Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Wording (map vs. article)

The wording is inconsistent between the map and the article. On the map, it says "States which have delayed or have expressed neutrality on recognition of Kosovo's independence." for beige and "States which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations." for orange - for example, my interpretation of the source for New Zealand is that they disagree with unilateral moves (so they're orange) but also have a neutral stance (so they're beige). In my opinion, it would be better to update the map's legend to be the same as or closer to the headings used in the article to make it clearer and more consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.208.158 (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I have harmonized them now. --Avala (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists

The last three lists are not in a wikipedia style. It is not as if the sources for those are official, and just because someone says that they feel something about the situation does not mean it is the nation's official stance! Also, there is NOT going to be a 'UN decision' on the matter.

Those last few lists are not encyclopedic. This page should be held to the same standards as other articles. Contralya (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Countries that do not recognize are not obliged to make a formal statement. Statement of the high official which states that for his country nothing has legally changed and that Kosovo is still part of Serbia is sufficient. Countries that do recognize Kosovo must make a formal decision as their countries position is changing. Others who are not recognizing can either explain it to the media in a statement (as many did) or they can keep silent (usually countries without developed ministries of foreign affairs, mostly in Africa) --Avala (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In international law, there is no need for formal recognition. First of all, some countries feel there is no need for explicit recognition at all since the constitutive theory of recognition has been abandoned long ago. Secondly, recognition can be implicit in numerous actions of governments, even in subtle sentences such as "we express the hope that the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo adopt a law on minority protection as soon as possible". A country that remains silent can therefore not be categorized as a tacit opponent of the independence of Kosovo. It may have recognized Kosovo implicitly. Thirdly, taking into account the absence of formalism in international law, it is ludicrous to presume that developing countries are in fact opponents that have such underdeveloped MFAs that they lack the means to send a message to the outside world. It just means that they adopt a policy of wait-and-see MaartenVidal (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Entities

I was wondering, if an entity is a part of a state and that state already did take a stand on Recognition or Non-Recognition, should that entity still remain on the list for Other Relevant entities or should it be merged with the state that it belongs to? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Comments??? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --K kc chan (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody colour in Austria dark blue please Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like a comment also from JosipMac regarding this issue, as well as other users with article edit access. Any Comments? --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to merge Republika Srpska with Bosnia and Herzegovina but someone kept putting RS back so I gave up. --Avala (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care either way to be honest, but I agree with you that it's kinda pointless. I would understand hypothetical situation if let's say Bosnia did recognize Kosovo but Republika Srpska is against it. Then it might make some sense putting both of them on the list. As things stand, it's redundant because both have the same stance. JosipMac (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's completely true, it is redundant. Avala Please merge the information once more, if it keeps on going then I guess we will have to create a column for the states that have other constituting entities and give the details in there, but not in two separate lists. What do you think guys?--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone keeps reverting it, you could just add 50 American states to the list, UK countries, 28 states of India, etc. :) JosipMac (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thinking about doing that. :)--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

It seems that people think they might influence some foreign ministries by twisting or manipulating their statements. You have to stop with it. I visit this page because I don't want to waste time googling but I end up doing it here even more.

1. According to the statement of the Armenian FM: "Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo yet" and "the issue is under discussion and the decision will be announced when the time comes". “Granting independence to Kosovo, the international community violated the legal norms but forgot Karabakh. ” Yet on the article YET is missing and the statement of the FM is crippled. If there is other relevant evidence that they will not recognize or are undecided please provide it but do not cripple statements. You are not helping anyone. Armenia should be on the appropriate list unless, again, there is other relevant information.

2. India is clearly undecided according to their statement yet the are in the list with the "continue negotiations". Their additional statement to the one included in the article states: "We have taken note of the unilateral declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this declaration. We are studying the evolving situation. This reads very undecided to me. And the continuation of the discution is not mentioned anywhere. Again, if I missed something please add a link. Thanks Jawohl (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately failing to quote this for India Foreign Office stated that “It has been India’s consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties”." and that combined with your quote brings us to the fact India hasn't made a final statement but that is has a position that "sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states" and that it supports further talks. Which is exactly what is in the article. And if Armenian MFA calls Kosovo recognition illegal I think it is pretty obvious what is their position. I hope you don't think he was going to continue the statement with "but we are going to recognize Kosovo anyway and violate legal norms ourselves".--Avala (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not, I just did not wanted to add it again, that is why I said "Their additional statement to the one included". Stop being so mistrustful. It is not healthy. And so is discussing with you. Just continue with your logic, but you are for sure not helping wikipedia or the people that you think you might be helping, on the contrary Jawohl (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have registered just to make this comment. Are you sure you don't have a second account here ;) --Avala (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did register to make that particular comment because this whole article is turning onto a joke. Wikipedia is here to help and not confuse. I understand that for you this is personal but so it is for me. I am wasting my time because of the confusion created here. Jawohl (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Armenia: HI. I tried to remove Armenia yesterday and hell broke through as soon as I did that. Apparently for the non recognition part it's enough only to mention Non_Recognition. According to the Statement of the Armenian News that you cited you are right to make this note. The Article says: Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo yet, RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said in Yerevan today. The issue is under discussion and the decision will be announced when the time comes, according to him.

Even if it's unlikely that they will recognize R. of Kosova, still according to this article Armenia should be temporarily on another category (list) until such a decision has been made by Armenian authorities. So yes, you are right. It should be temporarily removed from the Non-Recognition List. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We came to a conclusion on wikimedia commons that Armenian officials made two statements in the same day to Azeri and to Armenian media and they were different. So I put Armenia under <!-- --> until we resolve the issue but it was soon removed and someone put it in the article again. If they call the move illegal I think there is little space for speculation though, but I agree we need some kind of final confirmation to make things sure. Sometimes in these situations it is also good to take a look at the news title because journalists who were there might not quote everything but will probably know what the atmosphere was at the press conference and the title of this news article on Armenia is "Armenia not going to recognize Kosovo independence". --Avala (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog site. I do not have to remind you of that. If they made two different statements as you say then put the other one as a link as well. And since they are different, the case seems clear.

"Sometimes in these situations it is also good to take a look at the news title because journalists who were there might not quote everything but will probably know what the atmosphere was at the press conference and the title of this news article on Armenia is "Armenia not going to recognize Kosovo independence"". but if you go through the article it states the opposite. Anyway from your comment on the atmosphere of the conference you seem to know better or maybe you were present there... :) Jawohl (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other relevant entities

Apparently the "Islamic Community of Serbia" is listed in the "Other relevant entities". Question: can the "Islamic community" which is non-notable enough to not have its own article, be considered an "entity"?Vice regent 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Community of Serbia represents about 2% of Serbian population (Bosniaks and other muslims) so it's not unnotable. --Avala (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the entities listed in this article are supposed to be "international". Since when does the Islamic Community of Serbia attain international status? Or are we implying that this community is not part of Serbia? --K kc chan (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Point. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian Orthodox Chruch isn't exactly international, is it? Relevant entities doesn't necessarily mean international. The Serbian Islamic community is relevant as Kosovo Albanians are 99% Muslim. --Tocino, 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tocino please do not move my comments below your posts just to make yourself feel good about your opinion. My Good Point comment was addressed to K kc chan's contribution.

And one other thing Kosovo Albanian have their own Islamic Community and it is not in Belgrade but in Prishtina.

Hmmm!!! Back to my original opinion we should merge Entities that belong to a state that already recognized or not-recognized Republic of Kosova. In this case Serbian orthodox Church and Islamic Community of Serbia should be merged with Serbia. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point on Islamic community, but the Serbian Orthodox Church is international.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Relevant entities doesn't necessarily mean international." True, but please note that this article is about "International reactions". If you, Tocino, feel it is absolutely necessary to include the response from Islamic Community of Serbia, you may want to add them in the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article or create another article called "Domestic reactions in Serbia". --K kc chan (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is now "Diplomatic reaction" instead of "International reaction" so the Islamic Communtiy of Serbia belongs here IMO. --Tocino 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, so now the only issue with the Islamic Community of Serbia is that whether it should be considered a part of Serbia or simply an independent entity. --K kc chan (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Iceland goes light blue

The Iceland government has now declared its intention to recognize the independence of Kosovo but has not set a firm date for doing so.[1] Could someone color the country light blue? Haukur (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive moved Iceland to the correct table, however i don't know how to change the colour of countries on the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mozambique should be khaki. —Nightstallion 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Mozambique? The khaki part is a bit unclear!!! ... Source needed if you wanna say that they intend to recognize or the contrary. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Khaki is the colour used for neutral countries; as there's a statement of neutrality in the sources, the map should reflect that. —Nightstallion 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia references...

References provided for Macedonia's intention to recognition don't have text stating this: The Republic of Macedonia will likely recognise Kosovo, but not right away. The reckognition will be after the demarcation of the border, as said in the Ahtisaari's plan. So I have commented it out.

This reference [2] (pointing to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/7933/) however does have a link to [3] and there it is stated that "Kosovo and Macedonia have supported a plan by the former UN envoy for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, from 2006 that mentions the demarcation of Macedonia’s northern border.", but this isn't the same as the text above (The reckognition will be after the demarcation of the border, as said in the Ahtisaari's plan. So, I suppose my reasons for exclusion of it from the article are clear. --Biblbroks's talk 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan - commenting out text

Commented out this : Tokyo plans to follow the United States and European countries in supporting Kosovo's independence. Previously it said : "Tokyo plans to follow the United States and European countries in supporting Kosovo's independence. Japan will carefully examine whether Kosovo meets all the requirements for a state, but is poised to recognize it in general, Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura told a press conference." As it was it appeared as if all of it was said by Chief Cabinet Secretary, but it isn't thus. The first sentence was said by unnamed "sources familiar with the matter" (http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1259288/japan_set_to_recognize_kosovo_as_sovereign_state/).

All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags for Nato and G8

Hi everyone. I saw that Nato memberships of the countries are now listed. Should we be adding flags as well? Similarly, Japan is listed to be the chair of G8 (though I don't think other members are listed but we could list them..) so should there be a flag for G8? I am leaning towards "yes" for Nato flag and "no" for G8 stuff. Oh and a quick observation - isn't it kinda interesting that the map is slowly turning towards a Cold War era-esque division of countries? --Ubardak (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The NATO flag was here, but was removed due to fair use issues. There is no G8 flag that exists. So for both issues, no flag icons please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the flags of other states and entities is not removed then?--Certh (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I been removing the ones that have copyright issues to them, everything else is fine. Plus, they are not being removed since the countries are listed by using a template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland recognises Kosovo

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-29-ireland-kosovo_N.htm

Please updateLogitech999 (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Finland recognize Rep. of Kosova March 7th

My sources are in Albanian but all the media are reporting this My source = http://www.rtklive.com/?categoryId=1&newsId=18419 My source = http://www.kosova.com/artikulli/44808 My source = http://www.yle.fi/news/id83961.html My Source = http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=18149&group=Politics

I also couldn't create a threat so I posted it here, please someone with higher authorities move it to a new section or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of recognition by Belgium

The Belgian State Gazette published today the royal assent, which was given on 24 February 2008. I adapted the article accordingly. MaartenVidal (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The same's true for Austria, as far as I know. Only became wholly official today. —Nightstallion 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

The archived talk pages are "invisible" unitil they are renamed according to the recent renaming of the main article.... --Camptown (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved them now, but strangely enough, only Archive 1 seems to show up in the Archive box, not Archive 2. I've got no idea what's the reason. -- EJ (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Morocco Khaki

Morocco needs to be khaki colour on the map. The tables need to correspond with the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sudan needs to be khaki as well. --Tocino, 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. i can't edit the map. Will somebody do it please, Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They made no statements, there is only a reported discomfort in these countries in a news article. --Avala (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia needs to be colored khaki as the citations clearly state that Macedonia is still deciding. Also Laos needs to be colored red because it will not recognize. --Tocino, 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Avala (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

"Brazil favors the continuity of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations and considers that a solution must be reached within the multilateral realm."[4] - this position is shared by Russia as well, talks under the UN auspices until both sides are satisfied. And if Brazil and Russia share the idea, even though Brazil was not explicit about not recognizing, I think Brazil should be the same shade as Russia. Russian side: Lavrov: "any solution not agreeable to both Serbia and Kosovo cannot make it through the Security Council." and Putin: "Our position is extremely clear. Any resolution on Kosovo should be approved by both sides," --Avala (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Russia insist on bilateral solution, which means de facto unilateral in this case. Brazil insists on multilateral solution. In practice, multilateral solution can be one on which majority of countries agree(d) on. In other words, if enough countries recognize Kosovo Brazil can state that multilateral agreement has been made (regardless of veto from Serbia and Russia). Of course, the statement about "multilateral solution" is just a typical political phrase and doesn't mean much at all (the decision of Brazil can go either way in the future). It certainly does not warrant red color on the map. You could interpret the last part of the statement so that "multilateral realm" is a referance to UNSC, but IMO that's stretching it. JosipMac (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Josip. Jawohl (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a big JOKE!!!!

This is the second thread I am starting. First one had a question mark this one is a conclusion. "UN does not recognize" is the most ridiculous thing to write here. Are you people serious? UNSC could not agree. That is a FACT!!! If there was no Veto mechanism it would have been 3:2 for recognition, but since there is one: it is undecided. On the other hand the recognition was not even discussed since Russia always threatened with the use of VETO. Therefore it was never laid out in front of the SC. To whoever put it (avala?) - take it off and spare us the time. Do your homework. This is not a football match!!! To the rest of you, please do not use bold text to emphasize things. I am sure everyone can read. The same thing applies to EU. Remove the bold NOT recognize. We can all do the math and by now it is clear that 20 countries will recognize it. So what's the point of bold NOT RECOGNIZE and then putting all these EU flags next to the countries which did recognize. Besides EU could also not agree so they let it up to each country to decide. but using bold is a nasty useless trick, It is the same kind of a trick that is used by avala to manipulate the Armenian statement "ARMENIA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE" yet. Sorry for the tone, but you should really stick to the facts and not abuse your editing powers. Thanks.Jawohl (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. There are no threads here nor repeating yourself with "is this a JOKE?". Well let me answer once and for all No it's not. Nobody is laughing. As I see all edits were made with giving sources in this article, it's not unreferenced at all. If you disagree with the fact that some country or organization decided to recognize or not recognize Kosovo it's your personal opinion which I am afraid we cannot put into the article, and it's not exactly constructive material for talk page either. --Avala (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP Give me the source that says Kosovos recognition was discussed at the UNSC and it was voted against it. The source on the article says divided. You are violating the rules here, by drawing your own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's so hard to understand, they havn't recognized Kosovo... Chandlertalk 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first off, it can't be 3-2 as the UN has 15 security council members and 192 recognized states. This ain't Florida buddy. The United Nations' official stance is that the UN does NOT recognize Kosovo due to Russia's veto. Just like the UN doesn't think that Palestine's an independent country due to the US veto. That's how the UN works, not by some random rules you make up to manipulate UN to your will. The UN's stance is crystal clear, and if you can't deal with it, you are a big joke, ok? 67.101.109.142 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Iceland

Iceland has intentions to recognize but has to decide on the timing according to their official FM website. Therefore they need to be removed. http://www.mfa.is/speeches-and-articles/nr/4124 Jawohl (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope they are light blue. No reason to remove them. --Avala (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your are right. I think Iceland should be moved back to "Declared intention to recognise independence". Gugganij (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure who keeps putting Iceland in the RECOGNIZED but the article provided says that Iceland has initiated or is planning to. I saw someone put Iceland earlier in that list today, than it got removed, now it's back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic... is inappropriate. Please move to Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

The recent move was unfortunate, resulting in a false title, even less appropriate than the original. Take a clue from the content of the lead and the verb it uses, recognize, and its reference to states and other entities. The shortest and most appropriate title would refer to the recognition of the..., not one that alludes to diplomatic anything, if only because what is described goes well beyond diplomatic recognition by countries that have diplomats, including international organizations and other entities (for example, no way is a Quebeqois political party's reaction diplomatic, yet it is ency to note how Kosovo's UDI plays in separatist-minded Canada; ditto for IMF or IOC or even non-states which don't have diplomats, such as the noted Osetia, Basque Country & similar). Stuff like that. Please fix; the page protection took away the move button, or I'd do it without any epistles. :) --Mareklug ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the title the way it currently is. 160 of the 182 UN member states have yet to recognize Kosovo, so it wouldn't be appropriate to put recognition in the title. Your proposed title smacks of POV. --Tocino 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title suggested here would be POV. --Avala (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I question your imparting of POV, as well as plain English comprehension. The proposed name does not sanction or evaluate the efficacy or legitimacy, or imply the absence or presence, of recognition -- it just names it, because that's what the article describes! However, if you can't stomach Recognition of, make it Reaction to; just remove the silly and innacurate characterization of "diplomatic". Also, the bulk of those hundred something countries tht you mention have yet to take up a position, which is called in colloquial terms, displaying a wait-and-see attitude. Surely they are not incapable of sending a letter and a press release, since that's what they all do all the time, in matters large and small, if they only wished to do so. The objections do not address the fact, that I already showed that "diplomatic" does not reflect the content. --Mareklug ^talk 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We are covering a wide range of opinions on this matter, and we have many organizations or entities here that cannot offer official recognition on the same levels as states. So it would be best to keep the title here until we see what happens in the future. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you just contradicted yourself, and offered evidence for the suggested rename away from "diplomatic". "The same level as states" = diplomatic, because only states have diplomats, by definition of "diplomacy" (non-war relations between states). And since we are covering states and non-states, as you say: "a wide range of opinions on this matter, and we have many organizations or entities" that are not "diplomatic", why on earth is it better to keep the wrong, misleading title (with the word "diplomatic")? "Diplomatic" certainly does not pertain to recognitions/reactions of organizations such as IMF or IOC, and it cannot possibly refer to public representations made by some Quebequois political party or religious sect! --Mareklug ^talk 04:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People tried to remove other entities before but was reverted. This has been under many names already and we just moved recently. Just keep the name as it, then we can figure it out when more states figured out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan, Armenia, UN, EU, India and Chile

Pakistan: According to the article they support but they do not state that they will recognize thus they should be in undecided. Supporting is irrelevant. Armenia: According to the full sentence of the article: Armenia will not recognize independence yet. Put them in to recognize. If they made a second opposite statement then they should be also put under undecided. UN is clearly undecided and divided. There was never a resolution approved by the UNSC which stated that the independence was overruled or declared null and void as requested by russia. EU is also clearly undecided and dived. Jawohl (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

About Pakistan, I disagree. The only officially important color on the map is dark blue. Everything but dark blue is irrelevant from the official point of view, because every other color indicates that a certain country still supports status quo, and that it does not recognize Kosovo as independent. And, just because some country is light blue it does not mean that it will turn out dark blue. The sole purpose of other colors in this map is to show tendencies so that we have a better picture of how (un)popular Kosovo independence is. Red color indicates "a snowball chance in hell" tendency of such a country recognizing Kosovo. Orange indicates "unlikely for the time being", grey indicates "couldn't care less/still debating/undecided", and light blue indicates "supports" or "starting a process of recognition". That's how I see it. Therefore if Pakistan says they "support" it, they should be light blue. JosipMac (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not interested in their color but on the group they are. Supporting does not mean anything at all in this case. They could be doing that for years and not recognize. Kosovo could for example support Taiwan in a official statement but never recognize it. Jawohl (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Colors are tied to groups I guess so it comes down to the same. You could check the group you're interested in, and read the detailed info. I understand your point, I just like it more the way it is, so it's kinda personal preferance I guess. :) JosipMac (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in issues like these I prefer professional over personal. BTW India should also be under undecided according to their MFA statement. I am not able to get the link but here is the whole statement. To me it sounds undecided and they do not mention further negotiations.

"India has a long standing and consistent policy on the issue of recognition. Recognition is normally accorded on the basis of a country having a defined territory, a duly constituted Government in charge which is accepted by the people and which has effective control over an area of governance. It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties. We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation". Jawohl (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the above Press Briefing from 18 Feb 2008 by the Ministry of External Affairs of India is: [5]. The careful use of tense ("We have believed", instead of "We believe") and the noncommital stance of this document, which in no way continues to call for negotiations or denounces unilateral moves, but rather, restates what constitutes a bonafide country entitled to independence and recognition, as already noted in the discussion above, and the mention of India's continuing study the evolving situation, all clearly denote a carefully construed neutral position. Furthermore, reading the Ministry's note on Serbia (a separate PDF document), one can also see their noting there, that direct negotiations between the parties were fruitless, and that the proposed plan by Finland calls for independence of Kosovo "in all but name". So, it's not as if they don't know what they're talking about, or the implications of what they are saying. Coloring this country light orange was yet another baseless POV edition by the politically/nationalistically pro-Serbia contingent editing this topic on Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons. Making India orange and moving it to the group with China was just like making Chile similarly colored, on the basis of a platitude/sentiment that disputes should be resolved by peacable means and in accordance with international laws. Pshaw. What foreign affairs ministry, anywhere, will say anything else? I think grasping at straws in the service of pushing a pervasive political/nationalistic POV speaks badly of the editors in question, and only diminishes their credibility in the long run. Personally, I now treat these editors now as potential vandals, in need of constant supervision, auditing, and often indeed requring mopping up. I will revert these two countries now to netural status, on the PNG/SVG maps and in this article. Having read both ministries' documents in full on their respective websites, in English and Spanish, it is perfectly obvious to me, that we are talking about neutral positions here, unmodified by any subsequent changes. --Mareklug ^talk 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They do mention they "believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties." The article here says they have no official statement but judging from their previous statements and judging from their internal politics where some parties are unsatisfied that the government wasn't clear about not recognizing and judging from the part about sovereignty and territorial integrity I think they are at the right place (before they finally make a clear statement). --Avala (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not meant to judge, emphasize or paraphrase. Mareklug made a very clear and logical point. My judgement tells me that Cyprus, Greece and Spain will also recognize Kosovo by the and of the year but that is my judgment based on the ongoing political moves in the aformentioned countries. That is why we should stick with the actual and factual statements.Jawohl (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer professional too, but the gray area is still there. To you, "support" doesn't indicate 'intention to recognize', while to me it does, because if they support it then it is expected they will act accordingly (and recognize Kosovo) even if they don't in the end (e.g. government change). So we have two groups: "States which have stated they intend to formally recognize Kosovo as independent" and "States with undecided, unclear or ambiguous positions". You disagreed with the correct position of Pakistan on the chart. Since they "support" Kosovo, how exactly is that 1) unclear? 2) undecided? 3) ambiguous? That's why I would put Pakistan as light blue, because while it was not expressly said it will recognize Kosovo, it was sort of "implied in fact". JosipMac (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I get your point about not being able to put them in any of the groups because of their support. I guess you could rename the group onto "declared support or intention to..." although I still think that support is not enough in this case. It's a tough call. What do you think about my proposal to rename?Jawohl (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If India who stated they prefer negotiations and believe in territorial integrity is grey (and not in light orange where the countries that support negotiations go) then so should Pakistan be as it's just a support letter. --Avala (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Armenia has no intention to recognize independence of Kosovo yet, RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said in Yerevan today." Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25057 So should we not correct the article as it is clear that Armenia will sooner or later recognise? --Tubesship (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No because they called the recognition illegal. --Avala (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

India will never recognize Kosovo. They don't support a unilateral declaration, oh for crying out loud that's what Russia said. Should we color Russia gray too? And Jawohl, Spain and Greece won't recognize Kosovo by the year's end. If you want to bet me $1,000 on it, let's do it. Might as well make some money off of this political lunacy. But for now, can we please color India orange again, because honestly if they recognized Kosovo, the country having 200 different regions will simply fall apart. And India's not signing their own death warrant. Markelug, my neocon buddy, I'm going to extend the $1,000 offer ot you on India too. It won't recognize Kosovo by the end of this year, so orange please. 67.101.109.142 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you forgot to change the colour of Iceland?

According to the article Iceland already recognised, but the colour of the country on the map is still unchanged. --Tubesship (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it has not. Please read the official statement of the Foreign Ministry. Gugganij (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

Should it really be white? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems they are still undecided even though they first said they will not recognize. --Avala (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New Zeeland

The position of New Zeeland is very clear. They are undecided and do not want to make any statement wether they oppose or support. Please color and move them accordingly. Nowhere in their statement they request for the talks to continue. Jawohl (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers did interpret her position as a no. All headlines regarding this were "New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo" so it would be OR on our behalf to suggest different, actually we already are by putting it into 4th instead of 3rd table. The other part of PM statement refers to that they will not go further with the issue with issuing formal nonrecognition statements (like Serbia, Romania, Russia etc.). I guess it's fine where it is and as it is. It is their policy to recognize only UN members. New Zealand recognised Montenegro only when they joined the UN. So to put it simple - they will not reocgnise as it is not the policy of that country to recognise countries that haven't been recognised by the UN but they will not make any formal statements (probably because they are on the other side of the planet and have no reason to confront with Kosovo nor to support Serbia with any special statements). They perfectly fit into the category of countries which have expressed disagreement with unilateral moves. I have just noticed someone renamed that whole table to "wish for further talks" which is unwelcome simplification which causes confusion obviously. --Avala (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

UN and EU again

Avala, you seem to forget that with power comes responsibility and that the given power to you is not eternal nor absolute. I have repeatedly requested from you to change the UN and EU headings, since they are misleading. I have also requested from you to provide us with links which support your decision but that you have also failed to provide. If you do not correct UN and EU to undecided you will loose your editing powers just like your government lost Kosovo. They, just like you, abused their power. And btw. Kosovos independence is also just conditional because of this issue. Their powers of decision are also being tested. Don't reply to me with silly arguments if you do not have facts regarding the issues I am raising and do not bitch if you loose your powers because it will be your own fault. By deliberately misinforming, you are doing more harm then helping your people out. Wikipedia needs to change its policies because of people like you. You are behaving like a kid. One can not leave you alone for a minute because you immediately change things how it suits you. This has to stop. Jawohl (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you think I am the only editor here. I didn't edit UN and EU at all. But paranoia is spreading. --Avala (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case I am redirecting my request to the rest of the editors.Jawohl (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're constantly being a bit too harsh on Avala. From what I've seen so far, I've no complaints unless I start being nit-picky. And if he was really acting like a typical Serb as you imply, I would expect much much more biased approach. I haven't seen any "Serbia to Tokio" statements from him, thus far. :) JosipMac (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Btw I didn't even support the adding of bold text, I would rather support putting country name on the left and the statement from their officials on the right. I don't think that readers need a summary. --Avala (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

josip: That might be the case, but I have also asked more the once for explanations regarding UN and EU and he has been the only one to reply by ignoring or neglecting this issue. If I would have gotten counter arguments from other people I would have probably not been harsh to him. This article starts by stating that UN is divided and EU could not decide. Still on the tables bellow everything has a different meaning. The fact that Avala replied to me with No is NOT regarding this issue ignited my harshness towards him. And you do have to admit that this whole article has tendencies to turn onto pro this or against that. All I request is that people stick to facts. And fact is the UN did not decide on anything. They are divided. Fact is also that EU left the decision making up to countries themselves. So what is the point of bending these facts and what is your thought on the issue?Jawohl (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. EU bold text is misleading: "'Takes note' of Kosovo's move, no recognition." - it seems as if EU is against it. Further reading makes it more obvious, but emphasized text in bold is just plain inappropriate. UN one is misleading too. "UN does not recognize" is in bold, while at the beginning of the article it is stated that "The UN Security Council remains divided". Either there is a division in both cases, or UN does not recognize. Also, stating that UN does not recognize is misleading, because it implies that UN countries reached consensus. Putting "UNSC does not recognize" is different and more appropriate, althought it should state that UNSC is divided on this issue. JosipMac (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It will be clearer when Kosovo sends application to the UN in coming days as they have announced. If Russia uses it's veto then UNSC doesn't recognize and as part of the UN it should say something like Kosovo was blocked in UNSC. But again I repeat I am against bold text because for many countries and organizations you must read the whole statement to understand their position. We are putting things that are not black and white as if they were. --Avala (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree that the text, the way it is, is misleading. When Kosovo applies and they are rejected then we can write down the outcome. But until then we should not compete with Mr. Nostradamus :) Jawohl (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear enough that wasn't my suggestion for the article now, just the idea for the future ;) --Avala (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Serbian Krajina

This government in exile or whatever has nothing to do with Kosova. These are Criminals that during the War in Croatia did so many masacres that even they have trouble to remember. Croatia was and always will be One Croatia. Srpska Krajina never had Autonomous Status or was a constitutive part of the Yugoslav Government in Ex-Yugoslavia and as a matter a fact it never existed.

This is just another trick from Serbian Government and Russia all together to try and destabilize the whole region.

So please This article is not about recognition of Republika Srpska Krajina, Please Remove such insults--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)...

By the way what are some editors trying to do? Accomplish the dream of the Great Serbia... Ncncncnc. Look where that dream got you. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add them but your spicy comment doesn't make me remove it. I especially dislike the conspiracy theory in the making about this being a trick from the Serbian and Russian government. And I agree they have nothing to do with Kosovo but Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is on the same level as RSK and they are in the article. --Avala (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG I just saw the addition of Krajina. I demand that it is taken down instantly. This is outrageous! Unless you intend to put Ustasha government in exile as well, or Nazi government in exile, or Khmer government, or descendants of Genghis Khan in exile, there is no valid reason to have Krajina. I think that Krajina has been ethnically cleansed enough so that there are no separatist movements there at this point, other than past nostalgia of Serbs who are probably crying over the fact that they could have had autonomous Krajina but refused. Putting Krajina on that list is like saying "I support holocaust". JosipMac (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, I'm no Wikipedia expert but shouldn't I be able to find out in History who added Krajina on the list? ..and I want to add more on the list: Spanish Inquisition in exile, Aztecs in exile, Cannibals of Fiji in exile, Alpha Centauri government in exile etc. JosipMac (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK that's a colorful point making but I think that all these obscure organizations which do not represent a significant population should be removed. Chechen Ichkeria is no different from Krajina. Both have no influence and low number of members. Their opinion on this matter is worthless. --Avala (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the obscure organizations should be removed, agreed. But not Chechen Ichkeria. Without going into details, let's say that Second Chechen War is still ongoing (or so it is stated on Wikipedia). There is no conflict in Krajina anymore after a decisive victory of Croatian forces and proper partial ethnic cleansing (mostly willing exodus of Serb population). The population of todays Krajina has no separatist demands at all. And self-proclaimed government of Krajina in exile is as real as Peter Pan's, as Krajina never existed as an autonomous entity. I don't see how it is possible to have a non-existent government in exile of non-and-never-existent political entity. If we are going to include imaginary governments, then let's provide a full list: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_fictional_governments JosipMac (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news: Republika Pescenica recognizes Kosovo and plans to invade and annex Croatia. My sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srZIWZkLAog

Website of El Presidente of Pescenica: http://malnarrepublik.blog.hr/index.2.html JosipMac (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting Krajina on that list is like saying "I support holocaust" - Yes, those two things are exactly the same... And if you couldn't stop the sarcasm, this sentence is here to point it out for you... And to say that old exile governments are the same as fictional governments is the real insult. Stop your obvious POV. Chandlertalk 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything you said is wrong. There's no point in posting counter-arguments because you wouldn't comprehend them anyway. I'm off to do other stuff, and certainly don't intend to waste time in pointless debates. I enter debates only when: 1) I have something to say which hasn't been said already or support someone when I feel that is necessary to strengten his/her point of view; 2) When the other side has high enough IQ and 3) If the other side does not set oppinions in stone ("fluctuating world view"). Failure at any of these makes a discussion fruitless and continuing such a discussion does a lot of damage to me whether I'm right or wrong. JosipMac (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your world view is pretty distorted if you think denying the holocaust is the same thing, and equally bad as adding something you don't like to a wikipedia article. And that governments that are in exile are fictional? You don't seem to know what's real and not in this world, that's to bad... A government in exile might not have any powers, but they are all far from fictional. Just because you disagree with them... they can still exist... Chandlertalk 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen up. We are going to stay up all night and do the Remove and Re-insert game all night of this fictional entity of abomination. This is no place for such abominations. This article is about International Recognition and Non Recognition of Republic of Kosova. The Srpska Krajina or whatever is fictional. What is with you people. Don't show your frustrations in wikipedia. Try using some common sense instead. --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. It's about the international reaction not recognition which can come from other entities and organizations not only governments. Btw I do not endorse the inclusion of The Republic of Serbian Krajina but I think other organizations of this kind should be removed like Ichkeria and RS should be with Bosnia. --Avala (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala, come on. I already explained how Krajina and Ichkeria are so different concepts. Krajina is entirely fictional, we both know it. The only reason you're leaving it there is because you're biased about it, and I'm actually sad to see that because aside of that you've been pretty much clear of bias (unless I'm to be nit-picky). I'm not going to debate this with ignorant Swedes who read Harry Potter, but both of us know what Krajina was and what it wasn't, and that Krajina government in exile makes as much sense as government of Republika Pescenica. I don't intend to waste my time on argumenting this because the reason is political. So, I'm just asking you, for the sake of fairness, to remove Krajina. You know it's right, you've said it yourself. We can debate on Ichkeria or whatever it is that you don't like either, but as for now remove Krajina. JosipMac (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Avala, the placement of Srpska Krajina in this Article is completely wrong and you know it, and im glad you approve. So OK I think i did say same days ago that such entities should be merged.

This adding will only create a mess out of this Article.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I and other editors are going to keep reverting your disruptive edits. Croatia is still 4% Serb so the response of the government in exile, however weak and insignificant it may be, is relevant to this discussion. --Tocino, 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant. If your only argument for Krajina is "there's a 4% population of Serbs in Croatia", then be prepared to have a 100 pages long list of "diplomatic responses from minorities" in all countries in the world, or at least in all relevant countries. Why not start with Chinese in Serbia? Or why not post opinion of Kosovars/Albanians who live in Croatia? There's plenty of them. Why not put there government-in-exile of Metohija? And of Sandzak? Government-in-exile of Ottoman sancak of Serbia? Why not put Government-in-exile of Serbian Republic of Germany? I mean, there are 300,000 more Serbs in Germany than in Croatia; surely that warrants the government-in-exile? JosipMac (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other entities are mostly separatists and the Krajina government-in-exile are separatists. Last time I checked the Chinese in Serbia were not looking to create their own state within Serbia. --Tocino 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Serbs in Croatia were not looking to create their own state within Croatia. JosipMac (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed this then. --Tocino 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish stupidity inflicted physical pain. I give up on the discussion and continue my crusade against democracy. JosipMac (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line... If Ichkeria's response is on this article, then Krajina's belongs here too. --Tocino 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds? Ichkeria conflict is still officially ongoing, and Serbs in Krajina don't demand autonomy or independance today, nor did they ever had any. JosipMac (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)