Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AVand (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 3 September 2008 (Reverted 3 edits by Ijanderson977; Reverting per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ijanderson977&diff=236117826&oldid=236117713 this]. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ARCHIVES 27 TO 35 ARE EMPTY! PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY A BOT IN 27 ONWARDS!

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

References

Possible New Recognitions

The following kinks indicate that more recognitions are coming soon.

84.134.90.188 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the situation with Macedonia above it seems this means they will recognize and possibly Montenegro as well. Heck, maybe Greece will jump in too. However, this doesn't really have any specifics so it's not exactly relevant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is relevant. Please move Macedonia to the "Soon to recognize" section. 84.134.75.180 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting news, lets see how thing progress. We can't really add to countries as it isn't about specific countries ect. I don't know if we should add Macedonia to "Soon to recognise" Ijanderson (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this individual is referring to the above section on Macedonia as well. The leader of the Albanian party in the government coalition said it was a matter of days before Macedonia recognizes as soon as some technical problems on the border are worked out. However, it's not an official statement that Macedonia intends to recognize so I still don't think it should justify moving them to "soon to recognize" though I already included the party leader's statement in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with that since the Albanian party is one of the current coalition parties in MKD. Ijanderson (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree.84.134.111.103 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B92 New Kosovo ReportArab States expected to "recognise very soon, again". Maybe they will, maybe they won't. How soon is soon. Saudi Arabia has been saying soon since April, surely the recognition reprocess can't take that long. What they waiting for? Ijanderson (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kosovo president Arabic states now have doubts over this issue so they made a conference in Pristina for Arabic representatives in order to convince them. But I don't think that Kosovo has a bigger convincing potential than the US. Also another interesting thing is that Iraq hasn't recognized - I wonder if it is the US trying to show how Iraq has independent policies?--Avala (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit more specifically.

84.134.106.174 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Now (with Russian recognition) that Abkazia and South Ossetia meet the minimum de facto definition of a state, thier entires should be moved to 'other states' along with the Vatican, PA, SADR, and TRNC. 141.166.152.188 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, they are no less or more independent than TRNC.--Avala (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Fact is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia now have the same status as Kosovo does. --Tocino 17:44, 26 Auguts 2008 (UTC)
No they don't, they have the same status as TRNC. Kosovo is not as isolated and is recognised by many countries and several international organisations. Ijanderson (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see to recall the reasoning, from both Avala and Tocino, being when Kosovo declared independence that it wasn't a "real" country because only "a few," "a handful," "Insert Number Here" countries recognised it. Since only Russia recognises Abkhazia/South Ossetia, they have exactly the same status as the TRNC, which means they get to have a * after their names with the note that they're only recognised by Russia.
Tocino, you have yet to answer the query I put to you over in the South Ossetia war thread: Why is it that Ossetian and Abkhaz separatists are "good" separatists, in your estimation, whereas Kosovar separatists are pure evil and in league with Satan?Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ij, Russia will not be the only country to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Many of the CIS nations, the BRIC countries, and traditional allies such as Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, and Vietnam may recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the near future. Also, if Georgia recognizes Kosovo to piss off Russia, then Serbia will be poised to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Tocino 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, why is it just the opposite for you? --Tocino 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming it's the opposite. You have no idea what I think about this issue. And you've once again avoided the question. Congratulations, you have no credibility. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple really. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been nations in the past. It was Stalin who threw them in with Georgia. Kosovo has always been the heartland of Serbia meanwhile. --Tocino 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Russia has such wonderful allies, don't they Tocino? [read with utmost sarcasm] 141.166.241.22 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Western arrogance. No wonder everyone else in the world hates us and the EuroSnobs --Tocino 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking nonsense again?84.134.121.122 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia wont recognise them, because that would mean giving up Kosovo. Also only 20 countries max will recognise them both, making them like Taiwan and TRNC so they will be internationally isolated, unlike Kosovo which is becoming more and more like any other UN state. Also Russia's position against Kosovo has been ruined by this. I think Canadian Bobby opposes them because they are "basically" Russian annexations. I have been watching the whole thing carefully on Russia Today, BBC, Euronews, France 24 and Al Jazera. Russia has made itself look hypocritical. Ijanderson (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a place to discuss Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Regardless of what you think of this situation it has no bearing on this article. I agree they should be put on the same level as Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, and Western Sahara. They are no longer unrecognized states.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all hypocritical. Those who recognized Kosovo now talk about international law, United Nations etc. and Russia well it's obvious. Serbia stated it is devoted to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. Serbia did not recognize Kurdistan to get back at Turkey or Casamance to Senegal so it wont recognize these two if Georgia recognizes Kosovo either. Some lower officials of the Serbian Government have condemned Georgia by saying that this is a result of their soft approach to Kosovo issue.--Avala (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avala is correct they are all hypocritical. Ijanderson (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the SRS and DSS and others win a majority in the next elections then Serbia's stance could very well change. --Tocino 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed at Template talk:Countries of Europe‎. For what it's worth, I very much doubt that any other state will recognize the breakaways - it's too much of a precedent for their own separatists and in the case of Russia's neighbours, they will be very conscious of the large ethnic Russian communities on their territories. They have too much to lose. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum.84.134.121.122 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia knows that even if it wants to recognize the new countries, it can't without destroying its own position. So really, this topic is over--Jakezing (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From judging by their statement on the new article, they pretty much knew it was going to happen. Frankly, the papers in the US (and me, personally, as a student of politics) knew this move was going to happen. I was hoping it was going to be the Transdniester area first and I didn't think a war was going to happen. My POV aside, we should treat the new article to the same standards as we have here. Still surprised to wake up in the morning, sip on the Pepsi that two new states were born. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said thats not a forum. And Tocino should be reported to an admin.84.134.122.185 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Recognitions are expected in the near future.


Move

To be consistent, I would suggest that we change the name of this page to "International recognition of Kosovo."

Yea or nay?

Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this, makes more sense becuase this is what they page has become Ijanderson (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Think of Mozambique or Paraguay.--Avala (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure isn't stopping them over at the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence page from listing countries as we are here. We should emulate the page name, as documenting recognition is primarily what this page is concerned about. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Mozambique or Paraguay? Ijanderson (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well they just made a reaction but it's not a recognition or non recognition. The reason why we have International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence is because they declared independence in 1991 and it would maybe be silly to have international reaction article now.--Avala (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of disagree Proposed name is rather ambiguous. Perhaps "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" or "International recognition of Kosovo independence" could be better choices. Húsönd 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those sounds fine to me. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes Hussonds sounds better Ijanderson (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please move to International recognition of Kosovo independence, one of the 2 alternatives given by Húsönd.
I favor it over the other ("International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo") because it avoids the row over the exact phrasing of the country's official name (Kosova or Kosovo) and does not dovetail with the republic proclamed some years ago and recognized then by a few states. And such renaming would bring us closer to finally eliminating forced on us OR where non-recognition by states, even rumors what a state might do or not (example: Uruguay) have been misrepresented by partisan editors in this article and elsewhere on Wikimedia projects, so far successfully, as state recognition or non-recognition of independent Kosovo. --Mareklug talk 01:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad my suggestions drew positive feedback. :-) I must by the way remind that any proposed move of this article should go through WP:RM due to its likely controversial nature. Húsönd 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is now listed there under 26 August 2008, and this section has been renamed as "Requested move". The required {{move}} with a new name has been placed atop this discussion page as well. --Mareklug talk 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the date on WP:RM, request made on August 27, 2007 (UTC). :-) Also, I'll add a typical discussion area below, otherwise this one will become one of those messy move requests. Húsönd 02:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority wrongly listed as a state?

Since we have just moved Abkhazia and South Ossetia to states from regions and such, let's reexamine Palestinian Authority's placement in the article. Is it really a state? Last I heard, in political theory and practice, one of the requsites fo a state is control of territory. PA does not even control Gaza Strip (Hamas does), not to mention complete domination by Israel, militarily and in terms of traffic allowed in and out. And its observer status at the UN is that of an entity, not a state, which is hte status of Vatican City. IMHO diplomatic recognition alone a state does not make. -Mareklug talk 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "complete domination" means the PA isn't a state then I guess neither is SADR, which is listed in the same category as the PA, or Georiga, or any other country situated in a warzone or whose status is disputed. Besides, the PA is the main government authority in the West Bank's population centers and some rural areas in the northern part of the WB that Israel abandoned during Disengagement. Plus, though it doesn't control Gaza, it is internationally recognized as the government that ought to, even by Israel. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, in sum, I strongly disagree with Mareklug - the PA is listed correctly. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike all the countries you named, PA does not even control Palestinian territories among Palestinians, as I already mentioned. Neither does PA control the food suppply or energy grid. Israel can shut it off completely, and has, at any moment. Israel controls the borders of PA. How is this a state? PA does not de facto control Occupied Territories, and contorl of territory is one of the three requisites of statehood. The other two are international recognition and will of the people. We could argue (Hamas rule) over the third one. But if you don't have all three, you don't have a state. And what's in the news? Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians regarding future statehood. How can it be both future and already present at the same time? The article even qutoes senior Palestinians, saying that they don't have independence. --Mareklug talk 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has control over some of the territory it claims (the extent of its claims are unclear given that there are factions in the PA, most obviously Hamas, who don't recognize Israel) and it has recognition. The 'will of the people' is too vague a concept to address. As to borders, part of Georgia's border in controlled by Russia; SADR's borders are partly controlled by Morocco, etc, etc. There are even peaceful examples - the Vatican's borders are effectively controlled by Italy, for example. Notice, btw, that two of those examples, SADR and the Vatican are on the same list as the PA. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you may wish for greater PA control over its affairs but this is not a debate forum on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The issue is how best to categorize the PA. It is my firm opinion that, in light of the fact that it controls territory and conduct official international diplomacy, that it best fits with 'other states.' This opinion has been affirmed by other users in previous discussions that can be found in the discussion archives. 141.166.155.232 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Palestine where it is currently situated. Ijanderson (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Template:Susbt:polltop no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence → International recognition of Kosovo independence — The article has evolved to become a compendium of recognitons and recognition denials by states. The proposed move has been discussed on the talk page. The proposed name is better than another proposed and also favorably received alternative, "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo", because it avoids POV (is it Kosova or Kosovo, according to its government?) and does not confuse the issue with the republic proclaimed some years ago and recognized then by a few states. Renaming would help eliminate the original research still present in the article, whereby non-recognition by states and anonymous rumors (example: Uruguay) have been cast by editors as state recognition or denial of recogniton by a state, This OR has spread elsewhere: Image:Kosovo_relations.svg, Image:Kosovo_relations.png. --Mareklug talk 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Reverted the other. kwami (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - re. Paraguay and Mozambique: I think the new title is still appropriate for them. I don't see why a statment expressing indecision would fall outside scope. Bazonka (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - until we figure out which title is to be used in all cases. Currently both articles, on Kosovo and Abkhazia and South Ossetia use "International reaction to the independence of" and it's good, they are consistent. But changing the title of this article would break consistency. Also we need to make sure that reactions don't drop out under a new title and that we stay with only one section and that is the one about states that recognized Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted the other. kwami (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Support name change, but no other changes. Ijanderson (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would need to be International recognition of the independence of Kosovo. "Kosovo's independence" makes it sound like Kosovo is a person. kwami (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at my suggestion for a split. We can expand this article with original statements of recognizing countries and have a 2nd one solely for table citing countries that have recognized. If we make International recognition of Kosovo's independence we might have to add all countries of the world into the table as it would not be only reactions but also their positions and it means about 100 other countries which would be added to a table with only "Does not recognize Kosovo as independent." in the note.--Avala (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any changes to title or current structure of article. The article is pretty well organized as it is. We just need to re-add reactions of political parties and other groups. This article does not have to follow what other articles are like. Kosovo Albanian separatists declared independence this year while Abkhaz and South Ossetians declared independence in the early 90's so we are dealing with different situations here. --Tocino 19:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Tocino here. He is correct. The current name suits the article best. Also the current structure is fine too, easy to read encyclopedic information. Tocino is also correct over Kosovo and South Ossetia & Abkhazia. The Russian separatists declared independence in the early 1990s without support, whilst Kosovo declared independence this year with support from 3 permanent UNSC members, NATO, EU and other countries, so we dealing with a different case. Ijanderson (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The date is irrelevant. Since Kosovo has only declared independence once, the date is certainly unimportant enough to not be included on the article title. Zeus1234 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo Albanian separatists also declared independence in 1990. See: 1990 Kosovo declaration of independence#Proclamation of the Republic of Kosova. --Tocino 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article should be changed from "reaction" to "recognition." I agree with Tocino in that there is no need for this article to parallel the South Ossetia & Abkhazia article. But, since Russia recently recognized, a groundbreaking event, the breakaway Georgian republics are now in the world spotlight. And so, contrary to Avala'a opinion, I think that the "Reaction" title would actually be more appropriate for South Ossetia and Abkhazia than it is for Kosovo, since the latter probably won't generate much more significant reaction, only recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current title fits the article better than the proposed title, and there was a previous declaration (on the beginning of the Kosovo War) I believe - correct me if I am wrong. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Comment I moved the Abkhaz/S. Ossete article because there was an edit war brewing, with mirrors of various Abkhaz articles under different names ("recognition" vs "condemnation", etc.). I figured copying the wording from this article as a third choice would make it seem unbiased. But I think most of the editors there prefer "recognition", and I've been asked to move it back, so that shouldn't dissuade you from moving this article. I'm going to wait to see what happens here (unless some other admin beats me to it), because I share the concern one of you made above about opposition being covered (Russian condemnation of Kosovo and Western condemnation of Ossetia). But I don't see any conflict with discussing opposition in an article on recognition, and the title is more succinct that way, so I vote mild support for moving all such articles to "recognition". kwami (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to "recognition", and think that we should follow your lead in what you decide here. kwami (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not International recognition of Kosovo? Even more succinct, with no loss of meaning. And anyway, "Kosovo independence" is ungrammatical. It should be "Kosovar independence". kwami (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be OK as it could include variety of views. Because "International recognition of Kosovo independence" might exclude all countries that don't see it as independent. --Avala (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether we accept the "recognition" wording, IMO the title of this article still needs to be changed. "The 2008 Kosovo declaration" means a declaration made in 2008 that is known under the name Kosovo, like the "Doha declaration". Grammatically, it should be "International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo". kwami (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I think we can have two articles. Currently the content is a bit divided in weight. We don't have statements by the states recognizing yet we have detailed positions of those who don't. Maybe we could create a single table with reactions of world officials regarding this independence declaration (whether it was positive or negative) here and have a separate article Recognition of the Republic of Kosovo independence which would contain information only on countries that have recognized Kosovo independence (ie. the current table on states recognizing).--Avala (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - this produces a systematic bias. And your split would solve that problem.Dejvid (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I prefer the current system, its good, its easy to read encyclopedic information on the whole international reaction on Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but under the new proposal the article will either have to be expanded to include all states or will be sliced only to include those who recognise.--Avala (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which then ignores theo ther countries, what, an article on 46 countries? waste of time.--Jakezing (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I prefer the current system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

World Court opinions

It may be a good idea to create a seperate article dealing with nations regarding the Serbia appeal to the World Court. As nations like Indonesia and Malaysia (some websites are already showing their opinions) report their support or opposition to a ruling by the World Court, this will begin to clutter up the article a lot. Making a seperate page for these ruling would help prevent the page from getting too overwhelmed. Excelsioreverupward (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Someone should make such a page.84.134.80.251 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, proposal for a name? Some countries will base their decision weather to recignise on this. Some countries will use it to back to back their opposition or support on its out come. Others will disregard it all together. We need a suitable name for it. Suggestions? Ijanderson (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again patience. It's all maybes now and until September. After these countries take a final decision we will have an article about this with a nice table who voted for what at the UN. Right now it's not worthy of an article.--Avala (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

More news from Montenegro

84.134.80.251 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Montenegro does have a large Albanian population, they are probably wait for Macedonia to recognise first. Ijanderson (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti apparently in the process of recognising Kosovo

According to the Ambassador of Haiti to the US, Raymond Joseph, was informed that "Haitian government is in the process of recognition of Kosovo independence."[10] Ijanderson (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph was informed by whom? By Krasniqi? So, a Kosovo representant tells Haitian ambassador what the Haitian government is doing? That does not make any sense. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond Joseph was informed by the Haitian Government that they were in the process of recognition of Kosovo Ijanderson (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, now that the New Kosova Report is back online, I can read the article myself. It is Krasniqi who is informed, by Joseph. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ive included this to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some interesting info about Niger in there. We could be getting something from them soon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia could recognise Kosovo

B92 According to a senior Russian official. I can't really tell what the source is saying. What can we make of it? Ijanderson (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the words of Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin.... "I believe Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. They have a much stronger case". Link here: [11] --Tocino 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i read that too, but this is another politician. Also he didn't say Kosovo doesn't deserve independence, just that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have many more reasons and legal ground for their independence than Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this person say he is not sure ("maybe, I don't know") and Churkin responded that Russia will certainly not recognize due to UNSC 1244. Yes both the US and Russia are hypocrites and I am sure that they will not make their position consistent and recognize the other regions they haven't done so far.--Avala (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point made my Avala, the source i presented basically says that Russia might recognise Kosovo because they have already broken international law so they might recognise Kosovo too. However this is only up to the much respectful Dimitry Medvedev. Ijanderson (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's basically like saying that the US can recognise Ossetia. They can but they wont.--Avala (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia Close to Recognising Kosovo too

[12] “Macedonia has already accepted Kosovo’s passports and soon it will officially recognise its independence,” According to Ali Ahmeti. How can we use this? Ijanderson (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahmeti plays no role in the Macedonian government. --Tocino 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he is still leader of the opposition in Macedonia and is a well respected and important political figure im Macedonian politics. Ijanderson (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the matter of days as Albanian leaders claim then we can be patient enough and wait.--Avala (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahmeti's part is in coalition with current Macedonian government. Macedonia actually has already taken the decision. The announcement is a matter of time;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.82.78 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeh yeh i heard Ijanderson (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given what we know today, and developments in Macedonia, Kosovo and elsewhere, why should we not move Macedonia to immiment recognizers category and whittle down the ridiculous amount of hedging put in its write-up? I think it's difficult to contrue any reasons other than partisan. Please give me a reasonable argument (or just make the edit I'm suggesting). --Mareklug talk 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • imminent:
    1. likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
    2. projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.
[Origin: 1520–30; < L imminent- (s. of imminéns), prp. of imminére to overhang, equiv. to im- im-1 + -min- from a base meaning “jut out, project, rise” (cf. eminent, mount2) + -ent- -ent]

I think the category should simply be "Imminent recognizers" and leave it at that. --Mareklug talk 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC) And so it is. --Mareklug talk 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really would like to see the other side of the Macedonian Coalition make a statement about Kosovo for once. Menduh Thaçi said the same thing as Ahmeti when he was part of the Government. And yet here we are. If Macedonian news reports something I'll update. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal again

its in German They are to recognise soon Ijanderson (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a statement or it's just German media copying BalkanInsight in guessing?--Avala (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No this is a statement made today "Thursday" (aka Donnerstag in German) saying that Portugal is expected to recognise in one, two, three weeks. Along them lines if im correct. Ijanderson (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ran it through the translation. It only cites the New Alliance Party of Kosovo leader Behgjet Pacolli and spokesperson Ibrahim Gashi. They can't speak on behalf of Portugal, not just like that, if there was a meeting between them and some Portuguese official maybe but this way nope. It also says that they expect that to happen in two or three weeks. --Avala (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If they are to recognise soon i dare say there will be some english sources appearing in the media soon Ijanderson (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw these two can't speak even on behalf of Kosovo as they are opposition.--Avala (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Behgjet Pacolli is a very influential man. He is mega rich and has friends in high places. He was mates with Yelsin and co. He was also right about Malta and Colombia recognising. Ijanderson (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing bordering on vandalism

Keep an eye on Dkis (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ive noticed him. Ive warned him over the 3RR rule Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HE needs to be reported as a sockpuppet of User:Koov --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 09:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Response

The quote contained in the Haitian response isn't quite proper English, though close. Could someone clean that up please? Menrunningpast (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Order

Why are Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the TRNC listed in "Other States" along with the Vatican and Palestine? On the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia page, Kosovo, Hamas-Gaza and the TRNC are listed under "Other entities." This is unfair and biased. Kosovo has far more recognition than the TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Hamas is in an even more bizarre position, so to equate them all is to demean Kosovo. I would propose that the TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia be moved to the "Regions aspiring for more autonomy/independence" section, as that's essentially what they're doing, anyway. You may now bitch at me. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, wouldn't it be more apt to move Kosovo, Abkhasia and South Ossetia to some "states" category in the other article? I still have misgivings about our classifying Palestinaina Authority as a "state", as it fails statehood criteria even according to its leaders we quote in the context of Kosovo, and listing PA as a a state seems more a wish than dispassionate reflection of reality. On the other hand, the idea that a state is whatever at least one state recognizes as such, seems most successful as far as strategies that cut through bickering while employing common sense, a Wikipedia guideline, after all. :) Not a flame or bitching at you, please note. --Mareklug talk 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. I asked Husond to reconsider International recognition of Kosovo as somehow inappropriate. The present title for Abhkazia and South Ossetia, after many adjustments, is just that. I'd move the Northern Cyprus recognition article to International recognition of Northern Cyprus. In all three cases, the only ones we have on Wikipedia at this point, I'm motivated by using the most common names and employing maximal succinctness in titling, with consistency.
TRNC, Abkhazia and (barely) South Ossetia do qualify as states (see Declarative theory of statehood); the key thing about them is that they are almost entirely unrecognised states. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent recognisers

Please move Macedonia and Portugal to the imminent recognisers.84.134.87.92 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to keep banging on about this, but if you registered with Wikipedia, you could do it yourself! Bazonka (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And get promptly reverted. Both Macedonia and Portugal keep being discussed on this talk page ever so often, and the consensus so far has been to keep them where they are. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should ignore IP 84, hes, useless; hiding behind a changing ip he knows we can't block.--Jakezing (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should have more respect toward other people.84.134.68.247 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this to Ijanderson : "Change your behavior. Its very stupid." and "Are you not in your right mind? Are you drunk? Or just mentally ill?". So you are the one who has no respect for others.--Avala (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted him to see how he is. Maybe I have made that the wrong way.84.134.63.65 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i was strongly offended by your comments. NOT! seriously, i think everyone should ignore IP.84.134.??.?? until he registers an account on English wikikpedia. He could be of use, for example we had a german source yesterday and he could have helped by translating it for us ect. Also he could add the information he provides to this talk page himself. IP.84.134.??.?? please reigister on wikipedia ;) Ijanderson (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that rule? 84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no rule mention, now register to wikipedia at once IP.84.134.??.?? Ijanderson (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Why are you talking to me in that offensiv way? I meant there is no rule which demands that I must do that. Why are you want that from me? 84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems silly that you haven't since you spend so much time on wikipedia you might as well, also its annoying talking to anonymous IPs. Also please explain how i have been offensive Ijanderson (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are like my aunt everytime you say "do these, do that" no please, nothing. Being polite wouldn't hurt anyone.84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should listen to your aunt more.--Avala (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats that suposed to mean?84.134.63.65 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means your aunt is correct. Ok, I'll be polite. Please will you register on wikipedia. Ijanderson (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is not correct. I have already done so.84.134.81.195 (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you were blocked and now you have a problem.--Avala (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What does that mean? I have done everything you wanted!84.134.73.75 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

Something about Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

84.134.87.92 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More in this article, which I think is what's referred to in the first article: [14] Bazonka (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We'll add that.--Avala (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro Recognition

Kevin Lajm (UK Ambassador to Mont.) believes that Mont. will recognize just before EU summit. Read here (in Albanian/Shqip). Ari 0384 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, us Brits have been urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo soon[15][16] Ijanderson (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US is now urging Montenegro to recognise Kosovo [17] Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I found particularly illuminating here, is the US Ambassador's stated claim, that Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999 and that although 1244's preamble may state that Kosovo is part of Serbia, the UN Charter (he cites the part of it) makes Security Council decisions binding for countries, and in absence of such, there is no law. Interesting. Shows USA thinks it has a legal basis in international law, other than the general principles of self-determination of nations, part of Helsinki Final Act, UN Declaration of Human Rights and other body of law. --Mareklug talk 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab recognition

Seem to coming after all.

Max Mux (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it shows that relabeling the map from "Other states" to "States that do not recognize Kosovo independence" or some such is just POV wishful thinking pushed by known partisan editors, further showing off their true colors. Many of these other states are about to recognize. Very nice to see Husond revert this, after I reverted for the nth time with request to discuss it, but Avala reinstated it briefly. --Mareklug talk 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent recognisers

Please add Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait in that section. Thank you. Max Mux (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to back it by a reliable source. Wishful thinking by Kosovar mufti won't do, we need statements from government representatives of Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 14:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article carefully. It isn't just wishful thinking he has contact to officials of these countries.Max Mux (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article. He only makes a vague claim of having "frequent contacts" with the officials. He neither specifies names or positions of representatives of these countries he met, nor does he quote any explicit statements by these officials. There's nothing we can work with. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 15:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia again

Something about Macedonia again, sadly not from the goverment.

Max Mux (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your even more annoying with the editing as a user and not a IP... and DO WE HAVE to keep explaining, not from the goverment, not offical.--Jakezing (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But it belongs to the "International reaction".84.134.87.125 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a quote by an Albanian politician in Macedonia asking for everyone in Macedonia to sign a declaration of recognition of Kosovo. What do you think should we add to the article? What if every other party turns him down?--Avala (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakezing WP:NPA Ijanderson (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But now i can insult him and he will actuly see it!--Jakezing (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakezing WP:CIVIL Ijanderson (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milošoski was asked by a journalist today: "Will you recognise Kosovo?". He didn't answer. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source? 84.134.100.171 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today they said the demarcation is going per 1974 plan, not the Ahtisaari plan. They also need to sort out the gift of the Serbian government to Macedonian government of a large part of land in 2001.--Avala (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? I believe it to be NPOV. If it isn't, that banner at the top should be removed. Also if the neutrality is still disputed, please specify and we can hep correct what is seen as POV. Ijanderson (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all the issues have been solved so that the tag can be removed. If anyone wants to put it back I think we should expect a thorough explanation and I think it will be hard to give one considering the fact this article is well sourced and knowing how both sides think it's POV of another side which is a sign that the article is actually neutral.--Avala (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I also think we should remove the "neutrality" banner. In essence almost all political articles are controversial therefore this comes along "with the packaging". No need to use it. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were just waiting for the idiots to come back and the the goverments to make things tough again. we could always re add the other version of the map and cause some havok.--Jakezing (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh you mean mean waiting for the government idiots to come back from vacation?--Avala (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the POV template there, and none of what motivated my adding it has been resolved. It's all detailed in the archives. The archiving, I suppose, is a great way to sweep unresolved complaints under the carpet. I'll just list the states grossly misrepresented: Bosnia, Uruguay, Slovakia, Ukraine, China, India, Cuba, Libya. Fix their state write-ups to NPOV, and I'll be the first to celebrate a truly NPOV article. --Mareklug talk 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think Bosnia, Uruguay, Slovakia, Ukraine, China, India, Cuba, Libya statements are wrong/ POV in this article, how do you belive they should be written? Ijanderson (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he did show it on Slovakia when he erased the whole section and replaced it with one boilerplate statement of the Slovakia MFA from February. Then based on that he goes on to claim how Slovakia is in some kind of neutral position and still thinking despite the fact that their PM and FM reiterate their position every week or so with PM always adding a spicy comment and FM trying to be a bit more diplomatic. That is the issue, Mareklug is deliberately pushing for a chain POV edit. First he carves the article and then goes on to claim the reality he just created in other articles with citing this one (for an example EULEX article where he desperately tried to show Slovakia as neutral and what is better than pointing at this article where the uninformed readers would find a boiler plate statement and then believe all that miraculous world that Mareklug tries to create).
Also regarding Bosnia he claims no one reacted from there. Reality is that three out of three presidency members, prime minister, foreign minister and regional leaders reacted and all had the same statements, that Bosnia will not recognise Kosovo with some citing the reason to be international law and some the Serbian veto in the Council of Nations.
Then he refused to accept the existence of "joint statements" as such so therefore he contested the India and China entries, of course other editors provided videos, pictures, texts etc. to back up the existence of the meeting but they failed to see that he wasn't really contesting the meeting and the joint statement, he just hated the content of it so in the lack of any better argument he decided to attack the existence of the thing called joint statement by claiming `how could Lavrov speak for them? why don't they say it themselves?` - when asked did he ever see a joint statement (very often in the EU for an example) to be read out by all signatories he went silent. Of course we never saw 27 FMs of the EU reading the same statement over and over again. That's the reality.
Then he contested Libya because he couldn't comprehend that this article is about the International reaction which includes statements, media reports etc. not just official acts and documents adopted. He also contested why is the source from the Serbian media not the Libyan one. The answer was given in a link where we couldn't find anything because it was all Arabic. It didn't stop Mareklug to mention Libya for months in his attacks on me and this article. It just pops out in form of `oh yeah?! and what about the skewed statements from Libya?!`
We also went through Cuba million times (at least). We have the information that Fidel Castro is an elected advisor to the president of Cuba, whether anyone likes it or not. And he spoke in that capacity. Of course to Mareklug he is retired and having a rant. Well OK I could claim GWB is crazy and delusional but that would be my opinion and not a reason to tag the article with his quotes as POV.
It is sad how we allow for this user to go on with his destruction scheme over and over again. We should just maybe ignore it or reply with "Case closed." or "Been there, done that" instead of explaining these things every time Mareklug finds it appropriate to resurface them hoping it's the right time for him to get some support. But that kind of bumping up the old discussion for the sake of getting support the one didn't get previously is considered very rude and against Wiki etiquette.--Avala (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:@Ian: Please don't be lazy, and don't make me recopy and paste what is already on this talkpage, albeit (wrongly) archived. Archives should only contain no longer live discussions. Isn't that so? --Mareklug talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just wanted to make the page neutral Ijanderson (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Avala: You know, your chutzpah amazes me. You falsiify reality consistently (i.e., with a bias to show off Serbia as more supported internationally than is the case, by states) in the matter of Kosovo recognition for months now, while employing every parliamentary subterfuge on Wikipedia to ostracize sanity-checking, objecting contributions of others who oppose your tendentious, non-encyclopedic activity. It is sad how we allow this user to go on with his destructive scheme, dear Avala, are your own words which most aptly apply to your edits and relative impotence of the community to effectively correct them. Why that is, I don't know. Case in pint, when Slovakia issues an official, measured state response, with a built-in out, it is "boilerplate from February", and one that you removed (with an edit summary: WP:NOTPAPER"!), not kept alongside with the content you restored (the content, I say, merely restating the official response, but which conveniently allows Avala to engage in OR and POV-crafted collages of individuals's reactions elsewhere in the article, misrepresented as state reactions, all done to his partisan cause's advantage). On the other hand, his installing and retaining in the article 17 February 2008 politician statements for Ukraine, after having blocked updating the entry for more the recent statements by Julia Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister, is all fine with Avala, and needs no revisiting. What do you say to that, Ian? Everybody else? Husond? ChrisO? What's wrong with you, people? --Mareklug talk 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address any particular issue here. You just ask editors who don't agree with your personal attacks what is wrong with them. Is that the highest level of your contribution? You don't write anything about how you removed the whole detailed entry on Slovakia which gives us perfect insight of the position in that country. You keep mentioning "state reaction" but this article is called International reaction not state reaction. Horrible how you miss this since February, it's almost 6 months and you still can't even understand what is the title of this article. It includes all statements not just acts adopted in the parliament which could be considered a "state reaction" though statements of elected officials are very well a state reaction too. You just keep on with same (almost boiler plate as some MFA statements) statements about "What about Cuba" etc. but when someone brings arguments which prove you wrong you either go silent and wait until the discussion is archived so you can start it over or you resort to personal attacks. So if you can properly address any POV (yes POV not the content dispute) issues there might be with the countries you mentioned, do it or the tag has to go.--Avala (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the fact is, This article cannot be called nuetral. It is always POV in some way. The Fact is, were better off leaving that tag on.--Jakezing (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia

South Ossetia don't recognize Kosovo.

Note: I have deleted several irrelevant comments by some users who don't seem to know that Wikipedia is not a forum, this talk page is not here for discussion of the subject of the article nor is it here for discussion of languages or anything else but improvement of this article. AVandtalkcontribs 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=236118187"