Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Somalia Recognized Kosovo

Somalia has become the 69th country to recognize Kosovo according to he MFA.[1] 64.115.19.42 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing controversial with this recognition, so we can proceed with updating the page. P.S. People on this page are fast. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should note that this recognition came from TFG, which only has control over a small part of Somalia. As it stands the mention and its inclusion on the map gives a misleading impression.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you can put it as a note. I don't think we should change the map though.--Avala (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we would have to note that not all of Cyprus opposes either; the TRNC controls roughly 1/3 of the country and is in no way opposed to Kosovo's independence. --alchaemia (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the UN, these recognisers are the de jure government of the whole country. Of course, that's not the case on the ground, but in a list/map of UN Member States we must take the UN's position. Bazonka (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --alchaemia (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't actually the same because Northern Cyprus is a separatist state. Cyprus refers to the Greek portion of Cyprus. The issue here is it is not entirely clear who is in charge of Somalia. Exile governments have been recognized as the governments of countries, but if an exile government recognizes does that mean we should include that country or color it in the map? Do you see the problem? Consider this, if the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) recognized would we color in all of Western Sahara or just the portion they control?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the map should reflect territories as accepted by the UN (the obvious exception being Kosovo itself). So SADR or TRNC wouldn't get coloured in, whatever their position. Currently Taiwan is green which is a bit of an anomaly - perhaps it should be grey. Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This should be dealt with. Either we use the UN scheme or not. If we do then Taiwan has no place on the map, if we do not then Somalia cannot be whole painted in green when only a few quarters of Mogadishu are controlled by the transitional govt.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be much simpler to remove Taiwan. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If the UN scheme is used then removing Taiwan would not be technically difficult. But I don't think that Avala's statement is the full story - I think Avala has produced a false dichotomy between "de facto" and "de lege". If you don't use the UN scheme, you can still reasonably shade both Somalia and Taiwan. The Republic of China has partial recognition (as a government rather than a state, but the limits of its practical jurisdiction are clearly defined) with some membership of international institutions. The Somali rebels don't. Shading countries by what proportion of their territory is under direct government control is not a sensible idea - we ought to be leaving out large areas of Afghanistan and Colombia, for instance, even though the Taleban and FARC are not internationally recognized. (Imagine what difficulty we'd have establishing the area of Brazil under the control of uncontacted indigenous people, or the geographical extent of power of the DR Congo government, perhaps those two countries are being kind to us by withholding recognition!) On the other hand using the UN scheme can also be misleading. Showing Taiwan as unshaded might suggest that the government of Taiwan hasn't recognized - Taiwan is shown as a "country" on most political maps. It would also introduce difficulties with Israel/Palestine, and Morocco/Western Sahara, where most maps at least illustrate the presence of a disputed territory. Indeed, even using the UN list wouldn't help it if Pakistan were to recognize Kosovo; we'd still need to use a degree of common sense with the de facto border in Kashmir. Something that might aid clarity without creating great practical difficulty would be to use a different color for non-UN recognizers - potentially helpful with Taiwan and maybe in the future with Vatican, Palestine and Western Sahara. [Incidentally, the idea that the UN membership produces a definitive list of all "real" countries is not plausible; until a few years ago, Switzerland, Andorra and the Republic of Korea were not UN members, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist or weren't "real" countries.] TheGrappler (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OIC Resolution on Kosovo

The OIC has adopted a resolution "on the situation in Kosovo" [2] that was put forward the Albanian Foreign Minister. If there is no text from an English source I am happy to translate the main points. I think we should update the OIC text accordingly since it's being hailed as a success by the Albanian MFA. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few words, although it would seem that the majority of the resolution simply outlines the situation in Kosovo without giving a particular opinion, with wishy-washy words about stability and peace. Still worth mentioning though. It would be good to see an English-language version of the entire resolution. Bazonka (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They've published it now. Pages 46-47. [3] --alchaemia (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading that, I'm now not so sure that we should mention it in the article. Basically, they welcome peace, stability and prosperity (standard rhetoric), but they do not relate any of this to Kosovo's independence. They are not taking sides, so saying that they support independence is probably not true. Bazonka (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that they don't outright support independence in the text, but they do mention it ('noting...'), and they also mention Kosovo's membership in the IMF and WB - both acts that reaffirm ones sovereignty. All in all, they're slowly moving in the direction of welcoming Kosovo's independence, but that's just my opinion. --alchaemia (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The resolution was proposed by Albania but it was watered down by a large number of amendments by allies of Serbia so the end result is what you have, the resolution that doesn't say anything new or interesting.--Avala (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please spare us of the propaganda from the Serbian MFA. The OIC took note of Kosovo's declaration of independence and its accession to the IMF and the WB - these two things are big changes not present in the previous resolution. So, on that note alone it's a noteworthy resolution. --alchaemia (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking note of something is not at all the same as supporting it. I'm pretty sure Serbia took note of the UDI too. There is absolutely not a word in the OIC resolution that explicitly expresses support for Kosovo's independence - it's all wishy-washy rhetoric. Bazonka (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now re-removed the sentence that says that they support independence. Please don't put it back - it's not backed up by the evidence. I suppose we could have a paragraph that says that a resolution was passed, but I really don't see the point. Bazonka (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking note of something means officially acknowledging its existence. Serbia may have token note of the DI, but never officially. So, there's a clear difference here, and an upgrade on the stance of the OIC. I'm not saying they support independence, but they did take note of it, and we have to take note of that too. --alchaemia (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OIC have acknowledged that Kosovo declared independence. They haven't acknowledged that it is independent. Bazonka (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And them acknowledging it is an UPGRADE over their recent resolutions which have not done so. --alchaemia (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually their previous resolutions have noted that Kosovo declared independence. See page 36 of [4] - "Referring to ... the Declaration of the OIC Ministerial Meeting in Kampala in June 2008 and in New York in September 2008 where is noted the Declaration of Independence by the Assembly of Kosovo of 17 February 2008". So I still don't think there is anything new in the latest resolution. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

"The question of recognition of Kosovo also came under discussion during the telephonic conversation between the two leaders.

The Prime Minister informed the Turkish leader that Pakistan was keenly observing the current situation.

He noted that the UN General Assembly through a resolution had sought the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) and ICJ’s opinion was due in July or August, this year.

Pakistan hence would keep this issue under review and wait for ICJ’s opinion before taking any decision, he added"

Source = http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103590&Itemid=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added something to the article. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You added more, you should have paraphrased the whole section on Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The only bit I didn't include was the paragraph about the ICJ case. Not relevant to Pakistan's position. Bazonka (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkey urging recognition

This article mentions Erdogan appealing to five different countries for recognition: Azerbaijan, Qatar, Libya, Syria, and Greece.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can use here. There's no information on how four of the countries responded to the request, and we already have the relevant info from Azerbaijan. Bazonka (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is info on Azerbaijan ("Apparently, Erdogan didn’t get a positive answer from Aliyev") but yeah we have that in the article already.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Kuwait to Recognize Kosovo "Soon"

According to this article in Telegrafi, Jakub Krasniqi is in Kuwait and met with their Assembly Speaker, Prime Minister, etc. and was told Kuwait will Recognize Kosovo soon and until then, they should boost other relations. [5] Perhaps we should get a native speaker to translate or wait for an English language source? Can we use this? 69.203.217.91 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Bazonka (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No need google translate has really stepped it up. Now it even does automatic language detection. The URL will be

translate.google.com

here is the English translation http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrafi.com%2F%3Fid%3D2%26a%3D8703&sl=auto&tl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we use. It gives you the general gist, but it's not brilliant, e.g. "He said that Kosovo hosts stand GJND's correct". What? A human translation is always better. However, I think in this case we can tell what the salient points are. Bazonka (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. GJND = Gjykata Nderkombtare e Drejtesise (International Court of Justice). To translate that piece, He said that Kosova awaits for a correct standing on ICJ's (ruling)... Head of Assembly asked for Kuwait to recognize (Kosovo's) independence very soon in order for Kosovo to join the big family of UN and other international organizations. BLAH BLAH, Kuwait said we will recognize "soon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanzania & Benin

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hyseni met with his counterparts of Benin & Tanzania. If think there is something we can use in here. Can we get a translation properly and have someone update accordingly. [6] Thanks! 69.203.217.91 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We can update the article to show that Tanzania is now seriously considering recognition. But I have no idea what the position of Benin is - Google translate turns the Albanian text to gibberish. Apparently "Benin is back in Kosovo" whatever that means. Can an Albanian speaker enlighten us please? Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Benin, it basically says that minister Jean-Marie Ehouzou, has assured minister Hyseni that Benin soon will get in line with countries that have recognised Kosovo. Cheers. kedadial 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a few words for Benin. Please fix if I've misinterpreted. Bazonka (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo note

Please note that there is currently a discussion here about the content of Template:Kosovo-note. Your thoughts would be very welcome. Bazonka (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has reached an impasse, and so I have started a vote. Please participate. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraguay and Papua New Guinea Note

Hi, I know that this is discussed above, but I would like to propose a vote on the note at the end of the UN Member States subsection on formal recognition. Considering that the section is titled "States Which Formally Recognise Kosovo as Independent", it does not really seem to work to have a note at the bottom saying that Paraguay and Papua New Guinea "may' have recognized, but "there is no firm evidence." If this is the case, then these countries have not "formally recognized" Kosovo. A formal recognition is a public act undertaken by a state's government and on view to the whole international community. A state can of course have relations with another state that it does not formally recognize (like the US does with Taiwan for example), but this is obviously something separate from a "formal recognition". I propose that this note be removed and all the relevant information to Paraguay and Papua New Guinea be located under those countries' boxes. Konchevnik81 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose strictly speaking you are correct. However, this text is really only added as a footnote to the section, and so I don't see any harm in leaving it there. Bazonka (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Bazonka IJA (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

| I don't like having the comment about Papua New Guinea and Paraguay there either, that is too prominent a place for statements that right now are not much more than rumors (without a formal statement of either the gov't of Kosovo or the two countries concerned those statements ARE little more than rumors). Because of the (putative) sources of the statements I do think that they should be mentioned in the two countries' boxes, though.Jsaldarr (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Konchevnik81 and Jsaldarr, the section is for formal recognitions. There has been no formal recognition, the statement does not belong in that location. The information should be noted in the boxes for those countries under those who do not formally recognize. --Khajidha (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a footnote to the section indicating that there isn't formal recognition, despite rumours to the contrary. It's perfectly acceptable to include this clarification in the section. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either because it is based on rumours. It would be different in those situations where we had an official announcement of the imminent recognition that needs to be finalized only for an example in Parliament. But here we base the footnote on the hearsay of some enthusiast pilot. But for the sake of consensus, I propose that we keep this information for the maximum of 30 days after such rumours appear. If there is no official confirmation within 30 days it suggests that the information is not true and has no place among the formal recognitions. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to have verifiable information and also it is not supposed to offer "exclusive" first-hand news reports but should be based on known facts. Rumours simply don't fit into any category.--Avala (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a way that this note could be integrated into the text, maybe in the "Background" section? Or alternatively, it could be made a genuine numbered footnote at the bottom of the article. The problem is stylistic: it's not really a foonote to the table in the way that, say, footnotes exist for the Countries by Population table. The footnote should be an elaboration of information provided in the table, rather than adding information that is extraneous. Furthermore, as Avala noted, this info is quite old and neither of these countries have actually extended formal recogntion. Why do they get a note but, say, El Salvador doesn't? Once again, you can't have "secret" or "unconfirmed" official recognition. It's either official recognition or no official recognition.Konchevnik81 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, get rid of it then. As long as the information is still in the "non-recognisers" section. Bazonka (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kuwait

this time its an MP that is asking for a recogntion.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/kuwait/kuwaiti-lawmaker-calls-for-formal-recognition-of-kosovo-1.633937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can use anything that an MP says unless they are speaking on behalf of their government. Bazonka (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

he wasn't speaking to journalist, it is a fact that there is an MP in parliament trying to put a motion for recognition. This is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Parliament is not the same thing as government. Bazonka (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but we can still put "at least one Kuwaiti MP has called for his country to recognize Kosovo" and state why. Plus, we do not know constitutionally how the Kuwaiti parliament works with regards to foreign relations. I think this is useful. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That is not the country's position. Bazonka (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"In an unrelated development, MP Khalid Al-Adwa has submitted a proposal on obliging the Kuwaiti government to recognize the independence of Kosovo, establish diplomatic ties with this country, and open their respective embassies in Kuwait and Prishtina. Al-Adwa pointed out the International Court ruling on the independence of Kosovo is a historic decision. He said the people of Kosovo have been suffering due to the massacre and genocide operations carried out by the Serbs. He reiterated the need for Kuwait to recognize Kosovo, following in the footsteps of 69 countries, including the US, Japan, Australia, Canada and 22 of the 27 members of the European Union."

[7] --alchaemia (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New PM,, Slovakia's change of stance pro Kosovo's independence

http://www.izurnal.sk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3028&Itemid=43

Should Slovakia recognize Kosovo?

For peace and balance in the Balkans, it is necessary to recognize Kosovo Serbs in particular.When it comes to this Agreement, nothing will stand in the way of the fact that Slovakia has recognized Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.145.200 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This article dates from March last year. Is Radiocova even the PM yet? Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP seriously mistranslated the quote. She actually says: "For peace and stability in the Balkans, it is primarily needed that Serbs recognize Kosovo. After such an agreement is reached, nothing will stand in the way of Slovakia recognizing Kosovo." That is, she basically says that Slovakia will only recognize Kosovo after Serbia does. That does not sound like any change in policy to me.—Emil J. 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that all of the Slovak parliamentary parties voted for the resolution denouncing the independence declaration. The only party to vote against this proposal was Party of the Hungarian Coalition, but this coalition was ousted from the parliament in the recent election and replaced with a way more moderate Most–Híd. The rhetoric of the new Govt will be softer on all grounds including Kosovo but no special changes are expected.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Svg or png map

Could someone provide a link to the discussion that concluded in using the png map? I would like to see the reasons for this decision. Perhaps it is just about the too light gray shading of some countries, which may be fixed. 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's here. Not a unanimous decision by any means, but the majority of contributors felt that the png map was clearer at its primary purpose i.e. showing which countries have recognised. Personally I don't think there's any need to change the map. Bazonka (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion reconfirmed consensus which seems to have been established earlier. There are some more discussions on the topic in the archives (starting with Archive 29, when the svg map was created).—Emil J. 10:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It has already been well established through consensus that we are to use PNG version on this article. This consensus for this is in the archives. IJA (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ to deliver advisory opinion on Thursday, July 22

Official announcement that the ruling will be read next Thursday, the 22nd, at 3pm Central European Time. [8] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For all interested here will be the live streaming from 15:00 to 18:00 (GMT +2) - [9]--Avala (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, things regarding this article may significantly develop. Annoyingly I'm working while it is announced. IJA (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the link they initially provided for the streaming doesn't work anymore. Looking at the TV schedule, they are planning this for 15:00-16:00. We'll see.--Avala (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ site is unreachable due to all the traffic. Anybody know of any site that's liveblogging or where you can read a transcript? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[10] - but it has a translation to Serbian over. The reading has been going for an hour, they haven't said anything yet, just spinning in circles, you think that's it but then he goes back to square one.--Avala (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Two well placed sources" that "Balkan Insight has been unable to independently verify" claim that the verdict will be in favour of Kosovo.[11] Note that this comes from before the official announcement.—Emil J. 13:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo's independence "...did not violate general international law." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ says Kosovo statehood 'legal' IJA (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"ICJ president Hisashi Owada said international law 'contains no applicable prohibition' of Kosovo's declaration of independence. 'Accordingly, [the court] concludes that the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law,' he said." BBC reports. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know where you can read the ruling? The ICJ site is still down. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The documents are now available, for example here. --DaQuirin (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Advisory Opinion ends (No. 122) with the following statement: "The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law." --DaQuirin (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict tomorrow

Events regarding this article are very likely to develop tomorrow. Can I ask for all regular contributors to keep an eye out on the article, watch out for vandalism and controversial edits. Also can I ask for everyone to keep NPOV in mind and to get a consensus before making certain edits to the article, which could possibly be controversial. Cheers IJA (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to keep the article stable as it will be in the spotlight so please everyone refrain from making some major edits right now and tomorrow keep the head cool, perhaps it will be the best to discuss everything here. The decision might be complex so it might take some time to understand it fully, so don't try to finalize the article before it's actually possible. There are rumours that there will be false reporting as well, so keep an eye on that. Admins reading - watch this article tomorrow, semilock might not be enough and full lock wouldn't be good. The goal should be to have this news on the ITN but for that we need a stable normal article. Thanks --Avala (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we put Kosovo's coat of arms back on the page instead of having the generic country outline? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the outline - it portrays something tangible about Kosovo, rather than a pointless fiction made up in slavish mimicry of a feudal tradition - but that's just my personal dislike of coats-of-arms :-)

Go ahead, if you really think a coat of arms would be better.

bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, don't be a hater - haha. I don't know how to make the change. I'm not as skilled at editing as others are. Would someone be so kind as to make the change? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Politics of Kosovo has a very long discussion and protection about the image of the coat of arms, so, I would suggest to take it there. But that is the only way you can change the map image to the coat of arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran Considering Recognition?

Saw this interesting article. Probably means nothing, but still something that caught my attention. [12] - 69.203.217.91 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to know at this point. Only time will tell. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All it says is "Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says Iran is considering the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling about Kosovo's independence from Serbia", that is barely considering recognition. IJA (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a more recent article on the subject: [13]. Notable is this comment: "Various aspects of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling about the special and unique situation in Kosovo are under close study." Their position seems favorable towards Kosovo. The talk about dialogue should not be taken as being opposed to recognition as many countries that have recognized continue talking about dialogue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Greece may recognize Kosovo soon

This article claims Greece will recognize before the UN General Assembly meeting in September and supposedly they want money for it. It also notes Serbia is expecting Kosovo to be recognized by Greece. Greece has been the only EU country that doesn't recognize Kosovo to stay silent on whether it sticks to its position following the ICJ ruling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the source reliable, update article for Greece section? --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it reliable? I don't see any quotes, just citation of the notorius Belgrade tabloid "Press". As for Greece, their FM yesterday said "despite the advisory opinion of the International Court, Greece, like other EU countries that do not recognize Kosovo, maintains its position." so there is nothing new in Greece.--Avala (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And where is our reliable source for that? --alchaemia (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking me, - Droutsas au Conseil des Affaires générales de l'UE (ANA-MPA). Sorry for French, I popped into that version.--Avala (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems very much like a rumour to me, there isn't anything definitive in the source. It appears to be like a possible proposal or a possible suggestion. There isn't anything from Greece in the article, the source doesn't say any names as such or have any quotes etc. The source also comes from the Republic of Macedonia therefore I don't know how much we should trust it either. I believe this to be speculation only. I'd rather have something straight from the horses mouth; if Greece is to recognise Kosovo I'm sure we will be very aware of such a decision when/ if it happens. IJA (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine outdated infos

"If Ukraine chooses any position, the security of our peacemakers will be put in question" - Does anybody know what this means? And is it truly relevant here in explaining Ukraine's position on the recognition issue? I suggest to remove the phrase. The Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee for Foreign Affairs ... said on 20 February 2008 [sic] that Ukraine will back Serbia's stand on Kosovo at a session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be held 21–22 February 2009 [sic] in Vienna - Did Ukraine later modify its support for Serbia in the OSCE (or other organizations)? Do we know about a difference between the positions of the Verkhovna Rada and the government? I suggest to remove the phrase. To me, Ukraine's anti-recognition stance seems quite stable over the years. --DaQuirin (talk)

First of all, I'm not really sure what it means.... which is one reason why it should be there in my opinion. The other reason is that not only is it important whether the country will recognize or not, but it is WHY it will or will not. Of course, the reason that Ukraine won't recognize is probably a combination of Russian influence, worries about Crimea, and other elements.

Second of all, I disagree that Ukraine has an anti-Kosovo or anti-recognition stance, or a pro-Serbian stance. Ukraine's stance is none of these, as both the Yushchenko and Yakunovych governments have made pretty clear, Ukraine is "neutral" in this. It will not recognize Kosovo for a combination of reasons. But that does not transmute to support for Serbia. This is the same stance that Spain, Georgia, and the Philippines, and a number of others have. It is quite different from the stance of Azerbaijan (which agrees with Serbia for purely ideological reasons), the stance of Romania (which assigns Serbia the moral guilt for the conflict but says that modern Serbia has reformed itself and a violation of Serbia's t.o. isn't necessary) and, most significantly, the stance of Russia (which is overt support for Serbia). Ukraine is not expected to back up Serbia (it backs it in the OSCE because an opinion is requested there, but it keeps its distance otherwise), it is merely declining from recognizing Kosovo.--Yalens (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Article uses too many templates

This article is being discussed at the village pump.—Emil J. 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. For technical reasons it looks like we need to tidy up this article, removing unnecessary text and especially references. Either that or it'll be broken up and/or end up looking shabby. Bazonka (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The following few comments are copied here from WP:VPT#How to convert references to a non-templated state? as more appropriate for this talk page. Bazonka (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have had the time to really look at it, I agree with Mr.Z-man on splitting the article. Other options would be to remove the flags entirely, expand some of the templates (use Special:ExpandTemplates to test) or leave it as is and hope no one runs over the limit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the flags don't seem to add that much encyclopedic content (and i just plain don't like them used in that sense), I'm thinking just try the article without them and see where it goes from there. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From the techie point, flag templates do their job, namely allow adding an image and a linked country with a simple 3-letter code, reducing the clutter. Reference templates do it other way around - add code clutter and a template w/o improving the output (I know their advantages, that is not the point here). Thus it is logical to leave flags and strip ref templates, and it is doable (even with simple Word macro substitutions, but this is tiresome). I am just not versed enough in wiki-compatible programming to do that. Splitting is obvious. BTW, even auto replacement or deletion of flags is not that trivial because it requires knowledge of the flag abbreviations, and the linked above Special:ExpandTemplates adds much clutter of its own. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of International recognition of Kosovo (I am one of its regular contributors), I think splitting the article will be difficult without seriously compromising its quality. There are bits that could be moved elsewhere, but these won't make much of a difference. And I feel that in this article the flags are vital in terms of its look and feel. I would be unhappy with the removal of the cite templates, but I understand that as a last resort this may be a necessary evil. However, I think that there is definitely scope for tidying up the text and removing unnecessary references. This will have to be a manual job, and it won't be easy, but it has needed doing for some time. This technical problem could provide the impetus for a major cleanup. (Of course, one other solution is to persuade more governments to recognise Kosovo's independence - we could then move them from the Non-Recognisers table (several references each) to the Recognisers table (just one or two refs each)). Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why can't each of the tables be split to a separate article and have a short prose text with the names of the countries in the main article instead? Most people checking the article most likely don't want all those details anyway and those who do can check the sub-article without problems. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some form of WP:FORKing is the ideal solution, probably of International recognition of Kosovo#States which do not formally recognise Kosovo as independent to its own List of states which do not formally recognise Kosovo as sovereign. I also don't agree that the flagicons are worth the real-estate on the page just to reduce clutter in the source, but I notice that they are used often in other articles. I question the repeated UN and EU icons for international membership column as I would expect the flags to take the place of the text of that the text would be sufficient, but it is hardly a concern if the bloated table with per country overviews of position were moved. Along with a {{main}} link, this section could be altered to give an overview of common or peculiar positions. —Ost (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't read the entire Village Pump discussion (see EmilJ's link at top of thread), this article is basically approaching breaking point due to the number of templates it uses - mostly flags and references. It needs to be cut down somehow. The techie contributors above (posts copied from VP) are proposing a split or removal of flag images. I am reluctant about the split, but maybe it's the best solution. What do people think? If it is split, how should it be done? I am strongly opposed to flag removal (although maybe the UN, EU ones can go). In the meantime, I will continue to tidy up the article by removing unneeded references. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a different reference for all 69 countries which have recognised Kosovo? We could use just one reference for them all instead, such as this one? Agree??? IJA (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it serves a great deal to the credibility of this article to have individual third party references. Your link would nevertheless be very helpful in some places, e.g., when we state upfront the number of countries that recognized Kosovo's independence. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If we have the choice between splitting and removing refs, we should choose the method that will not lose verifiability. If we have those references, we should keep them, even if it means to split the article to do. As I said above, most people reading this page will not care for so many details, so they will be happy with a short summary of the countries in question and those who won't can always check the sub-articles for details. I honestly can't see how this would really compromise the article's integrity. I mean, the second section does it already and it's not making the article worse. And we can always create those sub-articles in talkspace or userspace first to see how it would look. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject so it's particularly important to have good sources; and although it may be convenient to use a single source for everything, some readers may not regard [14] as a good source...

bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The MFA link is a good source, but having someone else make the statement, (or the corresponding MFA) would still help. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the references should stay and all the flag should be deleted. There is no need for them in this article. If someone wants to see a country's flag, they click on the linked name. If they don't recognise a country, they click on the linked name. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the best way to handle this problem is to create sub-articles and outsource the detailed information about individual countries. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would that be 2 separate subarticles for the "for" and "against" countries, or one subarticle for each country, or some other method?

I'm concerned that one-article-per-country could be unmanageable, and might be inconsistent with wikipedia's existing policies on bilateral relations articles (I don't wholly agree with that policy, but if you started an article on "Relations between Tonga and Kosovo" I daresay it would soon be deleted, so how could we justify keeping an article that only shows one aspect of those relations?)

Maybe split countries into groups some other way? (Perhaps by continent). Whichever way they're split it might look a bit arbitrary, but hey...

bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the only sensible way to split this article is to move the details of the non-recognising countries to one new article. Bobrayner is right - turning it into several articles will never work. The list of recognisers is relatively small and, since this article is chiefly about recognition, surely it should stay here. Bazonka (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Converted refs to a non-templated state. This solves the template overload problem. The article is still large, but at least can be previewed before saving (before I had wikimedia errors trying to preview page on any PC I tried), and loads faster. Conversion was semi-automatic and thus the author names were lost, and some clutter may remain. Sorry. Materialscientist (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like the best that can be done without compromising the article's quality. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Grenada to lobby CARICOM to recognise Kosovo

The speaker of the Grenadian Parliament sent a letter to the Albanian parliament speaker saying that CARICOM wanted to have a common position on Kosovo and that Grenada would lobby within the organisation for it to recognise Kosovo. [15] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I have updated the article to show that Caricom members are apparently to make a joint decision soon. I think we should update the Grenada section also, but I'm not clear exactly on Grenada's position (although I can make a guess). Google translate isn't perfect - it says that "Grenada has considered your request for recognition of Kosovo as an independent and completely legitimate". I'm not sure whether this means that Grenada is saying that Kosovo is an independent and legitimate nation, or simply whether they have considered the issue of its legitimacy. Can an Albanian speaker please clarify? Incidentally, I am surprised that Grenada hasn't recognised sooner - they seem fairly positive, but I would be surprised if all Caricom countries take the same approach. Bazonka (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the letter, Grenada considers Kosovo to be a legitimate and independent nation, and that it will process the request for recognition. It also says that CARICOM nations will take a joint decision. According to my info, CARICOM countries are to take this decision in the next meeting they have. It will be 14 countries, since Belize has already recognized (CARICOM has 15 members). --alchaemia (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually Caricom member Montserrat is a British dependency so is not able to recognise independently. So we can only expect 13 new recognitions. I can't see this happening though, there are bound to be some dissenters (Jamaica possibly). Bazonka (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another news story about this [16] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan may recognize Kosovo next week

A news report from Telegrafi (in Albanian) says so. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Next week is fine but the problem is they did not tell which year. SCNR. --92.74.18.206 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, they're busy dealing with the biggest natural disaster in their history and have postponed the decision for a better time. --alchaemia (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I came across a two-sentence blurb on this issue. [17]: "At the end of the press conference, Haroon was asked if Pakistan will give diplomatic recognition to Kosovo, as Honduras did today. Haroon said that might be being discussed back in Islamabad." I know it's a scrap, but it's not a "no" or "never." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Romania update

The President told a summit of Romania's ambassadors today that the country's stance will not change, insisting on new negotiations.[18] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to get Wikipedia in trouble with such libelous statements?--Avala (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not libel. If it makes you feel better, I'll edit it out. I completely withdraw my semi-educated speculation and apologise for any misunderstanding. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia "never said never" on Kosovo

I think this is sth new worth mentioning regarding Slovakia's stance on the issue.

"Slovakia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikulas Dzurinda said on Thursday that he had never said Slovakia would never recognize Kosovo. "

Source: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=09&dd=03&nav_id=69458 --93.62.251.226 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Honduras Recognized

http://www.mfa-ks.net/

"Hondurasi njeh Republikën e Kosovës Hondurasi njeh Republikën e Kosovës 03.09.2010

Republika e Hondurasit ka njohur sot zyrtarisht Kosovën shtet të pavarur dhe sovran. Vendimi për njohjen e Kosovës i është kumtuar sot Ministrit të Punëve të Jashtme të Republikës së Kosovës, z. Skender Hyseni nga Ministri i Jashtëm i Republikës së Hondurasit, z. Mario Canahuati. "

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

in ENGLISH = http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sq&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mfa-ks.net%2F%3Fpage%3D1%2C4%2C574 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone update the templates Digitalpaper (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, fixed.

I can't help but express (as I have already done a couple of times in past) my fascination with the people who are in charge of the web presentation of Kosovo's MFA, and pictures in particular. The photomontage illustrating this article brings it to a whole new level.—Emil J. 15:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The photomontage is in poor taste, but what else is wrong with the site? I think it's a huge improvement over the old one. --alchaemia (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the website as such is generally OK, it's just that they keep doing things like attaching photos of wrong people to articles, confusing Dominica with the Dominican Republic, etc.—Emil J. 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lesotho

@Bazonka: are you sure you didn't mix up the references? The link you put there with the Lesotho news is (1) dead, and (2) dated by yourself to November 2009, which makes me wonder how it could have ever contained anything pertaining to a September 2010 meeting.—Emil J. 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. I got the date totally wrong (don't know how!), but I haven't changed the link - it works fine for me. Perhaps the site was temporarily down when you looked at it? Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still broken. It gives an error message in Serbian and English saying that the requested page cannot be found.—Emil J. 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just clicked on the link and it went straight to the correct page. I'm using a different computer from the one I used to update the article, so it's not some weird cache thing. Problem at your end I guess. Is it working for anyone else? Bazonka (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at my end. I figured it out, it's another demented web designer at work. The link only works when you click it from their home page (www.srbija.gov.rs) for the first time. Clear your cookies and reload the page, and you will see for yourself.—Emil J. 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even more funny: visiting the home page sets a cookie whose only useful content is a language setting, which can be changed by clicking on the links on top of the home page. The server refuses to serve the offending article unless the cookie is set and the selected language is English. Why the cookie uses lang=cr for (the default) Serbian Cyrillic and lang=sr for Serbian Latin is another mystery.—Emil J. 13:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Qatar to recognise this week (?)

Kosovo newspapers are reporting Qatar will recognise Kosovo this week and that this was communicated to PM Thaci, who visisted Doha this weekend.[19][20] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

definitely relevant, someone should put this on the article --Cradel (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can add this. The source does not give any direct or indirect statements from Qatari officials, just a Kosovan official saying that it will happen, which seems to be speculation. But if it's true, we won't have to wait long before the article can be updated anyway. Bazonka (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect that we'll have an answer before the UN debate on Thursday. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

[21] There is this from Thaci's website and he was invited on an official state visit by the King of Qatar. He is to meet with the ambassadors of the UK, US, Turkey to Qatar today. Also tonight he is to have dinner with the PM who is also the FM of Qatar (@ Bazonka, he is going round for his tea). Then later on this evening he is to meet the King of Qatar. Now I'm not one to jump to conclusions, but if Qatar is to put on all this as an "official state visit" to the PM of Kosovo, then I would assume they're likely to recognise Kosovo. It would be very weird and awkward to do all this and not recognise Kosovo. Anyway what I'm saying is, lets keep an eye out this evening (European time). IJA (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Koha Ditore, a very influential paper in Kosovo, PM Thaci will be given the letter of recognition. Things are definitely moving forward. --alchaemia (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Telegrafi is reporting that Qatar has recognised [22]. Gazeta is, too[23]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Qatar News Agency's reporting on Thaci's visit is interesting: "HE Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani, conferred here tonight with Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo Hashim Thaci who is currently visiting Doha. Talks during the meeting dealt with bilateral relations and means of bolstering them."[24] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea's foreign policy is to favour Kosovo's independence

Inner City Press is reporting that Anatolio Ndong Mba, Equatorial Guinea's permanent representative said that Equatorial Guinea's foreign policy towards Kosovo Independence is to favour it. Here is the source. Can we update the article? IJA (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. Updated. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Qatar Recognized

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=10215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I already posted that. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you speak Shqip? My link says that Qatar HAS recognized, not that it will or it might but it HAS. Kosovar sources also said

2 others states have recognized, I forgot who it was but Qatar has been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Take it easy, Qatar has verbally told the PM that they have recognized, while these two other states are due to recognize (Kuwait and Oman), but they haven't done so yet (the expectation is that it'll be done soon). --alchaemia (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources seem to indicate that some of the formal procedures are still ongoing, but I have decided to update the article anyway because it is 99% confirmed. Bazonka (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[25] English language reference from B92 IJA (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another reference from Thaci's website [26] IJA (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder that perhaps we have jumped the gun by announcing Qatar's recognition. It's surely not far off, but it would seem that the process of formalising the recognition hasn't yet completed. Maybe we should take Qatar off the list temporarily. Bazonka (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they said it is only awaiting Emir's signature so I guess we should remove the date for the time being.--Avala (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We should probably make a note of that (that they are awaiting the signature). Because it isn't final yet- the Emir could, for whatever reason, refuse to sign (right?). I wouldn't say remove it from the 71 list, but at least make note of that for the time being, I'd say...--Yalens (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically Qatar hasn't completed the process of recognition yet, however they have said it will be completed very soon. Adding that Qatar recognises Kosovo on Wikipedia doesn't make it official. Officially only 70 UN member states recognise Kosovo as of 9th September 2010 19:40 BST. IJA (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And whats about Kuwait and Oman? Isnt it the same thing? --188.99.179.90 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Equatorial Guinea? Considering their recent statement, I don't see how they can reasonably be listed as a state that does not recognize Kosovo. Does EG even make formal recognitions? If not, would we have to wait until they announce an ambassador? --Khajidha (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Equatorial Guinea have all yet to announce that they recognise Kosovo and inform the Kosovan Foreign Ministry of their recognition, until then none of them have actually officially recognised Kosovo to date. Pakistan and Bangladesh made similar statements to Equatorial Guinea's recent statement the day after Kosovo declared independence, however they have not recognised Kosovo yet and it may some while before they do. There is a difference between saying "we support Kosovo" and "we recognise Kosovo". The diplomatic world is a funny place. IJA (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, support and recognition are two different things. One country can support Kosovo but for whatever reason not recognise (not to take sides for an example as Bangladesh puts it), one country could do both, or recognise it but don't really support it (countries that were reasonably expected to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo but haven't done so even though they maintain diplomatic relations with all other countries they recognise) or neither.--Avala (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Qatar from the list of recognisers. I think I was too hasty in adding it a couple of days ago. Best to wait until it's all officially signed and sealed. Bazonka (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

UN General Assembly

Is the full text of the new resolution already available? --DaQuirin (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text of the resolution (Resolution A/64/L.65/Rev.1, dated 8 Sept. 2010): http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/509/08/PDF/N1050908.pdf?OpenElement. Kinda strange that the UNGA is now in its 65th session, and the document lists the 64th session and a date 2 days ago)...

No official record of the debate yet, but the UN News Centre is reporting that the reworked joint EU-Serbian resolution calling for continued negotiations and acknowledging the ICJ ruling has passed. Some interesting stuff in there that may be added to this article, including a statement from Fiji, which has been pretty silent about their position on anything regarding Kosovo's situation:

• Fiji: "Fiji’s representative welcomed the consensus achieved, as well as the European Union’s readiness to facilitate dialogue between the parties. He reaffirmed that peaceful dialogue was fundamental to international relations. As a member of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Fiji gave careful consideration to the Court’s opinion. There was often a fine line between respect for self-determination of peoples, on the one hand, and the territorial integrity of States, on the other. The overriding purpose was to maintain international peace and security. As such, the Court’s opinion must be addressed in a way that did not “give a green light” to other unilateral declarations of independence around the world. He reiterated the need for careful consideration of the implications of the Court’s opinion." http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10980.doc.htm

Perhaps this should go into ICJ opinion reactions? Ajbenj (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The link didn't work for me. Here is the text in full:

"United Nations A/64/L.65/Rev.1 General Assembly Distr.: Limited 8 September 2010 Original: English 10-50908 (E) 090910

Sixty-fourth session Agenda item 77 Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on whether the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo is in accordance with international law

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: draft resolution

Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on whether the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo is in accordance with international law

The General Assembly, Mindful of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, Bearing in mind its functions and powers under the Charter of the United Nations, Recalling its resolution 63/3 of 8 October 2008, in which it requested the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the following question: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”, Having received with respect the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 22 July 2010 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo(1) and having studied it with great care, including the issues on which the opinion was rendered, 1. Acknowledges the content of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral __________________ 1 See A/64/881.

Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, in response to the request of the General Assembly; 2. Welcomes the readiness of the European Union to facilitate a process of dialogue between the parties; the process of dialogue in itself would be a factor for peace, security and stability in the region, and that dialogue would be to promote cooperation, achieve progress on the path to the European Union and improve the lives of the people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.39.91 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. --DaQuirin (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we can add the statement from Fiji into this article. It is very high-level and not directly related to Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thaci: Serbia recognized Kosovo

Hashim Thaci claims today that Serbia recognized Kosovo - [27] --Avala (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The page may have been updated but it doesn't seem to say that now. He just seems to take it for granted that Serbia will someday do so not that it has.Dejvid (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the title is still the same "Tači: Srbija priznala Kosovo" which is "Thaci: Serbia recognized Kosovo" with recognized in past tense as if it had already happened.--Avala (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong), he seems to argue that by accepting the resolution, Serbia accepts the sovereignty/independence of Kosovo. However, I think that certain big powers would veto any resolution which explicitly considers Kosovo an independent state.

Which document is it? The UN's document search functions are not entirely user-friendly, but I found this: [28] - which does offer some compromises, but the bottom line is unchanged - “The Republic of Serbia does not and shall not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo,” bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He means indirectly, as is clearly evident from the article. --alchaemia (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think he's being metaphorical and using hyperbole. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well OK but if you wish you can double check with your diplomatic contacts if Kosovo now considers that Serbia had recognized or not.--Avala (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

United Nations position

There is a box that is supposed to mention the official position of the United Nations. Instead of keeping to its purpose, it describes the position of the Russian government and how this affects Kosovo's prospects for admission. There is no mention of the UNSCR 1244, which officially reaffirms that the country is part of Serbia. Unless the UN's official policy has changed, this resolution, still in effect, should be mentioned in the lead. Nightw 10:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Which part of UNSCR 1244 "officially reaffirms that the country is part of Serbia"?

The full text is here: [29]

The text names Serbia sparsely, and never specifically as being overlord of Kosovo; "Procedures for withdrawals, including the phased, detailed schedule and delineation of a buffer area in Serbia beyond which forces will be withdrawn", and "After withdrawal, an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return...".

That document does recognise the territorial integrity of the FRY. However, it was written before Kosovo's second declaration of independence.

bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

1244 only refers to Yugoslavia's territorial integrity, not Serbia's. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

didn't the EU just put out a resolution? If memory serves correct, this new resolution replaces the last one (res 1244). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Bobby, you should know better than that ;)--Avala (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The UN does not have a position on the recognition of Kosovo nor Kosovo's independence. There is UNSCR-1244 which is from 1999, however that is from 9 years before Kosovo declared it's independence. The only position from the UN is when the UNGA asked the UN body, the ICJ to give it's advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, which was found not illegal and it did not violate UNSCR 1244. The UN is unable to give a definitive opinion on Kosovo's independence and on recognition of Kosovo. There is no position as such from the UN. IJA (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the section mention that, instead of dedicating it to Russia's position and Kosovo's prospectives of attaining membership? Nightw 13:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know who will be next?

Which country will be next to recognise Kosova? --188.99.179.90 (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kiribati & Botswana To Recognize Soon?

I found this link which google translated reads the Pacolli met with Kiribati officials and that the confirmation of recognition will come soon http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/10892/pacolli-paralajmeron-njohjen-nga-kiribati/

Also the MFA reports that Botswana will soon make its decision know. http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,585

Can we use these? 64.115.19.42 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we wait until the decision has been made? Nightw 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it could possibly at least provide updated information on countries until then 64.115.19.42 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting news, but I don't think there's anything to put in the article. It's Pacolli saying that someone told him something, which isn't verifiable. We'll have to wait for something official. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, wasn't that the same case with Maldives, Swaziland, etc. Or when he claimed the same for El Salvador, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, etc.? We did update then though it was all word of mouth from him as well even though nothing materialized. 64.115.19.42 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can certainly say something about Botswana, but the information about Kiribati is a bit too tenuous. Bazonka (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, 64.115.19.42, we learned and now have a higher standard for inclusion. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts I have added a carefully worded paragraph on Kiribati. Bazonka (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dip. relations established with Vanuatu

Dip. relations have been established. [30] --alchaemia (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should also update the Foreign Relations of Kosovo page as well. --69.203.217.91 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Updates

There was a lot of lobbying for Kosovo at the UN and many meetings occured. Can we use any of these to make some updates. I wasn't sure but I still wanted to bring them at least to discussion. I apologize if they aren't useful.

Singapore: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,591

Dominica: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,589

Antigua & Barbuda and Iraq: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,587

Ghana & Indonesia: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,584

Armenia: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,586

Qatar: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?page=2,6,1349

Central African Rep.: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?page=2,6,1340

Rwanada: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?page=2,6,1341

Kuwait: http://www.kryeministri-ks.net/?page=1,9,1615

Cuba: http://www.mfa.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7271%3Aministri-i-puneve-te-jashtme-z-edmond-haxhinasto-u-takua-me-ministrin-e-puneve-te-jashtme-te-kubes-z-bruno-rodriguez-parrilla&catid=112%3Alajme&Itemid=88&lang=sq

Tajikistan & Turkeminstan: http://www.keshilliministrave.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=13716

Tanzania: http://www.keshilliministrave.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=13726

Bangladesh, Kenya, East Timor: http://www.gazetaexpress.com/web/index.php/artikujt/lexo/38702/C4/C13

Guyana: http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/10902/behgjet-pacolli-lobon-ne-karaibe/

Oman: http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/10854/akr-se-shpejti-omani-njeh-pasaportat-e-kosoves/ 69.203.217.91 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been able to add some words for most of these, although some (e.g. Tajikistan/Turkmenistan) are simply reports of requests for recognition with no information about those countries' responses, and so can't be used. Bazonka (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good. The omitted updates are understandable. The only thing I would says is that the Turkmen president promised to deal with Kosovo in time. Also here is updated information for Zambia [31]. Also I know this is a bit old, but perhaps we could still add it because it technically is relevant and this is no other reaction from Guinea [32] Thanks again for your help. --69.203.217.91 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sudan, Tunisia and the Vatican: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,593

At least that is what I think it says as I've used google translator. Any possible updates from this then? IJA (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep up Ian, I've already updated it! Bazonka (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

More from Zambia this time in regards to his meeting with the Albanian MFA. He says that Kosovo independence is a reality and that the courts decision eased the concerns of African countries [33]. Thanks. --64.115.19.42 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Egypt: [34] 64.115.19.42 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Andorra Update

If found this link from Andorra's national broadcaster RTVA [35] and it states things a bit differently than what was updated on the page. It states that Andorra will soon recognize Kosovo, but they exact date will be announced after a consultantion with Spain's FM. On the newsflash bar it stated that they will meet with PM Thaci again in Novemember on the matter. I also read articles in other Catalan websites like this one [36],that Andorra want to keep a balanced position because of Spain and France, but if they have to take a position it will be in favor of recognition. Can we add this to the article as well? Thanks.--69.203.217.91 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at updating the Andorra section. The news about meeting again in November seems to have disappeared from the source though. Bazonka (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome --> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitica.e-noticies.es%2Fandorra-reconocera-a-kosovo-44952.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.217.16 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay update

Uruguay's FM visited Belgrade and delivered a more definitive "no" statement, as reported by the Serbian MFA: [37]. Much more clearer than what we already have here. Ajbenj (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually the Deputy FM, and it's interesting that they use quotes for the part about EU integration, but no quotes for the part that deals with Kosovo. It also sounds very much like Serbian MFA rhetoric: using words such as "never", but also such Serbian-only terms as "Kosovo and Metohia". --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Uruguay ref at that url now seems to be about the Mladic manhunt and not mention Uruguay at all! Is there a more permanently archived site? TheGrappler (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Another terribly constructed Serbian government website. The article can still be found if you search for it in the calendar, but you can't get a permanent link. I've managed to find the same article on a different site though, so I've changed the reference to that. Bazonka (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Egypt/Sudan

I dont think we necessarily can use it for an update, but more for something we can keep an eye out for [38]. --64.115.19.42 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Abul Gheit also said Egypt would decide on whether or not to recognize the independence of Kosovo “in due time,” taking into consideration outstanding issues between Kosovo and Serbia. The International Court of Justice has issued an opinion that the independence of Kosovo does not violate international law. Zaki added that Kosovo Foreign Minister Iskander al-Husseini had briefed Abul Gheit on the rights of Kosovo’s Serbian minority and its representation in parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.145.200 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know when will be the next recognition?

When will the next country recognise Kosova? --188.99.185.19 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows. Bazonka (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be in 149 hours 47 minutes and 28 seconds IJA (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Respect, that was almost accurate! --80.226.1.7 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One would almost think that Belgrade is getting rather lazy in its intelligence gathering. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean CB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? --92.74.27.233 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently dry, ironic humour still has the ability to confound. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

it's spelled humor, kthanksbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's spelled humour, kthxbai. Bernerd (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Kosovo has a new foreign minister

Skender Hyseni resigned on Monday and Deputy Foreign Minister Vlora Citaku has taken over as FM.[39] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kiribati recognised, it's official

Kiribati has recognised the Republic of Kosovo, according to Behgjet Pacolli: [40] and [41].

The president of AKR says that the recognition was confirmed by Kiribati's Secretary of State, hence it's not something that he is expecting but it has taken place. Lets wait for the official confirmation. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Kiribati has started today verbal note to the recognition of Kosovo. Kirbiti is 71 to recognize Kosovo. http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=10919 User:Irvi Hyka

Balkan Insight is reporting the news too IJA (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past, the practice has been to wait for an announcement from the ministry of foreign affairs. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. An official statement will put all qualms to rest. Outback the koala (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

New Kosovo Alliance announced Saturday that the party has achieved the recognition of verbal notes.

AKR notice states that this recognition comes after an intense work Pacolli and his group of associates in this country.

Nota verbal recognition has reached today in the offices of the AKR and is immediately forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo.

Note verbal notification, [42], [43]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Irvi Hyka

P.S. Irvi, please do not create duplicate sections for the same topic. Thanks, Kosovar (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's official and confirmed by the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs: [44]. Kosovar (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anything if Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) recognizes the independence of Kosovo?

If it is possible to determine the position that Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta to Pristina. User:Irvi Hyka

As far as I'm aware, they haven't said anything on the situation in Kosovo. If anyone can find anything regarding SMOM's position then let us know so we can update the article. IJA (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would presume that the Order of Malta takes the same position as the Holy See, as they depend on it for their existence as a religious order. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But they don't depend on it for their existence as a sovereign entity under international law.—Emil J. 10:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The SMOM is completely separate from the Holy See. Outback the koala (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right: according to Catholic religious order#List of Catholic religious orders, SMOM is not approved as a religious order by the Catholic church.—Emil J. 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a completely sovereign entity. It has diplomatic relations with some 100+ states and addition relations with other states, and is a UN observer. It is commonly not considered a state because it only processes embassies and consulates as territory. But it is 100% separate. Although it is an explicit Catholic entity. It does not have "diplomatic relations" with Kosovo per its official website. Outback the koala (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Qatar recognize kosovo?

I found a link from google that Qatar recognized the repulic of kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.109.52 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you post the link? As I recall, there were rumors back in September that they would soon recognize, but nothing ever came of it. If you found a source saying otherwise, let us know. TDL (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything anywhere that says Qatar recognised Kosovo. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

They said that emir would sign it in the next few days but it seems that emir didn't sign it.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe he did, but didn't tell anybody. Bazonka (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess there isn't much what we can do about the secretive emir.--Avala (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We may ask him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.130.80 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you write to him then Max? Bazonka (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Telegrafi has published a story saying that Russia is preventing Qatar from recognising[45]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see it says that Russia was impeding Qatar's recognition of Kosovo back in January. It does not seem to have anything particular to do with the present unclear situation.—Emil J. 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The actual document says that Medvedev asked Qatar "to go slowly", implying that Russia will not try to block it, but it wants it to be done gradually. --alchaemia (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Gazeta Express - well-connected with the GoK, and quoting D/FM Vlora Citaku - Qatar has recognized Kosovo. Its Ambassador to the USA has presented the letter of recognition to the Kosovar Ambassador to the USA, Avni Spahiu. [46] --alchaemia (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Telegrafi has announced this also [47]. Seems genuine, but we really should wait for a more official source - we've announced Qatar's recognition before and had to backtrack. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for an official source. Chances are this will not take long, as the the information is supposed to come straight from Çitaku.—Emil J. 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the recognition has actually happened yet, as the Kosovo MFA has not yet announced it. Balkan Insight says that the formal signing has not yet taken place [48]. If no official source is available by tomorrow, then I will revert the recent updates for Qatar. Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NewKosovaReport has announced this also [49].Sentinel R (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of media reports like that one, but nothing official. Bazonka (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop wringing your hands. It's being widely reported in the press. Some of you wouldn't commit to the time of day with an atomic clock. Yeesh. It is not a damning flaw that it's not been poted on the MFA websites yet. We've posted updates on much less info in the past. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was also widely reported in the press the last time when it didn't happen, thus some caution is in order.—Emil J. 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Last time only a few Kosovar outlets ran it. This time the Kosovar, Serb, and international media are running it and Vlora herself confirmed it in a press interview. My own unofficial source confirmed it to me, too. I think it's a pretty safe bet that it's for real this time. You may not recall, but when San Marino recognised in May 2008 we only had one article from a Sammarinese tv station as a source and nobody turned a hair at that. When Vanuatu recognised it was in the press and Pacolli posted the note verbale online and yet you all still panicked and insisted we do nothing until there was an "official" source, which never came because the Kosovo MFA never did post a news article about it. I think you're all getting into a twist over nothing with Qatar. When an official source becomes available, we'll change the citation, or if a denial comes out, that will warrant a change. Otherwise, things are fine the way they are. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Official source, Kosovo Foreign Ministry [50]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This [51] also off Kosovo MFA site dates the recognition as 7 Jan. I don't know whether they are muddling recognition with diplomatic relations, but this is a more official source than any of the earlier media reports. I think we should change the date on the article as per WP:VNT. Bazonka (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a VNT issue. We have reliable sources (such as [52]) from 4 January stating that the recognition happened, quoting the MFA. Several of the dates on their list differ from ours (mainly because we give the date when the recognition letter was signed, and they give the date they acknowledged it was received).—Emil J. 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The MFA is not saying that Qatar recognized on the 7th, that's just the date the article was posted on. The MFA says that diplomatic relations were also established, the document being signed by the permanent representative of Qatar to the UN and the Kosovo Consul from the Kosovo Consulate in New York, Arta Rama. edit: they actually do say that, and I think we should go with the 7th as they would know better than we do. [53] --alchaemia (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

They may know better, but they are using idiosyncratic criteria for what a date of recognition is which is at odds with what anyone else would consider as the meaning of the term "date of recognition". For example, consider the recognition by Palau. The formal recognition letter, as shown on the Kosovo MFA website[54], clearly gives the date as 6 March. Nevertheless, the same Kosovo MFA lists the recognition date as 9 March, apparently because that's the date when the relevant official received the letter (which is probably connected to the fact that 6 March 2009 was Saturday); anyway, 9 March is when they published it on their website. There is no sense in blindly copying the dates they give.—Emil J. 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Nevertheless, the BalkanInsight article discusses diplomatic relations, not recognition. My understanding is that yesterday they got a note verbale that Qatar recognizes Kosovo and wishes to extend diplomatic relations, and now they are in the process of actually establishing the relations, which (unlike recognition) requires action ("formal signing" in the BI article) from both sides.—Emil J. 18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Official: Tuvalu has recognised the Republic of Kosovo

According to Behgjet Pacolli, Tuvalu has officially recognised the independence of the Republic of Kosovo: [55], [56] and [57]. If the reports are correct, Pacolli has learned his lesson and this time has waited until the formal note has arrived in his office. He says he will pass it on to the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs without further delay (after showing it off in the media conference). I suggest we wait until the Kosovar MFA confirms this development and then update the relevant articles. P.S. Fiji and Turkmenistan next? Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovar MFA has confirmed. http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,607 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.145.200 (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed by the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs: [58]. The relevant articles can be updated. Kosovar (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

historical context and countries switching position

The current practice is that when a state recognizes Kosovo it gets moved to the table of recognizers, but in the process all sources and background information is lost (e.g. these that show how the position of the particular state evolved over time). These should either be moved to the relevant Kosovo-XXXX relations article (if there is such) - or we should make some section (or add a column) here. Alinor (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is enormous enough without adding further background information about the recognising nations, so I would rule that out as an option. Moving it to the relevant relations article could work, but of course not all of those articles exist. Also note that a lot of the information that is dropped when the country recognises is along the lines of "they will recognise soon", and so not really worth keeping once they've done it. Bazonka (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"they will recognise soon" is OK to go, but for example if there was a switch in position it is notable. Alinor (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a note that recognition came after previous statements against such an action, with footnotes for the previous statements, could be used until the relevant relations article is created. --Khajidha (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

positions

  recognising the Republic of Kosovo (73)

  not recognising the Republic of Kosovo, but issued statements supporting it (38)

  decision pending or no position expressed (49)

  recognition of the Republic of Kosovo rejected or issued statements in support of Serbia (44)

I propose to add this map along with the list of states not mentioned currently (that have no expressed position) - below the UN section:

• Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Chad, Sao Tome and Principe, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Seychelles, Mauritius, Madagascar, Eritrea
• Nepal, North Korea, Myanmar, Cambodia
• Palau, Fiji
• Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

And below the non-UN section:

• Cook Islands, Niue
• Somaliland

And in the "non-state actors" section:

• Sovereign Military Order of Malta

You can see one variant here.

I think that the map gives a good overview of the situation (to be updated of course if something changes).

Bazonka, what do you find questionable in the map? It is colored according to the statements from the sources on this page. Alinor (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The lists of states descriptions could be reworded into "The following states also do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo: ..." Alinor (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, what is the point of mentioning the countries that have not expressed an opinion? I just don't see the need. Anyway, we can't be 100% sure that these countries haven't issued a statement - they may have said something that we're not aware of, in which case you'd be introducing an inaccuracy.

Regarding the map, this has been discussed before and soundly rejected. This article used to have a map like this, but as it required a subective interpretation of countries' statements it was a great cause of debate, argument, POV-accusations and woe. Ultimately it led to the article being locked-down so that only admins could edit. We don't want to go back to that. The solution was to simply have a non-POV map showing recognisers only. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that there is some subjectivity involved and thus am against the inclusion of this map on the page (I have made similar maps for my own use in the past), I wonder if some people object to it because it shows support of Serbia to be a minority view. I'm not sure if a list of countries with no known statements/positions is necessary and, if it is, whether dependencies such as Cook Islands and Niue should be on it. While the Cook Islands have some control over their foreign relations, Niue's foreign affairs are (so far at least) handled entirely by New Zealand. --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be a difference between countries that supported Serbia AND refused to recognize (i.e. Russia, Slovakia, etc.), those that didn't recognize but were neutral on the question of support for Serbia (like China or Brazil), and those that in fact have not supported Serbia at all but won't recognize for their own reasons (like Spain or Georgia). --Yalens (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

countries without statement. OK, so we can write "additionally the following currently also don't recognise Kosovo: ..." - that will be accurate. And what's the point of mentioning them? The same as the point of mentioning "Ambassador of X said that he will send the Kosovo request to his government".

map. OK, if there is consensus that it is controversial let's leave it. I think that it is objective - do you find some state colored wrong?

Cook islands and Niue are not dependencies. They are independent in all aspects besides the usage of New Zealand passports. Both conduct their own foreign relations - Foreign relations of the Cook Islands, Foreign relations of Niue. Alinor (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning that an ambassador has sent a request for recognition to his government isn't particularly informative, but at least it shows that they're thinking about it. This is not the case when we have no news whatsoever.

I agree that news from the Cook Islands and Niue should be mentioned. But currently, there is no news. So therefore nothing to include. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but can you include so when you hover over the map it displays the name of the country, thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.188.54 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen this function, but I don't know how to implement it. Anyway, it seems that it's not acceptable to add the map in the first place.

But let's add the rest of the states - they are not so much and will complete the lists - also, they will become more visible and the probability of someone adding information about their position will increase. Currently if you want to know what states are not mentioned you have to manually go trough the whole page. Alinor (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We did this before and it was a huge mess. There was constant bickering over how to interpret non-statement statements by diplomats and thus which category to place them in, there were lots of countries we didn't have information about, and countries have a habit of changing their minds depending on who is visiting or who is standing next to them when they're making statements. Just leave things well enough alone. This page is already the product of tortured compromises and endless angst. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Bobby. We tried this before and it didn't work so there is no point in trying it again.--Avala (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to color all "conflicting" countries in "gray" (thus not leaning in either direction), but if you think that this is insufficient, OK, let's not add such map.

But let's add the rest of the states to the lists (repeating my 14:57, 29 November 2010 comment from above). Alinor (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We have already had technical problems because of the size of this page, and there have been discussions in the past about splitting the page, removing parts of it, etc. To add information about silent countries just doesn't seem to be a wise idea at the moment, we are already pushing the the (technical) boundaries of the page as it is. Jsaldarr (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The size will increase with ~500bytes - is this a problem? Alinor (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, there really is no need to include the countries about which we know nothing. I don't think you have much support for your suggestion. Bazonka (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, let's close this issue. Alinor (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Qatar update

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have some more official information about the position of Qatar vis-a-vis Kosova [59]. We could use the official quote about going slow in "announcing [the] recognition" of the Republic of Kosova, which implies that they have come to a decision to recognise by they have not announced it yet. We can certainly come to an acceptable description of the Qatar position that reflects the information that has come out through WikiLeaks. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I you add nations on basis of wikileaks, we will start taking nations off for the same reason. Here's a wikileaks statement saying New Zealand doesn't really recognize Kosovo. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Over time the way in which we deal with those who govern territory will, I suppose, imply whether there is recognition, but we are not intending to make a formal statement.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10696225

The Wikileaks cable is no update, on the contrary, it is an obsolete outdated piece of info about something that happened on December 2009. The supposed recognition of Kosovo happened in September 2010.—Emil J. 11:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

First post also proposes using wikileaks as a source. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand and Kosovo have full diplomatic relations [60][61][62][63][64]. Also IP I don't like your aggressive attitude, everything should be done by consensus. IJA (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar and Seychelles

News on New Kosova Alliance's website indicating that Guinea-Bissau has recognised (as of 11 December) and that Madagascar and the Seychelles are preparing to do so - [65]. This comes not long after pilot James Berisha visited Guinea-Bissau to request its recognition, so there may be some truth in it - [66]. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but we will have to wait for official confirmation. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Breaking News - Guinea-Bissau 'has' reccognised according to Pacolli-AKR, see [67] Kosovar (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Express is reporting it too. [68] --alchaemia (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

KosovaPress has a copy of the letter sent to the Government of Kosovo via Behgjet Pacolli, see [69].

AKR has also published the news, see [70].

However, Kosovar MFA has not yet confirmed the news. Kosovar (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT/ LETTER -->> http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/beta/?cid=1,2,119056 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.252.147 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, the MFA confirms it. [71] --alchaemia (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the handwringing can stop. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where can I read about the position of Madagascar and the Seychelles? Sentinel R (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

All we have so far is the first link in my post at the top of this thread. Not much really. Bazonka (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

lead statistics

Recently these changes were reverted by Bazonka with argument: "That seems a bit POV as it implies Taiwan is a legitimate state. Beijing will try to shut down Wikipedia if we're not careful." and when Brutaldeluxe pointed that there is no censorship on WP the next reversion was with "My legitimate reason is WP:POV. This is not about censorship."

Here are the two (transcluded template replaced with number - only for the discussion here - so that it doesn't change in the future):

1. As of 10 January 2011, 75 sovereign states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Notably, 74 out of 192 (39%) member states of the United Nations, 22 out of 27 (81%) member states of the European Union and 24 out of 28 (86%) member states of NATO have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it.
2. As of 10 January 2011, 74 out of 192 (39%) United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Notably, 22 out of 27 (81%) member states of the European Union and 24 out of 28 (86%) member states of NATO have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it.

PRC doesn't recognise Kosovo, fine. ROC/Taiwan recognises Kosovo, fine. Why should we represent only the non-recognition (by the UN%), but remove the recognition from the count?

Version2 is failing to count one of the states that recognize the Republic of Kosovo (or rather it doesn't even give a number of states that recognise it, but only mentions three organizations - UN, EU, NATO). I don't see how giving the number of states that recognize Kosovo is POV. We should not take sides here in the PRC-ROC dispute. Why should we remove ROC from the count? Because of PRC POV? And because of fear that PRC will censor the whole Wikipedia? And should we remove ROC from all articles where it is mentioned (including such mentioning that it recognizes some other state, such as the Vatican City, etc.)? Alinor (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

An even earler version (let's call it version 0) read:

• As of 10 January 2011, 114 out of 192 (39%) United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. In addition, the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is not a member of the United Nations, also recognises the Republic of Kosovo. Notably, 22 out of 27 (81%) member states of the European Union and 24 out of 28 (86%) member states of NATO have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it.

I was quite happy with this version 0. Version 2 is OK, although there is less information (i.e. no mention of Taiwan). But version 1 is totally unacceptable - not because it mentions Taiwan, but because it states that Taiwan is a sovereign state. This is where the POV lies. My comment about China's censorship was a tongue-in-cheek joke, but it appears to have gone over everyone's heads.

I have reverted back to version 0, which was in the article for months, uncontroversial and uncontested. Bazonka (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

EmilJ objected over version0 with argument "Undue weight. This is just a summary with some statistics, it's not necessary to list every single one, it makes Taiwan look more important than all the UN taken together.", that's why I rephrased it in a more neutral way. The List of sovereign states states that Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign state. Here, we just count the recognitions, nothing more.

Version0/2 give undue weight to the UN - they make it look like if Republic of Kosovo is not recognized by the UN it isn't a state. UN is just an international organization (albeit "very important" one - that's why it is mentioned) and doesn't have the power to declare who is a state and who isn't - it can just choose to recognize and work with a government - or not to.

Anyway, I find version1 much less intrusive in either direction - it neither mentions ROC/Taiwan on the same footing as wide groups of states such as UN/EU/NATO - nor does it make one of these organizations look like arbiter over who is a state or something like this.

Percentage of UN/EU/NATO members is important information, but even if it gets over 50% this doesn't change anything automatically - it just shows the magnitude of recognition. We should definitely mention the "number of recognitions" (75 currently) somehow - after all, this is the basic statistic. UN/EU/NATO members% is a secondary issue. Alinor (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually EmilJ's objection was to another, short-lived, version of the text, introduced by an IP with the comment "try to cut out repetitiveness in lead" - let's call this version 0.5:

• As of 10 January 2011, 114 out of 192 (39%) United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state, as well as the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is not a member of the United Nations. Notably, 22 out of 27 (81%) member states of the European Union and 24 out of 28 (86%) member states of NATO have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it.

This whole discussion is not about whether we mention Taiwan or not, but the manner in which we mention it. What you are proposing (version 1) is absolutely unnacceptable. We cannot, under any circumstances, say that Taiwan is a sovereign state. It's POV for goodness' sake! I can't fathom why you don't understand that. (And note that List of Sovereign States doesn't actually say that RoC is properly sovereign, but that has "de facto sovereignty" with limited recognition - an important nuance not expressed by Version 1.)

Whilst possibly a little wordy, Version 0 is balanced, neutral, and (until the IP's recent edit), stood uncontested and unchanged for ages. Let's not make a meal out of this please; we should stick with the previously accepted text - nothing has changed since it was written. Bazonka (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides Kosovo and ROC/Taiwan there are other List of states with limited recognition, including UN members PRChina, Israel, Cyprus, Armenia, South Korea, North Korea. Why should we focus on UN members only and give "74" number when the number is "75"? UN/EU/NATO number and % can be mentioned after the "full number". What about:

• (version3): As of 10 January 2011, the Republic of Kosovo has received 75 formal diplomatic recognitions as an independent state. Notably, 74 out of 192 (39%) member states of the United Nations, 22 out of 27 (81%) member states of the European Union and 24 out of 28 (86%) member states of NATO have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it.

Version3 avoids making any classification of Taiwan or any other of the recognizers (thus avoids being accused to be arbitrary, undue wight, POVish or something like that) - and as additional benefit (versus version0) doesn't name any particular recognizer - just gives the basic number and then numbers and % for three organizations deemed to be especially notable in this case: UN, EU, NATO. Alinor (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Version 3 seems largely OK to me, but bear in mind that some micronations, e.g. the Republic of Molossia, have also recognised Kosovo. Whilst micronations are what I would call joke countries and would never be taken seriously, you could argue that they have also made formal diplomatic recognitions, and so the number in Version 3 is not necessarily accurate. Perhaps this is not worth worrying about though. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's use version3. About micronations - these aren't currently included in the article and I think this is OK - at most some note may be added, but I don't see suitable place for such. Alinor (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with it.—Emil J. 14:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oman Recognized today?

Arta TV is reporting that Oman has recognized today, can we check! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.188.54 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

MFA confirmation http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,629, Digitalpaper (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement also says that they established diplomatic relations. Someone should update the page to reflect that. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Official MFA English article on the recognition by Oman. [72] --alchaemia (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to update the map (I can't figure out how to do it). Whoever creates the map mustn't forget to colour in the 3 pixels of the Musandam peninsula. Bazonka (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated both the png and the svg versions. --Mareklug ^talk 21:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, Mareklug's back! Haven't seen you forever.... welcome (: Bernerd (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vatican

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/politica/2011/02_febbraio/10/vaticano_nomina_rappresentante_in_kosovo_ma_non_e_riconoscimento,28273322.html&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhjU3uPqqB-G_jW5HXLJ7LJ3BfmRfA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.69.237 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic Delegates are appointed to countries with which the Holy See does not maintain diplomatic relations. It is not unusual for the Nuncio to Slovenia to be accredited to Kosovo as the AD. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned this in the article, particularly as the Vatican Press Office went to the lengths of issuing a press release stressing that the appointment is not diplomatic in nature. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Zambia considering recognizing Kosovo

Link to Zamibia Daily Mail. [73] --alchaemia (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm for some reason I can't access the Zambian Daily Mail at all. However that flying for Kosovo bloke has just been there, so lets keep an eye out. IJA (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a small sentence regarding this. IJA (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Pacolli hosts African diplomats

President Pacolli today hosted diplomats from Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, and the Republic of the Congo. Maybe this is worth a mention?[74] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no information about the positions of those countries, or how they responded to the meeting. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1 Revert Rule proposal

The article "Kosovo" has a policy of 1 revert rule per week except in the case of obvious vandalism. I would like to propose a similar rule but have 1 revert per every 48 hours, except in the case of obvious vandalism (example, someone replaces the entire article with the word "shit" then yes by all means revert it). I think it will make editors think twice before reverting on this sensitive topic. Also it will help the community build consensus before making controversial edits, it will put an end to silly edit wars. Your thoughts? Regards IJA (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there really that many silly edit wars? There's rarely anything that's too disruptive. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Algeria–Kosovo relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algeria–Kosovo relations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Kosovo relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bazonka (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations with Malaysia

[75]. Please update the article - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you beat me to it. Good work Canadian Bobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.68.213 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KOS

Template:KOS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bazonka (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacolli dines with President of Guinea

This may be worthy of inclusion in Guinea's entry [76] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is too big?

Your thoughts please: Is this article too big? Does it need to be split into smaller articles? If so, how? Bazonka (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think it is fine. WP:NOTPAPER. IJA (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian you don't think 500 sources is too many? IMHO I would trim some of these description. Slovakia is one in mind. I'd probably remove "reactions" from 2008 if we have something from 09, 10, or from this year. -KOSO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, most of these are valuable show the evolution in the positions of various states. But these can be moved to the articles about relations with that state when/if they become too much. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

IMF vote

See at [77] - of 138 participating in the IMF Kosovo membership vote 96 voted in favor - does someone have a list of these? Did all of the rest 42 abstain or some of them voted "against"? Alinor (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the vote was secret and a list was never provided of who voted how. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how that will be of much use as to the recognition of RoK as such. For example the USSR vetoed Ireland from the UN several times in the 40s and 50s because they believed that Ireland was a UK puppet state even though it was the complete opposite. I dare say that some countries voted for Kosovo's membership and have since recognised Kosovo and some haven't. There could even be some countries at the time had already recognised Kosovo and voted against Kosovo for some reason, who knows? Also the IMF is based in New York and some IMF-representatives have had trouble with traffic in the city when getting there in time which is rather common; so they miss out on the vote. Also there are several countries who prefer to abstain because they don't want to annoy allies, such as Greece with their EU relationship. Greece is opposed to Kosovo's independence, yet they don't want to annoy their EU allies because the Kosovo dispute isn't everything to them when it comes to international relations. It is a tricky subject mate. Voting in the IMF and other organisations is very different when it comes to Kosovo's independence as a whole. Their vote might not reflect their view/ decision as a whole. IJA (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that "voting in favor = recognize RoK". But in any case the vote breakdown is notable information that should be mentioned - if we have it. Can someone confirm whether the IMF admission vote is secret or not? Alinor (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up Boys / KUWAIT

TL DR: A Kuwaitian parliament group visited Kosovo and stated that the relation of recognition will be extended soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.68.213 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't work, and I can't find anything relevant on the Telegrafi site. This article, however, hints that "a group of countries" are going to recognise Kosovo soon (according to New Kosovo Alliance party). If true, my money is on the Caricom countries. Bazonka (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the Telegrafi link about the visiting Kuwaiti parliamentarians [78]. The Foreign Ministry also has an article up about it [79]. I found them easily because I, you know, looked. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Canadian Bobby and his supreme Interweb skills, I have been able to update the article ;) Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why my link (because of the description) takes you to a different website...I tested it before posting it and it was working fine....here this is the same link w/o the description and it works [80] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.68.213 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath. Tadic is in Kuwait on a state visit [81] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up Boys / EGYPT

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=13971 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.208.222 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't call us "boys." The article says that Egypt is "considering" recognition. This is nothing substantially new. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it says that they are taking practical steps towards recognition, so it's a bit more than just considering. Besides which, since the last information we have about Egypt, there is now a new government. So I have added a few words to the article. Bazonka (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up Editors / PAKISTAN

http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,51639

Eng: " Recognition of Kosovo by Pakistan will be discussed and this issue is a priority of the Government in Islamabad, announced on radio Dukagjini, Israr Hussain, director for Europe at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan.

"I can say that is a matter of the highest level. It is clear that the issue of recognition will be reviewed. And for this place our leaders, of course, they need time. But when to take this decision can not tell you anything, "said Hussain, reports the Telegraph." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.219.183 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh and there is this too about Pakistan which is in English. [82] I'll update the article accordingly/ IJA (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Will be discussed" and "will recognize" are two very different statements. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on things..that's the purpose of these posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.208.222 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tanzania will not recognise Kosovo; AU sees double standard with Western Sahara

A very interesting article extensively quotes Tanzania's FM and he explains why Kosovo isn't getting recognition from AU countries, including Tanzania [83] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done an update to the article regarding Tanzania. IJA (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Optimistic reckons Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka will soon recognise Kosovo

[84] Something to keep an eye on. IJA (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

South Africa? The article said about Bangladesh.Sentinel R (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'm obviously loosing my marbles haha. IJA (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As an Albanian I can safely tell you that Albeu is not a credible source to be cited ALONE. It's equivalant to the Serbian B92. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-UN member states table

Why is the Republic of China given the number 76? Numbering does not usually continue from one table to the next and this makes it seem as if ROC had only recently recognized when it was actually one of the first recognitions given. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need for it to be numbererd. Bazonka (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Took out the number, but wasn't sure how to take out the column entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Got rid of it for you.--Mátyás (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article size

User:Island Monkey just made a very bold edit to this article (see this version) - the lists of recognisers and non-recognisers were moved to new articles. I have reverted this because I think we need to discuss this sort of change beforehand.
I'm not massively opposed to edits that reduce the size of this (very large) article, but I don't like the way that Island Monkey did it. For example, I think that the list of recognisers should stay.
What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the article is deemed too long, either the recognisers or the non-recognisers could be moved to a new page, but there really is no need for both to be moved. Given that the non-recognisers list is longer with more URLs, it should go. And it goes without saying that it should not be such a clean surgical cut as the lists were removed by Mr Monkey - there needs to be a summary of the list left here. Well, that's what I think anyway.--Mátyás (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that is a good idea Mátyás since the non-recogniser section is longer. Shall we? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mátyás' approach, but let's wait for others to comment first. Bazonka (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving only one list would be a very serious violation of the NPOV because the article balance would be compromised. If we are moving anything than both lists should be moved but I oppose any moving, yes article is big, but for a reason. I can't understand why would anyone have a problem with an article size. Instead of being happy that we have such a detailed article someone dedicates his time into cutting, shrinking, merging, deletion proposing etc. I honestly don't see the point and can't think of what motive drives users who spend most of their time on Wikipedia on such activities to do that.--Avala (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:SIZERULE:" > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided". The page currently has a little over 250 KB; Island Monkey's edit reduced it to under 50 KB. We did not (yet?) reach the 400 KB limit, which would indicate almost certain technical problems for all concerned. In any case, it is a more than big enough article to split, and I think Island Monkey demonstrated the basic principle we should use in doing so.

And good that you pointed out NPOV, Avala, I failed to think of that myself. It really seems that if one list goes, the other must go, too, simply to keep the article NPOV.--Mátyás (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is fine. Dividing it is merely to pander to perfectionists who must have their way. If someone does not like the article size, I suggest we instruct them to direct their complaints to the nearest flat surface. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with perfectionism, CB. I, in fact, did have problems yesterday making an edit - it took about a minute for the page to load up my revision. And this was on a very good, modern browser. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is ok and that we shouldn't move any lists per WP:NOTPAPER, however on non-recognising countries who have a huge chunk about their position with Kosovo, we should remove the text and put it on another article. For example China could be included in the list but have no text and have in the box "see main China's reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence" and have the text there instead to shorten the size of the article. We could do the same for Armenia, Bosnia, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. See my sandbox for an example of what it's luck like; User:IJA/Interational recognition of Kosovo Sandbox So we remove the text and have a link leading to the main article. Also I think information such as diplomatic relations and embassies can be removed, that information is already available at Foreign relations of Kosovo. IJA (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an article entitled International recognition..., so removing the list of recognisers would be absurd. And I fail to understand how only moving the list of non-recognisers is in any way POV - it's not as though we're implying that recognition is the only, and/or preferable, position. As long as the link to the page of non-recognisers' details is clear, then I don't think there's a problem. But the question is whether to move it at all. The article is reaching a technical breaking-point, but I don't think it's desparate yet. IJA's suggestion about moving info about those countries for which we have loads of info is workable (although perhaps a few words could remain, e.g. "Russia opposes Kosovo's independence. See ..."). I agree that the diplomatic relations stuff should go. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scroll through the archives to find out why I will revert the article title if the argumentation continues that since the article is called International >recognition< of Kosovo it should give more weight to recognising countries than non recognising countries. In short, we agreed to rename it from "International reaction to Kosovo independence declaration" to "International recognition of Kosovo" under condition that no one ever tries to carve the non recognition part of the article in any way.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka and Avala, we shouldn't remove either list. Both list are extremely relevant to the topic. That is why I propose the countries with long entries (Greece, Indonesia, Russia ect) should have their own stand alone articles and we link the reader to that information via the table of non-recognising countries. Either that or we can shorten the long entries for countries like (Greece, Indonesia, Russia ect). For example Greece's entry is just under 400 words, can we shorten that to 100? Indonesia's entry is 670 words, does it need to be that long? Can we shorten that too? However if we go back to my original proposal where we have several stand alone articles linked by that table on this one, we wouldn't be loosing any information. IJA (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that we shouldn't remove either list, I said that we shouldn't remove the recognisers list - I'm undecided over the non-recognisers list. But anyway, I'd be happy with your suggested approach. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you were in favour of removing either list, I was agreeing with you. I was arguing against earlier proposals. Anyway cheers for supporting my proposals. IJA (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations column

As the article size came up as an issue, could we firstly agree that the Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations column in the recognisers table is unnecessary? We could completely cut the column and add a note to the start of the list saying that the info is available at Foreign relations of Kosovo, as I believe it is. We should do a test edit to see how much space we would save, to determine whether this action would be worth it; that is, reducing the article size by a significant amount, while not taking away any relevant info. Thoughts?--Mátyás (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it should go. Probably not worth doing "a test edit" - even if it doesn't help the size issue very much, it is still unnecessary information. Bazonka (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that information is already covered in "Foreign relations of Kosovo" and isn't necessary information for this article. IJA (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've removed all the diplomatic information from the article, there is now 50+ less references; the article should be smaller in size now. Can we now work on how to shorten the long entries on the non-recognising countries section. I think we should work with a word limit per country. I propose a maximum of 150 words per country and if we want to have more words it should be on a separate stand alone article, which we link to from the table in this article. IJA (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe we could put an notice saying <!-- If you are trying to edit the descriptions of why the countries don't recognise Kosovo, please limit this to 150 words. Thank you. --> Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We can have policy saying that I agree, however countries like Russia and Indonesia are just under 700 words and that is affecting the size of the article and we need to either reduce the word count or create a separate articles for each of them. IJA (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the size of these entries suggests the amount of interest the issue of Kosovo raised in those countries. If we would shrink Russia down to what Saint Kitts and Nevis had to say it wouldn't be per NPOV. Plus there are only a few entries that are unusually long so I don't see why would we bother with them so much, if the situation was that every entry was excessive in size I would agree but this way I don't see the point especially because it will be difficult to keep the NPOV, that we had so many difficulties establishing, if we start with cutting or splitting anything.--Avala (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What's with these recent proposals that begin with " We could completely cut the ..." ? You should really spend your time on Wikipedia being productive rather than wasting all of your energy on proposals how to cut something, how to delete, finding something to erase, shrink, merge, submerge in notes etc. As for the proposal strong oppose.--Avala (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there Avala. What I want to do is have like 150 words for Russia then have a link to a separate main article about Russia and Kosovo where we can have a full in-depth article about Russia's position regarding Kosovo. This way we would be reducing the size of the article and we wouldn't be loosing any information. I think that is the best way of getting around this size problem. IJA (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all for the greater good, Avala. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 13:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hot Fuzz? IJA (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm...no?! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here isn't that information is a bad thing, but if you have heaps of information (especially of a "he said", "she said" variety) in which almost every single statement made by every single Foreign Minister is included, then it actually becomes harder for the reader to extract the relevant information (which is the point of an encyclopedia as opposed to a specialist journal article, say). I think several sections could be presented much more concisely. And a reorganization so that especially lengthy information specific to one country only is presented primarily elsewhere, wouldn't be a bad thing, with a summary left here that would be sufficient for the needs of most readers, and a link that the more interested can follow. The criticism that this article is too long, and is becoming too difficult to extract relevant information from, is fair in my opinion. TheGrappler (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I don't think that we should doubt the intelligence of readers, I am certain that they don't need information to be chewed for them. That is exactly what media does, provides information chewed up on a plate together with the journalist POV. Here we are supposed to present all available data and let readers come to any conclusions on their own. Second of all, saying that the article is becoming this or that doesn't make any sense for anyone who is following this article and subject with even the slightest attention. This article had been stable and of the same size for a few years now, the current consensus based form of the article was made in 2008, so in 2011 where very little changes are made to this article, it's not becoming anything, it simply is.--Avala (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we could definitely shorten some of these without actually losing the point. For example, we could reduce the Russian listing to "In February 2008, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo's unilaterally declared independence by several major world powers as "a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries", and that "They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face". Since then Russia has consistently supported Serbia. During the debate before the International Court of Justice, Russia said that general international law prevents Kosovo from declaring independence and that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination. Russia also rejected the claims coming from those countries who support the unilateral declaration that international law "does not regulate independence declarations", and reminded that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context." Having multiple listings for each country reiterating that it supports Serbia/opposes ROK makes it harder to find each individual country's position. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree with Khajidha's exact proposal for Russia (that's a question for editors with more subject knowledge than me) but I do think Khajidha "gets it". Exhaustive listings of every statement every made by every FM on the topic, are not in the nature of an encyclopedia. That's not doubting the intelligence of readers, but it is recognising why they would read an article such as this (which is basically a summary article and therefore needs debloating from time to time). Media reports have the disadvantage that they tend to be recentist and lack background context; if wikipedia can provide a neutral, "holistic" summary then it's doing its job fine. TheGrappler (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't really an exact proposal either, but your description of my intention and its justification is spot on. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Now someone needs to do it... Bazonka (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we utilise some sort of show/hide code? First you would just get a list of countries, and then you could click for details. --Mátyás (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That might make the article look better, but it wouldn't address the technical problems brought by its size. Bazonka (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to Bazonka, I believe there are other reasons why show/hide is discouraged in article space (e.g. accessibility concerns). TheGrappler (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghana

This article suggests that Ghana could soon recognise Kosovo. I'm not sure whether it's something that we can use in the article because it seems to be just speculation: "Following the meeting, Deputy Prime Minister Pacolli was convinced that recognition of the Republic of Kosovo by Ghana is very close". Seems a bit tenuous, but it's one to keep an eye on. Bazonka (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Warsaw Conference: Slovakia, Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Moldova

This does not perhaps directly relate to recognition but is interesting nonetheless. This article here suggests that Slovakia would take part at the Central and Southeastern European summit in Warsaw only if state symbols were not present as the Republic of Kosovo would be attending. This photograph hereindicates clearly at the very least that the Polish government did not quite accede to that agreement, as the flags of Kosovo and, I believe, Slovakia can clearly be seen. What is more, it would appear from the photo that Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Moldova also attended, something which is confirmed by AFP here. Perhaps this could be construed as a softening of the position of Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia-Herzegovina and could be added to their relevant entries. Having said that, it is equally possible that the leaders of those three states merely wanted to meet President Obama and were prepared to ignore the Kosovo issue on this occasion. Moldovanmickey (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that Poland still has not established diplomatic relations with Kosovo. Aotearoa (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? They have recognized, they may just not have any issues needing to be discussed with Kosovo at the ambassadorial level. --Khajidha (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess out of piety for former President Kaczynski who strongly opposed the diplomatic relations between Poland and Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Andorra recognizes Kosovo

The Government of Andorra agreed today to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Prior to this decision, they have been in contact with Spain and France to announce their position and avoid a conflict. http://www.rtva.ad/noticia.aspx?id=30829 --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RTV is the state broadcaster, so they're reliable. Telegrafi is also reporting it [85] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the official statement from the Kosovar MFA as the source for this page [86]. Can someone replace or add this as a second source, please? Kosovar (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The map of recognising countries needs to be updated to show Andorra. I've never been able to figure out how to replace images in Wikimedia. Can someone else do it, or show me what to do? Bazonka (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already been done. You might need to clear your cache to see the new version of the map, but Andorra is green for me. TDL (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being an idiot but I beg to differ. User:SPQRobin has uploaded a "new" version of the map with the comment "+ Andorra", but it looks absolutely identical to the previous version. Clearing my cache makes no difference. I've checked this on different browsers, and on different computers. Andorra is not green. Are you sure you're not confusing a different country with Andorra? It's the dot between Spain and France. Bazonka (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and Andorra, the small circle between Spain and France, is green. Don't know what the problem could be.--Mátyás (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How very weird. It must be technical problem at my end. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks on Spain

Apparently, according to this leak here ([[87]]), Zapatero's refusal to recognize Kosovo has less to do with Catalonia and Euskadi/the Basques than we thought (i.e. still a lot to do with them though). Apparently, there is another element of trying to make sure the center doesn't start to fear that Zapatero would allow the "Balkanization" of Spain, and they want the support of the center (of course, ironically, in light of the current protests, that was a lost cause). As the cable stated:

“ The answer lies in the

PSOE's need to assure the centrist, mainstream Spanish voter that all of the PP's accusations about Zapatero "Balkanizing" Spain and "presiding over the dissolution of the 500 year old Spanish kingdom" are groundless. By recognizing Kosovo prior to the elections, the GOS would have opened itself up to renewed attacks from the right about pandering to nationalist minorities, when in fact the PSOE gains nothing electoral by joining nationalist minorities on Kosovo.

”

I think we should incorporate this into the page. --Yalens (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the section for Spain is already too long; I suggest you include it on "Kosovo independence precedent" if you believe it to be notable as such. IJA (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This highlights the previously discussed problem with the non-recognition table. Including every single thing that can possibly be found for each country on this page causes the table to bloat beyond easy reading and use. We probably should look into making spin-off articles such as "Spanish position on the independence of Kosovo".--Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or at least a page of "positions of different major countries on Kosovo" or something like that...--Yalens (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically what needs to remain here is 1)the date of the first statement against recognition, 2)a short mention of reasons (if govt. sources mention any or if reliable commentators have covered) and 3) a link to the article about that particular country's position. In those new articles there can be more detailed presentations, but even then we really don't need to say that "Country A spoke out against recognition on 2010-06-15. And again on 2010-07=31. And again on 2010-09-01. And again on 2010-10-17. And again on 2010-11-5...." --Khajidha (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel to recognise after Greece and Spain

According to Israel's FM, Israel will recognise Kosovo once Greece and Spain do. [88] Is this worth an update? IJA (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's just a rather dramatic way of saying they will never recognize. Kind of a geopolitical "when pigs fly". --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It could also mean that if Spain and Greece recognize, Israel would judge that it doesn't have implications for Palestine (as that would mean that Madrid and Athens had judged that it didn't have implications for Cyprus, Catalonia, Euskadi, etc...).--Yalens (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "pigs fly" unlikely. Spain and Greece both need bailouts from the EU. 22 out of the 27 EU members recognize. The EU recognizers definitely have some leverage. Also, the Israeli FM said "recognition...could happen after other countries LIKE Greece and Spain." That's not saying it must be Greece and Spain. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should added --Vinie007 05:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few words. Bazonka (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's antics

Can't believe we missed this before: it seems Gaddafi insisted that Kosovo's president sing and dance for him in order to win recognition, which he did but didn't recieve recognition anyhow. [[89]] While that section is pretty big, I'd say we could add this at least for its... abnormal nature.

If necessary we could summarize other refusals with something along the lines of "...and Gaddafi's government refused to recognize a number of times <refA><refB><etc> for reasons including Reason A+Reason B+ Reason C+ etc". --Yalens (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo's president (Fatmir Sejdiu at the time) never even visited Libya, let alone sing and dance for Gaddafi. You need to get better sources. --alchaemia (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacolli visited Libya and met Qaddafi. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See the edits made to the article on 14 March - a ping-pong battle of adding and deleting text about this. Some selected highlights: [90], [91], [92] Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So... what's the argument for not having it? (and sorry for mixing Pacolli and Sejdiu)--Yalens (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It just seems irrelevant. The visit was obviously not successful as no recognition resulted. I think it's on the Wikileaks page, too. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny event but it's more appropriate content for Pacolli article.--Avala (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't true, please find a good source rather than this link --Vinie007 10:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really notable information regarding "International recognition of Kosovo". Gadaffi said no to recognition and then he took the piss out of Pacolli, only the first bit is relevant to this article. IJA (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Benin and Togo

Behgjet Pacolli has announced forthcoming recognitions from Benin and/or Togo. See [93]. This article is quite vague. I'll believe it when it happens. Bazonka (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Togolese seem to be making fun of him [94] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

Any ideas on where we might look to see if South Sudan recognises Kosovo? After the former's recent elevation to a UN member, an outline of South Sudan's position would be interesting even if the government does not recognise it. —WFC— 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the Internet. I guess the South Sudanese don't have a great web presence yet, and they probably have other things on their mind anyway. Bazonka (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Kosovo foreign ministry is usually not on the ball with this sort of thing, anyway. It might take them six months or more to communicate with the South Sudanese. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But apparently Pacolli was invited to their independence ceremony [95]. So this would imply (if true) that S.Sudan is receptive to Kosovo's existence. Bazonka (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he went, though. Last Saturday he was in the news saying Albania and Kosovo should have a single economy and no mention was made of him being in Juba. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it matter more that he was invited than that he went?--Yalens (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He went. He mentioned that he met a lot of statesmen there from countries that don't recognize Kosovo yet. --alchaemia (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, we should add it to the page. --Yalens (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt may recognise soon: [96] Bazonka (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one: [97]. Remember, Google Translate is your friend. Bazonka (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll believe it when we see it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although I think this is more credible than Pacolli's claims. Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus Edit

We agreed back in 2008 that Northern Cyprus did not recognize Kosovo. "Congratulating" and "Welcoming" is not the same as "recognizing." The edit should be reversed without delay. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

An African country recognizes Kosovo?

Republic of Kosovo is expected to accept the recognition of 77-to which the declaration of independence in 2008.

"Klan Kosovo," citing its sources within the Government, has announced that it is an African country, which has recognized Kosovo, reports Indeksonline.

It is expected that the formalities for the acceptance of independence take place until noon, and credentials to be made public by the executive.

Recognition of Kosovo last June 8 came from Andorra.

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/30472/nje-vend-afrikan-njeh-kosoven/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvihyka (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Central African Republic. See [98] and [99]. I'm not sure if these sources are quite robust enough - there's nothing on the Kosovo MFA site. Bazonka (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The media is good enough. We've gone on much less in the past. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. But we should change it to an official government source if and when one appears. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The MFA confirms the recognition. [100] --alchaemia (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the Republic of Kosovo.

President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Željko Komšić said that recognizes the Republic of Serbia without Kosovo.

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=9547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Carefully read the sources, the statement of one of the members of the Presidency of Bosnia conflict with another, official recognition was not followed, there were only expressed the views of the Serbian and Croatian members of the Presidency of Bosnia--analitic114 (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

but Željko Komšić is the president of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is the only one who has power to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

read article Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, President appointed only for 8 months out of the three members of the presidium, all questions of foreign policy in the sphere of responsibility of the Presidency, but not the president.--analitic114 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you think presidency refers to if it doesn't refer to the president (isn't it like saying "the crown" referring to a monarch)?--Yalens (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a question to a system of division of powers in Bosnia, more about decision making the Presidency of Bosnia read in the Constitution of Bosnia [101]--analitic114 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The main reason for which Bosnia and Herzegovina does not recognize Kosovo's independence - they have themselves a big problem due of the Republika Srpska, which can be separated from Bosnia and then could begin a big problem with ethnic division--analitic114 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"What exactly do you think presidency refers to if it doesn't refer to the president " - It refers to the presidency of course. Presidency has three members, three presidents. President of course refers to one of them.--Avala (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Sorry about that. --Yalens (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst this announcement does not constitute recognition, it should certainly be mentioned in the article. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realised that this article dates from July last year - how did we miss it? Anyway, I've added a note to the article. Bazonka (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Has anyone had any luck finding confirmation of their recognition? It seems very strange that PNG said that they would recognize and ROK says that they have recognized, but no documentary evidence is given and they are still listed under "do not recognize". --Khajidha (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They've had a rough political turmoil recently.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two possibilities: either Pacolli was mistaken or he let the cat out of the bag too soon and PNG was pressured enough to withdraw recognition and the Kosovars hushed it up to avoid the embarrassment. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who can exercise pressure on PNG in this matter? I think Serbia sent an ambassador from Canberra to Port Moresby to discuss the matters but I don't think that would be enough as I don't see what leverage he has. --Avala (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if China is that interested in the Kosovo issue right now, but theoretically, China could exercise a lot of influence in that part of the world, especially on very undeveloped countries considering its role as an investor. --Yalens (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia will recognize Kosovo

Indonesia has prepared a bill to recognize Kosovo. In the near future Indonesia will recognize Kosovo declares Mr. Taufiq Kiemas Speaker of Indonesia People's Consultative Assembly and 5th First Gentleman of Indonesia.

http://www.qendra.info/aktualitet/politike/12693-indonezia-se-shpejti-njef-kosoven.html

http://www.gjuhashqipe.com/lajmetari/lajmetari2.aspx?id=11913

http://www.nacionalalbania.com/?p=2349 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He talked to one MP who promised to talk to the State Secretary. This is interesting, but I think we'll believe it when we see it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Even a state is willing to recognize Kosovo and this state is precisely Indonesia." Google Translate is hilarious sometimes. Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Taufiq Kiemas is not simply MP, but chairman of People's Consultative Assembly. The People's Consultative Assembly (Indonesian: Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, MPR) is the legislative branch in Indonesia's political system. It is composed of the members of the People's Representative Council and the Regional Representative Council. Before 2004, and the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, the MPR was the highest governing body in Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good find.Congrats.Now, i dont really what would position of Indonesia be now or in the future?.They had statement sometimes that support Serb cause, and this new one, does favour Kosovo independence.But not enough good solid proof they would recognize Kosovo?.I think between all those new countries that might recognize Kosovo.I think only Guinea is done deal country.Rest of those countries are just perhaps wishfull thinking.But if Kosovo does in fact gets recognition from Indonesia, this would be huge, since Indonesia isnt minnow with some 40 000 like some Oceanian states are.Coutry with some 240 million people, who has 18 largest economy and biggest Muslim population in the world, would open even more recognitions from Muslim countries, so if they somehow do get recognition of Indonesia.That would be a huge step forward for their diplomacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizlin24 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Indonesian source of this information is here: [102]. Google translates this into English a bit more successfully than the Albanian ones above. I'll see if I can add something to this article. Bazonka (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Guinea will recognize Kosovo

President of Alpha Conde of Guinea said that Guinea will recognize the following days Kosovo.

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/31880/pacolli-merr-garanci-per-njohje-nga-guineja/

http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,60300

http://www.indeksonline.net/?page=1,2,6393

http://ina-online.net/kosova/7739.html

Mali and Tunisia are expected to undertake this procedure according to the newspaper Bota Sot: http://www.botasot.info/def.php?category=3&id=132305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added some words about Guinea and Mali. I'm not sure that we can say anything about Tunisia yet, because we only have the position of one of the opposition political parties, not of the current government. Bazonka (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)\

Guinea would be the first country with a diplomatic mission in Serbia to do so since 2008.--Avala (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia had recent change of government.So its possible that new government would indeed recognize Kosovo.We cant say anything so far about Tunisia.Not enough conclusive evidence that might support Kosovo cause there.As for Tanzania.This country didnt have census in some 50 years, since 1967.And he did talk with Muslim representative, who is for Kosovo independence, .And his party is sympathetic for Kosovo independence.But, i dont think this does have any backing in Tanzania view, since i hardly doubt they would recognize Kosovo.New government might indeed do this, but this one.

Guinea will recognize Kosovo, im sure of that.What is position of Benin, Ghana and Togo.

International recognition of Kosovo

Pacolli is on a charm/lobbying mission in Africa, visiting Tunisia, Mali, Guinea, Chad, Nigeria, Togo, Benin, and the Republic of the Congo [103] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bosniaks in the world require the recognition of Kosovo

World Congress of the Bosnian diaspora asked Bosnia and Herzegovina to start the process for recognition of Kosovo independence.

http://www.rtklive.com/?cid=1&newsId=51044&mfz!L*C)9z80=(+4&9@-2elc8TE37)3v2w^H8&63scw=3T781fVEsrwc-#xW21x*vj^e2&-~szsW1(&wm0Q&g-77pY30S52xrw7#9k

http://www.kosova-sot.info/politike/rajon_dhe_bote/boshnjaket-kerkojne-njohjen-e-pavaresise-se-kosoves

--Irvi Hyka 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bosnian diaspora is not the same thing as the Bosnian parliament or government. I don't think we can use this in the article. Bazonka (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Niger will recognize Kosovo, tomorrow Pacolli will visit Togo, Benin and the Republic of Congo

From the state of Nigeria Pacolli received support and guarantee that the recognition of Kosovo will be considered seriously in a short period of time.

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/32024/pacolli-merr-premtime-edhe-nga-nigeria/

http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,60500

http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,60498

--Irvi Hyka 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I've added a few words about Nigeria, but there's nothing that we can say about the other countries yet. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Bazonka (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Guinea Conakry and Niger recognize Kosovo (Pacolli)

According to Deputy Prime Minister Pacolli, Guinea Conakry and Niger have recognized Kosovo [104]. Trying to find more souces at the moment. --alchaemia (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.176.22 (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and post it. We can replace the sources we have now with official ones once they become available, as has been practice. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Will somebody please update the map? Thanks! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The verbal note from Guinea [105] --alchaemia (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official. http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=16446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.176.22 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

More sources. http://koha.net/?page=1,13,66280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.176.22 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Niger or Nigeria have recognized Kosovo?According to the newspaper "Zëri" Pacolli was yesterday in Abuja.

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/32024/pacolli-merr-premtime-edhe-nga-nigeria/

--Irvi Hyka 14:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

Niger. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The note from Guinea is dated 12 August. The date should be changed on the page. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,896 and the list http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And Nigeria will recognize Kosovo, Pacolli will visit Gabon, Benin and the Republic of Congo.

Pacolli meets with President of Nigeria Goodluck Jonathan. http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=16479

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/32174/edhe-nigeria-afer-njohjes-se-kosoves/

http://ina-online.net/kosova/7918.html

News of the new recognition also confirmed by Prime Minister Thaci. http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,60648

Irvi Hyka 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

It's not a recognition - it's a "I think they'll recognize" story. Seeing is believing in this business. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Irvi has been getting Niger and Nigeria muddled again. Niger has recognised; Nigeria might do. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's mixed them (this time), but he is a bit too eager. Pacolli did say that he thinks Nigeria will recognize - he had a long meeting with the Nigerian president - but that's still not a definitive confirmation of recognition. --alchaemia (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic has recognized independence of Kosovo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Libyan_Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvihyka (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia article that you cited doesn't mention Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If the Libyan National Transitional Council recognizes and the Gadafi government does not, what should we do with the map in regards to Libya as a whole? 201.232.132.168 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that was a mistake- the editor (Brightgalrs) had accidentally switched Montenegro and Kosovo's status on the map. (though it is highly likely that Kosovo will sometime soon make attempts to establish relations with the NTC given the highly pro-NTC mood in Pristina and obvious strategic reasons) --Yalens (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If that ever happens (or vice versa so to speak)...I think you have to go with the UN position...whichever governmental authority is accredited to the UN is the more decisive...internatinoal law and all that....NelsonSudan (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Benin

Benin just recognized see here, someone pls update! http://indeksonline.net/?page=1,2,6632 --Digitalpaper (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Said they would; I believe this to be true therefore I've updated the wikimedia commons image. IJA (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Zëri is reporting that the recognition was formally confirmed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Behgjet Pacolli, see [106]. Because it's the middle of the night in Kosova the other media are not reporting on this development. I would think the Kosovar MFA will confirm the news tomorrow too. Kosovar (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Now also confirmed by the MFA. [107] --alchaemia (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note verbale [108] --alchaemia (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

MFA: http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=1,4,900 --Irvi Hyka 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

According to the note verbale to the government of Benin has been recognized Kosovo on August 17. http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/repository/images/njohja.jpg Irvi Hyka (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

According to state television of Kosovo RTK, Nigeria tomorrow will recognize Kosovo

http://www.rtklive.com/?cid=1&newsId=51142&mff^0!ei3m02j7eak1B&56~Q&I1ko6zsdHY@F33Keci5T97icx00H9z-p#a-7f~dds0wfO3VxBiI7K7^05*fzzBnAdk3GY&k701fdd

--Irvi Hyka 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't use this information in the article - it's just speculation. Let's see what tomorrow brings. (PS Irvi, why do you sign your posts in such a weird way? Use four tildes like everyone else please.) Bazonka (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Serbia refuses to recognise it

The para reads "As of 17 August 2011, the Republic of Kosovo has received 81 formal diplomatic recognitions as an independent state. 80 out of 193 (41%) United Nations member states, 22 out of 27 (81%) European Union member states, and 24 out of 28 (86%) NATO member states have recognised Kosovo. Serbia refuses to recognise it."

Isn't the last sentence pretty silly given that Serbia is hardly the only state that does not recognise it! NelsonSudan (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not silly at all, given that Kosovo is (in Serbian eyes) part of Serbia itself. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bazonka...I thnk you are missing the point....It is not just Serbia that sees Kosovo as part of Serbia....It is 113 out of 193 (59%) of UN member states (at present) that see it that way. The sentence looks stupid given the sentences that precede it which explain that very point. If Serbia was the only state in the world that did not recognise it, well that would make sense....but its not. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But of all of the countries that don't recognise it, Serbia is by far the most significant. If it were to recognise, then the other 112 non-recognisers would probably do so also. Serbia's refusal to recognise is crucial to the whole situation, much, much more so than China's or Russia's refusal for example. Bazonka (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that not all of those 113 states actively oppose Kosovo's independence; some of them frankly don't even care or know much about it. Yes, technically they don't recognize the Republic of Kosovo but it's not entirely accurate to say that they "recognize Kosovo as part of Serbia" as some of them don't even have any relations with Serbia at all, for example. --alchaemia (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

Pacolli promises recognition from 2 states of CARICOM, Soon the recognition by some countries of OIC stated by Foreign Minister Stabolli Hoxhaj

First Deputy Prime Minister of Kosovo Behgjet Pacolli promises 2 recognition by states of CARICOM http://www.indeksonline.net/?page=1,2,6648 http://info-kosova.net/lajme/5392-pacolli-edhe-dy-njohje-po-vijne.html http://www.gazetaexpress.com/?cid=1,13,60693 http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/32242/paralajmerohen-dy-njohje-te-reja/ http://ina-online.net/kosova/7945.html http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=16491 http://www.kohaditore.com/?page=1,13,66479

Hoxhaj: Pacolli WORK OF THESE DAYS IS A Miracle Foreign Minister of Kosovo, Enver Hoxhaj, has received promises from some member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, that will very quickly recognize Kosovo's independence. During his stay in Istanbul Hoxhaj had a special meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, which has known developments in Kosovo, especially in the north. But the special meeting has been demand for Turkey to assist in completing the process of recognition of Kosovo, said Hoxhaj. There are some Islamic countries, that in the weeks and months will make decisions on recognition of Kosovo. Some of them are already making process. Hoxhaj said he is very well coordinated with Behgjet Pacolli, who is continuing to lobby in African countries.

http://www.rtklive.com/?cid=1&newsId=51147&mfk0x96720o6iz2Ixz(1#pdz1n8xz-~^x#^7ic&)18&/e^07OKWp0@zOC+)z~m0#Aa0mis7sE!58mK1Z^Ugd77WS)z9r2ePwpk39kL

http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/1/1/32248/hoxhaj-se-shpejti-njohje-edhe-nga-disa-vende-te-oki-it/

--Irvi Hyka 12:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs)

Well, looking at all of those articles was a big fat waste of my time. There is no point putting links here unless they actually contain usable information, i.e. not speculation, and not something that we already know. Bazonka (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pacolli says CARICOM will recognize, not just one or two members. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they did it. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=08&dd=19&nav_id=75991 --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks as though the Caricom members have made a common decision to recognise Kosovo, but the actual recognitions haven't happened yet. The source says that "each state will officially recognize Kosovo in the coming hours, days". I shouldn't think we'll have long to wait, but we're not ready yet. We can probably update the CARICOM section of the article, but not move the countries into the Recognisers section yet. Bazonka (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)