Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Non Neutral Article

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

Please remove Taiwan

Taiwan (ROC), like the Turkish Republic of Cyprus has no place in this article as it is not a legitimate government or nation. Please revise the map showing the recognised countries to reflect this fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.99.139 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They been moved down towards where Trandniester and other regions are at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also 67.84.99.139, please sign your posts --Ruolin59 01:35, 10 March 2008

Why you deleted Germany

somebody have deleted Germany from the list. shame. Germany has embasy in Kosovo

Link for Pakistan

According to this [1], Pakistan supports independence. It doesn't, however, say that they have formally recognized it.

P.S. it looks like it is about time to archive this page and start a fresh one. Contralya (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecclesiastic group

With the increasing list of Orthodox Churches represented with their opinons here, how about including them in a group named Ecclesiastic organizations. --Camptown (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Initiated the new group, as it doesn't feel really fair to put the Serbian Orthodox Church in the same group as various separatist movements. --Camptown (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it also contains the Islamic Community of Serbia, shouldn't the category rather be called "Religious/Spiritual organizations", as ecclesiastic has Christian connotations?--Scotchorama (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but the article should focus on the Orthodox Christians and the Serbian Orthodox Church which maintains a very special relation to Kosovo. How about: "Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations"?--Camptown (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks.--Scotchorama (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article reported as NPOV (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) Admins never said it was NPOV

Recently posted by 68.166.135.163 (talk) at: Wikipedia:Administrators's noticeboard --Camptown (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't find anywhere to place this, so I am going to enter the problem here: the arcticle about Kosovo's Independence that I came across "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence" is extremely biased. Three editors, GreenClawPristina, Mareklug, Ijanderson977 are doing whatever they want, no matter how other editors and viewers vote. After reading the discussion page, I believe that the neutrality of the article is severely flawed. For instance the article's title was "Diplomatic Reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence" and the trio, with no support from anyone, changed it to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". In addition they re-did the whole map to their whims. We need a an NPOV and unbiased moderator there, FAST, because soon the whole article will turn into an edit war. On of the most neutral editors made this comment: "All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list." Serbian "genocide" has yet to be proven, kinda like WMDs in that one place, so asserting it in the faces of the other editors is POV. So again, please send someone who has no stake in Kosovo's Politics one way or another to help us with this article, or delete the whole damn thing, but it's as much NPOV as the Communist Pravda used to be. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop denying the genocide for the sake of the victims! We will always honour the innocent, unarmed men killed in the so called protected zone of Srebrenica. Rest in peace, brethren! --Tubesship (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I don't want to start a whole discussion, but "One of the most neutral editors" as you say actually states "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohija ." on his personal page. 2) As Tubesship says, don't forget Srebrenica. The ICTY has ruled Srebrenica to be a crime of genocide. In any case, this isn't the place to debate such matters. 3) Regarding the current map, it is a factual map of countries that recognize Kosovo and countries that don't. A country that firmly opposes recognition of Kosovo is a country that doesn't recognize it. An undeclared country also doesn't recognize Kosovo. And thus begin countless edit wars on the subjective question of who does, and who doesn't, and who is waiting, and who will probably recognize... and it becomes impossible to sort things out. By using the standard of who recognizes and who doesn't, we base the category on verifiable fact. That is the most NPOV policy. Now, the choice of colours may be questionable, as the grey has that "blank" look. Perhaps blue and red, or green and red would be better, but I really do not see how this map is POV when it is based on the only verifiable criteria there is: official documentation. I'm not pushing one view or the other. I think the comments explain the policy of each country clearly.--Scotchorama (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is my reply on the noticeboard:

And in any case, the accusations and finger-pointing are misplaced, partly groundless, not supported by evidence from revision history. For one, I did not participate in the article re-architecting, its actual renames (I made a proposition which was disregarded, "Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"), or instituting/editing the new map (or even, editing the old maps). Ironically, the new version was conceived of, discussed, and implemented by Avala/ljanderson, who if anything, represent the pro-Serb/pro-Kosovar viewpoints and are working together. :) Anyway... while I remain agnostic as to which version must be adopted, the new one, in a constructive reaction to edit warring that occurred earlier and caused page protection of both the page and its maps, avoids much POVing and ORing, by eliminating interpretation on the part of editors. The fact, that POV edits continue to be made (see: Uruguay) speaks for this version and its new map, as it is easier to correct POV in this version, apparently without engendering vicious revert cycles, or POV beyond hope of fixing. --Mareklug ^talk 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to you Mareklug. It may be the lowest common denominator, but at least it is a common denominator.--Scotchorama (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If China says it's illegal, it's illegal, and therefore they won't recognize something that's illegal. If Fidel publishes something in the OFFICIAL Cuban newspaper and it's not challenged by anyone, it's Cuban policy. There's no interpretation here. And the fact that you moved this down, shows that you don't want the readers to know how biased your views are. 64.105.27.56 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not take part in changing the name to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". Please check the page history in future before accusing me of thing I didn't do. I have never mention "genocide" in the article or in the talk page either. Yet again, please check the page history before accusing me of thing i haven't done. I am NPOV in all my editing, to prove this i have worked with User:Avala on many occasions on editing the page. He happens to be pro Serbian and I am pro Kosovar. So since I've been working with him, he is going to notice if i write anything Pro Kosovo, and i will notice if he writes something Pro Serbian. So we represent both view points and work together neutrally. So get your facts correct before blaming people. Also user:Mareklug has not done anything he has been accused of either, because i have checked the history on him and there is no sign of him editing of what you have accused him of doing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The map

I know the old one was kind of confusing, but now it- is off. Now, it says even countries that are planning to recognize it, do not. And countries that havn't taken a postion, either saying its part of serbia or not part, are listed as saying it is. Therfor, this map is ALSO bad. I know countries waiting for a UN postion basicly are saying we don't recognize, but by saying they don't recognize kosovo just based on the un thing, is POV, and also unsourced since these goverments NEVER said they don't recognize kosovo, so now this map is off, the other map atleast put other postions besides "recognize", "don't recognize" and the location os kosovo. Basicly, the countries planning to recognize it soon, apparently do not anymore.--Jakezing (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Björk

“ i have been asked by many for a statement after dedicating my song "declare independence" to both kosovo and tibet ( amongst others ) on different occasions.

i would like to put importance on that i am not a politician, i am first and last a musician and as such i feel my duty to try to express the whole range of human emotions. the urge for declaring independence is just one of them but an important one that we all feel at some times in our lives. this song was written more with the personal in mind but the fact that it has translated to its broadest meaning, the struggle of a suppressed nation, gives me much pleasure .

i would like to wish all individuals and nations good luck in their battle for independence.

justice !


warmth , björk. ” —  4 March, 2008

I worship, like many millions of others worldwide (and, who ever listens in Deep Space...), in the church Björk. Considering her dedicating some of her recent performances of "Declare Independence" in Japan to independent Kosovo (she has also done this in China, but dedicating the song to independent Tibet, and many times before that to the indpenendent Faroe Islands and independent Greenland), and, apparently, has been dropped as a consequence of the Kosovo dedications from the upcoming Exit Festival in Novi Sad in Vojvodina this summer for doing this, should we not add her to the page? After all, many more millions worship at the church of this Icelandic pixie than at most of the ones listed before and currently, and, dare I say this, the worldwide population of Björkists far exceeds the populations of many a virulent little country on record this way or that on this issue... As a proponent of world without borders, but conceding that, alas, sometimes borders make for good neighbors, at least, until the neighbors learn to behave, I propose listing Her, with sources, of course, under "Other relevant entities", emphasis on relevant. And here is her own statement in this matter (see quote on the right). Naturally, having seen her twice live in Chicago (once from the 1st row, even), I feel really sorry for all her fans in Serbia, who have been waiting forever to see her live in their country and, apparently, won't get to, at least for a while longer. Thus, a musical consequence of the international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence became rife with its own chain-reaction consequences in the lives of good many good people... --Mareklug ^talk 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice but Björk's opinion is absolutely irrelevant for this article. You can add it to Björk. If she was some kind of world known influential Kosovar or Serbian maybe but even then I would be against, but Icelandic pop star has nothing to do with this. But you are just proving your attitude here. Just how you consider Bjork more important than small countries is sad. --Avala (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Far sadder is you chronic skewing of reality, including my plain and nonjudgmental statement of fact (not comparing importance of either countries or churches, only of relative sizes of populations involved). And, you didn't have to misspell her name. That's plain disrespect, and that is sad. --Mareklug ^talk 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not misspell her name - [2] but I guess you have run out of ideas what to accuse me for. I suggest you add it to the article and I promise that I will not remove it so we can see for how long will it stay there. --Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we get Michael Jackson's reaction too? Kidding. Bjork's opinion about Kosovo is very irrelevant to this article. --Tocino 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be better suited at the article on the festival or on Bjork. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did eventually add it, nicely sourced and contextualized, and it did not survive a minute. Since I put a lot of work into it, I transplanted it, with added historical-political context to her biogram, where someone added a blurb re her shouting Tibet. The festival page contains a small section with two sources, too. And, linking from here, it has an archival value to any future browsers of this subject. --Mareklug ^talk 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia

Slovenia is widly expected to recognize Kosovo today. The Parliamentary debate has just begun, and a vote is expected later in the day. If, as expected, the Slovenian parliament recognizes Kosovo’s unilateral independence today, the decision will enter into force immediately. Slovenia will then become the 15th EU member state to recognize Kosovo. (B92) --Camptown (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added Slovenia to the list, and quoted a source. My Slovene isn't all that great, but from what I understand it seems to be legitimate. Passportguy (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Slovenia. The Slovenian Press Agency provided also a short summary in English. I replace the current source with the English text. Gugganij (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is convincing, I mean is it official?Mucirylli (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliament voted in favor of recognition and this decision is effective immediately. --Avala (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. • YllI 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia was the first ex-Yugoslav country to recognize Kosovo. The Serbs cannot possibly have received the decision with light hearts. And one can only imagine the low sentiment at the Prime Minister's office in Belgrade tonight... --Camptown (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Iceland

The wwww.kosovothanksyou.com page claims that Iceland recognized Kosovo today... Zello (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone that speaks Albanian translate the text given as a source at kosovothanksyou

at : http://kosovothanksyou.com/files/IslandRecognizesKosova.pdf 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Translation (Alb-Eng): "Iceland recognizes Republic of Kosova, as an independent and sovereign

Prime minister of Kosova, Hashim Thaçi has received today a letter from the minsister of outside work of Iceland, Ingibjorg Sor....,in which he has confirmed the recognition of REpublic of Kosova as country which is independent and sovereing." That is the first paragraph..I hope you get the picture.Kosova2008 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

---

That website is not a reliable source as it's clearly not neutral. --Avala (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to do that. You can find the official source at the Iceland Foreign Affairs Ministry at [3] ... --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC) ICELAND DID RECOGNIZE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA AND THE PDF DOCUMENT IS A GOVERNMENT RELEASED DOCUMENT.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between "Iceland to recognize Kosovo's independence" and "Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence". Now turn off your caps lock. --Avala (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I doubt Icelandic government would release an official document in Albanian language. --Avala (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AVALA DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. And the document is a Kosovar Official Document.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Icland have today formaly recognize Kosovo as an independent state, here the source from the Foreign Ministry of Iceland http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/frettaefni/frettatilkynningar/nr/4134 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.58.22 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice One who ever you are. Thanks for the source. Next time please sign your Comments. :)--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I Guess that after all kosovothanksyou.com is Reliable hehehe.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, kosovothanksyou.com is not reliable in itself. Gugganij (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody add Iceland to the list of the States that Recognized Republic of Kosova. I would do it but I have to leave.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true. I can understand enough of it to confirm. Hmm, they must have read Avala's disparaging B. as a "pop star" and mobilized instantenously. How else to explain such quickening, after they just said they don't know when they'll act... At this rate, Norway, a done deal, will be the Scandinavian laggard... Yes, be happy to. --Mareklug ^talk 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Iceland has now been added to the list of recognizing countries Passportguy (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to reports, Iceland seems to have made the formal decision last Friday, February 29. (Xinhua) --Camptown (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. That was only the decision to recognize, not the recognition itself. Passportguy (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore old map and tables

Please, can anyone revert the present green-grey map to the previous colour-code? This one mislead information falsely atributing all the categories of countries not recognising yet Kosovo as Serbia integrity supporters. --193.144.12.226 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the countries categories have also been changed, erasing valuable information in a way, i think, to bias the article.

The old version was biased. It made Kosovo seem as if it had more support and less opposition. For example only the countries in red seemed to be the ones not recognising Kosovo, when plenty of others don't recognise Kosovo too (all the grey ones on the current map). Also the countries on the map, which intend to recognise Kosovo make, Kosovo seem to have more support on the map, and half of them didn't have reference to back up that they intent to recognise Kosovo. the old map contained other users POV, it wasn't NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost inclined to agree... And that was a far better reply than the replies you gave yesterday, when you only said that the map was POV, and only elaborated about the concept of POV in general terms. ;) --Camptown (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:;Again, how is it POV to denote Russia, Serbia, and Venezuela on the map as countries that refuse to recognize Kosovo - that is their official government position. Now, I will agree that countries with ambiguous positions should not be denoted and that this was a problem with the old map. The new map, however, is not any more satisfactory since it hides opponents to Kosovar independence among the countries with ambiguous, neutral, or unknown stances. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad above: I didn't intend to type in bold. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Camptown, that is why i believe the current map is NPOV. Hopefully we can work better together in future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ijanderson977: I do hope so too! --Camptown (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but neutral countries still don't recognise Kosovo and it mentions that the country is neutral in the "evidence" section. So that is why neutral countries are to be grey and are with countries such as Russia and Serbia, because the all don't recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The only objective criterion we have is official recognition vs. no official recognition. Khuft (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Khuft, that puts it nicely and more simple. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, we should reconsider the green color, though. The current map bears some striking similarities with the map of the Islamic Conference. --Camptown (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. These colours (silver/green) have been commonly used in maps throughout Wikipedia for ages (see for instance this map of Austria-Hungary or this map of the Ottoman Empire) A couple of years ago, all the image locator maps in country articles were like this. bogdan (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should have a bright colour, such as light blue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also make Kosovo a colour such as red, so that it will stand out more on the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This map was based on Wikipedia map of Taiwan recognition - Image:CountriesRecognizingROC.png (Taiwan - black, recognizing - green) It is not hiding anything and is not based on OIC map. There was huge misunderstanding what constitutes "non recognition" and there were many edit wars which led to locking of both article and image. Now the article has been stable since this layout was introduced because it is only reporting on positions of countries without any interpretation from our behalf. And green is more of a "yes" color than blue. --Avala (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:This map is baised, the old map was biased to, but this map is more biased in that it says that kosovo has less supporters then it does, that "will recognize" catagory should be re added just because those countries are not in the exact same class as "don't recognize".

Oh, to the [ rmv'd --LS ] above me, STOP EDITING YOUR THING SO QUICKLY!, I HAD TO GO TO THE EDIT CONFLICT PAGE TWICE NOW, Second, all other maps, well, alot of them, use BLUE to show things.--Jakezing (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my edits caused you edit conflicts. It was definitely not my intention to do so. I would also appreciate if you would address the matter in less aggressive way next time. Thank you. --Avala (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mate, i agree with Avala more and there is no need for getting personnel and swearing. This map is not biased because it is based on fact. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a rather annoying gap created by the map. As the map is followed by a table, I understand that the only practical way to avoid the gap is to relocate the map to the embedded by the text in the top part of the article. How about moving the map to the space between the first and second paragraph, locating it to the left with a width of, say, 500px? --Camptown (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

yeh, i agree with that. Just make sure the map is big enough to see the countries that have recognised Kosovo without having to maximize the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal

Reading through the above I see two main arguments :

• 1) Having too many catageories of recognition/non-recognition/intended/planned/whatever will lead to endless edit-wars and is inevitably based on interpretation on statements.
• 2) Not including countries which explicity do not recognize Kosovo might be considered a non-neutral point of view, as the map only shows pro-Kosovo countries.

File:CountriesRecognizingKosovoCompromise.png

I have made a map which includes

• 1) Countries which have officially recognized Kosovo independance (green) and
• 2) Countries which have explictly stated that they do not intend to recognize Kosovo or have condemned Kosovo declaration as illegal and/or invalid (red). This list does not inlcude countries that "just" voiced concern or would prefer more negotions.

I included Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Cuba, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Tajikistan, and Venezuela on the red list, based on quoted provided on the table. I may have missed some (I'm not perfect), if so please list below.

I specifically didn't include Sri Lanka (the quote given seems ambigious) and Uruguay (where "unamed sourced" are quoted). Maybe someone can find better sourced citation for these two countries. Vietnam also doesn't seem to have stated that it will not recognize ? Passportguy (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This map just makes out if there is two sides. the pro Kosovo side and the pro Serbia side. It just splits them into two. Not good i don't think. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also there is no reference to say that Cuba has explicitly stated they don't recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The map actually has three "sides" the green (pro), the red (against) and the grey (everybody else). As for Cuba, the quote states that the country will follow Castro's opinion (negative). I am not advocating this map as perfect, but I do think that some of the anti-Kosovo editiors may have a point that the present map only allows one side (the pro-side) to be shown and does not include any information on opposition to Kosovo's independance. Passportguy (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should have states which have declared their intent to recognize separate from the rest and noted on the map.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh the Cuban reference states Fidel Castro's opinion. The reference is dated after he gave all power to his brother Raul, so that reference is useless, as its just the opinion of an ex-leader. I never said there was two sides, i said "it makes out if there is two sides." Also this map is biased in favour of Kosovo, as it suggests there is only around 20 states not recognising it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Cuban citation isn't perfect and I don't want to get into a detailed discusion of Cuban politics (e.g. the Castro is still the leader of the KP and thus not completely out of the picture) and agree we need a better source for Cuba's position.

I don't fully understand why you would view the map as biased, though.

• a) you could also hold against the map the its biased against-Kosovo as it implies that only 25 countries will recognize Kosovo (???)

No, but the map implies that only 25 countries have recognised Kosovo. Also they are all purely based on fact. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• b) If you like, the subtext explaining the colour grey could read "countries that have not recognized Kosovo and have not stated whether or not they intend to do so" (or something similar) Passportguy (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A country is not required to say it doesn't recognise Kosovo, for it to not to recognise Kosovo. They can do nothing if they wish and still not recognise Kosovo. So all countries that have said nothing or have said they are neutral still dont recognise Kosovo. So all countries, which haven't officially/ formally recognise Kosovo should be grey.

And by including countries, which intend to recognise Kosovo on the map, this will also be biased in favour of Kosovo as it makes it seem to have more support, than it actually does. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Those countries are (intentionally= not included on the map ! Passportguy (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate said something about intending to recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this because there are countries like China who were not explicit but their position is obvious. Let's just stick to the standard map used in other partially recognized territories like Taiwan. --Avala (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Except you have several countries which are clearly going to recognize, they're just not finished with their proceedings to do so or they're waiting for some specific thing. Croatia, for instance, said they'd recognize when a majority of EU members do and a majority have.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. Its just better that way. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Norway and Finland are no furhter from being green than either Cuba or Bosnia are to being red. So. What justifies introducing a map, on which the first two are not green, but the latter two, are red? Don't you see the asymmetry and POV inherent in this? Norway is waiting for the King to decree something that is in the can, ready, done. Just waiting. Finland also - scheduled to approve this Friday. We might be surprised by other countries approving in the interim (Japan? Croatia? Portugal?), but these two are the logical bet. Meanwhile, we don't have even a shred of official position from either Cuba or Bosnia, but all you guys (save for ljanderson) have no qualms coloring them red. I am amazed. Basically, if you won't color Norway and Finland green, don't color Cuba and Bosnia red. --Mareklug ^talk 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That nonsense. Norway and Finland are much farther from recognizing Kosovo than, lets say Russia and Spain because Russia Spain have stated, as a matter of official policy, that they will not recognize. There is a difference between a country that has officially decided it will not recognize and a country that has made no real decision. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New table

I created a table for the states which have said officially they're recognizing Kosovo eventually, especially those which initiated proceedings to do so. I felt the other table was much too long and shouldn't include those intending to recognize alongside those outright against it. I didn't include some countries because they haven't come out to explicitly say they will recognize Kosovo. Japan, for instance had said it is "leaning" towards recognition, but so far we don't have a straight answer from them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you should have discussed it first. Because now its biased, with your POV in it. It now makes out that Kosovo has more support than it does. Its not NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus Portugal said it will "consider", so it hasn't officially said they will recognise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

When you said Croatia will recognise once the majority of the EU does, it depends on what you call majority. Because you consider Majority over half. And Croatia may consider majority over 75%. You just don't know. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow talking about overcomplicating :) If it says "majority" then that means 50%+1 (in some cases known as "absolute majority"). 75% is "qualified majority". Unless stated otherwise, everyone considers a "majority" to be "50%+1" and not "relative" or "qualified" majority. Also, Croatia will recognize Kosovo on March 15th. It's pretty much set already, so all this talk about majority is irrelevant. JosipMac (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Bulgaria haven't said they will officially recognise Kosovo, just that they would propose to the government to establish relations with the Kosovo authorities. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian government is split on this matter atm. And the opposition is against. So there could very well be 50%+ votes against recognition in the parliament. --Avala (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And if Bulgaria wants to wait for the Ahtisari plan to work, they might have to wait for a long time... --Camptown (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, presumptions of bias abound. Oddly I've been accused of being biased against Kosovo on other articles. It actually doesn't make out that Kosovo has more support than it does because plenty of nations expressed support, but are not included. Bangladesh and Pakistan expressed support and other nations expressed support, but haven't announced any plans to recognize. Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have all said they will eventually recognize though each put different limits. Croatia's is the most important as it probably means they'll be recognizing soon basically following the lead of Slovenia as many pre-declaration reports stated. The other three are not as certain, but all declared they ultimately would, though not necessarily very soon so they were included. Norway, Finland, and Lithuania are just not finished with the process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day. You went ahead a did it without discussing it. Wikipedia is not for your opinion, its ment to be factual and neutral. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Every edit doesn't need to be discussed and the fact is there does need to be a division because right now you have an exceedingly long and bothersome table that really doesn't help anyone understand the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Another idea: some states went through some process other than declarations with regards to the independence. A lot of the countries in the second section have entries like: the president said will consider the issue at some time in the future; while some of the countries in the same table had a wider debade (e.g. parliament vote). I think the latter should be placed separately since they are a lot less likely to switch positions and recognise the independence. Nergaal (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Only Finland, Norway and Lithuania are officially in the immediate process to recognize Kosovo. The rest are just speculation. Most countries are probalby just going to be passive for the time being, and the next wave of recognitions could possbily come from governments which haven't yet been very vocal about their intentions. --Camptown (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i agree with Camptown. No point having a seperate list for 3 countries. Put it back to how it was for now and if loads of countries say they intent to recognise Kosvo, then we can re-discuss having a third tabel for countries. But keep it how it was for now. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created this list well he just made everything white and black. Just because Croatia and other countries have AMBIGIOUS or unofficial stances doesn't mean that they are OPPOSED or AGAINST independence.

Block quote

Pusic: Recognition this month

- It is realistic to expect Croatia will recognise Kosovo independence this month, but despite this fact, relations between Zagreb and Belgrade will remain good – Vesna Pusic said today in Belgrade, where she is attending Cedomir Jovanovic`s Liberal Democratic Party convention.

Kosovo has right to independence: Croatia March 05, 2008 6:57 AM

TOKYO, March 5-(Kyodo), Visiting Croatian President Stjepan Mesic dismissed concerns Wednesday that Kosovo's independence will trigger problems for countries with similar autonomous regions and stressed that Kosovo is entitled to declare its independence.

TOKYO - Croatian President Stipe Mesic warned on Wednesday that Serbia would only be hurting itself if it seeks reprisals against countries that recognise Kosovo.

Croatia has not recognised Kosovo’s independence from Serbia declared on February 17. But Croatia says it will follow the lead of the majority of the European Union, whose major players have given Kosovo the nod.

Here is proof that Croatia will be recognized from Croatia..the Albania media is reporting of next Thursday, but if I put that here Avala would slam me for POV bc the links are Albanian and I'm Kosovar. Kosova2008Kosova2008

REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations

Remove this. It's a cover for pro-Serbian propaganda. There are no religious organizations who are getting involved aside of those from Serbia, and all outside Serbia are orthodox. Check the list. Do you see any organization listed which is 1) Not from Serbia 2) Not Orthodox ? And when I type that it's redundant because Orthodox churches promote national interests of orthodox countries, then clueless people yell at me "POV! POV!". Stop creating an illusion that there is more support for Serbian than there really is. What is next, a World of Warcraft Serbian clan listing with their stance on this issue? JosipMac (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What he said. And, in light of this, I really don't understand the extreme prejudice with which Björk was terminated from the "Other relevant entities" table.

It's not like we are suffering slings and arrows of outraged Kosovar or Serb chanteauses and tennis players (although Novak Djokovic is in the news, with a broken heart...) -- I think she and her concert situation in conjunction with the cancellation of her appearance for her recognition of Kosovo (!) at the huge Serbian festival in Novi Sad is very topical, ency, salient, and appropriate. I say, only after you have experienced the feared attempted addition gazillions of private individuals (well, at least 2 :), then remove her. But not before. Before is prejudice. Hear me out! She is part of the international reaction, and the Novi Sad organizators' reaction to her, is part of international reaction... --Mareklug ^talk 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant entities section should be removed entirely. Barring that at least it should be cleaned of irrelevant entries, those without any power or influence. Hobartimus (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of this. Perhaps a small reference to these "without any power or influence" should be there to help set a tone for the article (i.e. expresses tensions and conflict.)--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The group Ecclesiastic organizations is relevant. The Serbian Orthodox Church is rather pivotal in this drama. It is recognized as the Patriarchate of Pec (a location within the new republic), and much of recent Serbian propaganda (or sound information) seems to have been orchestrated by the church. --Camptown (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your "arguments", I just didn't find any arguments. Look, you're a Serb, and I fully understand you're about to do anything to spread Serbian propaganda and Serbian influence. Maybe you don't notice all that, just like your countrymen didn't notice it throughout last century (OMG is this POV?), but we (read: former Kingdom of SHS and Yugoslavia citizens) are already way tired of all that. I have no intention of spending days and days refuting your "arguments" because those are not "arguments", it's merely a byproduct of a lack of perception. I have suggested that all Orthodox Churches be merged, but Serbian nationalists objected and here we are again - not only did they not get merged but they got a whole new section.

You want a counter-argument? Then tell me again what Ecclesiastic organization fits both of the following criteria: 1) Isn't from Serbia 2) Isn't Orthodox? ...the answer is: none. That alone makes it pretty obvious this is about propaganda. Of course, not to you mr Vladar, your name alone ("Ruler, in English) fits Serbian mentality very well. Oh geez is this another POV? ;) So it's not like I expect you will accept anything less than "Serbia to Tokio".

The fact that this "Ecclesiastic" selection you call "neutral" despite of the fact that I clearly proved it is not: that alone says enough for any unbiased person to vote in favor of removal of this section.

As for my POV, I'll repeat again - tell me what Orthodox Church supports Kosovo independence? What is the real reason of having multiple Orthodox Churches listed, if every single one without exception supports Serbia? Don't give me the "not all voiced their opinion". That's irrelevant. If they don't express pro-Kosovo stance, it means they are for status quo (otherwise countries wouldn't vote for the recognition of Kosovo but against it). How many Orthodox Churches have therefore "voted" for Kosovo independence? None. Absolutely none. This section is redundant.

Your next argument was "because they are large communities with millions of members". Polish Orthodox community has less than half a million. That doesn't fit your "millions of people" argument, so it's obvious you resort to enumerating these Churches without any rule set whatsoever. And furthermore, we have already discussed in this section about communities with millions upon millions of members, and it was concluded that numbers are irrelevant. It was concluded that only relevant organizations should be posted, and thus some huge international organizations were removed. If this was about population as you say, then why not include World of Warcraft community too? Go make a poll on their forums, check the result, and let us know. That makes more sense to me than including half of these Orthodox Churches since WoW population is higher, and it has the same relevancy.

There, your "arguments" are gone with the wind. Now delete the section. JosipMac (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Albanians have never considered hiring me for spreading their propaganda... ;) Anyway, the diplomatic relations maintained by the Vatican is not necessarily the same as the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, which is probably staying away from this politically hot potato. --Camptown (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You "understand that I'm Albanian" haha... that's great. It just proves my point about you and your "arguments". I'm not Albanian nor Kosovar. "and only 6 made statement".. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like repeating myself. You're unable to understand those simple lines that I wrote. Same thing about World of Warcraft - you failed to comprehend my point because your judgement is so clouded by your wants, that you see things you want to see regardless of their accuracy. I wasted enough time debating with people like you a long long time ago, and I don't intend to repeat that. JosipMac (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the Vatican shouldn't be moved. The Vatican is a sovereign state with capacity to establish diplomatic relations with foreign nations. --Camptown (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

kosovothanksyou.com

What is known about the website kosovothanksyou.com? Is it operated from Kosovo (its domain is registered by a California based company)? There have been somé reports that the site is semi-official - is that true? --Camptown (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is supposively run by 2 Kosovar guys but I wrote them, I got an e-mail from the "team"..and yes it is somehow linked to the government because they put Taiwan in there and hours later had to take it off because China contacted Kosovar Government (indication that China recognizes Rep of KV). They are more ogranized and more dedicated to this, I was pissed off because Avala insulted them when he said they just put Tuvalu to populate the list, I got a response from them with evidence (Albanian). They know what their doing. Kosova2008 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Is that why they now took Tuvalu off the list? :) --Avala (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala I hope you are not mocking me. Exert: "Sa per informate, jemi duke punuar ne listen me te re te shteteve qedo ta pranojne Kosoven, qe do te del publike se shpejti. Faleminderit, Ekipi". Their sources are clear and pretty reliable, and unofficial..that's why Tuvalu was removed. You know by simply writing an embassy you can get a lot of information.72.161.50.5 (talk)Kosova2008

btw adding countries which have yet to recognize Kosova on the "not recognized" is populating the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.50.5 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

debatable, i reckon they should be in th "Not recognised" list because they haven't yet recognised Kosovo yet, and that by putting them in a separate list suggests that Kosovo has more support than it actually does. So i believe two lists is fairer, so we have one list "countries which have formally recognised Kosovo" and the other list "countries which haven't formally recognised Kosovo." Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we make 2 lists, one of them countries which FORMALLY have recognized and states which have EXPLICITLY stated that they haven't. How does that sound? With your idea it gives of the idea that more countries are against it when we don't have any comments/opinions/statements from over 120 countries.72.161.50.5 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

No because countries are not required to make an explicit statement if they don't recognize. --Avala (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor are they required to make an explicity statement if they do recognize it. Macedonia hasn't made any statements regarding independence but it sure continues to trade with Kosova. Same with Montenegro, Croatia, and every Balkan country. My suggestion is perfect, 2 lists that we know 100% that way neither list is "populated". This is an on-going event and we will have to update it. 69.29.82.119 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Serbia also continues to trade with Kosovo. What does it change regarding recognition? --Avala (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How does a sovereign country like Serbia trade with itself? Kosova is an independent country or entity, you can't trade with yourself. Trading implies that is done with someone else. 69.29.82.119 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

The country tabels that explain the map

Ok, they work, but only when people realize they are there, but this is on the idea that countries are undecideed and those who have speceficly said they do not. The undecideed should be in their own catagory in a similar way that the intend to recognize are, as finding all the do not recognize in the mass of nuetrals(those who also don't recognize, but are to lazy to say it) should be in their own table, both to show they speceficly are "Nuetral" and to make it easier to see those who have stated they will not.--Jakezing (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Add information on CIS-membership

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

Serbian Islamic Community quote

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

Yes, we know that. But Serbian propaganda machine is working at full speed, and this is just one case. I'm disputing the others. JosipMac (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not disputing anything just deleting everything that don't agrees with you. Vladar86 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other separatist entities

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

I object to this objection. I object to political correctness. Separatism has no negative connotations. Word "object(ion)" has negative connotations. Therefore the above person should edit his/her post and remove the offending word "object" which, it is evident, has negative connotations. "Right to self-determination of the Kosovan people" is POV; it is my opinion that there is no such 'right'. Self-determination is IMO factual 'ability' of Kosovan people and pro-Kosovo nations. JosipMac (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had taken a look at the Wikipedia article on separatism, you would have read that the following: "Separatist groups themselves often reject the term separatism: they may consider it pejorative, and prefer more neutral terms such as self-determination." Furthermore, if you had read my statement carefully, you would have seen that I say that I consider both "separatism" and "right to self-determination" are POV, implying that we should use a more neutral, third term. Thirdly, if in your opinion there is no "right of selfdetermination", you might have a look at, inter alia, the UN Charter, the two UN Covenants of 1966, the well-written book by A. Cassese, 'Self-determination of peoples - a legal appraisal', Cambridge, 1996 or one of the hundreds of publications written on this subject. Finally, and in fact my main point, what I am trying to convey is that under this heading a number of entities are grouped that are very different one from the other: the legal regional government of a Spanish autonomous region (whose program does not even include separation from Spain), armed groups.... MaartenVidal (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• If the word separatism is negative, why not to use secessionist entities?--Certh (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because conceivably some of them are infiltrated by postmodernist postscructuralists, while others still adhere to the Bauhaus dictum of form follows function... Definitely, all separatists do not adhere to secessionism, even those that congregate in stylish Viennese cafés... :) --Mareklug ^talk 07:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoew about 'seceding regions and independence movements.' 'Separatist entities' may be POV, but 'national liberation movements' is much worse. 141.166.152.152 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant enteties

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

Stop the Taiwan/ROC Edit War

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

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

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

Stop Vladar's propaganda

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

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

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

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

Support removing local Orthodox Churches. Hobartimus (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

few Orthodox Churches support Serbia but most dint issue statement. As of conflict of faiths... Who knows, Albanians say they will respect all religions in kosovo but with more then 150 churches burn or destroyed and several priest killed, it is hard for Christians to trust them, but thy are rebuilding some churches. I agree that the serbs did a genocide in Kosovo, and therefore they deserve the indenpendence. Vladar86 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Finland

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

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

And the semi-official website kosovothanksyou.com is still not updated. ;) --Camptown (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither have the relevant Wikimedia Commons maps, Image:Kosovo_relations.png and Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, which otherwise continue to misinform with unsubstantiated synthesis introduced and forcibly sustained by user:Avala (Bosnia, Chile, Cuba, Kuwait, New Zealand, Uruguay should all be shown in khaki, as neutral/formally yet to decide as governments, diplomatically; debatably, Bosnia, shown in red, might be justified in orange, if it can be shown that its government, acting as such, is on record as calling for the continuation of the failed negotiation framework "Serbia vs. its province of Kosovo", which no one ever did manage, even when Bosnia and Hercegovina, the state, was being shown in orange). So. I would hate to have to say, which website provides more reliable and better sourced factual information. :/ --Mareklug ^talk 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with kosovothanksyou.com is that not much information is provided as evidence for the number of states that "will recognize". --Camptown (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia

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

I heard the 17th of march is a possible date --Cradel 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the procedure in Croatia when recognizing foreign states? --Camptown (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deputy PMs Đurđa Adlešić and Slobodan Uzelac are against recognition but the PM said it's not up to them to decide and that Croatia should recognize. That's all I know. --Avala (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unofficially, Croatia will supposedly recognize Kosovo on March 15th. Adlesic and Uzelac don't have authority to make any decisions on this matter. I don't remember Adlesic ever said she's against recognition, but she did say Croatia should not hurry with it. Uzelac is Serb, of course he will support Serbia, it's no brainer. As far as the recognition goes, it has already been decided (behind the scene) that Croatia will recognize Kosovo, and the only reason there is no formal recognition yet is due to political reasons (and slightly economic ones too).

Camptown - the president and the government share foreign affairs authority. President had talked already with Prime Minister, so I wouldn't expect any official statement from him. It's more likely that foreign affairs minister will come out with "we recognize Kosovo" statement. JosipMac (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia will recognize democratic Rep. of Kosova on March 14th, latests the 15th68.114.197.88 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

(xth of 27 EU member states)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tunisia

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

If there is a source, yes. --Avala (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Do you know where to find the statement? --Camptown (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes ill add it now, its on one of the UN websites with minutes of a meeting i will add it to the refs section :-) (Neostinker (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Russia's position

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

UN member state positions

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

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

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

CIA Factbook updated

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

EULEX isn't going to solve this..EULEX is for rule of law, I don't understand how border issues fall into this category. EULEX will solve problems in judiciary, implementation of Ahtisaari's laws, police reforms, creation of KFS, etc. Kosova2008 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

If you scroll to the bottom, the CIA lists the issues with the border between Kosovo and Serbia, along with Kosovo and Macedonia. I expect the boundary issues to be fixed in the coming years. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Macedonia has to recognize Kosovo before the issue would be subject for re-negotiation. Btw: How much differs the present demarcation between Kosovo and Macedonia from the agreement reached between Serbia and Macedonia? --Camptown (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume the line now is what was previously agreed upon by S&M. I am not sure to what point Kosovo wants the line extended to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right before Slobodan was sent to the Hague he made an agreement with Macedonia. Under this agreement over IDK how many hectars/acres were given but it is equivalent to 10km (squared) of Kosova's territory. There are villages in that 10km2 who are Kosovars and want to be Kosovars since the deal between Slobodan and Macedonia is illegal. Don't forget these borders weren't created today, they have been in place at LEAST since 1974 (34 yrs +) and he gave that land (changed the border). This is why Hashim Thaçi is making a "big deal" out of this. Kosova2008 05:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

Montenegro

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

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

Milo Djukanovic has said that Montenegro would wait for the EU members to react to the independence proclamation, and when "most of them" recognized independent Kosovo, Montenegro would do the same. Could that imply some coordination with Croatia which has indicated recognition after "a majority" of EU member states had recognized Kosovo? --Camptown (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro isn't quick to recognize because when it gained independence Serbia became landlocked and everything that Serbia ships through the sea is done through the Montenegrin ports. After a while when most of Europe has recognized Kosova Montenegro will come around, that's what I think. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What's Happening

Source 131 to Phillipines does not work.

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

Taiwan again

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

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

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

POV Heading

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah none of what you said contradicts what I said earlier - As Pope, his opinion likely expresses an opinion for the Church as well as the (Vatican City) State. Or a subsequent opinion might too. It seems incredibly unlikely that he would make the distinction you are making: that he, as leader of the Vatican City State calls for peace and negotiation but he, as leader of the Roman Catholic Church does not. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/vatican.calls.for.moderation.in.kosovo.and.serbia/16924.htm - this is cited as one of two references for the Pope's opinion. It does not say he is making it as leader of the Vatican City or as leader of the Church. Hence, since he is supreme leader of both, his policy opinions should be held to represent both unless he states otherwise (or perhaps if his statements directly contradicts Catholic doctrine). 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11835 - the other cited reference for the Vatican, also does not state whether the Pope's opinion represents the opinion of the Vatican City or the Roman Catholic Church. Unless someone can provide a citation to something that states the Pope meant his comments to refer only to one or the other, the proper way of interpreting this is he meant it for both. His opinion should therefore be double-listed: in the country list for the Vatican City (country) and the 'ecclesiastical list' for the Roman Catholic Church (religious organization). 141.166.229.162 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Koštunica

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appreciate the fix. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan again....

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

This has been discussed ad nauseum.

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

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

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

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

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

I would agree to move the SADR up, if the decision is taken to keep Taiwan/ROC on the top list. Khuft (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the status quo which is having the ROC and SADR in the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements" category. Countries that are recognized by less than a 1/4th of UN member states don't belong on a list of normal, soverign countries who are members of the international community IMO. --Tocino 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the SADR a member of the African Union? Also, who decided on that 1/4th criterion (which looks suspiciously designed to just exclude the SADR)? Khuft (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody set that criteria, it's just my opinion :) --Tocino 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Okay how about this as a compromise: if the TR North Cyprus, SADR (Western Sahara), the Palestinian Authority, et al recognize Kosovo, a new category should be created called 'partially recognize entities that have recognize Kosovo.' Not countries, 'entities.' For the time being, however, leave it as it is. Taiwan is not a separatist or secessionist entity. It is a de facto country - has a government, governs territory, has limited official recognition and unofficial diplomatic relations with many others countries including the US. Perhaps it should be in a separate category but none of the existing categories fit it and it would be odd to create a category for Taiwan alone. Thus, I would not create this heading now but in the future if entities recognize Kosovo. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe SADR has recognized Kosovo, any more than TRNC. I'll check the citation. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, saw what you did. Perhaps IF partially recognized states (ROC, SADR, TRNC) and the PA (which is arguably a de facto state) comment on or recognize Kosovo, their names should be italicized or something like that to further distinguish them. As for totally unrecognized states, all can be kept at the bottom list. 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The crucial question is : WHAT IF SEALAND RECOGNIZES?! Does the map have a dot for SeAland? :-) 141.166.227.101 (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was fine the way it was before. Having a entire new list for Taiwan would be silly, while it would be POV (ie. supporting the Taiwanese separatist movement) to include it in the "countries" section. Again, Taiwan's status is very ambiguous, therefore it should be placed in an ambiguous category on WP to make it NPOV. Therefore I'm going to revert it back for now. I actually have another suggestion to make: we can abolish the mention of "ROC (Taiwan)" altogether, and list in its place "Democratic Progressive Party (ROC (Taiwan))" under the "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence" section. This would work because it WAS the DPP that declared support, and the DDP IS a political party that is striving for independance. Any thoughts? --Ruolin59 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha we had this discussion a few weeks ago. The problem with using "partially recognized entities" is that it's a misleading term since every country in the world is only "partially recognized" -- including the United States. Attempting to draw a line (e.g., Tocino's "1/4th UN member states" suggestion) without objective logic borders on NPOV (not to mention the huge, inherent logic loop problem in trying to use "other recognizing states" as a criteria for defining "states" when "states itself is undefined"). Moreover, "partially recognized entities" would also include the European Union, the IOC, the International Tennis Federation, NATO, and even the United Nations itself.Konekoniku (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to abolish mention of the "ROC (Taiwan)" altogether? Sounds rather communist... =p Honestly though, your suggestion would have the exact same effect of singling out Taiwan's treatment that you were trying to avoid in the first place. The United States one doesn't say "Republican Party (United States)" for example.Konekoniku (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Abolishing the mention of the ROC altogether does not signify in any way my economical ideals, and no, it would not as there already is a section of "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence". Of course the US one would not say "republican party", they are not trying to become independant are they? --Ruolin59 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are not trying to become a pendant of any sort. Many an observer might venture, that the Republican Party already is a bunch of ding-dongs, so that any further ascent to (descent into) pendantlike geometry is beyond pale. While I laud your stated desire to speak more languages, try not to (unwittingly) interject French words into English discourse without evident need, let alone devoid of customary mark-up, as the more brainwashed amongst the readers might think that you can't spell worth a farthing -- in English, any English. Perhaps, had you put independant in italics, the more snobby or Frankophile, would find nuanced delight with your outré rhetoric, claro, que si. As is...

Those "economical ideals", I suppose, include not running the water needlessly, always buying supersized fries, that sort of thing? Very nice. Economic ideals of communism drove China into murder by the dozens of millions, a feat of idealism that all the crimes of the fascist-minded past governments of the state of Taiwan (ROC) have never come close to, even proportionally speaking, and even allowing for beneficent economies of scale employed on the mainland.

To restate: Taiwan, the state, belongs in the list of states. Please take your crusade off Wikipedia already. A little empathy for the Taiwanese and a Wikipedia spared gratuitous, offtopic edit wars are enlightment. --Mareklug ^talk 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what you said about "partially recognized entities" being misleading is wrong. I'm sure the general public would know what one means when saying "partially recognized entity". Do not worry, they will not mistake the United States as being partially recognized. Everyone knows that when someone says that something is "partially recognized", he is talking about very few entities recognizing it. Second, the "recognizing" thing does not apply at all to organizations like NATO because it does not matter who recognizes it or not, as it is a organization that provides benefits to its members. Therefore other nations' opinions on the existence of the organization is irrelevant: it has no effect whatsoever to deny the existence of an entity like the NATO. --Ruolin59 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Not only do you justify your edit warring on the statehood of Taiwan without merit, but every single one of your surgical removals of Taiwan from the list of states entailed cutting up the record of some other countries on that list, be it by doubling them (Germany, Denmark) or dropping them (Italy, Germany). Since you are being truly disruptive in every conceivable way, including through inept edits that requtie massive cleanup by editors, regardless of which way they may be inclined themselves, I move to have you voted off this article as a pest. Taiwan is only marginally tangential to presenting the salient information here, and your intrusions are causing upset and damage, quite apart from being unreasonable and wrong. --Mareklug ^talk 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, you are the one who aimed personal attacks against me when the talk page explicitly said "No personal attacks". My "edit warring" as you put it is highly justified, you just ignored almost all of my reasonings and changed everything with no justification at all. The only thing you have claimed so far is that my time is wrong, my school sucks, and that I'm a "mor^H^H^H student" (whatever that means). You attempt to vote me off this article as a pest... well, let's see who should get voted off. --Ruolin59 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

article deterioration

We went from a detailed ToC[4] and a six tiered map on March 3 to a simplistic yes-or-no ToC (lumping Serbia's protest together with "unnamed governmental sources quoted in Uruguayan press" as "no recognition") with a two tiered map. Why? Can we just revert to the more versatile / informative organization please? Obviously, any country that doesn't recognize the RoK ... does not recognize the RoK, that's silly. What the article should list are those countries who have officially stated they consider the declaration illegal. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We already had this discussion above. What is an "official statement of non-recognition" by a country? If Fidel Castro (who is not Cuba's president anymore) declares from his hospital bed that he does not recognise Kosovo, is that an official statement of Cuba's position on this issue? Khuft (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab has been very busy promoting a split of Kosovo and also a renaming of that article because he finds "Kosovo" too biased and a clear violation of his personal beliefs. --Camptown (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

People should really read what was discussed before making a new section on the same subject. At some point we had 4 sections one after another on the UN. And FC is not making statements out of hospital bed but as foreign policy advisor to whom Raul vowed to listen. After all this is an article on international reaction not only recognition. There is no such thing as "official non recognition". --Avala (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If, as you say, the article is about international reaction, why, then, is there no provision for mentioning Björk's reaction (and Serbian festival Exit Festival's reaction to her reaction)? Also, why is there no provision for the former Finland's president's reaction, Martti Ahtisaari, the highly educated in the topic gentleman, presumably nonpartisan and world expert on the nuances involved, who architected the Kosovo plan for the UN, and who now says, that opposition countries will just get used to the new reality and eventually recognize Kosovo, including Russia? I think all these things are noteworthy and ency and relevant in this article. By hte way, here is Serbianna article about Martti Ahtisaari's reaction: note the incredibly biased headline yet compare it to a fairly impartial tone and content of the article body -- it's as if some censor was rewriting headlines in total disconnect from what the Associate Press journalist (in this case) wrote in the article: Ahtisaari urges illegal Kosovo recognitions. I mention this, because editors have claimed in the case of Armenia that content of a headline indicated the country's oficial position more truthfully than the actual wording in the article body... --Mareklug ^talk 01:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the previous map and thinking my doubts about Wikipedia were perhaps misplaced. And then I come here and see that an informative and factual map has been replaced with something far less useful to accommodate POV warriors of various stripes. It's what happens on Wikipedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel's position

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

The unsourced speculation is removed. --Camptown (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But reference is still wrong (Haaretz -> Jerusalem Post).--128.139.104.49 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot. --Camptown (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag of NATO?

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

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

Fair use issues. The NATO flag is under a fair use license, so we can only use it at certain locations. The EU flag and OIC images are under a free license, so they can be used in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How come countries that are in the African Union (AU) don't have a flag besides them? Why not put the AU flag in Senegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.197.88 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo may become a member of the EU, NATO and the OIC in the future, but obviously not a member of the AU. Gugganij (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought we put those flags besides countries names to show some sort of significants not what Kosova can or can't join. By that logic, since Kosova right now have a Civilian Force as in NO ARMY, we shouldn't put NATO flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.82.119 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Kosovo split reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations to Kosova! Bosnia loves you.

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the reason that Serbia is placed first: the independance of Kosovo has a direct effect on Serbia, as it is a Serbian province. Second, you are advocating extreme POV when you post here with your pro-Kosovo independance points. Last, the status of Kosovo is still not officially decided. Its declare of independance is a direct violation of a UN resolution, and the fact that Kosovo declared unilateral independance, even without a referendum, makes its "independance" very shaky. And no, this is NOT filled with pro-serbs editing the article. As you can see, most people here are moderate, and many are actually pro-kosovo like yourself. However to do as you say would display extreme POV, which is against WP policy.

PS: please get an account... don't hide behind an IP addresss, it makes you look less credible. --Ruolin59 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, don't go all the other way around, Ruolin. Kosovo's independence is recognized by many countries so it's not like we're talking about South Ossetia here. Furthermore, Kosovo is also de facto independent, regardless of the position of countries which see it as de jure part of Serbia. Then, its status is pretty much decided, it's a disputed status (not the best status one may have, but it's the only status Belgrade and Pristina could bring to the world, really). Then, not everybody agrees that there was a violation of a UN resolution in Kosovo. But anyway, Wikipedia has nothing to do with UN resolutions, we don't belong to the UN. Last but not least, the independence was unanimously approved by the parliament, elected by the people of Kosovo. Hardly any referendum would be necessary. Húsönd 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter whether one agrees or disagrees with Kosovan independence, the fact remains that Serbia is the most important country in the list because Kosovo was/is a province of Serbia, and as a matter of encyclopedic clarity, it should remain at the top of the list because of its special relevance to Kosovo and to any article about Kosovan independence, far more relevant than any other country listed, for the same reasons stated. I personally agree with recognizing Kosovo, but I still cannot deny that it makes perfect sense to list Serbia first.--165.95.228.4 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox churches

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

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

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

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

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

Zeljko Komsic statement is non existant on this page!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-pushing

This is what keeps Dbachmann (talk · contribs) busy. POV-pushing and edit wars, and it aint over before dab gets the last word. I think dab is a disgrace for all admins who are doing a great job, but also problem, a serious threat to this project. --Camptown (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC

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

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

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

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

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

OK then. The PRC should also go in that group too as only 171 countries recognise it. [5]Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

deletion of UNPO

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

Reverted. The notion of "international organization" is not necessarily construed as "international organization of states". The very fact that the members of UNPO lack recognition as states or representation by existing states is the reason for their organizing internationally. Some of these entitites, but not all, aspire to statehood. For those that do, excluding the UNPO as not an organization of states is circular -- if they were states, they'd be in the UN and there wouldn't be an UNPO.

Also, UNPO itself rejects the notion of "Westphalian states" as normative, which means that it offers a point of view at odds your interpretation of international law. By providing an alternative perspective, it complements the mainstream, and omitting it according to the mainstream perspective needlessly introduces a POV to an otherwise NPOV listing agnostic as to perspective. UNPO, providing a voice for disenfranchised entities that have renouced violence and met other conditions, represents here a sector of international reaction otherwise glossed over.

And the article is about international reaction. There are other non-state reactions noted here. Also, nowhere does it say, that international organizations are to be filtered by any criteria at all. As long as they are intertnational organizations (and the Wikipedia article about UNPO defines it as such), we list them under that rubric.

Instead of removing international organizations already included and source properly, please add any missing ones that have reacted to Kosovo's independence declaration. --Mareklug ^talk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

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

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

Norway

[6]

[7]

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

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

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

Czech Republic intends to recognize Kosovo

Czechs to recognise Kosovo sooner or later - deputy PM Vondra Brussels- The Czech Republic will sooner or later recognise Kosovo's independence, but this will not happen before Easter, Czech Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra told journalists. The article is at [8]. I'd add this info to the page myself, but the page itself is blocked. Expatkiwi talk 16:51, 10 March 2008 (PDT)