Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Kosovo and Saudi Arabia established diplomatic relations

Kosovo and Saudi Arabia established diplomatic relations on Friday, August 7 [1]. Would anyone care to make the edit? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Poczta Polska

Poczta Polska does not recognise Kosovo - Poľská vláda uznala Kosovo, pošta ho však neeviduje. All letters not addressed to Serbia/UNMIK will be sent to either Kosovo village in Poland or to the one in Russia. Is this the independent decision of the Polish post office or is this related to Kosovo not being a member of the UPU?--Avala (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be included in "Kosovan–Polish relations", not this article. I think it silly that they will not send post to Kosovo, because I would expect post to reach Wales, without the UK on the address or to Vojvodina without Serbia written on the address or to Texas with the US written on the address. This is the sign of a poor postal service in my opinion. Why should a postal service get involved with politics? They should help their customers by sending the mail to the correct address regardless of politics. Ijanderson (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well it's usually not like that. If the mail is not addressed in Croatian the post service of Croatia will return it back to Serbia even though they could read it. OK then I will add it to that article as suggested.--Avala (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What's next Avala - the pensioners club of Tanzania does not recognize Kosovo? This is just poor service, as the manager of the branch they talked to clearly said that Kosovo is in the list of states they send mail to [2]. They talked to an incompetent person, who wasn't even able to tell them that prior to independence all postal mail had Kosovo/UNMIK or UNMIK/Kosovo, not "Serbia/UNMIK" - the latter being a made up thing by that incompetent person they talked to. You can see the full list of Kosovar postal codes - approved by UPU - here[3] and you can read more about it here[4], here[5], or straight from the horse's mouth here[6]. All mail is forwarded to and arrives in Kosovo if you write, for example, "XYZ, Prishtina, Kosovo 10000" and I can personally attest to that. Sticking to straws ain't forbidden though, I agree. --alchaemia (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Tanzania doesn't recognise Kosovo so the only news would be if the pensioners club decided to recognise it. However it would be interesting only if this club was owned by the Government. As for the other part, the UPU directs mail to non member states through a third country. Mail for Somalia goes through Ethiopia, mail for TRNC goes through Turkey etc.--Avala (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure your postal theories are amusing to some, but UPU directs mail to Kosovo directly through Kosovo, as it has approved postal codes for Kosovo. If you had read that document I linked to, you would have known that. By the way, I also heard that the local employee in WalMart New Mexico does not recognize Kosovo... --alchaemia (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am sure that it feels better when you call things you don't like "theories". However, yes, the UPU really directs mails through third countries to non-member post stations and it's not a theory. The UPU sends mail to TRNC through Turkey, it sends mail to Somalia through Ethiopia and it sends mail to Kosovo through probably Albania and Macedonia. Now whether you personally like this fact or not is completely irrelevant and absolutely uninteresting as it has no effect on the fact itself. Is WalMart in New Mexico Government-owned public corporation like Poczta Polska? If yes then it's an interesting piece of news, if this worker is interpreting the policy of the company, however if it is a supermarket chain as I think it is then I don't see any reason why you would post that and I hope you are not trying to flood this page with unsourced and irrelevant comments?--Avala (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this employee is implementing the policy of the Polish government in that she's saying they don't ship to Kosovo since Poland, the owner of this postal service, does not recog... oh wait, that's the opposite way. The country of Poland does recognize Kosovo, and thus all of its agencies and/or companies have to follow this policy. As for UPU, it used to redirect mail to Kosovo through Switzerland, but it does not anymore since Kosovo has gotten its new postal code in cooperation with UPU. It used to be required to write "via Switzerland" up until 2005, but it is not anymore. As for WalMart, I think you need to upgrade your sarcasm machine, and it is you - not I - who's flooding this page with ridiculous "news" that nobody cares about. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The country of Poland does recognize Kosovo, and thus all of its agencies and/or companies have to follow this policy." - so what is Poczta Polska doing then? Fooling around?--Avala (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy of the post office, but a dumb employee. I've yet to hear of a case where a simple post office clerk overrules the decision of the government. Stop this nonsense. --alchaemia (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, ultimately. The Polish Postal Service does not speak for the government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland recognises Kosovo. Besides, postal services are not necessarily known for their efficiency. This is a non-issue. If you're so taken with this story, Avala, you should contact Poland Post and ask them to confirm it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

What about this article concerning a parliamentary session in Nagorno-Karabakh, dated 12 March 2008?

According to the text content, it looks like they have recognised Kosovo, but as it is for Taiwan too, Kosovo did never reciproke that recogition.

[7]

Den-femte-ryttaren (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement is from "factions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic National Assembly" - so it is not necessarily the majority view of the assembly. It's a bit unclear as to whether they've actually recognised or not, but the tone of the statement certainly seems supportive. And there's only one actual reference to Kosovo - "Commending the stance of the international community respecting the human rights and civil rights of the majority of the population of Kosovo".

We may be able to say something in the Autonomous regions and secessionist movements section. But I'm not sure whether there's really enough to go on here. What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement starts off "the parliament of NKR adopted a statement" which seems to indicate that this was passed by said parliament, making it official. However, there is (as you [Bazonka] stated) no actual recognition given. NKR is simply asking that those countries that have recognized Kosovo also recognize them. Agree that it warrants mention as a reaction of an autonomous region/secessonist movement/non-UN state/whatever, but it does not meet the requirements to be in the actual recognition section.Khajidha (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats not NKR recognising Kosovo, its them basically saying "if your going to recognise Kosovo, you should recognise us too" Ijanderson (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1) This article is from March 12, 2008 2) It says nothing about Nagorno-Karabakh recognising Kosovo 3) As Ian says, it only says there should be consistency in the extending of diplomatic recognition

This article has no relevance to this page. It's outdated and says nothing of significance. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this webpage is 17 months old is neither here nor there. We shouldn't just be including recent information; we should include anything relevant that adds to the article. If we'd discovered it nearer the time it would definitely have warranted inclusion, particularly when the article was named "International reaction...". I think I am going to put something in - if you don't like it, then we can discuss. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BiH

[8] it's not really news as such, but is there anything we can do with it? Ijanderson (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added something about this to the article. Also I've moved the Republika Srpska stuff from the Autonomous regions and secessionist movements section into the main BiH text. Bazonka (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mystery country has recognised Kosovo

According to Behgjet Pacolli, the president of another country has signed a decree to recognise Kosovo... but he's not saying which country it is. Any guesses? Pacolli generally seems to be right about these things. See [9] Can any Albanian-speakers see if this [10] sheds any extra light? Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, my elementary Albanian (with a bit of help from Google) tells me that this article is dated 14 July. So perhaps it's not new news Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador is still pending. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian article specifically says that it is not El Salvador. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bota Sot report is dated Wednesday, July 15, 2009. So, no news -- the mystery is over a month old! Kosovar (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe one of the Albanian news sites will pick up on this and we might be able to find out more. IJA (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't El Salvador President sign back then but the parliament is blocked for some reason so it's still not valid?--Avala (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The President signed the decree and sent it to the parliament for ratification, but the parliament is on break until some time this Fall. It's my understanding that parliamentary approval is a formality. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Pacolli excluded El Salvador. So, the mysterious country in question is definitely not El Salvador. Kosovar (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Imam: Rest of Arabian Peninsular to recognise Kosovo

[11] The head of the Islamic Community in Kosovo claims that Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Yemen will recognise Kosovo before the end of the year. He has said this many of times, however he has been party correct and his timing has not been the best. There is a likely chance this will happen in my opinion. If this does happen the whole CCG (Yemen not a member) will recognise Kosovo. Also I understand that he can not speak on the behalf of these four countries, but it maybe something to keep an eye out for. IJA (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[12] This too IJA (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

B92 "I can only tell you that today some Islamic Community of Kosovo leaders announced that in the next month recognitions could be expected from some very interesting and important countries from Arabia, namely, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar and Oman are mentioned as the countries ready to recognize Kosovo by the end of the month of Ramadan," said Bajrami. IJA (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[13] Qatar, Yemen, Oman and Kuwait again IJA (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Same thing again really [14] IJA (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all speculation on the imam's part (although it may well be correct), and he's not saying where he got his information from. Without something from one of the four countries, we can't use this information in the article. Bazonka (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[15] again IJA (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh not to recognise Kosovo at this moment

[16] Interesting news. They say for the time being they will not recognise Kosovo, but may in the future. Shall we update the article with this? IJA (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - good find. I've updated the article. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

East Turkestan Kosovo recognition

Even though the East Turkeston G-in-E does not have control over its territory, shouldn't we move it to the recognizing states list, perhaps adding a government-in-exile category (so we'd have three for the recognition thing). I would think it is good to make the point that while other such movements have given support to Kosovo, the only government in exile that has officially recognized Kosovo is East Turkestan, making it very different form the others (though, I think that "Manchukuo Temporary Government" had a Chinglish statement of recognition, but everyone knows that thing is a joke, you can barely even call it government in exile when it doesn't have an officialized constitution). I think that the official statement of recognition for Kosovo kind of sets East Turkestan's gov.-in-exile apart. --Yalens (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be adding East Turkestan or any other "government-in-exile" (e.g. Dalai Lama, etc.) If such an entity chooses to recognize Kosovo or not, is really irrelevant in international terms. Recognition by widely recognized states (e.g. UN member states) is important, because (one could argue) the more states recognize, that makes it more likely further states would recognize; also, as more states recognize, it becomes easier for Kosovo to join international organizations. (Depending from organization to organization -- UN is hard, because of Russia's veto. But many other international organizations need only 50% of votes or two-thirds votes or so on, so if Kosovo can convince that proportion of members to recognize it, having recognized it they will probably vote in favour of its membership.) But from this perspective, governments-in-exile are irrelevant, because they have very little influence. --SJK (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to create a new Government-in-Exile section - I agree with SJK's points. E.Turkestan fits perfectly well in the Autonomous/Secessionist section. On the other hand, I see no need to keep the W.Papua text in the article - it's a quote from an interest group, not from a Papuan. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see no reason why we shouldn't include the "Manchukuo Temporary Government" in the Autonomous/Secessionist section. They don't seem like a joke movement to me (although they may be arguing for an unwinnable cause). See [17]. In this page they state "We declare to recognize the Kosovo Republic" (dated 20/02/08) - not much but it's clear what their position is. (And contrary to what Yalens said, they do have a constitution - there's a link towards the bottom of the page.) Your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Manchukuo Temporary Government is obviously an irrelevant organisation, at least concerning the Kosovo issue. Maybe we could also add the resolution of the Association of Albanian (or Serb) pub-owners in Bavaria... --DaQuirin (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well no, that's not obvious at all. If it's so irrelevant, then why do we have an "Autonomous regions and secessionist movements" section in the article? Each of the groups/bodies listed there (with the exception of the Free West Papua Campaign - see above) has exactly the same relevance as the Manchukuo Govt - none of their positions really means anything to Kosovo or Serbia, but their inclusion in this article is interesting, possibly useful, and encyclopaedic. (Your pub-owners example is deliberately obtuse and not remotely comparable.) We should either get rid of the entire section, or include all serious secessionist movements that have expressed an opinon on Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for the constitution thing. I may remind all of you, though, that we don't currently have Manchukuo in the article. --Yalens (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My stance on Manchukuo is pretty much the following: yes, it's obvious they are serious. Its an unwinnable cause, what they have, though, as Bazonka stated. However, the difference is that East Turkestan, unlike Manchukuo, DOES have a small bit of sway. For example, the group has links to Turkey (albeit, a country which has already recognized, but still), and it is possible that some time in the future, East Turkestan may become actually independent (Manchukuo would become autonomous at best). --Yalens (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, though, I see no harm in adding Manchukuo as well. What harm could it do anyways, and as Bazonka says, it may be interesting to know the stances of such organizations. I will be adding Manchukuo momenetarily. If you want me to remove it, how about I'll remove it temporarily and we'll discuss it here... --Yalens (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should include governments-in-exile or any such governments that are not viable and are lacking recognition themselves. If Western Sahara recognised, that would be noteworthy. Otherwise, we should not list such entities, or else we will end up listing, as was alluded to in an earlier exchange, the Tanzania Pensioner's club. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish entities which control significant territory, and act like the government of that territory, from entities which don't control any territory and thus don't act like a normal government does. So, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, North Cyprus, South Ossetia, Transnistria, West Bank/Gaza, are in this group; the Dalai Lama, East Turkestan, Manchuko, West Papua, etc. are not. I think the first are something like de facto states, even if few or no other states recognize them; the second are more like political pressure groups. I'd suggest there is an argument for including the first group in this page (at least they have an argument, if you recognize Kosovo, why won't you also recognize us?); the second group, why include them? They are not entities with de facto independence seeking recognition as de jure independent; they are entities without even de facto independence seeking it. --SJK (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those in the second group are more similar to Serbia's position, i.e. their territory is under the control of another government which they oppose. Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not "Serbia's territory." --alchaemia (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo not being Serbia's territory is an opinion. I happen to agree, but that's not the point... it's not what we're discussing. --Yalens (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said that Kosovo is Serbia's territory. I was saying that Serbia's position is that Kosovo is Serbia's territory. Bazonka (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that we DO, SJK, already distinguish between de facto or non-UN recognized gov'ts (Taiwan is the only one of these recognizing, except Kosovo itself) and things like East Turkestan, Tibet, etc. The latter category is a completely different section already, so there's no point in bringing that up. Though, we can also note that West Bank/Gaza fall on the gray line between the the two, as while they are de facto recognized by Israel as de facto independent, they are effectively still de facto controlled by Israel due to Israel's de facto troop and population presence there (big de facto political de facto mumbo jumbo). --Yalens (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The first group isn't even a question, duh they're on the page. As for the second group, why not? There have been a number of cases where members originally of the second group have moved to the first group, or to straight independent states (for example, WWII-era French, Norwegian, Danish, Belgian, Dutch, etc. gov's in exile, as well as independence movements like West Papua achieving independent states). So while members of the second group seem unimportant right now, and they are, you never know when one of them will actually succeed and the policy they had towards Kosovo from the start has meaning. Most of the time they don't, but it can come unexpectedly. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria seems to flip-flop between the two categories every now and then, for one thing, and it wouldn't be that surprising if 10 years down the road, or maybe even five, Russia finally gives up trying to control the place and lets it go- many cosmopolitan Russians seem supportive of this idea, even though the majority of the country isn't (but who do you think is in gov't? If they vote in liberals, who knows...). It's still far less than 50% chance that Ichkeria will succeed, but its a decent chance that it's policy towards Kosovo will mean something in the near future. --Yalens (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum it up, I see no reason WHY NOT to have them in, and there's always the chance that it may be important, and I'm not fond of deleting things for little reason just because they're not completely necessary. It can still be interesting and helpful even if it isn't 100% necessary. (and no, Bazonka, I think E. Turkestan's position is quite different from Serbia's because while they both have in common the view that their land is occupied, ultimately, Serbia wants national unity for its interests and is against self-determination, whereas E. Turkestan's interests are the opposite direction (pro-Self-determination, anti-let's-keep-large-states-unified)). --Yalens (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambassador to Bulgaria appointed

Ariana Zherka-Hoxha has been appointed to Bulgaria as the first ambassador of the republic to that country. [18] --alchaemia (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pacolli, West African nations to recognise Kosovo

[19] I've tried google translator. I think that is what the source is saying. Can an Albanian speaker translate it please? IJA (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovar Islamic Society last week said in statement that they have information that four Middle Eastern states are about to annonce their recognition of the independence of the Republic of Kosovo. Unusually, they have listed all four countries: Kuwait, Yemen, Oman and Qatar (if I am not mistaken). Now, Pacolli who meet officials of KIS has been on a month long tour of West Africa and he is confident that more recognitions will come from West Africa, but has not specified or mentioned any country. On the other hand, unofficially, expectations are that at least one of these recognitions will come before the end of the holy month of Ramadan, i.e. within two weeks. What can we deduce from all this? Kosovar (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of African countries, Gazeta is reporting that Pacolli was in Libya on Monday, Sept. 7 to lobby Moammar Qaddafi for recognition of Kosovo [20]. No other news available on this that I can find. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Qaddafi meets with Pacolli. Qaddafi promised that Libya will seriously consider the recognition of Kosovo's independence and promised that there will be no travel restrictions (meaning recognizing Republic of Kosovo Passports). [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.124.212 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some text to the article about this, but I have made it clear (I hope) that this is information from Pacolli, not directly from Gaddafi. Bazonka (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All Tables Need Numbering

Has nothing to do with POV, but simple table making. Jenga3 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? What is to be gained? Besides numbering the table for UN states which don't recognise Kosovo is misleading as it is not a full list of all the states which don't recognise Kosovo. IJA (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is to be gained is a full account of the members who have decided not to support the separation of Kosovo. If numbering these states is pointless, so is numbering the states which do recognize Kosovo as a separate entity, would you not agree? Jenga3 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact number and sequence of the recognition acts (by the individual states) are a highly relevant information. The majority of states take different positions of non-recognition (which has to be explained in more detail). A numbering of these states in alphabetical order would be both messy and misleading. --DaQuirin (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "sequence" of those who decided to support a seperated Kosovo can be achieved by clicking on the "DATE" arrow which would shift from "ALPHABETICAL" to organization by "DATE", so sequence is irrelevant to this discussion. As for the number of the states, this number can be shown in the intro for the table. Denying the same treatment to both sides is not beneficial from the Wikipedia POV. Jenga3 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the sequence is irrelevant, then the numbers are also irrelevant! That argument is illogical. Bazonka (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The sequence is irrelevant in THIS argument because a sequence can be easily achieved by clicking the DATE arrows. Jenga3 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If lets say the country ranked on the 2nd position, tomorrow will recognize Kosovo, are you personally going to edit the whole table again? What about the next recognition? I don't think so. While on the other hand, if a new country recognizes Kosovo, it's easy because the number increments for 1, which means it becomes: 63, 64, 65 and so on. The table that holds countries that have recognized Kosovo, lists every single one that did so, while the other table is partial (aprox. 88 out of 133) and not all of them share a common view on Kosovo's independence, in contrast with countries that do recognize Kosovo. kedadial 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What about reversion from recognition? This assumes that no reversions will ever be made, which is a pro-secession assumption and thus bad. Jenga3 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember that that has ever happened in Kosovo's case. kedadial 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You also cannot predict that it will not happen in the future. My point stands Jenga3 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If we take a look at the probability of which one is more likely to happen, it is a new recognition instead of a reversion, and here are the figures:

• Recognitions: It went from 0 to 62, for an year and a half.
• Reversions: It stayed 0 for the same time, all the time.

kedadial 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we are talking probabilities? Again, you cannot know there won't be a turnaround. Find a good argument, in the meantime my point stands Jenga3 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if look the two tables closely, you will notice that they are formatted in two different ways. The first table lists each country that has recognized Kosovo, date of recognition, diplomatic relations and relevant international membership. The other table has country name, positon (which means not all of them are against the independence) and relevant international membership. Personally, I'm not against your move, but tell me something, are you certainly going to maintain that table in the future? Because I won't. kedadial 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would maintain the numbers. See = "As for the number of the states, this number can be shown in the intro for the table." See up Jenga3 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus? Jenga3 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that you will gain much support here for your mistaken initiative, sorry. --DaQuirin (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor and resent the implication that your opinion is more valid than mine Jenga3 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The implication is that there are a dozen or two regular editors of this page, and they are likely to support the long-term consensus that numbering non-recognizing countries is pointless and misleading. In other words, you are wasting your time on this issue. — Emil J. 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He/She is wasting his/her time on this, because no on will support it, not to mention it is pointless. Jenga3 doesn't even have a real reason or justification for numbering the other tables. Why is it important that it is numbered? What will be gained/ benefited? Jenga3, you yourself said that 88 out of 195 don't recognise Kosovo which suggests that you are not acquainted with the article as of yet. If you are to be a frequent editor, please familiarise yourself. IJA (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jenga3's proposal - there is no need to number any table except the recognisers. Bazonka (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree as I don't see any benefit from it. If Jenga3 would be kind to share with us how numbering would help this article then perhaps we might change our opinion. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree for the same reasons listed above, particularly by IDA and Kedadi: 1) the list is incomplete, there are many countries who have never made any comment on Kosovo & 2) the list of non-recognizers includes many countries whose general reactions have been in favor of Kosovan independence as well as many whose general reactions have been against Kosovan independence (and a few that are of truly mixed character). The list is thus NOT a discreet thing but merely a dumping bag for the odds and sods left over after the recognitions have been removed. Khajidha (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no benefit to numbering in the table in one case, then why would there be in the other? Again, this shows partisanship instead of neutrality Jenga3 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no argument for having one table numbered and the other not numbered. If you wish to show the number of rows in a table, that can be easily done by displaying the number in the introduction for the table. If you wish to show the sequence of rows by date this can easily be done by clicking the DATE arrows. So if sequence and volume are taken out of the equation, what reason is there for keeping the numbers? Jenga3 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two significant numbers, 62 (the amount that recognise Kosovo) and 130 (the amount of countries which don't recognise Kosovo). If you can find information for the 42 countries, which we have no information on, we can update the list for countries which don't recognise Kosovo then add numbers to the table when it is COMPLETE. But until we have a full table, I do not see a reason for adding a number. Also Jenga3, I suggest you log into your account for future because if you don't I will report you for sock puppetry. IJA (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no point numbering an incomplete list IJA (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not put those "significant numbers" into the introduction for each table, with something along the lines of "There are currently 62 countries showing their support for the separation and independence of Kosovo" in the intro for the first table and "There are currently 130 countries not showing support for the separation and eventual independence of Kosovo, of which 88 are listed here along with their positions, while the others have abstained from voicing an opinion". Frankly, there is no point in numbering either list, I was just trying to be neutral and the only way to do that is to either number both lists or neither of them Jenga3 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It basically says that in the introduction. It says that 62/192 UN countries recognise Kosovo. I don't see what will be benefited from doing so. "If its not broke, why fix it?" IJA (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also we don't know if the others have abstained from voicing their opinion. We have come across old news sources before which tell us a country's position on Kosovo which we previously didn't know, even though the news article was 6 months old IJA (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So if it says in the introduction, why do you need the numbering in the table? Also, if we don't know the opinion of a country that is probably because they have not made their opinion public. Jenga3 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between the two tables, and they should be treated differently.

• The "recognisers" list is ordered by date. The first to recognise appears at the top; the second to recognise appears second etc. It has a clear order. The numbering isn't absolutely necessary because the table is orderable by the date field, but if you want to find out what position a particular country takes in the list, then showing the numbers is useful - it's easier than counting, and it is harmless to include.
• The "non-recognisers" list is alphabetically ordered. This order is entirely arbitrary, and would be different if this article was written in a different language. The order has no bearing whatsoever on the countries' position towards Kosovo. There are also plenty of gaps in the list. Numbering it makes no sense.Bazonka (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason anyone would want to know the precise "numbered" order of the states in the first table. Besides, the dates provide all the numbering needed, you don't have to count it, just look at the date. Jenga3 (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right on your first point - maybe there is no need to know the numbered order... but then again, maybe there is. It's not up to us to define how readers of the article should use the information within. As I said previously, there's no harm in including this information. It may be of use, so let's leave it in. (And on your second point, the dates don't easily tell you where in the list a country is. Without the numbering, you'd still have to count.) Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is harm to it as I said, it assumes that the one table will constantly grow while the other constantly shrinks. On that point there are countless tables on wiki which would need to be updated with numbers in order to keep them equal. We can't treat the two sides of this conflict differently as that will just lead to a total flame war, they obviously feel very strongly about this. *Sigh* maybe I should just make a table of the countries that oppose the separation and number it. Would that be fine? Jenga3 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Jenga3 is being disruptive and arguing for the sake of it. IJA (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's great to have an opinion IJA, please see the second, third and fourth pillars of Wikipedia, thank you Jenga3 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm familiarised with them. You should read WP:TROLL and WP:DONTBEADICK IJA (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself. Jenga3 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers in the first table convey a useful and relevant bit of information, namely they tell you that country X was the Yth state to recognize Kosovo. In contrast, numbers in the second table would be completely meaningless. Your repeated argument that we should treat the tables in the same way is completely absurd. The countries in the first table have a different kind of relationship to Kosovo than the countries in the second table, and therefore the two tables contain different kinds of information. By your logic, we should also delete the column "Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations" from the first list, as it has no counterpart in the second list, are you suggesting that? — Emil J. 10:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity I played around with the table controls, sorting it by one column and then another and then by the first column again and so on. Doing so I discovered that sorting by date of recognition will NOT bring back the exact order of recognition. That is, if you sort the table alphabetically and then by date the countries that recognized on the same date will be listed alphabetically and not in the actual order they recognized. Also, if there are footnotes attached to the dates those countries will appear after other countries with the same date of recognition. Considering all this, the numbers DO seem to serve a useful purpose. Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose numbering of non-recognizers. Recognition is an act which occurs at a particular point of time. Not having done an act does not occur at a particular point of time. So, we can order chronologically recognizers; it is impossible to order chronologically non-recognizers. --SJK (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus on this, and no further discussion is necessary. Bazonka (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kostunica: Serbian/EULEX deal recognizes border, Kosovo indepencence by Serbia.

Just a Serbian Politician's opinion, (whom is opposed to Kosovo independence), but as found on New Kosova report.com, and quoted from a Serbian daily "Danas", the former Serbian PM says that it recognizes “The border is a key attribute of statehood, this agreement establishes a cross-border cooperation between Serbia and Kosovo..."

"Each country that signs the agreement on cross-border cooperation has formally acknowledged that its state territory extends to the boundary line and also admits that over the boundary line begins the territory of another state ..."

"...this act has dealt a heavy blow to the state of Serbia and is an immediate act of recognition of borders of the independent state of Kosovo, and a betrayal of the the state interests of Serbs in Kosovo."

Interesting as he was PM when Kosovo declared independence, but maybe just an opinion? Is this useful in any way? Source: Serbia formally recognized borders of independent Kosovo Ajbenj (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can say anything about this. There was another article published recently by the Serbian Government that says pretty much the opposite of this. [22]. I find this much more believable. Bazonka (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vojislav Kostunica regularly publishes this same view. He even said that Serbia recognised Kosovo when it signed an accession agreement with the EU. Nothing to be worried about, it's just something called schizophrenia and be happy it's affecting Kostunica not you. One of his quotes on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement: "I am convinced every Serbian sees that things are being covered up, and that there is something seriously amiss with the Solana agreement. Who in Serbia dares to ignore these facts and conceal the real goal of Solana's agreement?" yeah sure cover ups, concealed real goales by Javier Solana etc. and he even called it a trick to take away Kosovo several times. The guy is funny actually, but how come Serbia recognised Kosovo only now if according to him Serbia recognised Kosovo last year as well?--Avala (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Avala, whether you like it or not, this is former PM of Serbia. By ignoring this, you are pushing for POV, violating the rules of Wikipedia. Reported.

Yes, former that is why he has no power to decide on anything let alone recognition of Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Papandreou and Greece's possible recogniton

On 19 September 2009, opposition leader, chairman of PASOK, Yorgos Papandreou who is likely to win the Greek Parliamentary elections in October, declared that Greece plans to recognise Kosovo in 2010. [23] So what does it mean - is he indeed pleading for recognition, or is it just speculation about the present government, and he is going to stop it or what? Like this, the statement is totally confusing and should be eliminated. Otherwise, some more information (or explanation) should be added. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a false quote. In the source (tabloid) itself it says "Our sources that are close to Papandreou claim that he is going to recognise Kosovo" which is substantially different from the text the IP is trying to insert here and it is completely inadmissible on Wikipedia. I will warn the user with warning for adding personal analysis or synthesis which is forbidden.--Avala (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

....That's fallacy. I will also warn you for pushing POV.

Here it is a real quote from one of the most serious Serbian dailies Dnevnik.

http://www.dnevnik.rs/node/8144

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnevnik.rs%2Fnode%2F8144

You use every quote using serbia media. Even botched info, like serb politicians speaking at the behest of other countries' positions. The bar is very low at this moment thanks to this.

How is this article tabloid?

Even your Google Translate proves what I said "Dnevnik" sources close to leader of the Greek Socialist leader and Socialist International. So what do you want? And no, the article is not the tabloid, the source (Dnevnik) is. It is not several papers, dailies, as you suggest but one tabloid, I am not even sure if there is the non online version of it. And no the bar is not low, we use statements given by Hyseni (Kosovo FM) and Jeremic (Serbian FM) when we have a source that shows their statements as quotes but if some online tabloid wrote "our sources say that Jeremic/Hyseni thinks that blahblah" then it's speculation, possibly libel and has no place here just like the lie on Papandreou has no place here.--Avala (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's all speculative. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia

A few reports from meetings between Skender Hyseni and others at the UN have been published on the Kosovo Foreign Ministry website. Most of them are not of any use in this article, but this one might be: [24]. (It's in Albanian, but an English version will probably appear soon.) Hyseni met Miroslav Lajcak the Slovakian foreign minister. Lajack apparently said "we are aware that the process is irreversible". Let's wait until the English version is published before updating. Bazonka (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A similar report from a meeting with the Vatican: [25]. The Vatican's Secretary for Relations with States said that the Vatican is closely following the developments in and around Kosovo, and expressed his willingness to continue and intensify the mutual communication. I think this is something we can mention, but again, let's wait until the English version of the report appears. Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I got bored waiting, and made the updates. If and when the English-language versions appear, I'll amend the references and check that my edits weren't nonsense. Also news from Andorra, Malawi and Tuvalu. Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yemen to recognise Kosovo soon and maybe Oman, too

Yemen and Oman and Egypt. Can we make an update? IJA (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles, Ian, or did you just look at the headlines and make your own content up? Oman said that it doesn't make statements of recognition and that Kosovo and Oman would establish diplomatic relations "at the appropriate time." All it says is that Hyseni met the Egyptian FM and gives no details of what they talked about. You should alter the heading for this section. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why I said "maybe" IJA (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have nothing to base the "maybe" on insofar as Egypt is concerned. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, but it is still information which could be used to update the article IJA (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw Oman is lying. They explicitly recognised Montenegro - over six months before the establishment of diplomatic relations.--Avala (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm interesting Avala thanks, but that just maybe because the political situation is different, but that could just be my political speculation, who knows? IJA (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, ks-gov.net is unavailable atm so I can't read what they said exactly but if they were specific on how they don't make statements on recognition then they were lying. Some other countries stated the same and they were not lying if we compare it with Montenegro. Anyway who knows what games are they playing.--Avala (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It could just be a polite way of saying we support the "west", but we don't want to recognise Kosovo just yet IJA (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article updated for Yemen and Oman. Absolutely nothing to say about Egypt though. Bazonka (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate IJA (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

News from Indonesia, Iraq and Mauritania

MauritaniaIraqIndonesia Can we do much with this? I'd edit the article myself, however I'm rather busy with personal matters. I'd appreciate it if someone would perform the necessary edits please. IJA (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate IJA (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek Elections, George Papandreou

I've seen people saying that President Elect of Greece, George Papandreou will recognise Kosovo when he comes to power. Is this a rumour? I've tried to find confirmation of this on google news, but I can't find anything. Anyone else aware of this? Anyone got a source? If so we can make the appropriate edit to the article. IJA (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean, the Prime Minister Elect. The President remains Karolos Papoulias. One indicator would be whether the new government will retain the highly respected Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis. A change there might signal a forthcoming change in policy on Kosovo, although it has not been my perceptioin that she was against recognizing. --Mareklug ^talk 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they will change Dora Bakoyannis, she is the member of ND not the winning PASOK. Anyway Papandreou is as much as pro Kosovo as Hillary Clinton is against Kosovo. The first one tied the position of Greece against Kosovo independence to "profoundly patriotic stance" and the second one often uses Albanian language variation when she refers to Kosova. Go figure.--Avala (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh I meant PM elect IJA (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There were a number of reports in the Kosovar media that if Pasok won the election there would be a change in Greece's position towards the independence of Kosova. Here is one of these reports [26] (in Albanian). According to the report Papandreou has stated that: (1) if the issue of Cyprus is solved; and (2) when Serbia gains the EU candidate status then Greece would recognise the independence of Kosova. I guess you can do the Google translation and the rest. Hope this helps. Kosovar (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This was written by Serbian tabloid Dnevnik. Their article word-for-word said "our sources close to Papandreou claim that he will recognise Kosovo if he becomes the Greek PM" (and then all that on Cyprus and Serbian EU status). Obviously it is all made up as anything else they write (equal fantasy would have been "our sources close to Obama say that he will derecognise Kosovo" and there were such articles in Serbian tabloids too, not sure if it was Dnevnik though), but actually when it comes to Papandreou he did speak about Kosovo and Greek recognition to the media, though before that probably around independence declaration. He said that if Greece recognised Kosovo it would be a great mistake. I have found a few articles with real statements from Papandreou so I can expand the article, it is important to see what the new PM has to say as well. We need to trim a few things now, if you think I cut too much bring it back but let's keep the most ridiculous parts out like those claims on what did someone say by Albanian and Serbian media.--Avala (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So we should only include what suits you? --alchaemia (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted to say "we should include what suits me" I would have said "we should include what suits me". I have clearly explained that we should avoid hearsay whenever we have better content and stick with that only with countries that didn't say much. Why would we keep "New Kosova Report claims that xyz said this and that but Tanjug claims that xyz said that and this", it doesn't look good and doesn't serve any purpose. As for Papandreou, when we have his quotes from Greek media why would we include "Serbian xyz tabloid claims to have sources that have prompted them how Papandreou will do this and that".--Avala (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the end the Prime Minister Elect appointed himself as the Foreign Minister. Go figure. --Mareklug ^talk 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacolli talks about Libya, Ivory Coast

In this interview with Kosovo politician Behgjet Pacolli talks about meetings with African leaders. [27]
Apparently Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi said that Kosovo is "a good country for economic cooperation", but that "it's not the right time to recognize Kosovo".
Also he's met the president of the Ivory Coast, where "they are working for the recognition of Kosovo". Do you think that this is a reliable enough source to use in the article? Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is reliable. He has not exactly lied before, he is fairly reliable IJA (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article. I suspect that Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire if you prefer) was the "mystery country" that we discussed previously. Bazonka (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacolli is now saying that Kosovo is about to be recognised by 4 OIC countries, plus some from West Africa - but he won't say which they are. [28] I'm guessing that these include Oman, Yemen, Qatar and Côte d'Ivoire - but of course that's pure speculation. Can any Albanian speakers provide any more background from this article? [29] Bazonka (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason he won't say is because he knows that if he does there'll be delegations from Serbia showing up in those countries with briefcases full of cash to help them change their minds - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbia - the land of plenty.--Avala (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

What about the position of the SMOM? As a sovereign entity and UN non-state observer it maintains diplomatic relations with many states. Alinor (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If we don't have anything on them, they probably don't have a position on Kosovo. Look at their website ans see if they have made a statement IJA (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The SMOM depends upon the Holy See for its very raison de etre, so it will do or say nothing regarding Kosovo that is contradictory to the Vatican position. The Holy See's position seems, at present, to be to ignore Kosovo so as to not aggravate its attempted reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo and Macedonia established diplomatic relations

The stories are in Albanian - [30], [31] and [32]. Somebody please change the page to reflect this. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When did Ireland and Kosovo establish diplomatic relations? There is information on Ambassador but no date for diplomatic relations.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If we knew, we would have posted it. There's an accredited ambassador, which means they have relations, so that's good enough for us. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I found was the recognition of independence in Feb 2008, and the Embassy of Ireland in Hungary also serves Kosovo (along with Serbia and Montenegro). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sejdiu today decreed the establishment of an embassy in Skopje. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Source? IJA (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[33] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citations

Citation 141 takes you to a newspaper article on an Argentine website, apparently sourced at the Spanish El Pais Newspaper, which does not contain either a quote from or a reference to the Spanish Foreign Minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.138.6 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This reference [34] is used twice in the article. Once in the Argentina section, where it appears to be appropriate, and once in the Spain section, where it doesn't. There is a vague reference to Spain having the same position as Argentina, but it is not good enough for this citation. We should find an alternative source for Spain, or remove unsourced text from the article. Bazonka (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed this reference. Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Malawi

This source http://www.nyasatimes.com/national/malawi-to-recognise-kosovo-establish-diplomatic-relations-mutharika.html seems to have a more specific info on Malawi. What we currently have here does not clearly convey their intention of recognizing Kosovo's Indipendece. Emetko (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is news from September and is already in this article.--Avala (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually it is not. What we have: "Malawi's President, Dr. Mutharika promised that his country would soon deal with the issue of recognising Kosovo" is ambiguous because "deal with the issue" means just that they will consider it while this source states more explicitly that they are going to recognize and establish diplomatic relationship with Kosovo.

Quote "In particular, he said that Kosovo deserves to be independent like all other units of the former Yugoslavia that have won their independence now.

He promised that the decision on the recognition of Kosovo by Malawi will be taken very soon and that he looks forward to establishing diplomatic relations and economic cooperation between the two countries" Emetko (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed new information, so I've added it to the article. Thanks Emetko. Bazonka (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And was quickly removed by an IP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the IP user removed my Greece edit, not this one. If this continues we may need some sort of protection on the page. Bazonka (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

False quotes, with bogus links on Greece

Someone keeps adding this paragraph, quoting these links that do not even mentions Kosovo. This is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules adding false quotes.

In September 2009, new Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou commented on the issue of Kosovo's independence by saying that "its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law" and added that "Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance".[220] In a June 2008 letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he had stated that "unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and its recognition by some EU member-states in violation of the principles of International Law and UN Security Council's resolutions and without a previous decision by the EU's 27 member-states, does not contribute to the region's stability".[221]

[220]http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/selectlang?lang=el&currpageurl=%2Fuser%2Fshowplain%3Fmaindoc%3D6240554%26maindocimg%3D6239876%26service%3D8 [221]http://www.greeknewsonline.com/?p=8741

Where is Kosovo mentioned? Nohere. If someone adds this after removal, I will report it to Wikipedia Admins.

"Papandreou also notes in his letter that the “unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and its recognition by some EU member-states in violation of the principles of International Law and UN Security Council’s resolutions and without a previous decision by the EU’s 27 member-states, does not contribute to the region’s stability."

"On the question of Kosovo, he said that its unilateral recognition is a flagrant violation of international law and added that Greece's insistence on international law is a profoundly patriotic stance." IJA (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just replaced the text. You can report me to admins if you like - the referenced articles very clearly refer to Kosovo. There is absolutely no need to remove any of it. Bazonka (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are already admins here (I am one of them) and the articles clearly state Kosovo in the text. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia to open embassy in Pristina

Macedonia's liaison office in Pristina will be upgraded to an embassy in a ceremony next week. The source is in Albanian [35]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the edit. The office has been upgraded as of yesterday. [36] --alchaemia (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand recognizes Kosovo?

According to KosovaPress, which quote FM Hyseni, New Zealand has recognized Kosovo[37]. Looking for other sources ATM. --alchaemia (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the MFA confirms it. [38] --alchaemia (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. — Emil J. 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a note I found from FM Skender Hyseni page, [[39]] 128.206.34.65 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Kosova2008

What about paying minimal attention to what is already written here? Alchaemia posted the same link an hour ago. — Emil J. 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we also have to mention that diplomatic relations have been established today, as recognition happened as an act of establishing diplomatic relations and not through a classical recognition letter (the former being the norm for NZ). It also seems prudent to do so as the President of Kosovo has decreed Mr. Hamiti as the Ambassador of Kosovo to NZ, among others. [40] --alchaemia (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Nonresident.) — Emil J. 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, but relations have been established regardless of the level of representation. --alchaemia (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Main stream media in the Balkans is reporting this too, such as Balkan Insight [41] IJA (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Telegrafi.com alone has more readers than BI so I wouldn't call BI mainstream. --alchaemia (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, relations have been established, I've already corrected that. I'm just pointing out that there is no embassy, even though they have an ambassador. — Emil J. 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thought you meant that relations haven't been established since he's non-resident, which, in retrospect, doesn't make much sense. Sorry agian. --alchaemia (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of the unusal way NZ went through the recognition dance, I figured it was worth preserving some of the now-chopped content from this article over in a new stub at Kosovo–New Zealand relations. It could certainly do with any attention from interested persons here. The Tom (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not unusual. If it wasn't for Kenneth Keith and pressure sought to apply on him by those who dictate the foreign policy, they wouldn't have bothered.--Avala (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd show with an excuse for this. --alchaemia (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to improve ambiguity in the article's title

Greetings everyone!

I'd like to express my regret if some editors find these postings of mine too pedantic or even annoying, but I truly believe that one point of view in this matter of article's title hasn't been resolved optimally enough.

Though header of the talk page states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International recognition of Kosovo article.", I will raise the issue of the article's title and the ambiguity of its title, once again as I mentioned in the beginning.

For the readers and editors who are less acquainted with the subject in matter, I suggest that they take into account that several times the discussions had been on the road to somehow resolve this issue, but some other obstacles came in the way. For the nitpicky readers or just the ones meticulous enough, who aren't involved in the discussion so far, and also for others that are somewhat involved in it, I have provided links to segments of discussions regarding this subject. Just to recollect the memory if necessary of the second mentioned, and to satisfy the curiousity of the first. So the list of segments with their short abstracts follows chrhonologically somewhat in this order :

• Archive 32 the section New title of article, deals with the word recognition and its inappropriateness for this article, based on its meanings.

• In Archive 33 the section Renaming to disambiguate is concerned with giving alternatives to the current title, and in the same archive the section Tagging for pov-title tried to explain a suggestion given to consider the recognition as something else than plain acknowledgment was emphasized, and somewhat supported by some other editors.

• In Archive 35 the section Perhaps enough time has passed to discuss the article's name change, some broader recapitulation of the POV that recognition is ambiguous term for this subject. Especially that the term recogntion could be understood as some kind of process or not just acknowledgment of sovereignity, emerge in this segment of discussion maybe even as proper arguments. Some of the discussion was continued afterawrds in the same archive with the section number 18 (section was of the same name but a subsection 18.1 Archive was below it and 18.1.1 Etiquette caretaker) - here some "ad hominem" arguments were exchanged and some bona fide suggestions were given, thus both segments/sections don't deserve much time and effort since the thread was eventually archived. In my opinion the core and most productive discussion evolved in the forementioned archive 35, so go ahead and enjoy.

But the issue remains and I raise it once again by stating that the term recogntion should be replace by the term acknowledgment as in the Article 1 of The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 [42] [43] states: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, ... to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Any thoughts that recognition is more appropriate than acknowledgment of sovereignty?

All the best--Biblbroks's talk 14:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please see the archive for details. IJA (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose You are the only person in the known universe who seems to find this title confusing. Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Biblbroks Bringing this same issue up again and again could be classed as SPAMMING. Each time you bring up the issue, you cannot get one person to support you, never mind a CONSENSUS. Your a one man army I'm afraid.

With regards to the usage of the term acknowledgement instead of recognition, I most object yet again. Read the references; they all use the words "recognition" and "recognise" not "acknowledgement" or "acknowledges". Read what PM Gordon Brown sent to President Fatmir Sejdiu "I have written to President Sejdiu to tell him that Britain will now formally recognise Kosovo as an independent sovereign state… I believe this is a step forward for the international community and this follows the meeting that has already just finished with the European Union Foreign Ministers."Number 10. Recognition is a more common term in diplomatic language in the 20th and 21st centuries compared to the 18th century which you gave example of. I think that speaks for itself.

I have also noticed that you keep complaining about this article but not International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Your criticisms of this article also apply to the Abkhazia-South Ossetia article too. How about you argue the same points on that article first and set a "precedent" for this article :p IJA (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been discussed and rejected numerous times before. Please can an admin lock this thread under WP:SNOW. Bazonka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Locking individual sections of a talk page is not technically possible (while we are waiting for WP:LiquidThreads to be completed). If you are referring to {{discussion top}}...{{discussion bottom}}, it does not need an admin, anyone can do that. — Emil J. 12:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I already argued about this[44]. The correct term is "diplomatic recognition, the power to recognize -or refuse to recognize- foreign governments"[45]. It was already called recognition in a 1956 book by Council on Foreign Relations [46]. I don't know if back in 1783 the correct term was "acknowledge", but we should use the current term, not the old one used by absolutist kings more than two centuries ago when nation states didn't exist yet. Also, I don't see any current source using "acknowledge". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above. This is downright spamming now. --alchaemia (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Recognition is indeed the correct term. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't understand why we have to discuss this issue over and over again. Few times we have voted against any change of the title so bringing back this topic is unproductive.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The present name is entirely appropriate. — Emil J. 12:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been discussed enough already. Furthermore, I propose that User:Biblbroks be prohibited from raising this issue again in the future. He or she has done it enough already, no one else agrees. (I know we can't technically prohibit anything here, but if necessary it might be done through an RFC or arbitration or agreement of admins.) --SJK (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have read almost all previous discussions regarding this issue and have come to a conclusion that it is pointless to discuss it further. It seems everything has been said and no new points come to light. --Podex (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue?

New Zealand has recognized Kosovo as independent, then what about its two associated states? Any idea? 222.131.24.49 (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Their foreign relations would be handled by NZ, so yes by default they've also recognised. But we wouldn't mention these in the article as it is implied that dependencies and territories are included in their parent countries. Compare Bermuda, Puerto Rico, French Polynesia etc etc. (We colour these green on the map where they're large enough, e.g. Greenland.) Bazonka (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wellington controls the Cook Islands and Niue's foreign policy, so in theory they recognise Kosovo. However it shouldn't be mention on the article. Imagine if we did that for the UK? Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, all over seas territories etc. The thing is this article lists sovereign states only, not associate states, constituent countries or over seas territories etc IJA (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well guys, there is actually a little difference between Cook Islands and other dependencies in the world. Cook Islands had had diplomatic relations with 18 countries before Kosovo's declaration of independence, including my country. The Cook Islands' embassy here is seperated from that of New Zealand. That is why I asked for Cook Islands in particular but not for British/American/Dutch/French dependencies and/or territories. As for Niue, I have not heard of anything like deplomatic relations, but it shares the same status with Cook Islands. 222.131.217.172 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief search led me to this Wiki link. Cook Islands has established diplomatic relations with around 27 countries, but Kosovo is not among them. Hopefully we can find sth about the official position taken by Cook Islands over Kosovo. 222.131.217.172 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting - I didn't realise that the Cook Islands conducted their own foreign affairs. I have to say that I'd be surprised if they expicitly recognised Kosovo given that their current foreign relationships are minimal, and in any case they're not a UN member so it would make little difference to Kosovo anyway. Niue's foreign relationships are even more minimal - see Foreign relations of Niue, and largely seem to be under the control of NZ. Bazonka (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Tokelau? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Tokelau is more like a normal dependency, but it is moving towards the free association status that Cook Is and Niue have. Bazonka (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New Info. on Bangladesh

The Daily Star of Bangladesh has an article on Bangladesh's position on the Kosovo issue, located here. It explains something I had already been told, which is that Bangladesh is not recognising specifically because of a request from Russia and the latter linking non-recognition to assistance in the construction of a nuclear power plant. The US ambassador is continuing to press the Bangladeshi government on recognition of Kosovo. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"It was his fifth approach to Bangladesh to seek recognition for Kosovo" - a bit pushy for a diplomat.--Avala (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not more so than Konuzin, the Russian ambassador to Belgrade, ordering the Serbian government to change street names in Belgrade to those of "famous Russian generals." --alchaemia (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are many sayings about the value of persistence. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes a certain degree of sense that Bangladesh be courted heavily: its own history of obtaining independence and then going through a lengthy period where it incrementally gained int'l recognition has plenty of parallels to the Kosovo situation, and there is likely to be a specific variety of sympathy there that Kosovo couldn't really hope to find anywhere else. When Hyseni starts getting around to visit number five in Antigua, though, there may be grounds for questioning his motives ;) The Tom (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason he's raised the issue again is because Bangladesh has a new foreign minister. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article. Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon

A short story on Telegrafi saying that Lebanon says it will recognise Kosovo "soon" [47]. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian MFA has an English-language version of this on its site - the original source of the story I think: [48] (unfortunately I don't think it's possible to link directly to the article in question, but if you click on English at the top, then you should find it easily). I'll see if I can add anything to the article. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part, for those disinclined to click over, is:

"...Mrs. Harxhi raised to the Prime Minister and to the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament the need for the rapid recognition of Kosovo's independence, as a major contribution to peace and stability in the Balkan region.

The Lebanese side showed good understanding for the issue of Kosovo’s recognition, hoping that soon Lebanon will also join the states that have recognized it."

- Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lebanese ambassador in Belgrade, according to Tanjug, has said that Lebanon will await the decision of the ICJ before recognising Kosovo [49]. I would point out that ambassadors are often left out of the loop on decisions taken back home, but we'll see how this develops. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Embassy in the Netherlands

Does this mean that Kosovo's embassy in The Hague is now operational? [50] Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked the same thing over on the Missions of Kosovo page and was told "no." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This probably does though. [51] --alchaemia (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the page, but we should keep checking the English-language version of the Kosovo MFA webpage. Currently it's not up-to-date, so I've had to reference the Albanian version. Bazonka (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

If someone wonders for the template dealing with the Republic of Kosovo's politics, see Template:Politics of Kosovo (with a relentless POV-pusher who cannot stand that Kosovo's template is to be dealt with like any other case). --DaQuirin (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why has Kosovo's coat of arms been taken down and replaced with a generic outline? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because of aggresive POV-pushing from dab and DIREKTOR, among others. --alchaemia (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was because of NPOV from dab and DIREKTOR, among others. Kosovo's coat of arms IS aggresive POV-pushing. Tadija (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't because that coat of arms is the only recognized coat of arms of Kosovo. It is you, among others, that are aggressively pushing your POV wrt to this and other things Kosovo related. Your aim is to disrupt, not help. --alchaemia (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

alchaemia is right, the UNMIK CoA, which Serbia recognizes, is virtually identical to the ROK CoA. There is no reason not to put it on Kosovar templates, whether they relate to the proclaimed state or the region.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the UNMIK CoA? They use the UN emblem.--Avala (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a little bit of help:

• 
  UNMIK
• 
  Serbs
• 
  Serbia
• 
  Border outline
• 
  Albania
• 
  Provisional Institutions of Self-Government
• 
  Republic of Kosovo

Thank you Avala, I guess I was referring to the PISG CoA.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Malawi recognized

Kosovo Foreign Minister received verbal note on recognition, source Telegrafi [52], Kosovo MFA [53] someone please update the list. --Digitalpaper (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done --Digitalpaper (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nauru may de-recognise???

Nauru has recently recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and some reports say that Russia paid them $50m to do so. This article [54] suggests that another condition of this payment may have been that they de-recognise Kosovo. Just speculation at the moment, but something to look out for. Bazonka (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

From the other articles I seen at here and here that Nauru took money to recognize Kosovo and to flip flop between Taiwan and China. None of these articles hint that Nauru will recognize, but based on the past history of the country, Kosovo should do a 75 Million USD payout. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As you point out, Bazokna, the article is purely speculative. The Kosovo Foreign Ministry denied it within the same article. If it happens, it happens, but until then, it's a theoretical - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bazonka, here is a small challenge for you: prove that the Balkan Insight article "suggests that another condition of this payment may have been that they de-recognise Kosovo." It should not take you too long, after all it has less than 750 words. So, the challenge is to prove that there is speculation, let alone anything more serious -- and, by the way, the three question marks look really cheap! Good luck, Kosovar (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

One paragraph in the article says: "It remains to be seen whether the money allegedly connected to this week's recognitions has also bought the derecognition of Kosovo". Case closed. Bazonka (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that "It remains to be seen" and "allegedly connected" are two big qualifiers that go against your claim of having made your case. It's speculation by a historian (Tim Judah), nothing more. --alchaemia (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's going to happen - my case is that the article suggests that it may happen. As I said at the outset, this is pure speculation and I only mentioned it because it's something we might want to look out for. I wish I hadn't bothered now :( Bazonka (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems Russia has some cash to burn. Paying Nauru to derecognise Kosovo sounds nothing less irrational from paying Nauru to recognise Abkhazia. Anyway there are plenty of countries that take cash for these things, we've witnessed it here and in Abkhazia and in Taiwan case. There were at least 5 countries that recognised Kosovo following "incentive" by Bexhjet Pacolli, Nicaragua also did it with Abkhazia, we all know about the Nauru taking money from both Taiwan and PRC but sometimes it's not money that plays a role, example is how PRC slapped Macedonia and they derecognised Taiwan in no time. Though I still don't get it, why would they do it, can't they put all this money to better use. --Avala (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bazonka, I'm sorry to go back to this, but I must say that the author raises a question rather than suggests -- which is what your claimed. As far as I am concerned, case is very much open. Let's move on and wait to see whether anything comes out of this. Kosovar (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But the "case" you asked me to prove is that the article proves that there is speculation. And the article's author moots that derecognition is a possibility - that's "speculation". Whether it does happen or not is a different case entirely. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bazonka, we're making much noise about nothing. However, for the argument's sake I cannot allow myself not to point out that speculation is "when you guess possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain" (taken from dictionary.cambridge.org) whereas the article you cited from Balkan Insight never did the "guess" part, it merely raised a question -- if that. And, this is being generous to you and not asking you to expand on the 'condition' part of your statement. I won't write more about this even if you reply. I don't want to waste any more energy on this and I hope that we both agree on the "it remains to be seen" part so I'll leave it at that. Best wishes, Kosovar (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, this is not worth discussing... but I must point out that other definitions of "speculation" are much more appropriate - see [55] "The process of thinking or meditating on a subject", and [56] "the contemplation or consideration of some subject". Now let's never mention this again... Bazonka (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea recognizes - according to Pacolli

Behgjet Pacolli claims he got notified officially by Papua New Guinea that this country recognized Kosovo. Source here[57], will be on the lookout for others. --alchaemia (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also on telegrafi.com. kedadial 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets wait for a few more sources and some more official sources to see if they have recognised. Kosovo Thanks You is still waiting for confirmation, no harm if we wait to. If they have recognised, then in the next 24 hours more media will report this story IJA (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to clarify that AKR (Pacolli's party) has stated that the official note will be sent to Kosovar MFA only in January 2010, so we cannot expect the official confirmation or otherwise until then. However, I think Pacolli's fingers have been burned previously and I would think that this time they will have done their homework first. In the meantime, it might be useful to have a note against PNG stating that Pacolli has claimed that Kosovo has been recognised be them. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the "non-recognisers" section. Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

B92 are reporting it now [58] IJA (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My source told me that Serbia has dispatched a diplomatic SWAT team to PNG to stop the recognition. If this is true, it's another huge blunder for Pacolli. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To my understanding Pacolli's argument is money. Serbia can't contest that so they fight with legal arguments etc. Russia and USA threaten countries on behalf of Serbia/Kosovo. Serbia has no leverage on PNG (I wonder if they even have basic diplomatic relations), but the same probably goes for Russia for which PNG is one of the rare countries where it has no embassy. If PNG accepted money from Pacolli why would they listen to legal arguments from Serbian diplomats? The same thing happened in Maldives, Pacolli paid, Serbia dispatched a team but nothing changed, Maldives recognised a few days later. Serbia so far hasn't used money to convince any country, the public would most probably go nuts if they did, though there is a humorous campaign directed at Serbian Pacollis to "buy Kosovo back". I wouldn't call it a blunder, especially I wouldn't label it as "another" considering Pacolli has secured at least 5 recognitions for Kosovo. I would call it a blunder in the sense that he is wasting millions on recognitions and not on better things like schools, hospitals, roads etc. but that is different issue.--Avala (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Serbia "hasn't used money" but it gave Russia a 51% state in its state-owned oil monopoly NIS in exchange for a measly 400 million euros and a veto in UNSC. If that's not using money to buy something, I don't know what is. --alchaemia (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, Avala, the charges in Maldives were never substantiated or proven - the police dropped the investigation. As you know, a good deal of diplomacy hinges on secrecy - one doesn't broadcast intentions, but rather presents a fait accompli. I talked to my source today, who would know these things, and was informed that the Serbian embassies in Tokyo and Canberra had sent personnel to Port Moresby to talk them out of recognising. I can't confirm this any other way, but I trust my source. In terms of leverage, I have no idea whether they'll rely on legal arguments or Russia's chequebook - which seems to be making its way around of late, as Alchaemia alludes to. Pacolli has scuttled recognitions before because he opened his mouth, such as the now infamous case of El Salvador. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the Maldives Police isn't exactly the world's finest, Maldives is among the group of the most corrupt countries in the world per CPI anyway and that applies to both police and the Govt. They even said they would invite the US to investigate these charges as an outside neutral side which is obviously laughable, it's like inviting Russia to investigate charges regarding Nauru. As for PNG, it remains to be seen of course. I trust you that Serbia did that but I have my concerns regarding how competent that personnel is, knowing Serbian system and the way people used to get employed in the MFA etc. who are now probably in charge in Tokyo and Canberra (both tiny embassies anyway) and all together with their failed attempt in the Maldives. I am not sure what happened in El Salvador. Maybe Funes just double-crossed Pacolli. If nothing else, it's getting interesting at least.--Avala (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Ambassador presents cardinals to Fatmir Sejdui

[59] Abdullah Abdulaziz presented his cardinals on 22 December, he is also Ambassador to Albania and Macedonia. Someone update? IJA (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing he will be based in Tirana, since there is not an embassy in Skopje. IJA (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean credentials? And yes, he will be based in Tirana. He's the Saudi Ambassador to Kosovo, resident in Tirana. --91.187.97.92 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

haha yes I meant credentials IJA (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo Ambassador presents credentials to President of Croatia

[60] Veldet Sadiku presented his credentials (cardinals? - ha) to Stjepan Mesic today. I would presume this means the KS embassy in Zagreb is now operational. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done IJA (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo Ambassador presents credentials to President of Slovenia

[61], [62] Anton Berisha presented his credentials to President Danilo Türk on Tuesday, 05 January 2009. It implies that the Embassy of the Republic of Kosovo in Ljubljana is now operational. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mauritania recognised Kosovo

Mauritania has recognized Kosovo. It has been confirmed by the MFA[63]. Telegrafi reports it as well. [64]. --alchaemia (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It also says, "...and has taken the decision to establish diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level." Can we presume they have also simultaneously established diplomatic relations? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They haven't necessarily done it yet. We need more evidence I think. Bazonka (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Just a thought... on the map, we could colour the recognisers in differently depending on which year they recognised. E.g. 2008 in green, 2009 in blue, 2010 in orange. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems needlessly distracting. Perhaps we could have an animated map showing the recognitions? The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An animated map would be even more distracting. You'd have to wait for it to cycle to see the current status, which would only last a couple of seconds. Let's just leave the map alone. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is not broke why fix it? IJA (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with IJA, there isn't really a need to change the map yet. Maybe if a reason comes up in the future it could be an issue. Outback the koala (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was only an idea. Bazonka (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this, by far the majority of recognitions are from 2008, the rest are sporadic and giving this some kind of special significance in colours of the maps would confuse the readers I think.--Avala (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We should leave the map as it is however we could add something like "for more detailed maps click here" and show maps Bazonka suggested.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Poltergeist, Good idea! I think that would work fine, if any editor wants to go a head and create said maps and page(possibly a category), I will for sure have no objection. Outback the koala (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a category Recognition of Kosovo on commons, please include any future maps there so that they can be readily updated when new recognitions come. — Emil J. 11:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo and Montenegro establish diplomatic relations.

Source 1 [65], source 2 [66]. --alchaemia (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I used a B92 English language reference IJA (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambassdor of Kosovo to Japan

The President of Kosovo has decreed Sami Ukelli as the Ambassador of Kosovo to Japan. [67]. --alchaemia (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweden opens embassy in Kosovo

According to Telegrafi, Sweden is closing a number of embassies in Europe while opening one in Kosova. Sweden already had a liaison office in Prishtina which is now the Embassy of Sweden in Kosovo [68]. We should update the relevant page. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bid to join European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) not approved (yet)

This is one of the international institutions that Kosovo has been bidding for membership of. Story run on Reuters, reproduced e.g. by the Guardian. Key points: "Kosovo's central bank governor said in November that it expected to get full EBRD membership this year", but according to the EBRD president "You will needed a two-thirds majority from our shareholders to make Kosovo a member of the EBRD and this two-third majority is still not on the table." Remind anyone of the Council of Europe situation? Knowing that Kosovo theoretically has reached the 2/3 majority for Council of Europe (has their application stalled, or just not been officially made yet?), whereas EBRD members include non-European supporters such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, I was rather surprised that Kosovo didn't make the mark. The EBRD membership list is intriguing - the presence of central Asian states as well as Egypt and Morocco, means Kosovo narrowly won't make the cut without a little more support. TheGrappler (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still in the process. The GoK has set out 2010 as the target for membership. --alchaemia (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the current news reports, or at least the fact that Kosovo is currently applying, be reflected in the article? If you read the comments of the EBRD president it sounds as if he believes progress depends on Kosovo receiving further recognitions, or at least support from currently non-recognizing states (something that I recall happened in the World Bank admission process). Do you know if there has been any official or off-the-record comment on how likely that might be? TheGrappler (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

China rewrite?

I noticed a minor edit conflict between Avala and Alchaemia and thought China could do with a rewrite. I think it is silly mention every time a countries says that they do not/ will not recognise Kosovo. However I think we can give China a good rewrite and mention the important points regarding China and Kosovo, which I believe to be: A) They refuse to recognise Kosovo and respect Serbia's sovereignty; B) They want further negotiations; C) India, Russia and China joint statement; D) China at the ICJ. Could someone please put together a rewrite please? Thanks IJA (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should also mention that China has a diplomatic office in Kosovo, and that it issues visas to Kosovo citizens (on a Kosovan passport). --91.187.103.6 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for Chinese entry being as it is was a rather stubborn insistence of Mareklug that China has taken a somewhat neutral stance on Kosovo issue so it needed proving. I agree with your proposal, also the A should include info on that partnership document Serbia and China signed that includes the point on Serbia respecting Taiwan is part of China and China respecting that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Btw, AU summit is taking place in Ethiopia so perhaps we could have a few quotes, I'll add slight info on Ethiopia but I hope will have more things.--Avala (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I did a little editing and I hope it's better now. Excluded all the low level officials and their statements and kept the initial statement because of the point B, kept the point C, A with the document thingy and I added a short sentence on China joining in the ICJ trial for the first time in history for the point D.--Avala (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work Avala. I don't think there is much point in mentioning the audience/ reader than China won't recognise Kosovo any more times. The reader/ audience will be by now well informed of China's position on the case, unless any new notable information comes along. Maybe we can use the same model we have used for China for other non recognising countries? I was specifically thinking of Russia, with the same/ similar A,B,C & D points; also possibly Spain with the same format. IJA (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@Avala: I undid your edit regarding visa refusal of the Kosovo delegation to attend the summit in Ethiopia. According to MFA of RoK, the visa refusal saga was a disinformation from the Serbian media, because they were not invited to attend summit in the first place and neither they did have any agenda to go there on their own (sources: telegrafi.com, gazetaexpress.com [both in Albanian btw]). Thank you. kedadial 10:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be mentioned. It is possibly not true (see [69]) and in any case, it isn't directly related to Ethiopia's non-recognition of Kosovo - more to their non-recognition of the Kosovo passport, which is a slightly different thing. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Avala: I would appreciate if firstly we have a consensus on the text and afterwards we go ahead and edit the article.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaining for the sake of it wont lead anywhere. The other option is to include every word China makes on Kosovo. And I doubt you want that so your complaint is "Avala made an edit, I'll complain even though I don't disagree". Am I wrong? If I am then go ahead, be bold, search the internet and find every single time that China mentioned Kosovo and include it in the article because that is the only alternative to the point plan by IJA.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Well, it doesn't look like the recognition by PNG will occur by the end of January, as promised. I assume the Serbs put pressure on PNG to reverse this decision (if indeed the reports about it were true in the first place), but is there any reliable report that gives an update to what happened? If not, how should we alter the article? It looks a bit weird at the moment, given that the recognition didn't occur as stated. Bazonka (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally you should include a bland statement along the lines of "As of <whenever this gets updated>, the Republic of Kosovo has not reported that it has received recognition from Papua New Guinea." As for a reference, while normally it's hard to "prove a negative", you could just cite the RoK's Foreign Ministry website that lists all the countries that have recognized Kosovo. PNG won't be on that list. TheGrappler (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use the different tense. Something like "It was reported that PNG would recognise Kosovo" or something like that. Do not add what TheGrappler says because even though strikingly obvious it would still fall under OR.--Avala (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It's not OR to make a carefully worded and restricted statement, e.g. that (as of the date of update) the Kosovar foreign ministry has not included PNG in the list of recognising states, so long as the FM indeed does not include PNG in its list of recognising states. Unless a statement such as this is included, the entry does not make great sense to a reader who is unaware of this debate on the talk page, similar to the situation when (if I recall correctly) El Salvador was listed on the article as having reportedly promised to recognize by a date that had actually elapsed, without further comment. A reader will conclude that Wikipedia needs updating, and be left none the wiser about whether PNG recognized by the stated date. While we all know that PNG didn't recognize, it would be incorporating OR to word the article in a way that states this as a fact. So the more limited, and clearly verifiable statement, that (as of date X), PNG does not appear on the Kosovo FM's list of recognizing states, is superior, and ought to indicate to the reader that no recognition has as yet been reported rather than that Wikipedia requires an update. TheGrappler (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think The Grappler's suggestion is fine - I really can't see how it's OR, especially if we reference a reliable list of recognising countries. But on the other hand, Avala's suggestion is nice and simple, and would also improve the article. What do others think? (Information on what actually happened regarding a potential Serb/Russian response to the "recognition" would be best.) Bazonka (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be the violation of WP:SYN. You can't use something as a reference in a negative sense. For an example you write "Barack Obama does not like spaghetti" and you use the official biography because since it doesn't mention him liking spaghetti then it automatically means he doesn't. Now I intentionally gave you an example of this kind because here the violation of OR rules is not so obvious because it's as I said strikingly obvious that PNG does not recognise Kosovo atm so it could harmless to add that. But nevertheless if something was not published by a third party source it cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia. So by rules we can't use that as a reference because something is not in it. That is exactly why there is a Template:Failed verification - . As for the second part, I think it was Bobby that mentioned the diplomatic pressure from Serbia to PNG so he might know something else.--Avala (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama's biography is not a complete list of everything he does or doesn't like, whereas the Kosovo MFA list of recognising countries is a complete list. So I still fail to see how using it is OR, and besides, this is so obvious, surely WP:IAR comes into play. Bazonka (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, if it was welcome in Wikipedia to do that, use something as a source because it doesn't include something we wouldn't have a template that says "not in a citation given". And I don't think that IAR applies, because it says if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Here it is not the case. There are ways of editing this article in proper manner with the same outcome of truthful content without resorting to the violation of rules. I would edit it as proposed, just changing the tense but I'd prefer to see this done by someone who is a native speaker of English for the most natural sound.--Avala (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily reword it, but we should go with the majority view. We need more comments from others. Bazonka (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind it is only February 1 and that perhaps PNG counts time in African time.--Avala (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewording it may make the situation even worse in some respects. As far as I can see (correct me if I am wrong!), there are essentially two options for the wording if we do not make an addition that explicitly points out that PNG apparently has not recognized Kosovo. Option 1: we write in a way that states that PNG reportedly promised recognition in January, but does not imply whether this occurred or not. Option 2: we write in a way that states that PNG reportedly promised recognition in January, but via subtle change in tense or whateer, it is implicit that this did not occur in reality. Option 1 fails because it mystifies the reader as to what the actual situation is, and makes it appear that the Wikipedia article requires updating (many of our articles are in a state where they are well out of date, and the reader is left wondering why the article has not yet been updated; this article would just appear to be one of them). I think this problem is why Bazonka raised the issue in the first place. Option 2 fails because the implication that PNG did not recognize remains "uncited OR" even if it is not explicit. In fact, worse than that, the whole paragraph will be referenced to a source that predates knowledge of whether PNG actually did recognize in January, so the cited source is actually being misrepresented - it is not implicit in the source that the recognition didn't happen, but it would be implicit in the sentence cited to the source. It seems far better to me to have the third option. Bazonka's argument that it's not synthetic in the sense that the FM's list is to be taken as a complete list. To say "PNG is not on the list" is a statement that is both exactly true and easily verifiable from the cited source. (Anybody who says "the citation that claims that PNG not on the official FM list is invalid, because although on the cited webpage PNG is not actually on the list, the page it's on does not state that PNG is not on the list" is splitting hairs in a way that I think most editors would find unreasonable.) TheGrappler (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

someone keep an eye [70] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.184 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that but this Professor is just one out of 168 million Pakistanis ie. he has no position in the Govt so he can't make decisions, he can only urge, and that is not what this article deals with.--Avala (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the revert as he can't speak for the goverment, nevertheless Khurshid Ahmad is not just one out of 168 million Pakistanis, he is also one out of 100 senators, and vice-president of Jamaat-e-Islami. — Emil J. 12:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Avala have some good faith before jumping to conclusions. I never made any changes or urged one, I just said keep an eye on Pakistan. Also he is not a "professor..one of out 168 million" he is a senator, he holds power and is one of the many representatives of that country. Thank You!! 68.187.143.184 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Kosova2008

Senator or not, he is not in the Govt. Some US Senators oppose Kosovo independence. Should we add that to this article?--Avala (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you'd listen more before you talk. NO one is asking to change the article. I clearly said "keep an eye" as in follow the events that might and/or will unfold regarding Pakistan - Kosovo relations. Should you add this source to the article, no, might this article lead to other things? Maybe. 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Kosova2008

You do not seem to realize that someone did, in fact, change the article, and I assume that's what prompted Avala to respond in the first place. — Emil J. 13:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambassador of Kosovo to Sweden presents credentials

Lulzim Peci, KS ambassador to Sweden, presented his credentials to the king, Carl XVI Gustaf, today [71] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Manchurian royalists

I removed the "recognition" Kosovo received from theoretical Manchurian separatist / royalists. User:Yalens has reverted me noting the Archive discussion Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 36#East Turkestan Kosovo recognition, which was more about East Turkestan than Manchuria. I'm not sure that discussion is relevant because "Manchukuo," if it even exists, is orders of magnitude less influential than East Turkestan.

Short version: Manchukuo Temporary Government is a redlink. The Manchukuo article mentions *nothing* about any movements to resurrect it, and in fact offers ample evidence that if there was a Manchurian independence movement it would never use a name associated with oppression and a foreign puppet government! Google search comes up with nothing either; the only relevant link is a blog which seems to have taken the website at face value. I'm not sure this movement even *exists* and is not a hoax. Until this movement is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article - an easily met standard, I'm sure we can agree - it shouldn't be here.

Long version: The Manchukuo Temporary Government website is just that - a website. I could set up a "New Jersey temporary government" website tomorrow that wants to put an offshoot royal family descended from King George III on the throne that mentions strong support from the many British Loyalists of New Jersey, but there's no way in hell it should be listed here until the New York Times starts talking about the New Jersey separatists. As far as we know that website is being run by far-right Japanese trolls. But even assuming that they do exist, to my knowledge practically nobody in Manchuria even *knows* they exist, let alone form a yes / no standpoint on them. This is quite different from actual separatist groups, where your average Basque will certainly at least know who ETA is. If the Alaska Independence Party "recognized" Kosovo, it'd be so irrelevant as to omit it, but at least they are a semi-serious organization with media coverage and knowledge. Until the Manchukuo Temporary Government can at least live up to the AIP's standard of "has a Wikipedia article" and "gets Google hits" it shouldn't be here. And as it stands, a Wikipedia article based off a primary source and a blog post would get speedy-deleted. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Snowfire. Outback the koala (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur as well. If this page is going to go down that road, then what about the opinions of Sealand, the Kingdom of Redonda or the Republic of Lakotah? There's all manner of potential micronations, serious and semi-serious, that would presumeably rank higher in importance than this Manchukuo Temporary Government. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but some discretion should be exercised as to the importance of unrecognized entities. Furthermore, just because a group claims to be a group doesn't even mean that it is a "real organization at all (instead of a front), as with the Deccan Mujahideen. Konchevnik81 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not listed at Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. People saying that this organization is really notable should look at these links Find sources: "Manchukuo Temporary Government"— news, books, scholar, images , and write up an article with good-quality and reliable sources at Manchukuo Temporary Government.

In Spanish I can only find a source from a Spanish official institution, saying that it's a Hong Kong-based society of inversion that is giving investment services without proper authorization.[72]. I looked at all the 19 pages of results, and all news articles were about the puppet state of 1932-45 [73] --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've wasted all of your time. I, too, took the movement seriously at first, but a look at Yalen's talk page and some induction showed that there Wikipedia has been through this process before. There was an article on the Manchukuo Temporary Government created by Yalens, which has since been unanimously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchurian Independence Movement. Yalens, I don't want to accuse you of bad faith, but please don't re-insert material that people have *already* investigated once and found wanting. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I really fail to see how my talk page is proof that it doesn't exist. And, also, note, if we look at the archives, I was hesitant about addint it here nad only kept it until encouraged to do so by Bazonka. And as for seriousness, we can look at the talk page for the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. I will soon be de-archiving the original conversation...--Yalens (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC) (to add, though, I will not be protesting the deletion from this page for now unless someone like Bazonka does, as its inclusion here, you guys do have a point, is rather pointless as they have no real voice; the correct site would be here, nonetheless: http://www.manchukuo.org/index28.htm)

[An extensive copy of previous discussion reverted. Don't do this, Yalens, it's positively disrupting. Anyone interested can read it in the archives.—Emil J. 11:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)]

--This is, for reference, the original discussion. As noted, originally I intended only to only include East Turkestan's gov-in-exile, and I simply used the Manchu royalists, if we call them that, as a reference point to compare to, until Bazonka persuaded me to add that as well. I suppose you guys have a valid point in that the movement (I'm using the term loosely, though it is clearly not a hoax: they have international branches, a constitution, and bla bla bla; extreme fringe they are, inexistent they are not) is supported by an insignificant of people on the lands they claim, and thanks to China's media jamming, almost completely unknown to the outside world. The reason I am agreeing to the deletion for now is consistency: we have not made note of the position on Kosovo, yet, by the Lakotah Sioux, who are much more likely (i.e., completely absurd in reality as they are surrounded by the US on all sides, the "Tatarstan defect", but signifantly less absurd than the Manchu movement) to attain any significance at all. If Lakotah is not here (and I would need to find a good source ot include them, I have not looked into that yet) then the Manchu shouldn't be either. Nonetheless, let us keep this here for future reference if, perhaps, someone tries to add Cascadia, which is absurd even compared to our "Manchu royalists".--Yalens (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for this to be removed. When I originally said that it should be included I didn't appreciate the flakiness of the movement. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations between RKS and LUX tomorrow

A little bird told me that dip. relations will be established by RKS and LUX tomorrow. No need to change it now, but if you can, be on the lookout. --alchaemia (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Any developments on this? IJA (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this [74] but it doesn't mention the establishment of diplomatic relations. IJA (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this, as I saw it on the news, was that the Luxembourg foreign minister visited Kosovo. But thats all.(Luxembourg already recognises Kosovo, so thats not it) Correct me if I am wrong.. Outback the koala (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Background

We should mention that the rest of Serbia (any citizens of Serbia in 21st cent) was not allowed to vote on this, it was just the leaders of the Albanian minority living in Kosovo which voted. We can't even say that the people of Kosovo had any say in it because the Prime minister (Hashim) appointed himself and eliminated competition, plus all previous presidents appointed themselves to power with no democratic process whatsoever. Technically, they aren't even presidents or prime ministers but dictators according to the definition thereof. As it stands, the entire Background section can be committed to the into of "Positions taken by states" since the text in the background section offers no actual background whatsoever. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kosovo main page discusses how the ethnic Serbian politicians boycotted the vote. Is this what you mean? I don't know what exactly it is that you have issue with, could you be a little more specific please? Outback the koala (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear... #1: the Background page doesn't offer a background, #2 in it's place we can put a background which says that this secession was not a democratic choice 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would ignore this person he is just one of the nationalist of Serbia, trying to rotten this page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.188.54 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(*YAWN*) go away 99.236.221.124, you're not being helpful. IJA (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

+1 kedadial 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a nationalist because I speak the truth? Which part of the Background section offers any background at all? Who voted to separate Kosovo? This info is not given in the article. And no IJA, you're the one not being helpful. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What you 'claim' to be the truth is WP:POV and is also WP:OR. One more thing WP:NOTAFORUM IJA (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

All three tags you used are incorrect. First of all it doesn't showcase any POV, other than my own but removing that is impossible. Second of all, it isn't original research as information has already been cited. Third of all, discussing the article in the article talk page is not acting like a forum. Thank you for your input, but it's really not helping advance the task at hand. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is, so I am withdrawing myself from the conversation. Sorry I couldn't help. Outback the koala (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You have said that the President and PM of Kosovo are not real PMs or Presidents but are "dictators", that is really biased and thus POV. Your theory of concluding that they're dictators is OR. Also why are you mentioning that you believe them to be dictators on this particular article, go to their article pages and discuss it there. It is not relevant here, that is why I said it is not a forum. IJA (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you see the definition of dictator, you'll find that I was merely finding a word for an official that appointed himself to power without election. And if you see their history (well provided on wiki and elsewhere) you will see that they weren't elected to power. It's relevant to this article because it shows who really made the decision (in fact it is key to the article) 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any refs? kedadial 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Kedadi' Here is an article regarding the election in Kosovo which says they were elected (Kosovan parliamentary election, 2007). So lets leave this WP:TROLL alone. IJA (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would the rest of Serbia be given a vote in the first place? The question was whether Kosovo wished to be independent. Such a question can only be legitimately answered by Kosovo itself, either the population as a whole or their duly elected representatives could vote on such a matter. The government voted, the Serb members abstained, the Albanian members approved the measure, and the population of Kosovo largely agreed (based on the fact that they did not call for the government to annul the action). Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is what do you mean by Kosovo when you say whether Kosovo wished to be independent. Kosovo people? Certainly not. The fact is, there are no duly elected officials involved in the decision process and the people DID protest the reaction. 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been "duly elected officials" of Kosovo since the first day of Yugoslavia. Before Republic of Kosovo, the representatives were elected by UN elections, and the institutions were referred to as PISG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you personally believe, how does this relate to "international recognition"? IJA (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New Recognitions

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/1015-kosovo-is-coordinating-with-allies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated. It's from September 2009. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How about, http://www.kosova.com/artikulli/59919 or http://www.kosovalive.com/  ?? Again let's keep an eye, FM Hyseni wouldn't go public to announce recognitions if he didn't get some sort of a confirmation from his relations with other agencies or embassies. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources not in english. NPOV sources? I wouldn't think so given their names... Can anyone read this? Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sources not in English" is not an argument. Quite a lot of media references discussed on this talk page are in Albanian or Serbian, for obvious reasons. If all else fails, use Google Language Tools.—Emil J. 11:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, there does not seem to be anything particularly relevant in these sources, it's the usual share of bold claims by Hyseni. He may well be right this time (if ICJ issues a verdict favourable to Kosovo, new recognitions are to be expected indeed), but there is no reason to believe that it is more than a speculation on his part (as usual), and in any case there are no details, no country is mentioned.—Emil J. 11:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt mean to imply I was rejecting them on the grounds I couldn't read them. I was only making a statement. Having said that, this smells like a wild goose chase anyhow. If something happened, it would likely be all over the place. Outback the koala (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Statements according to Kosovarian or Serbian officials

Currently, I am observing an edit skirmish between user:Prmm and user:IJA concerning the position of Ghana. In this case, we have a verifiable reference that the Serbian Foreign Minister reported (after meeting with officials of Ghana) that Ghana would not recognize Kosovo. There is, however, no reference for such a statement made by an official of Ghana directly. Hence, the issue of the belligerents is whether we accept the position of Ghana to be explained by a Serb. Certainly, one can understand both sides a bit.

My position is that – in the section where we deal about the positions third countries take with respect to the recognition of Kosovo – we shall only accept referenced statements issued by officials of that same state, and not by officials of neither Kosovo nor Serbia and not even of another unrelated state.

That is, in the current issue, I would not accept the introduction of the text. Furthermore, I would not even accept it if the Foreign minister of Nigeria had made this statement about Ghana's position. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some hypothetical situations:

• A) The foreign minister of Ijastan stated "We will never recognise Kosovo".
• B) Following a meeting with the president of Avalia, Jeremić said "The president told me that they would never recognise Kosovo".
• C) Following a meeting with the prime minister of Tocinoswana, Jeremić said "They will never recognise Kosovo".
• D) Following a meeting with the UN ambassador of Canadian-Bobbaguay, Jeremić said "We thank them for maintaining their principled position of not recognising Kosovo".

Obviously situation A is direct information, and so clearly goes in the article without question.

In my opinion, it is fine to include information that fits situation B, as long as we clearly show that this is indirect information by saying who said what - it is then up to the reader to decide whether or not to take the information at face value.

But I'm not so comfortable with situations C and D. With C, do we even know if Kosovo was discussed in the meeting? Is Jeremić just posturing? And with D, it seems to me as though Jeremić is just confirming what we knew already - that the country hasn't recognised. Should we include this sort of information?

(Note that these are all pro-Serb examples, but I would use exactly the same arguments if they were pro-Kosovo examples. This should be a neutral discussion.)
What are your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up this nice list, which makes the difficulty quite palpable. of course, everything can be expressed the other way around and consensus will cover both sides equally.

Indeed, I would only accept option A. If the president has told Jeremic something, but not to the rest of the world then, I think, we should not mention it. However, I also understand your reasoning that, in such a case, we are on safe grounds because we would only state that Jerimic made a claim and we would not state the this country stated something. Nevertheless, I do not prefer this guideline as the text is inserted the column position where the reader expects information on the position of this country, and not somebody's interpretation thereof. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Very little of the information that we have in this article fits neatly into category A. Without massively reducing the content, I think we have to also stretch to category B. Assuming Jeremić (or whoever it is) is telling the truth (probably no reason to doubt him), then B is the position of the country. Possibly the same with C, although the grounds for believing Jeremić are much shakier. Where would you stand on a situation where a journalist interviews a politician, and paraphrases what he says in a news article? We would almost certainly allow that sort of information to be used here, and I think it's the same as situation B. Bazonka (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate, you have quite valid arguments. Let's see if there are more opinions to it. After all, we need this consensus to also be supported by the two people I mentioned above. Among the two of us, I am sure we would be able to agree on something. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As for these points, it is highly uncustomary for the foreign minister of any country to make things up. It wouldn't have to go further from one time for the career of such minister to go down the drain. As we've seen many times, Jeremic often says these things at press conferences, while the minister of whom he is talking about sits right next to him. I would expect that minister to respond somehow if Jeremic was talking nonsense, even if it was only a misunderstaning without bad intentions. And lets not kid ourselves, he doesn't spin the globe to point at a random destination, he goes only where he knows beforehand that he will get the answer he desires. As for seeking the A in all cases, it is impossible for two reasons, firstly for many countries this is not an important issue, they will put in a post meeting note between many other points ("Two ministers discussed also trade issues, student exchange, science cooperation and general world situation, especially Kosovo case,...") and secondly these two ministers are talking to their counterparts from places like Bhutan that maintains diplomatic relations with 23 countries and doesn't really have an up to date detailed MFA website. I vote to include it all, though D should be included only if the previous position of that country is unknown or ambiguous.--Avala (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I am going to reinclude this in the article is that I counted 48 (forty eight) occurencies of Skënder Hyseni. Removing exactly the same type of information on Vuk Jeremic based on he can't speak on behalf of these countries while keeping virtually the same post meeting notes of the Kosovo MFA is not NPOV. Btw I vote to include them all, I think that it is valuable information that you wont get elsewhere, no one except for the Kosovo and Serbian MFAs will publish info on their meetings with Bhutan or Ghana counterparts. It is simply not main stream news that we can expect for major media to pick up.--Avala (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between Bhutan and Ghana is that in the former case, we are told what the Bhutanese politician said to Hyseni (category B) - from the source: "In the meeting, Ambassador Wangchuk said that the mission of Bhutan to the UN had passed on the request for recognition sent by Minister Hyseni on 3rd February this year to its Government". In the case of Ghana we only have Jeremić's word (category C) - "Ghana will not recognize Kosovo as independent, Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić said". Did the Ghanaian officials tell Jeremić that they wouldn't recognise, or is this just Jeremić's interpretation? We can't tell. This is not a Hyseni versus Jeremić thing, it's a how-close-to-the-horse's-mouth thing. There is a big difference. Bazonka (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We used to have a rule where we wouldn't use sources where country X speaks on the behalf of country Y. If there is a quote from country Y then fine. Kosovo and Serbia are bound to fabricate to make their meetings appear a success, this is why it is important that we have quotes from country Y. We don't want to mislead the reader, with this media war. IJA (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The rule said that we need to emphasize what was going on - 1) A said: "" 2) B said that A said... and 3) B thanked A for... and not use A said "" while the source says Jeremic/Hyseni said that he was told that... - the first case is very rare nowadays as most of the countries that wanted to speak out did that, those are direct quotes, 2nd one is what Kosovo does, they sort of quote others and 3rd is what Serbian media does, they never go into those "Foreign Minister said" if he didn't say that to them directly but to Jeremic or whomever they were meeting so they report through Jeremic which I think is way more fair and correct because they could do what Kosovo does and say "Ghanian officials said to Jeremic ..." but it wouldn't be true in the sense that they weren't present. Kosovo website does that, they were not there in the room, therefore they have no quotes to go under "" but they nonetheless state "Bhutanese minister said that..." which is a very wrong way to do journalism but it's not my job to correct them. Anyhow, I disagree that they fabricate per what I previously said about that being very risky, especially if they stand right next to the person whose statement they would be trying to falsify. Proof for that is that we didn't have any situations where they were refuted by foreign officials (only Thaci had some skirmish with putting words into mouth of Greek minister, but he isn't Kosovo FM nor a diplomat so I wouldn't use that as a "ha what about that" as it doesn't seem to be something that is repeating itself).--Avala (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this for a potential solution? We always include categories A and B. Categories C and D should only be used where it is either about a country that we haven't had any previous information on, or where the new information contradicts what's been said before (e.g. a change of stance). Recent news from Oman [75] falls under category D, but does indicate that they may now have a different position to previous reports - therefore this should possibly be included. Bazonka (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented on this suggestion in 5 days, I assume that no-one objects and I will add the info from Oman. Can we now treat this decision as article policy? Bazonka (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is San Marino not coloured on the map?

I am sure it recognised Kosovo, but it's not coloured green. Is there any reason for this? Outback the koala (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is coloured green. You are probably confusing San Marino (the green dot close to the Adriatic side of Italy) with the Vatican, which has not recognized and is represented by an uncoloured dot over Rome. Jsaldarr (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. My mistake. Sorry. Outback the koala (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Egypt says it's waiting on ICJ ruling

The Egyptian MFA says it's waiting for the ICJ ruling to decide whether to recognise Kosovo or not. [76] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Bazonka (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No more Arab recognition apparently

[77] IJA (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the message of the article, Ian. All it says is that they couldn't get recognition of Kosovo onto the meeting's agenda. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that they don't want anything on the agenda that would show the existence of dissenting opinions among Arab states. The idea of Sirt summit seems to be the "joint Arab action" and this would be unhelpful. Plus with the absence of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, none of the proponents of the two views are there so who would create the vigorous discussion? Certainly those who are pro Kosovo didn't want Ghadafi against them as he is the next in line after Egypt who would be interested in talking a lot on this issue.--Avala (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Swaziland recognises?

Some reports in Albanian media that Swaziland has recognised Kosovo. [78] [79] Pacolli claims the credit again (and interestingly he's still claiming that Papua New Guinea has recognised, although they haven't told anyone). I think we need to wait for more sources - I will keep Googling... Bazonka (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait for an English language reference for Swaziland. It is interesting about PNG, someone could email them. I might email their High Commission in London for more on that. IJA (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Pacolli, it will become official on Monday. kedadial 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the Swazi mission to the UN. They'll probably ignore me, which is the standard for such queries. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are more reports - still all in Albanian [80] [81] [82] Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found this Italian article too [83] IJA (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally found one in English - Pacolli's own website though [84] Bazonka (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Editor of Gazeta Express, Berat Buzhala actually wrote an editorial and said the Swaziland story is true because he has attended the meeting of decision himself. Here are the details http://www.gazetaexpress.com/web/index.php/editorial/lexo/28338/C67/C74/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.23.212 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another English one, this source can also be used to update Slovakia too. [85] IJA (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any point in updating Slovakia - it's not exactly new news. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My own source has confirmed to me that the Swaziland recognition has occured. With all of the print sources we've accumulated, can we go ahead and add Swaziland? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's little doubt that it's happened, but all sources still rely on Pacolli's word. There's no harm in waiting until Monday when the official statement is expected. Bazonka (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, Canadian Bobby, I don't suppose your inside source has any intel on the PNG situation? - Bernerd (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the PNG aspect is mystifying to everybody. Nobody knows what's going on with it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for the Swaziland confirmation or President of Kosovo website confirmation.--Avala (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though any official statement will be made today. I have added a couple of sentences to the article to say that there is doubt over the recognition. Bazonka (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the Kosovar Foreign Ministry is withholding news of the recognition because they're jealous of Pacolli's success. They might hate Pacolli more than they want new recognitions. Gazeta is reporting as fact that Swaziland has recognised Kosovo [86] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would they hate him when he is wasting his own money on this? Certainly better than spending the money from state budget.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer is party politics. Each recognition that is credited to Pacolli increases popularity and hence his chances of winning the next election, knocking Sejdiu out of power. It may be best for the current government to withhold news about recognitions in order to make him look delusional. Quite possibly our best source of information about these recognitions would come from the PNG and Swaziland governments, but neither of those have particularly strong web precences. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am told that the Foreign Ministry refused to accept the Note Verbale because of Pacolli's involvement and that the AKR is in possession of it now. Edited to add: This confirms my comment [87]. The Kosovo media are confirming it. Can we add Swaziland now? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Pacolli will send the letter to the MFA today. I don't think they have refused it as such, but they don't want to say anything until they actually have the letter, and not just Pacolli (which makes sense, IMHO). --alchaemia (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Swaziland recognition can get him to win the election, at least in Serbia spending money on trips to such countries is not accepted, in web comments many readers called Jeremic "rastaman" after his trip to Jamaica despite the success as they agreed not to recognise Kosovo and to lobby for this in CARICOM during their presidency. Kosovo govt is refusing to accept Pacolli's info, probably because they don't trust him after the PNG (remember that they had a different approach when he secured with his means the recognition from the Maldives, Malta and few other places). So they are waiting for the Swaziland Govt. Just like us.--Avala (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Avala, it wasn't Pacolli who got the Maldives to recognise, the UK did that IJA (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you confused them with some country as there was a probe into corruption on Maldives related to Kosovo recognition and Pacolli (not UK, it wouldn't be serious for a country like the UK to involve in such transactions).--Avala (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was David Miliband (UK FM) who asked the Maldives to recognise Kosovo; I remember him being there shortly before the Maldives recognised. See this source [[88]. Also one of the reasons why corruption probe failed was because it was proven that Miliband had requested the recognition to be in line with the one year anniversary. IJA (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You failed to mention the fact that the probe found no evidence whatsoever to substantiate those claims. --alchaemia (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Recognition confirmed. I have just spoken with the Swaziland official at the UN. They have recognized. Thank you all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.145.200 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2010

Two new English language sources [89][90], also Kosovo Thanks You is awaiting confirmation [91]. Lets hold on until we see some official lists regarding recognition therefore we can see if Swaziland has been added. IJA (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The official recognition letter has been handed out to Kosovo's ambassador to the UK; the MFA is in contact with Swaziland. [92] --alchaemia (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC) edit: here's the Note Verbale [93]

We can be rather certain now about Swaziland, but PNG still remains a mystery. Could someone email a PNG Embassy/ High Commission please? Regards IJA (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone doubts that this happened; here are two letters that Swaziland has sent to the UN - one to their representative, and one to the UNSG informing them of their decision. [94] and [95] --alchaemia (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Jeremic is in Cuba and he thanked them and saying that he mentioned the act of the Cuban Parliament that rejected Kosovo independence and the Ahtisaari plan. I wonder if we can find this document anyhow. Their website is a joke, not only because it mentions elections but because it was designed in 2003.--Avala (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking and I am not seeing anything. The main thing I do notice is that Cuba is opposed to everything going on in Kosovo because of the man who pushed for Kosovar independence. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Castro is quite informed about the situation in former Yugoslavia, you can tell from his texts that it is not superficial, but actually very detailed knowledge.--Avala (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no Cuban officials qutoed. It's just Jeremic saying that they said something. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He said that he thanked them for adopting this act in parliament. We can debate it but, I doubt Cubans said "what act?" and that he went to journalists with this story again. I can imagine that not even him knew of this and that he was informed in Havana, because parliaments like Cuban one make lots of such resolutions as they don't have any real power to use on more burning issues.--Avala (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new there I think. We can't really use it - it's indirect information about something that hasn't changed. Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it is new that they adopted a resolution that I thought we should somehow try to track down. Other than that, no nothing new Cuba is still opposed to Kosovo independence.--Avala (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

What about Mexico? what is the reason that they do not recognize? more than a year as from there is no news.Sentinel R (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The only information we have dates from just after the declaration of independence. I'm surprised we haven't heard anything since then, but that's the way it is. If you can find anything newer then we'll add it. Bazonka (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvador recognized?Sentinel R (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mate, that news is almost a year old. Apparently El Salvador's incoming president was going to recognise when he took office back in last June, but then they didn't have a parliament formed to be able finalise the act or something if I recall correctly? Anyway, El Salvador haven't yet recognised, not sure why. Surely they'd have a parliament working after a year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernerd (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that news is already year. But other information about El Salvador, I could not find.Sentinel R (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This interview with Pacolli [96] has just been published. It is in moon language Albanian, but it appears to mention El Salvador, as well as a few African countries that haven't recognised yet. Can any Albanian speakers shed some light please? Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He is inviting the MFA to create a "task force" for lobbing. He accusses the MFA for not finishing the job regarding El Salvador and says that new recognitions will be coming from African countries without being specific. Cheers. kedadial 17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kedadi. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Paraguay has recognised? (Tenuous source)

Indications that Paraguay has secretly recognised Kosovo without telling anyone [97]. I'm not sure if we can use this information. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like de facto recognition to me, not official de jure recognition. It may be worth adding a sentence to Paraguay in the article. IJA (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Berisha's own website gives no indication of this information [98] [99]. It doesn't even say that he'd spoken to the president, which is not something he'd want to keep quiet. Unless, of course, he was explicitly told to keep it a secret lest war breaks out between Paraguay and Russia. Bazonka (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was Sali Berisha only to find out that it is some guy claiming that the President of Paraguay whispered secrets to him. Next please.--Avala (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because he's not a famous politician doesn't mean it isn't true. I honestly don't know what to believe - but it may be worth a mention in the article. Bazonka (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that since Bjork statements in early days we agreed not to add such things, private views etc. Only what officials say, or at least it has to be credible. Adding "Paraguayan president whispered to some pilot that Paraguay recognised Kosovo but is afraid to say it in public because of Russia" wouldn't contribute to the article quality really.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that this information (allegedly) came from a president, not from a kooky popstar. New news from presidents (whatever route it takes to reach us) is probably notable. If the trail back to the original source is trustworthy enough (and I'm in two minds as to whether it is or not) then it should be included. Bazonka (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, that is my point as well. However I don't have any dilemmas here - the news is completely not trustworthy, this guy didn't even post a photo with President on his website let alone anything partially credible that he even met him. I somehow doubt that he would reveal such secrets to some passerby anyway.--Avala (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed Mr Berisha for clarification on whether he actually met the Paraguayan president. If I get a response I will post here. Bazonka (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article it may not necesarily state anything but maybe thats just me [100] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.217.91 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there's anything in there that we can use right now, but it sounds like St Kitts may not be far off from recognising. Also it seems that the issue of Kosovo will be raised at the next CARICOM foreign ministers meeting, so other Carribean countries could follow suit (although Jamaica is opposed to recognition, and their opinion will probably carry some weight). Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the information, but it certainly is interesting. Thanks for sharing it! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

James Berisha emailed me back: "Greetings and hope you are doing well. Lots, of the countries are pro-our independence and I will not elaborate due to confidential purposes. I am just trying to lobby and raise awareness around the globe for our independence." So there you go. Bazonka (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It was nice of him to email you back, even though it was a non-answer answer. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it's true - if it wasn't then he would've denied it (he was probably told in confidence). In any case, the citation for this information is a (presumably) trustworthy source - the Trinidad & Tobago Guardian, and the message allegedly originates from the President, not a random Paraguayan. I think we should mention this, as long as we give enough caveats, and certainly don't imply that it is definitely true. Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do it IJA (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For me not confirming something that he has already talked about in the public is not secrecy, it only means that he was caught lying.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Avala, none of us know what the truth of the matter is. It's quite possible that Berisha was sworn to secrecy but somehow let it slip to the Trinidad Guardian journalist. He may regret telling them, but the cat's out of the bag now - he can't deny it because it's true, and he can't confirm it because it's supposed to be secret. Or maybe he lied to the journalist, or perhaps the Guardian made the whole thing up. We just don't know. What we do know however, is that some important news has been reported in mainstream media - whether it's true or not is for the reader to decide, not us. Under the powers vested in me by WP:VNT I am going to add some text. Bazonka (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And also it may be that he used Local Trinidad & Tobago Guardian edition for some pro-Kosovo propaganda. I think that we should suppose that Russians also can read newspapers. And they also can investigate was Kosovo recognized by Paraguay or not. This cannot be RS for such important information. He said (James Berisha, not President of Paraguay) during his visit to Paraguay, the president quietly told him... So we cannot know did president really told him that. I object even more now. Can we found any more source about this? Any suggestions? --Tadija^speaks 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is not direct information by any means. President -> Berisha -> Guardian. But the chain starts with the president, not Berisha. It may or may not be true - but WP:VNT shows that this is admissable. I think my edit is neutral and shows the provenance of the information - the reader can decide. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And note that I haven't said "X happened" but that "it was reported that X happened". Subtle but important difference. It is absolutely true that it was reported. Bazonka (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:VNT, I think we should include this. We are not dictating to the reader that Paraguay has recognised Kosovo as with the other 66 countries, we are just informing them of what the T&TG has said by interviewing J Berisha. Besides, as the President of Paraguay has said, it is not official recognition as he fears economic punishments from Russia if they did officially recognise Kosovo; therefore I don't see what the big fuss is about. We are including encyclopaedic information in a neutral way with a reliable source. The reader can come to their own conclusion on the matter, we are not telling them what we think or what they should think. IJA (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

James Berisha's website indicates that following meetings with various officials, St Vincent, St Lucia and possibly Grenada look likely to recognise soon. This is basically his personal blog, so probably not a reliable enough source. [101] Bazonka (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this guy is only a normal civilian and not a politicians or a proper lobbyist, if he is to be successful it will be more likely that it'll be one of the smaller Caribbean Island nations; therefore no harm in keeping an eye out however I don't think we can really update the article as it is only a blog not a reliable source. IJA (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In his blog, Berisha says that "currently, Paraguay is expecting the UN Security Council decision about the Kosovo independence", which is not the same as having recognized secretly. This confuses me, because he didn't have any reason to state anything like that in his blog even if he was supposed to keep the secret. So now I don't know what to think. Are we being misleading in the article? The post is from September 2009, though, but you'd think that by then he would already have had his conversation with the Paraguayan president. Hm. Jsaldarr (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that he means the advisory opinion of the ICJ, as the UNSC is not expected to adopt a resolution anytime soon. --alchaemia (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That statement was made the week of the declaration of independence, this however is new info. IJA (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

UAE Ambassador to Kosovo (nonresident)

The UAE has designated Khalid Khalifa Al-Mualla, ambassador of UAE to Ankara, as its non-resident ambassador to Kosovo. [102] --alchaemia (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I've added this information to "Foreign relations of Kosovo"; but I don't think we should really add anything to this particular article, but cheers anyway IJA (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that dip. relations have been established? I know they were established before, but this is firm evidence. Anyway, thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

An ambassador would not present credentials without there being diplomatic relations. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need to have diplomatic relations, ambassadors, embassies, etc. listed in this article and in Foreign relations of Kosovo? They're not directly related to international recognition, so I reckon we should remove them all from here, and keep them in the other article. Your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I aint got a problem with that IJA (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No issues here. The foreign relations article can be updated over time, this article is for the first time dealings and exchanges. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point was to note that UAE has an (nonresident) ambassador to Kosovo, and that Kosovo is planning to open an embassy in UAE. Perhaps it would be prudent to add it to this article, and then expand on it in the Foreign relations of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need. The Foreign Relations article is a much more appropriate place to hold information about embassies (it could possibly do with some expansion though). There's no need to duplicate it in both articles. I also don't see the need to list countries that have recognised but haven't established diplomatic relations in the Foreign Relations article. Bazonka (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have added note of the UAE relations in this article for completeness, although as I've said above, I think perhaps none of these are necessary. On a similar note, this report [103] seems to indicate that Denmark's ambassador is resident in Tirana, although the article says Vienna. Does anyone know what's going on?

From this Linked-In page, it's obvious that he (Karsten Ankjær Jensen) is Danish ambassador at Tirana. http://al.linkedin.com/pub/karsten-ankjær-jensen/5/12/408 I think we need to correct the article on the basis of these two sources. --Mareklug ^talk 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AKR: Vanuatu has recognized

According to AKR, Vanuatu has recognized Kosovo.[104] Looking for more sources atm. --alchaemia (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this was the archipelago referred to a couple of threads up? Nowhere near the Caribbean though! Bazonka (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. Gazeta Express has it up as well. [105] --alchaemia (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the official letter of recogntion [[106]]

Telegrapfi reports too, also with the letter. [[107]]

blic online also reports the same [108] IJA (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The letter shows a clear intention to recognise today. It'll be followed by a note verbale, which will seal the deal. However, I think what we have here is good enough to go into the article. Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

English language source [109] IJA (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a higher-res copy of the letter which I received from my sources (JPG) [110]. --alchaemia (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

[111] IJA (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Its all over Serbian media as well all you have to do is a google search of Kosovo Vanautu with the date range of 28/4-29/4

Bahamas

Seems like they are neutral on the issue. Since their foreign minister is quoted in the article, perhaps we could use it? [112] 69.203.217.91 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nice find. I've added a couple of sentences to the article. Bazonka (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

B-class list?

I just screened the criteria for article quality levels and I see no reason why this list is just B-class. I find, it meets Good or A-Class easily. What serious improvements can be made to give the readers an even better presentation of the topic? Tomeasy _{T C} 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think countries where we have written a lot about non-recognising countries, we could give them a re-write to shorten them, a quick list of countries which could be re-written are Armenia, BiH, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, Libya, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and the Ukraine. I think we could easily summarise and re-organise their position on Kosovo in fewer words. The main issues are:

• 1) Original reaction
• 2) Their position on Kosovo
• 3) ICJ (if applicable)
• 4) Possible recognition in the future (if applicable)
• 5) Other relevant information, if needed eg passport recognition or BRIC etc

This way I think we can have a better article and not write about non-recognising countries in a chronological order but in a more informative order. IJA (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any attempt in the past to change the article in any way has led to bitter conflict and infinite drama. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should edit down non-recognizing countries that have information from previous governments. For example, Nigeria or Ukraine which have had governmental changes. Update the non-recognizers with current info.69.203.217.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

We will update them as the new infromation becomes availavle. Yanukovych didn't mention Kosovo since he became president but before he did say it shouldn not be recognised (though he did confuse it with Montenegro).--Avala (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Bobby, it is not a good idea and the article will end up locked. Simply there are articles where any summarization is dangerous and leads to flame wars and this is one of them. I am not too concerned about the rating of the article, and criteria molded after the typical article. As for the rewording, it was done for the most of the countries mentioned. Anyhow I don't think we should go into any reform until all of processes regarding Kosovo independence have finished.--Avala (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it really hurt anything to rephrase Belarus (for example) to say "Belarusian authorities have repeatedly stated that they will not recognize Kosovo" and give all the individual statements in footnotes? --Khajidha (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very good idea !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.42.133.133 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to be bold and make some amendments. We can then argue over whether the change was good or not. Personally, I see no need to constantly repeat the same message from a country. We should have their statement following the UDI, any statement showing a change of stance or new information, and anything following a change of government. Possibly also have the very latest statement if there is a long period of time since the statement before. Bazonka (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Zëri: New recognition expected today

According to Zëri [113], a respectable Kosovar daily newspaper, a new recognition of the Republic of Kosova is expected today from one of the following countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Honduras or Panama. Again, this recognition is attributed to Behxhet Pacolli's diplomatic work. If, and there is a big if, this is true then we can narrow this list: Costa Rica and Panama have already recognised; Nicaragua and Jamaica are clearly opposed; El Salvador's recognition never took place and nothing has changed. So, this leaves me with Guatemala, Dominican Republic and Honduras. Lets wait and see, but out of all these countries I would have expected Dominica (not Dominican Republic) to have been the first to recognise. Just a heads up. Kosovar (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Republic has already recognised. My money is on El Salvador. Bazonka (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Dominican Republic had recognised. So, my list reduces to Guatemala or Honduras (or Dominica, although it's not in Zëri's report). I'd be suprised if it's El Salvador. Kosovar (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Dominican Republic recognized a long time ago, also due to Pacolli's efforts. I expect either El Salvador or possibly Honduras. --alchaemia (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to refer to a Commonwealth ambassador, and the word "arkipelagut" (which Google won't translate) would imply that it's an island nation. Of the countries listed in the article, the only ones that meet these criteria and Jamaica and Dominica (assuming they've erroneously called it Dominican Republic). Jamaica is unlikely to recognise, so I reckon it's Dominica. Of course this is all speculation, and it's quite likely that nothing will happen at all. Bazonka (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bazonka, arkipelag means an Archipelago. So, it should be an island nation. By an archipelago country I think the author means a Caribbean nation, but that's my interpretation. I am not sure if Zëri's source or the reporter itself provided the list of potential countries, but if this story is true then Dominica is ticking a lot of the right boxes. Let's see. I would not be surprised if this drags on until Monday, i.e. a letter sent late today or during the weekend and the Kosovar MFA not confirming until the beginning of next week. Let's see. Kosovar (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, it was Vanuatu. Nowhere near the Caribbean, but I guess Zëri's source mentioned an Archipelago nation and the reporter then drew her/his own conclusions and thought it was in the Caribbean. Just to clarify, Mrs Kusari, Behxhet Pacolli's deputy, said that the decision was taken on April 22nd [114] and they waited for the written confirmation before publicly announcing the news. So, on Thursday the decision was made and they were expecting the confirmation on Friday when Zëri reported the leak. The country in question was definitely Vanuatu. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This [115] may imply that Serbia is getting twitchy about a possible recognition from Dominica, so they're building closer ties. Perhaps I'm just being cynical. Bazonka (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Djibouti recognizes (according to sources)

According to Gazeta Express[116] and Koha Ditore[117], Djibouti has recognized Kosovo. It has sent a letter of confirmation to the Embassy of Albania in Riyadh, and will send a note verbale to Kosovo's MFA next week. --alchaemia (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and add it. The decision has been made, which means that de jure Djibouti does recognise Kosovo. The only thing to squabble over is the date, which we can change later when we have that specific detail. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Djibouti confirmation received [118]. Kosovar MFA informs that note verbale was received by the Kosovar Embassy in Paris. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, other sources says they recognize May 12th, not May 8th. Please inform me. 75.8.126.133 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iraq to Recognize Kosovo

Accoding to this article in Gazeta Express [119] Iraqi officials made a promise to AKR leader Behgjet Pacolli to initiate the recognition procedure once Iraq forms its new government.69.203.217.91 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They can promise to initiate anything - it doesn't mean it will happen. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Particularly since it assumes as a condition that Iraq form a new government. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Which will happen sometime in the future, inevitably. Nevertheless, I don't think this constitutes firm evidence of intent of recognition, so we'll have to just simply note what was said, and who said it. --alchaemia (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rohil1x (talk · contribs) is a sock of banned Koov (talk · contribs) and should be reverted on sight. Colchicum (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that the "Status of reciprocal diplomatic relations" column be removed from the recognisers table. It is not directly related to the international recognition of Kosovo, i.e. a country can recognise without an ambassador etc. The Foreign relations of Kosovo article is a more appropriate place for this information; there is no point duplicating it.
(Incidentally, I don't think that details of recognising countries without diplomatic relations should be listed in that article, but that is a separate discussion in its talk page.)
What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support, it looks messy and it hasn't much to do with diplomatic recognition IJA (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a seperate article for diplomatic relations. This article should solely deal with recognition 64.115.19.42 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree unless it becomes a norm, because if we do this, the article will not follow the general style used in such articles.--Avala (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Avala, what "such articles"? The only other similar one is International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which has corresponding articles Foreign relations of Abkhazia and Foreign relations of South Ossetia. Exactly the same thing applies in their case. There is no "general style", and anyway, there is no reason why all articles must be identially structured. Bazonka (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanzania expected to recognize Kosovo

According to Pacolli, Tanzania is expected to recognize Kosovo beginning of June. Pacolli has met with the president of the country, who has assured him that Tanzania will recognize Kosovo. I personally have it from a very good and reliable source that this is true, but I do realize that that would be borderline OR if we include it in the article right now. But, perhaps we can mention that Pacolli and AKR claim that this will happen 100%. [120] alchaemia (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Gazeta Express article doesn't quite say that. It says that Pacolli was invited to a forum in Tanzania where he met representatives (burrështetas - Google won't translate) from African countries. It's very vague, and the country in question might not be Tanzania. Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify that the report from Gazeta Express does not name the African country in question, although it says that the Tanzanian president was Pacolli's host at the conference. Since Tanzania has not recognised one wonders. Nonetheless, more importantly the report says that the factual recognition is expected at the beginning of June. Does anyone know of any elections or other changes in Tanzania in the coming months? Kind regards, Kosovar (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Elections in Tanzania, elections are held every 5 years, and the last was in December 2005. But it's effectively a one-party state, so I don't think that there'll be any major political shakeup soon. Bazonka (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bakonzka, that is a new word. Burre = men / manly shetetas = states. The word means representatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Or statesmen as we say in English. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Telegrafi [121] is also reporting that Pacolli is "warning" of a new recognition coming from a 'significant African state.' Again, no states are named but it says that Tanzanian president was Pacolli's host. In addition, the report (just like Gazeta Express) states that Pacolli's team have met with the Jamaican president and implies that the meeting was positive. P.S. Burrështetas in Albanian means state official. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it means statesmen. Also, I said my source told me it was Tanzania, not Express. More than likely it is, but I guess we can wait before we update the article. --alchaemia (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Alchaemia, you said that "according to Pacolli, Tanzania is expected to recognize Kosovo" and the only reference you provided was a Gazeta Express report that says that "a 'major' African country is expected to recognise Kosova." So, yes, it's clear that you should have said "according to a source of mine." Bazonka already pointed this out. But you don't really need a source when a photo of Pacolli and the Tanzanian president accompanies the Gazeta Express report, who was also his host. Also, burrështetas derives from 'burr i shtetit' meaning a man of the state, which is a state official or a statesman. Not sure what the difference is between the two. In any case, all I wanted to say is that it's not one isolated report from Gazeta Express but also from Telegrafi and Radio Television of Kosova [122]. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My phrasing was a bit incorrect, I admit, but I did mention that my source confirmed this to me. Pacolli does not want to mention names yet because he wants to avoid any disturbance from lobbyists from Serbia and/or Russia, that much is known. Regardless, burreshtetas clearly means statesman as it's simply a translation of the original English language word. --alchaemia (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no significant difference between "statesman" and "state official" - the latter is a bit more politically correct perhaps. And all the article quoted so far look remarkably similar to one another. Same initial source I assume. Bazonka (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In English, a "statesman" may or may not have any actual power; a "state official" does. Just because the literal translation is statesman, doesn't mean that the word in question is best translated as the English term statesman. Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that we don't know and we thusly shouldn't speculate much on this owing to our only having a one-line blurb about a "great African state." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article confirms that the country in question is Tanzania, but can an Albanian speaker please enlighten us further? [123] Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

country in question is Tanzania, and Pacolli said this is a "done deal" in that article Bazonka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Epoka e Re newspaper states that a source inside the Pacolli-led AKR party has confirmed to them that the country in question is Tanzania (described as a country with a large territory and influence in Africa). In addition, it says that according to this source Pacolli has received a confirmation of the decision to recognise ("a done deal" it says) and states that the formal note will be received in the beginning of June. Furthermore, it states that Pacolli is awaiting the receipt of a number, i.e. more than one, of note verbale from the Carribbean countries. No numbers or dates for the latter. Kosovar (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyseni has been speaking to the Tanzanians. I don't think this tells us anything particularly new, but things definately seem to be moving towards recognition. [124] Bazonka (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, though it might be a tad annoying you can write in the contents of the article on the Google translator and get good results. You don't even have to put in any of the accent stuff. This is the part I got on Carribbean countries using Google translate: "Also, the newspaper has learned that Behgjet Pacolli is waiting for verbal notes of recognition from some other countries of the Caribbean community. There Pacolli has engaged a group of diplomats to obtain quick results in terms of recognizing the state of Kosovo."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)