Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Um what?

I appreciate that editors can sometimes be enthuastic, but remember we are an encylopaedia. We are supposed to report things accurately and can afford to wait since there is no deadline. As such, we should NOT be saying that countries have recognised Kosovo when the articles we are using specifically say the countries have NOT yet recognised Kosov. Recognition is a very formal process and it can't just happen on a whim. As it stands, After removing countries which were just reported as likely to recognise Kosov, I was left with 2 countries which we at least had official statements where it was stated they were going to recognise Kosovo. Not wanting to leave an empty list, I changed the header to 'countries that are expected to recognise'. This is far from ideal, but seems the best solution. IMHO, the best bet would have been to wait until we actually had something to add to the list before creating it, but perhaps that's just me... Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, we should wait. How about a section for countries expected to recognize Kosovo, to dissuade other editors from inserting unofficial recognitions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to wait, at least until Monday - Tuesday since things should be a lot clearer after that but I won't remove anything which is accurate and sourced. (Actually I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia recently so I probably won't be removing anything) Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

May be useful

Not a reliable source but I came across this [1] Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll plug "kosovo+countryname" into Google News for a few of those and see if I can find reliable sources for any of them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

China

what about china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia

I have removed Bosnia from the list as there two articles give contradictory statements. This article says they will not recognise soon, while this says they will recognise Kosovo. Davewild (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan has also recognized Kosovo. Should this be included? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.223.232 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot find any reference that it has recognised Kosovo. This just says they have congratulated Kosovo. If they do recognise Kosovo then I think they should be included in the list. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Its likely they would like to recognize, given their similar situation with China. However Taiwan has a long history of non-official political stances. Find a definite source if one ever materializes --Lemmey (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure the ROC (Taiwan) is in only one section. It cannot be a will country and a has country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.122.240 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think only UN recognized nation should included in the list, otherwise Northern Cyprus, Principality of Sealand can. Matthew_hk tc 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And for my Chinese ability, it is not a formal one. Matthew_hk tc 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It use 恭賀 congratulates and in the news section reported the "independence", but seems non of the proper words for formal recognization. Or it already cause war between GMD and Democratic Progressive Party. Matthew_hk tc 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a delicate problem. The country was one of the first to recognize Kosovo, but the question is whether Kosovo will ever recognize Taiwan.... --Camptown (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another argument, diplomatic relaion need both side, but Kosovo recognize Taiwan may not a dream due to trade and PRC reaction. Matthew_hk tc 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If we consider the long-lasting recognition duel between the mainland and the island of Taiwan, it is not a surprise for me to see Taiwan's fast recognition of Kosovo. The government of Taiwan itself hopelessly needs some power in the world arena in order to survive. I can say that Kosovo is a valuable card for Taiwan, at least it is more publicly known than the little countries which Taiwan is recognized in. The world is divided into two camps on the Kosovo issue, just like it used to do back in the good old days of the 20th century. Deliogul (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IRELAND

At TV said that Ireland recognised the first Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.223.232 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a concrete reference to look at? We can't really use TV as a source. —Kurykh 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Its Sunday. I don't know a gov't in the world that works on Sunday. (except maybe the Vatican). The TV probably misstated recognize for will recognize.--Lemmey (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Kosovo gov't, hence all of this. :) —Kurykh 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland has NOT yet recognised Kosovan independence. It is expected to do so but no official recognition has yet been given. MacTire 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Section headings

Please stop dividing the opposition category into "stated" and "reluctant". It's impossible to demonstrate reluctance, and the BBC and Xinhua sources actually say "oppose" for the countries they cite. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Solution for reluctant. Nations that are expected to recognize in under a week should be expected. Nations that have no official stance (Czech Republic) go in the Other section. Nations that are expected to recognize after a longer period (Japan) go in the Other section. --Lemmey (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

British English

As this is a European subject, it should be in British English, meaning all the "recognize"s should be "recognise". Does anyone object? J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There, done. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with totally, you should change it. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute — "Recognize" is the spelling of the OED. It is something of a misconception that the -ize suffix is an Americanization. Of course a lot of British publication now use the ise ending… Evil Monkey - Hello 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Take that redcoat. Oh beg your pardon, what I meant to say was Burn--Lemmey (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merriam Webster agree with recognise. The Free Dictionary lists the spelling, but doesn't mention it being British/American. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading around a little, I see both are acceptable, but -ise is in much wider use in Britain, meaning that it makes sense to use that in this article. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the ise VS ize wiki entry - "ize" is not an americanism, and is the preferred spelling of OED. Changing a correct spelling to another correct spelling seems, uh, sub-optimal. I'm not going to revert it back because that'd be even more sub-optimal. But please please please, if someone does revert please leave it. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR says it doesn't really matter. But I agree that we should not edit war on which one to use - that would be stupid. BalkanFever 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

From what I can tell, the Swedish constitution makes no reference to UN approval being necessary before recognition. The Tom (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, claiming that that is why they are not recognising constitutes original research. Such comments should be reverted. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Firs Wave, Second Wave

This is what the analysts are discussing all day on the news in Serbia and Macedonia. Albania, Austria and Irland are to be in the fist wave, The rese of EU and US in the second wave... i think that since the article is List of countiries that have recognised Kosovo, it is important to state that NO COUNTRIES have done it officialy. And since wikipedia is not an oracle, there can not be a section with ... will recognize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.236.123 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BH

Someone should find a source I can't. The Presidency has just concluded its decision and declared it to the public. The Bosniac and Croat representatives have agreed to not recognize independence of Kosovo without approval of the Serb representative. In return, the Serb representative has guaranteed the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and reaffirmed the country's sovereignty, denouncing possibilities of separatism. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

Why has the first two sections of the article have the same name? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is developing very quickly. That problem appears to be dealt with now. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway

According to one of the biggest Norwegian newspapers, Aftenposten, Norway will not decide what to do before they have seen what other states will do, both in the EU and NATO. Norway will also consult their Nordic nabours, according to the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre. Erik2sen (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

they haven't said any single world, have they?. the source was from a year ago, and it's likely they changed their mind. Maybe you should includes it to the other states.--w_tanoto (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved Indonesia from countries not recognising to the other states, per this: http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/18/ri-yet-to-recognize-kosovo-independence/ --w_tanoto (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's "recognition", and then there's Recognition.

Diplomatic recognition is not carried out by prime ministers talking into microphones, or even by foreign affairs ministries issuing press releases. It is an international legal process, built on centuries of protocol, that requires the formal transmission of a diplomatic note.

Yes, Australia, Ireland and a few other states have been pretty explicit about their intent to recognize. But it is not one and the same as recognition. It will happen, but hasn't happened yet, so be patient. The Tom (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that some people don't understand you.

They have, they plan, they have, they plan...... Call that an edition war in France :( Kormin (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but the Wikipedia I am aware of works on sources, and our sources seem to say they recognise... J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland will recognize Kosovo. will. Future tense. The Tom (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry, I was being too snappy. Apologies to anyone who I offended, I agree this works better, but I just really don't want to say 'will recognise' when they already have. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I imagine there'll be followup news stories (there were when Montengro went through the process), or alternately the Kosovan foreign ministry will make much of it each time they get a note. Montenegro actually had a web page where they displayed scanned copies of them. The Tom (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Prime Minister said Australia "would offer official diplomatic recognition in the near future ... would extend recognition at the earliest opportunity".[2] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

A map would look good on this page. Any offers? 87.114.129.209 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many changes in the next 48 hours. Give it a week. --Lemmey (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a map would be a brilliant idea, but, sadly, it would change far, far too quickly. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded one. (Recognition of Kosovo.png) 1.618033989 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Kosovo recognition.svg

Even though I know it will probably change by the hour, I threw together this quick map, though it needs to be modified since it does not have Kosovo as separate, nor highlight Serbia. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on a map, but with contradicting edits every 2 minutes, it's impossible to keep one up to date at all times. A Max J (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I see no reason to have both this article and Foreign relations of Kosovo. There is not enough content to justify them to be separate. For example Foreign relations of Montenegro also includes the countries that recognize it. J Milburn, that was extremely rude to make that comment and remove the tag citing that there are more important issues. Reywas92^Talk 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is linked very prominently on the main page, and is attracting a lot of traffic. I am not opposed to the idea of discussing a merge, I am just opposed to the hideous tag. Apologies if I caused any offense, that's the second aggressive comment I have made tonight... J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not here Discussion has already started at Talk:Foreign relations of Kosovo#Merge. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm isn't that discussion for that other thingy there? NikoSilver 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WP:RUDE. If a move is made I think the list of non-recogniZing nations it as important as the recogniZing ones. --Lemmey (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to use American spelling on the talk page, there's no need to show off the fact that you are doing so... J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The declaration of independence just happened today, and the UN and EU are still debating the issue. I urge that you allow events to unfold first. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support I'm sorry, but what's the connection between event unfolding and where we put them? To my knowledge there's no such article for any other country. I can also propose we can templatize the list, and include a copy to Foreign relations of Kosovo#States that have recognized the Republic of Kosovo to satisfy both sides. What says you? NikoSilver 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge The reactions associated with the independence declaration are sufficiently notable and verifiable to have a separate article. Superm401 - Talk 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Could we not have straw polls at two places at the same time? —Kurykh 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the other one for another thing? It says merge 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence with Foreign relations of Kosovo. Two different articles. Boy, we got three now! NikoSilver 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Thanks You Webiste

www.kosovothanksyou.com say that the following countries recognize Kosovo:

Albania Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Fiji Finland France Germany Greece Greenland Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kuwait Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia, FYR Malaysia Malta Mauritania Monaco Montenegro Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Poland Portugal Saudi Arabia Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden Switzerland Tonga Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu United Kingdom United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.255.18 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It also says that it is the Republic of KOSAVA not the Republic of KOSOVO

Even that (non-official) source says they will. NikoSilver 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is also unreliable. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia declarated that it will not recognize independet Kosovo. Czech Republic´s president Václav Klaus said that he disagree with indepedence of Kosovo - note that he is honor chairman of main coalition party ODS. Greece also declarated that it will not recognize independent Kosovo so your source is untrustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

There's no such thing as "states that have recognised" (past tense). The title is WP:CRYSTALBALL at best. Also, the article needs to be merged with Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#States_that_have_recognized_the_Republic_of_Kosovo (For the love of God, see the name of that section!). Now would be a good time. Main page can be always corrected. I'm saying this is not controversial. It's merely an editorial view (the first one IS though). NikoSilver 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move or merge, take your pick. I added {{POV-title}} (which is double "hideous", but -sadly- very applicable. NikoSilver 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just move it to a more appropriate title, I offer no objection. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title as long as it's not needlessly complex or just plain dumb. But I do have an issue with the merge, which I've registered elsewhere. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo ? Can be neutral, no ?Kormin (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag and fixed the double redirect from the main page (there may be more) and now, I'm going to bed. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. There can't be a neutral title as of yet. A neutral title should take consideration of what I say in my move summary,[3] and I can't see that happening (unless the title has the size of a train). NikoSilver 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "List of countries by diplomatic status with Kosovo" or "List of international recognitions of Kosovo"? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The former implies there are two kinds of statuses. The latter implies there is one (recognition). Both are POV, so the article should have simply not been created before the first recognition. BTW, the merge above is where we need the feedback mostly, because it solves it (ergo title becomes "Foreign relations of Kosovo", which is by far the most neutral). How about templatizing it as I said above? (reply above for continuity) NikoSilver 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia reference

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971916/posts

Copypasted from a different article I've seen elsewhere that was also not a reliable source. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Security Council update

Times of India has a report on the meeting. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

European Union

Is the EU itself expected to take a stand on official recognition? Is the EU in the business of recognizing states? What sort of permission from its members would it need?

I'm asking because the article states that Croatia and the Czech Republic are waiting on the EU before making a decision. скоморохъ 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the EU is having a meeting sometime today to discuss the Kosovo situation Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is having a meeting today in order to reach a common stand on the status. But the recognition is in hands of each country (parliament/government, whatever the case). --Tone 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU works in the following way, effectively every country is free to make its own derisions, the EU can only speak out what has been agreed by all member states. If all EU members where intending to recognise Kosova then the EU would state its recognition, however it would also be up to each member state to recognise it formally. If even one EU country had flat out opposed any of this then the EU could not take any stance on the issue at all. What will happen (has happend), is that all EU countries will agree to support the effort to secure peace and rights and freedom in Kosova, but not all countries will agree to formally recognise it. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a policy for this...

Namely, WP:NOT#CBALL... Unless an article is written about the dates on which various countries recognized the independence of the US (for example), this list falls outside the guidelines... Tomer^talk 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With a smidge of WP:IAR and a dash of Exemption 1 of the guideline you've cited, we've whipped up a valid article, one made even more valid tomorrow. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i doub tit , Hemlock. this article si going to be a source of violent constroversy over the next few week and for the sake of peace it woul d be better perhaps if it was speedily-deleted. i have already been forced to go into an indept review because a lot of sources don't actually say what the article pretends like their are saying and it is getting on my nerves. Smith Jones (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Every article written on Kosovo from here until the end of time, from sports to cooking to education is "going to be a source of violent controversy," shall we then speedily-delete them all? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

you dont knowthat. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you dont know what will happen after creating article until after creating the article and watching the flalout. Already after the creation of this article there is going rto be a special session of the UN to discuss it. After Russia fucks that up what yout do think is goingto happen? Major diplomatic fallout and possibly military prosturing to try and get Kosovo abck inside Serbia. people could die. which is why we have to report things during or after they happen instead of making wild speculation based on a handful of sources that some of them dont even match. Smith Jones (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Watch your POV and your mouth. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello pot, meet kettle. Tomer^talk 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I defy you to qualify your snide remark. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to qualify yours. Better yet, work on improving something or contributing to constructive discussion. Thanks, Tomer^talk 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this "article" is in its very name... there are no criteria outlined for inclusion, so everything is dumped into it, without regard to the unasked question "Expected ... by whom?" Then we find in the list a section for countries "planning" recognition, among which I've only taken the time to examine the sources cited for the USA, and found that neither of them indicates that the USA has made any statement regarding recognition... although 3 Democrats have said that they'd like to see the US recognize Kosovo. In fact, from what I can see, the only entity "expecting" the US to recognize Kosovo is Reuters! That certainly doesn't qualify for the bald assertion that the US is planning to recognize Kosovo. Tomer^talk 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan

[4] This should be taken into account in the Japan section. Contralya (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the Japan section expanded for a while, but it seems to have been cut down since. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not to" vs "other"

Their difference is oblique. Some on the "not to" list have reasons to not do it 'at the time being' yet some on the "other" list are about the same. --Leladax (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

planning to not recognize v. countries that have stated that they don't recognize

The head of the section shouldn't be contries planning not to recognize or contries planning to not recognize. Those countries (Russia, Spain, etc.), have, according to the sources, already stated that they DON'T recognize the declaration of independence, and that they support Serbia's claim of territorial integrity. So, this is not a plan to not recognize, this is already the action of not granting recognition.

And we must remember that, under international law, only the recognition is a formal act, since the decision is made in writing, according to a certain protocol, etc. The act of not granting recognition, on the other hand, does not require such formalities. A country that does not recognize Kosovo need not reply to the Kosovar appeals for recognition, since they do not acknowledge the Kosovar "authorities" seeking recogition as having diplomatic status. Thus, such country can merely deny recongition by making an explicit statement of that position, for instance, in a press conference by the Foreign Minister, etc.

Denial of recognition works by omission, since one is not required to indicate denial by a formal document. Accordingly omission of a formal act of recognition of independence, coupled with a declaration that one does not recognize the declaration, or that one does not intend to make the act of recognition in any circumnstances, or that one support's Serbia's claim of territorial integrity, is already evidence of the decision not to recognize.

And Russia, Spain, etc, have already asserted in unequivocal terms that they do not recognize the declaration, and have indicated that they support Serbia. So, instead of saying that those countries plan not to recognize Kosovo, it should be stated that they recognize Kosovo to be a part of Serbia or that they have stated that they don't recognize Kosovar independence. --Antonio Basto (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourg

[5] Luxembourg is included in the so called 'second wave'. Contralya (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is sheer speculation. Tomer^talk 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess we will find out one way or another soon enough. Contralya (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia

This article [6] states in Latvian, that Latvia will base its decision on the decision of EU. I couldn't find a translation of the article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.243 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Latvia will recognize independece of Kosovo in next few days. Source: http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/72/articles/120828 Statement by minister of foreign affairs M.Riekstiņš. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.73.46 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Problems:

Brazil has the Cyprus

Canada has the Brazil flag

Portugal has the Canada flag

Sweden has the Portugal flag.

The templates are edit protected. I am going to fix it the old fashioned way until an admin that sees this fixes them. BalkanFever 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The icons are fine; no changes have been done to the templates. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I edited the page before I saw your comment, but I'm positive if you look at the two revisions you'll see something is wrong. BalkanFever 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the reversions, I looked at the templates; everything is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously confused here. BalkanFever 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that next to the word "Canada" you see the flag of Canada, not the flag of Brazil, I'm going to have to take your word for it, but even after I reopened my browser, I am still seeing the Brazil flag there. BalkanFever 09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you remember to WP:Bypass your cache and WP:purge wikipedia's cache? Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it works. Thanks to both of you :)BalkanFever 10:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This website will not stand the test of time

I cannot imagine that we would have this website in a few years time - can you imagine us having List of states expected to recognise Montenegro or Countries that recognise Eritrea? I suggest we have this article entitled Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Kosova), as we have for other entities. Kransky (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is fraught with problems, as has been pointed out several times above. Please contribute constructively to the discussion there, rather than creating further "crystal ball" problems with sections such as this. Thanks, Tomer^talk 11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As an afterword, let me say, when I first found this shoddy excuse for an article, my reaction was much the same as yours. Being something of a purist I regarded this article as an affront to the high standards I hold for Wikipedia. I have, however, come to understand the relatively relaxed attitude many people have apparently adopted with respect to it... give it a few days and the orgy of advocacy will go away. The single-issue anons will disappear back to whereëver it is they came from. Then the matter of what to do with the "article" can be resolved by responsible and regular editors, whether it's kept or merged can be resolved then. If it's deleted now, somebody somewhere has undoubtedly got a copy of it that they'll resurrect somewhere else. At least here the hyperbole and hypotheses are kept relatively well-restricted to a central location. For a few days the article will be completely unreliable, but that's what the tags at the top of it are for. Keep an eye on it to keep the more obvious rubbish out, but otherwise just let it run its course. Come Wednesday already, most likely, the cleanup will be able to commence in an orderly and reliable fashion. Cheers, Tomer^talk 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be merged, but given how this is in the press now and going to be rapidly changed over time, we can't do much now. But the new article title every 2 hours is making me a little bit pissed. Just pick a name already and stick with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

India

Announced won't recognize independence of Kosovo. Someone should find a source and add. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that but the source is not conclusive enough ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

Some information is needed on Iraq and other middle-eastern countries. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuba

What about Cuba. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe Cuba will recognise, as Belarus, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela... Kormin (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Belarus is siding with Russia on just general feeling, but nothing on recognition yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"planning not to..." or "planning to not..."

"Countries planning not to recognize" vs. "Countries plaining to not recognize":

As Estoy Aquí mentioned, the "to not" phrasing is awkward. Which is in part why phrasing it that way conveys an emphasis on the definitive nature of the action in question. The usual word-order "not to" would imply that these countries are planning to have no formal opinion about it one way or the other. They are, for the most part, in fact planning to have a definite formal opinion about it. Leaving it as "to not" is the best way to convey that sense in a short-hand "headline-ese" way.

But not real important, either way!

--Wikiscient (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

article name

This article should be renamed International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Kingturtle (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

...won't recognize Kosovo. Any source? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No sources yet about Kazak'... Kormin (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US recognition

The reference provided says Bush stated that "The Kosovars are now independent.". That does not constitute formal act of recognition, therefore I'm removing the US from the list of states that recognised Kosovo.

Nota bene: I'm not doing that because I hate Kosovo or something, it is quite obvious that US wil recognise Kosovo sooner or later. The problem is that order in which states recognised Kosovo is important. Therefore, please keep US off the list until it formaly recognises kosovo. Thanks, 90.157.254.177 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US has officially recognised Kosovo. See http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2008-02-18T131827Z_01_HAM534379_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOSOVO-SERBIA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-worldNews-2

find the BBC report then. Single sentence news reports aren't very helpful. "Biggest meat recall ever announced, independent source." --Lemmey (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

False about recognition

People should actually READ sources. President Bush stated that an independent Kosovo was something that he personally was for, but the USA won't immediately recognize Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

this says that the US have officially recognized kosovo --Cradel 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This: [7] says that there has been no official recognition. What the news agencies is saying that the US has recognized it, but they are only talking about bush saying he supports it. In your source, it just talks about what he said in an interview. Contralya (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts straight

There has been no official recognition from the United States yet. Bush said he is for it but it didn't come into law.

Afghanistan has indeed recognized Kosova, being the first nation to do so.[8] I thought it would be Albania. (Maybe it has to do with how Afghanistan's government came to power: NATO intervention.) Contralya (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the source: "The United States has officially recognized the former Serbian province of Kosovo's declaration of independence." So ? Kormin (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] Bush said he was for it, but there has been no official recognition. The news agencies are only talking about bush's support. It is NOT official yet. Contralya (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[10]]

"planing"

There is no such thing as "planning not to recognize". If the state says they do not recognize it that's it, they consider Kosovo to be what it was up until yesterday. And all countries that haven't specifically said they recognize Kosovo are in the group of countries that haven't recognized it. --Avala (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is wrong - it shows Afghanistan has recognized kosovo whereas it should be Pakistan that is shaded blue. ReluctantPhilosopher ([[User talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's Afghanistan that recognizes Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::But the article list says pakistan and not afghanistan! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry my mistake. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

This sounds to me like they haven't made up their mind, rather than deciding against it:

"We neither recognise nor not recognise," she said. "We are not intending to make a formal statement."

They don't explicitly say they are against it. So I guess that is why it is in purple, right? Contralya (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo", premier says and She told a news conference that "it was never the government's position to offer diplomatic recognition in such circumstances." --Avala (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My point it that that the text is confusing and self-contradictory about the subject. What is with "We neither recognise nor not recognise"? So how do we know either way? Contralya (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

France

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_1.html

France is "going to" recognize Kosovo this evening. Not done yet. Be patient ;). The same for UK and Germany. Kormin (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html According to this, they already have. MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to all others french source and the foreign ministry, France haven't yet ! http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_2.html

France is going to send the letter tonight: "Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

When the Kosovo will receive the letter, the recognition process will be ended. Not before !

I won't change anything in the article, because it's doesn't change anything, right now, tonight, or tomorrow ;) Kormin (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

France, Germany, UK

[11]This says says that they are officially planning to recognize it, but haven't yet. This looks more concrete than the US links, since it has this quote from a foreign minister: "On behalf of the United Kingdom, I can announce that the British government has decided to recognize Kosovo," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters at the end of the EU foreign ministers talks in Brussels.

The UK minister's statement has got to be more concrete than an informal statement like Bush's was. Should this be marked as official recognition? In any case, there is the link.

I also found this [12]:

-"Germany will recognise the independence of Kosovo, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

"A majority of (European Union) member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law. Germany, too, will make this step," Steinmeier said following talks among EU foreign ministers in Brussels."-

I know all of this may not be official, but it is more concrete than most of the other nations on the list of 'planning to'. Perhaps a section of text quoting the respective Minister's statements? Contralya (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Online mapping service

What about online mapping service such as Google Maps, Google Earth, Yahoo! Maps, and Live Search Maps? So far I see that Kosovo is still part of Serbia according to these websites. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those kind of maps don't get updated to state boundaries that often. And there would probably have to be UN recognition and half-a-year before it was updated. Contralya (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It took Google Maps about 2 years to update Montenegro as a separate political entity when it voted to break from the union, and that wasn't even anywhere near as controversial as Kosovo. Don't expect online maps to change overnight, or overyear. Mikebloke (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the delay that Google Maps had updating Montenegro, the lack of recognition of Kosovo should not be interpreted as a political statement. Hence, I removed the Google Maps mention from this article. Lovelac7 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Padlock needed?

There seems to be a little bit of an edit war over adding UK, Germany, France, USA, Belgium and Taiwan to the 'have recognized' list. The way I understand it, there have been statements that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and USA are confirmed to be PLANNING to recognize it, but haven't actually done it yet. Chances are they will have recognized it by a day or two from now. Should we take a vote or something? Contralya (talk)

Belgium's foreign minister Karel De Gucht just released a statement to television in which he declares he will send a KB (Royal Decision aka a law ;-) ) for the King to be signed tomorrow (http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redactie/buitenland/080218_Kosovo_EU (only for people understanding Dutch, i'm afraid))--SalaSSin (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I found this link about two other nations [13], perhaps these count? Contralya (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, "recognition" is a rather elastic concept, and most EU member states who are in the "planning", are only waiting for an official resolution by the EU council. France, Britain and others have decided not to wait for that decision. --Camptown (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this, France has announced it's recognition - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the little 'war' is still going on. Contralya (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesss!! Vote! I love votes!! Lets have a vote!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I vote that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and the US be put on the list of countries that have officially recognised Kosovo MILLANDSON (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A big yes vote on semi-protection. As a perma-anon this would lock even me out, but the sheer volatility of this article's lists make it necessary. --85.5.222.103 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US

According to this source the US has recognized (or is going to recognize) kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, US has thereby "recognized" Kosovo. The formal decisions will be where to set up the embassy to Prishtina. --Camptown (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251359.stm ) "Washington formally recognised Kosovo as a 'sovereign and independent state'." So yes, the States have recognized it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it change, really. They do not recognize Kosovo juts right now, but tomorrow, or tonight, or in 2 days ! Kormin (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[14]]

Yes, the section "planning to recognize" is probably not so fortunate. What planning implies is usually practical arrangements related to diplomatic functions etc. --Camptown (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

[15] (USA) [16] (Afghanistan)

It doesn't get much more formal than this. You can't say that they haven't after reading these, can you? Contralya (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

finally --Cradel 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC confirm that the Western Great Powers now recognise Kosovo - [17] - Germany, Italy, France, Britain and America. David (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright let's update the map then. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

The recognistion process is on the way. The french president will send the letter tonight, and the process will be complet when Kosovo governement will receive it. Not before ;) This is the administrative part of the process. So, if you are really "pointilleux", you can edit, cause France doesn't recognise Kosovo legaly, but doesn't change anything, tonight, or tommorow morning... Kormin (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

References

I'm trying to template all of the refs. If someone can lend a hand, that would be appreciated. Spencer^T♦C 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbered lists

Perhaps we should put numbered lists to know how many countries are in each section --Cradel 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only for those sections where a common view is held by those countries (i.e. the first three). -- SCZenz (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

1. Should North Cyprus be on the map?

2. Did Italy really recognize Kosovo (yet)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-union-ca02f96_1.html For Italy yes, as Germany, France and UK. Legaly not, cause the process is on the way, but right now, or tonight or tommorow change anything ;)Kormin (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it in Wednesday.

And did Latvia recognize it? Its source only says that it will. What about North Cyprus? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus can be with other reaction (like Chechnya, Québécois), but can't really count as a country ... Kormin (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And why can Taiwan? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

North Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey AND NO ONE ELSE! Kosovo will, within a few weeks, be recognised by most of the Western world including the major powers of Britain, France, America, Germany, Japan... David (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read actually what this is about and cool down. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't going to take a position on whether Kosovo is a country, it just lists which countries have recognized it as such—so I don't see how your comment helps. A relevant point for discussion would be whether Taiwan and/or North Cyrprus belong on the list of nations supporting Kosovar independence, but you seem to have missed that. Please use the talk page only for discussing how to formulate the article, not to argue. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Taiwan recognise by most country in the world ? Kormin (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 23. See Political_status_of_Taiwan#Position_of_other_countries_and_international_organizations -- SCZenz (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

typo : recognise = recognize

why is this typo never fixed --Cradel 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To amplify Chochopk's comment, it's not a typo. That's the correct spelling in many English-speaking countries. His link will explain Wikipedia's rules for dealing with this. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly recognise! David (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The first version of this article used the z-spelling [18].--84.217.113.54 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With people from the world typing in this article, you are bound to have a mixture of British and American English. It's fine for now, but probably should be British English in the near future. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I always have to remember to turn off my firefox SpellCorrector for wikipedia. It doesn't recognize recognise. --Lemmey (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania

Albania will not be the first country to recognize Kosovo. It wants a "re-unification" instead... [19] ---Camptown (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be its eventual aim (though Kosovo's constitution currently does not allow the new Republic to join any other state) but Albania will recognise Kosovo before. David (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me , albania would recognize it right away but it might cause problems , so it is awaiting other countries to do this first--Cradel 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What talks against a "re-unification" in the long term...? --Camptown (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU, the UN, everyone. It's written down as a constitutional law that Kosovo can not unify with any other country -- somehow like Austria was forbidden from unifying with Germany after WWII. —Nightstallion 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good all around source

This is a good link that talks about Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Italy and the USA recognizing Kosovo [20]. In case there were any doubts...

And by the way, should Italy be on the recognize list? It is in the list at that link.Contralya (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognistion in Europe: which one ?

In french: http://fr.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080218/twl-kosovo-independance-ue-0ef7422_5.html

So, following country will recognise Kosovo declaration: Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Slovenia, Polska, Czeck republik. They all said they began the official process.

Kormin (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam

What about the middle east? This link makes it look like a lot of middle eastern nations are going to recognize Kosovo: [21] Contralya (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the OIC under International Organizations. For individual countries, we'll have to wait for individual announcements. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised on turkey. I would think nations concerned about Kurdish breakaways (Turk,Iran,Iraq) would not recognize. Pak would cause a break (indian kashmir) would go in their favor. --Lemmey (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is on the wrong list perhaps, look at this page: [22] Contralya (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. —Nightstallion 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

[23] If not on the recognized list, than it probably belongs on the will recognize list. Contralya (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

lists wrong

Someone has messed up the lists big time. Now China, Greece etc. are in the "planning to recognize list" ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the US and UK too! David (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

German recognition scheduled for Wednesday

Deutschland will das Kosovo am Mittwoch anerkennen, kündigte Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Brüssel an.

— [24]

Translated, this gives: "Germany wants to recognize the Kosovo on Wednesday, as Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced in Brussels". Germany definitely hasn't formerly recognized it. - Comartinb (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map - New Zealand

Surely New Zealand should be blue on the map? David (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

indonesia should be grey--w_tanoto (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because New Zealand is not recognising Kosovo.

UN nation

I think only UN member state and Holy See should be listed. except Palestinian territories. Matthew_hk tc 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Taiwan? David (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For establish an diplomatic relation, currently no source for Kosovo willing to establish with countries "outside" UN, likes recognize Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Matthew_hk tc 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be some consistent system. However, on what basis would you make a special exception for Palestine? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move non-UN countries to their own section? I think there view on this matter is extremely relevent. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other self-proclaimed states with disputed status" or similar? That seems the fairest thing to do to me. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Yeah, I suppose so. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map: serbia

Why Serbia isn't in Red ? Kormin (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Map: Belarus

On the map they refuse. In the article, they said nothing about recognition. ? Kormin (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is contradictory: Belarus is both in the "others" and "doesn't recognise" section, but the source does not clearly state that Belarus won't recognise. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked Lukashenko's statement, they said nothing about recognition. So I will remove it from the latter section until I get something more definite. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

nods I've updated the map, too. —Nightstallion 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do see Belarus believing that Serbia should have Kosovo, it is just only a feeling and not explicit support for either side with regards to recognition. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As the statements explicitly points to the UNSC resolution, it seems we'll consider it to follow Russia's orders not recognise the UDI. ;) —Nightstallion 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that, but I don't see anything saying "we will not recognize the country". With the way this article is being edited, mind as well give up now and sort it out hours later. Tired of wasting my breath on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. I was similarily tired of reverting Belarus on the map... —Nightstallion 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

States that will not recognize the independence of Kosovo

I have started to add some reasons to the list of countries that will NOT be recognizing Kosovo. Any thoughts? Thanks. --RobNS 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should either have reasons for everybody or nobody. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing it for everybody, and think it's a good idea, but the idea got shot down, unfortunately IMHO.--RobNS 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour, but ONLY if we've got sources which explicitly state the reason. —Nightstallion 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see reasons for everybody, since it would help build the article to a more comprehensive level. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the reasons contained in the cited sources? If not, then reasons should not be added, Wikipedia not being the place for original research. Furthermore, the reasons already included don't seem official. After all, China is not announcing that it will deny recognition because it fears Tibet and Taiwan independence. It is saying that it is denying recognition because it recognizes Serbia's right to the territory of Kosovo under international law. So, it seems POV to add reasons that are not the official ones, as if you were "uncovering the excuses" created by sovereign States that don't want to recognize Kosovo. Also, since you only add reasons for those countries that won't recognize the declaration, but not for the countries that have recognized or that are planning to do so, it does seem a violation of the NPOV policy. It can seem as if a State needed to justify itself in order to deny recognition, but not to grant it, and, depending on the way the "reasons" are included in the article, it might seem as a critique of the country's foreign policy. And it is not right for the encyclopedia to take sides like that. So, my opinion is that such reasons should not be added. Such notes only make sense in the case of the "other" states (those that have announced no sides), because it then helps explain what are they waiting for, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that makes perfect sense, and I hadn't thought of it. We should, therefore, not include reasons for not recognizing Kosovo, since it would really just be an opinion, rather than official fact.--RobNS 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's okay with me, too. —Nightstallion 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

EU leaving it up to member nations

Xinhua reports that the foreign ministers have decided that the EU won't recognize a country, but instead leave it up to the member states. Keep an eye out for announcements from those nations that said they were waiting for the EU's response, since they'll likely decide soon. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, though, the EU cannot recognise a state, and never has--it cannot legally enter into international relations on its own. The statement merely confirms that there wasn't a consensus reached, which honestly should come as no surprise to those states that are "waiting for an EU response." The Tom (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The International Olympic Comitee

The IOC is not an international organization in the legal sense of the term under the Vienna Conventions. Its members are not sovereign States, but rather the several sporting federations of the different olympic sports (that are legally private entities operating internationally), such as FIFA, FIBA, etc. So, it should be included in the category "other organisations", and not in the same category of international organizations created by States and covered by the Vienna Conventions, such as the UN, the OCDE, the Council of Europe, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechnya

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria should not be on this list as an unrecognised country, because it's not even on the list of unrecognised countries -- it's currently only a rebel movement. It should be down with "other organisations", like the Basque and Quebecois separatist political parties. —Nightstallion 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statement. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria really has little control over present day Chechnya.--RobNS 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland & Germany

Have they recognised Kosovo officially yet? The source doesn't really state that IMO... —Nightstallion 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reuters says that Britain, Germany and Italy followed Paris minutes later, saying they had or would imminently inform Priština of their decision. Finland said it would be among those recognizing too. " this is brety clear to me here pretty clear to me pretty clear to me here that this shows that Finland, and Germany have definitievley agreed to recognize Kosovar independence. Smith Jones (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it on Wednesday. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"agreed to recognise" is fundamentally different from "have already recognised", that's why we've got two different sections for it. In the light of the evidence, I'm fairly certain both Finland and Germany belong in the "will recognise" category for now. —Nightstallion 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

...and Finland said it would be among those, in other words, still short of 'I's dotted and 'T's crossed. Much as the distinction is academic, I think we should move both of them back. The Tom (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

fine be anal about it i dont care. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to be insulting; I know I tend to be quite pedantic, but in issues as controversial as this one, I think that's a good thing. So, I think we should move them back, then. —Nightstallion 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry i lost my coolf or a sec there. dont worry; i already placed them where you wanted. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer reading, I see I may have jumped the gun a little on Finland. Germany is a little more ambiguous, but if you have other sources saying it won't be until Wednesday, then feel free to revert. Just be careful because I had to rearrange some of the references. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah well i think we are leaving goign to leave the finland and germany links on Planning TO REcognize UNtil they release a press statement or a source says that they alread hy have recognized. the, Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Parti Québécois

I'm really not sure why they are even mentioned, the Parti Québécois that is. They are not the ruling government in Québec, and in fact, are not even the main opposition party these days. Seriously, are we going to include quotes from every one of the hundreds of seperatist parties in the world (Femings, Tibetens, Peurto Ricans, etc?). I think it should be removed.--RobNS 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay, they are one of the strongest peaceful separatist movements in the world; their reaction is certainly notable. —Nightstallion 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against them, and I am a Canadian, born and raised in Québec. I just find that the statement on the main page from them makes it seem to the world that thye are a lot more important now than they really are. At least the Flemish Vlaams Belang seems to have more power.--RobNS 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VB never managed to get one, never mind two referendums held on independence -- and they almost succeeded with the second one... —Nightstallion 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that Nightstallion, but today's Quebec people do not feel oppressed, and can separate anytime they want (with a majority vote). Anyhow, it's not that big a deal, but I do think we giving the party a lot of recognition here, more than they would really get back home (here).--RobNS 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

On this link , in french, it's say that Indonesia has not recognise Kosovo... Kormin (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Find one in English so we can all verify it. WP:RSUE. Indonesia is a large, populous democratic country. There should be a common English publication / broadcaster that has mentioned it. --Lemmey (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found one yesterday that said no, and I swore I included it in here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw a referenced Indonesia here, the article moves too fast. Good stuff gets reverted by mistake, and bad stuff hangs around for too long sometimes. Seems here that something good got removed, and no one noticed... J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post: here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203283464688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . We can put Indonesia in the country which refuse. Kormin (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Official from government's owned press office: http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/18/ri-yet-to-recognize-kosovo-independence/ . Trust me, it's government owned. I am Indonesian.--w_tanoto (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So Indonesia's position is still officially "we don't know yet"? —Nightstallion 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria first to recognise?

To avoid the same confusion that we had earlier, I'll ask first- doesn't this say that the Chechnians recognised Kosovo on the 17th? I think it should be moved out of 'other organisations' and into the section with Taiwan. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Chechnya is currently not even an unrecognised country, it's only rebel movement. —Nightstallion 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they really are just a movement at this point, and control little territory.--RobNS 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I guess I give them too much credit as a 'nation' then. So they're more comparable to the IRA than to Taiwan? It's just that that article says that Russia recognises that Ichkeria recognises Kosovo, and calls that a 'dangerous precedent'. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

English sources?

Lemmey is removing a lot of information cited to foriegn language sources, and I just want to get a discussion going to work out our stance on the matter. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, foriegn language sources are acceptable, and though an English source is preferable, a foriegn language source is preferable to no source. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Need foreign sources. Kormin (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the sources can be considered reliable, it is okay to use them. Lemmey should instead replace them with english sources if he cares so much about the issue. Suva Чего? 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So far there is only 1 state with foreign sources that haven't been changed to English. Whats the point of WP:RSUE if the avg en.wp editor can't read the source? Currently 90+ eng sources are from sites all around the world. Its a big topic, eng sources are available for every country.--Lemmey (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic, print sources should not be allowed, as the average reader cannot summon the book/magazine/whatever into their hands. On the other hand, as I said, changing the sources is fine, but please stop removing them and leaving us with unreferenced entries. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don;t think print foreign print sources should be allowed for Current events. How can anyone verify a newspaper in spain if it doesn't have a weblink? --Lemmey (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can fix the issue by replacing the current source with english one if you can find one. If you can't, then just wait when it pops up. Until then, the foreign language source is fine if it matches other conditions of reliable source. Disrupting the article by removing sources/sourced content is not good either way.

Also I have to remind you that, you are not making the rules. :) Suva Чего? 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're comment has been noted. --Lemmey (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

recognised vs planning to recognise

This distinction is complete nonsense. The media seem to portray this as a kind of race to be among the first countries to recognise. Wikipedians want their country to be at the top of the list, Hence we find UK and USA in the recognised list, whereas all other countries keep swapping. I cannot find a shred of evidence that UK/USA have indeed recognised - only a lot of sloppy reporting by various media outlets. The only illuminating statement I could find is an interview with the German foreign affairs minister in The Spiegel that says he is going to recommend recognising to the cabinet and Germany should officially recognise on Wednesday. This is what I would expect: recognition is a formal process that meeds some time for the burocracy to work its way. Is the president of the USA powerful enough that he can just recgnise countries as he sees fit without consulting Congress/Senate? The UK foreign affairs minister is quoted as saying "The UK is starting the recognition process this evening". What does that mean? I presume the same as in the German case: recommending recognition to the appropriate bodies. So why is UK listed in recognised, but not Germany...? So why not join the two sections into: "states that have officially announced their intention to recognise". That is at least verifiable. And no: I'm not going to join the edit war and do it myself. --195.128.251.93 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. President doesn't need Congressional approval for diplomatic relations like this. The Senate's advise and consent power applies to treaties, not simple diplomatic recognition. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Approx. 1000 edits in 24 hours

Just wondering if that is a Wikipedia record? --RenniePet (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. :) Suva Чего? 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So what sort of things result in greater numbers of edits, and is there a known record? --RenniePet (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that Suva? Actually I'm curious about that now. Maybe the Virginia Tech massacre made a record for edits. 9/11 would have, but not sure of Wikipedias status at the time.--RobNS 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 really was covered well on Wikipedia, Jimbo has said he was amazed how well covered it was and that he realised Wikipedia was gonna be a big thing when he saw everyone writing about it. Wikirage is an interesting site, and puts this article top at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove sources in other languages please

There are not trustworthy sources in English for everything. So please DO NOT remove the sources in other languages if you can't provide sources in English. Gothbag (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just here to re-iterate the point. Foreign language sources that are reliable and verifiable are welcomed. If you have concerns about these sources, please contact someone who can be trusted and who can translate the content through the user languages categories. Users who remove sources in languages other than English may be considered disruptive and might be blocked if they repeatedly remove foreign language sources. Nick (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland and Lithuania

according to this web site Finland and Lithuania have officially regognised Kosovo as an independent nation and it gives sources of proof too. So can someone please edit it so that it has Lithuania and Finland as recognised nations.

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijanderson977 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd actually *READ* the sources, you'd know that both countries have only BEGUN the formal procedures of acknowledging the Kosovan independence. —Nightstallion 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So did France, UK and others countries..... So, which difference ? Kormin (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, those countries have different procedures for formally recognising a country as independent -- in the US and France, the president can do it without parliament, and so on. Finland, Lithuania and many other countries require parliamentary action to recognise a country as independent. —Nightstallion 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

God ! Student in Political sciences, aren't you ? :) Kormin (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Mathematics, actually, but I've got a really unhealthy interest in contemporary history, contemporary politics, contemporary international relations, ... ;) —Nightstallion 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Finnísh government is entitled to decide, no Parlianetary approval needed. "Final preparations" only imply the practical arrangements. --Camptown (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain? The news reports seem to indicate that parliamentary approval is required... —Nightstallion 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are no formal "recognition" procedure under Finnish law, such as a vote in Parliament etc. Only the fact that the Finnish Government intends to initiate formal diplomatic relations with a foreign country matters, and that was decided by the Finnish Foreign ministry today. You can compare that to Sweden with a similar system - but there, Foreign secreatry Carl Bildt said that he wants the issue to be discussed in the Foreign relations committee first. The next committee meeting will take place after the Russian Presidental elections, and the social democratic opposition has already critizised Mr Bildt for dragging his feet. --Camptown (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to be wrong -- it's been publically stated, source is in the article, that formal recognition can only take place once the president is back in Finland, as it's the president's privilege to recognise foreign nations' independence. (One of the vestigial treats of Finland's de iure semi-presidential system, it seems.) —Nightstallion 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the President, of course, has to formally sign the decision. But then, I wonder if country that has formally recognised Kosovo today. --Camptown (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

this link says that Hungary will recognize kosovo but it is in albanian , anyone speaking albanian might confirm that--Cradel 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already got more than enough sources for Hungary, though... —Nightstallion 23:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The more the better--Cradel 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To much sources kills the sources.... :) We have others sources and links about Hungary, and in english ;) Kormin (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased phrase

At first, most of them (eg. United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and France) declared informally that they will recognise the sovereign Kosovo, facing opposition by other members with separatist movements in their own countries, such as Spain, Greece and Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia.

This phrase basically divides the EU states into two groups: those with no separatist movements within and those having problems with secessionists. When someone reads this he will say: "Aha.. ok. so the countries that oppose Kosovo independence are the countries afraid of losing some territories to local secessionists! their only reason is this!". No my friends:

• UK has much worse problems with the Sinn Fein than Romania has with the Hungarian minority
• Italy has problems with German(Austrian) Southern Tirol
• France: the bitterness is not over in Alsace-Lorraine.

On the other side:

• In Romania the Hungarian minority is far from even thinking of autonomy. There are only some politicians promoting this idea.
• Secessionist movements in Greece? Greece does have territorial disputes with Turkey but that is another story.

So no, the countries of EU that do not recognize Kosovo independence didn't take this stance for the reason illustrated in that phrase. The Balkan countries are those who really understand the conflict and are able to take an informed stance. Planck (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase is POV as it implicitly ties those countries' stance to internal separatism, real or (in the case of Greece) non-existent. I am editing this out. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

However this statement is true for countries with separatists movements like Spain or Canada. (Jmrepetto (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Then, further explanation can be offered further down the article on a per-country basis. And, naturally, a citation indicating that this is relevant to the non-recognition should be provided, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About Finland's recognition

Finland will recognize Kosovo no earlier than on the 29th of February: [25]. Can someone add this to the list? Finland has not recognized Kosovo yet. – anonymous Finn

Australia was the first country that recognized Kosova. Macedonia also has recognized Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnix (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Afghanistan was the first country that carried out formal diplomatic recognition Kosovo. Australia was one of the first (if not the first) to announce its intention to recognize by virtue of it being early Monday Australian time when independence was declared. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council

I doubt that the Security Council will be able to take a position on the Kosovo declaration of independence: countries with veto power have taken up both sides. Pro independence: USA, UK, France (I think). Anti independence: Russia and China. Because of that, I suspect the following will occur: a move to approve recognition, vetoed; a move to deny recognition, also vetoed. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like standard operating procedure at the UN. Plus, as I have noted before with Japan, countries are not basing their recognition status on what the UN is doing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This means that Kosovo WILL NOT become a member of the United Nations, since, under the UN Charter, new members must be approved by the General Assembly, but, also under the Charter, the General Assembly cannot vote on an application for membership unless it has been recommended by Resolution of the Security Council. And, given China's and Russia's vetoes, such a Resolution will never pass, so that the application will fail on that preliminary stage, without the General Assembly ever voting on it. --201.17.90.204 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And this also means that all countries that are waiting a decision by the UN are in reallity states unsympathetic towards recognition that are stalling. --Antonio Basto (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Is the date wrong? Afghanistan was the first to make formal recognition but Costa Rica is dated earlier. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this is because of time zones, and that actually Costa Rica recognised after Afghanistan, US, Albania, and so on, but we'll be hard-pressed to find a source for that... —Nightstallion 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The year is wrong even if the date isn't. --84.249.12.39 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Libya

Can someone please find a reference for Libya's refusal of Kosovo. They oficialy stated tonight at the UN they are against Kosovo's independence but there is no mention of that in any of the press releases in the world. So how can we go through with this.(Top Gun) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot Burkina Faso has also refused to recognise Kosovo, so can somebody find a reference for that too. Thanks.(Top Gun) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)

How do you know they refused if there is no reference ? Did you hear it on TV ? Kormin (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I heared it on TV, I watched the session of the UN security council. Both Libya and Burkina Faso said they are against independence and South Africa and Indonesia stoped just short of that. But there are no references anywhere on the net. So what do we do?(Top Gun) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)

Recognise or recognize?

Is there any basis for writing this article in British English, as opposed to American? Kosovo is in neither Britain nor America. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- it's in Europe, and related to the EU, and therefore uses British spelling. There's a couple hundred precedents, rest assured. ;) —Nightstallion 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Italy

I don't know how and where this might fit in, but Italy appears to have recognised Kosovo; atleast, that is what the BBC reports. [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlekis (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that'll take two more days to finalise, actually. —Nightstallion 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia, next is Padania!:))24.86.110.10 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

Guys what happens with Ukraine?Will they Recognise Kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ukraine MFA said they needed to study the issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania hasn't yet recognized Kosovo. The article that is cited only says that the President requested the legislature to quickly approve recognition. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Neutral?!

The Swiss are taking sides! What is this abomination?! They're always supposed to be neutral... Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The horror! the horror! it's like the French not surrendering! — Rickyrab | Talk 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: explanation on the states that refused to recognise

Suggestion: it might be better if there is a small sentence (like the countries listed under other states) describing why they did not recognise Kosovo. Such as Russia, having a strong relationship with Serbia, etc--w_tanoto (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we might as well note why the countries recognizing Kosovo decided to recognize Kosovo. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that: there is more than one reason, and if we did that, we'd have to expand onto others. And secondly, there is no "official" reason(s) (e.g. no government will admit that they're denying recognizing Kosovo's independence because of secessionists movements in their own), and would prove to be POV, and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. --Buffer v2 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)