Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20


Serbian Islamic Community quote

Serbian Islamic Community quote and source are to be disputed. They origins are through Serbian Propaganda machine (Kendobs (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, we know that. But Serbian propaganda machine is working at full speed, and this is just one case. I'm disputing the others. JosipMac (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You are not disputing anything just deleting everything that don't agrees with you. Vladar86 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other separatist entities

I object to this title. First of all, the term "separatism" has a negative connotation and is already POV, since from another point of view, one could speak about "the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Kosovan people". Secondly, this paragraph mixes up the legitimate regional governments of Spanish autonomous regions with political parties, unrecognized breakaway states, rebel groups and an internationally recognized national liberation movement. Hence, a more neutral title should be used. MaartenVidal (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to this objection. I object to political correctness. Separatism has no negative connotations. Word "object(ion)" has negative connotations. Therefore the above person should edit his/her post and remove the offending word "object" which, it is evident, has negative connotations. "Right to self-determination of the Kosovan people" is POV; it is my opinion that there is no such 'right'. Self-determination is IMO factual 'ability' of Kosovan people and pro-Kosovo nations. JosipMac (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you had taken a look at the Wikipedia article on separatism, you would have read that the following: "Separatist groups themselves often reject the term separatism: they may consider it pejorative, and prefer more neutral terms such as self-determination." Furthermore, if you had read my statement carefully, you would have seen that I say that I consider both "separatism" and "right to self-determination" are POV, implying that we should use a more neutral, third term. Thirdly, if in your opinion there is no "right of selfdetermination", you might have a look at, inter alia, the UN Charter, the two UN Covenants of 1966, the well-written book by A. Cassese, 'Self-determination of peoples - a legal appraisal', Cambridge, 1996 or one of the hundreds of publications written on this subject. Finally, and in fact my main point, what I am trying to convey is that under this heading a number of entities are grouped that are very different one from the other: the legal regional government of a Spanish autonomous region (whose program does not even include separation from Spain), armed groups.... MaartenVidal (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hoew about 'seceding regions and independence movements.' 'Separatist entities' may be POV, but 'national liberation movements' is much worse. 141.166.152.152 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant enteties

The article has a section titled "Other relevant enteties" Should this say "entities"? 72.248.122.243 (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Stop the Taiwan/ROC Edit War

Taiwan recognized. It was listed in italics. It had a note next to it explaining Taiwan's unusual status. Just leave put it back in the list of recognizing countries and leave it be. This is not POV: Taiwan is an international anomaly: not a separatist entity! It may become one if it declares independence, but for the time being it is committed, as a matter of policy, to its own version of the One-China Policy. Taiwan may not be a legit country but it is a government, it governs territory, it has a fair amount in international recognition (23 countries), and it has recognized Kosovo. That should be noted in the first list, not the last list. Put it back the way it was! 141.166.153.89 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Konekoniku (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

141.166.153.89, you said it yourself, it is "not... a legit country", though "it is a government" that governs territory. For this very reason, it is wrong to have it listed under "countries...", as it goes against the fact. Now, if it were to be removed completely, it would be considered POV because some people advocates for Taiwan Independance. Therefore it should be in the "partially recognized...". I suggest changing its name to "partially reconized states" or something similar, but I don't know, this should be discussed. --Ruolin59 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop Vladar's propaganda

In a section "REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations", I requested a merge of Orthodox Churches and argumented why this is needed to eliminate Serbian propaganda. Some people agreed with me, and the only, only person who disagreed is Vladar. He keeps reverting my changes back all the time. I want this Serb propaganda to stop. If anyone has counter-arguments on why Orthodox Churches shouldn't be merged, you can post them in that "Remove.." section. I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is one Serb (Vladar) losing a debate and then trying to use brute force method and simply editing the article in a way he wants. JosipMac (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please delet this propaganda - it is not important for the international recognition of Kosovo.It is just a propaganda.--Pikolomini83

dude, if I am Serb it doesn't mean I am genocidal maniac, stop being a racist trie to be objective to my edits. Vladar86 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its ok as it is now by mentioning the Serbian Orthodox Church, other Orthodox Churches and the Islamic community of Serbia. There is no point naming the Orthodox Church of every country, as we all know that they are not to support Kosovo's declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support removing local Orthodox Churches. Hobartimus (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the albanian orthodox church is against it, but then again they are a church and do not have a political website, so I can not prove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.25 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of all Orthodox churches for as long as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois and similar entities are on the list. --Avala (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but i think its rather pointless listing all the Orthodox Churches, as all Orthodox Churches are obviously going to not recognise Kosovo. So if we put "Other Orthodox" Churches in a group, their point of view is still there, but there is no big pointless list with every Orthodox Church Saying the Same thing. The Serbian Orthodox Church, should be separate to the other Orthodox Churches. But with entities such as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois, some entities support Kosovo and some don't, so i think we should keep them up, as all views are not the same. For example Republika Srpska is differnt to the Québécois entities. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious, what do Orthodox Churches' opinion has to do with Kosovo's DOI? Isn't this an political issue between Serbia and Kosovo? Or are we insisting that this is an issue between the Orthodox and the Muslims? --K kc chan (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

few Orthodox Churches support Serbia but most dint issue statement. As of conflict of faiths... Who knows, Albanians say they will respect all religions in kosovo but with more then 150 churches burn or destroyed and several priest killed, it is hard for Christians to trust them, but thy are rebuilding some churches. I agree that the serbs did a genocide in Kosovo, and therefore they deserve the indenpendence. Vladar86 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And by christians you mean who. Not everything is black and white as we know. Albanian Christians (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) trust lthem. Can you enlighten me?82.114.94.25 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Finland

The president just signed the decree - Finland formally recognises Kosovo. --Camptown (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Finland recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country on Friday, with President Tarja Halonen concurring with a government decision and showing green light for the establishment of diplomatic ties with the former Serbian province. The decision to recognise Kosovo was made at a presidential session with no need for a debate between the government and the head of state. The government and president had agreed on the timetable of recognising Kosovo a week ago. Kosovo issued its independence declaration three weeks ago. Ilkka Kanerva (cons), Finland's foreign minister, announced the Finnish government's intention to propose recognition to the president shortly after the declaration." [1]

And the semi-official website kosovothanksyou.com is still not updated. ;) --Camptown (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither have the relevant Wikimedia Commons maps, Image:Kosovo_relations.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, which otherwise continue to misinform with unsubstantiated synthesis introduced and forcibly sustained by user:Avala (Bosnia, Chile, Cuba, Kuwait, New Zealand, Uruguay should all be shown in khaki, as neutral/formally yet to decide as governments, diplomatically; debatably, Bosnia, shown in red, might be justified in orange, if it can be shown that its government, acting as such, is on record as calling for the continuation of the failed negotiation framework "Serbia vs. its province of Kosovo", which no one ever did manage, even when Bosnia and Hercegovina, the state, was being shown in orange). So. I would hate to have to say, which website provides more reliable and better sourced factual information. :/ --Mareklug talk 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with kosovothanksyou.com is that not much information is provided as evidence for the number of states that "will recognize". --Camptown (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatia has been moved to the "Final Call" group. But, can we really expect a formal recognition that soon? --Camptown (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard the 17th of march is a possible date --Cradel 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the procedure in Croatia when recognizing foreign states? --Camptown (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deputy PMs Đurđa Adlešić and Slobodan Uzelac are against recognition but the PM said it's not up to them to decide and that Croatia should recognize. That's all I know. --Avala (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Unofficially, Croatia will supposedly recognize Kosovo on March 15th. Adlesic and Uzelac don't have authority to make any decisions on this matter. I don't remember Adlesic ever said she's against recognition, but she did say Croatia should not hurry with it. Uzelac is Serb, of course he will support Serbia, it's no brainer. As far as the recognition goes, it has already been decided (behind the scene) that Croatia will recognize Kosovo, and the only reason there is no formal recognition yet is due to political reasons (and slightly economic ones too).
Camptown - the president and the government share foreign affairs authority. President had talked already with Prime Minister, so I wouldn't expect any official statement from him. It's more likely that foreign affairs minister will come out with "we recognize Kosovo" statement. JosipMac (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Croatia will recognize democratic Rep. of Kosova on March 14th, latests the 15th68.114.197.88 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
I have some proof, Read me 128.206.162.164 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

(xth of 27 EU member states)

That is silly, unnecessary information, and confusing as well. When I first saw that Sweden was listed as "(16th of 27 EU member states)" I assumed it meant that Sweden was the 16th country to become a member of the EU! And I do think that is the most obvious interpretation.

If you want to indicate the order in which the EU countries have recognized Kosovo (and why in the world do you want to do that?) then it would be more correct to specify them as "(1st of 16 EU member states)" to "(16th of 16 EU member states)". Otherwise you're implying that all 27 EU member states are going to recognize Kosovo, and that is far from certain.

My strong recommendation: remove this sillyness. --RenniePet (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing it. --Tocino 17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Just metion at the top bit that 16 EU states recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is confusing as is, we don't need to add more information. That type of information should rather be in the summary of international recognition in the main page for Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Tunisia

Just reading the counry table and noticed Tunisia is missing and it has issued a statement, should i add it ??? (Neostinker (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

If there is a source, yes. --Avala (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Do you know where to find the statement? --Camptown (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes ill add it now, its on one of the UN websites with minutes of a meeting i will add it to the refs section :-) (Neostinker (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Russia's position

The current text says: "Russia ... is strongly opposed to admitting Kosovo in to any international organization." That statement needs to be properly verified, or should be deleted. --Camptown (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


UN member state positions

The current text says: "Of the 192 UN member states, only 97 have taken any position at all". This statement is rather complicated. What exactly is a "position"? And who came up with the figure in the first place? --Camptown (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What i think it is meant to say is "only 97 have said their view on Kosovo" i think that sentence should be deleted. Its pointless. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, not taking any position is also a kind of position, albeit a rather passive one... If an active position at least comes with a formal declaration by the Minístry for Foreign Affairs, there are probably fewer that 97 who have been active. --Camptown (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA Factbook updated

The Kosovan page is updated and Kosovo is treated like any other sovereign state: Kosovo - on the map, the Serbian/Kosovan border is marked as the UNMIK-line... Also the Serbian page has been updated accordingly: Serbia, with the border on the map marked as the UNMIK-line. Maybe the CIA will update the border when the EULEX takes over after the UN... --Camptown (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

EULEX isn't going to solve this..EULEX is for rule of law, I don't understand how border issues fall into this category. EULEX will solve problems in judiciary, implementation of Ahtisaari's laws, police reforms, creation of KFS, etc. Kosova2008 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)
If you scroll to the bottom, the CIA lists the issues with the border between Kosovo and Serbia, along with Kosovo and Macedonia. I expect the boundary issues to be fixed in the coming years. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Macedonia has to recognize Kosovo before the issue would be subject for re-negotiation. Btw: How much differs the present demarcation between Kosovo and Macedonia from the agreement reached between Serbia and Macedonia? --Camptown (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume the line now is what was previously agreed upon by S&M. I am not sure to what point Kosovo wants the line extended to. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Right before Slobodan was sent to the Hague he made an agreement with Macedonia. Under this agreement over IDK how many hectars/acres were given but it is equivalent to 10km (squared) of Kosova's territory. There are villages in that 10km2 who are Kosovars and want to be Kosovars since the deal between Slobodan and Macedonia is illegal. Don't forget these borders weren't created today, they have been in place at LEAST since 1974 (34 yrs +) and he gave that land (changed the border). This is why Hashim Thaçi is making a "big deal" out of this. Kosova2008 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

former U.N. special envoy Martti Ahtisaari said...

Hey, this guy, former president of Finland, the go-to guy on Kosovo, designated by the UN to solve The Whole Kosovo Thing, Martti Ahtisaari, is now on record, reacting to the "international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", and contributing notably to the same. Shouldn't we augment the article with this information, including, what he said? IMHO, there has to be a provision for important reaction by individuals in the current article structure, other than individual politicians/ministers quoted in tables next to their countries. And, our quoting Block Quebecois and the like often is one man's opinion. Sources: "No going back on Kosovo, says Ahtisaari", or here: "Ahtisaari urges Spain, EU members to recognise Kosovo". --Mareklug talk 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, in his plan Ahtisaari explicitly called for independence. The fact that he is now calling on states to recognise the independence he proposed is actually completely irrelevant. After all, he would, wouldn't he? What really matters at this stage are the countries that recognise or don't recognise the declaration of independence, the international organisations to which it belongs or doesn't belong, the other separatist/secessionist entities that regard Kosovo as a precedent. Ahtisaari has been completely irrelevant since his mandate as UN Envoy ended in June 2007.

Montenegro

Does Montenegro's position differ from that of Croatia? --Camptown (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific exactly? 68.114.197.88 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Milo Djukanovic has said that Montenegro would wait for the EU members to react to the independence proclamation, and when "most of them" recognized independent Kosovo, Montenegro would do the same. Could that imply some coordination with Croatia which has indicated recognition after "a majority" of EU member states had recognized Kosovo? --Camptown (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Montenegro isn't quick to recognize because when it gained independence Serbia became landlocked and everything that Serbia ships through the sea is done through the Montenegrin ports. After a while when most of Europe has recognized Kosova Montenegro will come around, that's what I think. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're getting ahead of yourself here. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, and most of Eastern Europe will not recognize Kosovo unless something drastic happens. So if Montenegro is waiting for everyone else, then it looks like they could be waiting for eternity. --Tocino 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I really getting ahead of myself? Once Croatia recognizes Kosova, Montenegro will follow suit. Already half the EU has recognized Kosova, I'm not speculating. I expect some of those Easter European countries to recognize Kosova soon such as Hungary and others. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

What's Happening

Source 131 to Phillipines does not work.

Brukina Faso's position should be "Burkina Faso could only take note of the new situation" not "Burkina Faso said it would take note of the new situation and stated that it hopes that violence would not erupt.[82]" 68.114.197.88 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Taiwan again

Please, put Taiwan back to the ordinary nations list, in which it was yesterday. Stop that Taiwan edit/unedit war. The last things is done according to POV. Maybe there are people who are in sympathy with PR China, since it always denies the existence of Taiwan. Remember that Taiwan currently is recognised by 23 other countries, and it was founding charter meber of the UN in 1945. It is an existing state which have been so for a very long time.

Just my bronze 2 Cents piece in this "tug-of-war" about Taiwan. --Den-femte-ryttaren (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, done.Konekoniku (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


POV Heading

"Seceded regions and national liberation movements" - the term 'liberation movement' implies legitimacy, as much as 'seceded region' implies illegitimacy. Its POV. Simply label this section 'seceded regions and independence movements.' The independence of nay given territory my or may not be legit, depending on the circumstances and individual views. The term itself neither suggests that these movements are per se legit or illegit. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaction of the Vatican City (and/)or the Roman Catholic Church?

Also, perhaps the Vatican be "double-listed" on 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' and 'states not recognizing Kosovo?' It could fit under both categories and really should be under both categories, since the Pope's views on the conflict represent not only the opinion of Vatican City, the tiny country, but the Roman Catholic Church, the not-so-tiny ecclesiastic organization.

Perhaps, under 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' it could be listed as 'Roman Catholic Church' to avoid the appearance of a redundant entry. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican City - can only recognize Kosovo in his function as a state not as a church! The Pope has a doubel function as the Pontifix - the leader of the church and the leader of the Vatican State. Relevant here is not the Raman Catholic Church but the desicion of the State of Vatican. So please delet the orthodox church position - it isn't relevant for the international recognition of the Republic of Kosovo Pikolomini83 16:54, 8 March 2008

Yeah none of what you said contradicts what I said earlier - As Pope, his opinion likely expresses an opinion for the Church as well as the (Vatican City) State. Or a subsequent opinion might too. It seems incredibly unlikely that he would make the distinction you are making: that he, as leader of the Vatican City State calls for peace and negotiation but he, as leader of the Roman Catholic Church does not. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/vatican.calls.for.moderation.in.kosovo.and.serbia/16924.htm - this is cited as one of two references for the Pope's opinion. It does not say he is making it as leader of the Vatican City or as leader of the Church. Hence, since he is supreme leader of both, his policy opinions should be held to represent both unless he states otherwise (or perhaps if his statements directly contradicts Catholic doctrine). 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11835 - the other cited reference for the Vatican, also does not state whether the Pope's opinion represents the opinion of the Vatican City or the Roman Catholic Church. Unless someone can provide a citation to something that states the Pope meant his comments to refer only to one or the other, the proper way of interpreting this is he meant it for both. His opinion should therefore be double-listed: in the country list for the Vatican City (country) and the 'ecclesiastical list' for the Roman Catholic Church (religious organization). 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


So my basic point here is that the Roman Catholic Church - probably the largest single ecclesiastic organization on the planet - has spoken on this issue! The article should denote this under religious organizations. It should not leave it solely under countries just because the world's largest religious organization also controls the world's smallest country. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Koštunica

Should Koštunica's resignation (as a direct result of Kosovo's declaration of independence) be mentioned somewhere here? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


Vandalism: Ecclesiastical Organizations removed, replaced with Opinion statement literally comparing them to terrorists

This is what I saw earlier, where 'ecclesiastical and other religious organizations' was:


"Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations - not needed. To (sic) biased, trying to voice support for Serbs through Religious Contempt. They could be compared to terrorists."


Whoever is in charge, undo this idiot's damage and restore the ecclesiastical list (and add the Papal reaction to that list: see earlier heading). 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. The edit was done by Kendobs who's made a series of disruptive edits which border on vandalism. A look at his contributions and talk page reveal that this user is likely a troll. --Tocino 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the fix. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan again....

Its not a separatist entity (it considers itself part of China). Its not an independence movement (it has not declared independence from China). It should not be listed along-side either. listing Taiwan alongside Abkazia and Transdeinister is absurd.

This has been discussed ad nauseum.

Return it to the top list 'countries recognizing..." with the note regarding its status and the fact Kosovo is not likely to recognize it. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another person has moved Taiwan form the top list to "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements," the bottom list. Yet Taiwan and its government, the Republic of China, are not really a 'a partially recognized nation,' everyone recognizes China is a nation. If you recognize the Taipei government then you are recognizing it as the legal government of that nation. Nor is Taiwan a seceded region, it is commtied to its own form of the One-China Policy. That may change, but until it does, Taiwan is not a separatist entity. And I don't think Taiwan is a "national liberation movement," whatever that POV term is supposed to denote. Hence Taiwan does not belong on this list. It either belongs on the top list or it belongs on a list by itself. If the latter, that list should be at the top, since after all, this anomaly recognized the Republic of Kosovo. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereever ROC should be placed, it is definite POV to place it with the "countries recognizing..." as the status of ROC is highly disputed and most countries have a very ambiguous policy on the subject of Taiwan. I still think it's good to place it with the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements", as one can argue that it IS a "partially recognized nation" because 23 countries do recognize it. Everyone does recognize China as a nation, but the ROC supporters sees it separate from the PRC (which I personally think is illegal, however I cannot put that in the article as that would be POV). Placing ROC in its own list, I believe, would be highhly impractical. To satisfy your criteria, maybe change "partially recognized nations" to "partially reconized states" or "ambiguous states"? --Ruolin59 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Taiwanese, I feel offended by the statement above. Can someone elaborate on what defines a "fully recognized state"? --K kc chan (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The ROC is only recognized by 23 nations, while the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is recognized by 43 nations, yet the SADR is listed under the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements" category. If you want the ROC listed under "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", well do you also support moving the SADR up to the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" category too? It is very POV to exclude ROC from a list of "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements". --Tocino 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to move the SADR up, if the decision is taken to keep Taiwan/ROC on the top list. Khuft (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the status quo which is having the ROC and SADR in the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements" category. Countries that are recognized by less than a 1/4th of UN member states don't belong on a list of normal, soverign countries who are members of the international community IMO. --Tocino 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
But isn't the SADR a member of the African Union? Also, who decided on that 1/4th criterion (which looks suspiciously designed to just exclude the SADR)? Khuft (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody set that criteria, it's just my opinion :) --Tocino 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, moved up SADR and Taiwan. The 1/4th criterion cannot be defended as NPOV, so both have been moved up in line with this discussion.Konekoniku (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay how about this as a compromise: if the TR North Cyprus, SADR (Western Sahara), the Palestinian Authority, et al recognize Kosovo, a new category should be created called 'partially recognize entities that have recognize Kosovo.' Not countries, 'entities.' For the time being, however, leave it as it is. Taiwan is not a separatist or secessionist entity. It is a de facto country - has a government, governs territory, has limited official recognition and unofficial diplomatic relations with many others countries including the US. Perhaps it should be in a separate category but none of the existing categories fit it and it would be odd to create a category for Taiwan alone. Thus, I would not create this heading now but in the future if entities recognize Kosovo. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't believe SADR has recognized Kosovo, any more than TRNC. I'll check the citation. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, saw what you did. Perhaps IF partially recognized states (ROC, SADR, TRNC) and the PA (which is arguably a de facto state) comment on or recognize Kosovo, their names should be italicized or something like that to further distinguish them. As for totally unrecognized states, all can be kept at the bottom list. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The crucial question is : WHAT IF SEALAND RECOGNIZES?! Does the map have a dot for SeAland? :-) 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was fine the way it was before. Having a entire new list for Taiwan would be silly, while it would be POV (ie. supporting the Taiwanese separatist movement) to include it in the "countries" section. Again, Taiwan's status is very ambiguous, therefore it should be placed in an ambiguous category on WP to make it NPOV. Therefore I'm going to revert it back for now. I actually have another suggestion to make: we can abolish the mention of "ROC (Taiwan)" altogether, and list in its place "Democratic Progressive Party (ROC (Taiwan))" under the "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence" section. This would work because it WAS the DPP that declared support, and the DDP IS a political party that is striving for independance. Any thoughts? --Ruolin59 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha we had this discussion a few weeks ago. The problem with using "partially recognized entities" is that it's a misleading term since every country in the world is only "partially recognized" -- including the United States. Attempting to draw a line (e.g., Tocino's "1/4th UN member states" suggestion) without objective logic borders on NPOV (not to mention the huge, inherent logic loop problem in trying to use "other recognizing states" as a criteria for defining "states" when "states itself is undefined"). Moreover, "partially recognized entities" would also include the European Union, the IOC, the International Tennis Federation, NATO, and even the United Nations itself.Konekoniku (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you trying to abolish mention of the "ROC (Taiwan)" altogether? Sounds rather communist... =p Honestly though, your suggestion would have the exact same effect of singling out Taiwan's treatment that you were trying to avoid in the first place. The United States one doesn't say "Republican Party (United States)" for example.Konekoniku (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Abolishing the mention of the ROC altogether does not signify in any way my economical ideals, and no, it would not as there already is a section of "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence". Of course the US one would not say "republican party", they are not trying to become independant are they? --Ruolin59 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, they are not trying to become a pendant of any sort. Many an observer might venture, that the Republican Party already is a bunch of ding-dongs, so that any further ascent to (descent into) pendantlike geometry is beyond pale. While I laud your stated desire to speak more languages, try not to (unwittingly) interject French words into English discourse without evident need, let alone devoid of customary mark-up, as the more brainwashed amongst the readers might think that you can't spell worth a farthing -- in English, any English. Perhaps, had you put independant in italics, the more snobby or Frankophile, would find nuanced delight with your outré rhetoric, claro, que si. As is...
Those "economical ideals", I suppose, include not running the water needlessly, always buying supersized fries, that sort of thing? Very nice. Economic ideals of communism drove China into murder by the dozens of millions, a feat of idealism that all the crimes of the fascist-minded past governments of the state of Taiwan (ROC) have never come close to, even proportionally speaking, and even allowing for beneficent economies of scale employed on the mainland.
To restate: Taiwan, the state, belongs in the list of states. Please take your crusade off Wikipedia already. A little empathy for the Taiwanese and a Wikipedia spared gratuitous, offtopic edit wars are enlightment. --Mareklug talk 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, what you said about "partially recognized entities" being misleading is wrong. I'm sure the general public would know what one means when saying "partially recognized entity". Do not worry, they will not mistake the United States as being partially recognized. Everyone knows that when someone says that something is "partially recognized", he is talking about very few entities recognizing it. Second, the "recognizing" thing does not apply at all to organizations like NATO because it does not matter who recognizes it or not, as it is a organization that provides benefits to its members. Therefore other nations' opinions on the existence of the organization is irrelevant: it has no effect whatsoever to deny the existence of an entity like the NATO. --Ruolin59 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning. Not only do you justify your edit warring on the statehood of Taiwan without merit, but every single one of your surgical removals of Taiwan from the list of states entailed cutting up the record of some other countries on that list, be it by doubling them (Germany, Denmark) or dropping them (Italy, Germany). Since you are being truly disruptive in every conceivable way, including through inept edits that requtie massive cleanup by editors, regardless of which way they may be inclined themselves, I move to have you voted off this article as a pest. Taiwan is only marginally tangential to presenting the salient information here, and your intrusions are causing upset and damage, quite apart from being unreasonable and wrong. --Mareklug talk 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug, you are the one who aimed personal attacks against me when the talk page explicitly said "No personal attacks". My "edit warring" as you put it is highly justified, you just ignored almost all of my reasonings and changed everything with no justification at all. The only thing you have claimed so far is that my time is wrong, my school sucks, and that I'm a "mor^H^H^H student" (whatever that means). You attempt to vote me off this article as a pest... well, let's see who should get voted off. --Ruolin59 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus to have the ROC and other partially reocgnizes states listed amongst nations that are fully recognized. So for now ROC , SADR, and Northern Cyprus stay in the other entities section. --Tocino 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

article deterioration

We went from a detailed ToC[1] and a six tiered map on March 3 to a simplistic yes-or-no ToC (lumping Serbia's protest together with "unnamed governmental sources quoted in Uruguayan press" as "no recognition") with a two tiered map. Why? Can we just revert to the more versatile / informative organization please? Obviously, any country that doesn't recognize the RoK ... does not recognize the RoK, that's silly. What the article should list are those countries who have officially stated they consider the declaration illegal. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We already had this discussion above. What is an "official statement of non-recognition" by a country? If Fidel Castro (who is not Cuba's president anymore) declares from his hospital bed that he does not recognise Kosovo, is that an official statement of Cuba's position on this issue? Khuft (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Dab has been very busy promoting a split of Kosovo and also a renaming of that article because he finds "Kosovo" too biased and a clear violation of his personal beliefs. --Camptown (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
People should really read what was discussed before making a new section on the same subject. At some point we had 4 sections one after another on the UN. And FC is not making statements out of hospital bed but as foreign policy advisor to whom Raul vowed to listen. After all this is an article on international reaction not only recognition. There is no such thing as "official non recognition". --Avala (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If, as you say, the article is about international reaction, why, then, is there no provision for mentioning Björk's reaction (and Serbian festival Exit Festival's reaction to her reaction)? Also, why is there no provision for the former Finland's president's reaction, Martti Ahtisaari, the highly educated in the topic gentleman, presumably nonpartisan and world expert on the nuances involved, who architected the Kosovo plan for the UN, and who now says, that opposition countries will just get used to the new reality and eventually recognize Kosovo, including Russia? I think all these things are noteworthy and ency and relevant in this article. By hte way, here is Serbianna article about Martti Ahtisaari's reaction: note the incredibly biased headline yet compare it to a fairly impartial tone and content of the article body -- it's as if some censor was rewriting headlines in total disconnect from what the Associate Press journalist (in this case) wrote in the article: Ahtisaari urges illegal Kosovo recognitions. I mention this, because editors have claimed in the case of Armenia that content of a headline indicated the country's oficial position more truthfully than the actual wording in the article body... --Mareklug talk 01:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at the previous map and thinking my doubts about Wikipedia were perhaps misplaced. And then I come here and see that an informative and factual map has been replaced with something far less useful to accommodate POV warriors of various stripes. It's what happens on Wikipedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel's position

Article is locked, so please fix: First reference regarding Israel's position is Haaretz but the link is to a Jerusalem Post article. Furthermore, the protection of Jews living in Russia is given as a concern, which is nowhere to be found in the cited source.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced speculation is removed. --Camptown (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But reference is still wrong (Haaretz -> Jerusalem Post).--128.139.104.49 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks a lot. --Camptown (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of NATO?

Just curious why the NATO flag isn't next to the NATO member state part in the notes about the countries. OIC or EU member states have those flags next to their note. Portlygrub (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its something to do with protection of the flag and that wikipedia hasn't the right to use it. Something along them lines. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use issues. The NATO flag is under a fair use license, so we can only use it at certain locations. The EU flag and OIC images are under a free license, so they can be used in this manner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
How come countries that are in the African Union (AU) don't have a flag besides them? Why not put the AU flag in Senegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.197.88 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo may become a member of the EU, NATO and the OIC in the future, but obviously not a member of the AU. Gugganij (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we put those flags besides countries names to show some sort of significants not what Kosova can or can't join. By that logic, since Kosova right now have a Civilian Force as in NO ARMY, we shouldn't put NATO flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.82.119 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments in the future. Now lets take what your saying to the extreme, lets mention every international organisation that a country is a member of yeh? Not practical is it. We should only mention the relavant international organistations, such as EU, UN, NATO and OIC. AU has nothing to do with Kosovo. The AU hasn't even said it view on Kosovo's declaration of indepedance. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo split reverted

Reverted split of the Kosovo article see here. There is absolutely no consensus about a split. This article has been protected for some days, and the first thing dab does when the protection is lifed is to split the article again. dab only proves that he is not able to fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the adminship, and should be stripped from his admin credentials. --Camptown (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Serbia is listed 1st and not in alphabetical order like every other country?

Please look at the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide"


Why Serbia is listed 1st and not in alphabetical order like every other country?

This needs to be corrected! And who cares about serbian demonstrations? Why is this relevant and why is this an evidence?

An evidence of what? Of genocide in Bosnia in 1992? Of concentration camps in Bosnia during the bosnian war?

Of shelling the olympic city Sarajevo? Of violating international laws while asking for justice?

Of making every single war and attacking each ex - YU Republic?

Of creating genocidal entity rs and calling it Republic as if this is a real independent country!?

Of causing the the WWI? Can someone please make sure that whoever is responsible here and happens to be pro-serb is NOT given powers to manipulate people who read the page!

They can't change the fact that Kosova is independent! But we can make sure thet they don't force inaccurate and manipulative source of information that prevents people from learning about who admitted Kosova so far, instead making the page as Serbian funeral over the Kosova whom they abandoned since Tito!

And please ... we know, the world know how they treated KOSOVA PEOPLE. They did not give them rights to speak their language!

They treated them as criminals not worthy of basic human rights!

And they are not! They are people, and Kosovo is their land. Therefore Kosova Independence!

Congratulations to Kosova! Bosnia loves you.

Signature: Yes to freedom! No to serb domination in Balkans we are sick of it! --76.209.58.66 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. Furthermore, this is neither a political forum nor an audience for ethnic hatred displays. Húsönd 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Put all states in alphabetical order! Don't put Serbia first and every other country after that! That's insulting and plain ignorant because S for Serbia comes after A, B, C ,D .... If anyone is political here is those who refuse to place Serbia in alphabetical order like every other country and make changes about which people complained including myself more than one time. And pro-serbs should have no business in making the page about Kosovo!

Kosovo is independent regardless of this page! But at least make an effort and show people that you care about the facts and that you don't support serbian propaganda and lies on this page. By the way because of people who are unwilling to do so, not many really find wikipedia credible.

Signature: Yes to Kosova freedom. --76.209.58.66 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the reason that Serbia is placed first: the independance of Kosovo has a direct effect on Serbia, as it is a Serbian province. Second, you are advocating extreme POV when you post here with your pro-Kosovo independance points. Last, the status of Kosovo is still not officially decided. Its declare of independance is a direct violation of a UN resolution, and the fact that Kosovo declared unilateral independance, even without a referendum, makes its "independance" very shaky. And no, this is NOT filled with pro-serbs editing the article. As you can see, most people here are moderate, and many are actually pro-kosovo like yourself. However to do as you say would display extreme POV, which is against WP policy.
PS: please get an account... don't hide behind an IP addresss, it makes you look less credible. --Ruolin59 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm, don't go all the other way around, Ruolin. Kosovo's independence is recognized by many countries so it's not like we're talking about South Ossetia here. Furthermore, Kosovo is also de facto independent, regardless of the position of countries which see it as de jure part of Serbia. Then, its status is pretty much decided, it's a disputed status (not the best status one may have, but it's the only status Belgrade and Pristina could bring to the world, really). Then, not everybody agrees that there was a violation of a UN resolution in Kosovo. But anyway, Wikipedia has nothing to do with UN resolutions, we don't belong to the UN. Last but not least, the independence was unanimously approved by the parliament, elected by the people of Kosovo. Hardly any referendum would be necessary. Húsönd 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, it doesn't matter whether one agrees or disagrees with Kosovan independence, the fact remains that Serbia is the most important country in the list because Kosovo was/is a province of Serbia, and as a matter of encyclopedic clarity, it should remain at the top of the list because of its special relevance to Kosovo and to any article about Kosovan independence, far more relevant than any other country listed, for the same reasons stated. I personally agree with recognizing Kosovo, but I still cannot deny that it makes perfect sense to list Serbia first.--165.95.228.4 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosova was a province of Turkey (Ottoman Empire) for 500 hundred years, should Turkey be first on the list? The list needs to be alphabetical, period. I would also like to reiterate Husond's point that the Declaration of Independence was unanimous as in 109 votes for 0 votes against, it is not a UDI. 69.29.82.119 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Orthodox churches

How about the Albanian Orthodox church? • YllI 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, what's their opinion? --Camptown (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia did not say no, Bosnia have said 'we don't know yet!'

Nebojša Radmanović, member of the tripartite presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognise Kosovo independence and called Kosovo an internal matter of Serbia.[81] Željko Komšić, presiding member of the presidency, has stated that "Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo soon, and there is consensus within the Bosnian State Presidency on the issue".[81]

Why Nebojsa Radmanovic is listed first, he is not the person who declares Kosova independence on behalf of ENTIRE Bosnia!

Zeljko Komsic statement is non existant on this page!

Zeljko Komsic clearly stated ( surf the net and find the quote everybody knows it ) that if it was for his own opinion he would do differently but he must wait to make such decision. He did not say no, so don't portray his words as firm no.

Also Republika Srpska ( ENTITY ) is Bosnia-Hercegovina. There is no need to mention any idvividuals and their personal opinions except offical statement which you don't even have from Bosnia!

Again, there is no such thing as Serbina Islamic community! That's perhaps Serbian manipulation to portray that even Islamic community that nobody knows about ( no web, no president, no phone number, no information! ) is speaking against Kosova independence.

People, Serbs commited genocide in Srebrenica. They deny it until today, even today they say that never happened. It is not in their interest for the world to know the truth. So please.... do your best to make this paage credible and accurate.

Bosnia is an occupied country, therefore Bosnia can not act accoridng to Bosnian people's will!!!! You all know that! Now you know what kind of problems we had to go though with Serbs. You can see it on this page, lies, lies, and manipulations is the norm.

They wrote Republic Srpska so that people are deceived and believe it's real republic. The title should not be translated in English as Republic of - that's missleading. Read tha Dayton agreement and see how they were refused such name, and were given Bosnian prefixes to make sure they don't manipulate the truth!

Signature: The Truth will win, Bosnia lives forever, no they could not sluaghter us! Sarajevo still lives. Kosovo you are reborn! --76.209.58.66 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The talkpage is not your soapbox. Go take your rantings elsewhere. --Tocino 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


ROC

I don't want to start a huge debate, because where ever someone puts ROC it is going to be POV, for example i believe it should be with all the other states that recognise Kosovo and other users disagree. However ROC does not fit under the category "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence", as it is not an autonomy or independence. It has never declared independence and it is not an Autonomy as it is self governed and administrated. It is recognised by 23 countries. it is also acknowledged by around 90 countries link as opposed to been officially recognised. So it should be in another category other than the one you have currently put it in and the one i put it in early too. The article is not for states which recognise the ROC, but for states that recognise Kosovo. So ROC is a state which recognise Kosovo. But to please both who share my view and people who don't agree with me on where the ROC should be placed, i suggest that we put the ROC in a separate table below "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" and call the table "Partially recognised States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", this will be more NPOV. Who agrees? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC is not an independent country and should not be listed with countries like USA, Germany etc. --Avala (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is independant, since PRC does not have control over Taiwan (island). PRC just claims it. I agree with you that it shouldn't be with USA, Germany etc. But is shouldn't be with TRNC or Western Sahara either, as they have declared independence unlike ROC. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between PRC and ROC is specific. One China Two Systems. --Avala (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will relay my comments from your talk page to here so other editors can see them... "I believe that the category that ROC is currently under 'Unrecognised or partially recognised states, seceded regions, and national independence movements' does the ROC justice. The ROC is a partially recognised state and it is listed in the category that other partially recognised states (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Northern Cyprus) are listed in. I would not be supportive of moving the ROC ahead of fully recognized nations which refuse to or have not yet recognize/recognized Kosovo. I would support a seperate category for just partially recognized nations (ROC, SADR, Northern Cyprus)... but in the Other Entities section." --Tocino 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then. The PRC should also go in that group too as only 171 countries recognise it. [2]Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

171 of the 182 member states of the U.N... that is a 94% recognition rate. 23 of 182 is 13%. PRC is a permanent member of the UN security council, while the ROC isn't even a member of the U.N. Apples and oranges. --Tocino 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh that is true, however the ROC was one of the founding members of the UN and the PRC wasn't. So they are both partially recognised states. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I still stand that my earlier proposal works: to take ROC off the charts altogether and instead put the DPP in the "political parties..." section. This would work as the DPP IS advocating to become independant, while the KMT wants eventual reunification. Ruolin59 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should justl eave it in part. recognize or with the full countries, with the roc you can't really be npov, --Jakezing (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of UNPO

I deleted UNPO from the "International organisations" section, as it does not belong in the same list as bodies as UN,EU,OSCE,OIC,etc., as its members are not generally recognized as states. From a mainstream perspective of international law, the former are all international organizations of states and hence subjects of public international law, whereas UNPO is merely a private body (little more than an NGO). --SJK (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. The notion of "international organization" is not necessarily construed as "international organization of states". The very fact that the members of UNPO lack recognition as states or representation by existing states is the reason for their organizing internationally. Some of these entitites, but not all, aspire to statehood. For those that do, excluding the UNPO as not an organization of states is circular -- if they were states, they'd be in the UN and there wouldn't be an UNPO.
Also, UNPO itself rejects the notion of "Westphalian states" as normative, which means that it offers a point of view at odds your interpretation of international law. By providing an alternative perspective, it complements the mainstream, and omitting it according to the mainstream perspective needlessly introduces a POV to an otherwise NPOV listing agnostic as to perspective. UNPO, providing a voice for disenfranchised entities that have renouced violence and met other conditions, represents here a sector of international reaction otherwise glossed over.
And the article is about international reaction. There are other non-state reactions noted here. Also, nowhere does it say, that international organizations are to be filtered by any criteria at all. As long as they are intertnational organizations (and the Wikipedia article about UNPO defines it as such), we list them under that rubric.
Instead of removing international organizations already included and source properly, please add any missing ones that have reacted to Kosovo's independence declaration. --Mareklug talk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the point still remains that an organization like the UN,EU,OSCE is (from a mainstream legal perspective) a radically different type of organization from UNPO, even though sometimes both may be labelled "international organizations". (Different people use that term in different ways anyway -- in a legal context it is often used to refer only to treaty-established organizations, but in a political or sociological context it is often used to refer to all organizations international in character, including non-governmental ones.) As a compromise, I have split the list in two, one for international organizations established by treaty, the other for non-governmental organizations like UNPO. The case of UNPO is that although a few of its members might be de facto states or quasi-states (i.e. exercising effective military control of a territory), many of them are more akin to political parties/movements and as such are not governmental bodies. So, even though UNPO is a little bit of a borderline case, I think it predominantly belongs on the non-governmental side of the fence. --SJK (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

Do you know anything about the 10 March parliamentary decision? The article needs to be updated... Zello (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the information for March 10 was wrong (or there are no news). --Avala (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Norway

[3]

[4]

There are more sources were that came from. Contralya (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, the Norwegian government announced that they would recognise Kosovo. However, they haven't done so formally yet. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

These sources say "Norway To Recognise Kosovo." So Norway still hasn't officially recognised Kosovo as been independant. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic intends to recognize Kosovo

Czechs to recognise Kosovo sooner or later - deputy PM Vondra Brussels- The Czech Republic will sooner or later recognise Kosovo's independence, but this will not happen before Easter, Czech Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra told journalists. The article is at [5]. I'd add this info to the page myself, but the page itself is blocked. Expatkiwi talk 16:51, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

Yet, the second group is only for countries which are in the "terminal stage" of making a formal decision of recognition, and, personally, I don't think Croatia qualifies into that group before a specific date has been set. There are probably quite a few countries which intend to recognize Kosovo, but have chosen to stay "passive" for the time being. --Camptown (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Specific date has been set (March) and source. How is this any less terminal than the delayed final speach by Norwegian king? IMHO the Norwegians have a reason for keeping the Serb ambassador in Norway, or are very fond of him, and are doing him the personal courtesy of not acting. On the other hand, with the Belgrade government no longer around, is anyone actively continuing to recall ambassadors? Last I heard, the the amb. to Finland said she would be recalled, but wasn't. IMHO I'd add Czech Republic to this listing, not removed any country. --Mareklug talk 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Add information on CIS-membership

For countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, a more meaningful reference-group would be their membership in the CIS. Listing them as members of the OIC is factually correct, but does nothing to explain their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this Tadzhikistan you speak of? Do you mean Tajikistan? I don't understand your complaint. These countries are Islamic nations, that is why they are in the OIC and Kosovo Albanians are Muslim so they are likely to ask for OIC membership. We also listed next to all EU and NATO member states their status belonging to those organizations because Kosovo will also probably want to join the EU and NATO, yet there is considerable opposition within those organizations to recognizing Kosovo as well. --Tocino, 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia - today's comments of Czech & Slovak presidents imply eventual recognition by Slovakia too!

Read this [6]. IMHO that's enough to move SLovakia away from red (officially and finally denies recognition) to khaki (delaying recognition). --Mareklug talk 12:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and Bjork recognized already so we should add her to the map. Or you remember how quickly your Bjork addition was removed by other users? Slovakia is khaki as much as Indonesia and Egypt are light orange. Or even Czech R. considering the statement by Klaus. --Avala (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Václav Klaus enjoys himself to comment on all sorts of affairs, but that cannot change the basic fact that constitutionally the Czech President is pretty much a figurehead, and does not have any power over Czech foreign policy. -- EJ (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The same goes for Slovakia where PM was very specific about non recognition and even compared Kosovo secession to Munich agreement.--Avala (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
President of Slovakia has no power over this. Czech President opposed but Czech R. is blue nonetheless--Avala (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not just the President. It appears that the position of the government of Slovakia has been skewed by some editors. As long ago as 21 February 2008, this information with quotes by Foreign Affairs Minister Jan Kubis was available from Slovakian newspaper in English: "The international community, in my view, is moving towards the recognition of Kosovo," said Kubis. "It's headed that way." and: "Bratislava, February 21 - Slovakia, along with many other EU countries, is taking time to think before it decides whether to recognise Kosovo's independence, Foreign Affairs Minister Jan Kubis said on Thursday in Bratislava." "Kubis: Slovakia Isn't Closing Doors to Kosovo, Despite Being Reserved", SKToday.com, 21 February 2008. Link accessed 2008-03-11. <-- this should be put between ref tags and added to the article's Slovakia entry, as it further supports coloring Slovakia khaki as delaying recognition. Yet again, this is evidence of selective quoting of emotional sentiments expressed by politicians, while omitting the substance of what Foreign Ministers actually said! (Armenia was one such casee before, carefully edited to make believe Armenia officially went red, whereas the minister there also said that decision is forthcoming.) --Mareklug talk 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Selective quoting. They said "Slovak government would review its stance only if some fundamental changes in Kosovo's position in accordance with the international law were made.". So it's like saying Serbia will recognize Kosovo if ... blah blah. --Avala (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
what selective quoting? By who? By me? By SKToday.com? Please attribute the stuff you typed in quotes above, and give a source. You are making unsubstantaited claims in face of a lot' of evidence that Slovakia is not red but khaki. --Mareklug talk 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am falsifying quotes again by editing them to my liking. Or maybe not: Slovakia not to recognize independent Kosovo --Avala (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Avala, Mareklug made this section with the heading TODAY whereas what you provided is a month old. The position of Slovakia is different today, let me quote this:

Slovakia needs time to decide whether it will recognize Kosovo, and that could take several years," Gašparovič told a news conference in Bratislava after talks with Crvenkovski, agencies reported. B92,March 11th

Not only that -- Avala is quoting a Chinese (as in People's Republic of China) website written in English, and I am quoting a Slovakian one, notabene, published a day later and actually quoting, not paraphrasing. I respectfully submit that the Chinese communists have a suspect tradition of providing impartial news to the internet. --Mareklug talk 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Your disrespect to some countries is disgusting. But who am I talking to, you equalize Bjork with countries. --Avala (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One can equalize Björk with a graphic equalizer, and although Hillary is on record as having said that it takes a village, a whole country, even as small as Vatican, is probably not a suitable device. Really, to be snide and carry it off one has to have a rudimentary fluency in the given language, which, apart from selective editing, you haven't mastered. But there's hope -- and you could study Björk's highly idiosyncratic variations on the same, if you need an source of something charming and interesting, as opposed to surly and ill-willed. --Mareklug talk 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

equalize v. e·qual·ized, e·qual·iz·ing, e·qual·iz·es 1. To make equal: equalized the responsibilities of the staff members. 2. To make uniform. To constitute or induce equality, equilibrium, or balance. And that is exactly what I was saying. Now your baseless insults tell more about you than me.--Avala (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How droll, really -- you defend an evident malapropism by citing a dictionary! Since you really can't fathom the error, thinking all the while that you wrote correctly, let me help you out (maybe it will result in fewer mistakes in the article):
You really didn't mean that I make B. and "countries" uniform. Or somehow, balanced. (For, surely everyone knows by now, that B. is unbalanced, and these are no countries for old men.)
You really meant equate. Terrible sorries, but equalize just won't do.
Additionally, in English verbs are transitive and intransitive, some only one kind, some both. Look up homonym. The with in your original accusation, "equalize Björk with countries" is crucial. The preposition with forces whatever follows not to be a direct object, but a prepositional phrase instead. This difference entails different grammatical cases, imparting different families of meanings. Confusing the two is ignorant, as they say in Kentucky. Specifically, "equalize (what? who?) the responsibilities" is not at all the same usage as "equalize with (with what? with whom?) countries", and so your illustration uses the wrong dictionary definition, just like your continued, unlabeled map reverts of my Kosovo recogniton maps on Commons are illustrations using wrong definitions. ;)
But, the point is moot, since the B.-and-countries bit constitutes yet another groundless accusation on your part, as I neither equate nor equalize La Voz, Apple of My I(sland), with anything or anybody -- I listen to her flat, as befits classical music, while she herself is peerless, one of a kind, a walking, photographer-slugging one-woman UNESCO World Heritage Sight To Behold and Hear, apparently though, not Serbian Exit Festival-in-Novi Sad-bound for lack of cosmopolitan slack. Slack is an alien concept in them there orchards, although the festival prides itself on exhibiting and promoting fellowship and tolerance (see: false pride in the Bible near you). How, well, sad. --Mareklug talk 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Mój punkt jest co wy wyrównujecie śpiewaka z państwami. Wy rozumiecie teraz? --Avala (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Quoted on BBC Russian Service, that both Kosovo and Chechnya deserve independence. [7]. Yet another notable individual and expert (unaffialiated with any state) that we should quote. --Mareklug talk 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Add him and let other readers judge if it should stay. --Avala (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Churches

I thought we had decided a while back not to list every individual orthodox church in Europe as they are all saying the same thing? And that to some users by naming every orthodox church was seen as Anti-Kosovo propaganda therefore not NPOV(i personally said this). Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did.JosipMac (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody is deleting everything about religious organizations. I thought we reach consensus about leaving 1. Serbian orthodox church 2. Other orthodox churches 3. Islamic community of Serbia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladar86 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was the last editor to remove information about the orthodox churches. The reason was that the latest edit made there destroyed the layout of the page. I am in no way opposing the addition of those churches, the edit just should be done without destroying the page layout. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 12:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates -- light blue?

According to "Russian media" as quoted by the Serb indy news station "B92", Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are preparing to recognize Kosovo: [8]. Any firmer evidence? --Mareklug talk 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any news in Arabic on this? If I remember correctly we had Saudi Arabia in light blue but it was removed at some point. --Avala (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This B92 News station is ok, but we need some references that area bit more official and reliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any kind of statement like source would be good. I am not satisfied with current source for Morocco btw. Morocco is only mentioned in that source as worried but who knows how did the journalist come up with this.--Avala (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Greece to recognise Kosovo?

The Greek press is reporting that the Greek government has decided to recognise Kosovo and veto Macedonia's entry into NATO "between the end of March and the beginning of April." According to Thema tis Kiriakis, the aim is to "help smoothe Washington's annoyance" over a Macedonia veto. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this is speculation. Dora Bakoyannis said a few days ago at the EU meeting "it is not fair that a democratic country should be punished "for sins perpetrated in the past, during a period of dictatorship." and before "Dora Bakoyannis, the Greek foreign minister, has also warned that Kosovo could become a “precedent” for Europe, and that its declaration of independence could send a signal to ethnic minorities in many European countries. If the European Union recognizes the secession of one ethnic group, Bakoyannis argued, perhaps it would have to do so repeatedly in the future" and President of Greece opposes independence the same way as Russia does (that the only solution acceptable for Greece is the mutually accepted one) etc. So I would rely on quotes for the time being rather on speculations considering Greece is not an obscure country and that we have enough of higher quality sources. --Avala (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Similar reports are in several different newspapers (ProtoThema, Thema tis Kiriakis etc) and cite unnamed sources in the ruling New Democracy party, so it looks very much like someone in the party is trying to soften up Greek public opinion in advance of the decision. Certainly the Greek public would care much more about the Macedonia situation than Kosovo - the purists might not like the trade-off, but I suspect most of the public would accept it in the interests of realpolitik. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that it's still rumours atm. When and if Greece changes it's position we will change the article. --Avala (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's worth bearing in mind in the meantime. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Forthcoming recognitions

The Kosovo newspaper Zeri is reporting that over the next week or so, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania are going to recognise Kosovo. Macedonia is expected is expected to follow suit fairly soon afterwards, as its official position is that it would not recognise Kosovo's independence until a majority of EU countries had done so. (If the first four countries mentioned do recognise Kosovo that would mean that threshold would be passed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think all this is in the article. --Avala (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is. All these countries have been blue for a while on the old map (Image:Kosovo relations.svg and Image:Kosovo relations.png, that I have been maintaining on Commons. And already 16 out of 27 EU states have recognized, so the majority of EU already has recognized. Macedonia will recognize shortly, if the government does not fall first (their coalition partner, Albanians just withdrew support, 11 seats, and altogether the ruling coalition had only 40 out of 120 seats in the parliament...) The Albanians want, among other things, speedy recognition. And Macedonia is trying not to provoke Greek veto as far as the NATO invitation, but they are not doing a good job of it... Kinda hard, if you have to change the name of your country to get into NATO... --Mareklug talk 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's government dissolved, elections called

On 8 March 2008 the Serbian prime minister announced that he was going to dissolve the government and ask for new elections, because the coalition could not agree on their international response to the Kosovo situation. This was added to the Serbia entry in this article by someone else, and I reworded it to this:

On 8 March, 2008, the Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica resigned, dissolving the coalition government, saying it was too divided over the Kosovo situation to carry on. A general election will be held in early May.[2][3]

Yesterday User:Avala removed this information, with the edit subject "That is domestic and not international reaction that this article is about".

I disagree - the falling of a government due to the inability to agree on the international response to the Kosovo situation is anything but domestic, and is very relevant to this article. So I reverted Avala's edit, with a sarcastic, "How's that again?" as edit subject.

So now Avala has removed the info again, [9] with an edit subject of "returning removed content. prime minister's opinion is not irrelevant actually it is more improtant as he has the initiative power." I.e., his edit subject does not mention the removal of this information.

Like I said, I think this information is very relevant to this article. Any other opinions? --RenniePet (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article name is International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and this is domestic issue. It's not an international reaction to independence. International reaction to independence is the countries position over such an act (ie. recognition). --Avala (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Avala has a point here. There's a clear distinction between Serbian and non-Serbian reaction to the declaration. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dissolving your government is a rather significant reaction, I would think. --RenniePet (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It should go to the article Government of Serbia or in the article about Kosovo independence declaration but not here. --Avala (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
@Avala: IMHO mentioning the fall of the government does not detract from this article. Assiduously keeping this information surpressed has suspicious motivations. SO, Best to include even tangetial information (I DON'T think it is tangential), whose importance is asserted by several editors, than remove it. Please look at the edit war on orthodox churches: I dont' see you removing these churches with any zeal (well, they are pro Serbia government position). --Mareklug talk 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
@ChrisO: What clear distinction? Are my eyes deceiving me, or is there stuff on the page concerning Serbian Orthodox Church (that's domestic, by the same measure, as the fall of the Serbian government, no?), and about Islamic Community of Serbia's position (ditto). There's also a link to protests in Serbia: a whole article, and not in the See also section, but lodged in the table, as part of Serbia's evidence. I, too, am convinced that the fall of the Kostunica government is no less salient and should be kept there. Better to err on the side of more information, than suppression of sourced information. IMHO User:Avala is supressing relevant information here, that makes Serbia look less solidly against Kosovo's independence, since the fall of its government is predicated on lack of consensus concerning Kosovo/EU. The new election may well result in a complete flip, I predict. --Mareklug talk 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Serbian Orthodox Church is a multinational organisation; if you look at its structure, about half of its dioceses and metropolitanates are outside Serbia. This obviously isn't "domestic". As for Serbia being "less solid" against Kosovo's independence, I think if you look at what the two sides in Serbian politics are saying you'll see that they're actually saying very much the same thing about Kosovo, i.e. they're against its independence. The dispute is over what tactics to use in dealing with it - turning Serbia's back on the EU and towards Russia, or working with(in) the EU to bring Kosovo back into Serbia. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Apart from conspiracy theories that I am trying to hide this (for who knows what reasons) can you provide some argument for inclusion of this information in the article?--Avala (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and found out who the original poster was: User talk:Camptown. That makes it (so far) three in favor of thinking this information is useful and two against. I'll restore it. --RenniePet (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, this should be an article on Diplomatic Reaction and remove anything not amounting to a diplomatic reaction or comments on such reaction. In other words, nothing about Serbia's government falling or Castro bitchin' about Solana.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fidel Castro is not "bitchin'". He is an officially elected foreign policy advisor to whom president Raul Castro vowed to listen. --Avala (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not an official response. Cuba has not given out an official position or made any comment on forming such a position. The article should be limited to things in that vain.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If the reaction of a high ranking official of some country is not official then nothing is. --Avala (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Counterexamples: President of Poland, Lech Kaczyński's reaction (his reaction is/was red; the country's official reaction, dark blue). President of the Czech Republic's reaction (his reaction is also red; country's official reaction, light blue). Avala likes to patronize Cuba and other dictatorships, making them unable to use diplomatic channels and official communications and/or press releases. In the case of democracies, he likes to paint the world orange, where it has not issued a final ruling (Chile, Portugal). There's absolutely no reason to color Cuba red, or Bosnia, or Slovakia, for that matter; the three countries lack an official position, or, in the cases of Bosnia and Slovakia, the legitimate official position is sourced in the article as "not any time soon; we need time to decide", which is also a far cry from red and belongs with the khaki (as, delayed reaction). Meanwhile, Avala quietly and without describing the edits, alters the maps on Commons to read as red as he can push them, overturning my considered and conservatively sourced depictions. --Mareklug talk 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't remember you gave a single link for your edits but OK, it's your honour. --Avala (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 04:31, 28 February 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Kosovo relations.png": updates/revert: +Japan (light blue): http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1259288/japan_set_to_recognize_kosovo_as_sovereign_state/ Macedonia (light blue, reverted): see en wiki article for in-d) (undo)
(cur) (last) 21:55, 27 February 2008 Cp6 (Talk | contribs) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Kosovo relations.png": Official statement of Macedonia http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=308, no official statement of Czech Republic http://www.mzv.cz/wwwo/mzv/default.asp?ido=6573&idj=2&amb=1&ikony=True&trid) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:32, 27 February 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Kosovo relations.png": updates: +Czech Republic (recognition imminent; light blue) : http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8185/ +Macedonia (will recognize, while delaying for sake of its own interest; will follow) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:03, 27 February 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Kosovo relations.png": ++Austria (recognizes; president signs decree, last legal step) http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1393151.php/Austria_moves_forward_with_recognition_of_Kosovo) (undo)

Why don't you disclose how many times you uploaded a map with no comment whatsoever, usually reverting and without consensus, that is, forcibly overwriting other people's work and judgment? And, I guess making false accusations, such as the one above, and reverting covertly and persistently (on Commons and here) embodies your code of honor? --Mareklug talk 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Non Neutral Article

For some reason, someone keeps on deleting my discussion posts that the article is non-neutral. Stop being so anal about promoting your pro-Kosovo propaganda. Stop deleting my discussion posts that you don't like. Get a life. 68.164.235.145 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

lol no one's deleting your posts, they've been archived by the person who (I think) created this page :D. Else the page is just gonna get more and more disorganized. Ruolin59 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding Orthodox Churches

We have already agreed that Orthodox Churches will be summed under "Orthodox Churches" (with a possible addition of Serbian Orthodox Church as a separate entry) instead of adding each and every Orthodox Church in the world. We have also concluded that since stances of Orthodox Churches are the same, the only reason to have them separately is for propaganda purposes.

I am tired of undoing his constant editions of the main page. It's becoming tedious.

So pls stop messing with that section. JosipMac (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody is deleting everything about religious organizations. I thought we reach consensus about leaving 1. Serbian orthodox church 2. Other orthodox churches 3. Islamic community of Serbia. Yes I put back orthodox churches because I didn't back up new list but old one with all churches on it. All religious organizations where delited and opinion undo didn't work because data of table with churches list was damaged during deleting and vandalism by users like Liliboy and Kendobs, who also vandalized my personal page and personally attack me. Even now,religious organizations part of article is delited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladar86 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's all good, sorry :) JosipMac (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not good, religious organizations are missing from article. Everything that is not pro-Albanian is being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladar86 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Belosvetska zavera.. ;) JosipMac (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are funny :-/ Vladar86 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I think it is stupid adding every individual orthodox church to the list, as they all say the same thing. there should be two groups, Serbian orthodox church and other orthodox churches. However it is not Vladar86 who keeps on re-adding them. It is Kendobs who is doing that. Check the history if you don not believe me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is bad-faith editing - please be sure this is the case rather than a genuine content dispute before accusing editors of this. If vandalism does occur, please warn the user first using templates such as {{uw-v1}} and if he persists, report at WP:AIV. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever did it, it was bad-faith editing, yes I'm sure of it. JosipMac (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do if some does cause Vandalism to the page. It was not Vladar86, it was Kendobs. I am not going to report Kendobs yet as i do not think it is too serious vandalism to report as of yet, but if it does continue i will report him. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? My apologies if it wasn't Vladar but It seemed to me it was :) JosipMac (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of countries

Why Afghanistan is on the top of the list? Costa Rica recognized on February 17. Regardless how you compare it (local time or UTC) Afghanistan and Costa Rica differ by about 10 hours. So it is impossible for Costa Rica to recognize very late at night and Afghanistan very early in the morning. I think the order of those two countries should be swapped. (Tim) 3:07 UTC, March 12 2008 (UTC).

Why would it be impossible for Afghanistan to recognize Kosovo in the early morning or Costa Rica in the late evening? Húsönd 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo declared its independence on February 17 at 14:49 UTC. Costa Rica recognized on the same day while afghanistan recognized the next day, Let's say for some odd reason Costa Rica recognized at 9pm local time, on the other hand Afghanistan has to recognize before 7:30am local time (10.5 hours difference) to beat Costa Rica. This seems pretty odd to me - especially when these two states are parliamentary states (so their meetings are much earlier) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.160.121 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it does make sense and needs to be changed.Jawohl (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add that, although I have no idea about which of the two countries was first, the fact that "these two states are parliamentary states" isn't really relevant. Usually, in parliamentary states, foreign policy (including recognition of states) is a function of the executive, and thus a meeting of the parliament is not required to recognize a new country. (They might for various political reasons elect to have Parliament discuss it before recognition, but its not legally required.) Since all then is needed for recognition is a decision by the executive, there is no reason why that couldn't happen at any time of day or night. (Especially since the independence declaration by Kosovo was not at all unexpected -- it has been talked about for weeks, and it wouldn't surprise me if friendly countries knew the exact time/date of the declaration in advance.) --SJK (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing establishment of diplomatic relations

Is anybody going to start listing the dates on which Kosovo established diplomatic relations with countries? I see that Albania, the UK and Germany already have embassies functioning in Pristina, which would mean that diplomatic relations had been established. Can we get a listing going? Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Interview with Hashim Thaci (TV8)

In an interview by the Swedish reporter Lars Adaktusson, Kosovo's prime minister Hashim Thaci is optimistic about Kosovo's future. He says that Kosovo aims to become member of the NATO and the EU, and that Kosovo is a nation for all its citizens, also the Serbian minority. Hashim Thaci reveals that there are informal talks going on between his government and Russia; and he points out that the official Russian reaction differs from its pragmatic view shown during the informal talk. Hashim Thaci even says that Spain has indicated an intention to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo now when a majority of EU member states have done so. Hashim Thaci says that he is not worried that the Seriban part in the north will break away, and that he would show Carl Bildt (Sweden's foreign minister) also the northern part of Mitovica next time he comes to Kosovo. On March 8, Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to visit Kosovo since its unilateral declaration of indepence. See the program here: Interview with Hashim Thaci - 2008-03-11 (Video) (Interview in English). --Camptown (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country

The second article included in this page for this territory about left independentists basks, is not representetative. I think must be edit, but i dont can.

For know the position of Batasuna politic group, read:

http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/posicion-batasuna-relacion-declaracion-unilateral-independencia-kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.42.52.166 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation, as requested (Malaysia Foreign Affairs Ministry's press release)

An English translation of the Malaysia's statement is available in Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/Malay translation as requested. Borisblue (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So the content of the official document is not recognition but welcoming while the official recognition and liaison office status change will occur when the time is right. Thank you for translation. --Avala (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanxs for the translation. I tend to agree with Avala, any other thoughts? Gugganij (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well obviously they are not in a hurry to recognize and when they do they will also change liaison office into embassy like Germany and some other countries did. --Avala (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For all you pro Serbians who deleted Malaysia of the list with out looking for a new reference first, just because you wanted to make Kosovo seem like it had less support than it actually does. Here is an UNMIK reference to prove that Malaysia has officially recognised Kosovo.

[10] Yes it is in HTML form, but thats because you can not show a Microsoft word program using an internet browser. If you click the link at the top you can view it in its original format. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe UNMIK misinterpreted considering there is not a single 2nd source while there are dozens giving the welcoming note information. --Avala (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to be profoundly radical, but somebody could call up the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Liaison Office of Malaysia in Pristina and ask if Malaysia has recognized Kosovo or not. Just saying. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i doubt UNMIK are going to miss interpret that. It is a reliable and valid reference.
The official Malaysian source is dated 20/02/08, whilst the UNMIK source is dated 21/02/08 so the UNMIK source is more up to date Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Until we get the reliable source or confirmation of UNMIK source I tend to believe the official document of the Malaysian government. --Avala (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thats your word against the UN's. I'd rather believe what the UN says than you. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's Malaysian Government against UNMIK. It has got nothing to do with me. --Avala (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ijanderson977. I don't believe that UNMIK is as foolish as you suppose. I'm waiting for some of our posters to start an intense, pointless debate over whether the US or UK "really" recognized Kosovo. It seems not too far off. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive read that translation, it says "Malaysia welcomes the independence of Kosovo that was announced by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on the 17th of February 2008", so thats what Malaysia said the day Kosovo declared independence. So that reference is way out of date Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, the UNMIK source says that " Malaysia announced recognition of Kosovo through its representative to Kosovo, Mustafa J. Mansor." Thus they are not using the Malaysian Foreign Ministry website as a source, but they got the acknowledgment directly from Malaysia's representative to Kosovo.
While Avala is correct that the press release did not explicitly state that Malaysia recognizes Kosovo, the statement did suggest that recognition was imminent. Together with the UMNIK source, I think we should say that Malaysia does acknowledge the independence of Kosovo. Borisblue (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes "took note" and welcomed but not recognized. Like Pakistan for an example. --Avala (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough don't put Malaysia in the correct table. At the end of the day Malaysia recognises Kosovo weather you put it the correct table on this wiki article or not. I just thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and that you meant to tell the truth. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be accurate. Wikipedia is not meant to rush things before they happen. It was obvious the USA will recognize Kosovo but until the official document came in they were not added to the table. --Avala (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the MOFA website in Malaysia, it says that Malaysia has a Liaison Office of Malaysia, in Pristina. Therefore it suggests that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. It also says "Host Country: KOSOVO" so its referring to Kosovo as a country, not a region. [11] Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia also has liaison office in Kosovo so that implies nothing. --Avala (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But does Russia refer to Kosovo as a country? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a proper and full translation of the Malaysian press release. It is imporatant as the UNMIK and the Malaysian representative to Kosovo has confirmed that Malaysia acturally recognize the declaration of independence. We shuold also remember that the procedure of recognition differs from country to country. What's the exact procedure in Malaysia? --Camptown (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is proper and full for me Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/Malay translation. --Avala (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should this contradict the reported recognition? What are we waiting for??? The release says "This Malaysian Liaison Office will change its status when the time is right. In the interim, Malaysia's Representative in Kosovo will continue in his/her duties as a Temporary Consul." A Temporary Consul to an unrecognized country! --Camptown (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's right. Two official statements (one from the Malaysian side, one from the Kosovar side). Both doesn't necessarily contradict each other. The latter explicitly states that Malaysia recognized Kosovo. Gugganij (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we have a press release of the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia and a press release of the Kosovar president (whose translation was provided by cradle):

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

Those are the two sources we have to rely on in order to determine whether Malaysia recognized Kosovo or not. The UNMIK source is in fact a Media Monitoring citing a Newspaper ("Dailies"), thus we cannot be sure that they checked the facts. Additionally, just because MOFs website states that they have a Liason office in Kosovo (Host country: Kosovo) doesn't say much, look at [12]. Gugganij (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

B92 obviously believes that Malaysia recognized Kosovo [13]. On the other hand, they might just have consulted our article ;-) Gugganij (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If UNMIK misinterpreded the Malaysian government and wrongfully believed that Malaysia had recognized Kosovo - why didn't the Malaysian government protest? Probably because there wasn't anything to protest about.... --Camptown (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think UNMIK didn't interpret anything - it's just a press review. Anyway, the press release of the Kosovar president (quoted above) clearly states that Malaysia has recognized Kosovo. I don't think that they can afford to misinterpret anything of such an importance. Gugganij (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They did according to some editors Malaysian ambassador to Croatia said that they haven't recognized yet. --Avala (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of all the information that says that Malaysia has recognized Kosovo, can we please re-list it? This Xinhua articles says that 27 countries have recognized Kosovo[14], yet we only list 26. This morning we listed 27, too... Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, if the foreign ministry press release was the only information we have, then I would agree with Avala that Malaysia has given no formal recognition. However, we have more current sources that say that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo (including independent sources like Xinhua). The foreign ministry source does not contradict anything the other sources say. Therefore, the article should state that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo. I think the consensus in this discussion is that the article should be changed back.Borisblue (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia

The no from Slovakia is apparently not necessarily forever, but only temporary, see http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48371 . —Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that's already in the article, though... —Nightstallion 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
link --Avala (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UN tells Serbia to quit interfering in Kosovo

[15] Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UAE and Saudi Arabia

Reportedly planning to recognise, but no official statement: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48370 —Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

link --Avala (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysian recognition

The present text says: "...the official recognition date has not been set." The provided source does not confirm this speculation. --23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We've debated this, as seen above. Good luck trying to change it! Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Finland recognises Kosovo". NewsRoom Finland. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. 2008-03-07. Retrieved 2008-03-07.
  2. ^ PM Dissolves Serbia's Government, AFP, March 8, 2008.
  3. ^ Divisions over Kosovo cripple Serb government, The Daily Telegraph, March 8, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo/Archive_16&oldid=1089097240"