Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 → Archive 40

New Information

What do you think about my idea?84.134.82.240 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's either a terrible idea, or a brilliant idea. Possibly it could just be a mediocre idea. It's hard to tell since you haven't told us what your idea is. Bazonka (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already mentioned it above.Max Mux (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?Max Mux (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help us very much but I need your opinions too. Max Mux (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Without explaining what your idea is, how can we answer you? You say you've already mentioned it above, but on this page you've suggested at least two actions - which one is it? Do you mean writing to embassies, deleting Biblbrox's "nosense" or something else? Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeh Max, what you on about? You seem to be in a world of your own... Ijanderson (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean the first one.Max Mux (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You could do that if you want, and report back any findings. The problem is that any responses would not be admissable in this article (because of Original Research) unless backed up by an official statement or news article. Bazonka (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To wich persons exactly should I write? dOES IT cost me anything? Where can I find EMAIL-addresses?Max Mux (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming to disambiguate

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Speedy Close and please stop pushing this. Controversial move proposals must go through WP:RM and we had a proposal just last month. Any new proposals will be speedy closed. Persistence will be dealt with sanctions as per the WP:ARBMAC probation this article is under the scope of. Húsönd 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Proposing a new name which could be not so ambiguous. Rationale: the term recognition could be interpreted as form of a process in this context. Proposed new names:

An argument could be also that most [recent discussion on this issue wasn't consensus. Argument is actually that ambiguity exists, I hope I have pointed it picteresquely enough. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Algeria

Seems to be against recognizing.

I've updated the article for you mate Ijanderson (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll update to a more on topic statement taken from the Algerian media. Medelci said "Nous avons parlé également du Kosovo et j'ai eu l'occasion de confirmer à M. Jeremic la constance de la position de l'Algérie, conforme à la légalité internationale. Nous considérons que le Kosovo est partie intégrante de la République Serbe. Nous avons accompagné les efforts de la Serbie lorsqu'elle a souhaité au niveau de l'Assemblée générale de l'Onu poser le problème au niveau de la Cour internationale de justice (CIJ)" and I translated it as "We also talked about Kosovo, and I had the opportunity to confirm to Mr Jeremic the constancy of the position of Algeria, in conformity with international legality. We believe that Kosovo is an integral part of the Republic of Serbia. We supported the effort of Serbia when it asked the UN General Assembly to take the problem to the International Court of Justice". If anyone wants to correct it please do so.--Avala (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Source? --alchaemia (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
there you go Ijanderson (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain news

Bahrain is promising to "quickly review" recognition of Kosovo and that it will be raised at the next session of the parliament. [2] -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another source [3] --alchaemia (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've amended the article with this information. Google's Albanian translator (while considerably better than nothing) is not perfect, so I may have misinterpreted something. Albanian speakers please fix if necessary! Thanks Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I made some minor edits, in Bahrain section per telegraph.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

News from Bahrain [4]. Apparently the Parliament's Foreign Affairs committee approved a motion about the recognition of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee approved a proposal to recognise. I think this should be added into the article. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Telegrafi is running a story indicating that recognition by Bahrain is imminent. Naturally, as everything in diplomacy is glacially slow, that could still mean weeks. [5] -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Bahrain has approved imminent recognition. The question is when they will do it? It could be up to 30 days or they may decide to wait for their regional power Saudi Arabia to do it first and they have been imminent for almost a year so we might not see recognition from the Arabian Peninsular for long long time. Ijanderson (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Info added to article. Bazonka (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyseni meets a whole bunch of people at UN

[6] and [7] Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't read it. Can someone translate ik?Max Mux (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what I did and run it through a translator ;-) [8] Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Good stuff, news for Grenada, Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, Libya, PR China and Bahrain. Anyone willing to update the article? I would, but I'm preoccupied with other stuff. Ijanderson (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A transcript of the UN Security Council meeting held on the 23rd is now available here: [9]. Some statements by Mexico, Libya, Uganda and the PRC. I'll let everybody here look at that and see if anything can be used. Ajbenj (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That link is broken for me. --alchaemia (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ack! If all else fails, go to the UN website> Main bodies> Security Council> Meetings> 2009> S/PV.6097. It is in PDF form, so make sure Acrobat is updated.... Ajbenj (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that worked fine :) --alchaemia (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Now let's see what we can glean from this. :) (edit-forgot to log in! Edited this comment to add my username) Ajbenj (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the only new thing here is Trinidad and Tobago, since the ambassador to UN, promissed that the independence of Kosovo would be discussed in parlamentary session.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are his activities at the UN in english version

http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Home/tabid/161/language/en-US/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.119.116 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added updates for Bahrain, Grenada, Trinidad, St Lucia, Ghana, Ecuador, Haiti, Gambia, Guatemala, Uganda and Benin. The information for most of these (the last seven I've listed) have come from Albanian language sources - please can someone fix these if I've misinterpreted the translation. The Grenadan news is quite interesting because it hints at a block recognition from the Caribbean Community - this could mean 13 extra recognitions (or 13 refusals to recognise, I suppose). Bazonka (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia recognizes Kosovo Passports officially

google translator; http://www.gazetaexpress.com/index.php/artikujt/lexo/5077/C4/C13/ Arabia recognizes Kosovo passports

26.03.2009 at 16:47 pm Kosovo-Arab Chamber for Friendship and Economic Cooperation has announced to all citizens of the Republic of Kosovo who want to travel to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that now this could make the passports of the Republic of Kosovo.

"In one of its recent decisions the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has made formal recognition of the Republic of Kosovo passports and consular representations is authorized to provide visas to citizens of the Republic of Kosovo", said in a statement Kosovo-Bar for Arab Economic Cooperation and Friendship.

Under this notice, the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo can be equipped with these types of visa; Umrah visas, Haxhia visas, business visas, visas and tourist visas for private visits and the application can be made directly to the nearest consulate or through specialized agencies visa.

"On this occasion we want to publicly thank all those who are engaged in this direction, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo and the Islamic Union of the Republic of Kosovo", saying further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.119.116 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something for the Kosovan passport article, not here. Bazonka (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Which I've already updated. --alchaemia (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vienna Economic Forum

Kosovo has joined this international organization that even Serbia is a member of as well.

Shqip and Source

Please & Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.141.179 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic to de-recognise?

According to Serbianna (which can hardly be classed as the home of unbiased journalism), Czech Republic is to initiate de-recognition of Kosovo. [10] Is there any truth to this, and if so, how can we record it in the article? If true, it certainly should be mentioned, but there is currently no facility in the article for adding notes to the countries that have recognised. (A suggestion - rename the "Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations" column to "notes" and use that.) Bazonka (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny how no other portal/newspaper/ has picked up the alleged words of Voitech Filip. Serbianna is alleging that he says this, but there's no mention of where, how, and for what reason. --alchaemia (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
They have not yet learned the Five Wss:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not say that Czech Republic will initiate derecognition, it says that Vojtěch Filip (whom they misspell in the usual Serbian custom) will initiate it. This is just the Bolsheviks seeking attention in their usual way. Any MP can propose anything they want, that does not mean that the proposal will get anywhere. As for veracity of the source, I did not find it reported in any Czech media, but that does not necessarily mean that it is bogus. Czechs generally don't give a damn about Kosovo or its recognition, so it could be unreported simply because of lack of interest (and it is also possible that Filip gave interview directly to Serbianna, though I would find that a bit odd). — Emil J. 11:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the report may have come from Tanjug[11], and was also reported by International Radio of Serbia[12]. Considering that Klaus was against the recognition of Kosovo, and it was basically only Topolánek (and co) who were in support of it, this indeed may become a hot potato in Prague in the future. --Russavia Dialogue 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
the Vice President told a Frankfurt daily paper − solid journalism indeed... --DaQuirin (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, so this may well be speculation or propaganda, but if a reliable source is found for this (or for similar future situations), how do we report it in the article? (It is not something to be ignored.) As I said in my original post, there is no place in the article's current structure to record notes about countries that have recognised. Bazonka (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
We should wait until a government official of one of the 56 or so states comments on the issue of "de-recognition". --DaQuirin (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously that would be best, but we have reported news of recognition or refusal to recognise based on lesser sources. Why should de-recognition be any different? (Of course any source needs to be reliable though.) Bazonka (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are forgetting that these are Serbian sources, so their original language of publication is likely to have been Serbian and then translated into English, when words can be lost in translation. It's a common occurrence in all media. --Russavia Dialogue 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You miss my point. I accept that these sources are not usable. But hypothetically, if they were usable, how would we record the information in the article? Bazonka (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My comment above was actually to DaQuirin. But anyway, as to these sources, they may be usable, but perhaps not in this article, but perhaps within Czech Republic–Kosovo relations? --Russavia Dialogue 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
One could (theoretically) open up a section on the whole "de-recognition" debate. Do we have any relevant material so far? I don't think so. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless Czech R. actually makes such a move any information regarding de-recognition should go to Czech Republic–Kosovo relations. The main opposition party made such statements during the recognition times, that they would de-recognise and the communists endorsed the idea but unless it actually happens it has no place in this article. If it happens it should be dealt like Taiwan or Sahara articles by adding a section for countries that once recognised but no longer do so.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are rumours about de-recognition since the first recognition. We should stop paying attention to this pure propaganda lies. These are people who lost connection with reality long time ago and not worth to be mentioned. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well websites like Kosovothanksyou.com are used on this article so there is no reason why Serbianna.com couldn't. But right now this is all speculation. I have been saying this for a long time... the first nation to withdraw recognition will be the Czech Republic, but this will come after the Social Democrats and Communists win the next election, which looks like it will take place in October. So until then we can't really add anything about the Czech Republic to this article. --Tocino 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosovathanksyou.com has sources, Serbianna does not. That's about it, really. As for the Social Democrats and the commies winning the election... they're not a coalition, so that's not going to happen. They may win a slim majority of votes, but the commies are shunned and avoided by every party in the Czech Republic so good luck with that. --alchaemia (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You are factually incorrect on multiple fronts. Serbianna has sources as evidenced by the article just posted. It doesn't simply make up things out of thin air. Secondly it's not only the Czech Communists who fiercely oppose independence. The Social Democrats do, junior partners of current governing coalition do, even part of the main governing party itself does. Finally the Communists don't have pariah status in Czech. The right wing government will try to play the red card, but like in Cyprus, it's doomed for failure. The Social Democrats realize that getting into government will be the most important objective after watching this disastrous Topolanek administration, and this time they won't turn down a party which gets 10-15% of the vote. --Tocino 06:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Serbianna had even a headline "Turkey hints at de-recognition" [13]. That's of course just desinformation, by distorting a comment from the Turkish ambassador. It's simply not to be taken very seriously as a news site. Kosovothanksyou.com is an opinionated website, but gives some useful links. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The Communists pretty much do have "pariah status" so far in Czech politics. All other parties refuse to form government with them, and it's no wonder given that the Czech Communists are hard-line Stalinist bastards. However, it cannot be excluded that Paroubek, in his infinite lust for power, will change this policy. In any case, the point is that the minor parties in the Parliament are not really tied to the Civic Democrats, they can easily go to coalition with the Social Democrats after the next election. (The Christian Democrats for sure as they have participated in all but one government since Czech independence, no matter left or right. The Greens will probably do the same, as they have essentially no other chance than to go with the flow if they want to influence the politics at all, and they do not consider themselves right or left either.)
So, all in all I agree that there is a good chance that the Social Democrats will indeed form a government after the October election, and then it's perfectly possible that they will de-recognize Kosovo. It is unlikely to happen before the election, but it cannot be excluded either. (The responsibility to recognize countries is solely with the government, and the government will not de-recognize on its own will. It is, I guess, possible, though quite nonstandard, that the Parliament would pass a bill ordering the government to de-recognize, indeed the intention of doing just that is the only way of interpreting the alleged Filip statement which makes any sense of it. Whether such a thing would go through in the Chamber of Deputies is impossible to tell in advance, almost any vote is pure lottery in the current 94:97:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:2 situation in the house. However, IIUIC it would also have to be passed by the Senate, where the Civic Democrats are very strong, and therefore likely to reject it.)
Back to the point, I agree that we should not update the article based only on such vague speculations. If the government derecognizes Kosovo, or if the Parliament orders it to do so, rest assured that we will learn it immediately from solid reliable sources.
I also mention that I still did not find the Filip quote on Kosovo mentioned in Czech press, despite other recent Communist press releases like [14], [15]. This is, I think, quite telling of its (un)importance. — Emil J. 12:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A slight aside - does anyone know what's happened to New Kosova Report? Their homepage is blank and all links to other pages are dead. It's been like that for a few days now. Have they gone bust/been shut down? Bazonka (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be back up now. — Emil J. 11:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the reference I listed was the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia, NOT some portal called Serbianna. New Kosova Report used to write all sorts of lies, such as "Greece will recognize Kosovo", while Greece was repeating that they will never recognize Kosovo, and you seem to consider that portal "reliable". But when it's a government Ministry in Serbia, then it has to be "desinformation" or "propaganda". Is any source that suggests something countering the mainstream thought on Kosovo really worthless? --Cinéma C 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Might I add, if policy suggests that Embassy openings are to be announced before they are open or officially approved (for example, the "Embassy of Kosovo in Prague, to open." is listed in the article, while it is common knowledge that the President of the Czech Republic refuses to send a Czech Ambassador to Kosovo, meaning that it's very questionable how an Embassy can function without an Ambassador) I ask why is it "heresy" to simply list that de-recognition has been suggested, not by some portal or news agency, but by a very high-ranking government official, the Vice President of the Czech parliament. --Cinéma C 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The Vice President of the Czech parliament is not a very high-ranking government official. He is not a government official at all, he is just a member of parliament, representing the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. Colchicum (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You are totally confused. The embassy to open is the embassy of Kosovo in Prague. Klaus has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the embassy of the Czech Republic in Priština is already open (since July 2008), despite Klaus's refusal to authorize an ambassador (more precisely, the government did not even try to name her to preempt Klaus's refusal). The embassy is lead by Janina Hřebíčková as a chargé d'affaires, which does not require Klaus's approval.
Second, as Colchicum already pointed out, Vice-president (orig. místopředseda, more usually translated as Vice-speaker or Vice-chairman[16]) of the Chamber of Deputies is a rather phony title with no real power. (There are five of them, by the way.) The only real function of Filip is that he is the leader (formally, Chairman of the Central Committee) of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. What he says can be taken as the position of the Communist party, not of the government. — Emil J. 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The head of an embassy doesn't have to be an ambassador, it can be lead by a chargé d’affaires, e.g. the Austrian embassy in Pristina (which opened months ago). Gugganij (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that, I was trying to simplify my argument by saying "Ambassador". The noted President's stance is for any Czech official going to Kosovo, not just an Ambassador, and it is the President who approves that. --Cinéma C 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't have an argument to simplify, as the charge d'affais is in Kosovo already, and no approval was needed from Klaus. And might you admit that you're dead wrong when you say that Filip is a "very high-ranking government official"? alchaemia (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the Czech liaison office in Pristina was upgraded to an Embassy because Kosovo was recognized as a country by the Czech Republic. The head of the liaison office is not a charge d'affairs, as there is a diplomatic procedure by which a charge d'affairs is sent to a country, but was given that name because the Czech government had no other way to go around the President who would not appoint someone from the Czech Republic to be sent there, as the procedure requires. If you don't believe me, read Article 63, section e, of the Czech constitution in which it states that the President "accredits and recalls heads of diplomatic missions". Technically, as the President does not accept Kosovo as an independent state, the Czech charge d'affairs is only that according to those who like to call it that, not according to the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Second of all, even if you personally don't consider Filip Voitech to be of any importance, I'm sure you'll accept that the President and the Constitution of the Czech Republic are of great importance to the issue. --Cinéma C 01:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we have a case of failed reading comprehension here. A charge d'affairs is a semi-temporary person in charge of the Embassy until a leader for the Embassy is found/sent/accredited to the country he/she is being sent. As such, a charge d'affairs is very much a charge d'affairs as no accreditation is required for staff who are not Ambassadors. Second, Klaus can keep talking all he wants, but he has no say in who, where, why, when, how the government recognizes. To recognize a state means to recognize its status as a sovereign state and to act as such in relation to that state. To establish diplomatic relations - weather at embassy level or not - is purely an administrative thing, and many states recognize each other while not having diplomatic relations or not having representation of any sort in most of the states they recognize. For example, Canada does not have an embassy or consulate in Kosovo, but that doesn't mean that Canada doesn't recognize Kosovo. It is this small, but crucial detail that you fail to grasp leading thus to baseless "arguments" that make no sense. As for Filip, he's merely an MP from a pariah party that everyone shuns - and one that has a pretty small number of MPs to begin with. It's precisely Filip and his party that cried wolf when the government recognized and so far we haven't seen mighty Filip do anything about it.
And to top it off, today the Czechs reiterated that recognition is done and over with and that there's no turning back. I'm sure you know how to use Google Translate, so here you go[17][18] --alchaemia (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I don't need to use Google Translate, I get the gist of it (I can understand Albanian), and second of all, we were not debating here whether the Czech Republic has recognized Kosovo or not. Everybody knows that the Czech Republic has recognized Kosovo, so please stop presenting the debate as if you're trying to convince me of that. What I was trying to point out is that the Czech Republic has not established full diplomatic relations with Kosovo, and that it is possible to de-recognize it, as a government official has pointed out. Since most parliamentary parties are against the recognition of Kosovo, if someone, who has the power to do it, says he or she will initiate de-recognition in parliament, that's a pretty significant thing. If you'd like me to respect your Albanian news sources, I'd really appreciate it if you respected non-Albanian sources, be they Czech or Serbian or whatever.. That's all. --Cinéma C 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1). You don't have Czech sources. 2). Your Serbian source is a propaganda website that is pretty worthless (Serbianna? Come on). 3). I wonder why Vreme or B92 or even Danas haven't carried this piece of fine "journalism". 4). The establishment of full diplomatic relations is not conditional upon the accreditation of an ambassador. Diplomatic relations between Kosovo and Estonia were established a long time ago, yet neither Kosovo nor Estonia have ambassadors or diplomatic representations in each others countries. 5). Please learn the difference between a) recognition, b) diplomatic relations, c) diplomatic relations at an ambassadorial level d) what a charge d'affairs really is. Until then, this conversation is pretty much over. --alchaemia (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have me confused with someone else? I didn't post a Serbianna source. I believe I posted a source called the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia. You're really violating WP:AGF here, as I'm expressing my concerns about what is happening in this article, and you're closing the conversation because I do not share your point of view. I don't even think you understand what I'm saying here, and merely twisting my words and making me sound like some imbecile who doesn't know anything about international relations. If there is a source, that claims the following: "Filip said that he will initiate the withdrawal of recognition of Kosovo, which is, according to him, legally possible because the procedure of its full recognition in Czech has not yet been formally completed", you can add that "However, on March 31, 2009, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Zuzana Opletalova, denied any such "de-recognition" moves and reiterated the official Czech position that the recognition of Kosovo is a finished and irreversible act" (which you did), but that doesn't make the first sentence go away, now does it? There are different opinions on this issue and the moment someone raises a voice against the mainstream pro-independent-Kosovo thought, everyone jumps and screams "Propaganda!" and "Lies!"... Well, just calm down, and try to understand that I don't want this article to promote anti-independent-Kosovo though, but I do want every article on Wikipedia to be neutral, and present all views equally. Assume good faith, Alchaemia, nobody here is your enemy or bent on propagating anything, OK? --Cinéma C 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
CinemaC has a point - this is notable, and we do have a Serbian government source reporting it [19] (NB it uses exactly the same words as this other source [20] that references Tanjug). Obviously this is not as good as a Czech government statement, but we have used more tenuous sources in the past. I do not see any harm in saying that this has been reported, particularly if balanced by the Opletalova quote as above. My original question of how we actually record this information in the current structure of the article remains unanswered though. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

People why are you still discussing it here when there is no section of this article that could deal with this information? Please take it to the Kosovo - Czech R. relations article.--Avala (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there should be scope for recording this information - it's certainly relevant to the subject matter. It is not unthinkable to alter the structure of the article. Bazonka (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Once we have "something" - what about the mysterious "Frankfurt daily" being the source according to the Serbian government (!?) - we can go on with the discussion. Up to now, it's just baseless speculation. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that a mere MP cannot initiate de-recognition procedures at all, as, once again, the government is in charge of recognizing or de-recognizing, not a small opposition party. That's like saying the Green Party in the US will initiate the de-recognition of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Avala on this matter, take the discussion to Czech Republic–Kosovo relations please Ijanderson (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyseni believes more recognitions are to come

Balkan Insight 30 March '09 He has said this many times before and he has rarely been correct, for example a Banana Republic recognised Kosovo after Hyseni said that more recognitions are coming. Please note the word "optimistic". Can we update the article with this source? Or just keep it in mind. Ijanderson (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hyseni states this in every press conference, or whenever talks to a journalist. Its better to wait.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia

To recognise soon? [1] Crude English translation, but very interesting news Bernerd (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Edit - eh can't get the link to work, here's the Albanian orginal [21]

  1. ^ [1]
Is this for April Fools Day too? I would like to see more sources. The only explanation for this is that loads of Muslim Countries want to have the same position on Kosovo. Indonesia has many separatist movements, so if this is true, its really unexpected. Ijanderson (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Express newspaper in Kosovo is also reporting that Indonesia will recognise Kosovo as quoted in Balkan Insight [22] Ijanderson (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Um pretty sure that Express and Gazetta Express are the same newspaper... I agree though, I think another source would be handy before we edit the article Bernerd (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Telegrafi is reporting it, too [23]. Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[24], [25], [26], the source says President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said in London School of Economics that it's possible that we will recognize soon. Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.141.179 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200904021696/Politics/Indonesia-to-recognize-Kosovo-soon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.217.226 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated that article, but if Indonesia is "imminent", it will probably be like Saudi Arabia and been imminent for ages Ijanderson (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Always so negative, Ian. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two more links now [27] and the speech itself on video [28] --alchaemia (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some new information

http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6761&Itemid=26


http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/serbia/84069.html

http://www.write-about-property.com/articles/eu-and-un-meetings-with-kosovo-give-fm-fresh-hope-of-recognition-289.php

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n176278Max Mux (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonian Ambassador

The Ambassador of Estonia to Kosovo presented her credentials on Thursday, April 2. She is based in Brussels. This should be added to the article [29] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also found - and used - the official link from the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs[30] --alchaemia (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Ambassador presents his credentials to Kosovar President

The Ambassador of Canada to Kosovo presented his credentials on Tuesday, April 7. He's also ambassador to Croatia as well. This should be added to the article.

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=3989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.140.157 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Duly updated. --alchaemia (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gambia recognises Kosovo

[31]. [32]. I already updated it. Please check my work and make sure I didn't mess it up. Thanks. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In English it's here: [33] --DaQuirin (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina has recognised! (HOAX)

Argentina has recognised. Foreign Ministry spokesman Paolo Fril stated that Argentina "extends it warmest congratulations to the Republic of Kosovo on achieving its independence. The Republic of Argentina has formally recognized Kosovo as an independent sovereign state". [34]

Hehe you should have chosen something more possible.--Avala (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to say that President Kirchner then asked the Foreign Minister to nip out to the local hardware store to buy a tin of tartan paint and some left-handed nails. Bazonka (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No jokes please! This is not fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not amused. This is not the place for stupid "April Fools" tripe. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite minor considering the fact that the Main Page has been an AF joke for the whole day.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, I went to Kosovo 2 weeks ago and now I have on my argentinian passport the stamps of Kosovo. I had never seen before the stamps of a country on a passport issued by another country that doesn't recognise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.215.110 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Then how come your IP is based in Serbia/ Kosovo? Ijanderson (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, he left Kosovo and was in Serbia at the moment of his posting. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake, the IP is from Germany Ijanderson (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, he left Kosovo and was in Germany at the moment of his posting. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

you talking about me? I'm not in Serbia, I'm in England. I visited Kosovo a couple of weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.215.110 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was very simple. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for pov-title tried to explain

Discussion was started by User:Biblbroks ("my" "account") some month ago. Tried to explain my POV that the term recognition could be regarded as a process and as such the term might not be appropriate for the title. The definitions in wiktionary were massively used to illustrate this point and the discussion was/is very long. Tried to use method of asking questions (many questions ) to illustrate this POV. Socratic method :-) . All the best, 78.30.153.144 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We also told you that your point was asinine, pedantic and tedious. Your tagging the article because we didn't agree with you is vandalism. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is quite clear that User:Biblbroks/IP:78.30.153.144 is a one-man-army and has no support for his cause, therefore we should leave it at that because his argument is unable to get a consensus. Ijanderson (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Besides, what's POV about the word "recognition"? Either a country recognizes Kosovo as independent or as a Serbian province; there is always a recognition. Húsönd 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Biblbroks is actually concerned about the word's ambiguity. It could be considered POV that the article's title assumes that we mean recognition of Kosovo as independent, not recognition as a Serbian province. I think there is a valid case for renaming the article to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" to remove this ambiguity. But this is pedantic semantics - I don't think that anyone (other than Biblbroks) would even consider that it means anything other than recognition as an independent state. Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind Canadian Bobby, he's a pretty moody guy. But there is nothing factually wrong with the title. The fact is that there is some international recognition of Kosovo – it's minimal, only a small minority of nations recognize it, but there is some recognition and this article documents it. Look at the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for precedent. --Tocino 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Very poor choice of words. Firstly, recognition of the Republic of Kosovo is far from "minimal": it's quite a considerable minority of countries, not just one or two like those that recognize the independence of Abkhazia ("minimal" would be appropriate for this case). Secondly, it sounds quite in-denial and unrealistic to refer to the majority of the world's democracies and greatest economies with words such as "some recognition", "small minority of nations". Húsönd 14:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Less than 25% of the world recognizes Kosovo, so yes it's pretty minimal. And who cares if they are democracies or not, that doesn't make them better, or more important than other peoples. You don't believe that Western Europeans are superior to the rest of the world do you? I thought Western Europeans would've gotten rid of this imperialist attitude long ago considering the amount of problems they created in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but I guess I am mistaken. --Tocino 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We obviously have different interpretations of the words "minimal" and "better". And who said anything about Western Europeans? Anyway, this is not a forum, so please spare our eyes of your well-known pushy POV Tocino. Húsönd 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I reckon it's only about 18% in terms of population - but population is irrelevant, it's UN seats that count. 57 out of 192 is about 30%. Bazonka (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm moody? Here I thought we were above ad hominem attacks. Ijanderson is my good mate and that's all the support I need :-P. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be a laugh if we all met in person some time. It would be interesting to meet the people behind the online personalities. :) OK back to the article. --Tocino 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
HaHa I've actually met Bazonka. It would be funny meeting everyone else, you'd all have weird accents :p Ijanderson (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should all fly to Prishtina for a convention of Wikipedians =p. I feel involved in this whole thing because I watch the talk pages dilligently, even though I rarely actually provide input into the article. I wish I knew how I could help more =p --Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Islands

What can we deduce from this? [35] (Solomon Islands immigration requirements.) Kosovo is listed as a country (or territory) whose nationals require approval before entering the Solomon Islands. Is this de facto recognition? Interestingly, Serbia isn't mentioned at all. Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Like you said it also includes other territories. So it won`t say us anything interesting.Max Mux (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But the non-sovereign territories listed are those that (I believe) issue their own passports. If anything, I think that this indicates recognition of Kosovo's passport. Bazonka (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be. But kosovothanksyou.com has nothing yet about it.Max Mux (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Islands voted for the Serbian resolution at the UN. I'd expect Palau to recognise but I don't understand what happened with that.--Avala (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Norway voted for it, but recognized Kosovo early on. Montenegro voted for it, but recognized Kosovo the very next day. --alchaemia (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd as it may sound, it's fairly common practice for countries to accept passports from states that they don't recognise, as we've seen with Kosovar passports in the case of Morocco, Georgia, Thailand, etc. The Republic of China passport is almost universally accepted even though only 23 countries recognise the ROC. That the Solomon Islands lists Kosovars as requiring a visa indicates tacit recognition of their documents but not of the Republic of Kosovo, per se. It's all legal hairsplitting, but diplomats love this sort of stuff. I wouldn't read any more into it than is on the webpage. All the same, I have sent an email to the Solomon Islands authorities enquiring whether they have recognised the passport or not. Yes, I know that "original research" is considered evil and heretical on wikipedia, but I'd like to know! I will share any reply I receive. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobby, I also sent them an email. So as this means that your research is not "original", we should be OK. :) Bazonka (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a scoop! I've received a response to my email from the Solomon Islands Director of Immigration, Jeffrey Deve. It reads:
Dan,
In response to your email:
1. Solomon Islands recognizes the independence of Kosovo
2. SI recognizes the passports of Kosovo
3. SI Govt recognizes the political status of Kosovo
4. but unlike other independent states, Kosovo Nationals would still need approval prior to their departures to SI, unless the Minister responsible for Immigration removes Kosovo from the restricted list by an Order under the appropriate Immigration Act.
We hope this answers your questions.
Thanks.
Kind regards
Director of Immigration
So there we are. Of course, some would consider this to be original research. However I can forward the email to anyone who wants to see it. Bobby, did you receive a response too? Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, they did not answer me. I detect rank favouritism ;-) Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When did they supposedly recognise Kosovo? If it wasn't in the last few days (and news still traveling) then this sounds like some confused public servant. Anyway we need an accessible source and a date in order to list SI. --Avala (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we definitely need an official confirmation and some more details. I am energetically pursuing this through my own source. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We need a reliable reference if we are to update the article. Ijanderson (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I haven't heard anything in Kosovo media about possible recognition from the Solomon Islands. --alchaemia (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if they recognised ages ago, but just didn't tell anyone. Bazonka (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you email him back and ask if they're going to make an official statement? Did you hear anything from the kosovothanksyou guys? Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'll reply to the email tonight. Nothing on the Kosovothanksyou website yet. I'm at work (slacking) and can't check emails at the moment so I don't know if they've replied. I'll let you know. Bazonka (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please solve that soon. We should write to other embassies as well, especially those who have not yet issued any statement.Max Mux (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou have sent me an email:
Thank you for this information.
We contacted the Mission of Solomon Islands to UN in New York, but they rejected these claims by saying that "Solomon Islands don't have a formal position about Kosovo yet..", and that ".. we are waiting on ICJ decision".
Howver we are still trying to confirm this by their authorities.
So perhaps the Director of Immigration was wrong. Bazonka (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well that's certainly odd. I guess the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (saying). --alchaemia (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We should try to get informations about other countries over themMax Mux (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that we can't use the Solomon Islands source as evidence that they have/haven't recognised, but I think it's safe to use it as evidence that they accept the Kosovan passport; and this has been confirmed by the Director of Immigration who ought to know about that sort of thing - if not about official recognition. Verifiability not truth. I've therefore added something to the article. Bazonka (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you all sure that The Solomans recognize the Republic of Kosovo passport or the UNMIK passport? Kosovo under the UN administration had a special passport, and likely was recoginised widely. It had some standing even after the declaration of independence. It could be that the Director of Immigration site lists the UNMIK passport as valid entry, not the post-declaration passport as valid. The opposite could be true too. More specific clarification on this is needed. We really need to make sure that the passport issued by the declared Republic of Kosovo is accepted versus the old UNMIK passport before we say anything about it here or on the Kosovan passport article. Ajbenj (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. I've clarified the information on Solomon Islands in the article. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comoros recognises/to recognise Kosovo (?)

Express is quoting Mr. Pacolli as reporting that the Comoros will recognise Kosovo very soon [36]. The translation is somewhat clouded on whether he's saying that they have recognised and haven't communicated it to the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs or that they've decided to recognise and now have to go through the process. Any Albanian speakers/readers who can clear this up? -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He says that Commoros have recognized Kosovo and that will inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo very soon about this decision.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thank you for your help. Sadly, we can't act on this article. We have to wait for official confirmation, lest we have the heads of our resident drama queens explode ;-). Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, but at least we know that Pacolli wont make us wait too long:-)Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is working to confirm the news. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Jeremic this is a pressure regarding the April 17 when the ICJ proceedings shall begin. Not that it sounds reasonable that The Gambia and Comoros can influence the ICJ but he did say something along those lines.--Avala (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He always says that, attempting to make his efforts appear more than what they are. If he's always fighting this "great pressure" and, in his eyes, "winning", then this will certainly make him look more "effective."--alchaemia (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You really think ICJ is gonna bring back Kosova to Serbia? None and nothing can bring back Kosova and I guess Serbia knows that and all it can is try to make live miserable for Kosova. There is nothing constructive in Serbias behaviour. Inat? --84.56.237.2 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum! Ijanderson (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right, inat should not rule this discussion page but constructivism. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found out from my source that the decision has been made in Moroni and that all that remains is for the Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs to receive the official letter of notification- which is what Pacolli said, anyway. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo has posted that it has received a note verbale (diplomatic note) from the Comoros extending congratulations on Kosovo's independence and expressing a desire to establish diplomatic relations. However, there is some confusion over whether this constitutes recognition or not. My own personal opinion is that it does, since you don't send diplomatic notes to polities you don't recognise, but the Ministry says it is working to confirm recognition. [37] -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to hold off until one side or another (or preferably) both verifie(s) this information. Although this is not a forum on this topic, it suprised me to see The Comoros recognize Kosovo considering their UN ambassador's statement at the vote on the ICJ proposal. But then there is at least one country that voted for the ICJ proposal in the UN General Assembly and ended up recognizing anyway (Panama). Hold off, and we'll see. Ajbenj (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there is little doubt that this has happened, and it's probably safe to update the article. But I also find it surprising that they've recognised, considering their own problems. Of the four main islands claimed by Comoros, one is disputed with France, and two announced secession in the recent past. Pressure from elsewhere I suspect. Bazonka (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm confident that someone here shall catch the official announcement. Lots of MoFA website watchers out there. If even Kosovothanksyou.com won't add it, nothing on the Kosovan or Comoran MoFA sites, or on newkosovareport.com, not to mention Serbia's government sites saying something about it, then we shouldn't jump the gun. Not all of those sites have to say something- The Kosovo MoFA site is pretty good about announcing recognitions now that it exists. And yes, considering the Mayotte, Anjouan, etc. problems that Comoros has, this is a very suprising development. France still has a lot of pull there, despite the dispute, even if Bob Denard is dead. Ajbenj (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Canada has the Quebec problem and the UK has the Northern Ireland problem, yet they still recognized. Sometimes it isn't all about separatist movements. I suspect Comoros recognized because it feels as if Kosovo's case is stronger than those of its movements. --alchaemia (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The UK has many sepratists other than N Ireland, even the US has problems such as Hawaii, France has Basque and Bretons, Turkey has Kurds, most places have "secessionist groups", it doesn't affect all countries politically. Ijanderson (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comoros is much more like Serbia, Cyprus and Georgia than those cases - some of its territory declared independence and the central government had no control over it - it took an international invasion for it to regain control. Some people in the other areas you mentioned above want independence, but they've never actually been close to having it. In my opinion, Comoros has been forced into recognising - a Maldivian-style bung perhaps? Bazonka (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any news on Comoros' position is coming soon, so I've amended the article with details of the verbal note. Bazonka (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi

Can somebody semiprotect this article? Until now we have seen no single contributive behaviour by anons, except repeated vandalisms.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: This article has been vandalised and edited in a POV manner, from both pro and anti-Kosovo camps. Please view the article history for proof. I believe this to be strong reasoning to have the article semi-protected for the short-term. Ijanderson (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Same here. Gomes89 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Semiprotection is usually used in cases when there's a large number of anons vandalizing in a very short period of time, when the topic is a heated current event or is highly disputed. I have not seen any extreme vandalism on this site. --Cinéma C 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Thats why I requested semi, please see the history of the page. Only during the last two days there were at least 6 vandalisms. Isn`t this enaugh?Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as it is vandalized mostly by pro-serbian fascists who are not willing to work constructively on the article. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Please be polite and do not insult groups of individuals.Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Me my friend am a big friend of Serbs and I think you got me wrong as I did not said that Serbs are fascists, but some fascists are pro-Serbian, this is not the same and definitely not an insult against Serbs. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You have already been warned about attacks on a individual or group! First you insulted Serbs and all Slavs, now you're calling all vandals on this article pro-Serbian fascists. You do NOT have a right to label anyone here, so please stop it. Thanks, --Cinéma C 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Be careful, my friend, some user or/and some group of users could feel insulted as you name him/them vandals. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism is an accepted term for disruptive users on Wikipedia. "Fascists" is just plain insulting. And please don't call me your friend. We are all users helping to make Wikipedia better, not to establish friendships, vent frustration or engage in personal discussion. Thanks, --Cinéma C 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh my God, please tell me that you do not find even "friend" insulting! But ok, if you do not want to be my friend, I can live with that. I hope you will allow me at least to call myself a friend of Serbia. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • comment...and some fascists are pro French; some are pro Albanian; some are pro American, some are pro Russian; some are pro Brazilian and some are pro Liechtenstein. Some are even pro Nauru (they are the worst IMHO). Amazing isn't it, these fascists get everywhere :p
Strange they do not warn you like they do warn me! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not identify vandals or anyone else on Wikipedia as fascists, you can not label anybody here! --Cinéma C 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway regardless of whom is pro fascists, the page has still been vandalised several times recently and for the next week or so I suggest we have the page semi-protected Ijanderson (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as it is clear vandalism has been on the rise recently. --alchaemia (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - Protection is pointless unless it's permanent. There is no particular short-term event taking place that is the incentive for the vandalism, it's just constant. But this article is very well monitored, and no vandalism goes unnoticed. We can handle it. Bazonka (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are plenty of experienced editors who are monitoring this article and these people can revert the vandalism. I don't think a few bad apples should force this article to be closed off from anons. --Tocino 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Cinema C and Tocino. --Bolonium (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This article has had enough of vandalism and we should take some precautions. --Turkish Flame ☎ 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Unfortunately it's needed. Emto (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Cinema C and Tocino. Verite2009 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose- no extreme vandalism here. Luka Jačov (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maldives

Kosovo and Maldives established diplomatic relations on 15 April [38] Digitalpaper (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So much for withdrawal of recognition.. ;) --alchaemia (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there won't be any withdrawal of recognition but there is obviously a withdrawal of reality by some people who still cannot accept the facts and there was a good analysis of them done by user Canadian Boy who called it the You-Want-It-So-I-Hate-It behaviour, also known as inat. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
84.56.253.226, this is your LAST warning. Please DO NOT attack any individual or group, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing topics, NOT editors or anyone else! --Cinéma C 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to issue "LAST" warnings. --alchaemia (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I do have the right to report what I notice. Would you say you support the views expressed by this unregistered user? --Cinéma C 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
To report is one thing, but to act as if you're an administrator who's issuing "LAST" warnings is quite different. I don't support anyone in this battle of yours, just take it easy. --alchaemia (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Administrators require users to warn someone before reporting them. --Cinéma C 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Which means they're the ones issuing last warnings, if necessary, and not you. --alchaemia (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't try to teach things you don't know much about. --Cinéma C 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not teaching you, I'm telling you to cut it out as you have no authority to issue "LAST" warnings here.

--alchaemia (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think at least user Alchaemia knows the difference between warnings and last warnings. Never mind, sooner or later you will know yourself what a last warning is, if you continue to behave this way, dear Cinema. Thank you, Alchaemia. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, I just cited Canadian Boy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&diff=283699630&oldid=283625887 --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia (I know, I know...)

Seems as if rumors about SA are popping up again.[39] This time it's an agency dealing with economic news of all things, but they do carry some political news as well. They say that SA will imminently publish news that it recognizes Kosovo. Not sure where they're getting this information, but just thought I'd post it here. --alchaemia (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Even www.kosovathanksyou.com reacted and lists Saudi Arabia now as "awaiting confirmation". --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How is changing of the map done?

I want to update the map. How to do? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition dates

I don't see any advantage with recognition dates given like "05 March 2008" (what is the zero standing for?). Is it able to return to the previous form? --DaQuirin (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't either. The other format looked better. --Tocino 18:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming it is just for consistency, so that all dates have two digits in the day. Personally I prefer it this way, but will not stand against changing it back (note: I didn't change it in the first place, so don't blame me if you don't like it). Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem has been fixed now, thanks. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The "wind of change" came! Saudi Arabia recognized Kosovo. [40]Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other sources. [41] and [42] --alchaemia (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody update the map please?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Refresh your cache. I've already updated the map an hour ago. — Emil J. 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, that was it! Thank you! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

B92 is confirming it. [43] --alchaemia (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio Serbia confirms, too, but refuse to call Kosovo Kosovo: [44] --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs is confirming it [45] as well as RTK, which says that foreign minister Hyseni confirmed to them the acceptance "late at night" of an official letter from KSA. [46] --alchaemia (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now it has been officially confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with an official article, posted on its website, regarding this recognition. [47] --alchaemia (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why was the coat of arms of Kosovo removed and a map outline put in its place? -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear act of vandalism, please undo immediately. Thank you. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Someone destroyed the map again. The Kosovo Coat of Arms is missing. This vandalism is despicable. Torcino and company continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.125.44 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw the loss of the coat of arms on all Kosovo articles and assumed it was a decision by Portal:Kosovo. Looking over the data however, this appears to not be the case. The removal of the coat of arms was inappropriate, though I would not blame Tocino, he seems the most rational of the bunch and not prone to vandalism. This should be reverted immediately. Also, what was changed about the map?--Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I did a makeshift as I could not undo it. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Come on, Lj, participate in discussion before provocing an edit war! There was the Kosovo Coat of Arms before and therefore I did my edit. What is your reason for your edit? Do you have a better solution? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion about the template takes place here. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I just wrote there. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovathanksyou delete Comores from the list "awaiting confirmation"

Was it a hoax that Comores recognized? Or did http://www.kosovathanksyou.com just made a mistake? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a hoax as the Kosovar Foreign Ministry confirmed the acceptance of a verbal note from Comoros. Discussions are on going for recognition. KosovaThanksYou probably didn't want to give that prominent space on their website. --alchaemia (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www.kosovathanksyou.com Costa Rica recognized at the 17th of February

Why is the date different in the article? Even the reference source says, it was the 17th of February local time. I think we should change the date to the 17th. --Tubesship (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningless to compare local times of different locale, therefore all dates in the table are given in UTC. There is an explanatory note saying that it was 17 February local time, which you presumably missed. — Emil J. 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with EmilJ, basing dates on local times is silly IMHO. We would be probably changing several countries dates if we were to do it this way. Lets just stick to GMT Ijanderson (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Will Russia recognize Kosovo's independence?

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=30376 The times are changing, I hope we can soon update Russia's stance toward Kosovo in the article. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is repeating other press articles at best, bad journalism at worst. If you did not know that this article has already appeared elsewhere, that Martti Ahtisaari was a Nobel Prize winner or fostered the supervised plan for Kosovo independence (and mentioned by name in those articles), you'd think that this was something new. Perhaps the Armenian language version is much more accurate, but this is nothing, as most of us know, to warrant updating Russia's position. Ajbenj (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Not only the Armenian press is writing about it but the Bulgarian press, too: http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/04/10/703692_russia-could-one-day-recognise-kosovo-ahtisaari-says --84.56.237.2 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Many media groups are repeating news of Ahtisaari's speculation, so what? Ahtisaari can not speak on the behalf of Russia. Ijanderson (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Russian embassy in Serbian called his statement a "total stupidity".--Avala (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Which only goes to show who's really stupid here. --alchaemia (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be more optimist for a Serbian recognition, rather than a Russian one. Serbia fights for Kosovo, Russia fights for its status as a renewed world power. Asymmetric situations.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia has invested far too much of its prestige in opposing Kosovo's independence to suddenly turn around and say, "Well gosh, we've changed our minds!" Russia doesn't particularly care about Serbia or Kosovo, but as others have pointed out, it's solely doing all of this to cause as much trouble for the US and EU as possible. For some reason this You-want-it-so-I-hate-it strategy makes them feel accomplished. Russia wouldn't hesitate to throw Serbia under the bus if it became convenient/expedient. Naturally, Russia could change its policy, but it won't happen overnight. They'll have to slowly climb down. They'll start by toning down the rhetoric, then recognition of the Kosovar passport and then a period of public dithering and hang-wringing. Slovakia and Romania are up a little past recognition of the passport. A country like Argentina, which is far removed from the scene, can stick its head in the sand and ignore Kosovo indefinitely. Russia, Spain and the rest of the European holdouts really can't. At some point they'll have to face the reality. -- Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and I like the term you used: "You-want-it-so-I-hate-it" as this is exactly the meaning of inat and it seems not to be an exclusively Serbian behaviour but rather a Slavic mentality, quite childish and a sad thing as it causes people to suffer for nothing. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not insult or attack any individual or group. This is highly sanctioned on Wikipedia. Thanks, --Cinéma C 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Uups, so sorry you find inat to be insulting. Maybe you should ask for deletion of inat? But don't hope to find many supporters. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) BTW, you got me wrong, I am a big friend of Serbia and I tried to extend inat to others to avoid that Serbs have to carry the burden of being the only ones with this stigma. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Writing about negative stereotypes on Wikipedia is one thing, saying that these negative stereotypes are true is insulting, and don't pretend like you don't know that. --Cinéma C 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahmedinjad: Iran reviewing the recognition of Kosovo

Question: How are the relations between your country and Albania? Are you aware that they will soon be building a nuclear power station? What do think about the initiative on the part of Tirana?

Second question: Kosovo was recognized by 60 countries, most of them are members of the European Union but not by Arab countries. Do think that Iran will soon be recognizing the independence of Kosovo or will this be some sort of revenge?

President Ahmadinejad: Our foreign policy is based on the fulfillment of peace, security and a lasting fraternity. We are looking for a larger solution to global and regional problems. We do believe that issues in the world and the region should be resolved with the pursuit of revenge.

The issue of Kosovo falls within the same framework; it is being evaluated. Our stance certainly is in favor of helping to develop peace and brotherhood in the region. We have good ties with all countries and Albania.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92068 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.161.91 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good man, good move. Let's hope he recognizes not only Kosova but Israel, too, that would solve a lot of problems. Go, Mahmood, go for it! :-) But to be honest, I think there will be ohter countries that will recognize sooner as Iran has problems with separatist kurds, sadly. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably nothing. If someone feels like this information is considered valuable, then by all means add it to the article, I have no objection. But this information is most likely of minor importance. Also Iran will recognise Israel once a Palestinian State is established which is recognised by Israel. Ijanderson (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have to admit that Iran is a mighty mighty country, not only compared to some islands like Nauru or Palau. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It is, but the point is that there is essentially zero actual content in Ahmadinejad's answer. "Our stance certainly is in favor of helping to develop peace and brotherhood in the region," what the hell does that mean? It's just a diplomatic way of saying "we don't bother". — Emil J. 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If they don't care, then why did they submit a case in favour of Serbia at the ICJ? Bazonka (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We are not discussing whatever they submitted in the court, we are discussing the above mentioned interview with Ahmadinejad. To reiterate, he did not say anything useful in the interview. — Emil J. 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, where can I find a source about which countries submitted a case at the ICJ? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremic: Whatever ICJ decides, we will not recognize Kosovo

Is he trying to turn the tide? Why at all do they go to court if they are not willing to accept the outcome? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, forgot the link: http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6961&Itemid=26

Will the separatists give up their cause if the ICJ rules in favor of Serbia? --Tocino 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not them bringing the case to court, it was serbia. And no, they are not separatists, but serbia was the occupier. For a few decades. Remember, Kosova was a longer time part of the Ottoman Empire than part of serbia, therefore even Turkey as succesor of the Ottoman Empire would have a stronger right to claim Kosova his territory than serbia. The claims of serbia stand on very weak feet, on a short-time occupiers feet. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Serbia was under Ottomon occupation too, but the difference is that they didn't sell out their culture to the Muslims, which the Albanians and Bosniaks had no problem doing. This is a sign of a great and proud nation. So don't expect Serbia to back down in the unlikely scenario that the ICJ rules against international law. --Tocino 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Such a pity it is written in German: "Das Osmanische Reich - ein antikoloniales Imperium?" http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/site/40208581/default.aspx Ottoman Empire was anti-colonialistic, multi-cultural and multi-ethnical, most of the serbian churches were build under the reign of Ottoman Empire, that lasted for more than half a millennium. The same with Andalusia. Your "proud christian culture" led to reconquista, inquisition and expulsion, even the Jews fled to Muslim countries, from Spain as much as from the Balkans. This, my "proud nation" friend, is the bloody truth, you better face it. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Again Tocino posts his propaganda here. Can someone do something against it?Max Mux (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Double as much supporters for Kosovo at the ICJ

http://www.ora-online.ch/index.php/kosova/270-titel-kommt-gleich-hehe says that about 20 countries will support Kosovo and only half as much will support Serbia in the courtroom. Sorry it's only in German as it is a Swiss based newspaper. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need these "reportedly" things in the article when the ICJ will publish everything on Monday so we can list all the countries that provided materials to the court. I think the only country that officially confirmed their involvement is Romania. But like I said, let's wait until Monday.--Avala (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ICJ should publish the information today. We only know that there are 33 countries participating in the process, 18 on Kosovo side and 15 on Serbian side. United Kingdom will most likely take over from the US as an official representative of Kosovo. Romania confirmed participation. The rest will come later during the day.--Avala (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's up, Avala, today is tuesday!? Didn't you promise us the information yesterday? --84.56.253.226 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At least you now confess that there are more countries on Kosovas side than on serbias side. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as he confesed he will be sentenced to 10 years in prison! Shall you please stop regarding wiki as a forum? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If "confess" was a wrong expression, it was because I am not a native speaker, feel free to correct me. All I try is to make clear the "wind of change" as this is important to the article. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Maybe "admit" would have been the better word.

What's there to admit or not admit? This page deals with facts and news not personal presumptions so please stop destroying it.--Avala (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I wanted to point out is that many users say that Kosovo is not a state and refuse the using of signs of its statehood in the Kosovo article, for example the country box as it is on top of every country by stating that most countries do not recognize Kosovos independence. It seems they are wrong and they should at least admit now that most countries neither recognize nor not recognize, like New Zealand, for example. Therefore there are more countries that do recognize compared to the countries that do not recognize. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your point is logical. However, international politics is often NOT logical. Any nation that previously recognized Serbia (with Kosovo as an Autonomous Republic) is considered to STILL recognize Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo unless and until that nation officially recognizes Kosovo. Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

35 countries provided opinion to the court. I think we can assume that these are the most ardent and strong supporters or opposers of Kosovo independence. On one side we have Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, Albania, Austria, Germany, Finland, Poland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Estonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Latvia, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Maldives and Sierra Leone and on the other side we have Cyprus, China, Romania, Egypt, Slovakia, the Russian Federation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Serbia, Spain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Azerbaijan and Bolivia. It doesn't mean that Venezuela is any less of an opposer or that Belgium is any less of a supporter but I think in general we can assume that these states are the most interested in these proceedings and that they truly cemented their positions with this action.--Avala (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting to see Libya there even though it didn't even show up for the vote in the General Assembly, and to see Maldives and the Czech Republic though some people were announcing that they will de-recognize. I'm surprised by Iran and Libya, as well as Sierra Leone and Maldives. So we have a tally of 21 : 14 in Kosovo's favor (Serbia is included with the 14, of course). --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that countries like Libya or Maldives just did what they were asked/told to do, I don't think that they care that much.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
These numbers prove exactly what I said from the beginning, there are more countries in favor of Kosovas independence than against it and most countries are just indifferent. However, time is on Kosovas side, every day nails Kosova firmer on the maps. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you include serbia into the 14, you should also include Kosova, that would make 22! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to state in the article which countries submitted opinions in favour, and which were in opposition to Serbia's position. Although it's fairly obvious to assume which are which, we would need an appropriate source for this information. Does anything exist, other than just the list of countries? Bazonka (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. The ICJ press release says "the texts of the written statements and of the written contribution are confidential at this stage of the proceedings". — Emil J. 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to add on Russia

Russia has a Liaison Office in Pristina. This is not added anywhere.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200511/08/eng20051108_219738.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.119.135 (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

404 Not Found! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC) BTW: This would be in accordance with Russias new stance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Will_Russia_recognize_Kosovo.27s_independence.3F
I don't think this should be added as it is not really relevant to international recognition of Kosovo. Russia's Liaison Office was there before the DOI and unless there has been a recent change attributing it to the RoK (if so then please add it), the office is held with UNMIK if I remember correctly. Certainly it has nothing to do with Russia's "new stance." Bernerd (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's wait and see, time is on Kosovas side, every day of its existence nails it tighter on the world map. Anyway, does anyone has a working link? The one above says 404. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes Russia does have Liaison Office in Pristina, but it is not to the Rep of Kosovo. It is a Liaison Office to UNMIK. So because of this there is no reason to include it in the article as it is not relevant Ijanderson (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What will Russia do now, as Kosovo's president wants UN mission to leave? Right, they will either turn their Liasion Office into an Embassy or leave Kosovo together with the UN mission: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6270011/Kosovos-president-wants-UN-mission-to-leave Bye-bye! --84.56.253.226 (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ICJ case article

I just noticed that somebody recreated an article on the Kosovo ICJ case: Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. — Emil J. 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we did agree to reopen it once the proceedings begin but this isn't the article that was around before. This is a new article made by some new user apparently. I'll try to fix it.--Avala (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please make sure that we have no double articles. The original title and content is under International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence which was made to be in line with other cases on ICJ trials (International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons etc.). I expanded it with some content of that newbie user but he reverted me and Ijanderson redirected it to a third title. So in the end we had three articles on the same thing.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Avala, please do not make cut-and-paste moves. They do not preserve the editing history, which violates GFDL. — Emil J. 13:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't see how else could I have done it? I copy/pasted what was added later on the article I created a few months ago and redirected the newbie made article to the old one.--Avala (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jordan preparing to recognize Kosovo

http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=4156 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.120.187 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kuwait and Bahrain "to recognize soon"

Gazeta Express, a Kosovo daily, is reporting that Kuwait and Bahrain will recognize soon. [48] They claim that they have a good source and that a representative of Kuwait is in Kosovo already, where he/she will deliver the recognition letter personally. They're also claiming that Bahrain, having approved it earlier in Parliament, will seal the deal early next week. Just something to keep an eye on. --alchaemia (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguay

This dates back to February last year, but we have nothing in the article about Uruguay's position. Do you think it can be used? [49] Bazonka (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it was here but it was removed by a known remover. I will re-add it.--Avala (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't "forget" to mention that it's a news agency claiming this. Your edit sounded like it was an official source, rather than a news agency claim. --alchaemia (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=28&nav_id=58800Max Mux (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That information has already been added to the article Max Ijanderson (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't noticed that. Sorry!Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo to Join IMF and WB by June

Balkan Insight 28/04/09 Ijanderson (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another source, Bloomberg News [50] --alchaemia (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbia expects no more countries will recognise Kosovo

[51] Jeremic said this at a Non-Aligned Movement meeting, should we add to the article? Ijanderson (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the idea was to say that Serbia expects from these countries that no more of them would recognise rather than a crystal ball-like statement. Of course more countries will recognise but maybe not from NAM. But either it's too vague I think.--Avala (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just crystal-balling on his part. At the same time he said that KSA was lobbying hard with other countries but that he's "trying to prevent that." I think it's just more chest-bumping by Jeremic without much solid proof of anything. --alchaemia (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jeremic has lost his mind if he made such statements.Max Mux (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


1) He hasn't lost his mind 2) Try to be polite 3) We don't want too see pro-Kosovo propaganda posted here! ;) Ijanderson (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares what jerepic expects? It is not worth mentioning as it is serbian propaganda. --Tubesship (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania and Qatar "to recognize soon."

According to Gazeta Express[52] and Telegrafi.com[53], Qatar and Mauritania have told the Kosovo Defense Minister that they'll recognize Kosovo soon "in light of the Saudi recognition." Might be worth mentioning, if only as a reference point should recognition come from those two countries. --alchaemia (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have also been meetings with Chad, Tanzania, Mongolia and Kenya. Ijanderson (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
… and South Korea, which suggests that the meetings were not necessarily about recognition. — Emil J. 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly says that he requested recognition by the countries mentioned here (sans SK) so it doesn't matter what the meetings were originally for. --alchaemia (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
And the US requested from North Korea to stop their nuclear tests. Either way it's not a reaction by these countries but a request from the third party which they could listen to or not.--Avala (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you have to think hard about that example? Mujota requested, Qatar and Mauritania promised that they'll recognize. It's certainly more noteworthy than Jeremic and his crystal-balling. Not to mention the fact that I merely posted it here as a reference point, and not some fact that needs to inserted into the article immediately. Get off your high horse. --alchaemia (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Kosovo attended the Military Industry Summit where 80 countries participated and Serbia left the place in protest of Kosovo presentation at the summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.125.81 (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the article for Mauritania and Qatar Ijanderson (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greece

http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/serbia/86841.htmlMax Mux (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hashim Thaci says this exactly the same quote every few weeks. He also says the same thing about Russia.--Avala (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Serbia has discovered the first case of swine flu in her country. The leader of separatist forces in its southern province has clearly fallen ill. --Tocino 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about swine flu, but Serbia does have a case of wishful-thinking flu: Tocino. --alchaemia (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please block Tocino.Max Mux (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Even Bazonka should se that this kind of behavior is not acceptable and Tocino has shown us that he is not capqable of working here the right way. This is teamwork at its best and not his personal probaganda show!Max Mux (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Well only time will tell, I bet that Greece will be under a lot of pressure to do so. I'm not optimistic though due to Cyprus's TRNC problem, Orthodox Brotherhood with Serbia and because it could be seen as Pro Turkey as Turkey is a major supporter of Kosovo; Greece and Turkey have a history of not getting along. But then again Albania and Greece are on a high at the moment. Ijanderson (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It'll be a while (1-2 years) before Greece decides to recognize Kosovo, but I do believe it will happen. Their position is pretty ambiguous at the moment, and they've made their first small steps (passport recognition, Greek-Kosovo business meetings, Dora Bakoyanis visiting Kosovo as the Greek FM and meeting with the PM and President, etc.) Their final step won't come for a while due to the Cyprus issue, but I don't think Orthodox Brotherhood has anything to do with it. Maybe 10 years ago, but Greece's position vis-a-vis Balkans has evolved, the issue with Macedonia notwithstanding. --alchaemia (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Stratfor Reports that Greece supported Kosovo’s IMF bid despite opposing its independence (another small step toward full recognition i think...) (link requires subscription but you can search the result in google and then access it)
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090506_kosovo_seeking_recognition_and_funds_imf Emetko (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh

http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=83163&cid=2

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/36/ARTICLE/50694/2009-05-04.html

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/05/05/news0272.htm

Max Mux (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no news here, other than that the US has asked Bangladesh to recognise. We need something that actually states whether Bangladesh is going to do anything about it or not. The closest thing we have here is a Bangladeshi foreign minister saying "I have no knowledge about Kosovo's recognition" - utterly useless.
Kosovothanksyou have published a link to Bangladesh's MOFA site in their about to recognise section: [54]. Unfortunately it's in Bengali which neither I nor Google can speak. It may say much the same as the links above, but at least it's from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Can anyone translate? Bazonka (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed text from the article that simply states that the US ambassador has asked Bangladesh to recognise. In my opinion this is not worthy of inclusion in the article because it doesn't in any way state how Bangladesh responded. (If we are to include this, then we should also mention every meeting that Kosovo, Serbia etc have held with other nations to lobby for or against recognition.) My deletions keep being reverted however, so rather than face the wrath of WP:3RR, can I have your thoughts please? Bazonka (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The US will have asked most countries to recognise, this information should not be added to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In that case, we should remove what specific ambassadors to Serbia have said as that's irrelevant information too. It's their job to say that anyway, kind of like the US asking nations to recognize. There's a difference between the US working behind curtains and the US publicly asking Bangladesh to recognize. That you wish to keep irrelevant ambassadorial statements pro-Serbia but remove those ambassadorial statements pro-Kosovo is puzzling, at best. --alchaemia (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Like what? Please point me to an an irrelevant example of information given by an ambassador to Serbia. At least from my point of view there's no intentional pro-Serb (or pro-Kosovo) bias. If something's not relevant then let's remove it. I do see your point about the US's public request for Bangladeshi recognition, but I still think that it shouldn't be in the article without a Bangladeshi response. Bazonka (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Like a statement from the Israeli ambassador to Serbian media. I fail to see why it's OK to include statements from the Israeli ambassador but it's not OK to include statements from an American ambassador. --alchaemia (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But that statement from the Israeli ambassador gives an indication of his country's position on Kosovo. In this Bangladesh case, the US ambassador (i.e. not a Bangladeshi) is not giving any information whatsoever about Bangladesh's position. It's a totally different situation. Bazonka (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IMF

Urime, Kosova is now a member of IMF. Google it!! Kosova2008216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. See above. Bazonka (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Officially :http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2009/pr09158.htm

Mongolia Info.

The President of Kosovo met with the Deputy Chairman of the Mongolian Parliament to urge recognition. [55] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo in the IMF by tomorrow

Kosovo is set to become a member of the IMF as all conditions have been met and the voting will end by tomorrow 5PM Central (American) time. A majority and a quorum has been met already as voting has been going on for a while now. Sources [56] and [57]. --alchaemia (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Though the vote looks like it will pass tomorrow, it will not take effect until June.[58] [59] Worth updating the article if we can get English-language sources. Incidentally, this also ought to start the process on the ISO codes. The Tom (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the June date is referring to World Bank as that's when voting will end. But we'll find out by tomorrow I suppose. --alchaemia (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Its best to wait and see if I say. If Kosovo does it, it does it; if it doesn't do it, Let's wait and see. Lets wait for confirmation. Ijanderson (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Kosovo joins officially IMF tomorrow. World Bank in June or July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Says whom? source please? Ijanderson (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There are four sources provided that say the same thing. Two of them are in english. You can only become a WB member if you're an IMF member, so it seems logical to assume that Kosovo will become an IMF member first (today) and a WB member later (June/July). --alchaemia (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo has joined the IMF. Please update the page accordingly. [60] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that article says that the IMF has voted to make it a member, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a member yet - it depends on what their procedures are. I'd like to see something on the IMF website or at least another news site. I have put something in the article which hopefully we can update with something firmer soon. Bazonka (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're just splitting hairs now (no offense). But anyway, there's another major english source[61]:
Kosovo Receives Sufficient Number Of Votes To Join IMF
LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Kosovo has received a sufficient number of votes to become a member of the International Monetary Fund, Vlora Qitaku, Kosovo's deputy foreign affairs minister said Tuesday.
The government has been unofficially informed by the IMF that it has received enough positive votes ahead of the May 5, close of business deadline. More than half of the IMF members participated in the vote, ensuring that the process is valid.
Official confirmation is expected at 2200 GMT.
I think that's confirmation enough, but we can wait. --alchaemia (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I expect Kosovo to be given an admission date. Kosovo will need a representative for this Organisation too. I doubt that they are a member at this moment in time. Ijanderson (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess no one reads the provided sources anymore. The Kosovar Finance Minister says that Kosovo will become a member tonight, but that it will receive official notification of admission within 3 days, including all the details and the quota Kosovo will have. These things are not secrets, they're in the links provided here. --alchaemia (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IMF Webcast. [62] --alchaemia (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And transcript: [63]. It would seem that Kosovo isn't actually a member yet. This (rather biased) article confirms that: [64] "As Kosovo prepares to officially enter the International Monetary Fund..." Bazonka (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It is expected that the outcome will be officially confirmed to the Kosovo Government today. Just like with parliamentary voting or whatever, we do't officially know the winner until a couple of days later, but there's always good reason to believe that X or Y won. --alchaemia (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's official, Kosovo has been offered membership by the IMF [65]Bernerd (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So, this is proof, that haste isn't advisable. Kosovo will become a member of the IMF after months, when Kosovo change its own laws... Aotearoa (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Council of Europe

What's your opinion on the recent additions to the article of 1. a section on the Council of Europe saying that they have no offical position, and 2. marking the countries that are members of the CoE in the Relevant international membership column?
My opinion is: as far as point 1 goes, unless we have anything substantial to say, we're best saying nothing. And for point 2, practically every European country is a member, so I'm not convinced that this is useful (particularly if we have no CoE information).
I am minded to delete all this, but I thought it ought to be raised here first. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in fact misleading (especially with the flag). The Council of Europe is not an organisation of great importance. --DaQuirin (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. — Emil J. 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
We should remove the CoE stuff Ijanderson (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's subjective to say that the CoE is not important, while the EU and NATO are. One could argue that the CoE is more important than the other two since the CoE represents all of Europe besides Belarus, Kazakhstan, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Besides, there are no countries in the EU and NATO which are not members of CoE as well, so CoE is like a stepping stone to international recognition. Montenegro got CoE membership within a year of its DoI --Tocino 17:54, 6 may 2009 (UTC)

Tocino, I'm not saying that CoE isn't important. It's just that we have nothing to say about it. If anything becomes apparent, then we should include it of course. Bazonka (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
NATO hasn't said anything about it either. Why don't we delete the entry for Council of Europe in the International organizations section, but leave the CoE status next to countries which are members, like how we do for NATO members? --Tocino 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we delete the NATO status? Bazonka (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of keeping as much on the article as possible, but if CoE is going to be deleted then I would also support the removal of NATO status. --Tocino 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If others agree, I would happily see the NATO details removed. But I think there is a difference. NATO is playing an active role in Kosovo, whereas CoE isn't. My main concern with the CoE details though, is that since practically every European country is a CoE member, including this information just clutters the page with information that isn't very useful. Bazonka (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove. There is no information on CoE, and to create a section just to say that there isn't any information is an exercise in futility. --alchaemia (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
NATO has had much greater involvement with the situation in Kosovo. They were the once who liberated and freed it from Yugoslavia, they were the ones who have protected it for 10 years, the majority of NATO members were the first to recognise Kosovo. On the other hand, the CoE has not been involved on that level. Ijanderson (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about NATO war crimes. This article is about recognition of Kosovo and NATO doesn't have a policy about recognition of Kosovo. --Tocino 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Membership in the three organisations (UN, EU and NATO) amounts to the key aspirations of Kosovo. NATO would be the only international organisation to offer military guarantees for Kosovo's disputed (and potentially threatened) statehood. And without NATO's intervention in 1999, there would be no independent Kosovo, no Wikipedia article and no talkpage to discuss it... --DaQuirin (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And Kosovo doesn't want to be part of the CoE? Once again, the 1999 violation of Yugoslavia's statehood doesn't belong here and neither does the possible threat to so-called "independent Kosovo". --Tocino 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your extreme pro-Serb POV doesn't belong here either, but we're forced to read it, aren't we? CoE is a rather unimportant organization. NATO is rather important. End of story. --alchaemia (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"CoE is rather unimportant"... please read: WP:OR --Tocino 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The Council of Europe is not of great importance as compared with international organisations like the European Union or NATO. This should go here without saying for anybody seriously discussing politics. In historical terms, the Council of Europe was a very interesting organisation, the starting point of European integration. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's of great importance or not, which is not for WP to decide, does NATO have a policy about recognition of Kosovo? BTW, which international organization has played the most active role in helping maintain a ceasefire in the Caucasus since the 2008 South Ossetia war? The EU? Nope. NATO? Nope. CoE? Yes. --Tocino 21:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
@ Tocino, this article isn't about Russian war crime. So I think your last point is irrelevant. Ijanderson (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither the UN, NATO or EU have a "policy about recognition" as such. Only states can recognize a new state. As for international organizations, it's all about membership. At least we can sum up that, concerning the political status of Kosovo, NATO is a powerful and relevant international organization which is obviously not the case for the Council of Europe. As I understand, you dislike NATO and you just want to make this point again and again. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The EU parliament, even though it is non-binding, did make a statement on Kosovo recognition. NATO has not made any similar suggestions that all member states should no longer respect Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. For you to call the CoE, which unlike NATO and the EU, includes Russia, Serbia, and most of Eastern Europe, an irrelevant organization reveals your ignorance, and perhaps, Slavophobia. --Tocino 00:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
NATO and the (separate) NATO Parliamentary Assembly have repeatedly dealt with the political perspective of Kosovo and future relations between Kosovo and Serbia. And as I said, the Council of Europe played an important role in the history of European integration. You can only think in ethnic (and friend/enemy) categories, as I see. The European idea, the whole set of European institutions, including the Council of Europe, are based on a completely different value system. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Then why doesn't this article have these supposed statements from NATO? --Tocino 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because people like us prefer discussing instead of doing the work :) Many NATO documents are not public as you possibly know. As for the (separate) NATO Parliamentary Assembly, it would be interesting to read the study mentioned here. --DaQuirin (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tocino, we should include more information about NATO in this article Ijanderson (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason why we have nothing that's noteworthy from NATO on this article (the current entry for NATO should be deleted because it's about military matters, not recognition) is because they haven't said anything noteworthy about recognition. --Tocino 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that in order for Kosovo to be invited to join the Council of Europe, a two-thirds majority in the Committee of Ministers is required (per the Council of Europe's statute, (articles 20c and 4, see [66]). As 33 of the 47 (70.21%) current members of the Council of Europe recognise the Republic of Kosovo, Serbia, lacking a blocking third of the votes would find it impossible to block Kosovo's membership, assuming that at least 32 member states agree that Kosovo meets its accession criteria. Unnamed Kosovo officials are quoted discussing the possibility in New Kosovo Report here [67], but there's no word from the Council of Europe itself. Kosovo has not even formally applied for membership yet, however, and it is also customary for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to express its opinion on a candidate country's admission before the Council of Ministers makes a decision on an invitation to join (see the CoE website, section 1 [68]). Moldovanmickey (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

South Africa

Vuk Jeremić recently held a meeting with Jacob Zuma, the new South African president. After the meeting he said that "Serbia is grateful for the support and consistency of the Republic of South Africa not to recognize Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence". See [69]. I added this information to the article, but User:Alchaemia reverted it, stating "Why is this news or noteworthy? No change in position, and nothing from SA, just Jeremic". I argue that it is noteworthy. Whilst obviously a statement from a South African would be better, this statement from Jeremić does give an indication of South Africa's latest position - previous statements documented in the article have been ambivalent. Your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.95.36 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's especially notable considering that there was a change in administration. --Tocino 16:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally a comment from you that makes sense. Thank you! But remember, there's still the same party in power.Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very odd that many of these positions come in the form of Jeremic saying that they told him this. Why don't the South Africans or whomever come out and say it themselves? It gives the impression that he's putting words in their mouths. I recall he said much the same thing about Malaysia and then they went ahead and recognised, anyway. This sort of he-said-she-said statement should be taken with numerous grains of salt. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would the South African media ask their new President on his inauguration day about his policy towards Kosovo? To be frank, Kosovo is a low priority for most nations. Naturally Jeremić would be discussing it though with Foreign Affairs people and he would be eager to report good news to where Kosovo status is very important - Serbian media. --Tocino 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The South Africans could've put out a press release saying, "After discussions with the Serbian Foreign Minister, President Zuma agreed that the present policy towards the Kosovo issue would continue..." or something like that. There is no collaboration for what Jeremic is saying he was told. Balkaninsight didn't bother to source any South Africans, either, which is shoddy journalism. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they think they don't need to release any new statements because they have already made a decision on Kosovo long ago and that's final. This is basically the word of Jeremić we are counting on. But this article also relies on quotes from the likes of Hashim Thaci and Skender Hyseni so I don't see the problem. --Tocino 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do it the old way again.84.134.67.177 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember some people arguing that the US publicly asking countries to recognize Kosovo wasn't noteworthy, yet the same people claim that it's noteworthy to include what Jeremic claims South African leaders told him even though there isn't anything new in what he says and certainly nothing that hasn't been said before either by him or other Serbian officials. I don't recall including minutiae from Sejdiu's meeting with Rice or Biden even though they told him that they would keep supporting Kosovo and its independence. A situation that reminds one of what Jeremic is saying, albeit on opposite sides. I sense some double standards here. --alchaemia (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could those "some people" be me by any chance? There's a definite difference. In the Bangladesh situation, the US ambassador said that he'd spoken to the Bangladeshis, but didn't give any indication whatsoever about their response - they could have told him that they'd never recognise, or that they were about to recognise tomorrow - the ambassador didn't give us any information one way or another. In this South Africa situation though, Jeremic tells us (or at least strongly implies) that the South Africans are opposed to recognition. This is noteworthy. And it's new information - the South Africa section in article says that they haven't made their mind up yet - this now shows which way they're leaning. Bazonka (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Bazonka & Tocino. Its notable because it tells the reader that the new administration in South Africa does not plan to recognise Kosovo in the near future. The difference between the issues of Bangladesh and South Africa is that America didn't get a reply from Bangladesh, whereas Serbia did get a reply from South Africa, making it noteworthy as this tells us South Africa's position, unlike the issue with Bangladesh. Ijanderson (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Alchaemia - Jeremic is the only source for this information. He's saying what somebody else told him, so the information is second hand. Also, he's the Foreign Minister of Serbia, who as part of his job is trying unceasingly to isolate Kosovo. In sum, we can't corroborate this information and, frankly, can't trust Jeremic as a source of unbiased information. I recall I am dealing with the Captains of Impartiality on this discussion page, so a South African source must be found for this information or it's of little more than propaganda value. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
@ Bobby, if this is what you say, we can't use any Kosovar politicians as a source either as that would be in violation of NPOV. So if we do as you say we would have to delete lots of information and that would downgrade the quality of the article and I don't want to do that. I want this article to be as rich in information as possible. Ijanderson (talk)
It would not be fair to exclude information from Vuk Jeremić but to include information from Hashim Thaci and Skender Hyseni. This is the first news we've heard from SA in over a year. And just think about it for a second. Would Jeremic waste his time flying down to SA for an inauguration ceremony if he thought SA was going to recognize Kosovo? Doubt it. Most likely he's showing solidarity with an ally. I don't see how including the latest up to date info on SA harms the article. --Tocino 1:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously second-hand information is not ideal, but as long as the article clearly states that these are Jeremić's words, then there shouldn't be a problem. His statement immediately followed a meeting with SA officials, so there is a strong probability that the gist of what he said is true. Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Did we include what Sejdiu said after meeting with Biden and Rice after a major change in the US administration? No? Then I don'r see why we need to include this. --alchaemia (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
But we already knew that the new US administration was not going to change it's position. Ijanderson (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not officially, we didn't. These are double standards. --alchaemia (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
alchaemia please, we don't even have part of the article that would deal with subsequent statements of countries that recognised Kosovo. I agree with Ijanderson, if we were to remove this then we would have to remove loads of other information mostly statements by Kosovo MFA and that would downgrade the richness of information we have.--Avala (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello people, I agree with the include side.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sao Tome Position

This is original research on my part, which I know makes it extremely wicked, evil and all-around scandalous for me to thus offer up it for your consideration here, but all the same, I have been in touch with the Permanent Mission of Sao Tome and Principe to the UN. The Representative was very kind and answered my query. I am pasting in the email response below:

Dear Mr.Robert,

This is the position right now:

"The government of Sao Tome and Principe is considering the matter and later on will publish the final decision".

Best regards,

Domingos Ferreira Sao Tome and Principe Mission to United Nations 460 Park Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022

Tele: 212-317-0644 Fax: 212-317-0624

You can all take this for what it's worth. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Why are you trying to bullinng here? It is worth something and I think we should check up each country that isn't included here this way.Max Mux (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair play, that is the sort of position I would expect from a banana republic, they probably don't care about Kosovo, Serbia or the Balkans ect. However I don't think a personal email can be classed as a reliable source. Ijanderson (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Its not a banana republic 2) Try to be polite 3) We don't want too see anti-Kosovo propaganda posted here!Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not Anti-Kosovo, I support the Rep of Kosovo FYI
2) I try my very hardest to be polite
3) How come come pro-Kosovo propaganda is allowed to be posted here? Ijanderson (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You should not be disrespectful and refer to a country as a "banana republic." That is most discourteous and it is offensive. You should apologise and withdraw that remark, Ian. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I received very similarly worded reply from Rwandan embassy a few months ago. It's just the diplomatic language, and there is no statement or content behind it at all. Either way thanks for the information however you know we can't add it to the article because we require external sources.--Avala (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats it.Max Mux (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Can you post the rwandan respond, please?Max Mux (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

International Road Transport Union

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905041731/Business-and-Economy/Kosovo-becomes-member-of-International-Road-Transport-Union.html

Max Mux (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Um perhaps you should check the article Max, this information has been there for a number of days now. Bernerd (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry!84.134.101.157 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

South Africa, Lesotho and Slovakia

http://www.girodivite.it/Minister-for-Foreign-Affairs-of,12079.html

Max Mux (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing useful here from Africa. (South Africa - the same news as discussed above. Lesotho - Jeremic met Lesotho's foreign minister, but no information as to Lesotho's position.) From Slovakia we have further confirmation that they are opposed to recognition, but this is nothing new and I don't think it's worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Spanish position visa vi Kosovo May 13 (Kosovo Times) - Hose Manuel Garcia Margallo, Spanish member of the EU parliament, in an interview for Radio Kosovo said that Spain does not recognize Kosovo because of principles related to the internal situation in Spain regarding the regions of Baskia and Katalonia. However he also stressed that the Spanish regions have no comparison with Kosovo and that Kosovo case is fundamentally different. Margallo said that he does not consider the declaration of independence as a good act but he understands the Kosovars because of their bitter experience in the past. Margallo also said that regardless that Spain has not recognized Kosovo it will continue to support Kosovo and its development as it has done in the past.


http://kosovotimes.net/flash-news/144-spanish-position-visa-vi-kosovo-.html

Please update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.217.226 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a pile of contradiction...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=13&nav_id=59126

Max Mux (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That changes nothing, all it does is say they "expect" it max. And we all know the history kosovo has had when it comes to "expect and will"--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comoros

The confirmation should have come two weeks ago!Max Mux (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they ever recognised Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think so?Max Mux (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Because no confirmation ever came. Bazonka (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why should it have come 2 weeks ago?--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

kosovothanksyou.com said so. They wanted to contact the embassy but the ambassdador was not present.Max Mux (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So this tells us that they haven't recognised at present. The Comoros did however sent a letter to congratulate Kosovo on its independence. One could interpret that and say that the Comoros will likely recognise Kosovo in the future. But who knows? Its our job to report facts, not speculate. Ijanderson (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't Pakistan also congratulate Kosovo? And then they said it is only the question of day when the recognition will be announced, however this announcement was made a couple of months ago.--Avala (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
... Bangladesh said something similar the day after Kosovo declared independence, 15 months ago. Ijanderson (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly neither of them have recognized yet. I think we should write to embassies of these three countries, and maybe to others as well.Max Mux (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? Can someone do that?Max Mux (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could do it. It probably won't achieve anything though. Bazonka (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing such an action would accomplish would be to annoy them.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


One of you is the better choice because your mothe rtongue is english. Why do you think it would not acomblish anything, Bazonka? And why should it annoy them? I ask again c, can someone do it, please?Max Mux (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

One person from "Wikipedia" isn't going to infleunce them to do anything max, that is why it would be useless, it would be annoying ot them because we would be wasting their time.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Max, why don't you write to their embassy in your country; that way you can use your own language. But Jakezing is right - if the Kosovo government can't persuade them, then how could you? Stranger things have happened though, might be worth a try. Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not seem to understand completely.Max Mux (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I naturally would like to persuade them, but I only want to ask their exact position on this matter as well as of other countries we haven't heard anything yet.Max Mux (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but unless you can pursuade them to publish an official statement we wouldn't be able to use any information gathered in that way in this article. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But at least we know it. And maybe they make public statements as soon as people ask about it.Max Mux (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?Max Mux (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well?Max Mux (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo/Archive_33&oldid=1142764905"