Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Question

How many recognitions must Kosovo receive before we can use its coat of arms in the info box? The blue Kosovo outline is an imposed 'neutral' symbol that does not belong on a page about Kosovo's international relations. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In my totally arbitrary opinion, I would say make the change when(if) a majority of UN members recognize (I think that phrase should also be added to the intro when it becomes appropriate). In wikipedia terms, maybe just put it to a vote?Konchevnik81 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You refer to the Template:Politics of Kosovo infobox? The coat of arms/neutral blue symbol in it does not depend on the number of states recognizing the Republic of Kosovo. The symbol depends on the content of the infobox - that infobox is not only about the republic, but also about the autonomous region, the UNMIK administration, etc. Kosovo-region politics. ::You can add the republic coat of arms right now (or 4 years ago) - in a new infobox such as Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo. Then, it depends on the article topic which infobox we use - in the current article (about recognition of the republic) - the republic infobox, in articles that deal not only with the republic - the neutral infobox. Currently the two infobox links I gave redirect to the same content - but it's easy to break the redirect link and have two templates. Japinderum (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia use for Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Nagorno-Karabakh, countries with a little or without recognition an Template with their seal, but for Kosovo not. See Template:Politics of Nagorno-Karabakh, Template:Politics of Abkhazia. This is an absurd situation.--Irvi Hyka 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 79.243.213.52 (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Irvi Hyka, whether recognition is "little" or "big" is not a factor to determine the coat of arms/seal/symbol utilized in a template. The template topic is the factor. Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo should have the republic coat of arms. Template:Politics of Kosovo should have a neutral symbol (or no symbol at all). And the appropriate template should be utilized in the respective articles. Japinderum (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this page deals purely with a governmental issue, can we not make the switch to Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably can. Because this article is clearly about Republic of Kosovo (whether you agree with its existence or not), we don't need to take a neutral position over the template. Bazonka (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for this article a Republic of Kosovo template/coat of arms should be used. The problem is that currently we don't have two templates, but only the neutral one. Somebody should prepare a new Template:Politics of the Republic of Kosovo. Japinderum (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fiji recognises the Republic of Kosovo

Telegrafi, Koha, Zëri and other Kosovar media report so: [1], [2], [3]. Supposedly the news was announced by Prime Minister Thaçi. A little bit more credible than an anonymous source.

We actually have a direct link to a readout from the GoK meeting where PM Thaci announced that Fiji has recognized Kosovo. It's the fourth paragraph from the bottom. [4] --alchaemia (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a reliable source, but there is no date or other details. I suggest we wait for something firmer. Bazonka (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The official web page of the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi confirms the recogntion by the Republic of Fiji. More reliable source that the PM site don't exist.[5]

The PM Website on top of that Kosovan media is good enough confirmation for me, I see no reason to doubt it; I just think a date would be useful. I think Provisionally we should use the most common date used in the media and the PM website. IJA (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 79.243.213.52 (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bazonka again. Even he should see the truth. 79.243.213.52 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is that comment supposed to mean? I said that it is a reliable source, but that it doesn't have a date. My point really is that it would be preferable to wait for a better source with all the necessary information. Bazonka (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The official @MFAKosovo Twitter account confirms the recognition as well, but whether that's a source we can use, I don't know. [6] --alchaemia (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear, that the recognition has happened. Therefore we should add it at once. 79.243.215.11 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

With what date? When did it happen? Bazonka (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We could post it dated as "announced by Kosovo 19 November", with the understanding that the date will probably be revised upon seeing the actual note verbale from Fiji. We've had to do something similar in the past with many countries. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally one man sill thinking clearly here. 79.243.213.117 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the dates listed are simply guesses as it is. I think that we should list Fiji now. TDL (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added Fiji as we all agree that the recognition happened and we're satisfied with the sources. We can always change the date if need be. Also can someone update the numrec please? IJA (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Official MFA confirmation. [7] --alchaemia (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But why is the list still not updated? http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,33 79.243.217.189 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the MFA only has a few people who work on updating that list instead of the many people who work on this wikipedia page. Really, I don't understand why you are so confused by a government web page being a little slow to update. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo offers study for Fijian students [8].

Relevant international membership column

Do we really need to mention this information in the table? It's already covered in the Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations section. Dedicating an entire column to it seems to be redundant and it takes up a lot of kb and screen real estate making this page nearly impossible to view on mobile devices. I suggest we delete this column. TDL (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent mobile devices are quickly gaining on resolution - some latest 10" tablets have higher resolution than almost all laptops and desktops less than 30" and some latest 4.x" smartphones use HD and there are 5" FullHD models announced.

Anyway, the information is relevant, giving context to each line. It's presence in the intergovernmental organizations is organized in totally different way and doesn't serve the same purpose. The column is quite short (for non-recognizers it's shorter than the name column) and can be made short also for the recognizers (currently their table is forced to take 80% space - much of it empty) - like that: Japinderum (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

	Country	Date of recognition	Relevant international membership
1	Afghanistan	18 February 2008	OIC member
25	Slovenia	5 March 2008	EU member EU Presidency at time of declaration NATO member

Irvi Hyka, I see despite of the discussion above and without commenting you proceeded with removing of the membership column. Please restore. Japinderum (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, OK I will restore all, but the article is too long. This is an article about Kosovo recognition not about countries IO membership. We have all th information about intergovernmental organisations in the Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations section. Please understand me.--Irvi Hyka 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're to remove it for UN states, can we remove it for "Other states and entities" also please? IJA (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but exist a problem with Palestine, Vatican and SMOM which are UN Permanent Observer state or non state entity, N. Cyprus for its status at the OIC etc. Irvi Hyka 14:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the "International recognition of Kosovo"? That information isn't needed on this article, we have already split them into two groups, full UN and others. That is enough. IJA (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. This informcaion should be removed. This article is very long and I am trying to remove some unnecessary informcione. --Irvi Hyka 18:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It has to do that it gives context about who recognizes Kosovo and who doesn't. I don't think removing a couple of characters on some lines will contribute much to article downsizing. And I don't agree with the whole downsizing obsession in the first place - the article deals with more than 200 diplomatic positions - of course it will be long. Where appropriate positions can be summarized (and sources drastically reduced) - with the extra content/sources going in separate articles about Kosovo-country X relations or Country X reaction to 2008 declaration. Japinderum (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria

Again Bazonka is deleting important information. 79.243.210.168 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I did indeed delete some information, but I dispute your claim that it is important. Did you read my edit summary? Perhaps you should comment about the points that I raised (I'm quite happy to discuss them if you disagree) rather than making rather snide remarks that seem to imply that I am damaging the article.

My main issue with the text was that it is a 4 year old comment from a Syrian diplomat with no mandate on the Balkans, saying that Syria would imminently recognise Kosovo, which in hindsight it obviously didn't do. How does mentioning this benefit the article? We should also be working to reduce the size of the article, so adding stuff like this hardly helps. Bazonka (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that should be reduced. 79.243.197.178 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TOOLONG we need to reduce the size. Bazonka (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But then we would loose important things. 79.243.219.125 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hence removing only the unnecessary stuff, like an old inaccurate speculation from a Syrian with no connection to Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But it's an reaction from a syrian official. 79.243.219.125 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Bazonka (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Separation two headings from main article

As current article was holding a lot of stuff and quite long therefore I have created separate articles for both of them and link them to main article. given below are two articles which, I am planning to keep separately as they are both different subjects.

1. UN member states that recognise Kosovo
2. UN member states that do not recognise Kosovo

Kindly suggest,...!! -- Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is best to keep both types in the same article. If we are to reduce the article size then we should work on cutting out extraneous information from the non-recognisers sections, or moving the long ones to new articles like we have done with Egypt or Libya. Bazonka (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed you are right, so what do you think we should do?-- Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose They need to be together. Separate articles will open the gates for WP:FORKING. IJA (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose split. I agree that some position sections can be trimmed by moving content to the respective "Country X reaction to Kosovo independence declaration" article. Japinderum (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

MFA Recognition Dates

The Kosovan MFA have finally got off their lazy backsides and updated their list of recognising countries. I got the date correct for Fiji. However we have given the 20th September for Timor-Leste whereas the MFA list has given 9th November. For PNG we have given 3rd October whereas the MFA has given 28th October. We have given 16th October for Burundi where ther MFA has given 28th October. Which dates to we use? IJA (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The MFA list is using a different methodology: they indicate the date when they received the recognition note, not when it was issued by the recognizing state as we do. Thus we cannot directly use their dates.—Emil J. 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Except we don't actually apply that methodology consistently. Our dates are a hodge-podge of many different scenarios: dates we've read off of diplomatic notes, dates that the state publicly confirmed their recognition, dates that we've estimated that the decision was taken to recognize, dates of announcement of the recognition by Kosovo's MFA, etc. Much of it is either speculation or WP:OR from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I'm starting to think that we should use the date that recognition is confirmed by Kosovo's MFA, as this is verifiable and can be used consistently throughout the list. TDL (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We should use the dates that recognitions were made whenever this is known. Other dates are acceptable if they are tagged to note what the circumstances of the date are. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

St Kitts recognition

Finally something good. 79.243.218.159 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have good news, too. http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/news/?p=746 79.243.218.159 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Which troll had it removed? 79.243.218.159 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Some anonymous poster reverted both Danlaycock and Bazonka when they added it. I have reverted him/her.--Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 79.243.214.8 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dominica confirms the recognition of Kosovo

Dominica is the next member state of the UN to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Confirmation came during the official dinner that First Deputy Prime Minister of Kosovo, Pacolli has developed with the Prime Minister of this country, Roosevelt Skerrit, on Friday in Paris, shortly after returning from the African continent, reports Pacolli's Office.

According to the announcement, Prime Minister Skerrit who was accompanied by his country's ambassador to the UN, confirmed that his country has decided to recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state, while the formalisation will be done in the next meeting of government of this country, next week.RTK Irvi Hyka 13:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, but we can't move them to the recogniser's section until this becomes official. Bazonka (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 79.243.220.223 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.kosovo-news.com/2012/12/dominica-erkennt-kosovo-an-uber-50-der-un-mitgliedstaaten-erkennen-damit-den-kosovo-an/

79.243.220.223 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That article gives us nothing new, Irvi's source says exactly the same things. --Khajidha (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MFA Confirmed the recognition: here IJA (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But the update is not there yet. 79.243.215.178 (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So? If the MFA says it happened, that is enough. They'll get around to adding it to their list sooner or later. --Khajidha (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant that the number was not updated. Now it is right. 79.243.215.35 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

EBRD vote breakdown

Kosovo is set to join the EBRD in December. There are already news reports that more than 2/3 of EBRD members voted in favor of Kosovo admission. I know that isn't equal to recognition, but does somebody have a link to a the vote breakdown? Who was for, against, abstain, absent? Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that Kosovo got accepted into the EBRD clearly means that 2/3 of the countries, equaling to 3/4 of the voting power, voted for its membership. This is a requirement, not just a statistic. --alchaemia (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is which countries comprise those 2/3 or 3/4th. Who voted for, who against, who abstained, who was absent during the vote. Japinderum (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the official website of the EBRD does not give any information about the vote breakdown. If they don't, then who will? ;)Ermir Ismaili (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If the vote is not secret (as in the case of IMF), then anybody (journalist) can report on it. I'm not familiar with EBRD website structure - whether they publish minutes of meetings, procedural reports, etc. online. Even if they don't the key is whether the voting information is secret or public. If it's public there should be a way to get this information (whether the source will be RS suitable for Wikipedia is another issue). Japinderum (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

sent them an email, and it is secret. But why trust an unknown person doing original research? This link gives examples of secret voting at the EBRD: https://www.google.no/search?q=ebrd+confidential&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hfb&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=ebrd+secret+vote&sa=X&ei=zfCrUMTxKImi4gTM6oHgDw&ved=0CBgQ7xYoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c209900b3aca9cca&bpcl=38897761&biw=1545&bih=960 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.72.208 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, don't know if vote breakdowns like these tell us much, seeing as Kosovo is allowed membership in international organizations under Ahtisaari plan. Pretty uncontroversial even for non-recognizers to let Kosovo in.

Ahtisaari plan wasn't endorsed by the UN (opposed by Russia and Serbia). It's only unilaterally implemented by the republic and by countries recognizing it. And membership of the republic (not of "Kosovo*", "UNMIK", "PISG", "Kosovo under UNSCR1244", etc.) in any international organization is quite a notable event. I'm sure Serbia voted against - but if the vote is secret we won't know for sure until it "leaks" like the IMF vote. Japinderum (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the membership of EBRD, I'd bet on Greece having voted for Kosovo. But that's just a guess. --Khajidha (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. I believe the crucial vote came from the European Commission. We all thought Greece had voted for Kosovo's membership in the IMF/WB, but turns out, they actually voted against. --alchaemia (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody needs to change the Greece's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence page then. Quote from that page: "In May 2009, Greece backed Kosovo's IMF bid and voted in favour of it to become the IMF's latest member." I can't check the source used for that statement as I am not registered at FT.com (don't care enough about this to register for the limited free membership). You're probably right, I forgot that the European Commission gets a separate vote from all of the members. I've never quite understood that about EU matters, one way or the other please guys. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Then again: http://www.zeri.info/artikulli/2/8/33298/greqia-pro-anetaresimit-te-kosoves-ne-berzh/ --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo has been listed as a member/shareholder in the EBRD website, making it a full member. Our current text reads that Kosovo is set to join on 17 December should all the necessary conditions be met - well, they have been met, and Kosovo has joined the EBRD as a full member.[9] --alchaemia (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In an interview for RTK, Minister Hoxhaj said that he was surprised when Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Slovakia and Greece voted in favor of Kosovo's membership.[10] Positive vote of Greece was confirmed in a meeting of the head of the Greek Liaison Office in Pristina, Dimitris Moschopoulos with Kosovan immigrants in Selanik.[11]Irvi Hyka 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbados & the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

Paul Brummell, the British High Commissioner to Barbados & the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States said in Prishtina that the recognition of Kosovo by countries of Eastern Caribbean will strengthen the subjectivity of the Republic of Kosovo.Source

After Dominica, the only members of OECS that not recognise Kosovo are Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada.

So what about Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Japinderum (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa, as well as the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has not recognized Kosovo yet.--Irvi Hyka 15:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I hoped you had a hidden source about it's recognition in your sleeve... Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One important thing to note

With Dominica’s recognition of the Republic of Kosovo independence, we can say now that the absolute majority of the UN members recognize Kosovo — a level of international recognition not achieved by any other partially-recognized country like ROC in Taiwan, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.--MaGioZal (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but how do you think that should affect our approach to Kosovo-related topics?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't hurt to add the words "a majority of UN member states" followed by the number of states and the percentage in parentheses in the introduction. It's notable enough to get that level of mention. Otherwise, it doesn't really change much. Kosovo's not at the point yet where the topic becomes like an International recognition of Israel type of topic: ie, where there is small clutch of countries that refuse to recognize an otherwise completely-accepted member of the international community.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to mention this. We already give the percentage, so all we would be doing is reiterating the obvious (probably to the annoyance of the pro-Serb readers). And in any case, there is still some doubt over Nigeria's recognition, which if not true would bring the total back below 50%. Bazonka (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the current text "Notably, 97 out of 193 (50.3%) United Nations (UN) member states..." is fine and there's no need to change it (bare for updating the numbers). Also, the "absolute majority" level is not so special - Palestine has it since decades. I don't think Nigeria (or any other single case) is so important - whether there are 97 or 96 or 98 - it's practically the same. Even in votes some states are absent or abstain, so a difference of 1 is insignificant. What's important is the rate of change and the trend in the recognitions. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Japinderum. Jan CZ (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. It doesn't really matter. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of Bazonkas pro-serbian propaganda. 79.243.203.211 (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of your accusations of Bazonka being POV in his edits. Moving on. There really is no need to put "recognized by a majority of the UN" in the text as we already show that via the percentage listing. I found it tiresome when pro-Serbian sources kept saying that the majority of the world's nations didn't recognize Kosovo and I find it just as tiresome for pro-Albanian sources to make the reverse claim now. If we go by population, the non-recognition by China and India means we still have a ways to go before the halfway point is reached. If we go by economics, it was probably reached quite some time ago as the US and most of the EU have recognized Kosovo for years. Going by number of states equates China and the US (for example) with Nauru and Equatorial Guinea. No disrespect meant to the people of Nauru and Equatorial Guinea but those nations have much less influence on world affairs than do China and the US. How many of the nations (on either side of the debate) will have much actual interaction with Kosovo, Serbia or even the Balkans as a whole? Does Rwanda really have much influence in SE Europe? This change is pointless and I am completely against it. (Note to the IP user: Before you go labelling me pro-Serb, I have ALWAYS supported the Kosovars' desire for independence. I also support the North Kosovo Serbs' desire to remain part of Serbia. I believe that the people living on a piece of land are the only ones who can decide what larger state to be a part of, if any.)--Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@User:79.243.203.211, I felt bad for your inappropriate comments towards user:Bazonka. We must be neurtal and show facts, papers, verbal notes etc. and not offended users. User:Bazonka is a neutal user and helped to improve and update this article. @Khajidha, in my opinion the separation of North Kosovo from Kosovo of Martti Ahtisaari would constitute a dangerous precedent for opening Pandora's box in all Balkan, in Serbia with North Kosovo and Preshevo Valley, in Kosovo with North Kosovo, in FYROM with the West Albanian regions, In Monetegro with Malësia, in Bosnia with Serpska Republic, Vojvodina, Greece and Çamëra, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria for the slvic FYROM etc. Countries without national identity as Bosnia, Kosovo, FYROM and Montenegro are giving tranquility in Balkans.Irvi Hyka 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

About the "dangerous precedent", my response is "So?" If the populations in those areas want to leave their current states to form new ones or join other ones they should be allowed to do so. If the current states can't inspire a desire amongst their populations to maintain those states, there seems to me to be something wrong with those states. But this is getting way off topic. --Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is right but is valid also for Presheva Valley, Western FYROM (Ilirida), Vojvodina or Srpska Republic. It is a utopia to say that everyone who lives in a certain area should be free to choose their state. In northern Kosovo living many Albanians and Bosnians who will not agree to return into the Serbia of Ivica Dacic (former Milosevic's secretary who mas them). If the North will join Serbia, what will change? The majority of Serbs living in central and southern Kosovo, only 25% live in North. What should be done or will begin mass evacuations among Albanians living in the north and Kosovo Serbs living south? Please, are in the XXI century Swiss Italians live better with the Germans that if they were under the direction of Rome.Irvi Hyka 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Vojvodina? Are you sure you know where you're talking about? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the "let the people be part of the state they want" is with the minorities (sizable in some cases) in the respective region, who disagree with the majority - they are also "people", but not part of "the [majority] of people who wish to ...". Anyway, I think we are going off topic here. Japinderum (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The minorities of Vojvodina will each have their own views. In the rest of the listed regions, it is the majority that is living in a state it prefers not to. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, OK. I definitely retract that statement I made: changing the text doesn't add any information, and will be unnecessarily controversial. I understand the value of counting the number of recognizing UN member states, as Kosovo would need two thirds of members to vote for it to join the UN, but if any Security Council member stands as a veto (Russia) this is a moot point anyway. So let's leave as-is.Konchevnik81 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Kosovo would need only a simple majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly to be accepted as a UN Member if the SC gave its approval ("recommandation" in official UN parlance). The 2/3 is sometimes mentioned as a way for Kosovo to bypass any Russian veto, as the General Assembly does have the right - though it is rarely used - to take decisions even if the SC doesn't agree, but it needs 2/3 of those present and voting. Since the latter case is unlikely to happen in the short-term, and Russia is unlikely to change its position, both scenarios are still a ways off. --alchaemia (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think saying that ""Notably, 97 out of 193 (50.3%) United Nations (UN) member states" is blatantly obvious that that a majority of the UN recognise Kosovo. An extra sentence isn't required. We shouldn't undermine and insult the intelligence of our audience. IJA (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Khajidha) Most of northern Kosovo (the area north of Mitrovica) wasn't part of Kosovo until the post-WWII era when it was swapped for the Presh. valley, which until then was part of Kosovo, so I'd agree that people who half a century ago had nothing to do with Kosovo shouldn't be forced to be part of it, but the same principle of self-determination should apply to the people of Presh. valley.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. 79.243.198.89 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan

Pakistan has recognized but is not yet confirmed. http://kosovothanksyou.com/ 79.243.208.122 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani journalists report that Pakistan has agreed to formal recognition of the independent state of Kosovo. The information provided by several media close to the Pakistani authorities and is expected to quickly recognize from Pakistan to be released by the authorities of this country. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo have said that they have received confirmation from Pakistan for the recognition, but that verbal grades will arrive in the coming days.

"We have received confirmation for the recognition by Pakistan. In the coming days expect the verbal note to reach the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo" said Artan Behrami, adviser of Enver Hoxhaj.

Meanwhile, Zëri sources within the Prime Minister of Kosovo, have confirmed that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has decided to recognize the independence of Kosovo. According to these sources, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Erdogan has informed Thaçi by telephone that Pakistan has decided to recognise Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state.

Otherwise, while participating in a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Djibouti, on 17 November 2012, Hoxhaj has also developed a special meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Hina Rabbani Khar. During the meeting, the minister had received specific pledges to recognize Kosovo.RTK Telegrafi Top Channel

It has been confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the MFA said that Pakistan has officially confirmed to them that they have recognized Kosovo, and that a note verbale shall be forthcoming in the near future (i.e. next several days). [12] --alchaemia (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Than we can add it at once. 79.243.207.41 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we? There is nothing on either the Kosovo or Pakistan foreign ministry websites. All we have are reports in Kosovan media. I'm 90% sure this is true, but it would be preferable to wait until we have something from an official source. Bazonka (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. 79.243.207.41 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We must wait for official confirmation, otherwise, it's hearsay. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Official publications only can be taken into consideration.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit harsh to call it "hearsay" when the MFA has confirmed, via a press statement by the MFA Press Secretary/Advisor on Media, Artan Behrami, that the recognition took place. The website has not been updated yet, but the media are quoting the MFA. Still, I agree we should wait until the website is updated (probably Monday). --alchaemia (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referencing the MFA stuff at all. I was talking about the first articles that quoted people saying they heard from someone who heard it from someone that Pakistan recognized. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but there's more to the story than someone hearing something from someone else. --alchaemia (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Other important note: In Twitter, during the congratulation between Kosovo's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Petrit Selimi, with the Minister for European Intergration, Vlora Çitaku, Selimi said that another recognition will come next week. Selimi leaks confidential information. @vloracitaku

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=146297 79.243.203.228 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dacic accepts that Pakistan has recognized Kosovo

Today the PM of Serbia Dacic, a guest on TV One said that Serbia urgently needs to send emissaries to countries that have not recognized Kosovo, and especially in the great Islamic state.

Dacic, said that Paksitan recognized Kosovo, and if also Egypt recognize Kosovo, Serbia can have serious consequences.

"I do not know if you are aware that we have a losing situation, Pakistan recognized the independence of Kosovo, is one of us deals with countries that have not recognized Kosovo's independence," asked the prime minister.

He stressed that attention must be paid to that, pointing out that, for example, Fiji, which is a small country, recognized the independence of Kosovo because the representatives of the Kosovo went there and lobbied.

"I'm sure 99 percent of Serbian citizens do not know where Fiji, even as their citizens do not know where Serbia and Kosovo. What do they care about our problems, but it is one that he had come there, whether Pacolli or others, offered scholarships, technical equipment and finish the job," said Dacic.[13]

Source in English of the interview of Serbian Prime Minister. B92 Irvi Hyka 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the date as 21st December, as that was the date we first heard news of Pakistan's recognition. We can always change it if we hear otherwise. IJA (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

MFA of Pakistan: RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO

The Government of Pakistan has decided to accord recognition to the Republic of Kosovo. The decision has been made in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Kosovo.

The Government of Pakistan has also decided to concurrently accredit its Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey in Ankara as Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Republic of Kosovo.

Islamabad 24 December 2012 [14]

Map

Is the map showing Pakistan for everybody? It isn't for me, and I've cleared the cache several times. Also: is there a place somewhere that teaches how to edit the map (.svg files)? Jsaldarr (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not been updating for me since before Dominica recognized. I've tried clearing my cache, multiple CPUs/browsers and WP:PURGEing the image, but I've come to the conclusion it's because of this bug. It's quite a strange bug in that it affects readers differently depending on their global location. This seems like a very critical bug, given that until it's fixed our map is stuck in early December for a large fraction of our readers, however the bug report has been open for months so I'm not optimistic it will be resolve any time soon. TDL (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The latest comment on the bug says: "Asher restarted varnishhtcpd on all of Eqiad (North American caching center) machines about 30 minutes ago (simultaneously with Tim investigating this problem). Thus, probably the most urgent of the problems associated with this issue has been solved." As of now, the image is finally working for me so this is likely what fixed our problem. I guess I was a bit too pessimistic... TDL (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's working for me as well. Jsaldarr (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Bilateral relations articles

As the stance of various states changes, the content of the X reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence articles becomes obsolete and in my opinion the viable option is their move to Kosovo-X/X-Kosovo relations(I proposed such a move regarding the most recent recognition, Pakistan). Additionally, the maps of some current recognitions contradict the Serbia-X relations articles and vice versa. Germany was one of the first states that recognized Kosovo, but the map used in the Germany-Serbia relations includes Kosovo as part of Serbia, which isn't the status recognized by Germany. Is there a map that reflects the situation and how can it be incorporated in the bilateral relations infobox?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support some updates like this. It doesn't have to be a sweeping change across hundreds of articles, but if we have a bilateral relations article which covers more than just recognition/nonrecognition, the title should reflect that.

Lots of maps need updating. Good luck getting it to "stick", though; map updates around Kosovo tend to get reverted. bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem upgrading the Pakistan article to Kosovo-Pakistan relations, but I would hesitate doing so with non-recognizing countries that have "Reaction to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" breakout articles. I would say leave as-is for now.

As for maps, I would take up discussions of the maps on the relevant maps' and articles' talk pages, but I would note that there doesn't seem to be a consistent method across Wikipedia for depicting countries that have disputed territorial claims in such maps. To take the PRC and Republic of China for example, the China-Germany relations map only highlights Germany and the mainland PRC, while the United States - China relations map highlights the PRC, Hong Kong and Macau, and has a light shade to show PRC claims on Taiwan. Then again, the Republic of China - United States relations map only highlights Taiwan and doesn't show the extensive | claims that the ROC has on its books to huge chunks of Asia. Probably it makes sense in x country - Serbia relations maps to have a light shade over Kosovo to show Serbian claims, even if the country in question doesn't recognize it, but again this is best taken up elsewhere.Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I consider the move to Kosovo-X relations necessary only when a recognition is confirmed, not as a general rule that should be used to move all the reaction articles. As long as their stance remains the same, there's no reason to move them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

New map

A new map has been added to the article that roughly shows when the different countries recognised Kosovo. I quite like it, but I have some questions and comments.

• Since this shows essentially the same information as the original map, plus more, then should we remove this first map?
• Also, I'm not sure if the divisions between the colours are appropriate. I can see why it's been done this way, but they seem a bit arbitrary (to 25/02/08; to 20/03/08; to 18/08/08; 17/02/09; 17/02/10; etc.). More sensible divisions may be to simply split by calendar year, or by anniversary of the declaration only.
• If recognitions continue, then the blue is going to get paler and paler and eventually appear as just white. I suppose we can address this if and when it happens.
• I suggested a map like this a while ago, and the consensus was not to change anything. See Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 36#Map. Has the consensus now changed?

Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if the consensus has changed per se; I just had some time and I thought I'd make a map because I found it interesting, and I didn't think anyone would object.

• I like the divisions as they are right now (no surprise, I made it xD), largely because if we did solely by calendar year, then we'd have way too many recognitions in the first year and way too much of one color. In addition, I think that, if anything, the "correct" way to do it would be increasing by multiplication rather than addition, as this is more of an analysis of the strength x-country's support of Kosovo: Kosovo's biggest backers were the first to recognize, all within the first week, and then the next level would be those within the first month, not just those in the next week. It's also because the rate of new recognitions for the most part decreases over time, as more and more of the potential recognizers have already recognized. Originally I was going up by factors of four (first week, first month, first four months, etc...), but I realized this would get tedious, so after after the 1/3rd year anniversary I just made each anniversary the boundary line. Then I changed the boundaries within the first year to the 31st day (typical length of a month) and the half-birthday, because these actually seemed less awkward to me (being pretty recognizable dates and all). I think this is best because it differentiates the absolute first recognizers from the others.
• ...although, just throwing it out there... We could also use the court decision in 2010 as one of the boundaries. That doesn't really fit with the current scheme, though.
• As for the color getting paler and paler, my unsaid plan was to use the same color from Kosovo's sixth birthday on. I was going up in Paint's luminosity rating by 20 at each interval, so this would be the last possible shade before white anyways. Would you object to that?--Yalens (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The new map doesn't really present any information of value - the dates are already there for all to see. I oppose its inclusion. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it do any harm? Because otherwise we could just replace the old map, as Bazonka suggested, if you think it takes up too much space. I think some people prefer to see pictures rather than words, so it'd make the article more graphic for readers who prefer it that way. --Yalens (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another option, as opposed to trying to figure out some random timeframes that make things look nice, would be to just group them by their recgnition number. The first 25 would be one colour, the next 25 another colour, etc. TDL (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The original (old) map is fine the way it is. We have no need for colour-coded recognitions. It's superfluous. If you're going to argue that it does no harm, then why not change the text color to neon green or pink? It couldn't hurt, right? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the text color is neon green, then some people might find it hard to read. That could hurt. I don't really see what you're getting at really... Is there some particular problem you have other than that its "not necessary"? --Yalens (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: The article is already overlong, and we need to strive for concision, so any addition must pass a more rigorous test than normal. This new map presents exactly the same information that we already provide in the chronological table, without introducing possible bias by coloring choices. I say, out with it, though thanks for putting in the effort. --Mareklug ^talk 01:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted. If it added something to the article I would favour retaining it, but the same info can be found just as easily looking at the table. I commend the effort but it would have been a good idea to discuss before making the change. Perhaps a separate map showing the division between the countries which have already recognised, those strongly against recognition and those who haven't decided would have more utility? Freedom1968 (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a map like that would be much more useful. One colour for supporting countries; one for opposing countries; and leave the rest blank. It would be tempting to use different shades for different nuances of recognition/nonrecognition but that could invite tendentious editing... bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, absolutely not! We used to have a map like that and it was a huge source of arguments, woe, strife and POV-pushing. Just check some of the early talk page archives. Things calmed down so much since we changed to a simple who-has-recognised map. Please let's not go back to those dark days. Bazonka (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK understood, but lets drop the idea of a new map then, as I said I really don't think it adds to the article's quality. If you do want to pursue the idea why not go for a map like the one that the article on the territorial development of the British Empire has i.e an interactive map, but ditch the colour coded scheme and keep with the keep Green? Freedom1968 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If it aint broke, don't fix it! IJA (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

While it's kinda dissapointing that my map got ditched... I'd support Freedom1968's idea to go for a change-over time interactive map (or whatever the word for the "flashing" map type is).--Yalens (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

...though why does it matter to keep it green? The only possible reason I can think of is that the color blue is often linked to "the West" (albeit it's also the largest color on Kosovo's flag, and the most popular color), but the color green is the color of Islam (which could be problematic considering how the Serbs like to paint the Kosovars), so it runs the same risk. How about brown, if we're really going to fuss over the color? I don't think brown bears any such connotation whatsoever. --Yalens (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has ever complained over the use of green before, as far as I can remember. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a problem either really- it's just a color (I'm not seriously suggesting changing it)... I just don't see why blue is.--Yalens (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem in green or a need to change it. As for the first (without animation) Yalens map - I think it would be good for that map to be posted (as an image) here on the talk page (and to be regularly updated) - then whoever likes it (including myself) will know to go to talk's "Archive 42" for it. Japinderum (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Yalens (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Map of the order in which states recognised Kosovo's independence. The darker the shade of blue, the earlier the recognition. Grey states have not recognised

Nigeria's recognition (sourcing), revisited

Is this really the best we can do? http://www.top-channel.tv/english/artikull.php?id=2657 It reads like complete hearsay, referring to some news agency quoting some undisclosed sources. I see that it is disputed (with about as flimsy a source as well). This needs attention. --Mareklug ^talk 23:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC) P.s. Personally, I would consider position number 82 in this official MFA website table to suffice http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,33 and drop the disputed tag (and the iffy sourcing) altogether. --Mareklug ^talk 23:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but the problem is that we do have mixed messages about Nigeria's recognition, and there is no conclusive source for either side of the argument. I have added the Kosovo MFA reference to the article, but this is not likely to convince the pro-Serb doubters who may not see it as reliable evidence. Similarly, removal of the disputed tag may encourage pro-Serb editors to remove Nigeria from the list, which is what was happening before it was added. Bazonka (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Parliament seek clarification for Uganda, Mali, Nigeria; MFA not respect the decision

On 11 October 2012 the Parliament of Kosovo after harmonizing the positions of all parliamentary groups, by majority of votes approved the recommendations proposed by the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK; the largest opposition party). With 67 votes in favor, 1 against and no abstention, adopted these recommendations, which urged the Government by the end of this year to inform the parliament about the issue of the three recognitions from Mali, Nigeria and Uganda.

The text of the resolution [15]

1. The Parliament requires responsibility for the scandal of the Republic of Mali,
2. Notified the Assembly, within 2 weeks from the MFA for recognition from Nigeria and Uganda, presented evidence (verbal note)
3. Clarify the powers of the members of the Government, all the representatives that deal with recognition,(Pacolli and Hoxhaj responsibility on Kosovo's foreign policy)
4. Take immediate steps to membership in international organizations and to report to Parliament on a monthly basis and
5. Assembly requires the government to stop the politicization of Kosovo's diplomatic service.

I don't know if the full text is approved as proposed LDK or changes are made. Anyway the essence is that Parliament requires clarification on recognition by Mali, Uganda, Nigeria. Tomorrow is the last day of the year, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not done anything public yet.Irvi Hyka 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations

I propose we add a simple "yes/no" diplomatic relations column to the table of recognizers. Like here (but the header can be even shorter such as "relations"). I know similar proposals were made before, but they suggested inclusion of dates or wikilinks to the bilateral relations articles. Japinderum (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - for all the same reasons as the last time you suggested this. The page is WP:TOOLONG already, so adding content outside the WP:SCOPE of the article is a bad idea. Details on foreign relations have already been WP:SPLIT to Foreign relations of Kosovo, no need to redundantly include them here. TDL (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reasoning given by TDL. Even if we kept this to a simple Y/N column, each Y would require a reference, and that would increase the size significantly. Bazonka (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This article deals with Diplomatic Recognition, not Diplomatic Relations. We could have a link saying something along the lines of "See here for diplomatic relations". IJA (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TOOLONG.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede - Assembly of Kosovo

The current lede is kind of misleading in stating "Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by a vote of members of the Assembly of Kosovo." - as found out by the ICJ it's actually issued by individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo, acting in personal capacity and not as part of UNMIK's PISG - and that's why the ICJ declared it legal, otherwise it would've been illegal.

Any proposal how to make this clear with the minimum text possible? I think 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#ICJ ruling somewhere will suffice, but which words to wikilink with that? Japinderum (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just add the link "acting in personal capacity" to the end of the sentence. --Mareklug ^talk 11:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did, but was reverted claiming "weasel wording". So, should I add "and not as part of UNMIK's PISG" or add a source The identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, par.102-109? Actually it wasn't voted only by members of the Assembly, but also by the President who isn't Assembly member... Japinderum (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The judgment doesn't actually say that, does it? Sure, if you scroll all the way down to paragraph 109 of a primary source you can see it say that "as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework ..." but that is not in a personal capacity. As far as the ICJ is concerned, they acted like representatives of the people. Like most legislative bodies do; not a big deal. To pick on that obscure part of the ICJ ruling (rather than, say, the declaration of independence itself) is undue; to pick on that obscure part of the ruling and then change the wording to say something different is both WP:UNDUE and source-misuse, although it's been done several times before on Kosovo articles. It is, alas, a familiar problem. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you did the same to a few other articles too. It seems to been going on for a long time, too. Such long-term pov-pushing - deliberately distorting content - is a big problem. You should stop that now. Is there anything else which needs to be cleaned up? bobrayner (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The declaration doesn't even mention the "Assembly of Kosovo". And the ICJ ruling deals extensively with the issue of who the authors of the declarations are and in what capacity they acted. The verdict is that the declaration is not adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo or any other PISG institution. Stating otherwise is wrong and using "adopted by members of the Assembly of Kosovo" without further clarification is WP:WEASEL way of implying it's adopted by the Assembly itself. It's also wrong, since it was adopted also by the President (see in the ICJ ruling). If you don't like the exact phrase utilized, fine, let's change it, but please don't remove it. Japinderum (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo" is misleading? I am looking at the BBc article[16]. The declaration was signed by every member of the Assembly, while reunited in the building of the Assembly?

And "in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself" should be "in an unofficial manner, since it was outside of the authority granted by the PIGS framework"? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See the lede - it was by every member present, but 11 members were not present. Also see the ICJ ruling - there were not only Assembly members, but also another official. Bobrayner complained about using words that are not in the sources ("individual", "personal capacity", "unofficial"), that's why my latest edit uses "representatives of the people" (as stated in the ICJ ruling). Japinderum (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See the Declaration of Independence: 1. "We, the democratically-elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement." [17] — Irvi Hyka 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to stop projecting what the ICJ "would have said" and what "would have been illegal". You have no idea what the ICJ would have said, and in any case, it's irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How the delaration of independence happened isn't really within scope of this article. I've taken out all of this text, which also helps with the article size problem. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bazonka. Alchaemia, I didn't put the "would've" phrase in the article - I said it here, on the talk page, as explanation that the statement "The 2008 declaration adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo was found to be legal by the ICJ" (and variations of that, including these two statements in a separate sentences) is an oxymoron. Not being adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo is one of the major points in support of its legality as you can see the ICJ verdict (and the opposite claim was one of the major points of the Serbia objections). And anyway, what would've happen is irrelevant since the declaration was NOT adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo.The identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, par.102-109 If no editors writes the opposite, then it's fine. Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe

I thought I'd go ahead and bring this up before others came crashing in and started making edits. There are stories in the Kosovar media saying the president of Sao Tome has "suspended" the recognition of Kosovo. I have no idea how Sao Tomean government works or whether he can do that. Before edit wars start, let's wait for the Foreign Ministry of either country to issue a formal statement, ok? [18] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets not jump to any conclusions. Lets get something official before making adjustments to the article. This could be official and it could be a wild goose chase. Lets hold horses whilst we find out what is what. IJA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Read STP media

The old Gov of Patrice Trovoada

On 3 April 2012 São Tomé e Príncipe deve reconhecer o KOSOVO como Estado Independente? [19]

On 19 March 2012 Governo propõe que o Presidente da República reconheça o Kosovo como Estado Membro da Comunidade Internacional [20]

The new PM of STP Gabriel Costa On 4 January 2013 Processo de reconhecimento do Kosovo “é uma situação anómala” [21]

The President declartaion On 7 January 2013 República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe não reconheceu a Soberania do Kosovo [22]

COMUNICADO of the President of STP [23]

Presidência da República [24]

On 10 January 203 Presidência da República mostra provas de que o Chefe de Estado nunca foi informado sobre os expedientes com vista ao reconhecimento do KOSOVO [25]

Declaration of the opposition On 10 January 203 ADI defende o reconhecimento do KOSOVO e diz que a declaração do Presidente da República é inexistente [26]

Kosovo MFA Hoxhaj insists the recognition remains valid. “The verbal note received by Sao Tome and Principe on Kosovo’s recognition proves the country has been recognized as an independent state,” he told Balkan Insight.[27]

Other media [28] [29] [30] [31]

This should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's much more like Mali than Nigeria case. Establishing (and keeping) diplomatic relations will be a good way to prove there's no "dispute", but I don't know far is Kosovo MFA in its plan to establish such with all recognizing states.[32] Also, #Diplomatic_relations proposal rejected above would've helped readers and editors to keep track of this process. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be "mentioned", it should be noted as it is, it's a derecognition and I placed it in a section based upon Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#States_which_have_withdrawn_or_canceled_recognition_or_relations.--Avala (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you split out ST&P, then you need to renumber the recognizers table and change the recognition template. --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would vote against adding the new table. It is in any case *not* a change in recognition. The story as I follow it in English | here basically says that with the change in PMs, the President of Sao Tome says he was never consulted about recognition, that the parliament never ratified it, and that the decision was "an anomaly". Kosovo says no, it's legit. That's not a retraction of recognition, it's a dispute whether recognition ever occurred in the first place.

Adding a new "derecognition" table is just going to mean that any country that anyone disputes gets bumped around to that table. If there are disputes, it's better to keep it in notes, or in the description boxes for countries like Mali. Sao Tome seems to be more like a Mali case, as noted above.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Entities which have withdrawn or canceled (sic) recognition or relations"

This is a stupid section and isn't factually correct therefore we're misleading our readers. If this news about STP is true, it means that STP never officially recognised Kosovo in the first place as the resolution was never ratified by the STP Parliament and President. Therefore STP cannot withdraw or cancel a recognition if the recognition by STP never officially occurred in the first place. You cannot withdraw something which didn't happen. It is not possible to rescind a recognition if the recognition never took place. Manuel Pinto da Costa is saying that the resolution by the previous government is invalid as it didn't get a majority in the STP Parliament, therefore STP never officially recognised Kosovo. Therefore STP cannot possible withdraw or cancel the recognition of Kosovo. This news about STP isn't news that the STP has withdrawn recognition, but is news that STP never actually recognised Kosovo. This is why I said we should not rush. I said we should wait and find out what has happened. But no. People have jumped the gun and rushed into this. IJA (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I Agree, fully with you, we have to remove this section "Entities which have withdrawn or canceled recognition or relations" 46.65.168.73 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)AK

I also agree. STP either stays in the recognisers list (with a "disputed" footnote if necessary), or it is moved back into the non-recognisers list. If we do this, we should reinstate all of the old text, and add the new information about the derecognition or whatever the heck it was that happened. Bazonka (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but i dont agree. Sao Tome DID recognise Kosovo for some time, while non-recognisers never did... We should make some distinction, and i think that this section is good for it. Also, there is some serious question about Uganda and Nigeria. Maybe some section where we can list all of those? On one side firm recognition, on the other non-recognisers, and rest in the middle? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a Yes section, and we have a No section. What you're proposing is adding a Was-Yes-But-Now-No section, but at the end of the day it's still a No. We can add all of the history in the notes column. Bazonka (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It i not immediately clear that the president's pronouncement is even legal under international law, so I would be careful juggling these tables. Certainly the new table is lame and I am for removing it. I would keep the country in the recognizers table, adding a disputed note. --Mareklug ^talk 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user:IJA that we should not rush, as I stated when I opened this topic. All we know definitively is that there is disagreement. I have a pdf copy of the Sao Tome note, so I know it exists. If what has been reported is true, the new STP government has withdrawn recognition. Things are being made more complicated with the assertion that it was never extended in the first place. I have no idea if the STP parliament has to approve a recognition or not - one would think that the prior government didn't seem to think so, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the Note Verbale in the first place. I agree with Mareklug that we don't know whether the president of STP can annul a recognition on his own initiative, since in most parliamentary systems the president is a ceremonial figurehead, anyway. The "withdrawn recognition" section is premature and should be removed, as others have said. You either recognize or you don't. Since we don't know enough, we should leave it in with a notation of the dispute. On the Kosovar front, First Deputy PM Pacolli says the matter is "closed" and Sao Tome recognized. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From the Kosovo MFA's official twitter: Drejtori Sami Ukelli i MPJ: Nuk komentojme zhvillimet e brendshme ne shtete. Njohja e São Tomé eshte ceshtje e mbyllur. - Director Sami Ukelli, MFA: No comment on internal developments in the states. Recognition of Sao Tome is a closed issue [33]. What I gather from this is that the Kosovars are saying that they might disagree amongst themselves in Sao Tome, but as far as things from the Pristina end are concerned, they have a valid note and that's what they're going with. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But we should not listen them, but everyone else. They will say that for everything, but if Sao Tome want to revoke the recognition, we should follow their attitude. This is two ways event, both sides must agree, without open questions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not prejudging the situation one way or the other. It's odd for you to say, 'Let's listen to everybody, but not the Kosovars.' Here is a letter purported to be from the STP president stating the recognition is invalid [34] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo can't speak for STP. It's very simple, it's not "Let's listen to everybody, but not the Kosovars" but "Let's listen to STP, and not anybody else". At least here there is no point to argue when we finally have original sources instead of silence from those African states. Kosovo statement is IMO hasty as it means nothing in essence as it suggests a country can't legally change it's position which is obviously not true. However it IS noted in the article.--Avala (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As for what IJA wrote. Internally it will be true in STP that they never recognised Kosovo. However that is only a de jure situation. De facto they did. Many countries declared laws and decisions made during the nazi occupation non-existent, some have done this for the period of Soviet occupation. This does not mean from an external point of view that this period is empty and non-existent. And the section is not "stupid" as it was based on a long standing section in the article on Western Sahara - Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#States_which_have_withdrawn_or_canceled_recognition_or_relations which while in bad form with references has had this form for a while. I don't see any issue with it as it covers the situation from the right angle. As for not rushing things, this was said before STP published scanned documents. What would we be waiting for now? A personal message from the president for Wikipedians? I don't think that there will be any more statements from STP as there is no issue left to clear up. So unless someone can specifically say what would we be waiting for now after we've been given official documents there is nothing to wait for.--Avala (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent)

This is the entire section of a scholarly note by a Turkish judge operating in the realm of international relations. It covers withdrawal of recognition:

Sometimes it is possible to withdrawn a granted recognition. Especially, it is easier for the de facto recognition⁵³ since the position is different with the de facto recognition which includes an ambiguity for the future of the entity. If the government of the entity loses the effective control on its territory there will be no ground for recognition and it may be taken back. On the other hand de jure recognition is more difficult to withdraw because as mentioned above it is stronger than de facto recognition. De jure recognition may be the case only if the State is annexed or conquered by another State.

— NURULLAH YAMALI, JUDGE, GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, TURKEY, http://www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf

Based on this, and considering that a note verbale is a de jure instrument of recognition, and that it was issued by an executive branch of a legal government, and that the Republic of Kosovo still exists :), I will revert the edits to the article (which were made unilaterally and despite appeals in this section to not run off and edit-war things) as basically not reflecting legal developments and mere hearsay coming out of STP. --Mareklug ^talk 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug's idea to ignore STP issue based on an opinion of a Turkish judge. Thoughts?

How is the Turkish judge relevant here? I know you are on a pay roll and that you have a job to do but be more creative please. The only one who decides on STP position is STP, not a Turkish judge, not a politician from Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that - no you will not revert anything because that would constitute serious abuse of editing powers. Turkish judge has 0 relevance in this case. We are determining here what is the position of STP and not to originally research the legal aspects which tying an unrelated Turkish judge opinion would most certainly be. So please no original research, just reporting on facts and keep those facts closely related to this issue.--Avala (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I would like to note for the record my disbelief that Mareklug would get himself involved in an attempt to cause confusion by stating that all we have is "mere hearsay from STP". No Mareklug, we have an official scan of a document from STP. That is not hearsay but an official document of the STP Presidential office. We are not going to play like this. If you can't participate like a mature editor then don't participate at all. Posting intentional inaccuracies like this will aggravate other editors and will cause an edit war. Such comments are more certainly not made in good faith and I am thoroughly disappointed.--Avala (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems more like a personal attack than an objective question or point of discussion. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attack for now, I think everyone will agree that my edit (not a revert, but a cleanup and reformatting with preservation of all the sources and information contributed by Avala) should be considered reasonable. --Mareklug ^talk 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article's current version includes STP both in the states that have recognized KS and Avala's new list. Apparently, not both versions can be included and given the process all disputed new content must pass I agree with IJA and the other "regulars" of the page. That being said, this situation is one prompted by internal conflicts in STP that don't concern Kosovo, not to mention that according to our sources there is no "withdrawal" of recognition.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may, I actually consider relevant the opinion of a Turkish judge who probably has acute knowledge of the norms of international law... I see nothing wrong with what Mareklug did. --Yalens (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha but yes of course if you can't address any of the issues such as Wikipedia:No original research you call it a personal attack. Next time a troll goes on blanking spree he will call any response to his behavior "personal attacks".--Avala (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

You are turning Wikipedia into a laughing stock. Country that officially changed its position is listed as a country that still recognizes? Based on what? Probably on the same thing those who didn't accept the earth is round used to insist on a flat earth theory for decades after the discovery.

I have a suggestion, let's add a "disputed" tag to each and every recognition since Serbia declared them all null and void. Because the only reason STP is listed as a country that recognises Kosovo is the fact that Kosovo leaders don't agree with it (despite them having 0 influence over the matter just like Serbia has 0 influence on the opinions of other countries). How does that sound?

Is this a WP:POINT proposal? Oh yes it is, but hopefully you do get the point now.--Avala (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See Montevideo Convention. The Convention codified the declarative theory of statehood as accepted as part of customary international law.

Article 6 The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.--Irvi Hyka 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all - read WP:SYNTHESIS. Second of all - Montevideo Convention was signed by 19 Latin American states therefore it is irrelevant here.--Avala (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Citing Montevideo Convention#Signatories: as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.[7] --Mareklug ^talk 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Irvi - Countries can withdraw recognition of a country. Recognition is not a one-time, permanent event. A country can go from recognizing a state to deciding that that state is an illegitimate entity. See |Iran's relationship to Israel for an example.

Avala - With that said, I don't think that a withdrawal of recognition is what is happening here. If the new PM of Sao Tome is calling the recognition an "anomaly" and the like, it sounds as if the government is disputing the validity of the note verbale. This is a situation more like Mali - if Sao Tome really feels this way, then they should be moved to the nonrecognizer list, with a note that Kosovo disputes the illegitimacy of the original note verbale.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously governments, politicians, presidents and VIPs may claim this or that, but it remains to be determined in the light of international law, whether their actions and pronouncements have legal standing. It would appear that Iran cannot legally withdraw recognition of Israel once granted, under the norms of international law and in light of Israel's continued existence. Ditto for São Tome and Principe with respect to the nota verbale-recognized Republic of Kosovo. In the second case, there arises a separate issue of incompetency, as the "comunicado" from the president's office still refers to Kosovo as Republic of Kosovo, and not by its old official name as promulgated by Serbia. In any event the cited STP hubris is purely internal and shows off a shakey political/judicial situation internal to that country. --Mareklug ^talk 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Avala - The Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole quoting Harris, D.J. (ed) 2004 "Cases and Materials on International Law" 6th Ed. at p. 99. Sweet and Maxwell, London. Not only 19 American states, but also the European Union (and all its 27 members), Switzerland etc respect the Montevideo Convention as part of international law. You don't like the Turkish judge, Montevideo Convention, but this is the reality OK. --Irvi Hyka 18:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the most relevant point here is that STP is claiming that the recognition did not go through proper channels and thus never really existed in the first place. If true, this makes the STP situation analogous to that of Mali and our treatment of the two countries should be the same. --Khajidha (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha. Here is another report from Sao Tomé media: [35]. Bazonka (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Act of the State can obtain the international force even when the non-compliance with certain national legislation. On this topic there are a whole series of legal theories. Jan CZ (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Avala should be blocked for his POV-behavior. 79.243.197.237 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recognitions can be withdrawn and have been in various cases. Some scholars may argue that's "impossible" or "illegal" or "bears no consequence", but others argue that as an unilateral act it's up to the "recognition granting" state to decide whether to keep or withdraw previous recognition - and most importantly to decide on its actions afterwards in relation to the "recognition receiving" state. No "international law" arguments will force STP to support Kosovo, to sign agreements with it, etc., if STP institutions decide not to do so. So, the issue should be reflected in the article. It's another question how (concering the cases of STP, Nigeria, Uganda, Mali):
  1. separate "withdrawn/disputed/unconfirmed recognitions" section
  2. in the "recognizer" section with footnote (currently Mali is kept outside and that may be considered inconsistent)
  3. in the "no recognition" section (explanation in the description column) Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the cases of Nigeria, Uganda and STP, it is disputed whether recognition ever took place, not if it was withdrawn (and in the STP, the dispute is also between that country's internal political factions). We don't yet have a case of withdrawal, so why are we talking about it? --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, as they aren't all the same. There is an apparent difference between Mali and the other three: Kosovo claims with certainty that the other three have recognized (while Serbia disputes this), whereas neither side states with certainty that Mali currently recognizes Kosovo. In light of that, I think it's correct that we treat Mali differently. --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The line between "withdrawn recognition" and "recognition eventually found not to have happened at all" is very thin. In some cases it's impossible to distinguish between those two. Mali-Kosovo situation is very similar to the STP-Kosovo (and also to Vanuatu-Abkhazia situation) - because of internal disagreements act of one institution is deemed "not according to its powers" by another institution (or by the next chief of the same institution after hand-over/elections/etc.) Japinderum (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If recognition is believed by some to have happened, and by others not to have happened (i.e. Nigeria), then it should go in the Recognisers section with a Disputed footnote. If recognition never happened, or was withdrawn (i.e. Mali), then it should go in the Non-Recognisers section with explanatory comment. I am not sure which category best fits STP (I admit I haven't read all of the necessary articles). I am opposed to the creation of a separate Withdrawn Recognition section, because essentially this is just a type of Non-Recognition, and we already have a section for that. Bazonka (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only Kosovo, STP also withdrawn the recognition for Georgia; causes the fall of the government

According to these reports [36]: The opposition led by the current PM Gabriel Costa overthrew in December the government of PM Patrice Trovoada by a motion for the recognition of Kosovo and the Republic of Georgia as independent states. STP withdrawn Kosovo and Georgia recognitions. These were the causes of the fall of the government in December. This is also reported by the media in Kosovo.[37] --Irvi Hyka 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...what do they consider Georgia then? Territory of the defunct Soviet Union? This all just looks to me like it's become a proxy war in STP's internal politics (between pro- and anti- Western factions, perhaps, or perhaps pro/anti-Russian factions). --Yalens (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, recognition of Georgia as an independent state just happened to be in the same motion that Da Costa took issue with, so it might not actually be significant (i.e. Da Costa's intention might not have been to say anything about Georgia, maybe).--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda

Some time ago we had Vuk Jeremic claiming that Uganda did not recognise Kosovo citing Henry Oryem Okello the Ugandan FM - Jeremic says Uganda did not recognize Kosovo. For whatever reason this is not noted under disputes like Nigeria, however today Skender Hyseni said “The Foreign Ministry list of recognitions mentions states like Nigeria or Uganda... but these recognitions remain contested, not only by the respective states, but also by the US State Department and so forth,” - Dispute Arises Over Kosovo's 98th Recognition. So I think this should be added next to Nigeria in disputes.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vuk Jeremic quote has been discussed to death here, and is not relevant. The Skender Hyseni quote *might* be worth mentioning, but it's pretty vague.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant as much as the "Gazeta Express" report is on Nigeria. And what logic do you follow when you say that the former Serbian FM is irrelevant but the former Kosovo FM might be worth mentioning? Is there some sort of qualitative difference between the two that I am missing? Anyhow we are not here to declare things relevant or irrelevant as that is OR. We just neutrally report on things and let the readers decide. I think the current wording and layout is fine so I didn't change it.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions about Uganda. The relevant parties concerning Uganda's recognition are Uganda and Kosovo: the Serbian FM speaks for neither. Therefore his statement about whether Uganda has recognized or not has about as much weight in the matter as the Pope or the King of Thailand. And considering that the Serbian Foreign Ministry has taken as many opportunities as possible since 2008 to cast doubt on recognitions of Kosovo, it doesn't really tell the reader anything useful: you have mentioned Western Sahara, and Morocco does the same thing all the time. I agree about adding the Hyseni quote as a note similar to the Nigeria note though.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda is not worth mentioning but I'm trying to clear up the situation about Sao Tome and Principe. 79.243.201.254 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope there is an answer soon. 79.243.212.187 (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing yet. 79.243.206.213 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbia's new stance on Kosovo recognition

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1248211/1/.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-serbia-kosovobre90b0ec-20130112,0,3809123.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a precedent for non-independent states having UN seats: "The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had already joined the UN as original members on October 24, 1945, together with the USSR." So, Serbia (and other countries) can go on not recognizing the sovereignty of the Republic of Kosovo, while agreeing (chiefly Russia and China, with Serbia's nod) within the UNSC to grant the Republic of Kosovo a seat in the General Assembly, or perhaps, not standing in the way of a General Assembly vote. Whatever. I don't think this changes our article any, not yet, anyway. --Mareklug ^talk 08:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe what he (Dacic) is saying when he's saying that "we can discuss UN membership" is this: we can discuss asking Russia/China to stop vetoing your application, if we get something back. In essence, he's aiming for partition (northern Kosovo for UN membership, at which point Serbia's recognition or not wouldn't even matter). --alchaemia (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Soviet examples, according to UN member states, India and Philippines were founding UN members even though they were not independent at the time, and New Zealand was a member as well even though it did not have full control over its foreign affairs. All these examples came with the UN's founding in 1945, and I think especially in the post-colonial world the UN probably wouldn't recreate such members, especially as it would do little to resolve the actual conflict around the recognition of independence.alchaemia is right, and it seems like more of a bargaining position, ie that Serbia would not in principle oppose international recognition, although it would not offer such recognition itself. Interesting, but doesn't really touch on the article's subject (at least yet).Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines and India were both set to become independent states at the time of the establishment of the UN. NZ and other Commonwealth States may not have had full control over their foreing affairs but they were not part of the United Kingdom and were prety much independent. Belarus and the Ukraine pre-1991 were anomolies, it was the Soviet Unions way of cheating by having three votes in the General Assembly instead of just one; they said they wouldn't join the UN otherwise. IJA (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RKS establishes diplomatic relations with Kuwait

Not sure if this is still the right place for this kind of development, but here it goes: the Republic of Kosovo has established diplomatic relations with the State of Kuwait. [38] --alchaemia (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably belongs under Kosovo's foreign relations... Kuwait recognized more than a year ago. --Yalens (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping -- remove both hat templates

In order to make the article shorter :) and less fugly, I propose to remove the useless hatnote templates. The first one admonishes the editors about the article being too long for comfort, and directs them to break away chunks, and to put them in other articles. I think we are doing this on a running basis as we can, so this hatnote is not needed. The second hatnote alludes to a factual discrepancy, and asks that the "disputed statements" be better sourced. Well, these statements are exactly sourced as supplied by the editor who placed the hatnote template later, when he could not get his way in the matter of how the information was presented (i.e., in which table). The fact of recognition, or its disputation, are all uncontested and well-sourced, and none of this is factually disputed. So, please form a consensus below as to the removal of these two templates. Thanks, --Mareklug ^talk 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. IJA (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. TDL (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --alchaemia (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They're gone. Bazonka (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Libya close to recognize

http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,1577 79.243.203.148 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It only takes two minutes to recognise a country, saying they're close means they're delaying recognition. IJA (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Zambia

http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=50456 79.243.206.21 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That means nothing. Bazonka (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance - Country template etc.

The Kosovo country template is in the article....but the Kosovo Province template is not. Shouldn't both be included. This is as much about recognition of the "Republic of Kosovo" as it is about recognition of the territory being Serbian....

This is the template that seems to be the equivalent (unless some one knows another):

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This article suffers from excessive size. For neutrality it might be better to remove the RoK template, rather than add another one. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How about NO. This article is about the "International recognition of Kosovo" not about the supposed province of Kosovo therefore that irrelevant info box has no place here. The foreign relations of Kosovo box is rather important to the article at hand. IJA (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some one removed the Country template I referred to above:

I would agree with removing the Kosovo "country" template. Or including both that template and the Serbian country template. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed because we don't need it here. Not on the page itself nor on this talk page. Even if we were to discuss adding it to the page there is no reason for it to clutter up this talk page. I don't see what your problem with the current page is, this article deals with the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo; therefor, templates dealing with Serbia are not relevant to this page. --Khajidha (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Flagu

User:Ohconfucius recently changed all of the inline country templates (e.g. {{AFG}}, which displays as Afghanistan) into flagu templates (e.g. {{flagu|Afghanistan}}, which displays as Afghanistan). Essentially, they produce the same output, except flagu does not link to the country. Some would say that linking to country articles is WP:OVERLINKing, but I disagree - I think it is at best useful, and at worst harmless. Also note that flagu templates are longer, and since this is already a very long article we should be working to reduce its length, not increase it. Should we go back to the inline country templates, or leave it with flagu? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the link, since "they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". TDL (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And weirdly it increased the data size of the article. IJA (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's roll this back. Nothing was gained. --Mareklug ^talk 08:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is handy being able to click on a link to the country and it will lower the KB data size of the article. A win-win situation. IJA (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

All major Kosovan media report that Egypt has finally recognized Kosovo as an indipendent state following a meeting between Kosovan MFA Enver Hoxhaj and Egyptian president-aide Pakinam Hassan Khalil El Sharkawy who visited Kosovo today. Waiting for the Kosovan MFA website to be updated.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This report says that recognition is "on the way". It's not necessarily happened yet, but I don't think it will be long. Bazonka (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Bazonka seems to be right. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't read the new source. What is it saying? 79.243.208.181 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bazonka is not right. Here is the sources that indicates Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo:

http://www.zaman.com.tr/dis-haberler_misir-kosovayi-tanidi_2055012.html Egypt recognized Kosovo. Even, Vice President of Egypt (Pakinam Hasan Halil El-Şarkavi) said this. Read the above article (in Google Translate if necessary). Şarkavi is in Kosovo now. 17th February is 5th annuality of Kosovo. Şarkavi said Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo. Other sources:

• The Voice of Russia: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_17/Egypt-recognizes-Kosovo/ Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo
• Flying for kosovo: http://www.flyingforkosovo.com/?p=3227 Thank you Egypt
• Kosovo Media Report http://inagist.com/all/303095926891872256/ Title: Kosovar media report that Egypt has recognized Kosovo, thus becoming the 99th UN Member State to do so
• I for U News http://www.i4u.com/2013/02/hashim-thaci/kosovo-recognizes-egypt Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo. 88.227.96.28 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting how you think that the Flying For Kosovo article is a reliable source - it dates from October! Also, one of your other sources is essentially a Twitter feed. But there are sources there that we can use. It would be nice to have something from the either the Kosovo or Egypt MFA though. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

http://derstandard.at/1360681750281/Kosovo-am-fuenften-Unabhaengigkeitstag-auch-von-Aegypten-anerkannt 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka - the stories say something to the effect of 'recognition is underway,' which indicates an ongoing process. I do not think it's happened. Of course, if the MFA updates its website tommorow to say Egypt recognized, or if the Egyptians issue an unambiguous statement, then that'll settle it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have that statement! Hope you can read it in german. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote is, "Egypt is on its way" to recognize Kosovo. That means it hasn't happened yet. We've heard these sorts of statements in the past. Saudi Arabia said after independence that it would recognize Kosovo "very soon," then waited a year. Rushing ahead and presenting something as fact that is only your interpretation is unwise and biased. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand anything. The article clearly states that recognition has already happenend. Thaci and the Egyptian Vice President have already confirmed it. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Sit back, get a good night's sleep, maybe tomorrow there will be a source with a clearer answer - one way or another. Until then, it's not a crisis. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I object to 79.243.208.181's interpretation and state that I do not agree with including Egypt without an unambiguous statement from either the Kosovar or Egyptian governments. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. We have a pretty clear answer. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We will have confirmation in a day or two. No need to rush for the sake of it. Also a lot of the references are say that recognition is "on the way". It is a Sunday today, Monday is the start of a new week. Let governments and the media get back to work so they can update and confirm the issue for us. IJA (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bazonka. It would be best if you teach (or show the place of that info) us how to change Wikipedia constants, that is, I saw: Numrec Kos link=N out of UNnum Numrec Kos link=N pcent=UN, and do not know from where to change this.88.227.96.28 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at what I did at Template:Numrec/Kosovo [39]. Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When I started the topic ALL the media outlets were reporting it as a done deal . The "on the way" part appeared almost 2 hours later. I did not edit the number of recognitions.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Official Twitter of the Presidency of Egypt [40]

Again, that says "on its way". The recognition is not yet official. It seems to be certain to be announced in the morning, but we really shouldn't have posted it here yet. --Khajidha (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are two more articles that say that the recognition has happened: [41] [42]. Neither of them are from Kosovo or Egypt though, and I am now getting more inclined to think that we (well, me mostly) have jumped the gun. Should we revert? Bazonka (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Found a pair of Egyptian sources [43] [44], google translator to help you: Both speak only about "on its way"--Murza-Zade (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should revert. You may recall I opposed the edit yesterday, but was told I didn't "know what I was talking about." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should revert. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that recognition has yet to formally take place. TDL (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This should seal it: Sharqawy said in a post on Facebook, “I declared during a press conference with the Kosovo prime minister that Eygpt is about to recognize Kosovo.” TDL (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of Bazonka. The article from derstandard clearly says it already happenend. 79.243.200.116 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued support. What we really need is a reliable source from either Kosovo or Egypt, not Austria or Turkey. I was too hasty in updating the article earlier. Bazonka (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. The article clearly states it. It is not important whether it's an austrian or otherwise. 79.243.223.138 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a facsimile of a note verbale for this recognition? No? Then do hush up already. --Mareklug ^talk 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut it already. I'm Albanian myself and want the recognition a done deal but it's not.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But it clearly states that it has happened at the weekend. 79.243.205.4 (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of Bazonka is ridicoulous. 79.243.219.247 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

People here are only being cautious, because of their experience on this page, which has seen other similar instances after which recognition was denied. You know how politicians are. --Yalens (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate it when people talk like this. Politicians are not all the same, so your statement is nonsense. 79.243.213.144 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'am also Albanian and I have to say 79.243... that your stubbornness is getting out of control. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why also? 79.243.213.78 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

People need to stop feeding the troll and it will go away. TDL (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no troll. Don't call names. 79.243.213.78 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear 79.243.etc: would you mind signing in before posting on the talk page? It seems a bit unfair that you are criticizing specific editors by name when you are not logged in yourself. In this particular case there is a consensus among the logged-in editors to wait; anonymous bullying does not help create a constructive debate.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to logg in but can't. I'm not trying to bullying anyone. But I disagree with what has happened here. 79.243.205.116 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your continual sniping at me may not be bullying, but it is certainly not polite. I don't know why you can't log in, but you should be able to. Have you read WP:SIGNUP? Also, please read WP:INDENT. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka proved to be right. I also jumped based on the sources that says recognition done. We should have adopted Bazonka's precautious approach. When we saw the news are not clear very much, we should change our first position. 88.249.28.27 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing says that he is right. 79.243.202.234 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that no clear indication of an actual recognition has come forth in the past week. Everything we have seen says that Egypt is about to recognize. I don't read German, but the auto-translated version of the article from Der Standard is ambiguous at best. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous. It clearly states that recognition has happenend. 79.243.201.83 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do understand German, and I confirm the article from Der Spiegel does indeed claim the recognition to have happened. BUT as it is the only article we have found saying so, and we have loads of other ones opposing it and saying recognition is underway, and this is an article from a minor media in a third country with no direct links with either Kosovo no Egypt, and especially as there has been no official announcement from neither Kosovar nor Egyptian government, it is perfectly correct and normal not to list Egypt in the article as having recognised. Moreover I have to say I admire you all and your patience in dealing with the repeatedly agressive posts of this anonymous poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.206.25 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not agressive and I would like to logg in if that was possible. But you are not logged in yourself. 79.243.209.235 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I read an article from Egypt Independent and it says that Morsy is close to recognizing Kosovo. http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/morsy-egypt-about-recognize-kosovo --13GravBr ([User talk:13GravBr|talk]]) 18:22, 4 April 2013

"Following Serbian example, Egypt to recognise Kosovo" http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/70192/Egypt/Politics-/Following-Serbian-example,-Egypt-to-recognise-Koso.aspx This is because of Serbia's strident recognition that Kosovo has a right to be in the EU which is for independent nations. Qwerty786 (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep banging on about the EU being only for independent nations? Sure, its current members may all be independent, but as far as I know there is no rule that says that members must be independent. Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, did you even read the article? "Belgrade and Kosovo Serbs refuse to recognise the 2008 independence of Kosovo, although more than 90 countries, including the United States and all but five EU member states, have done so." The article that you are quoting as evidence of "Serbia's strident recognition of Kosovo" admits that SERBIA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE KOSOVO. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the headline Serbia does recognize Kosovo and according the actual words of the agreement Serbia recognizes Kosovo. Greenland was a member because Denmark was a member. Kosovo wont be a member when Serbia is a member. Kosovo will be a member separate from Serbia. That is why the agreement says Serbia will not oppose Kosovo membership. Why would Serbia oppose Kosovo membership of a territory of Serbia? Qwerty786 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The headline has no force, it is not from Serbian sources. The wording of the agreement shows only that Serbia has agreed to let Kosovo do certain things that you interpret as recognition. At no point is the phrase "Serbia recognizes the independence of Kosovo" in the source text. You really seem to have a hard time understanding this as it has been explained to you repeatedly. While Serbia's actions may seem to be "equivalent to recognition" or "tantamount to recognition" or some other phrasing, the Serbian government has made several statements since then that unequivocally reiterate their stance that Kosovo is not independent. For example, this source [45] quotes Dacic as saying "this agreement does not mean the recognition of Kosovo's independence." Recognition requires a specific statement that Country A (ie Serbia) recognizes Country B (ie Kosovo) or the appointment of an official specifically called an ambassador. No, it is not logical that Serbia can extend all of these concessions and still claim that it does not recognize, but international politics is not necessarily logical. Without the usage of explicit language of recognition, Serbia can do whatever it wants and still claim that it does not recognize Kosovo. It not only can do so, it does do so. --Khajidha (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You refer to the line "this agreement does not mean the recognition of Kosovo's independence" That is because it is not just this agreement. It is all the agreements and his own words that do that. Like the "lie" remarks and the "dead letter" remarks and his appointment of an official liaison officer as a representative of belgrede in kosovo. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Except, contrary to your suggestion, Serbia has never said the words: "We recognize Kosovo as an independent state". In fact, they have quite clearly, and repeatedly, said just the opposite. Most recently: “We know that Serbia will be exposed to terrible pressure to recognize Kosovo, but we will never do that, and without the consent of Serbia, Kosovo will not be a state” - Nikolić. Yes, they've said and done lots of things that one could argue imply recognition, but this isn't unique. Countries have "liaison offices" in Taiwan without recognizing the RoC as a sovereign state.[46] Israel has a "liaison office" in Palestine, but does not recognize it. [47]. Until such time as Serbia comes out and says that they recognize Kosovo, we shouldn't be trying to look for hidden meanings in all their actions and speculating that they've recognized, when they've said nothing of the sort. That's clearly WP:OR. TDL (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan claims to be the REAL China not just an independent state. It is really a different situation. They do not claim independence because that would mean it is not the real China anymore. It is Chinese Taipei for a reason! Kosovo is not claiming to be the real Serbia but a totally independent country that most have recognized. Serbia is treating now like an independent nation in every way and I will continue post all of what Serbia is doing in relation to Kosovo. I will not point out the obvious that Serbia no longer considers Kosovo a part of Serbia in any way though! Qwerty786 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For what I sincerely hope is the last time, let me explain this to you. What Serbia does is irrelevant. All that matters is what Serbia says. Recognition only occurs when it is explicitly stated or when an ambassador is explicitly named. Not an official with powers similar to those of ambassadors, but an official actually called an ambassador. Called an ambassador by Serbia, not Kosovo, just to be absolutely clear. What you think Serbia's actions mean is irrelevant, only what Serbia says they mean matters. And Serbia says that these actions do not constitute recognition. Only Serbia can say who Serbia recognizes, not you, not these random reporters you keep quoting, not the Kosovo government. Only the Serbian government. And the Serbian government says that they do not recognize Kosovo's independence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I will post in the articles what Serbia is doing though. All the way Serbia is treating Kosovo like it treats Croatia and united states and Russia etc. You are saying Serbia only will recognize Kosovo as in independent nation when it says it is dealing with an indepdnent nation. That is totally reasonable at this point but don't edit the articles in such a way as to minimize that Serbia no longer considers Kosovo part of its territory or governing sphere or anything else for that matter. It just doesn't SAY it is independent explicitly in those words just acts that way on every issue and every topic in every way. Qwerty786 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with sentences being added about what Serbia is doing. I wouldn't even object to a sentence pointing out that some people have described this as "virtually the same as recognition", if you cite a source and not just your interpretation. In any event, we must still conclude that Serbia still claims not to recognize Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka: one criteria of the EU candidate is membership of Council of Europe. And Article 4 of the Council of Europe Statute states that CoE membership is open only for European states. In CoE Kosovo's membership should not be a problem, as Kosovo has already enough CoE members, which recognice Kosovo. Beside CoE, Kosovo needs BTW to apply WTO as well before achiveing EU full membership to become EU member. In WTO statehood is not needed, but every WTO member can block a membership application. --Juhan 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhan (talk • contribs)

Serbia - dacic says kosovo being part of serbia is lie is -not recognition?

How has serbia not recognized kosovo independence? His statement fulfills all the guidelines of a country recognizing kosovo indpendence. Qwerty786 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an official announcement of Serbia's position, this is one man finally having the balls to tell the Serbs the truth: Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to say. It's basically the Serbian PM prepping public opinion for the likely outcome of the negotiations with Kosovo that will be needed to move a Serbian EU candidacy forward. Another version of the news story is | here. It should be noted though that the article indicates that the Serbian government still says it will never recognize Kosovo, but a likely outcome of negotiations would be that Serbia doesn't contest other countries' recognitions of Kosovo. There is precedence for this.Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to link to "List_of_states_with_limited_recognition" and claim that this constitutes some kind of precedence for a compromise. Kosovo wants to be a UN member, and that will be the outcome, likely or unlikely. Note that no UN member figures on that list. --Mareklug ^talk 08:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

“No” is a strange way to express “six”.—Emil J. 11:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I quit scrolling after I saw all the Non-UN member states tables. :) Terrible sorries. --Mareklug ^talk 01:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to those, there is the case of | Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic. Because of a decades-long dispute, neither country recognized the other until 2009, yet this didn't significantly interfere with either country being recognized by anyone else, or behaving as a regular member of the international community. But to bring all of this back to the subject of this article, even a positive conclusion of negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, with Serbia ultimately accepting the views of Dacic, the northern Kosovo mess being resolved, and Kosovo joining the UN, would still probably mean that Serbia doesn't officially recognize Kosovo. Konchevnik81 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbia is not contesting other countries recognition of Kosovo now. Serbia also has customs agents on the border and has appointed an ambassador it calls so far a liaison officer. Serbia is being very aggressive in recognizing Kosovo independence. I don't care what Matt Robinson says Serbia is saying. How about what the prime minister and president are saying and doing. Matt Robinson takes precedent over dacic saying Kosovo part of Serbia is a lie? Serbia is not a country that would make Kosovo partially recognized. Serbia recognizes it's independence. Though it has to remove it from it's old 2006 constitution Qwerty786 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwerty786, you are still ignoring the fact that this was not an official extension of recognition. Dacic (as an individual) made a statement. This is not the same as Dacic (in his governmental capacity) issuing an official change of Serbian position. Currently the official position held by the Serbian government is that Kosovo is Serbian territory, this report does not change that. It might indicate that that position is changing, but even if it does that hasn't happened yet. --Khajidha (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is still no official recognition, as far as I know. Please don't remove the lack of recognition until Serbia makes an official announcement that it recognizes Kosovo. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

but the article should say all the things Serbia is doing like appointing an ambassador last month and collecting customs on the border and having bilateral meetings of equal status. dacic saying Kosovo being part of Serbia is a lie and the constitution is dead letter on Kosovo and meeting with thaci and his appointment of an ambassador to kosovo Qwerty786 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but all the sources say that Serbia still doesn't formally recognize Kosovo so you shouldn't be removing that sentence. There seems to be a clear consensus on that here, so please stop changing the text. The article already mentions the "lie" quote. Do you have source to back up the claim that Serbia appointed an "ambassador" to Kosovo? If true, I agree that this is important to mention. TDL (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a liaison officer. This liaison officer may have a similar role to an ambassador, and independent sources may point out the similarity, but it's difficult to imagine that Belgrade would encourage recognition-by-the-back-door by changing an official's job title. That's just silly. Recognition and statehood are not black and white; to argue that sending an official immediately shifted the recognition-ometer from 0% to 100% is synthesis at best. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As much as I personally support Kosovo's independence, the argument used at the top of this section smacks of WP:SYN to me... until Serbia actually says "we changed our position" or "we recognize Kosovo", we can't assume anything different. --Yalens (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the Serbian foreign minister was very explicit in saying the liaison officer could be called an ambassador. No reason to remove that fact. there is no explicit denial of Kosovo independence from anyone in the government. they all agree wit the liaison officer and the foreign minister. It's like there is some disconnect going on between what Serbia is doing and how it's being reported. The pm can say Kosovo part of Serbia is a lie the fm can say lo is ambassador and people here are opposite Qwerty786 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the article accurately reflects the sources which have been provided to date. According to the source linked in the article: "... Pristina has repeatedly described the officers as "ambassadors", a term that Belgrade firmly rejects, as Serbia does not recognise Kosovo as a state." Dacic has said: "Belgrade and Pristina will exchange liaison officers who do not enjoy the status of diplomats,". Please show me a source where the "Serbian foreign minister was very explicit in saying the liaison officer could be called an ambassador" if you want to include this claim in the article, TDL (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

it was in the article I linked to!http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/kosovo-and-serbia-liaison-officers-ready-to-start Ivan mrkic LO can be called an ambassador Qwerty786 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"...or, 'representative from outer space'". Hardly a ringing endorsement from the Serbs. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that statement was quite clearly sarcasm. Especially when in the next breath Mrkić said the person "cannot have any title other than 'liaison officer'." TDL (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Disputed recognitions

Disputed recognitions should be counted separately – at the moment there are only claims by Kosovo authorities, and denied by specific countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.94.3 (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get into this again. You are not the first person to bring this up. We've spent many futile hours debating this. Leave well enough alone. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This time I agree with you. I'm tired of that nonsense. 79.243.208.5 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wel did Oman REALLY recognize Kosovo's independence or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.240.249 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It has entered into diplomatic relations with Kosovo, so yes, it must have done. Bazonka (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Last 2 Edits

They should be reverted. 79.243.211.76 (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Khajidha (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. 79.243.208.45 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Philippines

What happened there? 79.243.212.2 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of things happened in the Philippines. What exactly are you asking? --Khajidha (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That should be quiet clear to you. The edit about recognition. 79.243.212.190 (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It was quite (not "quiet") clear, what should be clear to you is that your attitude makes people not want to deal with you. --Khajidha (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC):

Please stay friendly. 79.243.212.190 (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edit about recognition? It's not clear to me. Bazonka (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, User:AdmiralProudmore added a very poorly written section about the Philippines extending "partial recognition" to Kosovo. It was removed as it was poorly written (also including a switch to American English) and not verifiable (dead links and no Google returns). --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It should have been clear to me! If only I had bothered to look at the page history... Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bilateral developments on 19-22 April 2013

What do y'all make of today's news?

• Serbia recognises Kosovo's sovereignty, says Kosovo minister, by Toby Vogel - Today, 17:08 CET, http://www.europeanvoice.com
• Serbia and Kosovo reach EU-brokered landmark accord, 19 April 2013 Last updated at 12:22 ET, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
• Belgrade, Priština initial agreement in Brussels, SOURCE: B92, TANJUG, POLITICS | APRIL 19, 2013 | 18:00, http://www.b92.net/eng/news/

--Mareklug ^talk 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly big news, but from what I have read Serbia hasn't formally recognized Kosovo. The BBC source specifically says: "And there is certainly no recognition of Kosovo's independence by Belgrade, he adds." TDL (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

But that is stupid. The EU is for independent countries! Why is that not recognition. The content is about recognition. Forget the reporters views. Serbia recognized Kosovo independence. The EU is for independent countries. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-serbia-kosovo-eu-idUSBRE93I0IB20130419Qwerty786 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Qwerty786 (talk · contribs) is trying to edit war the same misrepresentation of sources into Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. TDL (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On a lot of places. Either stop this moment and revert your self, or i propose reporting. This is just vandalizam. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No it is fact. The EU is for independent countries. You can't deny that. Serbia is fine with Kosovo being in the EU? That is total recognition of independence! Read this again http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-serbia-kosovo-eu-idUSBRE93I0IB20130419 Qwerty786 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Qwerty, here's the important thing: Neither you, nor those reporters, nor Enver Hoxhaj can speak for Serbia. Serbian government sources STILL state that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo and NEVER WILL recognize Kosovo. As long as Serbia continues to say that, it doesn't matter what they actually do. For all practical purposes this is a recognition, but as long as Serbia says it isn't then it can't actually be called one. --Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

total recognition of kosovos independence should be classified as such . Is the eu for independent countries or not?Qwerty786 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. Recognition is a specific statement from a particular country in reference to another. Serbia has specifically stated that they do not and will not recognize Kosovo. Full stop. --Khajidha (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. Serbia has act after act reinforcing and recognizing Kosovo independence but it is so hard to get them on this page. Customs agents on the border! Hard to get on this page. Ambassador to Kosovo, hard to get on this page. Serbia is acting in ways that show it HAS recognized Kosovo independence. Where is any opposition to Kosovo independence. Serbia in fact says Kosovo being a part of Serbia is a "lie" Acts and words. The statements and actions all indicate recognition. The prime minister is not official here? I had a hard time getting his words in this article. There is more opposition to saying Serbia has recognized independence here that opposition to Kosovo independence in the government of Serbia. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No Qwerty, it is irrelevent. Show us an official Serbian document that says that Serbia recognizes Kosovo. They don't exist. The only OFFICIAL position from Serbia is "We do not recognize Kosovo." No matter what steps Serbia takes, no matter what concessions it makes, until such a document is produced or until Serbia sends an ambassador to Kosovo, they do not recognize Kosovo. The statement stating that the statement "Kosovo is part of Serbia" is a lie was not an official statement from the government, it was a personal statement from one man. --Khajidha (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbia did send an ambassador to Kosovo! Pavicevic! Pavicevic is the ambassador! Look up Pavicevic and what his duties are and who Kosovo sent and what their duties are.Dejan Pavićević is the ambassador. The level of extreme ignorance of people editing this article and saying I am wrong is ridiculous. There is just too much extreme ignorance. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Serbia has explicitly stated that Pavićević IS NOT an ambassador. Why you keep claiming that he has been named an ambassador is beyond me. I understand that you don't like this fact, but pretending otherwise when all the evidence contradicts your POV only demonstrates your "extreme ignorance" of the facts, not that of the editors who have actually taken the time to read the sources. TDL (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous editor made it seem like Serbia had nothing to Kosovo it has sent a laison officer who the foreign minister said could be called ambassador. All the duties of the person reflect that of an ambassador. The extreme ignorance of the fact of the liason officer and what their duties were was notable. It's just an ambassador going by the euphemism laison officer. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement that the LO could be called an ambassador was part of a joke. The statement continued that the LO could be called a "representative from outer space". The obvious intent was to imply that Kosovo could call the LO whatever they wanted, but that Serbia was not considering this posting as ambassadorial in nature. --Khajidha (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, while the powers of the LO may be similar to those of an ambassador, it is not the powers that make someone an ambassador. Being explicitly called "ambassador" makes someone an ambassador. The powers are bestowed by the title, but the title is not bestowed by the powers. --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can just say that this is typical Balkan behaviour. Old Balkan statement: Nije govno nego se pas pokenjao :/

We will see what will happen from this burlesque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.128.16 (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wait until Belgrade announces Republic of Kosovo and publishes a map with its borders outlines excluding Kosovo the same way every other state that recognises ROK has done. The advance in bilateral relations is not a licence for spreading spurious information. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is dumb. Because Serbia having no objection to kosovo EU is totally recognizing it as an independent country. The EU is for independent countries. Qwerty786 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Greenland used to be in the EU. That's not independent. There is nothing to say that the EU is only for independent countries; your argument seems to rely solely on the fact that currently the EU only has independent members. Bazonka (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

But Greenland was never a MEMBER of the EU. It was a part of the EU via Denmark's membership, in the same way that French Guiana is a part of the EU due to France's membership. Greenland is still a Overseas countries and territories of the EU. That being said, as CMD says below, just because Serbia promises not to block Kosovo's membership in the EU, doesn't mean they approve of it. TDL (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to change anything on the page. Whatever they agreed to does not create any immediate changes in international recognition. Those of you making edits - there is supposed to be consensus for any changes. - ILBobby (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Serbia not opposing Kosovo being in the EU which is for independent countries is recognition of independence from Dacic and the Serbs at the EU talks. Qwerty786 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because they won't actively try to stop Kosovo getting in the EU doesn't mean they recognise it should be. CMD (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

of course it does- saying Kosovo is equal to it in the eu is recognizing it's independence - they will have to deal with it as an independent country. Serbia has customs agents on the border and I tried to edit the article and call that recognition here too as It is but it is disallowed here. Serbia has completely recognized Kosovo independence in every way but writing the fact here is unalloyedQwerty786 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Qwerty, you have a lot to learn. Ever since the Kumanovo agreement in 1999 in which Belgrade's authorities withdrew from Kosovo, FRY and then Serbia from 2006 have always accepted themselves and and Kosovo going in two separate directions. Since 2007, Serbia and Kosovo have been joint members of CEFTA. Serbia simply accepted UNMIK as representing Kosovo but it doesn't change the fact that Serbia sees itself without Kosovo nor does it imply that Serbia has ever recognised Kosovo. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

...and curiously, it is only the transfer from CEFTA to the EU that is effectively different. It would hardly make sense for Serbia to oppose Kosovo's EU status while accepting it as a member of another trade bloc to which it too is a member. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

that was recognizing Kosovo independence too. Serbia is now stridently pro Kosovo independenceQwerty786 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbia has been very emphatic about not recognizing Kosovo and in stating that their actions do not imply any form of recognition. The agreement, as I understand it, does not contain any promise of UN membership or preclude Serbia from seeking to block Kosovo from joining the UN. It's not unusual for two sides to read an agreement differently - of course, Kosovo will want to see it as a kind of de facto recognition. Serbia has been very emphatic that this wasn't the case. - ILBobby (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

the eu is for independent countries. How can Serbia say Kosovo is in the eu but not indepenent? They aren't they are recognizing it's independence from Serbia just lime it did with the customs agents on the border! Only here does Serbia claim Kosovo as a part of Serbia all Serbian leaders now recognize kosovo independence.Qwerty786 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

" How can Serbia say Kosovo is in the eu but not indepenent?". Very simple, same way it can be in partnership with Kosovo in parallel trade bloc CEFTA. Pay attention to the flow of the conversation. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is actually not saying Kosovo is not independent. Dacic said Kosovo being part of Serbia is a lie! So I tried to put that in the article and there was a big problem with it. Serbia is saying every day now Kosovo is an independent nation and it has recognized its independence. EU is for independent countries and CEFTA Is for independent countries and there is no Serbian opposition to Kosovo independence in Belgrade. This latest deal shows it and proves it. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right so according to you, Serbia has long recognised Kosovo, has done so since atleast 2007 (the year before Kosovo recognised its own self) when both joined CEFTA. So what was all this nonsense today about recognition occurring on 19 April 2013? BTW, you are on your own on this. It's your opinion vs the facts. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, shouldn't the new developments of 19 April 2013 be added to the article in some lapidary form? We have this passage there now as last chronologically: In March 2013, Dačić said that while his government would never recognise Kosovo's independence, "lies were told that Kosovo is ours" and that Serbia needed to define its "real borders".[13] Or do we wait for further developments? --Mareklug ^talk 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, something should go there. We just haven't really thought about what, except that it shouldn't say that Serbia actually recognized Kosovo; as the Serbian government still says that they haven't. --Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would advise just lifing all or a portion of the update on the Kosovo-Serbia relations page about the agreement, and adding it to the "Serbia's reaction" section (it also helps to keep things consistent between articles):

On 19 April 2013, the two governments completed an agreement[20] that was hailed as a major step towards normalising relations, and would allow both Serbia and Kosovo to apply for EU membership.[15] Amongst other measures the deal establishes an independent police and appeal court for the Serb minority in Kosovo, but does not amount to a recognition of Kosovo's independence by Belgrade.[15] Special provisions in the agreement were given to Serb communities in North Kosovo.[21] In news reports Ashton was quoted as saying, "What we are seeing is a step away from the past and, for both of them, a step closer to Europe", whilst Thaçi declared "This agreement will help us heal the wounds of the past if we have the wisdom and the knowledge to implement it in practice."[15]

Maybe just the first two sentences from that paragraph? Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Add this: http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Serbian-government-approves-deal-with-Kosovo-4452504.php --Mareklug ^talk 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no independent police or appeals court? That is just wrong. The police commander will be appointed by pristina the courts will be done based on pristina law and procedure Qwerty786 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not what you think "is just wrong". --Mareklug ^talk 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What was wrong was the proposed paragraph saying there is an independent police and appeals court. That is wrong because the police chief will be appointed by Pristina and the court is bound by pristina law. There is no independent police or court. It is all pristina rules in the court and a pristina appoint police chief. So that was wrong. Based on the agreement itself there is no independent police or courts. THe deal is explicit on both points. No independent anything for Kosovo serbs. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some truth in what Qwerty786 is saying, but there is no recognition yet, although some sources improperly say there is. For instance The Russian Times, a reliable source, calles the deal merely an approved recognition deal. This source is cooked somewhere in Moscow. In addition the WSJ says that Under the agreement, Pristina's authority would be recognized by Serbia. However, the best wording is offered by "The Economist" which says that the essence of the deal is that while Serbia does not recognise Kosovo as a state, it concedes its legal authority over the whole territory. I suggest that some wording is added in asserting that while there is no recognition of Kosovo, there is Serbian recognition of Prishtina's legal authority over Kosovo. Let's not say uselessly that this is de facto recognition, because we don't have a source to say so. Yet. MexicanGrillOps (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC) I added some words and the source to the second paragraph of the article.MexicanGrillOps (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what we've been trying to tell Qwerty786. Yes, this is a significant development that signifies a change in Belgrade's position. Yes, it is (in many ways) analogous to the way Serbia treats other states that it does recognize. But, and this is a huge "but", the Serbian government still claims that they do not recognize Kosovo. As recognition of one state by another is a purely at will action, we cannot take the position that Serbia's actions constitute an actual recognition. Only an official document from Serbia explicitly stating "We recognize the Republic of Kosovo" or the appointment of a representative with the explicit title of "Ambassador" can demonstrate Serbian recognition. I have no problems with adding the statement from "The Economist". --Khajidha(talk) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that indeed Serbia has appointed a "laison officer" with the same kind of duties an ambassador would have. Pristina recalled its ambassador from Sweden to be its ambassador to Serbia because Serbia agreed to send an official representative of the Serbian government to Pristina. That is what happened in the agreement. You should stop writing Serbia doesn't appoint anyone as an official representative of the Serbian state to pristina. It does. Dejan Pavicevic. He is not an "ambassador" but "liason officer" with the same duties as an ambassador. Serbia may not yet have an official document saying "we recognize the independent state of Kosovo" but has so much else and it should all be listed as well as what all the officials in the government say like "Kosovo part of the constitution is "dead letter" and "Kosovo is a part of Serbia a lie" These are facts on what is going on in Serbia. The agreements stands on its own and does not need articles to interpret it- a lot of the time wrongly like when they say Serbs have autonomy in policing. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, those comments from Serbian officials were not made ex officio. They have no actual force behind them, they are just the personal statements of those people. --Khajidha (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. On hindsight, I thought that the article from the WSJ is better, so I added that source, but not the Economist, which has the "blog" label in the URL, and makes it questionable. MexicanGrillOps (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In the words of immor(t)al Lily Allen, there's just one thing: The referenced article used as a source is inaccessible to non-WSJ subscribers. I know, as I am not one, and I can't read it. So... Perhaps The Economist or yet another source is called for instead? --Mareklug ^talk 15:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:PAYWALL, sources don't have to be freely accessible to everyone. That being said, there are plenty of sources out there so we can probably find one that is. TDL (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Romania

Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta has declared that Romania must act "in line with the European family" in recognizing Kosovo independence, the news agency Mediafax reports. [48] [49] [50] [51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.230 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With Serbia's very strong and ardent recognition of Kosovo independence today of course Romania is going recognize. This is the source saying Serbia is recognizing http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/april/serbia-recognises-kosovo-s-sovereignty-says-kosovo-minister/77032.aspx Qwerty786 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're living in a dream. Atleast here on Wikipedia there are strict criteria on what it means to "recognise" and your sources so far fall well short of the decree. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. The rules here are ridiculous. Customs agents aren't recognition, ambassador positions aren't recognition, bilateral meetings aren't recognition, EU isn't recognition, CEFTA isn't recognition, Prime minister saying Kosovo being part of Serbia is a lie isn't recognition, calling his own constitution dead letter on Kosovo isn't recognition? What is recognition? They have appointed an ambassador and collect customs on the border and now EU! When will there ever be recognition HERE there is in Serbia by everyone in the government. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The rules here are simple. In fact, it's one rule, WP:V. You ask "What is recognition?" The answer is simple, recognition is recognition. Find a source saying Serbia has recognised Kosovo, not a source saying something else which you interpret as recognition. CMD (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It takes no "interpretation" at all to see what "dead letter" "real Borders" "eu membership" "ambassador" "customs collection on the border" means. It's recognition that Kosovo is an independent country from Serbia. Like lots of countries have internal customs agents and ambassadors with other parts of the country! No interpretation is required. It's there. It's in black and white. It is clear. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways we can put this. Every time Serbia has been asked if they recognize Kosovo, the answer has been "no". After each of those events Serbia has said "no". At no time has Serbia EVER issued any official documents saying that "The Republic of Serbia recognizes the Republic of Kosovo". Despite the fact that, yes, all of these steps amount to a recognition, Serbia STILL maintains that it is not. What countries Serbia recognizes are entirely up to Serbia and need not follow any logic. As long as Serbia does not EXPLICITLY say that they recognize Kosovo, they can do whatever they want, extend whatever considerations they want, treat Kosovo much as they do any other country BUT it will not matter because it is not recognition. And, again, the "dead letter" statement was not made as a government official, but as a personal opinion. --Khajidha (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic, I've added a blurb on this to Romania's entry. TDL (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Now Romania is getting rid of visas for kosovo- everyone agrees recognition of Kosovo by Romania is near. And largely because of what Serbia has done as Serbia is a leader in the Kosovo independence lobby. http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2013/05/27/feature-03 Qwerty786 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Romania can not get rid of visa requirement for Kosovan citizens unless Schengen (EU)-Kosovo visa liberalization dialog achieves that. Romania is already a signatory state of Schengen, seeking for a full implementation of Schengen rules. Romania now simply recognizes Kosovan passport, still demands visa for Kosovoan citizens. Another incorrect statement in the referenced article, is a claim that Greece does not recognize Kosovan passport. Greece already does recognize it.

--Juhan 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhan (talk • contribs)

Guyana

MFA of Kosovo confirms that Guyana has just recognized Kosovo [1] can someone add it in the list? --Digitalpaper (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please update the number of recognizing countries and date above. 79.243.208.5 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done TDL (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. 79.243.220.243 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So, the formalisation of the recognition by Guyana was done by establishing diplomatic relations: Guajana zyrtarizon njohjen e Kosovës (The text is yet to be translated into English). Can we add this link to the article, please? Kosovar (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Slovakia may recognize after agreement

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2013&mm=04&dd=15&nav_id=85708 This is a statement by the former Prime Minister and current opposition leader, so it is in no way an official stance by the country - thus I don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article, but anyway it would be good to keep an eye upon this now the agreement is signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.206.152 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

She is a lecturer in Sociology at Oxford University, she is no longer engaged in Slovakian Politics, never mind Prime Minister. She has no political weight, she is just a regular Slovakian civilian therefore we cannot use this on the article. Sorry, but thanks for your suggestion. IJA (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yemen

http://www.sabanews.net/en/news307710.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.206.152 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Yemen. IJA (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's official, Yemen has finally recognized http://www.gazetaexpress.com/repository/images/path/twitter_127752.jpg Ermir Ismaili (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Recognized Kosovo today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.13.7 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Source: www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upi20130611-185002-3867 --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Y

Country

Position

Yemen

At a meeting on 26 May 2009 with Kosovo's Foreign Minister, Skënder Hyseni, the representative of Yemen to the UN, Abdullah M. Alsaidi, reportedly said that he will be personally working to speed the process of recognition up on the part of Yemen Government. He is also reported to have said that "Kosovo's independence had no other alternative" and "is irreversible". At a meeting in September 2009 with Hyseni, the Foreign Minister of Yemen, Abu Bakr al-Kurbi, said that Yemen would recognise Kosovo's independence soon. In September 2011, al-Kurbi said that recognition of Kosovo is a priority for his government, and that Yemen has concluded that it is time that, like Qatar and some other Arab countries, Yemen also recognises the state of Kosovo. In November 2012, al-Kurbi stated that Yemen had been abstaining from making important decisions on foreign policy during their political transition, but that there were no political or legal obstacles to their recognising Kosovo. In April 2013 Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi stated that Yemen is in the process of finalising its recognition of Kosovo.

São Tomé and Príncipe

Kosovo has requested the recognition again [52]. Therefore, accepts that the recognition does not apply now. The dispute on the current validity of the recognition is over.

This country should be identified as a State that annulled the recognition (due to the non-compliance of procedure with their laws). Recognition was true internationally, but now thanks to the attitude of the new Government have already clearly does not apply (and also Kosovo accept it). I think that a view of this country should be the same style like the former recognition of Abkhazia by the Vanuatu on article Int.recogn.of Abkhazia+SO (states that "froze", "withdrew" or "annulled" recognition). Jan CZ (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly the Google translation I read is a little wonky, but it seems to me more that the Kosovo government is asking that the STP government confirm its previously reported recognition. I don't see this as an admission by Kosovo that the recognition was invalid, merely that they want to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it was valid. It's a subtle difference, but I think it is there. Basically, I don't see that we need to change anything about how we present STP here. --Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Kosovo is not saying that the recognition didn't happen, but they're acknowledging that it caused difficulties on the Sao Tomean side and they'd like them to reaffirm the recognition in order to smooth things over. Also, the article is from March. - ILBobby (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note on Ethiopia

Deputy PM Pacolli is in Ethiopia attending the AU summit. I believe in our Ethiopia summary that is describes a possible denial of entry to Skender Hyseni and colleagues. It is noteworthy that Pacolli is in Ethiopia and is attending the summit, as this hasn't happened before [53] - ILBobby (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Double standards

′′View Nigéria and Uganda with a note is in order. We have a strong source of recognition and other sources that deny it. About this dispute is a note. It is OK.

But the display of STP is incorrect. The current position of the STP is not controversial, but clear. STP now does not recognise Kosovo. The opposition of Kosovo does not change anything on it (as well as the opposition of Abkhazia does not alter the withdrawal of recognition from Vanuatu). For cases such as the STP, we have clear precedent for how to display and description (see Int.recog.of A+SO, case Vanuatu). The existing view STP, which now does not recognise Kosovo, is the creation of double standards. Jan CZ (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'Precedent' on wikipedia. Also STP and Kosovo is a very differnt issue to Vanuatu and Abkhazia. With STP President Manuel Pinto da Costa has denied that there ever was an offical recognition, hence why we have a disputed note. However with Vanuatu they have withdrawn recogniton, this is different to STP as no recogniton has been withdrawn, they're disputing whether a recognition actually took place. Two very different scenarios. And just becuase ont thing happens on one article, doesn't mean it has to follow suit on another article. Ecerything is built arround consensus. IJA (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jan, don't lose any sleep over it. The important thing is how São Tome y Principe will vote at the UN General Assembly on admitting Kosovo. And since that will not come up for vote until at least next year's September session, the point is moot, especially given how quickly governments change in São. -- Mareklug ^talk 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania?

Pacolli is claiming Tanzania recognized Kosovo [54]. - ILBobby (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another one. [55] I propose we wait until the MFA confirms it. IJA (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if we do not move Tanzania at this time, surely we should mention these reports in its section on this page. --Khajidha (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed IJA (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou now lists Tanzania under Awaiting Confirmation. 79.243.199.117 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vice Prime Minister Behxhet Pacolli has received the note verbale from Tanzania http://www.telegrafi.com/lajme/arrin-nota-verbale-e-njohjes-nga-tanzania-2-32823.html

Picture : http://www.telegrafi.com/fo/2010/njohja-verbale-foto.jpgErmir Ismaili (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would feel confident updating the page based on this - ILBobby (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the date be the 29th of May when the vote was taken or the 5th of June when the note was sent? --Khajidha (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Note is dated 5 June, so that's what I went with. - ILBobby (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

5 June is when they told Kosovo that they'd recognised, but that is not necessarily the date of recognition. Since they voted/decided to recognise on 29 May, I think that is the best date to use. I'm not massively bothered either way though, as long as we are consistent. Bazonka (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem, as I've raised in the past, is that there is no consistancy to our methodology of choosing what date to list. They are a hodge-podge of many different scenarios: dates that we've estimated that the decision was taken to recognize, dates we've read off of diplomatic notes, dates that the state publicly confirmed their recognition, dates that Kosovo's MFA announced the recognition, etc. Much of it is either speculation or WP:OR from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I think we should use the date that recognition is confirmed by Kosovo's MFA, as this is verifiable and can be used consistently used throughout the list. Yes, it might not be the exact date of recognition, but it is better to be consistant and verifiable, while clearly explaining the limitations of our methodology, rather than inconsistent and speculative. After all, if Serbia announced tomorrow that they had seceretly recognized Kosovo back in 2008 but only publcy annonuced it now, would it really make sense to list them with a 2008 recognition date? TDL (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel we should go with the earliest verifiable date with a note listing what the date was taken from. There is no reason for all the dates to be consistent with each other. I don't think "Primary Sources" rules out use of them as sources for specific facts such as a date of recognition ("A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."). Speculation and ORshould, of course, be removed. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the problem is that often it isn't a straightforward interpretation of primary soruces. Many of the diplomatic notes are quite vague (which is possibly intentional). Take for example Uganda. Here we use the date on the Note Verbal despite the fact that it doesn't mention anything about recognizing Kosovo. The closest it gets is: "we are behind orther nations that have recognized the Republic of Kosovo". Yes, it could be argued that this implies recognition, but this is certainly not straightforward so we should leave such interpretations of primary sources to RS. Kosovo didn't announce the recognition until months later. Another example is São Tomé and Príncipe. Here we take the date from a resolution which speaks of recognition but also of "further ratification and promulgation by the competent bodies" of the decision. So it seems clear that recognition wasn't finalized on this date. TDL (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbia recognizes something! It sent a "liaison officer" to something

It doesn't say Kosovo is a country- LO calls Kosovo a nation if not a country. So the intro should say what Serbia sees Kosovo as. It is not a part of Serbia or it would not have a liaison officer or border guards and customs agents on the border but its also not a country to Serbia so maybe a nation. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but you need a source to say what Serbia sees Kosovo as. At the moment you are just speculating without sources. I agree that there should be some qualification to the "doesn't recognize Kosovo" statement though. TDL (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

it's obvious from the statements from ambassador paviceic and nikolic and dacic that they have not agreed what euphemism for independent nation to call Kosovo!! But its obviously treating Kosovo as an entity separate from Serbia in Which they have no sovereignty!Qwerty786 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that went well.....

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130619/kosovo-liaison-serbia-resigns-over-dispute-pm --Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

it's going well now! Peci wasn't good at the euphemisms that Serbia and Kosovo have agreed to! Like laiason officer for ambassador and crossing for border and stamp for customs! he was too blunt! Qwerty786 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

Koha Ditore is reporting that Egypt has recognised the Republic of Kosovo: Egjipti njeh Kosovën. According to the report an Assistant to the President of Egypt informed the Kosovar Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoxhaj on the phone this morning about the decision. Kosovar (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The "official" tweets by Enver Hoxhaj, Kosovar Minister of Foreign Affairs: @Enver_Hoxhaj Kosovar (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And, the official statement by the Egyptian government (in Arabic): Decision of the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to recognise the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state Kosovar (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

News confirmed also by KOSOVAPRESS agency [56] Piasoft (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More confirmation. [57] IJA (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

COMPLETE CHAOS! KOSOVO-OFFICIAL SAYS "WE HAVE 100 RECOGNITIONS,NOT 102"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-kosovo-egypt-recognition-idUSBRE95P19M20130626

So two countries from the 102 UN-nations have withdrawn their recognitions??? Who? Sao Tome and Principe maybe? and who else? Let´s search for more sources and let´s update the list! Thank you. 79.233.79.161 (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is this official though? I checked the website of Kosovo's MFA and minister Enver Hoxhaj's twitter and could not find anything regarding this numer. How can we update the list with false info?Ermir Ismaili (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe STP and I don't think the MFA have recieved the Note Verbale for Tanzania yet, despite the vote in the Tanzanian Parliament. IJA (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania is already official,this country cannot be one of these two! Maybe Sao tome and Nigeria!!! 79.233.79.161 (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe this official is just a little confused. My question is, why are you shouting everything? --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Khajidha, this seems to be a little bit short of an all-caps "complete chaos". The Kosovar MFA | website seems to be out-of-date - it stops with St. Kitts - but otherwise consistent with this article's list. All the "iffy" recognitions (Sao Tome, Uganda, Nigeria) are still on the list. Who knows who the anonymous official is, but it looks like he or she might have gotten the count wrong.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our old friend User:Sascha30 is back... TDL (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should also add the link to the news item on Kosovar MFA's website: Republika e Egjiptit njeh Kosovën shtet të pavarur e sovran. We can then replace it with the English text once it's ready - although the link is already active [58]. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

ok,maybe the number 102 is still valid,i don´t know it. however there are rumours on Twitter,that Libya and Tunisia could soon follow as 103-104 on the coming weeks!! 79.233.79.161 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating Romania's Ponta view in English and for June 4, 2013

I know that this is not a burning issue, but the last thing we have for Romania is from April of this year and is sourced to a Romanian-language article: "In April 2013, following a resolution by the European Parliament which urged all EU members states which had not recognised Kosovo to do so, Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta stated that his country must follow the EU's lead.[338]"

How about overhauling this, in light of the following English-language source quoting the Prime Minister on June 4, 2013: http://bsanna-news.ukrinform.ua/newsitem.php?id=22532&lang=en

PM Ponta: Personally, I believe Romania should embrace same stance on Kosovo as its EU partners

BUCHAREST, June 4. (AGERPRES). Prime Minister Victor Ponta on Monday reiterated that as far as he is concerned, Romania should coordinate its stance on the status of Kosovo with its European partners, given that 22 EU member states have already recognised Kosovo's independence. He also said he will discuss the matter next week with his Slovakian counterpart Robert Fico.

Ponta made this statement at a joint meeting of Romania's Parliament's committee on foreign affairs that debated the status of Kosovo.

'This is a step toward the idea of a new relationship between Parliament and the Government, including as far as foreign policy relations are concerned, a step toward strengthening the relationship in order to cooperate in making decisions and holding consultations. We have come before you today not with a proposal for a decision, but with a brief and probably a discussion with you over a delicate issue, a tough issue on Romania and EU's foreign policy agenda,' said Ponta.

He pointed out having discussed the issue with the Serb prime minister, who last week visited Bucharest.

--Mareklug ^talk 07:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to the source, but does it really say anything that is fundamentally different than what we already have in the article? TDL (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-recognition vs lack of recognition

Saw this note on the Foreign relations of South Sudan page and was wondering if something like this statement could be added to this page. "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party." Why? To clarify that the list of states that do not recognize Kosovo's independence does not represent a united front of states absolutely opposed to Kosovo's independence. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? --Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Maybe at the start of the International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Entities_that_do_not_recognise_Kosovo_as_an_independent_state section. TDL (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good placement to me, too. I'll wait another day or so before adding it, just to give a little more time for people to object. --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it. Feel free to modify the text if you like. TDL (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

El Salvador

BREAKING NEWS! Today one more state will recognize the Kosovo,according to Enver Hoxhaj. Details in the coming hours!

https://twitter.com/Enver_Hoxhaj

Enver Hoxhaj ‏@Enver_Hoxhaj 10h

"Breaking news: European Kosovo awaits tonight a new recognition from a State in the Western Hemisphere! Details to be announced soon!" 79.233.82.120 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Rumours on Twitter,that the new state today could be Antigua and Barbuda. Let´s wait for the afternoon. 79.233.82.120 (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Kosovar media the newest state to recognize Kosovo is El Salavador. Note Verbale to reach Prishtina on Monday 1st July.http://www.telegrafi.com/lajme/el-salvador-njeh-kosoven-2-33589.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermir Ismaili (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source on the recognition [59]. I think we should wait until the MFA confirms it which is expected on Monday. IJA (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

US Ambassador to Kosovo, Amb. Tracey Jacobson, announced the recognition on her official Twitter account: #ElSalvador recognizes #Kosovo! Felicidades! Kosovar (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't speak for Kosovo, so it's not official. Let's wait until Monday, no harm in that. --alchaemia (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The IPs did not wait. :) There is little point reverting. --Mareklug ^talk 21:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to listen anxiously for every breathless rumour. Sit back, relax, and wait for stronger sources to come along. bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Has El Salvador recognized Kosovo? There are still lack of official sources, but El Salvador is listed in table… Aotearoa (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is decided to do with El Salvador, it needs to be done consistently everywhere. Just removing them from the list is not all that helpful. TDL (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please revert that nonsense. El Salvador has recognized! 79.243.218.167 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Give us official sources for this, please. Aotearoa (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An ambassador and a deputy prime minister are official. 79.243.218.167 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are. But still no sources about recognition... So, if you know such sources, please show its. Aotearoa (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I just said that they are the best sources. 79.243.193.6 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Kosovo's New Diplomat", published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo, confirms El Salvador's recognition. This seems good enough for me. Unfortunately, they refer to it as recognition number 101, so there is a discrepancy somewhere in our list, presumably two of São Tomé and Príncipe/Uganda/Nigeria. Hopefully they get around to updating their master list of recognizers at some point so we can remove them from our list. TDL (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The discrepancy is discussed below.—Emil J. 11:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The conversation below went off on a few tangents, so I can summarize. The Kosovothanksyou actually provides a useful explanation of the 101-103 difference: the "hard" number of 101 countries are those countries recognizing "only once a Verbal Note has been delivered, we will await for confirmation that a Verbal Note or equivalent has been received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo." So basically, the country sending a note verbale, and the Kosovo MFA then saying "yes, we got it." The two countries in limbo are El Salvador and Tanzania: looks like for whatever reason all the paperwork isn't sorted out yet, even though those two recognitions are not in doubt. Both the Kosovothanksyou list and the out-of-date Kosovo MFA list have the "questionable" recognizers (Nigeria/Uganda/Sao Tome) included as officially recognising. The newsletter including El Salvador and Tanzania as part of the 101 recognitions is most likely off. I would not be surprised that they got their fact-checking wrong for an English-language office newsletter.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read the discussion below. My point was that the MFA lists El Salvador and Tanzinia as part of the 101, while Kosovothanksyou lists 101 PLUS El Salvador and Tanzinia, so there must be an earlier discrepancy. I have a hard time believing it is a typo, and think this source is more reliable than the list that hasn't been updated in nearly a year. There has been significant developments in the cases of São Tomé and Príncipe and Uganda since the list was last updated. Either way, all we can do is wait for clarification. TDL (talk)

The Kosovothanksyou list and site seems to be pretty up to date. The MFA of course is very obsolete. But again, I'm not sure how reliable and definitive an article in the MFA newsletter is, and it certainly shouldn't be used as speculation about other recognitions. The problem is that you're saying that the newsletter is a "good enough" confirmation of El Salvador's recognition, but then you say there is a discrepancy in the wiki article: right now all the discrepancy is with Kosovo's MFA: their newsletter isn't matching their outdated list. So I would err on the side of caution and say that this source doesn't really add anything useful or clarifying.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MFA list is not kept up to date, but the MFA is certainly reliable in the sense of WP:RS. Kosovothanksyou, on the other hand, is obviously NOT a reliable source. It's a WP:SELFPUBLISHed site, so what it lists is really not relevant to this discussion. All they are doing is pulling info of the MFA's website like us.

There is not necessarily a discrepancy at the MFA. Things change over time. At one point both the MFA and Kosovothanksyou listed Mali as recognizing. Both have since removed them as new information has come out, and the MFA no longer counts Mali as recognizing. It's entirely possible that the same process has occurred with regards to another 2 states, but since they haven't updated their list we (and Kosovothanksyou) isn't aware of it. But given the fact that the number of recognizers listed by RS is frequently smaller than what we list, there seems to be some discrepancy. Perhaps next months newsletter will clarify the situation. TDL (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Still a discrepancy of 2 between our list and all official sources. Grenada is claimed to be #102 by the PMO. (We have them at #105, but Kosovo was only informed of Thailand's recognition after Grenada, though we backdated it to before Grenada.) The PM has confirmed that Tanzania recognized so that can't be the problem. Still seems like the most logical options are São Tomé and Príncipe and Uganda (and less likely Nigeria). If only the MFA would update their damn list... TDL (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)