Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Cuba

Cuba, the state, has an official position on Kosovo? If so, please document it. A personal attack by Fidel Castro on Javier Solana is not a valid substitute. Comprende Usted español? This is yet another POV edit by Avala. A state's official position is not expressed by a journalistic diatribe or a press quote of some person, whoever that might be. Is this really so difficult to grasp, as to engender repeated misstatements of countries' official positions, only supported by references to statements of individual politicians? --Mareklug ^talk 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Countries that do not recognize Kosovo have no legal obligation to publish any official statement. They can only explain their position to the media by any high official or representative of the country which can be president, prime minister, minister, ambassador, secretary, leader whatever. Only those who are changing their position are obliged to publish that as an official document which is adopted in prescribed procedure. Why is it so hard to understand the difference.--Avala (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if Fidel Castro said something about Kosovo? He is no longer the leader of Cuba therefore his view is insignificant. That reference does not state that Cuba has officially stated that it is not to recognise Kosovo, just what an ex-leader had said. If Cuba is to be in that table, a proper reference is needed. Until then is should be removed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No because Fidel continues to lead the foreign politics, defense and socioeconomic development. Raul vowed to listen to him and parliament agreed to that. HAVANA, (IPS) - Raúl Castro, one of the leaders of the Cuban revolution and a lifelong communist, is Cuba’s new president as of Sunday. But he said he would listen to the views of Fidel, who he described as “not substitutable,” as long as his older brother is around. In his first speech as Fidel’s successor, he proposed to the National Assembly (parliament) that Fidel continue to be consulted on matters of great importance, such as defense, foreign policy and “the socioeconomic development of the country.” The proposal was immediately and unanimously approved by the 597 members of the National Assembly who met Sunday, less than a week after the 81-year-old Fidel Castro announced that he was permanently stepping down after nearly half a century in power. “There is only one commander-in-chief of the Cuban revolution. Fidel is Fidel, and we all know that. Fidel is not substitutable, and the people will continue his work when he is no longer with us physically,” said the new president, who reiterated his certainty that only the Communist Party can be “the worthy heir of the confidence the people have deposited in their leader.” [1] --Avala (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just cut the bullshit. Do you or don't you have a link documenting Cuba's official stance on Kosovo? No? Then don't introduce OR, that Fidel's personal attacks = Cuba's official state position. Somehow, pointing to official statements of countries, in either case, for or against, is not supposed to apply to Cuba or Armenia? Just say no to POV-motivated relativism. Please remove unsourced or falsely sourced material. --Mareklug ^talk 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First you call me Mr.Serb now I have to "Just cut the bullshit". Very nice. I like to know who am I talking to and you are the type of person that tries to push his personal views by using insults and by being aggressive. Luckily this is encyclopedia not a pub and such behavior has no weight. We like sources and references here and not yelling and name calling. Fidel Castro is indeed = Cuba's foreign policy after the unanonymous decision of the parliament proposed by the President Raul Castro. --Avala (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop misquoting and introducing POV! And I called you Mr. Serb Wikipedia Administrator, which you yourself claim you are, so again, there you go, misquoting. You are really hiding POV/OR-pushing bahind the facade of fighting with "blanking vandalism" (when your bad contributions are removed) and being maligned unfairly and personally. Well, if you did not include wrong or irrelevant sources, misatributed positions of countries to those of individual politicians, and engaged in basically damaging credible, balanced presentation of information, no one would be upset at you, and we (I and several others) are upset with you, in no small measure, because as an administrator, your edits should aspire to better quality and impartiality. Instead, you are using your knowledge of Wikipedia lingo and procedures to skew information. How not to be upset! --Mareklug ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So you claim I am misquoting here? Ok my source - [2] and my quote - "HAVANA, (IPS) - Raúl Castro, one of the leaders of the Cuban revolution and a lifelong communist, is Cuba’s new president as of Sunday. But he said he would listen to the views of Fidel, who he described as “not substitutable,” as long as his older brother is around. In his first speech as Fidel’s successor, he proposed to the National Assembly (parliament) that Fidel continue to be consulted on matters of great importance, such as defense, foreign policy and “the socioeconomic development of the country.The proposal was immediately and unanimously approved by the 597 members of the National Assembly who met Sunday, less than a week after the 81-year-old Fidel Castro announced that he was permanently stepping down after nearly half a century in power.“There is only one commander-in-chief of the Cuban revolution. Fidel is Fidel, and we all know that. Fidel is not substitutable, and the people will continue his work when he is no longer with us physically,” said the new president, who reiterated his certainty that only the Communist Party can be “the worthy heir of the confidence the people have deposited in their leader." Now I am asking you to find the difference you are claiming I am introducing. Please point at the letters I have changed. Show them or stop with these charges once and for all. These are serious charges that have no arguments and as such are falling into forbidden category of personal attacks. --Avala (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala keeps putting his personal view into this article. Your meant to have neutral view point on wikipedia. His references are not even relevant. The second one has nothing to do with Kosovo at all. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The second one is explaining the position of Fidel Castro because mareklug said Fidel is just another politician whose position is unimportant. Well his position is defining foreign policy of Cuba. That is why there is a second source. And I am not putting my personal views! All of my edits are sourced. We are dealing with mythomania here. You are repeating that I am putting my personal views in every discussion even though all of my edits are sourced. By repeating these lies you are trying to convince yourself and others this is true. But it all disappears when you vandalize the page which is sourced by blanking it. Then the masks are dropping and it's revealed who is giving sourced edits and who is blanking and deleting to twist the article to their own liking. --Avala (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing bad sources is no virtue. In fact, it is vandalism. Bad contributions being removed, is removing vandalism, not blanking. Correct content is not being removed, and the article is not being blanked. An administrator should know the difference, but you apparently need it explained. I hope I helped. --Mareklug ^talk 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Official statement by the country foreign policy leader is a bad source in POV world. In NPOV world it is a perfect source. --Avala (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Official statement is a statement by the government, its ministry, its parliament, not some quote attributed to an official! You have not sourced any official communication of Cuba. You have not sourced any official statements at all for Cuba or Armenia. I am sure you would, if these statements existed, because you source them for other countries, even when misrepresenting them (Chile, India) by literally interpreting polite diplomatic phrasing, while not paying attention to what is being said or left unsaid. Both Chile and India should be colored khaki, and, for that matter, also New Zealand. Cuba should be left grey, as a country with no official yet position revealed, not even by a press release by the requisite ministry. Macedonia, negotiating with Kosovo about border, and said to follow EU and NATO countries' positions as a canddate state in both, is clearly leaning to recognition, and should be light blue. --Mareklug ^talk 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuba belongs on the list of will not recognize, because it is quite clear that as long as Fidel has influence, Cuba will not recoginze unilateral independence. Fidel also references Kosovo's independence in negative light in this speech from Feb. 24 ... http://www.prensalatina.com.mx/article.asp?ID={E2CE6544-BC78-4E32-B964-496899B7CFD0}&language=ES

The link for Portugal's position has no official statement, yet it is listed as a country that has intention to recognize. The link actually says this...

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6356412.html

"We will take a decision at the time we consider most appropriate in close dialogue with our European partners," [Foreign Minister] Amado told Portuguese media from Belgian capital Brussels, where he was meeting with EU Foreign Ministers on the issue."

So basically they haven't decided.

The personal attacks by User:Mareklug towards User:Avala are out of order. Mareklug seems biased in favor of the Kosovo Albanian side and it feels like he is on a jihad against Serbia as evidenced by his proposed title for this article which smacks of POV, his attempts to move New Zealand and Chile to neutral, and him moving Macedonia to will recognize when the President of Macedonia said otherwise. I'm sure there are other examples I am forgetting, but the point is take Mareklug's actions with a grain of salt. --Tocino 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself people, Castro was, is, and still will be the man that defines foreign policy of Cuba. Hell, he will still define Cuba itself. Cuba belongs on the list of against independence. Avala and Tocino are right and I back them up. Also Mareklug I don't think your work can be productive here because of your non-neutral POV. Stop atacking other editors because the things they edit are not to your liking.--Top Gun 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)

Look, kettle calling the pot black: Users Tocino, Top Gun, Avala consistently slant recognition evidence presentation in a pro-Serbia way. Any neutral correction is either "blanking vandalism" or not honoring provided sources (never mind that these are inappropriate and irrelevant or false extrapolations, and should be removed). Even the neutral and correct proposed article name (see the section above), is portrayed here (and there) by these editors as somehow POV. New Zealand will neither recognize or recognize, how more neutral can you get? Macedonia is negotiating its border demarcation with Kosovo, even though the requisite treaty was signed in Belgrade. So, how will Macedonia decide a border with a government it won't recognize? How is reflecting these realities in the article "biased in favor of the Kosovo Albanian side"? Of course, according to the alienated, everyone is on a jihad against them (a word, which means religious holy war of Moslems against the nonbelievers, nice touch; but you could have said "ethnic clensing", given the geographical context), if they don't see the world according to Serbia's government. :) A polite call by Chile to basically not kill one another anymore, is a call to negate the new independence and reopen negotiations. :) Sure. You observe, you decide. --Mareklug ^talk

If I add the information some country decided not to recognize Kosovo it's not a pro Serbia edit. I am just putting something that I read in this article together with that source. The same goes for the situation when I add information that some country recognized Kosovo - I am not being anti Serbian. It's facts. I am not endorsing them I am showing them. You said I was miquoting on Cuba so I asked you to point at the word I falsified and you failed to do so for the sole reason I haven't falsified anything. You think that if you enter into every single discussion here the claim I am a POV pusher and falsifier that it will make all other editors think "who is this Avala? why is he falsifying?" so they would join you in blanking my edits but it didn't happen as their reaction is "why is Avala attacked for making sourced edits?"--Avala (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

@ Tocino: The source you linked also states: Portugal's Foreign Minister Luis Amado said Monday that his nation was on the way to recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, but must first consult domestically and with other European Union (EU) nations. As long as another source doesn't back up your interpretation, it is justified to include Portugal as having the intention to recognise Kosovo. Gugganij (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think mareklug is very right. And Avala keeps commenting and interpreting the way it suites him. Are you people blind or do you also lack logic. Just go through the discussions. But maybe you are also like him and want to see what is important for you. Jawohl (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To Avala and the other two stooges: Do not accuse me of spam again. Your presence here is a spam. And do not delete my post but fix what needs to be fixed. You have lost Kosovo. Get over with it. What else do you want to loose? Jawohl (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have no encyclopedic value and WP would be better off without you. BTW, Kosovo is still part of Serbia according to every international organization and 160 of the 182 member states of the UN. --Tocino 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out, guys. We have a job to do here, and it's not flamewarring or calling people names. It's building an encyclopedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's a Castro around in Cuba, there'll be Fidel's influence. And Raul's, too. OK? That being said, I'm not surprised at their anti views - they just like to push Washington's buttons. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, Top Gun and Avala are all biased and should know better on how to edit wikipedia. I'm not disagreeing with what they are saying, they just need to find RELEVANT and RELIABLE references to back up what they are saying please. Otherwise their claims are useless. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant entities - other cristian churhes and islamic communitys

Cristian Orthodox churches of Russia, Poland, Greece and Georgia and also Islamic Community of Russia are against independence of kosovo this should bi noted in other relevant entities. Vladar86 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

references are needed first Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Orthodox church of Russia

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13047&tag=albania

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4313

Polish Orthodox Church

http://www.orthodox.pl/Aktualnosci/archiwum%202008/kosowo/Kosowo.pdf (polish)

http://www.spc.yu/sr/mitropolit_varsave_i_cele_poljske_sava_niko_nema_pravo_da_narodu_oduzme_ono_sto_je_najdragocenije_%E2%80%93_ (Serbian)

Orthodox church of Georgia

http://www.spc.yu/sr/pravoslavna_crkva_gruzije_za_ocuvanje_kosova_i_metohije (Serbian) 85.222.170.120 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Summaries

I am removing summaries per WP:NOR. No one here has the right to make up words which were not stated by officials of some country. We are not here to summarize to our own liking. If someone doesn't say we don't recognize or we recognize or we are neutral we can't add it to the article. Let the reader decide from the quoted news. This will hopefully stop the revert war especially around EU and UN. --Avala (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So why do you put your own view in to the article? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to fight with unsourced accusations. From now on I will give links as my answer. [3] --Avala (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, very good of you to quote this revert of yours. Let's discuss it. Aside from your revert being a gross and indiscriminate throwing away of much other people's work, it brought back the following content:

“ As of February 29 2008, the Republic of Kosovo maintains official diplomatic relations with 22 sovereign UN member states. ” — From the article version 3 times brought back by User:Avala

Not only is this a blatantly false statement (recognition is not the same as diplomatic relations, as explained already by someone earlier on this talk page -- see above), but this content is unsourced, and you keep telling us, how you add sourced content, while we frustrate your good work, "blanking" your work and making fun of your sources... At least in this case, you are right: I removed this false statement, without providing a "countersource", limiting myself to providing the correct content. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That was unfortunately added between your blankings and I was looking through these edits and was collecting all the valuable content to put it back into the article but then you started reverting until we got to 3RR and article locking so now I can't put it back on. So I admit that some of the valuable work was temporarily gone in my vandalism fighting but it's not like I wasn't going to put it back on 10 minutes later. --Avala (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another false accusation directed at me: The text: As of February 25 2008, the Republic of Kosovo maintains official diplomatic relations with 18 sovereign UN member states. was introduced a whole week ago [4], and updated several times since then, and I had nothing to do with any of it. :) In fact, 2 days ago, I fixed it, and the rest of the lead, but my iPod touch crashed on saving, and it was too much to tap it all back in. You, on the other hand, apparently never bothered to fix it, and there is no reason to suspect, that you were about to do it today. When I finally did fix it, you reverted my fix three times (each time without an edit summary to show this, might I add, hiding the revert, whihc you do all the time, and which is against WIkipedia policies!) -- you threw away -- you blanked, to use your favorite phrase -- my corrections, as you did in the process those of several others, and you negated all my other improvements, presently frozen on the page and available for inspection on their merits.

You have only yourself to blame for this calamity of page protections, both here and on Commons, becaue you edit like some damn despot, without regard for others' contributions, and with harm for the content, as I have shown here and elsewhere. Nothing you have been removing was ever temporarily gone, because you always throw other's contributions away when they differ from yours, replacing them with World According to Avala, so don't kid me. If the good admin hadn't frozen the article, we would still be trying to fix your vandalism fighting or, worse, be stuck with it. Please reevaluate your approach to collaboration on writing an encyclopedia, because you are disruptive and, as shown, often in the wrong, on the merit of your reverts/edits. --Mareklug ^talk 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can actually say the same thing about you. You were literally destroying the article by your vandalism blanking and moving of sourced content and by giving your own interpretation of the truth through summaries. I am sorry that you dislike the position of some countries but removing them just because of that is destructive behaviour. You were fighting like this about other countries like Bosnia but finally you stopped at some point (I guess after you realized how wrong you are) and I was hoping that was the end of your POV edits but I was wrong. You just moved to disruptive "editing" of other content. --Avala (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't say the same about me, because:

• a) I did not say untrue things about your edits, but you have, about yours and about mine (see above), and
• b) even my siding with you on Bosnia is a fault in your eyes; can't win either way: eiher I'm making POV edits or gave up making them, thanks to your efforts :)

Face it, you are just an unreasonable guy. I did not invent summaries; I was only making them more faithful or condensed, or true (Armenia!) or left someone elses' deletions stand unreverted (Kraina, Cuba). The Chile you keep harping on, clutching at a fundamentalist reading of ir ministry's phrasing, for example, wants peacable dialogue, but, this may well refer to a dialogue between equal partners, that is: the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia. Or could. We just don't kow. They were very careful to not say. They certainly did not demand the return to the Serbia vs. Serbia's Province negotiating table, and you have no evidence, that they conceived of dialogue in such light -- same with India using the tense "we had believed" instead of "we believe". Face it -- these are careful, neutral positions, and it is you, not me, who is interpreting them for hte reader, by pushing countries into colored sillhouettes and POV-titled tables.

Despite your way of spinning it, even Brazil wants a multi-partide solution, and as one sharp person noted on this talk page, this nuanced phrase could be an out for deciding around a Russian veto, if enough parties become part of that "multi". If these possible readings do not occur to you, then your POV is interfering with perceiving reality and its possibiliites, and you should consider disqualifying yourself from making any further edits in the mater of Kosovo politics, as a person incapacitated through loss of critical faculty of impartial thinking, an inherently partial person.

Perhaps you are an ok guy making good-faith edits, just handicapped by emotions, being too close to the situation. Let impartial people do it. The world won't end without you imparting your spin to this basically news-gathering article, and your expert knowledge of the Balkan region is not needed here. And, there is so much more to augment on the Wikipedia, so many articles to fix or make from scratch, that,I am sure, you could make into Good Articles, because you have the requisite information, and sources, and sourcing technique :), and currently, extra free time, now that the article is protected, and its maps, too. :/ --Mareklug ^talk 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about all that rubbish you put about Cuba? I couldn't not quote it, because it has been deleted. What is with your quote? I don't understand what you are getting at? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the statement by foreign policy creator of Cuba is rubbish then everything is rubbish, all statements by foreign ministers are rubbish according to that. So are you saying Cuba is neutral on Kosovo issue? --Avala (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

sources

If anyone decides to erase content with sources from this article he must supply new sources which justify this action. Any other behaviour is plain old vandalism. --Avala (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you both need to calm down. The edit-summaries of both parties are not very acceptable, especially Mareklug's first revert of Avala. Maxim_(talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my sincere apologies for having produced an offending summary, but with all its shortcomings, the summary in question:

• a) clearly stated what the edit was doing, including identifying the versions involved and to what version the revert is being made,
• b) clearly stated the reasons for the revert, and
• c) clearly attributed the authorship and teh nature of the reverted edits, using the language used by that author previously in the very same context, when describing other peole's edits :). I mean, I have not used the phrase "blanking" before commencing work on Kosovo recogniton. But one learns nomenclature from one's more experienced colleagues, and so I have :).

OK, I promise to work on more acceptable summaries, yet at least I am using them, and describing the substance of the changes I make in good faith and explicitly, whereas certain very experienced editors are not using them at all, if it suits their purposes, which I find perplexing -- and which, coming full circle -- explains my being upset at such subterfuge in the first place.

As for sources, hmmm, it's hard to sucessfully add sources to texts, which are being removed from under one's keyboard, wholesale, and without merit at that. But I managed to squeeze in two needed sources, fully formed, in each of my last two reverts, so there you go -- sources! (One of them begs repetition by Macedonia, in the table.) There'd be more, had my additions not been interfered with and hampered by edit warring, and because of it, and the resultant article protection, now completely prevented from being added. I don't think such modus operandi is best Wikipedia practices, and I am appalled that an admin repeatedly leads to such outcomes. One would think that of all people, an admin would not propagate edit wars and cause article lock-ups, on more than one project, at that...

And one more thing: falsely or inappropriately sourced content is subject to removal, not necessarily one-for-one replacement. I think that's pretty obvious and self-evident, and no one will tell me that there's a Wikipedia rule being broken by doing so, or anything is being "blanked" or "vandalised" when bad stuff is tossed. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning edit summaries but external sources for your edits. I add XY to article and add source in references. You just remove it no antisource given. That is what I am talking about.--Avala (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's clearly not true. I found and added the source to the Ministry of External Affairs of India press release, replacing a source to some paraphrase on an Indian private website. I also added numerous sources to references -- look for all the "Link accessed on 2008-xx-xx" references - that's all mine (if it's not in a citeweb template). My last two reverts added sources in the references -- to texts which your reverts "remove[d] it no antisource given". Go ahead, take a look at the history and the current protected page. --Mareklug ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed the statement by the foreign policy creator of Cuba calling it a rant. Was that sourced as well? And please don't repeat how there must be an official document adopted by the government as that applies only for recognition. --Avala (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

German Embassy in Pristina

Will somebody please note or make a new page for the diplomatic relations of Kosovo instead of just diplomatic recognition? Germany has opened an embassy there already [5] Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

In yesterdays Jutarnji list there was a statement by Malaysian embassy in Zagreb regarding Jutarnji list's article which said that Malaysia recognised Kosovo. Embassy stated that Malaysia did not recognise Kosovo but "welcomed it's independence". Also, I cannot find any English source confirming that Malaysia recognised Kosovo, and there are plenty sources confirming this "welcome" thing ([6][7][8]). So, could somebody please translate the reference used to support the claim that Malaysia recognised Kosovo? --89.172.53.56 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to vandalism article is now locked and new edits cannot be made. --Avala (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Due to my relentless edit-warring and contested removal by me of valid improvements, the article is now locked and new edits cannot be made. HTH. --Mareklug ^talk 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly my point.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: request to translate the Malaysian government's statement - I could not find an online translator from Malay to any language, so I put the reference text into an Indonesian-to-English web translator and got this:

The #akhbar reality
#Perisytiharan Kosovo Independence

Malaysia #mengalu-alukan Kosovo independence that has #diisytiharkan by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on February 17, 2008.

Since July 1999, Kosovo was under managing of the side United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) berikutan the Resolution 1244 of #Pertubuhan Bangsa Bersatu (the UN).

Malaysia hoped #perisytiharan this independence filled the aspirations of the Kosovo people in determining the Kosovo future and guaranteeing the right of all the peoples to live in the safe, free and stable situation.

In an effort to the community antarabangsa looked for the resolution road to Kosovo rumours, Malaysia called that all the sides continue to co-operate to guarantee peacefulness and the stability of the Balkan shoreline.

Malaysia had a Official of Malaysian communications in Pristina, Kosovo that #ditauliahkan to (UNMIK) since 2000.

The main role of this official was #menyalur and headed a Lia help than Malaysia to Kosovo and the intermediary between the Malaysian Kingdom and UNMIK. #Pejabat of these Malaysian communications will be exchanged by the status if arriving really him.

In the meantime, the Malaysian Representative will in Kosovo continue to undertake the task as Kuasausaha (#kuasa #usaha) #Sementara.

The Foreign Ministry, Malaysia
On February 20, 2008

And, I looked up the reamaining non-English words using a Malay-English web dictionary and in one case some a lexicon:

akhbar

• (the press, newspaper) (so I think the machine-mangled title "AKKBAR REALITY" => Press Release, since in the original it was "kenyataan akhbar" and the first word menas "statement")

mengalu-alukan

• (to welcome or greet ceremoniously.),

perisytiharan

• (declaration),

diisytiharkan

• (diisytiharkan <> declarable),

berikutan

• (following that)

antarabangsa

• (international)

ditauliah

• (accredited -- our actual word is: ditauliahkan)

menyalur

• (carry -- note that this is an Indonesian word)

pejabat

• (office)

kuasa

• (Malay: power; Indonesian: power, warrant)

usaha

• (Malay: effort; Indonesian: effort, affair, agency, application, attempt, enterprise, exertion, undertaking.)

sementara

• (temporary).

From context, Pertubuhan Bangsa Bersatu = The United Nations.

Pertubuhan

• (organization)

I'd translate "Kuasausaha Sementara" as "acting plenipotentiary representative", and it might even mean exactly "acting ambassador", but that's just an educated guess, and I really don't know that.

IMHO this document does not read like an official writ of recognition of one state by another that I've ever seen, and that we'll have to remove Malaysia from the ranks of officially recognizing after all, unless their idea of diplomacy is highly informal and we can source that'. :) --Mareklug ^talk 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This can certainly amount to recognition, since international law does not prescribe any formality for it: recognition can be given implicitly, and this seems to be the case, as the page of diplomatic missions mentions that Malaysia also has a liaison office in the country of Kosovo, situated in Pristina, Kosovo: http://www.kln.gov.my/perwakilan/pristina MaartenVidal (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then please remove "formally" from "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", because this is obviously not a formal recognition. --85.10.62.9 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chief of Liaison Office of Malaysia in Prishtina on 20. February 08 handed over the letter that his government has recognized the independent to the Presidetn of Kosovo, Prof.Dr. Fatmir Sejdiu. http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,0,0,67,a,651 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.247.65 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rough and literal translation of this page that anon 92.37.123.179 was asking for. The first two paragraphs were easy to understand but there are a number of terms in the last paragraph that I was unable to identify, mainly "Pejabat Perhubungan Malaysia", which literally means "Malaysian Communications Office" but may not be its exact name in English, and "Kuasausaha", which is clearly an occupation in the vein of "Secretary-General" or something like that. May have to wait for the other two that the anon user have corresponded with, but this the best I can do for now.

“ PRESS STATEMENT

KOSOVO'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Malaysia welcomes Kosovo's independence which has been declared by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on 17 February, 2008. Since July 1999, Kosovo has been under the governance of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) following Resolution 1244 of the United Nations (UN).

Malaysia hopes this declaration of independence fulfils the Kosovans' aspiration in determining the future of Kosovo and to gurantee all of its people the right to live in peace, freedom and stability. In an effort by the international community to resolve the Kosovan issue, Malaysia urges cooperation by all parties to ensure peace and stability in the Balkans.

Malaysia has a [Malaysian Communications Office?] in Pristina, Kosovo which has been appointed/commissioned for the UNMIK since 2000. The main purpose of the office is to transmit, control and supervise help/aid from Malaysia to Kosovo and to act as a mediator between the Malaysian government and the UNMIK. The status of the [Malaysian Communications Office?] will change when the time comes. In the meantime, a representative[s?] of Malaysia in Kosovo will continue to perform his/her/their duties as an interim [Kuasausaha].

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia
20 February, 2008

”

This is why I dislike how the government unnecessarily emphasises too much use of Malay. - Two hundred percent (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Non Neutral-Article

Earlier today user Topgun and I pointed out that this article is non-neutral and extremely in favor of Kosovo over Serbia. For instance countries like China, which said that recognition of Kosovo is "illegal" is placed in the same category as countries like Netherlands, which is neutral, and countries like Macedonia, which plans to recognize Kosovo. We used to have five categories, but the pro-Kosovo crowd lumped everything into to sets; you aren't giving the "you're either with us or against us" speech, this is wikipedia, and should be treated with educational respect, not blatant POV as the three pro-Kosovo editors, GreenClawPristina, Markelug and Ijanderson977 have shown. For the benefit of the reader, and to prove that you have any maturity left, pro-Kosovo editors, please stop deleting other people's comments on the discussion page. I don't know how they do it in Kosovo, but in America we have this thingy, called freedom of speech, so kindly stop denying that to editors that don't share you opinion. And the map needs to be the same as it used to be, with five categories, not the blatant "you're either with us or against us" pro-Kosovo POV. 64.105.27.56 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The old version was biased. It made Kosovo seem as if it had more support and less opposition. For example only the countries in red seemed to be the ones not recognising Kosovo, when plenty of others don't recognise Kosovo too (all the grey ones on the current map). Also the countries on the map, which intend to recognise Kosovo make, Kosovo seem to have more support on the map, and half of them didn't have reference to back up that they intent to recognise Kosovo. the old map contained other users POV, it wasn't NPOV. At least the current map is based on fact. What ive just said there isn't pro Kosovo is it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

one more thing, please use a real account in future so we can tell who we are talking to, instead of hiding yourself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The old version was perfect and is still used by most other users. It had 5 colors, highlighted in red and organge were those who didn't recognize, or would never recognize, over half the World, the middle countries were gray, and the blues were predominantly NATO Members. The map really showed that Kosovo was NATO and NATO applicants vs. the rest of the World, with Australia and a few minor exceptions siding with NATO. Thus it showed that NATO and nations where US influence was strong (and Australia) recognized Kosovo, while the rest of the World did not, showed it so clearly that everyone could see it. You, the pro-Kosovo editors, were afraid, and so you canned that map. The old map only contained your POV, and before you touched it, it actually was NPOV, with China and Cuba stating that they won't recognize Kosovo, or that is was an illegal move by Kosovo, hence no recognition. In addition any entity, no matter how minor, that recognizes Kosovo you put up, like the London-based Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which has no power, or the Handball International Union; well why not put the hockey international union, or the basketball international? Is it because handball's the only sport that recognizes Kosovo? And stop attacking me by pretending I'm trying to hide, you can't counter any of my arguments, so you have to revert to personal attacks instead? I guess it really shows Kosovo's diplomacy at its best 64.105.27.56 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please stop editing what I write on the edit page. Are you people really that anal about spreading lies about Kosovo, that you must edit what I write on the edit page? This is the second edit you have done to my writings on the discussion page. Please stop, because the 3rd one will be reported. 68.166.134.93 (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

For how long is this page to remain protected? I do not want to argue with anybody please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For as long as we don't reach consensus. Personal attacks (ie. I post what Fidel Castro said and then you say it's my personal opinion and Mareklug says I am falsifying quotes. Then I ask for the specific falsification to be pointed at in Cuban position and no one can do it). When that stops, when you become cooperative instead of aggressive and when sources become primary reference for this article and not intuition of some editors then article will be unlocked. --Avala (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know i disagreed with you using the Fidel Castro reference. Cuba probably doesn't recognise Kosovo. All I was asking for was another reference clearly stating that the Republic of Cuba does not recognise Kosovo, rather than what Fidel Castro said. At the end of the day, i just want to see this article back to normal. And by that i mean neutral, free to edit and reliable. Thats what I want, a good source of information all in one place, instead of having to look threw millions of pages on the internet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Who agrees that people should be neutral and that there should be a request for this page to be un-protected? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But Cuban government will not make such a statement. You know they wont. Different countries different systems. Cuba is run by words of Castro and we all know it and I even supplied an extra source which explicitly shows that Fidel Castro is a legally elected advisor on foreign policy and that Raul said he will listen to him. So when Castro accuses Solana for being the mastermind of Kosovo independence and calling him essence of injustice and unreasonableness then I don't think anyone with common sense will interpret that as neutral position or Cuba planning to recognize. And again governments that do not recognize Kosovo can publicize their position through press statement of some high official. They are not required to publish an official document saying so. Take an example of New Zealand - we won't recognize (it's not our policy to recognize unilateral moves) but we won't make a formal statement that we don't recognize. All newspapers interpreted this as "New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo" not "New Zealand is neutral" because these journalists are not amateurs. Here mareklug puts this into bold "New Zealand is strictly neutral". How are they strictly neutral if it's clearly their position not to recognize in such circumstances? They are not put into the same group with Russia and Serbia because they have softened their position by not publishing any formal statement but it's clear what they are doing. Then we have a whole section for countries that support negotiations (dialogue) and Chile makes this statement "Chile calls on the parties concerned to achieve, by peacable means, through dialogue and adherence to international law, a solution that respects the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter." Mareklug interprets that as neutral. If they want solution through dialogue then they are not neutral, they belong in that group of countries that seek solution through the dialogue. This is blatant disrespect of WP:NOR as readers should make their own conclusions, they don't need mareklug to summarize it in bold. --Avala (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand and agree with what your saying there. If a country does not recognise Kosovo, it doesn't have to publish or announce that it does not recognise Kosovo. It can do nothing if it wants to, and still not recognise Kosovo. Therefore the table with the title "States that do not recognise Kosovo as independent" should be renamed "States that have clearly stated they do not recognise Kosovo as independent" and all other countries, we can just assume they do not recognise Kosovo yet, unless they have said other wise and they can be put in the appropriate table/ group. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a more suitable title would be "States which have declared they will not recognize Kosovo as independent".

On Cuba what Avala is doing qualifies under WP:SYNTH as the actual article verifying Fidel's position says he will be "consulted" on these matters. His position as adviser is not the same as being a Foreign Minister or ambassador. Cuba will probably not recognize Kosovo, but for now they have not put out an official diplomatic statement to that effect.

As it concerns New Zealand they have put a condition on the whole matter, which is basically that they want a negotiated solution or a solution through the U.N. In comparison Russia and other countries have put no condition, just blatantly saying they will not recognize. The point is not to be too misleading. Some countries which are presently colored origin are more likely to change their minds than those colored red.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between countries like Chad which make no statement and countries like Cuba which attack USA and EU left and right but for some reason omit the direct phrase "we don't recognize Kosovo independence". "We don't recognize Kosovo independence" can be said in various ways including calling a mastermind of it's independence a pure essence of injustice and unreasonableness. Some countries are more poetic it seems but in the end it's all clear especially if you look through previous Cuban statements where they were more then clear what they consider Kosovo to be. As the time goes some countries will take a position 'we support the UNSC decision' and knowing Russians have explicitly announced veto for Kosovo in UNSC they pretty much agree with Russia for the time being. So there are various ways to disagree and the way to present this in article is certainly not erasing any mentioning of Cuba. Also putting bold text as if this was an encyclopedia of POV summaries isn't great either. While "We recognize Kosovo independence" can be done only through prescribed procedure of the country that decided to recognize - usually a vote in the parliament signed by presidential or royal decree. So we have countries that 1)recognize kosovo 2)plan to recognize kosovo 3)explicit about not recognizing (Russia), 4)countries which disagree with independence declaration or want the situation to be resolved by dialogue (in the UN) (China), 5)countries that still have no position (Panama) + all other countries that made no statement so far and they are in grey. --Avala (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good 5 group/ table names. Its more clear now. They seem more suitable. I agree with all that you have just said. The countries in grey at this moment in time are currently not recognising Kosovo. Now are we ready to request for this article to no longer be protected? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we first need to reach consensus on these countries here

• Cuba
• New Zealand
• Chile
• Armenia
• Pakistan
• Malaysia
• India
• Jordan and Thailand
• Macedonia
• relevant entities - are he Republic of Serbian Krajina Government-in-exile and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria relevant as they have no power?

and whether bold summaries should be gone as they are screaming POV and OR.--Avala (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to reach consensus on Krajina. Which part of my arguments do you refuse to accept? I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. JosipMac (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to reach the consensus considering there are editors who disagree and who want these powerless entities included. It's not only up to me and you but up to the community. --Avala (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me know when you reach consensus on whether Earth is flat or not. There are those who disagree you know (not kidding), and I'm interested in how exactly you will reach consensus. Will you meet in the middle with them, and state that half of the Earth is flat and then it curves.. or are you going to do a majority poll, or what exactly? You can't use scientific facts because some will disagree on that as well, so you will need to reach consensus about scientific facts, and are you going to do that by majority poll or what? -- what I'm trying to say is that we don't need to reach consensus, we need to reach common sense. JosipMac (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Cuba does not recognise Kosovo, but it hasn't been explicit about not recognising Kosovo. So that should be grey as it isn't going to be recognising Kosovo. New Zealand disagrees with independence declaration or wants the situation to be resolved. Chile is the same as Armenia, it is yet to express its final decision. Pakistan seems that it will eventually recognise Kosovo. i really don't know much on Malaysia. India is like Armenia, it is yet to express its final decision. Jordan is awaiting the United Nations Security Council's decision, however since Russia has the veto power, Jordan is going to waiting a long time, since Russia doesn't look like its going to accept Kosovo as independent. The same goes for Thailand. So countries awaiting the UNSC decision might as well be left grey since they are not going to be recognising Kosovo.

On the map legend we should make it clear that countries that a grey are currently not recognising Kosovo. We should put countries like Canada who have not made a decision yet with countries like Chile who are waiting for further negotiations, and call the group "States that are yet to express their final decision on Kosovo." Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But again we are going to group countries like Chad and countries Chile. While Chad is silent, Chile is advocating further negotiations. We can't push them all in the same basket. --Avala (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this page was protected, because this is a very important article and it will need changes as positions of countries are announced every day. But the worst part of the protection is that in its present form the article has numerous factual inaccuracies such as Macedonia in the will-recognize category, the lack of Cuba in refuses to recognize, and New Zealand in the neutral section when they've clearly expressed concerns. It is an injustice that the editor who got the last edit in was the Polish fascist Mareklug, who's unreasonable, fudges facts and has an agenda for all to see. We need to lift this protection as soon as possible to correct these mistakes and improve the article. --Tocino 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chile was a bad example. Chile should be in "States that are yet to express their final decision on Kosovo." and then mention more details about it in the notes section. Neural countries should be put with States that are yet to express their final decision on Kosovo, therefore remaining neutral for the time being. But countries like cuba who have not officialy said much about Cuba should be left grey as they are not recognising Cuba and mention that in the legend. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, even if you disagree with Mareklug and think he was in the wrong, which he was, its still not fair to call him a "Polish fascist". However everything else you have said i agree with. That is why i want to end this dispute and get the page back up and running. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would Chile be grey and not in the group "States that call for continuing the negotiations, disagreeing with unilateral moves" if they stated this "Chile calls on the parties concerned to achieve, by peacable means, through dialogue and adherence to international law, a solution that respects the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter."? Dialogue is just a synonym for negotiations. --Avala (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know, thats why i said it was a bad example and i changed my mind and said it should be in "States that are yet to express their final decision on Kosovo." and then mention more details about it in the notes section. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But we can not equalize countries which are actively endorsing dialogue and some African countries which just don't care. --Avala (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying we should, im saying we should put countries that are actively endorsing dialogue with countries, which are claiming to be neutral. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would we do that? Nobody is pressing us to oversimplify. --Avala (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting such simplification then we can make 2 tables - one called "Countries that have officially recognized independence of Kosovo" and second called "Positions of other countries". Then readers will judge themselves what is the position of some country by reading on the right their official statements. That would be the most NPOV thing to do and would stop all these edit wars. Only countries that have officially recognized would go into the table nr.1 all others into the table 2. in alphabetical order and then if someone would like to find out about Cuban position he scrolls to Cuba, reads what their officials stated and makes his own decision if this means recognition or not. --Avala (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Whatever. Lets just leave it as it is and get the page going again. Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If we leave it at whatever it will be locked after an hour again. Can we agree on the new layout? --Avala (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ok. I suggest that we go with what you said earlier "countries that 1)recognize kosovo 2)plan to recognize kosovo 3)explicit about not recognizing (Russia), 4)countries which disagree with independence declaration or want the situation to be resolved by dialogue (in the UN) (China), 5)countries that still have no position (Panama) + all other countries that made no statement so far and they are in grey." agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the current layout. I would put Chile in 4 and you would put it in 5. So that is why I am now suggesting a change to have two tables 1)states that have recognized 2)positions of other countries, so the readers decide for themselves what is the position of some country rather then us doing that. So no summaries and no special categories because we are never going to agree where should Chile, Cuba, New Zealand etc. go --Avala (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. As you said, it will stop edit wars. Also at the end of the Day a country either recognises Kosovo or it doesn't. Even if it wishes to remain neutral, it still doesn't recognise Kosovo. And if a country is planning to recognise Kosovo we put it in the not recognising group and mention that it is planning to recognise in the future in the notes. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The map would look like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CountriesRecognizingROC.png just that this map is for Rep of China Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We can call two sections - Countries that have officially recognized independent Kosovo and Positions of other countries + section of non UN countries and 2 entities section just as it is now. Current section nr.1 is the new section 1. and 2,3,4 and 5 are new section 2. Let the readers decide on countries position, not us. --Avala (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we call the second group "Positions of other countries, all of which are currently not recognising Kosovo". Good idea about the non-UN countries too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the second part as it would include countries which are obviously going to recognize it in coming days like Sweden.--Avala (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Will you request for this page to be un-protected please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists

I disagree partially with the above solution. I understand the motivation, but I think the countries which have explicitly refused to recognize a Republic of Kosovo should be listed separately. These include Serbia, Russia, Spain, etc. Also, please don't make major edits such as [9] without an appropriate edit summary (in this case explaining that you were removing a large section). Countries that haven't taken a clear stand either way can be grouped together in the "Other states" section, and their positions quoted. This includes countries that have said "we're going to wait", "we're skeptical of unilateral moves", etc., as well as "African countries which just don't care". Superm401 - Talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Canadian community response

I did not remove your addition, but I believe it is you who needs to explain why that community's opinion is relevant. --K kc chan (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They are Serbian. I didn't think that because they did not live in Serbia that their opinion somehow became irrelevant. Would it be more acceptable if they were Serbian American? NorthernThunder (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to say but their opinion IS irrelevant. If they want their opinion to be relevant they can go back to Serbia. Let's take your idea to extreme. The world has over 200 countries. Are you telling me that this article should contain Kosovo/Albanian communities from 200 world countries, and their opinion on this issue? And moreover, what purpose would it have? Other than having 500 page long "support for Serbia from all kind of Serbian communities throughout the universe and beyond". No one cares. Serbs are not citizens of Rome. JosipMac (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JosipMac, there is no point mentioning every Serbian, Kosovar and Albanian community in the world. There is also no point mentioning all these little separatist groups all over the world too. Their opinion is not too important either (sorry if this offends anyone). Yes i know that some countries are scared that if they recognise Kosovo, separatists in their country may declare independence. I get the picture, but do we have to mention every separatist group? No we don't! We can just mention that Separatist groups are in favor of an independant Kosovo and this may affect a countries decision on weather or not to recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We could say that the majority of these separatists groups are in favor, the self-proclaimed "Serbian republic" is against Kosova's UDI. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Yes We Could. :-) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you fit: Abkhazia, Basque, Nagorno-Karabakh, Republika Srpska, Tamil Eelam, and Western Sahara all OPPOSE Republic of Kosova? Why do we even need to put these entities in the first place? It's not important what these entities think. How about we create an article related to this article which is about an international precedents and then we can have this input of all these unrecognized nations or entities. This is pretty much the same argument as the one above about Serbian Canadians and what they think. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Personally, I think only those separatist movements that are 'against' should be mentioned, because it is implied that they will be pro-Kosovo by default. And no, it's not the same as what Serbian Canadians think. The same thing would be if you mentioned Basque, and then what Basque communities in Belize, Lesotho and Fiji think. Mentioning Basque can make some sense at least (although it can be redudant) but mentioning Basque community in Nepal makes no sense at all (unless you want to make an impression that there is a huge support for Basque independence, just as some people here want to make impression that there's higher support of Serbia). JosipMac (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of the Serbian Canadian community response, as we'll end up with hundreds of individual communities in third countries (eg. Kosovars in the US, Serbs in the US, Kosovars in France, Serbs in France). The list would be endless. Regarding Abkhazia, Basque Country, etc... would a table entitled Separatist Movements be more appropriate? We would then leave only Serbian Orthodox Church and Islamic Community of Serbia in Other Relevant Entities (per my comments below on the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center).--Scotchorama (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have the London-Based Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the International Handball League in the article. Yet Canadian Serbian response is irrelevant? Can someone say MEGABIAS!!!! Canada is deciding what it's position on Kosovo is, and will therefore listen to their Serbian Community. Hence it's a lot more relevant then the powerless London-Based Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, or the International Handball League. To me it seems that all organizations that are pro-Kosovo, you guys go "wooohooo, put it up, put it up!" But if they're against Kosovo, you guys go "irrelevant". Look, I know in Kosovo you can do whatever you want, and in America too as an American you can get away with a lot of shit (I live in the USA) but this is an INTERNATIONAL article, and it shows the EXTREME BIAS. As Americans we should really be better if we intend to be the "City Upon a Hill" 68.164.148.147 (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a rather nasty joke about Kosovo going on around the World, slowly spreading, and it makes America and NATO look extremely bad! Let's not be super-biased and contribute to the bad feeling, eh? Otherwise more jokes like this are likely to follow. Ok, here's the joke:

"What's the difference between Kosovo and Darfur in terms of Christian whacking?"

"In Kosovo, it's NATO sponsored."

I just thought I should bring it to your attention, because Kosovo is turning a lot of people against the US gov't, even more so then the War in Iraq and we could lose our international prestige. Every action, no matter how minute, that America does against Serbia, is judged harshly in the eyes of the World. Germany and France are having protests, and with the Kosovo recognition, the elected officials will have trouble getting re-elected. We are no longer popular in the World, let's not strenghten that sentiment by giving the World a biased article. If I offended anyone, I'm sorry, but that had to be said. 68.164.148.147 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--Clarity--

This map is very confusing. It would be better if we only had the map show countries that have officially recognized the Republic of Kosova. Even the way it is, the colors aren't contrasting to each other. A map like kosovothanksyou.com is easier to understand. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Don't worry. If you read the "Protection" part we are discussing this right now. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I like the map as it is. People who want to see "who recognized Kosovo" only, can see that by switching on dark-blue-only glasses. JosipMac (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your well funny mate! Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

;) They complicate things for no reason! :) Soon they will start debating on whether or not they should debate on a debate about recognized-only coloration of the map. :) JosipMac (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know they complicate things, thats why why discussing if it should be more simple? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, I'm really new to this..A) How do you change like the map and all of that..who is admin or how do you become one? B)I dissagree with the color scheme..it should just be countries who have recognized it or have started the process of recognition. Obviously if you're not colored it means that you haven't begun the process or do you recognize Kosova. 68.114.197.88 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Other Relevant Entities & International Organisations

I have to question the presence of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center under Other Relevant Entities, as this is just one think tank among many others, and is actually not a notable think tank. I would suggest deleting it, or we'll have to list hundreds of think tanks.

Furthermore, under International Organisations, I wouldn't list international sports federations (eg. International Ski Federation, International Table Tennis Federation, International Handball Federation) or we'll end up with a long list of international sports federations. Technically, those aren't international organisations per se. Maybe a separate table could be created for them, but I would find it strange to have the UN, the EU, and the International Federation of Tiddlywinks in the same list.--Scotchorama (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you are right at some of the points you mentioned. Regarding the sport federations - maybe we could merge them with the IOC somehow. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Protection is gone...

how are we to organise the countries. Either do we keep them as they are with the 5 different groups or do we put the countries into just two groups, which would be 1) countries which recognise Kosovo (eg UK and France) and 2) countries that do not recognise Kosovo (eg Russia, New Zealand, Canada and Chad) so all countries that do not recognise Kosovo. What do we want? Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I suggest 2+1 lists for countries as the most NPOV thing. Countries that have recognized independence of Kosovo, Positions of other countries and nonUN. You agreed to it in the previous discussion. Current 5 group system suffered from different interpretations. --Avala (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets do it like that then. Countries that recognise Kosovo and countries that don't. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Remove the numbers please after you alphabetize the list because later edits will be hard to make with numbers (if you need to move country nr.1 you have to edit all other numbers and they are not important really). --Avala (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to do the numbers at the end. Could you do the map please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Map is locked atm. I can make a temporary .png file. --Avala (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png --Avala (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive put them in alphabetical order. Im just about to number them. The map is really good. Can we put it where the old map was and make it the same size too? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So Avala is pushing his own point of view to which nobody else adhered? Why is haveing country recognizing vs everybody else? Why not 1) country not recognizing, 2) everybody else? Simple: the name is International reaction, not states that recognized Kosovo. Nergaal (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Malayisa - final decision

Can we provide a source in English that Malaysia recognized Kosovo? If not then it has to be removed from the list and added to second table as a country that only welcomed Kosovo independence. --Avala (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

i found an English reference for Malaysia http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:sWGbD6hojoQJ:www.unmikonline.org/dpi/localmed.nsf/0/2F51975B80F370F1C12573F7002B5521/%24FILE/Headlines%2520-%252021.02.08.doc+malaysia+recognise+kosovo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh that's not really a verifiable source (out of google cache). It could be easy that these misinterpreted as well. Let's find a normal news article with some kind of statement from Malaysia that it recognizes. According to some user Malaysian ambassador in Croatia stated Malaysia did not recognize Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An IP provided above a link to a press release of the Kosovar president (see [10]). Could someone provide a translation? Gugganij (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• This source says' that the president of kosovo met with the Mr.Mansor who confirmed him that malaysia recognized kosovo and that it has decided to open an embassy there , where Mr.Mansor will be working as an ambassador --Cradel 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the translation of the Malayisan MFA statement gives us only informal congratulations. --Avala (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about asking some user from Category:User ms to give us a translation of KENYATAAN AKHBAR - PERISYTIHARAN KEMERDEKAAN KOSOVO and another user (of your own choice) from Category:User sq to translate Malajzia njeh pavarësinë e Kosovës? Gugganij (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The second article is about Kosovo President meeting Malaysian representative in Pristina. I doubt there is anything spectacular there but I think it would be a good idea to ask some Malaysian to translate that. --Avala (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That reference i put up earlier is legitimate as it is from UNMIK website, hence it being in the web address. The reason it looks weird is because it is in HTLM format rather than Microsoft word format.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:sWGbD6hojoQJ:www.unmikonline.org/dpi/localmed.nsf/0/2F51975B80F370F1C12573F7002B5521/%24FILE/Headlines%2520-%252021.02.08.doc+malaysia+recognise+kosovo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to be Malay language ambassador on Wikipedia so we can ask him. --Avala (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He lives in India but is Malaysian. --Avala (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure, that you didn't confuse Malayalam language with Malay language. The user box indicates that he knows just the former one. Gugganij (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I stopped reading at Malay... it seems. Sorry. --Avala (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to be a good choice - administrator, mother tongue Malay. Gugganij (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok.--Avala (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am gonna drop him a line. Gugganij (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you already did. Thanxs. Gugganij (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

@Cradel: Thanxs Cradel, would you mind to give us a translation of the entire text? Gugganij (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) So Malay ambassador in Zagreb and Malay representative in Pristina make different statements? --Avala (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange indeed. Therefore it would be helpful, if the text on the President's website could be translated fully. Additionally, it might be a good idea to look for the statement of the Malay ambassador to Croatia on Jutarnji list. Things might clear up. Gugganij (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Full translation:

Pristina , 20 February ,2008 : The President of the Republic of Kosovo met today with the chief of the Malaysian office in Pristina , Mr.Mustafa J Mansor

Mr.Mansor informed President Sejdiu that the government of the country that he represents has recognized kosovo as an independent state
He also said that Malaysia has decided to make it's office in pristina an embassy, where Mr.Mansor would be the Ambassador --Cradel 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanxs Cradel. This statement seems to me rather clear. In the absence of any other source, I think it is justified to include Malaysia in the group of countries which have recognized Kosovo. Any comments? Gugganij (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the map?

Could someone elucidate me as to why suddenly all the countries with varying degrees of diplomatic response have been lumped into 'Other Countries Reaction'? It's far less clear than it was with the older version of the article with this map. Besides, it takes a partisan look on the situation, whether you look at it from the Albanian side (they're deliberately showing all the vast bits of 'grey' on Earth!) or the Serbian side (they're not showing the vast refusal of pivotal countries to recognise!).

This new version of the article is confusing, far more difficult to maintain and conflictive for both sides. IMHO, the older version surpassed news outlets as to clarity of information, organisation and neutrality. This version is just lazy and partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acachinero (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So is it partisan from the Albanian or the Serbian side? To suggest that it's "partisan" on BOTH sides at the same time is odd at the very least. I don't think it's possible to lean towards one side and the opposite at the same time. Hobartimus (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was disgust to change the map like that. Its more simple and easier to understand. It also stops edit wars. It is not pro Serbian or Albanian at all. It is so much more neutral. The new map tells you, which countries recognise Kosovo and which don't, just like all the other partially recognise countries in the world. eg ROC. I really can't understand how it could be confusing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it si humongousy pro-Albanian because it basically ignores any other stance that pro. Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I liked the old map until we started to experience edit wars due to different interpretations of statements from foreign officials. So this is the compromise solution which stops vandalism and edit wars. --Avala (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, thats why i agree with Avala. The page was protected before due to vandalism and edit wars, so no-one could edit it at all. This new map is more neutral and thats how wikipedia is meant to be. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This new map is better imo, it shows what you'd want to know, easy. I don't think it's pro any side, it just shows the reality of the situation. Chandlertalk 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Chandler Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked to have the map like this, Malaysia is missing, and I love it, soooo much easier to understand. Also I am worried that with the article being opened there will be a lot of editing. We don't need to be the FIRST to report (with errors), we have to be CORRECT. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

In fact the old map was an extremely useful reference source. This is a very complicated issue, with a range of gradations of opinions on the issue. Some states explicitly recognise, some have ruled out recognition, others have said that they are not taking a view, and the majority have not stated any opinion at all so far. This diversity is all very important, and needs to be reflected. Likewise, the listing of states according to these various criteria was also very useful. The new map, and the lumping together of all the states into just two categories, recognise or not, in fact lowers the value of this page considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if a country decides not to take a view, it still does not reconise Kosovo, therefore fits into the grey area. If a country does not state an opinion at all it means that the country does not recognise Kosovo. A country doesn't have to state that it doesn't recognise Kosovo for it not to recognise Kosovo, it can do nothing and still not recognise Kosovo and thats what a lot of countries are doing. There is further information on their position of each country in the notes section. This map is neutral, simple and stops editing wars, so is a lot better. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said before countries that do not recognize have no legal obligation to react at all and even if they do there is no formal prescribed requirement. It can be done in any possible way through statements or else. --Avala (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what was non-neutral about a category for countries that had explicitly stated that they plan to grant official recognition! We're an encyclopedia, which means we both report and organize information. We can't shrink from edit wars at all costs! -- SCZenz (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

China

Will Kosovo "threaten" to recognize Taiwan if PRC does not recognize Kosovo? --Camptown (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Kosovo is in position to threaten China. --Avala (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would Kosovo do that? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a bargaining chip ;-) Gugganij (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

but in all fairness, will China really care if Kosovo threatens to do so? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

China slapped Macedonia when they decided to recognize Taiwan so that Macedonian government reverted their decision. --Avala (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, China won't have a lot of leeway over Kosovo if it doesn't recognize it... So maybe at some time China might decide it is actually better to indeed recognize Kosovo, and then shower it with money so that Kosovo doesn't recognize Taiwan. Luis rib (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosova in Dec 2007 had 5% of its' import come from China. And china is against the idea of Kosova becoming independent but has never explicitly warned Kosova or threaten to veto Kosova in the UNSC. Only Russia. The relations are good for now. Kosova2008 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

I don't think that China cares that much. --Avala (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Change from better to worse

What happened? The previous version was far better (e.g. the map). This one just simplified it to a poorer sense and removed a lot of info. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and call for the previous format/map to be restored. It was far more informative. Húsönd 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be there if there wasn't so much disruptive edits. One user kept reverting everything because he considered everyone's edits to be bad even though they were sourced. So when we add Chile who states they want peaceful negotiations to continue one user moves it to grey and says they are strictly neutral. This was the only way to stop the article deterioration. --Avala (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

yeh. I agree with Avala. besides the information is still there. just look in the notes section for each country. this version is easier to understand, more neutral and doesn't cause editing wars. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The map is like all other partially recognised countries too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you just scroll to the country if you want to know more about their position. Previously editors were summarizing content for readers and that led to a lot of POV pushing.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How about three categories: 1) formal recognition, 2) formal decision not to recognize and 3) undecided/waiting (or similar descriptions)?--Scotchorama (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No because we had edit wars which country goes where. Some countries might not recognize but did not publish any statements and some countries might be pushed into undecided/waiting even though they have a clear position of talks continuation. --Avala (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Avala here - while the current map may contain less info, it is at least 100% fact based. The other map simply lead to original research - i.e. we wikipedians doing judgement on how to interpret the words of this or that official from some country. Luis rib (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala too and we should Keep it how it is, because at the end of the day a Country either recognises Kosovo or it doesn't. There is no in betweens. The main information people want to know is whicj countries recognise Kosovo and which dont. All other information is in the notes section. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Some countries might make an official declaration that they don't recognize while others will stay silent on the matter and keep going like nothing changed. --Avala (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some countries are clearly saying Yes. Some are saying clearly No. Many are saying nothing conclusive. Having a map that lists only the Yeses is not as informative - the older map was, in my view, much better. At the very least the map should show the ones that definitely wont recognise Kosovo. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was much better it wouldn't have ended being locked from further updates. --Avala (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala's arguments are sound and I am somehow starting to get used to the new map. Maybe it could be a little bigger though, 500px perhaps. With the current size one can hardly spot Kosovo. Húsönd 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too much information can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It is better to keep it clear and straightforward rather than trying to provide as much information as possible. --K kc chan (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote in favor of the recognition-only map. The full map should not be removed but just taken out of this particular article so that the flame wars may take place somewhere else, without affecting the content of the article.Kami888 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Husond but not as big as the old map, the reason is that when I zoom in it takes too long and its choppy on my laptop. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Ok, I'm convinced. Makes sense and avoids POV-pushing.--Scotchorama (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Husond to return the old one - this removed a bunch of info from organizations & unrecognized entities for example.

Next to that, it doesn't depict the world balance (on 'sort-of' two sides). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people here claim that this map is like all the other ones for the partially recognized entities of the world. But there is a large difference, Kosovo just declared its independence, not 30 years ago. Thus, once a year passes this type of map makes sense, but now it does not because it is biased against Kosovo. It seems that only a certain proportion of the world has recognized, and that, that proportion is stable, whereas in reality that proportion is increasing due to the fact that many nations take a longer time than other to recognize, yet they have explicitly stated that they will recognize Kosovo. I think it is wrong information for people not to know that countries like Pakistan and Russia are not on the same level when it comes to reaction towards Kosovo's Independence declaration.

Stop pushing NPOV

SOmebody is whitching the format to the article to: things that recognize independence, and everything else. This is clearly not a neutral point of view, and putting stuff that is not in the UN together with UN members that recognize independence is a further NPOV. The article needs to show clearly in the format that some do not agree to either the independence itself, or the process itself. Somebody should follow this NPOV more closely. Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

users Ijanderson977 and Avala are apparently the ones pushing this non-neutral POV. Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

user anderson identifies himself as a pro-Kosovo (bannoer on his own userpage).Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or this article is called international reaction and not states recognizing independence? Nergaal (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if i identify myself as pro-Kosovo on my personnel user page? I don't put my opinion into wiki articles.
Yes this article is called international reaction and if you would actually read the notes section next to the country, you can read their reaction. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Color Key

If wikipedia is neutral than why are the colors keys in so many languages (even Serbian) except Albanian? I don't know how to change it, or add the Albanian names but here they are.

Kosova
Shtetet që e njohin zyrtarisht Kosovën si shtet
Shtetet që do të njohin Kosovën si shtet
Shtetet që kanë pozita dykuptueshëm apo asnjë pozitë
Shtetet që përkrahin më shumë biseda sipas OKBs ose kundërshtojin hapa njëanshëm
Shtetet që nuk e njohin Kosoven si e pavarur
Shtetet që nuk ka informata për moment

Please do NOT DELETE, I just spent over 15 minutes translating my words into the form of GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT form. Kosova2008 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

The image is currently protected at Wikimedia Commons so your translation can't be added right away. I've contacted the admin who protected it. Hopefully your Albanian translation will be added soon enough. Thank you! Húsönd 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

       No problem, the map is now changed to the new map (only GREEN), if it switches back to the old one, is Albanian
       going to be the first on the list (if this is alphabetical; Albanian before English?)  Kosova2008 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

I went ahead and added the Albanian text to the Commons image. Since the original map was published in English, I decided to keep English at top, but put Albanian right under it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

it should say ALBANIAN not Albania. LOL 128.206.48.6 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008