Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Non Neutral-Article

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lists

I disagree partially with the above solution. I understand the motivation, but I think the countries which have explicitly refused to recognize a Republic of Kosovo should be listed separately. These include Serbia, Russia, Spain, etc. Also, please don't make major edits such as [1] without an appropriate edit summary (in this case explaining that you were removing a large section). Countries that haven't taken a clear stand either way can be grouped together in the "Other states" section, and their positions quoted. This includes countries that have said "we're going to wait", "we're skeptical of unilateral moves", etc., as well as "African countries which just don't care". Superm401 - Talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Canadian community response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In Kosovo, it's NATO sponsored."

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

--Clarity--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Relevant Entities & International Organisations

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

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

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

Now Protection is gone...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malayisa - final decision

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

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

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

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

An IP provided above a link to a press release of the Kosovar president (see [2]). Could someone provide a translation? Gugganij (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full translation:

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

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

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

What's up with the map?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change from better to worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop pushing NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

Color Key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodox churches

Please stop adding orthodox churches on the list for propaganda purposes. Of course they will support Serbia, we all know that (unless you're totally clueless about religion, in which case it won't matter to you anyway). So putting an opinion of each orthodox church is redundant, it's like putting an opinion of muslim community of each country. Someone even put orthodox church of Poland. That's like putting muslim community of Bolivia - no one cares, and it carries no importance whatsoever, nor is it an interesting fact people would like to know. We already had a discussion on redundancy of 200+ Serbian communities in various countries in the world, which someone started adding onto a list. That seemed to have been concluded, but now someone is trying to bypass that by doing exactly same thing with orthodox churches, even putting churches of non-orthodox dominated countries. JosipMac (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot more orthodox in Poland, than muslims in Bolivia, I think. Orthodox population makes up to 30% in the city of Bialystok. Szopen (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, why did you not delete the Serbian Orthodox Church, to be consistent. Besides, that, and the Islamic Community of Serbia, are neither "diplomatic" nor "international" reactions, and I doubt, relevant to "recognition" (should the article ever migrate under a relevant title). --Mareklug ^talk 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of a compromise. If it was up to me I would have deleted both islamic and orthodox church of Serbia, but before that I wanted to see what others think. Having one of each is tolerable but recent spamming of a zillion of orthodox churches and serbian communities is way too much propaganda. JosipMac (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quebec parties are not international they are not diplomatic and they are not relevant to Kosovo but they are still included. --Avala (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it's not important. Numbers alone don't make someone important or relevant. I take your point about Polish Orthodox church. Can you still tell me which orthodox church is AGAINST Serbia? Until you tell me which Orthodox church is against Serbia, my argument still remains - orthodox churches support national interests of orthodox countries. As such it's enough to have 1 opinion of "Orthodox Churches", instead of listing each one by one. JosipMac (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree about the Russian Church, but sincerely the other churches it's kinda redundant.--80.80.161.153 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention on the Edit page: I merged Orthodox churches (all but the Serbian one, I'm asking permission to merge that one too but so far I left it). JosipMac (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia green

can someone make Malaysia green on the map please. This is an encyclopedia, so it needs to be upto date. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Camptown (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you, i can't seem to edit it, it just won't upload for me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

The Foregein relations committe is chaired by the King; it does not make any formal decisions and its minutes are classified. A formal cabinet decision to establish formal diplomatic relations with Kosovo is expected shortly after the committee meeting which was summoned at 9am today. --Camptown (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So is Sweeden likely to formaly recogise Kosovo later today? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden has now officially recognized Kosovo. First point of order at the extra cabinet meeting. And the Swedish ambassador to Belgrade will have a meeting with the President and Prime minister of Kosovo later in the day. --Camptown (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden will recognise Kosovo after a meeting which will be held at 12.30 PM (that is, in about a quarter of an hour).[3][4] (130.237.227.172 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Map: Taiwan + TRNC

I don't want to open Pandora's box here, but why is Taiwan in green, and not TRNC (or vice-versa)? Nothing to do with POV, but with consistency.--Scotchorama (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But, after all, the Taiwanese case differs greatly from the case of TRNC, which is only recognized by the state that occupied the land and set up the state. --Camptown (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that; but neither one is actually given a number on the list. So if we leave Taiwan in green, we should give it a number, and consider it a full state. Otherwise, we should remove the green. As it is, the map and list are not consistent.--Scotchorama (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, done. Konekoniku (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a very specific case under international law. It revolves around which state is legally recognised to be China. For the first three decades after the foundation of the UN, Taiwan was recognised as the Republic of China and held the Chinese seat in the UN. However, countries started to migrate recognition across the the People's Republic of China in 1971. However, a few states still continue to recognise Taiwan as the government. So, in this sense, it is an ambiguous situation. This said, I think it would be better to have Taiwan listed in the other relevant entities.

Please sign your comments.--Scotchorama (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

It is not recognized as a country by most of the countries in the world, and China definitely does not see Taiwan as a country, so it should not be listed under "countries" and it does not hav the power to officially recognize other countries (seeing that it is not a country itself). Therefore i've moved it to the "Seceded regions and national liberation movements" section, as that is a more accurate description of the Taiwan State. --Ruolin59 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, and no, it isn't. ROC predates People's Republic of China as a continuously existing state, and was a charter member of the UN before it was kicked out for political pressure by that country. In no way does any of this make it a seceded region or a liberation movement. Taiwan (ROC) is a state, and it is recognized as such by 23 other states. It has a powerful army and an even more impressive economy and technological presence in the world, and a democratic government elected by its population which does not supress it or any ethnic minorities under its jurisdicition, unlike some other countries in the region. Its unique status among states is unambiguously noted with a superscripted reference, and furhter redacting here is uncalled for. POV-pushing and seeming denials of reality apparently motivated by what "China sees" or doesn't, as if it mattered to the Wikipedia's NPOV presentation of facts, detract from the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and is not welcome, here, or in any other article. Kindly desist from further edits along these lines, because such contributions will only lead to highly unjustified and entirely avoidable edit-warring, and if sustained, in banning for disruptive behavior. Best Wishes. --Mareklug ^talk 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First, please do not edit my comments on the talk page. That is not the way to refute someone's arguments. Second, yes, ROC predates PRC, and it WAS a charter member of the UN, however, it no longer is, and the PRC is seen as the legal successor of the ROC. the ROC state, is, in effect, no longer in legal existence. During the period of Chinese Civil War, the ROC was recognized as the sole government of China. However, when it kind of lost the war and retreated to Taiwan, most countries switched to recognizing the PRC government. This automatically makes the old regime illegimate. In addition, since no formal treaty was signed between the two groups, the Civil War is in fact still on going. When a state is only recognized by 23 other countries, and these countries have barely any influence on world affairs, the state cannot said to be a country. You marked that as "irrelevant", however, it is very relevant. It says something when the ROC is not even a member of the United Nations any longer, thought it was a charter member. When the countries switched to recognizing the PRC, the PRC has become the de jure successor to the ROC. No countries recognize both the PRC and the ROC. for these reasons, the ROC should not be listed under "countries", so i've reverted it back.

By the way, your time is wrong --Ruolin59 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? What does "your time is wrong" mean or refer to? I just noticed, that your time stamp says, recently added, says: "02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)", while it is already past 22 hours in a time zone several hours west of UTC, on the evening of 7 March 2008. Who's time is wrong, prey tell. And double-check with a correctly set atomic clock near you... It seems that you are a living anachronism...

I did not edit your comments, only interjected my replies, perfectly legibly indented, in close proximity to/correspondence with your objectionable assertions.

You, however, have removed those parts of my comments, and now it's not at all obvious, what you are quoting, when quoting what I wrote! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

There is no need for me to argue with you on the score of placing Taiwan in this article among states, or go beyond WP:1RR, since you are evidently so unreasonable and hopelessly biased as to not know what time it is, while parroting China's official stance on Taiwan (there's poetic justice in this! how philosophically apt!), which has nothing to do with presenting NPOV reality on Wikipedia.

Accordingly, someone, and if needed, many someones :), will promptly revert your removing Taiwan (ROC) from the list of states, only to shove it baselessly into some completely inappropriate rubric.

How does one go from stating a premise of de facto ("kind of lost the war") to a conclusion supporting de jure, in one go? I believe that this is known as "might makes right", as opposed to the other, accepted kind, "right makes might".

Now, please tell us how the PRC's occupation and repression of Tibetans and their culture constitutes a de jure continuation by the Tibet Autonomous Region of the independent Tibet, you know, because the latter kind of lost the war (in 1959), and consequently is in no position to recognize independent Kosovo today, unless it were to do so as "other relevant entity", which, thanks to its island geography, armed forces, and implicit defense by the United States of America, the wealthy, independent, socially and technologically advanced democracy of Taiwan (ROC) has the luxury of doing, and has in fact done so, which all your Wikipedia edits won't obliterate from reality, never mind, persist in main article space for much longer. :) Don't forget to answer about whose time is wrong. --Mareklug ^talk 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure my time is right because i searched it on google. Don't get me wrong, but I'm the one trying to be NPOV here. I DID delete your "insertion" into my comments, but that is because you were editing my comments first. You could have quoted me, but you went ahead and directly edited my posts. You are obviously one of those people who know very little about china and is brainwashed by the "human rights" propaganda against China. I'm stating it again, having 23 countries recognizing you is not enough to become a country. I formally believe that Taiwan legimately has a government, however, some people do believe in the government, so I decided to keep it NPOV and put it under "seceded states", as that is a almost-perfect description of the current status of Taiwan. Taiwan has not formally declared independance from China, and has yet to have a referendum on independance. I'm not going to talk to you about Tibet here, as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I believe that to be POV is to either list Taiwan as a country or not listing it at all (as it is a PROVINCE of China). Therefore I decided to put taiwan as part of the seceded states. --Ruolin59 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino seems to know what I'm talking about, and has promptly changed the title of that list, thus making it more NPOV towards your side. I applaud him for that. good job, Tocino! --Ruolin59 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Ruolin59, these are your recent edits in local spacetime:

00:24, 8 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) (top)
00:04, 8 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 
22:00, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(Undid revision 196688181 by MaartenVidal (talk) Please discuss in Talk Page, Taiwan. The current version reflects POV) 
20:31, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 
20:11, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 
19:56, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(I'm sorry, but you are being POV when most of the countries in the world do not even recognize Taiwan as a country) 
00:12, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎
00:05, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Seceded regions and national liberation movements) 
00:03, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎

All of the above measurements are in Central Standard Time (USA), or +6 UTC. The one marked "20:11, 7 March 2008", is the one your server marked as 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) [5], and the one that follows, is where you claim, without providing a time signature of any kind, that my "time is wrong". If you are that kind of an anti-social, time-bending wikibandit, who denies even the correct UTC time of his edit, who's to take your side around here, if not our equally linear paragon of veracity and truth-or-consequence, Tocino, the same individual, who first noted that personal attacks were out of order, shortly thereafter personally referring to me in passing as a "Polish fascist Mareklug"? Perhaps his time server is also snafu'ed, and consequently, so is his sense of order?

All together, I'd rather be brainwashed by 'the "human rights" propaganda against China', than be a mor^H^H^H student in today's public high school system of an evidently fiscally exigent urban (-sprawling) California jurisdiction. At the very least, in my high school, students for the most part were rather successful at telling time truthfully, let alone reliably. Perhaps the google server to which you have alledgedly synchronized is in actuality an institution of discord, a literal Chinese People's Time Server, dedicated to furthering an irregular denial of chronicity, and by doing so, ending it? An attempt at chronic, if asynchronous, chronology denial? Not every measurement is relative; some are actually absolute errors or, hark!, disinformation. Ceterum censeo Res publica popularis Sinarum esse delendam. --Mareklug ^talk 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruolin, your position is blatantly NPOV and against WP policy. Number of recognized countries is not an objective definition of statehood: very few countries (if any) are "fully recognized" states. China is not recognized by 23. Israel is not recognized by more than 30. North Korea still is not recognized by more than 100. Before 2003, Afghanistan was not recognized by more than 3. Nor is UN membership an objective definition: until 2002, Switzerland was not part of the UN, and even now the Holy See is not. Without an objective, widely accepted definition; an objective, widely accepted WP policy; and in light of the fact that Taiwan uncontrovertibly functions as a fully independent state, POV requires us to treat it as such. Please feel free to find me on my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further.Konekoniku (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'

'The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' should not be included in the main list of countries. Instead, it should be put under the other relevant entities. It is not recognised by any state other than Turkey and has actually been declared illegal by the UN Security Council under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 541 (1983), which specifically called the unilateral declaration of independence to be invalid. Putting it in the list of countries that recognise Kosovo is absolutely incorrect (this is one thing all the members of the Security council would be able to agree on). It has either been done out of ignorance of the situation, or represents an attempt to push a Turkish point of view. Either way, for the sake of accuracy, the TRNC should not be in the the main list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the notes you will see, that it is clearly stated that the TRNC is just recognized by Turkey. Although I wouldn't mind shifting it (together with Taiwan) in a separate category, I nevertheless think it is perfectly NPOV the way how it is currently presented in the main list. Gugganij (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is pretty much NPOV, so there's no reason to change it now. Moreover, if it were changed the Vatican would have to be moved too.Konekoniku (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but noting that it is only recognised by Turkey is still misrepresenting the argument. The TRNC has actually been declared illegal by the Security Council. (This is fundamentally different from Kosovo, which has not been declared legal or illegal by the Security Council.) It should not be accorded any formal legitimcy by inclusion in the list of states, even if this is footnoted. Its inclusion is most certainly an attempt to push a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, why do you think the UNSC has the final word on whether or not countries exist?Konekoniku (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New lists are not very useful.

The older lists, seperating, approval, negotiations and refusal were much better than the current list! please undo these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.196.5 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments.--Scotchorama (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

  Kosovo

  States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States which have stated they intend to recognise formally Kosovo as independent.

  States with undecided, unclear or ambiguous positions.

  States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations.

  States which have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States with no reported position at present.

In order to make the article more "understandable", the comprehensive map should also (at least) be used. It is virtually used by all orther WP langage versions. And unlike the English version, the image is vecorized. --Camptown (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the old map was more useful. However the categories should be reduced to :

• 1) has recognized
• 2) has started he process of recognition
• 3) has not recognized

The other sub-categories lead to endless edit-wars over how to interpret statements by offcials.

Passportguy (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Thank you! --Tubesship (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is more or less the current map. Blue - has recognized. Grey - has not recognized. --Avala (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala, you are misrepresenting the situation. Not recognised and refused to recognise are two very different things. By presenting them as one, you are in fact suggesting that many states have not recognised because they have not started the formal process of recognition. It is important to note that many countries have stated openly and officially that they do not intend to recognise the unilateral declaration of independence.Special:JL (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Or you can have the following categories:

1) Has recognized 2) Said they will recognize 3) Neutral or ambigous 4) No Response 5) Considers the move a threat to Territorial Integrity or Will not recognize unless the security council recognizes it. 6) Called the move Illegal and Will not recognize it.

I think with better explanations there will be no more edit wars or arguments. 64.105.27.56 (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SWEDEN DID IT

Look: http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ Sweden recognised today, the 4th of March. Tak Sverige! --Tubesship (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM--Avala (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but Wikipedia found the right sources almost an hour before "kosovothanksyou.com". --Camptown (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see this is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&diff=195807220&oldid=195807006 at 15:00 there was no Sweden in the recognised list as I posted this. And my link is indeed reliable as they always include the recognition text so that everybody can be assured it is nothing faked. --Tubesship (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP was updated only seconds after the Swedish government announced its decision, i.e. 30 minutes before Kosovothanksyou.com. However, unlike kosovothanksyou.com, wp is subject to some revisionists who are not always 100% content with the realities and possibly found the Swedish decision too biased to be included here... --Camptown (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is edited by only 2 Kosovars wherease wikipedia by a ton. 128.206.160.99 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Kosovothanksyou is not a reliable source. They state Tuvalu will recognize Kosovo just to populate the list. Sorry --Avala (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

just had to whine! it's spelled "Tack", Tak = ceiling/roof :p Chandlertalk 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

"BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) - The prime minister said Tuesday that Hungary will recognize Kosovo's declaration of independence, but he did not name a date for doing so, reflecting the concern of some officials over the harm it could do to relations with Serbia and Russia."

http://www.pr-inside.com/hungary-faces-delicate-balance-with-russia-r469512.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.160.6 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is more and more vague as time goes on. The violent reaction of the Serbs is frightening - they will probably attack the 250'000 Hungarians living in Vojvodina. No other country has so much reason to fear of Serbia's reaction like Hungary. Zello (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious? The chance of Serbia attacking Hungary is the same as Hungary attacking Austria. --Avala (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Hungary itself but the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina. This means about 250'000 people who are basically unprotected in case of violence. We all know what Serbian militias are able to do in a situation like this. I'm serious, and Kinga Göncz, Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed her concern also. Zello (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda that some politicians are running in Hungary doesn't necessarily correspond to the truth. --Avala (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The fears are real that Vojvodina can be the next place of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Hungary delayed the recognition until the emotions ease up in Serbia. I don't see any propaganda here, after the past 15 years you can't claim that ethnic cleansing is totally impossible in former Yugoslavia. Zello (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungary should be in the countries section. 128.206.48.6 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Australia

is missing from the list... —Nightstallion 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's there but it was hidden with a symbol left behind TRNC. --Avala (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New map

Map of countries that have recognized Kosovo independence; intend to do so; or explicitly reject Kosovo independence.

  Kosovo

  States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent.

  States which have stated they intend to recognise formally Kosovo as independent.

  States which have stated they will not recognise Kosovo as independent.

Could this be a workable compromise? Includes only states with clear positions for or against the unilateral declaration of independence. --Camptown (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, if you fix some obvious untruths (with regard to the legend used): The states of Armenia, Cuba or Bosnia and Hercegovina have not announced (nor have their foreign minsiters announced) that these countries will not recognize Kosovo; only some influential politicians within those countries or sub-state entities have gone on record opposing it, and in the case of Armenia, that an official decision will be announced in the future. So, coloring these countries red constitutes OR/synthesis and is an extrapolation into the future, even if that's the way to bet in the cases of Bosnia and Cuba (Armenia can well go either way, depending on the escalating confict over Nagorno Karabah with Azerbaijan). And, perhaps the coloring of the "will-recognize" states should be a very light shade of green? Incidentally, the added on the Kosovo_relations.svg/.png maps Uruguay, marked there already as an officially nonrecognizing state in red, is not justified by the content of the reference used -- this Spanish-language reference is a "sources say"/"according to the informant" type press rumor, and not a notice of official state action. Just thought you should know this. Oh, and vectorize the map as an SVG graphic, so that modern browser users (Opera, SeaMonkey, Firefox, Safari, even IE7 with a plug-in) can have the benefit of blowing up the map to examine small areas (such as Kosovo :) or Pacific islands, or details within Europe or Asia). --Mareklug ^talk Updated and augmented. --Mareklug ^talk 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of repeating the same thing - countries that do not recognize have NO obligation to publish an official document of this. They are not legally or anyhow obliged to do so. They don't have to adopt a parliament decision. President does not have to sign a decree. They don't need to make it official as they legally consider the situation unchanged. These countries are not obliged to publish anything at all. I hope I made it clear now after 20 or so times explaining this. --Avala (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay? How do you justify your coloring Uruguay red and writing (which I since corrected) that "Uruguay does not recognize", sourcing you edits with a Spanish-language website which clearly says "the informant said" and "sources say", without naming any official or claiming any state action. Your edits, again, are of unsubstantiated sort and downright false. --Mareklug ^talk 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to state that I prefer this map to the one currently posted. In addition, I believe that the list in the article should be organized in a similar manner to denote countries that intend to recognize and countries that have stated they will not recognize. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It also solves current edit disputes since it only lists countries that have firmly stated that they recognize, plan to recognize, or will absolutely not recognize. There map does NOT interpret ambiguous government statements. What it does is provide accurate info to readers. And it allows informed readers to see the obvious patterns among both recognizing and anti-recognition states. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't solve anything. You are simply trying to make it look that Kosovo has more support and less opposition then it actually does, thus making the article entirely POV and against Wikipedia standards. Also countries like China, that called Kosovo's move "illegal" get colored the same as counties that have no position at all. So by removing the original map, you are saying that "illegal" is the same as no position and leading the readers away from the truth. This article in this state is bullshit 68.166.135.163 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with comment above. It's important to show on maps countries which we have any information vs. totally unknown. --TAG (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How does including the countries that officially refuse to recognize Kosovo POV? That is basic facts. Countries with ambiguous positions should not be included on the map but should be left grey. However, countries, like Russia, that absolutely refuse to recognize Kosovo, are no ambigious. If anything, leaving them off promotes a pr-independence POV since it hides such opponents among neutrals/ambiguous/unknown. Oh, and as to China, it did not explicitly join Russia in refusing to recognize. Thus, for purposes of the map it cannot be included. Its statement that the move was illegal, however, can be represented on the list. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, map must show undecided vs. unknown to Wikipedia. As example for Angola we have no any information, while we have opinion of Canada Prime Minister. Those should be colored different color - because Angola can be on any side of conflict, while Canada is clearly neutral. Maybe this can be different levels of gray color. --TAG (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

“ The stark memories of the atrocities committed in the 1990s in Kosovo are such that any reconciliation with Serbia in the near future is highly unlikely.

In these particular circumstances, especially the history of ethnic cleansing, and combined with the fact that we were active participants in the NATO mission, Canada would be justified in according recognition to Kosovo.

On balance, we should do so. ” —  Toronto Globe and Mail, Opinion, 2 March 2008 , Eddie Goldenberg, chief of staff in 2003 and senior policy adviser from 1993 to 2003 to former prime minister Jean Chrétien

Well, let's illustrate the difficulties involved using your concrete examples of Canada and Angola: Whereas I think everyone will agree today, that we have no information whatsoever on Angola's position and intentions, Canada could be and perhaps should be designated neutral/undecided (khaki color on the maps we used before), but the editor, who colored it, colored it orange for who knows what reasons; certainly, its government has very carefully been saing all along that it is studying the issue, when it has been saying anything at all. To butress the call that Canada belongs in the same color category as China, a commentary about separatism in Quebec by a former prime minister is sourced in the article (because, obviously, it was impossible to get any current government official to say anything substantive on the subject [6]). Yet, equally justifiably, if not more, based on recent influential press statements (editorials) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and statements of the opposition party's leader, Stephane Dion [17], and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who doesn't see recognizing Kosovo's independence as implying anything in the matter of independent Quebec [18], Canada should be perhaps colored light blue, as eventually recognizing. Take a look at this important opinion, quoted on the left, of the chief aide and foreign policy architect of the very same former prime minster quoted to justify orange coloring of Canada on the map, and see if you don't think it persuasively signals expert Canadian opinion, that Canada is really a light blue state.--Mareklug ^talk 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There should just be just three categories: a) recognised, b) refuse to recognise, and c) undeclared. States that have said that they will recognise will remain in the third category until such time as the process is finished, just as those states that oppose independence but have not issued a formal statement to this effect would as well. This would be the fairest and most accurate system. Russia's outright rejection deserves to be noted just as much as the US position to recognise. Also, can I ask that the colours be changed. I am colour blind and the red and green are difficult to tell apart. JL (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Three categories seem reasonable to me. 141.166.243.146 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and whoever made this map needs to update it: Iceland and Slovenia have recognized. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, I agree that coloring Canada with orange was wrong. But how about different shades of gray ? Gray color is often used to describe "gray areas" in black and white world ? It will be informative to show countries not involved at all in conflict. --TAG (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

Why is Pakistan in light blue? There is no reference stating that they intend to recognise Kosovo as independent. This is just someones POV. Thats why the map was changed Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The map is based on the Commons version (Image:Kosovo relations.svg), currently used by many WP editions. If Pakistan does not intend to recognize Kosovo, the map should be corrected accordingly. --Camptown (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Greece is not included in any of the three categories related to this map. --17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry about greece, i read the map wrong. i should have maximized it. however it is containing other users POV and that is not what whikipedia is about its meant to have a NPOV Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to be a litte more constructive. What exactly is POV with the new map? --Camptown (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Its based on what other users believe a countries position is rather than it being based on fact Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to be more specific than that. What exactly is POV? --Camptown (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV is someone point of view. Now it is somebodys point of view on Pakistan intending to recognising Kosovo and it is also someones point of view is Kosovo explicitly doesn't recognise Kosovo because there are no sources backing it up, and thats because there isn't any. Your map contains these points of view. Therefore is not NPOV which it should be. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the quality of this image which is horrible. You can't even distinguish borders between countries. --Avala (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV is when User A says that Pakistan should be grey and User B says it should be blue. Then the edit war starts. The easiest way to stop this is to include only countries that have officially recognized. --Avala (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. The page was locked for 2 days last time after an edit war. I shouldn't happen again. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

African Union flags

Just out of curiosity, why aren't we showing flag icons for members of the African Union, since we show them for the EU and OIC states? I think we should include them. --RobNS 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a European issue not African. Also the AU has not said anything on the matter of Kosovo declaring independence unlike the OIC and EU. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is because Kosovo or Serbia are not and will never be AU members. --Avala (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But will they ever be OIC members? If not, why are OIC flags shown? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Because Kosovo Albanians are 99% Muslim. Albania and BiH are members of the OIC if I remember correctly. --Tocino 07:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Senegal for example in the list should also have the African Union flag. 128.206.160.99 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Well Albania is a OIC member, and since Kosovo is 92% Albanian, yes Kosovo may become a OIC member.

The African Union has nothing to do with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Map?

Why are on this map only countries that recognize Kosovo? And why are countries that don't recognize Kosovo & undecided countries in same table?

Why don't you check out previous discussion on this subject and answered questions before opening a new section? --Avala (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They might be in the same "table" because they all have in common, not recognizing Kosovo? Chandlertalk 13:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Or they might be in the same table (or chart, or list, or whatever we wish to call it today) because individuals like the above posters are too lazy (or POV?) to differentiate countries have announced they will not recognize Kosovo from countries that have not recognized Kosovo but have NOT announced categorically that they will or will not recognize in the future. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel section misspell? Uruguay or its government members have NOT made any statements (no basis for claiming, that it ALREADY rejected independent Kosovo)

In the Israel section it says "Wary of Palestinin declaration of independence" Should this say "Palestinian"? 72.248.122.243 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, by removing the phrase - it was restated more precisely later in the sentence. Also made Uruguay's evidence conform with the actual content of the source used to make that call. Those, who can't read Spanish, can use the Babelfish web translator to convince themselves of the veracity of my say. --Mareklug ^talk 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Purge please

The page is way too long. At least 2/3 of it need to be Archived. JosipMac (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once I did that someone reverted it. --Avala (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I support this. Hobartimus (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some archiving, but it will probably be considered POV and biased and accordingly reverted before nobody will notice... --Camptown (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia

The bullshit of this article continues to astound me. For instance the Russian-supported Sukhumi gov't. is the legitimately elected government in which most Abkhaz people voted, and it controls all of, (not most of as mistankely stated) Abkhazia. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Although this is off-topic: a quick glance at the article on Abkhazia will learn you that the separatists and their Russian allies control 83% of the Abkhaz territory and that the fact that more than half of the original population (among which around 200.000 ethnic Georgians) has been expelled might contribute to the high percentage of pro-Russians. MaartenVidal (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral article, part 2

All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list. You have a problem with them not officialy yeling at the whole world and saying they are against independence like the US and 4/5 of the EU are doing. They are talking non-stop about parliament decisions and their goverments positions on the pro-independence decision. But you are constantly removing the countries that are against independence because their parlament didn't said so, because their president or prime-minister didn't said so. The thing is they cann't all say so openly they are against, because then they will be attacked by the US or some other pro-independence country for taking that position. We have to rely on statements from the press like in the case of Uruguay, or ministers like in the case of Cuba. Fidel Castro himself has said he is against independence for Kosov, and now some people are not letting Cuba on to the list of those that are against independence because Fidel Castro is not president anymore so it is not an "official" statement. First of all Fidel was still president at the time when Kosovo said they are independent, so what does that tell you, also he was president of Cuba for 50 years and if you think he is not running the country still then you are a MORON. No offence. Also as for China, and you know which China I am talking about the Red China because there is no other, Taiwan is not accepted by the international comunity to be independent and doesn't have a seat in the UN. Back to the topic, as for China like user 68.166.135.163 said, China stated that Kosovo's unilateral declaration was "illegal" and because they said it is illegal and didn't say they are against independence you do not want to put China on the list of anti-independence. C'mon people, illegal, what do you think they are trying to say. I know this is a very hot topic but as for the anti-independence countries you just have to read between the lines. And also stop attacking editors that are against the independence of Kosovo, none of them have attacked the pro-independence editors. Stop attacking editors like Tocina, Camptown, Avala and me. And I am specificly telling this to users GreenClawPristina, Mareklug (who is the greatest violator of all) and user Ijanderson977. And this is on a personal note to Ijanderson977, I saw your user page, where do you come off representing yourself as a Marxist. You probably don't have an idea what Marxism is realy. A real Marxist wouldn't be doing what you are doing. And you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who realy doesn't know what he is talking about.(Top Gun)

Now I even see Japan in the no column, though I have not heard anything from the Japanese MOFA in about 2-3 weeks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what column is that? The article only lists Japan in the table presently titled "states that do not formally recognize independent Kosovo", together with the likes of Russia. :) And the 3, properly sourced and attributed personally to named Japanese officials, utterances on the subject of recognizing Kosovo's independence by Japan, in the "Evidence" column, taken together unequivocally indicate that the country plans on recognizing, but will take its time doing so. Apparently, they are being true to their word. In what way is any of this violating NPOV, the allegation made in this section of the talk page, or countered by verified sources? If contradictory information can be sourced, by all means, please add it to the Evidence column. And the map used in the artifcle at the present time certainly makes no indication of "yes" on the part of Japan, since it is displayed in gray, not dark green. The other maps show it in light blue, as intending to recognize, which is consistent with the Evidence column's content. Your point? --Mareklug ^talk 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That I personally don't like the changes of the format and the constant moving of the title. But as for my personal issues with regards of Japan and Kosovo, I keep them outta here and in my blog. On here, I just wish editors can make up their minds and figure out how to sort this out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally find that the article is starting to look pretty good. The categories are based on facts, not on speculation, adn are verifiable. this avoids any POV-pushing. I was one of those who at first wanted several categories, but this suits me as it is encyclopaedic and factualy. We seem to have gotten rid of most "dodgy" entities, sports federations are separate, and the views of separatist movements are taken into account. I'm happy with it: perhaps a vote would simplify discussions and give legitimacy to the current article?--Scotchorama (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TopGun. I think that the way information is sorted is incorrect and biased. I accept that this is a highly political issue. But just as recognition is important, so are statements explicitly rejecting the unilateral declaration of indepedence. A fair system, and an accurate system, would have three categories: a) recognised, b) refuse to recognise, and c) undeclared. I really think that this would actually serve the purposes of the article far better than the current system. Russia is not simply a country that does not recognise Kosovo. It is a country that has actively rejected the declaration as illegal. Surely this deserves to be recognised as an important position. The current position is in fact biased. JL (talk)

I agree with TopGun.Vladar86 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey TopGun. Theres no need getting all personnel with me. Just calm down mate, go watch an episode of Star Trek or sumet, release all your anger by watching fictional aliens getting killed yeh. Theres no need to discriminate against me because of my age and saying "you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who really doesn't know what he is talking about." thats just fascist and not a very nice think to say. Its a bit like me saying "you have no right here, because your Serbian and this is English Wikipedia, not Serbian Wikipedia" But luckily im not like that. I think its fair for me to say that we should all be equal here and ive got as much right to be here as you do. I thought you knew about the 5 pillars of wikipedia, as its mentioned at the top of user talk page. Obviously not. Also please stop criticizing me for things you don't even know about me. Have you got any evidence to suggest that i don't know what i'm talking about? Because i would love to see it. And Ive not been attacking any of them users you have named. In fact ive been working with Avala, and im pretty sure Avala will back me up when i say I'm neutral on this article. One last thing TopGun, if you have any problems just let me know. I'll help you out, you can have my shoulder to cry on. Cheers mate x x x x x x x x x x x
Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link for pakistan

According to this [19], Pakistan supports independence. It doesn't, however, say that they have formally recognized it.

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

Ecclesiastic group

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

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

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

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

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

Article reported as NPOV (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

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

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

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

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

And this is my reply on the noticeboard:

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

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

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

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

The map

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

Björk

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

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

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

justice !


warmth , björk. ” —  4 March, 2008

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

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

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

I did not misspell her name - [20] but I guess you have run out of ideas what to accuse me for. I suggest you add it to the article and I promise that I will not remove it so we can see for how long will it stay there. --Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Slovenia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iceland

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

There is no need to do that. You can find the official source at the Iceland Foreign Affairs Ministry at [21] ... --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC) ICELAND DID RECOGNIZE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA AND THE PDF DOCUMENT IS A GOVERNMENT RELEASED DOCUMENT.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore old map and tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another compromise proposal

Reading through the above I see two main arguments :

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

File:CountriesRecognizingKosovoCompromise.png

I have made a map which includes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative

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

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

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

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

Block quote

Pusic: Recognition this month

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I understand you are Albanian who think everything that is not pro-interdependent in world is Serbian propaganda, but that doesn't make it so. You represent yourself like 'lord of the ring fan' but you din't made any edit about that subject. Your edits are only about Kosovo, Albanians, Albania... You don't care about wikipedia and neutrality, YOU are hire to spread Albanian propaganda! let go back to a subject. Section is about "Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations" that means every religious organization in the world. Most organization why made statement are listed. Roman Catolic Church did make statement but it is listed under Vatican city in states section because it can be in both places. NOT all orthodox churches support Serbia, there is 15 autonomous and 10 autonomous churches and only 6 made statement! How is "6 of 25=all"? Did user: JosipMac just compared Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople with World of Warcraft community!? I think that just prove my point. Rules of wikipedia state that everyone has right to edit it, but this is just ridicules Vladar86 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

kosovothanksyou.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The country tabels that explain the map

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

Serbian Islamic Community quote

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

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

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

Other separatist entities

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

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

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

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

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

Other relevant enteties

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

Stop the Taiwan/ROC Edit War

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

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

Stop Vladar's propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh wow, burned and destroyed churches - I'm having a sudden deja vu. What a coincidence, that's exactly what Serbs did 15 years ago. But I'm sure you'll find excuses of why it is fine and dandy when Serbs do that, but completely wrong when someone else does it to you. You're having a taste of your own medicine now. Enjoy. JosipMac (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you insist that you are not shqiptar, give me a break. I admit that I am shka Vladar86 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Finland

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

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

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

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

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

Croatia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(xth of 27 EU member states)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tunisia

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

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

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

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

Russia's position

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

UN member state positions

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

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

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

CIA Factbook updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montenegro

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

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

What's Happening

Source 131 to Phillipines does not work.

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

Taiwan again

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

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

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

POV Heading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koštunica

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

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

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

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

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

Taiwan again....

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

This has been discussed ad nauseum.

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