, said in a press conference that Romania and Slovakia have recognized the passports issued by the Republic of Kosovo ". According to the site quoted Prime Minister Kosovo would be happy in this context the authorities of the two countries for their contribution to the stability of the Balkans. Meanwhile, Thaci would be happy to Portugal to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

To me, this is more POV pushing. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All I can see that passports are not recognised, that visas are issued on a separate peace of paper, that the only thing recognised are UNMIK documents and Serbian passport and that Kosovan passport can be used only to prove identity to police.--Avala (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. A person can travel to/through Romania with only this "non-recognized passport". Can a person travel to/through Serbia? No. Quit mis-characterizing the situation as somehow equivalent. Forgive me, but you do obfuscate whenever confronted with contrary evidence. With Bosnia being colored red on Image:Kosovo_relations.png we had the same prolonged stalling by you (I now noticed that you quietly changed Bosnia color to khaki, which finally fits the map legend). This shows you need to be pushed, unfortunately. But doing so makes for a very unpleasant Wikipedia collaboration. Please adjust. --Mareklug ^talk 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you still use the "bs" word when you loose arguments. Anyway it is enough for any user to read the first sentence of that translation to see who is lying - Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by the authorities in Kosovo. The text later explains people from Kosovo who don't have Serbian or UNMIK documents can travel on a special document they get at the embassy but am I crazy or is there a secret double meaning to "Romania does not recognize any document or note issued by the authorities in Kosovo"?! And response to your map talk- why did you change the article on Sarah Palin on Polish wikipedia which said that she supports fishing to that she supports intensive commercial fishing? I mean I see that you want to chitchat about issues unrelated to this article so why not. Let's talk about your edit wars against other editors on Polish Wikipedia regarding Kosovo together with user Aotearoa, OK?--Avala (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well! Now I have seen everything. Avala cyberstalks me across Wikimedia projects and deflects legitimate complaints with complete off-topic decoy. Your commons maps are based on our article. Without your POV in this article, you are forced to alter the map, when called on it. This change would not have happened of your fair-minded heart. :) We know that. And we know who added the information to our article that forced you to change the map. As for MY edits on Sarah Palin:

Where they stand (10/22/2006)

Running for governor

Anchorage Daily News

• Published: August 29th, 2008 02:31 PM
• Last Modified: August 29th, 2008 02:31 PM
• 12. What, specifically, would you do to help make rural Alaska sustain itself economically?
  
  Sarah Palin: I support a municipal revenue sharing so local areas can prioritize their own needs. The state needs to establish a rural energy plan that includes making the Power Cost Equalization endowment operational. Commercial fishing is a mainstay for many villages, and I oppose actions that cut off Alaskans from our fisheries. [10]

You need to hire a Polish translator, b/c your Serbian is failing you: rybołówstwo == commercial fishing. wędkarstwo == fishing with a rod, as in "gone fishing". :)

And ask User:Aotearoa, the one who reverted you on Poland in this article, and I reverted your revert of his, and fought to remove your biased characterizations of Poland and its diplomatic relations (such as they are or will be) with Republic of Kosovo. Ask Aotearoa what he thinks of my fixes to the pl:Kosowo article. Better yet, don't waste our time with your intrigues. Can a person or can't a person travel to/through Romania with no passport or any other identification, save for a Kosovan passport? The answer, please, so everyone can see it. Same for Serbia, please. And why don't you lay off cyberstalking me, after having singled out my talk page for your dire warnings of blocking my editing for blanking Wikipedia :) (you never warned another user, only me, for removing your Poland-related false information from this article: There were at least 5 of us, editors, and your aggressive, personal retribution focused only on my edits (and my person) no doubt has been noted by administrators). --Mareklug ^talk 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My referral to Sarah Palin was an answer to your off topic, I didn't need an answer sigh. Anyway it's funny that you accuse me of stalking you while I only picked a random edit of yours on a different project just to show you how irrelevant other projects are to the current discussion here. And the answer to your question is Kosovans can travel to Romania with Serbian or UN documents or Romanian special document which also includes a visa. Those three are valid. Under certain circumstances, I am not sure which ones but I can imagine asylum seekers and such, any document including Kosovo passport can be used to prove ones identity.--Avala (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I documented that you have a hardon for me, as the saying goes here in America -- everyone can inspect my talk page, where you accused me of having a Serbia issue, and issued me idiotic warnings that conflict in interest with your own transgressions. Your transgression-edits are what elicit my attention, and nothing else. That accusation on my talk page wasn't even a normal, polite Wikipedia conversation about iffy edits, it was a Performance. And you are obfuscating, again, as the Image:Kosovo_relations.png map is based on our article, but Sarah Palin has absolutely nothing to do with it, or why your edits are criticized by editors, including me. So shall we call your Sarah Palin move trolling and being off-topic? Finally, on User talk:Husond, you ruminated how I colluded with Aotearoa, my countryman :), canvassing him allegedly come here just to revert you, that I am reverting you because I am Polish(!). But now you offered disparaging evidence of my edits on another project, by portraying me as hopelessly edit warring there on Kosovo with him. Make up your mind -- your accusations are random. Meanwhile, the two of us, Aotearoa and I, finally, FINALLY, moved that Polish Wikipedia article to respectability and injected a semblance of impartiality and accuracy, not to omit, fleshed it out for geography, maps, religion and culture, as well as economic assistance just made by the EU. the English Wiki article is hardly receiving such loving attention. Hundreds of edits. So, what one edit of mine are you talking about, now? You are stalking me and interceding with admins to have me blocked. And you refused to answer the posed question on Romania and Serbia vs. travelling on Kosovan passport. Why? Because you are distoring reality again. The editing of this article is a terrible strain, and you make it so. This was noted by several editors on this page already. It always, invariably comes up. Again and again. Now, by lying about what a Kosovo passport allows a traveller to do with it -- traverse Romania. --Mareklug ^talk 10:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

She can see Kosovo from her house :) BalkanFever 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although sometimes I like to read the virtual catfight between Avala and Marek I must admit this time my brain is f*cked up. There are a lot of stuff unrelated to Kosovo. The only positive thing is that my English vocabulary is getting richer thanks to Marek. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We could ban both you from the article, that'd fix the problem...--Jakezing (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you recall, back when you, Jakezing, made a request of me and Avala to remove ourselves from editing here, to cut down on conflict, I did exactly that. But Avala did not. At the time, both Avala and Husond told you that in their view it was inappropriate to tell editors to leave. Be that as it may, I did. If Avala and I were to refrain from editing this article simultaneously (say for a month), I'm fine with that. All it takes is Avala's agreement, expressed here. --Mareklug ^talk 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting new chain... yea, if avala had done my advice... we might be a little better off...--Jakezing (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Avala and Marek are important valuable contributors to this article, and I see no reason to stop them editing. Jakezing, what did you do for improvement of the article, may I ask? — Emil J. 11:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO candidacy?

I'm raising this here in order to preclude a mini-edit-war between me and User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ over whether Macedonia is a NATO candidate or not. (Or more precisely, whether it's worth mentioning or not.)
AFAIK, Macedonia's invitation to join NATO was blocked by Greece, and whilst they desire to join, their prospects for membership are, at the moment, next to nothing. Yes, I suppose in one sense Macedonia is still a candidate country, but until the impasse with Greece is resolved, there is no point in referring to them as such - it's just too far down the line... way, way down the line. Georgia, Ukraine, BiH and Montenegro are closer to becoming members, (though still a long way off) and yet their candidacy is not mentioned in the article.
Your thoughts welcome. Cheers. Bazonka (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned if and only if there is actually a formal category of being a NATO candidate, similar to the situation of EU candidates. Acceding countries do have formal status for instance, but I cannot find mention of anything like formal NATO candidates in NATO or Enlargement of NATO, so I suspect that there is no such thing. — Emil J. 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is that information on membership even relevant? I would remove it altogether. If anyone is interested he can open the article on that country and find out.--Avala (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Information on NATO and EU membership is relevant and elucidates the positions those countries that are members are grappling with: EU and NATO are heavily involved in Kosovo. The other membership info (OIC, for example) is not really germane to the topic, and does not really tell anything significant. Remove that, per Avala, and per WP:UNDUE.

As for the meritum at hand, I support reasoning by Bazonka and Emil: there is no formal category of NATO candidate, and portraying states that way is WP:OR. --Mareklug ^talk 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain of the legal technicalities, so I shan't insist, but I would disagree with your statement that the countries you mentioned are "closer to becoming members". Skopje could join the alliance tomorrow with a simple change of name, whereas the others have a long way to go to overcome opposition to their membership both within and outside NATO. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oman

Oman is not in the list at all. Maybe could be put only the reaction at the IJC vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.243.72 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We have no information on Yemen or Oman. That's why they're not in the list. And since they both abstained in the ICJ vote, there's nothing worth reporting there either. (PS Don't forget to sign your posts in future.) Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

However that abstaining is not without value, bacuse states that have recognized Kosovo in general abstained. It will be better that you have all UN countries in the list; If there is no inforamtion could be simply stated that there is no information. That has some diplomatic significance. [Elton] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.77.253 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be OR because some countries that did not like Moldova abstained and some like Oman which were neutral abstained while some like France which recognised abstained as well.--Avala (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving the UN decision to the top of the article.

I propose to move the UN resolution to the top of the article. Arguments:

1) The UN is the only organisation which includes all the worlds nations, it actually represents all the world.

2) The majority of the world leaders (including American president Bush, French president, British prime minister and so on) every year visit the UN general assembly and contribute with speeches.

3) Only 6 (among 192) world states voted against this resolution.

4) This is very important resolution indicating the needing of the world nations to receive the opinion of ICJ.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Colchicum (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You really think that UN is not "the only organisation which includes all the worlds nations"? Where is my POV? I suggest you to give concrete and clear arguments.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't know much about the world do you? Taiwan, AKA the Republic of china isn't in the UN, those somalian states arn't in it, sealand isn't in it, neither is the vatican, Swizterland wasn't in it until 2002... the goergian break awqays isn't in it, neither i kosovo nor chechya. See, nope, your wrong, thank you and come back when you know truth.--Jakezing (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush goeing to it isn't a good enough reason, and france sucks... stupid frenchies, should give it up and join germany, now... just because world leaders talk to it dosn't mean that makes it important.--Jakezing (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a part of China. At least the majority of the world states (including US, UK, France, Russia, Germany and so on) think so. Sealand is not a state, it rather humorous project. Vatican participates in UN as observer. Switzerland became a member 7 years ago. Chechnya is not a state. It is actually a part of Russia. And we really have the Putin avenue in the center of Chechen capital. All other territories are actually disputed. But they really do not have large population. They are very small regions in the world. Any other arguments? OK Bush sucks, France sucks, Britain sucks, all the world sucks (also I have to note that German Foreign Minister also contribute to UN with the speeches). Any other arguments?--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

the US bowed to political pressure, How bout western sahara, and just because the vatican is a observer, dosn't mean it is IN it. And also, it's POV to say Taiwan is part of china. --Jakezing (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend. What is Vatican?! A state? What is a population of this state? Or, it is rather a religious organistation? Also I cannot imagine the pressure on American president. It is rather the American president makes the pressure on the rest of the world. Sahara is a disputed territory with a rather small population. And, accordingly to the opinion of the United States and other world powers, Taiwan is a part of China.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That dosn't make it true. all the world can beleive something, wont make it true, the geocentric model is the truth... and what is "The Vatican...

Vatican, the vatican, same thing. Second, still, your wrong, you said ALL the worlds countries, if that was true, thered be well over 300 countries there--Jakezing (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the absence of Vatican, Sealand and other "states" does not diminish the impact and the role of the UN as the major world representative organistation.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

About Taiwan. Also, I have to note that Taiwan also considers itself as a part of China :-). But all the world powers and the overwhelming majority of the world states consider Beijing government as the sole legitimate government of China :-)--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is your POV? You think so, here is your POV. Colchicum (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that the UN resolution isn't even an opinion on the declaration of independence, it is merely a request to the ICJ for such an opinion. Colchicum (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But we should include this very imporatant information to the top!--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is your POV? You think that this information is very important, here is your POV. Colchicum (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you think that "the absence of Vatican, Sealand and other "states" does not diminish the impact and the role of the UN as the major world representative organistation" is my POV. Also you think that the importance of the nformation about UN decisions is my POV. I call other editors of this article to speak up about this.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I suggest you do what Colchicum said, and also, read up about some of the facts first. The court will issue an advisory opinion, and not a ruling. It is non-binding, and utterly incapable of effectively changing anything. The importance of such an action is so sllim that it doesn't even deserve to be discussed much in this article, let alone occupy the top part of it. --alchaemia (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you to read the postings on which you try to answer. I stated a lot of times that I fully realize that this is not a ruling. But we are talking about REACTION. Otherwise, we have to change the title to RECOGNITION.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Ironicly, it may be the main governing body of the world, dosn't mean it has any power whatsoever. The Un, like the LON before it, gets the majority, well above 95%, of its power from meber states, if the UN passes a resolution but for some reason nobody follows it, they can't FORCE US TO DO ANYTHING. see, wheres that power now, also, Taiwan claims to be the legiitmate goverment of china, so does the PRC, it dosn't claim to be part of the china controlling the mainland. --Jakezing (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that organization can be considered to be "the governing body of the world." The US and all the other powers would never allow each other to have a say on their governance or sovereign rights; that's why they have veto power and routinely block decisions that they don't like. Only the smaller countries (wrongly) think the UN is any kind of world government. --alchaemia (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Closest thing to a world goveremnt, like i said, main governing body in the world, ThE U's power is declining, the goverment just wont realize it. f you talked to me, i could explain so much of my veiws it would fill a damned library. --Jakezing (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We are actually speaking about "international reaction" or about "world government"?! If you want to speak about "world government" I think that it is better to do it somewhere else.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The Resolution about ICJ Opinion is not a direct reaction to KOSOVO UDI. If we put this resolution at the top we are giving more importance to the Vote than to the actual reaction like recognition. See, Most EU countries, judging from the UN vote 'seem' neutral but they are strongly in favor of KOSOVO UDI. Even Montenegro recognised Kosovo after it voted Pro to the resolution. The Recognitions that are happening after this resolution show that it has no importance at all. Emetko (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is VERY important information to the article. One and the same state, one and the same government under pressure of the United States made a decision to recognize Kosovo, however, in UN General Assebmly voted in favour of the needing of the decision of ICJ (or voted neutrally). This is very important information about the REACTION. If you think that this article has to be only about RECOGNITION, you have to change the title of the article to RECOGNITION.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, all this reaction really is about recognition, or lack of it. Even the Norwegian Nobel Committee explictly (in their secretary's words) recognized independent Kosovo as a) a good idea b) the only good idea leading to peace in Kosovo. You need to step back and coolly assess if you really are getting relevant information, as opposed to propaganda. The amount of self-delusion here is staggering. People who otherwise edit usefully are injecting fiction like some derranged maniacs, distotring out of all proportion the recognition given or withheld the Republic of Kosovo. And, yes, you aptly observed that this article should finally be moved to international recognition of Kosovo. Let's WP:RM it. --Mareklug ^talk 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) P.s. I too oppose moving this item up from where it is in the article.

About Ahtisaari. Do you really think that this is not a politicized decision?! I have to ensure you that WAR IN SOUTH OSSETIA is a direct consequence of Ahtisaari's activity. Ahtisaari's activity led to war (in the Earth) not to peace. But, please if you want to discuss this topic - use my talk page, not this discussion.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you only in the case if you will change the title of the article to "RECOGNITION". If "RECOGNITION" is the main topic then the UN decision obviously is not very important. You have to choose between:

1) Changing the title of the article

2) Moving the UN decision to the top of the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

you could always shut the hell up... we won't be changing it we discussed that already, and we won't be doing what your wanting either, so, either way, we win, you lose.--Jakezing (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per everyones else's reasoning, also you don't have to be in the UN to be considered a country, UN membership just helps. I don't think we should make the UN seem too important as that is POV. It is just like any other international organisation. Ijanderson (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly! But about what do you really talk? About the topic? The topic is "International reaction...". The UN is the most important intenational organisation, which includes almost all the world (except small disputed regions)! Is the UN decision the most important according to above?--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Detailed individual reactions of the states as given by statements from their official representatives, including but not limited to whether they recognized Kosovo, are much more important than whether they raised a hand for one summary motion in UN GA. Moreover, the UN decision is not so much a reaction to the Kosovo UDI, but a reaction to Serbia's reaction to the UDI. That's why many states support Kosovo's independence, but nevertheless voted for the initiative or abstained, as they see no harm in getting a court opinion on the matter, so that Serbia cannot cry it has been denied the opportunity to review the UDI by an independent international body. I thus also oppose the movement. — Emil J. 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that a reaction to the Kosovo UDI and a reaction to Serbia's reaction to the UDI are the different topics? :-)--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are different topics. Related, but different. And the GA vote to ask for ICJ advisory opinion may be important wrt the latter topic, but is rather marginal wrt the former topic. — Emil J. 09:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vatican is an associate member. They take part in discussion but don't vote. And that's because they don't want not because someone is objecting their statehood. --Avala (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. The UN is the most important organization in the world. It deserves to be at the top, if not then at least move it ahead of the "Unrepresented People's Union" or whatever, NATO, EU, etc.. As long as you are recognized by only a small minority of nations and have no prospect of joining the UN then you aren't really a sovereign nation. It's important for the reader to understand this. --Tocino 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: Declarative theory of statehood, Constitutive theory of statehood. Neither a) states what you are saying, b) there is no other. The first one (the mainstream) does not even depend on if you were recognized by anybody. The second one says you are a state if one other states recognized you. And then there are degrees of just how much you are a state based on that: Kosovo is a state 51 out of 192, according to that theory. Ergo, it's important for the reader to understand that. --Mareklug ^talk 00:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your theories. Common sense tells you that when a self-proclaimed independent territory is shunned by 140 nations, it has no membership to important international organizations, and a significant part of its own population is staunchly opposed to any separatism, that it's not a sovereign nation. --Tocino 17:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-). However there are only two persons at this page which understand that placing the UN GA decision AFTER individual reactions of different states and AFTER the phrase "As of 14 October 2008, 51 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo." is something strange if we speak about international reaction (not the recognition). :-) It is indeed not a matter of principle but it is rather unwise. All because we have a lot of politicized by CNN propaganda persons here. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, I don't know where you watch CNN, if at all, or if you actually read CNN-generated content, but I do. I do so in Chicago, and I don't remember the last time I heard Kosovo mentioned on CNN. It might have been in June, when the Kosovo Consititution went into law (but I don't remember that), or maybe only in February, when embassies were burning in Belgrade and consulates were attacked in Banja Luka? Kosovo is not something CNN spends a lot of its resources on in its headquarters in Atlanta. Perhaps there is some web content, occasionally (most of it, I wager, reprinted from other sources), but certainly nothing like the coverage generated by the Associated Press and fed as content to both American and worldwide websites/newspapers, the signed dispatches by major newspapers such as Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, Financial Times, The Economist, New York Times, The Times of London. Or similar content originated by Reuter's in New York and spread far and wide, or Agence France Press in Paris, or the BBC in London, Deutsche Welle in Berlin, Publico in Lisbon, Balkan Insight in Sarajevo/Balkan cities, Javno in Zagreb, Focus News Agency in Sofia or Today's Zaman in Turkey. Sometimes I see things in B92's website from Belgrade, http://B92.net, credited to Tanjung in Belgrade, that are not in other places or treat the same news differently.

So, basically, I get no use out of CNN for Kosovo-related content at all. Do look at how various editors are sourcing their additions to this article, for some idea where people are getting their information. Incidentally, who forms your informed opinion? Russian television, Vesti and RIA Novosti in Moscow? Can you name one Russian television station with a website, that does not toe the government line? I would like to become its reader. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 05:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of Russian websites, which do not toe the government line. For example RTVI site http://www.rtvi.ru/ which is closely linked to RTVI TV channel and Echo of Moscow radio station http://echo.msk.ru/ . However, I do not try to popularize this sites. All the news channels and agencies contain some sort of propaganda, there is almost no mass-media with neutral point of view. I try to popularize only the site http://un.org/ , which is the most related to the topic of this article :-)--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support UN may not be the the ultimate organization (as opposed to the WP:CABAL maybe:-)) but it is definitely worth to be mentioned in the intro. It is WP:DUE and the closest thing to WP:NPOV our international society is supposed to have. Whether we agree with the UN or not is irrelevant, but the UN is far more notable than most of the stuff I read in the intro. NikoSilver 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You just insulted me you bastard. NEVER, EVER CAL ME ONE OF THIS GOVERMENTS SHEEP, EVER.--Jakezing (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh...?!? NikoSilver 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose First comes the report about the recognition process, the situation in the (split) Security Council, a summary on the United Nations Organization's "strictly neutral" position concerning the status issue. The UN General Assembly's vote is important as well. The Assembly supported Serbia's request to ask the ICJ for legal advice. The recognition itself is the decision of the individual states, not of the UN or of other mulitilateral organizations like the EU. The (non-binding) opinion of the ICJ will probably take years. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

":-) It is indeed not a matter of principle but it is rather unwise. All because we have a lot of politicized by CNN propaganda persons here. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) " You called me one of those stupid sheep who listen to whatever the goverment or news tells them.--Jakezing (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

2User:NikoSilver Yes, you are totally right. This is very strange for this article to have the information that "on 8 March 2008, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to officially visit Kosovo" in the introduction (as a very very important information :-))), but without the UN decision at the top. This is something like ridicule. I think that the majority of the editors is strongly influenced by propaganda, and they cannot realize that the construction of this article is ridiculous. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN did not "decide" anything. It simply asked the court for a non-binding advisory opinion. Before you start spewing irational stuff around about us being influenced by CNN propaganda, don't hesitate to leave your RIA Novosti influenced "objective" viewpoint at the door. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am influenced only by UN official site :-). And the understanding the simple fact that the information "on 8 March 2008, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to officially visit Kosovo" is not very important and can be moved below. But the information about UN is very important if the article is about international reaction. Otherwise you have to rename the article to Official recognitions of Kosovo by other states--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point here. The Carl Bildt information is rather useless crap and does not belong to the lead section. — Emil J. 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How bout you listen idiot, we discussed changing the name, we agreed not to, and no, we WON'T be moving the UN, moving it to the top gives it to much importance, oh joy, the UN allowed a vote to happen, a vote that in reality, won't hcnage a damned thing because the UN powers are limited to if a country wants to listen to its decisions--Jakezing (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2EmilJ: Thank you. Without Carl Bildt and Germany the introduction looks much better. I can agree with such introduction. Otherwise, we have to include the UN decision. But if we choose the variant "without Bildt, without Germany, without UN - just Kosovo" - this can be acceptable.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress is being made, everyone is happy (on this issue). This thread, I take it, is officially done? Can we stick a fork in it? --Mareklug ^talk 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we can finish the discussion about the introduction. The present variant is acceptable--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing stop calling people "idiots" and "bastards". It's very rude.--Avala (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He called me one of those retarded propoganda sheep, thats more insulting then me calling him a bastard.--Jakezing (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) No, it's not. (2) What the hell are you talking about? The only occurrences of the words "retarded" or "sheep" on this talk page are in YOUR posts. (3) Whom do you mean by "he"? So far, you targeted your insults indiscriminately to User:Yuriy Kolodin, User:NikoSilver, and myself. — Emil J. 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing you insulted three users and none of them used the word sheep. The only time I see the word sheep on this page being used is by you.--Avala (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy Kolodin implied that im a person who falls prey to the propoganda of CNN, in other words, one of the sheep who beleive anything a goverment or news tells them.at no point did i call the other two anything, nor was i even talking with them at all.--Jakezing (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That in no way justifies calling him an idiot and bastard.--Avala (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true. In addition to that, there is no reason for Yuriy Kolodin to accuse us of falling prey to "CNN propaganda" and his personal attacks on all of us that don't agree with his viewpoints are uncalled for. He should be warned about that. --alchaemia (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you agree with the present variant of introduction, I can believe that my opinion about you as of politicized person is false. Wikipedia should not be biased by politicized viewpoints! Wikipedia should not be biased by American, Russian, German and so on propaganda. Each state, each mass-medium has its own propaganda. But Wikipedia should not be used for popularizing any propaganda. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So i can add Insane and idealistic to my list of things you are?--Jakezing (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Jakezing Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Ijanderson (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth isn't always nice and shiny, and wikipedia needs to recognize that humans are not nice people. I know those damn rules Ian, so you telling me that is a waste of time and space.--Jakezing (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungary and Latvia recognize Kosovo passports; Romania, Greece allow travel using them

They have recognized the passports.

• http://www.emportal.co.yu/en/news/serbia/65384.html Max Mux (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Um, ZScout suggested passport information be moved to Kosovo passport. On the other hand, de facto allowing travel by using these items as sole identification does constitute a noteworthy reaction (Romania, Greece), as does outright refusal (Serbia). In any case, I already reported this (with a better source) in #Slovakia refutes Thaci. I realize that that particular section was hijacked, but you were asked to not multiply sections needlessly.

• We also need to finally state that Romania allows Kosovo passport-bearers free acces and transit through its territory, albeit not being nice about it. Same for Greece. These cases show de facto acceptance of Kosovo documents for their intended purpose: international passage. No matter the color of the lipstick :) applied by certain governments' designated official pig-lipstickers. :) --Mareklug ^talk 08:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we can all sit down together and write an original essay with all the possible intepretations a reader can give to a neutral description of facts by a reliable and independent source of information, like Wikipedia for instance. Wiki "don't hold your horses and produce the passionate OR humanity deserves" Project, i found a name already.--Zakronian (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Wiki "stop hijacking serious conversations and face the reality" Project? --alchaemia (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Add one more week extension to my presence here for every personal comment i receive from you. If the comment is sycophantic count two. Keep on baiting me...--Zakronian (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone hinted before, I have asked that all passport information should be moved to the article on the Kosovar Passport. The only thing worth noting about these passports is that some countries accept the document, but not accept the country that happens to be on it. We can maybe mention that in one sentence in this article, then move everything else about the passport to the article I mentioned before. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good idea, ZScout. How about this (new source included):

Some states which already recognize Kosovo, do not yet recognize Kosovo passports (Poland). On the other hand, some states which do not yet recognize Kosovo, already recognize Kosovo passports (Israel) or at least permit their holders unfettered traversal of their territories (Greece, Romania). Predictably, two countries have vowed not to accord entry to people with Kosovo passports (Serbia, Russia). Kosovo's Interior Minister Zenun Pajaziti commented the situation for Russia Today: "We are aware of difficulties in the beginning stage. There are some countries who are reluctant to recognise the new reality, but we are working on it and we expect more recognition in the weeks and months to come. It is possible for countries not to recognise us, but to recognise our passport is an issue of human rights and freedom of movement".

--Mareklug ^talk 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the passport recognition has no relation to the topic at all. For example, there is the "World passport" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World_Passport which is issued by the World Service Authority, a non-profit non-governmental organization. Each of us can pay and recieve such passport. And this passport is recognized de jure by Ecuador, Mauritania, Tanzania and Togo. But de facto this passport has even wider recognition. At least, we have to note this Nicaragua's and Dominicana visas in the World passport http://www.worldgovernment.org/visas/2/Nicaragua_Dominican_Republic.jpg dated 2008. And this Philippinian visa dated Feb 2008. http://www.worldgovernment.org/visas/2/Philippines0001.jpg . And this Benin's visa (also 2008) http://www.worldgovernment.org/visas/2/Benin0002.jpg . Also in 2008: Cambodia's and Laos's visa http://www.worldgovernment.org/visas/2/Cambodia0004.jpg, http://www.worldgovernment.org/visas/2/Laos1.jpg However all of these countries do not recognize the World Service Authority as the state. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuriy, why do you have a passport? Answer: so you can move about the planet. Who gives you your passport? Your local government. That's the norm, and what you describe above is interesting, but at best, a footnote and a hopeful hint of a different future.

So is passport recognition de jure or de facto truly irrevant to recognition of Kosovo internationally? Is it irrelevant as a reaction to it proclaiming independence? Being able or not able to travel the world on this passport is the only thing that matters to a Kosovan, apart from the pride of having a little blue book with his or her country's name on it. As a citizen, you certainly emphatise with this pride, whoever happens to be feeling it? --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Given this thread, I will now implement the proposed text and remove all other Kosovo passport mentions from this article, per Zscout370's initial and repeated suggestion. We should put the correct and NPOV information into Kosovo passport, which I admit I have not even read yet. --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We have to move all the information of the Kosovo's passport to the respective article. This very important information should be placed in the respective article. But in this very article there is no sense to place this information. Because, there is a lot of cases when the passports of dependent states, governmental or even non-governmental organisations is recognised internationally. This is quite a related information for this article, and we just have to provide a link from this article to the Kosovo's passport article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I fixed Kosovo passport instead, and implemented a very minimalistic treatment of passports in our article, enough to comply with requirements of making sense. As I mentioned in my edit summary, BiH and SVK needs to be done the same way, but I don't feel comfortable manipulating this information, because I don't think it is the best we can get. So I left it for others to migrate, ideally after thoroughly researching. I think we can close this topic now as well. --Mareklug ^talk 00:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:Tocino from this topic as per WP:ARBMAC

After the attacks Tocino directed at me at the "Portugal Recognizes Kosovo" section above, I've decided to request feedback on an eventual ban of this user from Kosovo-related articles and respective talk pages. Main reasons for the ban are:

• continuous use of talk pages as a forum or soapbox;
• continuous assumptions of bad faith;
• repeated incivility, hostility, and eventually personal and/or xenophobic attacks against other users;
• edit warring;
• trolling;

I would've banned Tocino right away but since I was the target of his latest attacks I shall refrain from doing so as that might be viewed as admin abuse. Still, I will appreciate other admins looking into this, as well as community feedback on a possible (and necessary) ban. Patience has a limit, and on this particular topic (that, let's not forget, is under the scope of a strict Arbcom probation) Tocino has gone way over that limit. Húsönd 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree only with the edit warring. If this was a case you have to warn and then to ban this user. But in all other cases... Please, look at this discussion page and ban user Jakezing first for his trolling, repeated incivility, hostility, and eventually personal and/or xenophobic attacks, continuous use of talk pages as a forum or soapbox. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing Jakezing. Húsönd 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend. There are a lot of highly politicized persons at this talk page. Some of them are not well-mannered. You should ban only those users, who disrupt the article, and their disruption is clear and obvious. You should not ban other users, because otherwise it will be very strange and unfair why do you ban one user and do not ban another.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with and support your initiative. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion and request that it be extended to other Wikimedia projects, including in particular Commons, where Tocino has resorted to repeated reality denial and edit warring in the map of EU members wrt Kosovo recognition (officially). --Mareklug ^talk 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't these confrontations be solved through mediation process? When I was attacked you told me to resolve it with counterarguments but I think mediations would be the best.--Avala (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You were not attacked, AFAIK. The dubious merit of your edits in the matter of Kosovo recognition continues to be disparaged by a number of editors, even today, of whom I am one. --Mareklug ^talk 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When I warned you after you called me obtuse Husond didn't hesitate to tell you that my warnings are right: "Mareklug, Avala is right in his complaints here. Please do not remove his comments from the talk page, and always observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Regards, Húsönd 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)" --Avala (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I remarked in passing "must you be obtuse?" when referring to your not fixing a typo and making a meal of it. I later apologized for carelessly using a word which you, as a speaker of English as a third language (?), may misinterpret, not to mention, make a meal of it. :) Please stick to the facts: Your edits are harmful, and these edits have caused contention. Alleging on my talk page that I have an issue with Serbia, or templating my talk page while singling me out from all the editors who revert and remove your contributions, sourced or missourced, is the problem. Your false portrayal of Kosovo recognition or lack of it on Kosovo_relations maps on Commons is an ongoing chronic problem -- you even wrote on this talk page that you will correct them at long last (to avoid controversy, you said), and nothing came of it. Please address the issues, and don't create animosities with your faulty editing. As for Tocino, an editor who without any repercussions wrote in March 2008 on this page: "Polack fascist Mareklug" is beyond redemption. There is no one to mediate here with. We kick such editors out, period. This proposed corrective action is way overdue. --Mareklug ^talk 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, please do not brag of your espesially good English. You have very good Polish to do so. And please understand that ZSRR is a Polish abbreviation. In English it is translated to USSR :-)--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Tocino had many chances to reform himself. Colchicum (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Husond. I might not take part in the disscussion page often but I read them almost every day and would say his behaviour is at best annoying. (Bacterius (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

He won't change his misbehaviour here, so I agree with the proposal. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others. Tocino should be banned from this site. Often enough have I tried to show him thats werong what he is doing. Max Mux (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Max, we tried the same thing. but more so, what were you telling him was wrong? second, i suggested something like this before, we have done it before, it never went through.--Jakezing (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Present some relevant edits of User:Tocino to these accusations please. From a guick look in his talk page i didn't notice any recent advice or warning with or without further explanation also. That's just to say that this discussion is not only between editors who consider the reasons of the above accusations and the proposed action obvious. I consider most of the editors involved here pro-Kosovo, not so much in an ethnic sense or politically but because they are affected from the view of the problem and background that was promoted in their countries, bad intentions are not the issue so much. I don't know much about Tocino's work and had no communication whatsoever with him. What i do know is that without the Serbian POV and the editors that have an obvious interest defending it the neutrality of this and other relevant articles is fucked, there's seems to be excessive tolerance to disruptive behaviours in this topic in general, looks like a virtual brothel sometimes to me for the last 30 days or so that i've been checking. I've been personally attacked by a user participating in these discussions when raising objections on the way the Greek reaction was handled. So at least be very specific about this user's actions that require such a measure.--Zakronian (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just tread his comments on this page and you know why.Max Mux (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't know anything so why are you posting? He has held this article hostage to his POV, insulted us, and the kosovars, I'm all for having a pro-serbian user, thats what we have avala for. But tocino here REAPTEDLY has gone against concensus, against everything your supposed to do, engaged in alot of edit wars.--Jakezing (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attack me again. I know enough that I can edit to this theme otherwiese I wouldn't. Don't think I'm stupid.Max Mux (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you proposing to ban Tocino from this topic, you should treat him fairly, therefore by providing evidence against him. Yes he does cause trouble now and again, but I'm sure many uses are guilty of that. Also if he has violated some of wikipedia's policies, you should chose the appropriate punishment. I think banning him permanently from this topic is too harsh, however banning him for a week would be more suitable and appropriate. Whatever is done, do it fairly and don't gang up on him for having different views. Ijanderson (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to you max and you have your own troubles to deal with. Personnaly, I have

nothing, NOTHING Against Tocino. Why? Because my own logic to support it i don't know myself, i jsut do.--Jakezing (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Mux was right. Diffs are hardly necessary in this case, as this talk page and its archives will effortlessly render plenty of evidence. In fact, one can't tread the talk page without repeatedly bumping into Tocino's soap, trolling and incivility. Block log and warnings on Tocino's talk page make the rest of the evidence. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And many users were banned for much less. If there's anyone treated unfairly, that would be the rest of the participants in this topic who have to constantly put up with him. Húsönd 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for something simple. [11], [12]

Alternatively, if you can distinguish the two cockteasers private part swelling instigators that were on my back with their useless comments in the above two discussions you might be able to judge Tocino fairly also. Note that i finally sorted the issue with the help of Avala and Mareklug, although Mareklug considered my objections a product of a "nationalistic sense of oneness of Serbs and Greeks" untill near the end, a pretty much polite way to say what the others were saying with insults, i don't blame him as i already explained in my previous comment.--Zakronian (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Zakronian What the hell has that got to do with Tocino, you have just gone off at a tangent, please be more helpful in future, instead of bring up irrelevant things. Also referring to someone as a "cockteaser" is in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, so I would watch what you are writing in future, as it could be you getting banned. Ijanderson (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting banned for what reason ? Did i call any specific user a "cockteaser" ? Did i point out to anyone ? I was trying to make a point, this is the word closer to the phrase we use in Greece for people who behave like that. If Husond understands what i'm trying to say he doesn't even have to answer to whom i may be referring to. But i don't think he will anyway, that's why he should refrain from making a decision for an indef ban. Not at all a tangent issue making a point about involvement, neutrality and fair judgement. Understood ? If not change the word to troll or whatever you think appropriate.--Zakronian (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should offer some valid counter-reasons as to why Tocino shouldn't be banned instead of spraying this discussion with an uncivil vocabulary. --alchaemia (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see the reasons first. If everything is obvious why don't you turn this discussion into mere voting to get it over with.--Zakronian (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons are posted above, by Husond himself. Just because you choose to not read them, does not mean we have to waste time explaining things to you. --alchaemia (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These are accusations linked with the "obvious". If the edits were presented to the conversation quite possibly i might have agreed or not even bothered to write here, there is obviously some problem with the user, that i can understand showing good faith to all the editors participating untill now. But i don't like the way the matter is dealt at all.--Zakronian (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming. You simply need to read it first. I can't help you with that. --alchaemia (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know you can't help me in general, we had to exchange three comments to agree that no evidence is put forth in this discussion, even as an example. Nevermind, you can finish last now with a smart sentence. --Zakronian (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not the judge of this case; the evidence has been presented to you but in desire to defend your buddy, you are ignoring it and playing smart. That's a shame that we won't have your very-much valued "approval." --alchaemia (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not smart. --Zakronian (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm here taking Husond up on his request for other Administrators to have a look into this. I don't think this proposal is warranted. From an extensive analysis of both this talk page and the recent history of the attached article, I truly am not seeing this loud-mouth, disruptive troll that seems to be being painted here. True, Tocino doesn't seem to be the most diplomatic of editors; and tensions run high on this article—and this talk page—regularly. But, this seems like a proposal to cut out an editor who is simply unpopular, rather than flagrantly disruptive; he does seem to make a lot of helpful additions to this page and the article, too. Just my two pence, Anthøny (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Not the best two pence, Anthony. Tocino is not "simply unpopular", he is unpopular because he's very disruptive and has been violating a series of policies in a behavior that ARBMAC has ruled as having no place in this topic. If you're not seeing the disruptive analysis in your extensive analysis of the talk page then you need a more extensive analysis. For users who have regularly edited/monitored this talk page, there is a clear consensus that this user should be banned. In fact, if you disagree that Tocino merits a ban here, I'd be interested to know what kind of user should in your opinion merit a ban under ARBMAC. Yes, Tocino does make some useful edits every now and then. And that still does not compensate for everything else he does around here. Húsönd 12:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I call that alot of crap from somebnody who didn't really do their homework, go get somebody who actully gives a damn about the article. Read the archives from the summer, how bout all the times he held the article to his serbian POV, Considering the fact all but a few people want him banned, it is stupid to say he hasn't done SOMETHING wrong. Like i said, GET SOMEBODY WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT WHATS GOING ON HERE.--Jakezing (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the content of article International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence be merged into this International Reaction article.
The former contains an almost exact duplicate of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings section in this article. Maintaining two identical sets of information is poor practice and will only lead to inconsistencies and difficulties.
An alternative would be to delete the ICJ section from here. However, the UN GA action is really more of a footnote to the UDI - I don't feel that it warrants its own article. Perhaps when the ICJ actually makes its decision, a new article will be warrated. But not now.
Any additional information in the other article (not much - just a map really) could justifiably be added here. Bazonka (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging the two articles as there's a lot of unnecessary information that some would like to staple to this article, such as lists of countries and how they voted, etc. That's all information that one can get by way of a summary. Since that Resolution is merely a footnote, and I agree with that, we should, at best, if we merge the two articles include a pretty tight summary of what happened and supplement it with the official UN publication/transcript of what happened. The current ICJ article is almost a verbatim copy of that UN publication and that is a bad practice that should not be merged to this article. --alchaemia (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Against per what I wrote before. Main article and shorter summary in another article linking to the main article etc.

• Support Bazonka's reasoning and merging the separate new article with ours. Its map may be but does not have to be moved here (in a smaller,right-justified installation in our article's section, but is it really needed? I don't think so.). In place of the article, leave: #REDIRECT [[International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo#International Court of Justice advisory opinion proceedings]]. Clearly this is a premature article, as there is no opnion yet. And we don't know when it will be issued. Wikipedia, as the author of the article argued when it was convenient for him to do so, is not a crystal ball: WP:CRYSTAL. Please adhere to Wikipedia norms and guidelines consistently. --Mareklug ^talk 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So should we erase United States presidential election, 2008 because it didn't take place yet just like the court hasn't issued the opinion yet?--Avala (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The US Election is extremely notable - the ICJ ruling, not so much (especially if this article [13] is correct). Preparations for the election are very well advanced and intricately documented, preparations for the ICJ ruling are largely unknown - we don't even know when it's going to happen. Chalk and cheese. Bazonka (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The advisory opinion will take years, since the ICJ decided to review Serbia's petition under regular procedure (not under urgent procedure), see here. The new article can be seen as a large footnote to our article. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ is not extremely notbale to you Bazonka, but it may be highly notable to others such as Serbia and the 77 nations which voted in favor of it. I oppose the merger because we can have one article which is more detailed for those who care about the issue. Avala's point about Israel#History and History of Israel is a great example... this kind of thing is done across WP. --Tocino 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino: Again, you are describing things at considerable variance with reality: 14 October 2008 Belgrade: The World Court will review Serbia's petition regarding the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence under regular procedure, meaning that it may take several years for a court ruling, officials said on Tuesday. "As to the regular or urgent character of the procedure, one only needs to read the request coming from the General Assembly of the United Nations to see that the word 'urgent' is not mentioned," the head of the The International Court of Justice, ICJ's, Information Department Laurence Blairon said. "The Court has not set any timetable yet for the examination of the request and will move at its own pace," she added. (BalkanInsight from 2008-10-14). So this article, as cast by Avala, is pure WP:CRYSTAL. We have only had teh vote and the taking up of hte case on the docket by ICJ. That's it. What a flimsy and inappropriate topic this is for a Wikipedia article, and what a violation of WP:UNDUE this is in the general scheme of things, in the context of our article. Come back in several years, when there is an opinion to write about, to match the ridiculously long title that is only a promise. Clearly this overlong title is about nebulous future, unlike similarly titled Wikipedia articles about real ICJ opinions (say, those issued in 1999). --Mareklug ^talk 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, you say that the new article exists because it can be more detailed... but it isn't. There's nothing in it that's not in the International Reaction article. The exceptions being the map (which as Mareklug says can comfortably be moved here as a smaller version) and a crazy sentence saying that the UNGA will meet in September - and this article was written after the vote!! Anyhow, my point is that there is no need for the new article because everything that there is to say is already said here. Perhaps when the ICJ finally makes its decision, there will be some merit in the article. But that won't be for a very long time. Bazonka (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've just realised that exactly the same stuff is duplicated in Controversy over Kosovo independence as well. Absolutely mad. This should be in one place and one place only - preferably here. Bazonka (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, I too was unaware of that controversy article. I went there and witnessed an exercise in spinning partisan yarns. For one thing, read what I wrote there on the talk page, after I tried my hand at righting the lead.

Ask yourself, why would an experienced editor replicate the same contend three times on Wikipedia? I think we are witnessing proselytizing or viral activity in the worst way, a shell game of the sort: if they stop me here, maybe they won't over there. This bypassing and POV-forking is harmful to the Wikipedia in the extreme. We are being manipulated.

I think the answer is staring us in the face -- the 2 articles need to be folded back into this one. The editor - made to stop. --Mareklug ^talk 06:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. On a related note: I find myself reverted by Tocino three times in the row the same night (same edit), again. I asked the fellow to discuss the issue here instead. He writes here not a word, gaming the system, always on the edge of violating WP:3RR, writing foolish and untrue things in the edit summary, not reacting to the valid points made in mine. And always forcing his way.

Oh my good lord, it's here as well: Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I'm taking action to remove these duplicates. Bazonka (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical problems

• 292. ^ Serbia receives UN backing on Kosovo in trial vote
• 293. ^ http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/502/57/PDF/N0850257.pdf?OpenElement

Right now, the copy-and-paste above is our last two references.

1. The first one works as expected: Click on the ^ and it takes you to the superscripted reference in the text.
2. The second one, if you click on its ^, does nothing. Why? Because the superscripted reference sits inside a {{show}} that is rolled-up by default. When it is rolled-up, as when the readers encounter the article, clicking on the ^ does nothing, and the user has no clue, why this is so, and worse, the user has no idea, where the 293rd reference is in the text! This is unacceptable.
3. I asked Avala and others to please use complete citations ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}). Admins asked us to do this months ago. Doing so in expected of editors. Avala is an administrator on another language version and an experienced editor. Need I say more?
4. The daccessdds.un.org PDF links just don't work. This referencing is worse than useless. Clicking this naked url takes you to an error page that accuses you in several languages of having no cookies or arriving at this page illegally (!). Typical UN response, if you ask me. :)

Avala, please fix all this, since all of it is your editing. Don't put references inside {{show}} -- move them outside, perhaps to the end of the emboldened summary line. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't experience such issues when clicking on ^ and the ref was copied from the edit of Nightstallion as noted in my edit summary. I am aware of troubles in accessing the UN documentation website but I don't know how to overcome this issue, documents are there when you search the database but subsequent opening of the saved link brings the error page.--Avala (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Avala, we are not debating Kosovo. :) Just move the damn not-working-for-at-least-one-user-who-is-not-an-idiot refs out of {{show}}, please. Why are you so stubborn? When told code is not working, a normal person fixes the code and makes it ...working. Voila.

Please write to the UN webmaster and ask about permanent links, or how to reference in Wikipedia such and such content. Communicating does wonders.

Do fix your incomplete citations and do use the templates. You completely ignored that part.

We cannot have a reference that is inaccessible. Again, it makes no sense to tell me, where you got it. Remove it until we have a working copy. Or don't link it, but treat it as a book reasource. But for that to work, you have to give more than a uselessly not usable URL. Isn't this obvious? I am appalled I have to explain this. --Mareklug ^talk 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I found a browser it works in: Internet Explorer 7. It's the only browser I have for which it works. It fails in every other: Opera (web browser), Firefox 2 and 3 or iPod touch (Safari Mobile). --Mareklug ^talk 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was as easy to fix as you imply you would have fixed it yourself.--Avala (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed--Avala (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3343597.html , try this one, the above link also worked (firefox, ubuntu) in the third try. Now, i haven't followed a previous discussion on the matter but this document doesn't clarly link to the reason they didn't participate .--Zakronian (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. --Zakronian (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Foreign relations of Serbia}}

We need to put an end to this little misunderstanding. Tocino added this template to the article, and keeps bringing it back on grounds that the topic is vital to Serbia.

This is a navigational template. Navigational tempaltes are doled out to articles not by how important they are to someone, but on the basis of category membership of the article.

This article since the beginning had a Government and Politics of Kosovo infobox. It never had a Government and Politics of Serbia infobox. In that infobox, it represents the emboldened link "Diplomatic response", and none of this has changed since March or February.

Tocino's addition of {{Foreign relations of Serbia}} is off-category. The article incidentally is in the categories Politics of Kosovo and 2008 in Kosovo.

Please don't mess up Wikipedia categorial and navigational schemes by creating edit wars that are simply not justified by merit. --Mareklug ^talk 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, i didn't check before, the template doesn't contain this article. We could only make a partial discussion here, if at all. Since the matter is to be sorted mostly at the template's discussion page (i guess, where else ?). Untill that straightens it has no meaning here.--Zakronian (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair and constructive approach. Could you now revert Tocino, who forcibly installed it for the fourth time (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff4 within 11 hours), while ignoring this discussion? --Mareklug ^talk 06:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this is an exception to my limit ? cause i've reached it already and i'm not very familiar with the details. Tocino if you're checking please revert you edit and raise the issue in the relevant talk page first.--Zakronian (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i'm back but he still seems to be away. I'm removing it as a semirevert of my revert, i guess. --Zakronian (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because it hasn't changed since March doesn't mean we can't change it now. Obviously this error has been overlooked for months and it's time to correct it. --Tocino 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You will need to persuade, not edit war as you have so far, editors that this article is primarily or in significant part describing Serbian Government reaction. As this is the international reaction (Serbia's has its own main article, where so far you chose not to employ this template) it will be hard to avoid the appearance of trolling. At any rate, as Zakronian and I have asked you, please do so at the template talk page. There is also the matter of the Serbia-focused infobox, again, absent from our article, as our article is absent from it. As it is from Serbia categories. So you have a lot of revolutions to accomplish, before adding this navigational template here will look justified. I hope there aren't other diffs of your forcibly made improvements waiting to be added to this talk page. --Mareklug ^talk

I think it's better to focus on the template. To me it's slightly less than obvious that it should be included along with the dedicated article. Would you like to be the first to layout your arguments here ? Saves me the time to figure out to what possible objections i should address.--Zakronian (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zakronian, premature. Proposing to launch a thousand ships there, where you suggest, wold surely be perceived by the community as off-topic, as long as the infobox for Serbia politics, the thing analogous to the infobox our article actually uses, does not entail to include our article within its scope.

I suggest you reconsider, and drop this idea, as pregnant. And if you insist, albeit Serbian diplomacy is hardly driving our article (countries are recognzing in spurts Kosovo, not derecognizing Serbia), take it up on the infobx's talk page instead, or better yet, broach the topic on the Serbia wikiproject talk page. It's a global issue, not just a matter of updating one localized navigational template.

If I may be allowed to be flip about it, this is an aggressive war of conquest of Kosovan Wikipedian territory, sort of an homage to Serbia in real life in the last two decades of the 20th century. It is a solitary brain child of the ever Serbian-than-thou Tocino, and no one else. Dubious windmill-fighting engagement it is, if you were ask me. --Mareklug ^talk 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two maps CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png & Serbia relations.PNG

Do we really have to use two maps to cover the exact same information. The only difference with this map is just the colors chosen and Serbia is the subject instead of Kosovo. The information is the same; red recognizes Kosovo and everyone else in the world is colored differently. I know other maps were discussed at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo/Archive_29#Second_map, but we really need to decide now to actually stick with one map and enforce the consensus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only different color scheme with virtually the same information so I don't see the point in using them both.--Avala (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Use the green and grey version, more neutral colours. Red and Blue are not exactly neutral colours. We have not really had problems with the basic current version before, I don't see the need to include another version replicating the same information with a POV twist. Ijanderson (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These are terrible to the eye and confusing colours, and it's more POV-ish to reverse the question in this specific article. The current map isn't ideal either, green over grey (the most neutral in absolute terms), denoting just "other states". The problem with Serbia is only implied, not even a different colour for the "rest" of the Serbian territory. It might be the best choice, i don't know, given that a neutral relativization is difficult. Have you actually tried anything else than a map answering to the simplest question that has the "simplest" connection to what this articles is about ? --Zakronian (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering this article is dealing with which nation-states recognized Kosovo, we don't need other maps to say who hasn't yet. Maybe, just maybe color Serbia orange and I think that is what you are getting at. Regardless of what happens, we need to agree that one map, and only one map, needs to be used on this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Zscout370 Ah, to dream, perchance to WP:RM! international recognition of Kosovo? Hmmm? since you just said so, and we are in the shortening-ridiculously-unwieldy-names mode... --Mareklug ^talk 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It just takes one step to get things started. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, you started linking things and i'm very undisciplined, i must admit. When we have two maps showing the same info from different perspectives we surely keep the one with the closest to the purpose of this article perspective (assuming the title is a fair representation of the purpose also). But the question of putting some extra info in the map we have kept that is already in great extent included in the text isn't by default against neutrality or irrelevant, only if we conclude that trying something like that will end up in confilcts and a questionable result. For instance putting Russia in a colour denoting strong opposition isn't inaccurate, but starting from such a move serious problems will arise. With a strict intepretation of your statement about the "clear" dealings of this article (that urged Mareklug to mention the RM thing) we could move most of the details from the countries not recognizing section to Controversy over Kosovo independence also and put a dablink here and there maybe. That would help having a title and a map that don't bear nothing but the slightest idea of controversy, content full of that right now.--Zakronian (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian embassy in Kosovo

telegrafi.com, balkaninsight.com - Norwegian embassy opened in Kosovo today. I'll try to find more sources in english. --Lilonius (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Already been added to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)