![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Serbian Islamic Community quote and source are to be disputed. They origins are through Serbian Propaganda machine ( Kendobs ( talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
I object to this title. First of all, the term "separatism" has a negative connotation and is already POV, since from another point of view, one could speak about "the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Kosovan people". Secondly, this paragraph mixes up the legitimate regional governments of Spanish autonomous regions with political parties, unrecognized breakaway states, rebel groups and an internationally recognized national liberation movement. Hence, a more neutral title should be used. MaartenVidal ( talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has a section titled "Other relevant enteties" Should this say "entities"? 72.248.122.243 ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan recognized. It was listed in italics. It had a note next to it explaining Taiwan's unusual status. Just leave put it back in the list of recognizing countries and leave it be. This is not POV: Taiwan is an international anomaly: not a separatist entity! It may become one if it declares independence, but for the time being it is committed, as a matter of policy, to its own version of the One-China Policy. Taiwan may not be a legit country but it is a government, it governs territory, it has a fair amount in international recognition (23 countries), and it has recognized Kosovo. That should be noted in the first list, not the last list. Put it back the way it was! 141.166.153.89 ( talk) 06:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
141.166.153.89, you said it yourself, it is "not... a legit country", though "it is a government" that governs territory. For this very reason, it is wrong to have it listed under "countries...", as it goes against the fact. Now, if it were to be removed completely, it would be considered POV because some people advocates for Taiwan Independance. Therefore it should be in the "partially recognized...". I suggest changing its name to "partially reconized states" or something similar, but I don't know, this should be discussed. -- Ruolin59 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In a section "REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations", I requested a merge of Orthodox Churches and argumented why this is needed to eliminate Serbian propaganda. Some people agreed with me, and the only, only person who disagreed is Vladar. He keeps reverting my changes back all the time. I want this Serb propaganda to stop. If anyone has counter-arguments on why Orthodox Churches shouldn't be merged, you can post them in that "Remove.." section. I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is one Serb (Vladar) losing a debate and then trying to use brute force method and simply editing the article in a way he wants. JosipMac ( talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes please delet this propaganda - it is not important for the international recognition of Kosovo.It is just a propaganda.-- Pikolomini83
I think its ok as it is now by mentioning the Serbian Orthodox Church, other Orthodox Churches and the Islamic community of Serbia. There is no point naming the Orthodox Church of every country, as we all know that they are not to support Kosovo's declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of all Orthodox churches for as long as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois and similar entities are on the list. -- Avala ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but i think its rather pointless listing all the Orthodox Churches, as all Orthodox Churches are obviously going to not recognise Kosovo. So if we put "Other Orthodox" Churches in a group, their point of view is still there, but there is no big pointless list with every Orthodox Church Saying the Same thing. The Serbian Orthodox Church, should be separate to the other Orthodox Churches. But with entities such as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois, some entities support Kosovo and some don't, so i think we should keep them up, as all views are not the same. For example Republika Srpska is differnt to the Québécois entities. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious, what do Orthodox Churches' opinion has to do with Kosovo's DOI? Isn't this an political issue between Serbia and Kosovo? Or are we insisting that this is an issue between the Orthodox and the Muslims? -- K kc chan ( talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The president just signed the decree - Finland formally recognises Kosovo. -- Camptown ( talk) 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Finland recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country on Friday, with President Tarja Halonen concurring with a government decision and showing green light for the establishment of diplomatic ties with the former Serbian province. The decision to recognise Kosovo was made at a presidential session with no need for a debate between the government and the head of state. The government and president had agreed on the timetable of recognising Kosovo a week ago. Kosovo issued its independence declaration three weeks ago. Ilkka Kanerva (cons), Finland's foreign minister, announced the Finnish government's intention to propose recognition to the president shortly after the declaration." [1]
Croatia has been moved to the "Final Call" group. But, can we really expect a formal recognition that soon? -- Camptown ( talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is silly, unnecessary information, and confusing as well. When I first saw that Sweden was listed as "(16th of 27 EU member states)" I assumed it meant that Sweden was the 16th country to become a member of the EU! And I do think that is the most obvious interpretation.
If you want to indicate the order in which the EU countries have recognized Kosovo (and why in the world do you want to do that?) then it would be more correct to specify them as "(1st of 16 EU member states)" to "(16th of 16 EU member states)". Otherwise you're implying that all 27 EU member states are going to recognize Kosovo, and that is far from certain.
My strong recommendation: remove this sillyness. -- RenniePet ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Just metion at the top bit that 16 EU states recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is confusing as is, we don't need to add more information. That type of information should rather be in the summary of international recognition in the main page for Kosova. Kosova2008 ( talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Just reading the counry table and noticed Tunisia is missing and it has issued a statement, should i add it ??? ( Neostinker ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
The current text says: "Russia ... is strongly opposed to admitting Kosovo in to any international organization." That statement needs to be properly verified, or should be deleted. -- Camptown ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The current text says: "Of the 192 UN member states, only 97 have taken any position at all". This statement is rather complicated. What exactly is a "position"? And who came up with the figure in the first place? -- Camptown ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What i think it is meant to say is "only 97 have said their view on Kosovo" i think that sentence should be deleted. Its pointless. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovan page is updated and Kosovo is treated like any other sovereign state: Kosovo - on the map, the Serbian/Kosovan border is marked as the UNMIK-line... Also the Serbian page has been updated accordingly: Serbia, with the border on the map marked as the UNMIK-line. Maybe the CIA will update the border when the EULEX takes over after the UN... -- Camptown ( talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this guy, former president of Finland, the go-to guy on Kosovo, designated by the UN to solve The Whole Kosovo Thing, Martti Ahtisaari, is now on record, reacting to the "international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", and contributing notably to the same. Shouldn't we augment the article with this information, including, what he said? IMHO, there has to be a provision for important reaction by individuals in the current article structure, other than individual politicians/ministers quoted in tables next to their countries. And, our quoting Block Quebecois and the like often is one man's opinion. Sources: "No going back on Kosovo, says Ahtisaari", or here: "Ahtisaari urges Spain, EU members to recognise Kosovo". -- Mareklug talk 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug, in his plan Ahtisaari explicitly called for independence. The fact that he is now calling on states to recognise the independence he proposed is actually completely irrelevant. After all, he would, wouldn't he? What really matters at this stage are the countries that recognise or don't recognise the declaration of independence, the international organisations to which it belongs or doesn't belong, the other separatist/secessionist entities that regard Kosovo as a precedent. Ahtisaari has been completely irrelevant since his mandate as UN Envoy ended in June 2007.
Does Montenegro's position differ from that of Croatia? -- Camptown ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you be a little more specific exactly? 68.114.197.88 ( talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Source 131 to Phillipines does not work.
Brukina Faso's position should be "Burkina Faso could only take note of the new situation" not "Burkina Faso said it would take note of the new situation and stated that it hopes that violence would not erupt.[82]" 68.114.197.88 ( talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Please, put Taiwan back to the ordinary nations list, in which it was yesterday. Stop that Taiwan edit/unedit war. The last things is done according to POV. Maybe there are people who are in sympathy with PR China, since it always denies the existence of Taiwan. Remember that Taiwan currently is recognised by 23 other countries, and it was founding charter meber of the UN in 1945. It is an existing state which have been so for a very long time.
Just my bronze 2 Cents piece in this "tug-of-war" about Taiwan. -- Den-femte-ryttaren ( talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Seceded regions and national liberation movements" - the term 'liberation movement' implies legitimacy, as much as 'seceded region' implies illegitimacy. Its POV. Simply label this section 'seceded regions and independence movements.' The independence of nay given territory my or may not be legit, depending on the circumstances and individual views. The term itself neither suggests that these movements are per se legit or illegit. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, perhaps the Vatican be "double-listed" on 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' and 'states not recognizing Kosovo?' It could fit under both categories and really should be under both categories, since the Pope's views on the conflict represent not only the opinion of Vatican City, the tiny country, but the Roman Catholic Church, the not-so-tiny ecclesiastic organization.
Perhaps, under 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' it could be listed as 'Roman Catholic Church' to avoid the appearance of a redundant entry. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Vatican City - can only recognize Kosovo in his function as a state not as a church! The Pope has a doubel function as the Pontifix - the leader of the church and the leader of the Vatican State. Relevant here is not the Raman Catholic Church but the desicion of the State of Vatican. So please delet the orthodox church position - it isn't relevant for the international recognition of the Republic of Kosovo Pikolomini83 16:54, 8 March 2008
Should Koštunica's resignation (as a direct result of Kosovo's declaration of independence) be mentioned somewhere here? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
This is what I saw earlier, where 'ecclesiastical and other religious organizations' was:
"Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations - not needed. To (sic) biased, trying to voice support for Serbs through Religious Contempt. They could be compared to terrorists."
Whoever is in charge, undo this idiot's damage and restore the ecclesiastical list (and add the Papal reaction to that list: see earlier heading).
141.166.229.162 (
talk)
18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not a separatist entity (it considers itself part of China). Its not an independence movement (it has not declared independence from China). It should not be listed along-side either. listing Taiwan alongside Abkazia and Transdeinister is absurd.
This has been discussed ad nauseum.
Return it to the top list 'countries recognizing..." with the note regarding its status and the fact Kosovo is not likely to recognize it. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet another person has moved Taiwan form the top list to "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements," the bottom list. Yet Taiwan and its government, the Republic of China, are not really a 'a partially recognized nation,' everyone recognizes China is a nation. If you recognize the Taipei government then you are recognizing it as the legal government of that nation. Nor is Taiwan a seceded region, it is commtied to its own form of the One-China Policy. That may change, but until it does, Taiwan is not a separatist entity. And I don't think Taiwan is a "national liberation movement," whatever that POV term is supposed to denote. Hence Taiwan does not belong on this list. It either belongs on the top list or it belongs on a list by itself. If the latter, that list should be at the top, since after all, this anomaly recognized the Republic of Kosovo. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Whereever ROC should be placed, it is definite POV to place it with the "countries recognizing..." as the status of ROC is highly disputed and most countries have a very ambiguous policy on the subject of Taiwan. I still think it's good to place it with the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements", as one can argue that it IS a "partially recognized nation" because 23 countries do recognize it. Everyone does recognize China as a nation, but the ROC supporters sees it separate from the PRC (which I personally think is illegal, however I cannot put that in the article as that would be POV). Placing ROC in its own list, I believe, would be highhly impractical. To satisfy your criteria, maybe change "partially recognized nations" to "partially reconized states" or "ambiguous states"? -- Ruolin59 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The ROC is only recognized by 23 nations, while the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is recognized by 43 nations, yet the SADR is listed under the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements" category. If you want the ROC listed under "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", well do you also support moving the SADR up to the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" category too? It is very POV to exclude ROC from a list of "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements". -- Tocino 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, moved up SADR and Taiwan. The 1/4th criterion cannot be defended as NPOV, so both have been moved up in line with this discussion. Konekoniku ( talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly there is no consensus to have the ROC and other partially reocgnizes states listed amongst nations that are fully recognized. So for now ROC , SADR, and Northern Cyprus stay in the other entities section. -- Tocino 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
We went from a detailed ToC [1] and a six tiered map on March 3 to a simplistic yes-or-no ToC (lumping Serbia's protest together with "unnamed governmental sources quoted in Uruguayan press" as "no recognition") with a two tiered map. Why? Can we just revert to the more versatile / informative organization please? Obviously, any country that doesn't recognize the RoK ... does not recognize the RoK, that's silly. What the article should list are those countries who have officially stated they consider the declaration illegal. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Article is locked, so please fix: First reference regarding Israel's position is Haaretz but the link is to a Jerusalem Post article. Furthermore, the protection of Jews living in Russia is given as a concern, which is nowhere to be found in the cited source.-- 128.139.104.49 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why the NATO flag isn't next to the NATO member state part in the notes about the countries. OIC or EU member states have those flags next to their note. Portlygrub ( talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Its something to do with protection of the flag and that wikipedia hasn't the right to use it. Something along them lines. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please sign your comments in the future. Now lets take what your saying to the extreme, lets mention every international organisation that a country is a member of yeh? Not practical is it. We should only mention the relavant international organistations, such as EU, UN, NATO and OIC. AU has nothing to do with Kosovo. The AU hasn't even said it view on Kosovo's declaration of indepedance. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted split of the Kosovo article see here. There is absolutely no consensus about a split. This article has been protected for some days, and the first thing dab does when the protection is lifed is to split the article again. dab only proves that he is not able to fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the adminship, and should be stripped from his admin credentials. -- Camptown ( talk) 09:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide"
Why Serbia is listed 1st and not in alphabetical order like every other country?
This needs to be corrected! And who cares about serbian demonstrations? Why is this relevant and why is this an evidence?
An evidence of what? Of genocide in Bosnia in 1992? Of concentration camps in Bosnia during the bosnian war?
Of shelling the olympic city Sarajevo? Of violating international laws while asking for justice?
Of making every single war and attacking each ex - YU Republic?
Of creating genocidal entity rs and calling it Republic as if this is a real independent country!?
Of causing the the WWI? Can someone please make sure that whoever is responsible here and happens to be pro-serb is NOT given powers to manipulate people who read the page!
They can't change the fact that Kosova is independent! But we can make sure thet they don't force inaccurate and manipulative source of information that prevents people from learning about who admitted Kosova so far, instead making the page as Serbian funeral over the Kosova whom they abandoned since Tito!
And please ... we know, the world know how they treated KOSOVA PEOPLE. They did not give them rights to speak their language!
They treated them as criminals not worthy of basic human rights!
And they are not! They are people, and Kosovo is their land. Therefore Kosova Independence!
Congratulations to Kosova! Bosnia loves you.
Signature: Yes to freedom! No to serb domination in Balkans we are sick of it! -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Put all states in alphabetical order! Don't put Serbia first and every other country after that! That's insulting and plain ignorant because S for Serbia comes after A, B, C ,D .... If anyone is political here is those who refuse to place Serbia in alphabetical order like every other country and make changes about which people complained including myself more than one time. And pro-serbs should have no business in making the page about Kosovo!
Kosovo is independent regardless of this page! But at least make an effort and show people that you care about the facts and that you don't support serbian propaganda and lies on this page. By the way because of people who are unwilling to do so, not many really find wikipedia credible.
Signature: Yes to Kosova freedom. -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the Albanian Orthodox church? • YllI 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nebojša Radmanović, member of the tripartite presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognise Kosovo independence and called Kosovo an internal matter of Serbia.[81] Željko Komšić, presiding member of the presidency, has stated that "Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo soon, and there is consensus within the Bosnian State Presidency on the issue".[81]
Why Nebojsa Radmanovic is listed first, he is not the person who declares Kosova independence on behalf of ENTIRE Bosnia!
Zeljko Komsic statement is non existant on this page!
Zeljko Komsic clearly stated ( surf the net and find the quote everybody knows it ) that if it was for his own opinion he would do differently but he must wait to make such decision. He did not say no, so don't portray his words as firm no.
Also Republika Srpska ( ENTITY ) is Bosnia-Hercegovina. There is no need to mention any idvividuals and their personal opinions except offical statement which you don't even have from Bosnia!
Again, there is no such thing as Serbina Islamic community! That's perhaps Serbian manipulation to portray that even Islamic community that nobody knows about ( no web, no president, no phone number, no information! ) is speaking against Kosova independence.
People, Serbs commited genocide in Srebrenica. They deny it until today, even today they say that never happened. It is not in their interest for the world to know the truth. So please.... do your best to make this paage credible and accurate.
Bosnia is an occupied country, therefore Bosnia can not act accoridng to Bosnian people's will!!!! You all know that! Now you know what kind of problems we had to go though with Serbs. You can see it on this page, lies, lies, and manipulations is the norm.
They wrote Republic Srpska so that people are deceived and believe it's real republic. The title should not be translated in English as Republic of - that's missleading. Read tha Dayton agreement and see how they were refused such name, and were given Bosnian prefixes to make sure they don't manipulate the truth!
Signature: The Truth will win, Bosnia lives forever, no they could not sluaghter us! Sarajevo still lives. Kosovo you are reborn! -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start a huge debate, because where ever someone puts ROC it is going to be POV, for example i believe it should be with all the other states that recognise Kosovo and other users disagree. However ROC does not fit under the category "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence", as it is not an autonomy or independence. It has never declared independence and it is not an Autonomy as it is self governed and administrated. It is recognised by 23 countries. it is also acknowledged by around 90 countries link as opposed to been officially recognised. So it should be in another category other than the one you have currently put it in and the one i put it in early too. The article is not for states which recognise the ROC, but for states that recognise Kosovo. So ROC is a state which recognise Kosovo. But to please both who share my view and people who don't agree with me on where the ROC should be placed, i suggest that we put the ROC in a separate table below "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" and call the table "Partially recognised States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", this will be more NPOV. Who agrees? Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is independant, since PRC does not have control over Taiwan (island). PRC just claims it. I agree with you that it shouldn't be with USA, Germany etc. But is shouldn't be with TRNC or Western Sahara either, as they have declared independence unlike ROC. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I will relay my comments from your talk page to here so other editors can see them... "I believe that the category that ROC is currently under 'Unrecognised or partially recognised states, seceded regions, and national independence movements' does the ROC justice. The ROC is a partially recognised state and it is listed in the category that other partially recognised states (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Northern Cyprus) are listed in. I would not be supportive of moving the ROC ahead of fully recognized nations which refuse to or have not yet recognize/recognized Kosovo. I would support a seperate category for just partially recognized nations (ROC, SADR, Northern Cyprus)... but in the Other Entities section." -- Tocino 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK then. The PRC should also go in that group too as only 171 countries recognise it. [2] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeh that is true, however the ROC was one of the founding members of the UN and the PRC wasn't. So they are both partially recognised states. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I still stand that my earlier proposal works: to take ROC off the charts altogether and instead put the DPP in the "political parties..." section. This would work as the DPP IS advocating to become independant, while the KMT wants eventual reunification. Ruolin59 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted UNPO from the "International organisations" section, as it does not belong in the same list as bodies as UN,EU,OSCE,OIC,etc., as its members are not generally recognized as states. From a mainstream perspective of international law, the former are all international organizations of states and hence subjects of public international law, whereas UNPO is merely a private body (little more than an NGO). -- SJK ( talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the 10 March parliamentary decision? The article needs to be updated... Zello ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are more sources were that came from. Contralya ( talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These sources say "Norway To Recognise Kosovo." So Norway still hasn't officially recognised Kosovo as been independant. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Czechs to recognise Kosovo sooner or later - deputy PM Vondra Brussels- The Czech Republic will sooner or later recognise Kosovo's independence, but this will not happen before Easter, Czech Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra told journalists. The article is at [5]. I'd add this info to the page myself, but the page itself is blocked. Expatkiwi talk 16:51, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
For countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, a more meaningful reference-group would be their membership in the CIS. Listing them as members of the OIC is factually correct, but does nothing to explain their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Read this [6]. IMHO that's enough to move SLovakia away from red (officially and finally denies recognition) to khaki (delaying recognition). -- Mareklug talk 12:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Slovakia needs time to decide whether it will recognize Kosovo, and that could take several years," Gašparovič told a news conference in Bratislava after talks with Crvenkovski, agencies reported. B92,March 11th
Whatever. Your disrespect to some countries is disgusting. But who am I talking to, you equalize Bjork with countries. -- Avala ( talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
equalize v. e·qual·ized, e·qual·iz·ing, e·qual·iz·es 1. To make equal: equalized the responsibilities of the staff members. 2. To make uniform. To constitute or induce equality, equilibrium, or balance. And that is exactly what I was saying. Now your baseless insults tell more about you than me.-- Avala ( talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoted on BBC Russian Service, that both Kosovo and Chechnya deserve independence. [7]. Yet another notable individual and expert (unaffialiated with any state) that we should quote. -- Mareklug talk 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had decided a while back not to list every individual orthodox church in Europe as they are all saying the same thing? And that to some users by naming every orthodox church was seen as Anti-Kosovo propaganda therefore not NPOV(i personally said this). Ijanderson977 ( talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
According to "Russian media" as quoted by the Serb indy news station "B92", Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are preparing to recognize Kosovo: [8]. Any firmer evidence? -- Mareklug talk 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This B92 News station is ok, but we need some references that area bit more official and reliable. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Any kind of statement like source would be good. I am not satisfied with current source for Morocco btw. Morocco is only mentioned in that source as worried but who knows how did the journalist come up with this.-- Avala ( talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Greek press is reporting that the Greek government has decided to recognise Kosovo and veto Macedonia's entry into NATO "between the end of March and the beginning of April." According to Thema tis Kiriakis, the aim is to "help smoothe Washington's annoyance" over a Macedonia veto. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovo newspaper Zeri is reporting that over the next week or so, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania are going to recognise Kosovo. Macedonia is expected is expected to follow suit fairly soon afterwards, as its official position is that it would not recognise Kosovo's independence until a majority of EU countries had done so. (If the first four countries mentioned do recognise Kosovo that would mean that threshold would be passed.) -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On 8 March 2008 the Serbian prime minister announced that he was going to dissolve the government and ask for new elections, because the coalition could not agree on their international response to the Kosovo situation. This was added to the Serbia entry in this article by someone else, and I reworded it to this:
Yesterday User:Avala removed this information, with the edit subject "That is domestic and not international reaction that this article is about".
I disagree - the falling of a government due to the inability to agree on the international response to the Kosovo situation is anything but domestic, and is very relevant to this article. So I reverted Avala's edit, with a sarcastic, "How's that again?" as edit subject.
So now Avala has removed the info again, [9] with an edit subject of "returning removed content. prime minister's opinion is not irrelevant actually it is more improtant as he has the initiative power." I.e., his edit subject does not mention the removal of this information.
Like I said, I think this information is very relevant to this article. Any other opinions? -- RenniePet ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Apart from conspiracy theories that I am trying to hide this (for who knows what reasons) can you provide some argument for inclusion of this information in the article?-- Avala ( talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't remember you gave a single link for your edits but OK, it's your honour. -- Avala ( talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you disclose how many times you uploaded a map with no comment whatsoever, usually reverting and without consensus, that is, forcibly overwriting other people's work and judgment? And, I guess making false accusations, such as the one above, and reverting covertly and persistently (on Commons and here) embodies your code of honor? -- Mareklug talk 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, someone keeps on deleting my discussion posts that the article is non-neutral. Stop being so anal about promoting your pro-Kosovo propaganda. Stop deleting my discussion posts that you don't like. Get a life. 68.164.235.145 ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We have already agreed that Orthodox Churches will be summed under "Orthodox Churches" (with a possible addition of Serbian Orthodox Church as a separate entry) instead of adding each and every Orthodox Church in the world. We have also concluded that since stances of Orthodox Churches are the same, the only reason to have them separately is for propaganda purposes.
I am tired of undoing his constant editions of the main page. It's becoming tedious.
So pls stop messing with that section. JosipMac ( talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism is bad-faith editing - please be sure this is the case rather than a genuine content dispute before accusing editors of this. If vandalism does occur, please warn the user first using templates such as {{
uw-v1}}
and if he persists, report at
WP:AIV.
AndrewRT(
Talk)
22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I will do if some does cause Vandalism to the page. It was not Vladar86, it was Kendobs. I am not going to report Kendobs yet as i do not think it is too serious vandalism to report as of yet, but if it does continue i will report him. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why Afghanistan is on the top of the list? Costa Rica recognized on February 17. Regardless how you compare it (local time or UTC) Afghanistan and Costa Rica differ by about 10 hours. So it is impossible for Costa Rica to recognize very late at night and Afghanistan very early in the morning. I think the order of those two countries should be swapped. (Tim) 3:07 UTC, March 12 2008 (UTC).
Is anybody going to start listing the dates on which Kosovo established diplomatic relations with countries? I see that Albania, the UK and Germany already have embassies functioning in Pristina, which would mean that diplomatic relations had been established. Can we get a listing going? Canadian Bobby ( talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In an interview by the Swedish reporter Lars Adaktusson, Kosovo's prime minister Hashim Thaci is optimistic about Kosovo's future. He says that Kosovo aims to become member of the NATO and the EU, and that Kosovo is a nation for all its citizens, also the Serbian minority. Hashim Thaci reveals that there are informal talks going on between his government and Russia; and he points out that the official Russian reaction differs from its pragmatic view shown during the informal talk. Hashim Thaci even says that Spain has indicated an intention to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo now when a majority of EU member states have done so. Hashim Thaci says that he is not worried that the Seriban part in the north will break away, and that he would show Carl Bildt (Sweden's foreign minister) also the northern part of Mitovica next time he comes to Kosovo. On March 8, Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to visit Kosovo since its unilateral declaration of indepence. See the program here: Interview with Hashim Thaci - 2008-03-11 (Video) (Interview in English). -- Camptown ( talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The second article included in this page for this territory about left independentists basks, is not representetative. I think must be edit, but i dont can.
For know the position of Batasuna politic group, read:
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/posicion-batasuna-relacion-declaracion-unilateral-independencia-kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.42.52.166 ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An English translation of the Malaysia's statement is available in Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/Malay translation as requested. Borisblue ( talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For all you pro Serbians who deleted Malaysia of the list with out looking for a new reference first, just because you wanted to make Kosovo seem like it had less support than it actually does. Here is an UNMIK reference to prove that Malaysia has officially recognised Kosovo.
[10] Yes it is in HTML form, but thats because you can not show a Microsoft word program using an internet browser. If you click the link at the top you can view it in its original format. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well i doubt UNMIK are going to miss interpret that. It is a reliable and valid reference.
The official Malaysian source is dated 20/02/08, whilst the UNMIK source is dated 21/02/08 so the UNMIK source is more up to date
Ijanderson977 (
talk)
19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well thats your word against the UN's. I'd rather believe what the UN says than you. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive read that translation, it says "Malaysia welcomes the independence of Kosovo that was announced by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on the 17th of February 2008", so thats what Malaysia said the day Kosovo declared independence. So that reference is way out of date Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough don't put Malaysia in the correct table. At the end of the day Malaysia recognises Kosovo weather you put it the correct table on this wiki article or not. I just thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and that you meant to tell the truth. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the MOFA website in Malaysia, it says that Malaysia has a Liaison Office of Malaysia, in Pristina. Therefore it suggests that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. It also says "Host Country: KOSOVO" so its referring to Kosovo as a country, not a region. [11] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But does Russia refer to Kosovo as a country? Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a proper and full translation of the Malaysian press release. It is imporatant as the UNMIK and the Malaysian representative to Kosovo has confirmed that Malaysia acturally recognize the declaration of independence. We shuold also remember that the procedure of recognition differs from country to country. What's the exact procedure in Malaysia? -- Camptown ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, we have a press release of the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia and a press release of the Kosovar president (whose translation was provided by cradle):
Pristina , 20 February ,2008 : The President of the Republic of Kosovo met today with the chief of the Malaysian office in Pristina , Mr.Mustafa J Mansor. Mr.Mansor informed President Sejdiu that the government of the country that he represents has recognized Kosovo as an independent state. He also said that Malaysia has decided to make it's office in Pristina an embassy, where Mr.Mansor would be the Ambassador
Those are the two sources we have to rely on in order to determine whether Malaysia recognized Kosovo or not. The UNMIK source is in fact a Media Monitoring citing a Newspaper ("Dailies"), thus we cannot be sure that they checked the facts. Additionally, just because MOFs website states that they have a Liason office in Kosovo (Host country: Kosovo) doesn't say much, look at [12]. Gugganij ( talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
B92 obviously believes that Malaysia recognized Kosovo [13]. On the other hand, they might just have consulted our article ;-) Gugganij ( talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If UNMIK misinterpreded the Malaysian government and wrongfully believed that Malaysia had recognized Kosovo - why didn't the Malaysian government protest? Probably because there wasn't anything to protest about.... -- Camptown ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, if the foreign ministry press release was the only information we have, then I would agree with Avala that Malaysia has given no formal recognition. However, we have more current sources that say that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo (including independent sources like Xinhua). The foreign ministry source does not contradict anything the other sources say. Therefore, the article should state that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo. I think the consensus in this discussion is that the article should be changed back. Borisblue ( talk) 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The no from Slovakia is apparently not necessarily forever, but only temporary, see http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48371 . — Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[15] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Reportedly planning to recognise, but no official statement: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48370 — Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The present text says: "...the official recognition date has not been set." The provided source does not confirm this speculation. --23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Serbian Islamic Community quote and source are to be disputed. They origins are through Serbian Propaganda machine ( Kendobs ( talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
I object to this title. First of all, the term "separatism" has a negative connotation and is already POV, since from another point of view, one could speak about "the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Kosovan people". Secondly, this paragraph mixes up the legitimate regional governments of Spanish autonomous regions with political parties, unrecognized breakaway states, rebel groups and an internationally recognized national liberation movement. Hence, a more neutral title should be used. MaartenVidal ( talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has a section titled "Other relevant enteties" Should this say "entities"? 72.248.122.243 ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan recognized. It was listed in italics. It had a note next to it explaining Taiwan's unusual status. Just leave put it back in the list of recognizing countries and leave it be. This is not POV: Taiwan is an international anomaly: not a separatist entity! It may become one if it declares independence, but for the time being it is committed, as a matter of policy, to its own version of the One-China Policy. Taiwan may not be a legit country but it is a government, it governs territory, it has a fair amount in international recognition (23 countries), and it has recognized Kosovo. That should be noted in the first list, not the last list. Put it back the way it was! 141.166.153.89 ( talk) 06:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
141.166.153.89, you said it yourself, it is "not... a legit country", though "it is a government" that governs territory. For this very reason, it is wrong to have it listed under "countries...", as it goes against the fact. Now, if it were to be removed completely, it would be considered POV because some people advocates for Taiwan Independance. Therefore it should be in the "partially recognized...". I suggest changing its name to "partially reconized states" or something similar, but I don't know, this should be discussed. -- Ruolin59 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In a section "REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations", I requested a merge of Orthodox Churches and argumented why this is needed to eliminate Serbian propaganda. Some people agreed with me, and the only, only person who disagreed is Vladar. He keeps reverting my changes back all the time. I want this Serb propaganda to stop. If anyone has counter-arguments on why Orthodox Churches shouldn't be merged, you can post them in that "Remove.." section. I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is one Serb (Vladar) losing a debate and then trying to use brute force method and simply editing the article in a way he wants. JosipMac ( talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes please delet this propaganda - it is not important for the international recognition of Kosovo.It is just a propaganda.-- Pikolomini83
I think its ok as it is now by mentioning the Serbian Orthodox Church, other Orthodox Churches and the Islamic community of Serbia. There is no point naming the Orthodox Church of every country, as we all know that they are not to support Kosovo's declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of all Orthodox churches for as long as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois and similar entities are on the list. -- Avala ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but i think its rather pointless listing all the Orthodox Churches, as all Orthodox Churches are obviously going to not recognise Kosovo. So if we put "Other Orthodox" Churches in a group, their point of view is still there, but there is no big pointless list with every Orthodox Church Saying the Same thing. The Serbian Orthodox Church, should be separate to the other Orthodox Churches. But with entities such as Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois, some entities support Kosovo and some don't, so i think we should keep them up, as all views are not the same. For example Republika Srpska is differnt to the Québécois entities. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious, what do Orthodox Churches' opinion has to do with Kosovo's DOI? Isn't this an political issue between Serbia and Kosovo? Or are we insisting that this is an issue between the Orthodox and the Muslims? -- K kc chan ( talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The president just signed the decree - Finland formally recognises Kosovo. -- Camptown ( talk) 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Finland recognised Kosovo as a sovereign country on Friday, with President Tarja Halonen concurring with a government decision and showing green light for the establishment of diplomatic ties with the former Serbian province. The decision to recognise Kosovo was made at a presidential session with no need for a debate between the government and the head of state. The government and president had agreed on the timetable of recognising Kosovo a week ago. Kosovo issued its independence declaration three weeks ago. Ilkka Kanerva (cons), Finland's foreign minister, announced the Finnish government's intention to propose recognition to the president shortly after the declaration." [1]
Croatia has been moved to the "Final Call" group. But, can we really expect a formal recognition that soon? -- Camptown ( talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is silly, unnecessary information, and confusing as well. When I first saw that Sweden was listed as "(16th of 27 EU member states)" I assumed it meant that Sweden was the 16th country to become a member of the EU! And I do think that is the most obvious interpretation.
If you want to indicate the order in which the EU countries have recognized Kosovo (and why in the world do you want to do that?) then it would be more correct to specify them as "(1st of 16 EU member states)" to "(16th of 16 EU member states)". Otherwise you're implying that all 27 EU member states are going to recognize Kosovo, and that is far from certain.
My strong recommendation: remove this sillyness. -- RenniePet ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Just metion at the top bit that 16 EU states recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is confusing as is, we don't need to add more information. That type of information should rather be in the summary of international recognition in the main page for Kosova. Kosova2008 ( talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Just reading the counry table and noticed Tunisia is missing and it has issued a statement, should i add it ??? ( Neostinker ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
The current text says: "Russia ... is strongly opposed to admitting Kosovo in to any international organization." That statement needs to be properly verified, or should be deleted. -- Camptown ( talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The current text says: "Of the 192 UN member states, only 97 have taken any position at all". This statement is rather complicated. What exactly is a "position"? And who came up with the figure in the first place? -- Camptown ( talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What i think it is meant to say is "only 97 have said their view on Kosovo" i think that sentence should be deleted. Its pointless. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovan page is updated and Kosovo is treated like any other sovereign state: Kosovo - on the map, the Serbian/Kosovan border is marked as the UNMIK-line... Also the Serbian page has been updated accordingly: Serbia, with the border on the map marked as the UNMIK-line. Maybe the CIA will update the border when the EULEX takes over after the UN... -- Camptown ( talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, this guy, former president of Finland, the go-to guy on Kosovo, designated by the UN to solve The Whole Kosovo Thing, Martti Ahtisaari, is now on record, reacting to the "international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", and contributing notably to the same. Shouldn't we augment the article with this information, including, what he said? IMHO, there has to be a provision for important reaction by individuals in the current article structure, other than individual politicians/ministers quoted in tables next to their countries. And, our quoting Block Quebecois and the like often is one man's opinion. Sources: "No going back on Kosovo, says Ahtisaari", or here: "Ahtisaari urges Spain, EU members to recognise Kosovo". -- Mareklug talk 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mareklug, in his plan Ahtisaari explicitly called for independence. The fact that he is now calling on states to recognise the independence he proposed is actually completely irrelevant. After all, he would, wouldn't he? What really matters at this stage are the countries that recognise or don't recognise the declaration of independence, the international organisations to which it belongs or doesn't belong, the other separatist/secessionist entities that regard Kosovo as a precedent. Ahtisaari has been completely irrelevant since his mandate as UN Envoy ended in June 2007.
Does Montenegro's position differ from that of Croatia? -- Camptown ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you be a little more specific exactly? 68.114.197.88 ( talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Source 131 to Phillipines does not work.
Brukina Faso's position should be "Burkina Faso could only take note of the new situation" not "Burkina Faso said it would take note of the new situation and stated that it hopes that violence would not erupt.[82]" 68.114.197.88 ( talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
Please, put Taiwan back to the ordinary nations list, in which it was yesterday. Stop that Taiwan edit/unedit war. The last things is done according to POV. Maybe there are people who are in sympathy with PR China, since it always denies the existence of Taiwan. Remember that Taiwan currently is recognised by 23 other countries, and it was founding charter meber of the UN in 1945. It is an existing state which have been so for a very long time.
Just my bronze 2 Cents piece in this "tug-of-war" about Taiwan. -- Den-femte-ryttaren ( talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Seceded regions and national liberation movements" - the term 'liberation movement' implies legitimacy, as much as 'seceded region' implies illegitimacy. Its POV. Simply label this section 'seceded regions and independence movements.' The independence of nay given territory my or may not be legit, depending on the circumstances and individual views. The term itself neither suggests that these movements are per se legit or illegit. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, perhaps the Vatican be "double-listed" on 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' and 'states not recognizing Kosovo?' It could fit under both categories and really should be under both categories, since the Pope's views on the conflict represent not only the opinion of Vatican City, the tiny country, but the Roman Catholic Church, the not-so-tiny ecclesiastic organization.
Perhaps, under 'Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations' it could be listed as 'Roman Catholic Church' to avoid the appearance of a redundant entry. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Vatican City - can only recognize Kosovo in his function as a state not as a church! The Pope has a doubel function as the Pontifix - the leader of the church and the leader of the Vatican State. Relevant here is not the Raman Catholic Church but the desicion of the State of Vatican. So please delet the orthodox church position - it isn't relevant for the international recognition of the Republic of Kosovo Pikolomini83 16:54, 8 March 2008
Should Koštunica's resignation (as a direct result of Kosovo's declaration of independence) be mentioned somewhere here? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
This is what I saw earlier, where 'ecclesiastical and other religious organizations' was:
"Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations - not needed. To (sic) biased, trying to voice support for Serbs through Religious Contempt. They could be compared to terrorists."
Whoever is in charge, undo this idiot's damage and restore the ecclesiastical list (and add the Papal reaction to that list: see earlier heading).
141.166.229.162 (
talk)
18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not a separatist entity (it considers itself part of China). Its not an independence movement (it has not declared independence from China). It should not be listed along-side either. listing Taiwan alongside Abkazia and Transdeinister is absurd.
This has been discussed ad nauseum.
Return it to the top list 'countries recognizing..." with the note regarding its status and the fact Kosovo is not likely to recognize it. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet another person has moved Taiwan form the top list to "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements," the bottom list. Yet Taiwan and its government, the Republic of China, are not really a 'a partially recognized nation,' everyone recognizes China is a nation. If you recognize the Taipei government then you are recognizing it as the legal government of that nation. Nor is Taiwan a seceded region, it is commtied to its own form of the One-China Policy. That may change, but until it does, Taiwan is not a separatist entity. And I don't think Taiwan is a "national liberation movement," whatever that POV term is supposed to denote. Hence Taiwan does not belong on this list. It either belongs on the top list or it belongs on a list by itself. If the latter, that list should be at the top, since after all, this anomaly recognized the Republic of Kosovo. 141.166.229.162 ( talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Whereever ROC should be placed, it is definite POV to place it with the "countries recognizing..." as the status of ROC is highly disputed and most countries have a very ambiguous policy on the subject of Taiwan. I still think it's good to place it with the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements", as one can argue that it IS a "partially recognized nation" because 23 countries do recognize it. Everyone does recognize China as a nation, but the ROC supporters sees it separate from the PRC (which I personally think is illegal, however I cannot put that in the article as that would be POV). Placing ROC in its own list, I believe, would be highhly impractical. To satisfy your criteria, maybe change "partially recognized nations" to "partially reconized states" or "ambiguous states"? -- Ruolin59 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The ROC is only recognized by 23 nations, while the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is recognized by 43 nations, yet the SADR is listed under the "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements" category. If you want the ROC listed under "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", well do you also support moving the SADR up to the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" category too? It is very POV to exclude ROC from a list of "Partially recognized nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements". -- Tocino 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, moved up SADR and Taiwan. The 1/4th criterion cannot be defended as NPOV, so both have been moved up in line with this discussion. Konekoniku ( talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly there is no consensus to have the ROC and other partially reocgnizes states listed amongst nations that are fully recognized. So for now ROC , SADR, and Northern Cyprus stay in the other entities section. -- Tocino 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
We went from a detailed ToC [1] and a six tiered map on March 3 to a simplistic yes-or-no ToC (lumping Serbia's protest together with "unnamed governmental sources quoted in Uruguayan press" as "no recognition") with a two tiered map. Why? Can we just revert to the more versatile / informative organization please? Obviously, any country that doesn't recognize the RoK ... does not recognize the RoK, that's silly. What the article should list are those countries who have officially stated they consider the declaration illegal. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Article is locked, so please fix: First reference regarding Israel's position is Haaretz but the link is to a Jerusalem Post article. Furthermore, the protection of Jews living in Russia is given as a concern, which is nowhere to be found in the cited source.-- 128.139.104.49 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why the NATO flag isn't next to the NATO member state part in the notes about the countries. OIC or EU member states have those flags next to their note. Portlygrub ( talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Its something to do with protection of the flag and that wikipedia hasn't the right to use it. Something along them lines. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please sign your comments in the future. Now lets take what your saying to the extreme, lets mention every international organisation that a country is a member of yeh? Not practical is it. We should only mention the relavant international organistations, such as EU, UN, NATO and OIC. AU has nothing to do with Kosovo. The AU hasn't even said it view on Kosovo's declaration of indepedance. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted split of the Kosovo article see here. There is absolutely no consensus about a split. This article has been protected for some days, and the first thing dab does when the protection is lifed is to split the article again. dab only proves that he is not able to fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the adminship, and should be stripped from his admin credentials. -- Camptown ( talk) 09:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide"
Why Serbia is listed 1st and not in alphabetical order like every other country?
This needs to be corrected! And who cares about serbian demonstrations? Why is this relevant and why is this an evidence?
An evidence of what? Of genocide in Bosnia in 1992? Of concentration camps in Bosnia during the bosnian war?
Of shelling the olympic city Sarajevo? Of violating international laws while asking for justice?
Of making every single war and attacking each ex - YU Republic?
Of creating genocidal entity rs and calling it Republic as if this is a real independent country!?
Of causing the the WWI? Can someone please make sure that whoever is responsible here and happens to be pro-serb is NOT given powers to manipulate people who read the page!
They can't change the fact that Kosova is independent! But we can make sure thet they don't force inaccurate and manipulative source of information that prevents people from learning about who admitted Kosova so far, instead making the page as Serbian funeral over the Kosova whom they abandoned since Tito!
And please ... we know, the world know how they treated KOSOVA PEOPLE. They did not give them rights to speak their language!
They treated them as criminals not worthy of basic human rights!
And they are not! They are people, and Kosovo is their land. Therefore Kosova Independence!
Congratulations to Kosova! Bosnia loves you.
Signature: Yes to freedom! No to serb domination in Balkans we are sick of it! -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Put all states in alphabetical order! Don't put Serbia first and every other country after that! That's insulting and plain ignorant because S for Serbia comes after A, B, C ,D .... If anyone is political here is those who refuse to place Serbia in alphabetical order like every other country and make changes about which people complained including myself more than one time. And pro-serbs should have no business in making the page about Kosovo!
Kosovo is independent regardless of this page! But at least make an effort and show people that you care about the facts and that you don't support serbian propaganda and lies on this page. By the way because of people who are unwilling to do so, not many really find wikipedia credible.
Signature: Yes to Kosova freedom. -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the Albanian Orthodox church? • YllI 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nebojša Radmanović, member of the tripartite presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not recognise Kosovo independence and called Kosovo an internal matter of Serbia.[81] Željko Komšić, presiding member of the presidency, has stated that "Bosnia will not recognize Kosovo soon, and there is consensus within the Bosnian State Presidency on the issue".[81]
Why Nebojsa Radmanovic is listed first, he is not the person who declares Kosova independence on behalf of ENTIRE Bosnia!
Zeljko Komsic statement is non existant on this page!
Zeljko Komsic clearly stated ( surf the net and find the quote everybody knows it ) that if it was for his own opinion he would do differently but he must wait to make such decision. He did not say no, so don't portray his words as firm no.
Also Republika Srpska ( ENTITY ) is Bosnia-Hercegovina. There is no need to mention any idvividuals and their personal opinions except offical statement which you don't even have from Bosnia!
Again, there is no such thing as Serbina Islamic community! That's perhaps Serbian manipulation to portray that even Islamic community that nobody knows about ( no web, no president, no phone number, no information! ) is speaking against Kosova independence.
People, Serbs commited genocide in Srebrenica. They deny it until today, even today they say that never happened. It is not in their interest for the world to know the truth. So please.... do your best to make this paage credible and accurate.
Bosnia is an occupied country, therefore Bosnia can not act accoridng to Bosnian people's will!!!! You all know that! Now you know what kind of problems we had to go though with Serbs. You can see it on this page, lies, lies, and manipulations is the norm.
They wrote Republic Srpska so that people are deceived and believe it's real republic. The title should not be translated in English as Republic of - that's missleading. Read tha Dayton agreement and see how they were refused such name, and were given Bosnian prefixes to make sure they don't manipulate the truth!
Signature: The Truth will win, Bosnia lives forever, no they could not sluaghter us! Sarajevo still lives. Kosovo you are reborn! -- 76.209.58.66 ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start a huge debate, because where ever someone puts ROC it is going to be POV, for example i believe it should be with all the other states that recognise Kosovo and other users disagree. However ROC does not fit under the category "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence", as it is not an autonomy or independence. It has never declared independence and it is not an Autonomy as it is self governed and administrated. It is recognised by 23 countries. it is also acknowledged by around 90 countries link as opposed to been officially recognised. So it should be in another category other than the one you have currently put it in and the one i put it in early too. The article is not for states which recognise the ROC, but for states that recognise Kosovo. So ROC is a state which recognise Kosovo. But to please both who share my view and people who don't agree with me on where the ROC should be placed, i suggest that we put the ROC in a separate table below "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" and call the table "Partially recognised States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent", this will be more NPOV. Who agrees? Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is independant, since PRC does not have control over Taiwan (island). PRC just claims it. I agree with you that it shouldn't be with USA, Germany etc. But is shouldn't be with TRNC or Western Sahara either, as they have declared independence unlike ROC. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I will relay my comments from your talk page to here so other editors can see them... "I believe that the category that ROC is currently under 'Unrecognised or partially recognised states, seceded regions, and national independence movements' does the ROC justice. The ROC is a partially recognised state and it is listed in the category that other partially recognised states (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Northern Cyprus) are listed in. I would not be supportive of moving the ROC ahead of fully recognized nations which refuse to or have not yet recognize/recognized Kosovo. I would support a seperate category for just partially recognized nations (ROC, SADR, Northern Cyprus)... but in the Other Entities section." -- Tocino 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK then. The PRC should also go in that group too as only 171 countries recognise it. [2] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeh that is true, however the ROC was one of the founding members of the UN and the PRC wasn't. So they are both partially recognised states. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I still stand that my earlier proposal works: to take ROC off the charts altogether and instead put the DPP in the "political parties..." section. This would work as the DPP IS advocating to become independant, while the KMT wants eventual reunification. Ruolin59 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted UNPO from the "International organisations" section, as it does not belong in the same list as bodies as UN,EU,OSCE,OIC,etc., as its members are not generally recognized as states. From a mainstream perspective of international law, the former are all international organizations of states and hence subjects of public international law, whereas UNPO is merely a private body (little more than an NGO). -- SJK ( talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the 10 March parliamentary decision? The article needs to be updated... Zello ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There are more sources were that came from. Contralya ( talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These sources say "Norway To Recognise Kosovo." So Norway still hasn't officially recognised Kosovo as been independant. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Czechs to recognise Kosovo sooner or later - deputy PM Vondra Brussels- The Czech Republic will sooner or later recognise Kosovo's independence, but this will not happen before Easter, Czech Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra told journalists. The article is at [5]. I'd add this info to the page myself, but the page itself is blocked. Expatkiwi talk 16:51, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
For countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, a more meaningful reference-group would be their membership in the CIS. Listing them as members of the OIC is factually correct, but does nothing to explain their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 ( talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Read this [6]. IMHO that's enough to move SLovakia away from red (officially and finally denies recognition) to khaki (delaying recognition). -- Mareklug talk 12:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Slovakia needs time to decide whether it will recognize Kosovo, and that could take several years," Gašparovič told a news conference in Bratislava after talks with Crvenkovski, agencies reported. B92,March 11th
Whatever. Your disrespect to some countries is disgusting. But who am I talking to, you equalize Bjork with countries. -- Avala ( talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
equalize v. e·qual·ized, e·qual·iz·ing, e·qual·iz·es 1. To make equal: equalized the responsibilities of the staff members. 2. To make uniform. To constitute or induce equality, equilibrium, or balance. And that is exactly what I was saying. Now your baseless insults tell more about you than me.-- Avala ( talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoted on BBC Russian Service, that both Kosovo and Chechnya deserve independence. [7]. Yet another notable individual and expert (unaffialiated with any state) that we should quote. -- Mareklug talk 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had decided a while back not to list every individual orthodox church in Europe as they are all saying the same thing? And that to some users by naming every orthodox church was seen as Anti-Kosovo propaganda therefore not NPOV(i personally said this). Ijanderson977 ( talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
According to "Russian media" as quoted by the Serb indy news station "B92", Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are preparing to recognize Kosovo: [8]. Any firmer evidence? -- Mareklug talk 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This B92 News station is ok, but we need some references that area bit more official and reliable. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Any kind of statement like source would be good. I am not satisfied with current source for Morocco btw. Morocco is only mentioned in that source as worried but who knows how did the journalist come up with this.-- Avala ( talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Greek press is reporting that the Greek government has decided to recognise Kosovo and veto Macedonia's entry into NATO "between the end of March and the beginning of April." According to Thema tis Kiriakis, the aim is to "help smoothe Washington's annoyance" over a Macedonia veto. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovo newspaper Zeri is reporting that over the next week or so, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania are going to recognise Kosovo. Macedonia is expected is expected to follow suit fairly soon afterwards, as its official position is that it would not recognise Kosovo's independence until a majority of EU countries had done so. (If the first four countries mentioned do recognise Kosovo that would mean that threshold would be passed.) -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On 8 March 2008 the Serbian prime minister announced that he was going to dissolve the government and ask for new elections, because the coalition could not agree on their international response to the Kosovo situation. This was added to the Serbia entry in this article by someone else, and I reworded it to this:
Yesterday User:Avala removed this information, with the edit subject "That is domestic and not international reaction that this article is about".
I disagree - the falling of a government due to the inability to agree on the international response to the Kosovo situation is anything but domestic, and is very relevant to this article. So I reverted Avala's edit, with a sarcastic, "How's that again?" as edit subject.
So now Avala has removed the info again, [9] with an edit subject of "returning removed content. prime minister's opinion is not irrelevant actually it is more improtant as he has the initiative power." I.e., his edit subject does not mention the removal of this information.
Like I said, I think this information is very relevant to this article. Any other opinions? -- RenniePet ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Apart from conspiracy theories that I am trying to hide this (for who knows what reasons) can you provide some argument for inclusion of this information in the article?-- Avala ( talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't remember you gave a single link for your edits but OK, it's your honour. -- Avala ( talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you disclose how many times you uploaded a map with no comment whatsoever, usually reverting and without consensus, that is, forcibly overwriting other people's work and judgment? And, I guess making false accusations, such as the one above, and reverting covertly and persistently (on Commons and here) embodies your code of honor? -- Mareklug talk 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, someone keeps on deleting my discussion posts that the article is non-neutral. Stop being so anal about promoting your pro-Kosovo propaganda. Stop deleting my discussion posts that you don't like. Get a life. 68.164.235.145 ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We have already agreed that Orthodox Churches will be summed under "Orthodox Churches" (with a possible addition of Serbian Orthodox Church as a separate entry) instead of adding each and every Orthodox Church in the world. We have also concluded that since stances of Orthodox Churches are the same, the only reason to have them separately is for propaganda purposes.
I am tired of undoing his constant editions of the main page. It's becoming tedious.
So pls stop messing with that section. JosipMac ( talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism is bad-faith editing - please be sure this is the case rather than a genuine content dispute before accusing editors of this. If vandalism does occur, please warn the user first using templates such as {{
uw-v1}}
and if he persists, report at
WP:AIV.
AndrewRT(
Talk)
22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I will do if some does cause Vandalism to the page. It was not Vladar86, it was Kendobs. I am not going to report Kendobs yet as i do not think it is too serious vandalism to report as of yet, but if it does continue i will report him. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why Afghanistan is on the top of the list? Costa Rica recognized on February 17. Regardless how you compare it (local time or UTC) Afghanistan and Costa Rica differ by about 10 hours. So it is impossible for Costa Rica to recognize very late at night and Afghanistan very early in the morning. I think the order of those two countries should be swapped. (Tim) 3:07 UTC, March 12 2008 (UTC).
Is anybody going to start listing the dates on which Kosovo established diplomatic relations with countries? I see that Albania, the UK and Germany already have embassies functioning in Pristina, which would mean that diplomatic relations had been established. Can we get a listing going? Canadian Bobby ( talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In an interview by the Swedish reporter Lars Adaktusson, Kosovo's prime minister Hashim Thaci is optimistic about Kosovo's future. He says that Kosovo aims to become member of the NATO and the EU, and that Kosovo is a nation for all its citizens, also the Serbian minority. Hashim Thaci reveals that there are informal talks going on between his government and Russia; and he points out that the official Russian reaction differs from its pragmatic view shown during the informal talk. Hashim Thaci even says that Spain has indicated an intention to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo now when a majority of EU member states have done so. Hashim Thaci says that he is not worried that the Seriban part in the north will break away, and that he would show Carl Bildt (Sweden's foreign minister) also the northern part of Mitovica next time he comes to Kosovo. On March 8, Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to visit Kosovo since its unilateral declaration of indepence. See the program here: Interview with Hashim Thaci - 2008-03-11 (Video) (Interview in English). -- Camptown ( talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The second article included in this page for this territory about left independentists basks, is not representetative. I think must be edit, but i dont can.
For know the position of Batasuna politic group, read:
http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/posicion-batasuna-relacion-declaracion-unilateral-independencia-kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.42.52.166 ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An English translation of the Malaysia's statement is available in Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence/Malay translation as requested. Borisblue ( talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For all you pro Serbians who deleted Malaysia of the list with out looking for a new reference first, just because you wanted to make Kosovo seem like it had less support than it actually does. Here is an UNMIK reference to prove that Malaysia has officially recognised Kosovo.
[10] Yes it is in HTML form, but thats because you can not show a Microsoft word program using an internet browser. If you click the link at the top you can view it in its original format. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well i doubt UNMIK are going to miss interpret that. It is a reliable and valid reference.
The official Malaysian source is dated 20/02/08, whilst the UNMIK source is dated 21/02/08 so the UNMIK source is more up to date
Ijanderson977 (
talk)
19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well thats your word against the UN's. I'd rather believe what the UN says than you. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive read that translation, it says "Malaysia welcomes the independence of Kosovo that was announced by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on the 17th of February 2008", so thats what Malaysia said the day Kosovo declared independence. So that reference is way out of date Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough don't put Malaysia in the correct table. At the end of the day Malaysia recognises Kosovo weather you put it the correct table on this wiki article or not. I just thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and that you meant to tell the truth. Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the MOFA website in Malaysia, it says that Malaysia has a Liaison Office of Malaysia, in Pristina. Therefore it suggests that Malaysia has recognised Kosovo. It also says "Host Country: KOSOVO" so its referring to Kosovo as a country, not a region. [11] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But does Russia refer to Kosovo as a country? Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a proper and full translation of the Malaysian press release. It is imporatant as the UNMIK and the Malaysian representative to Kosovo has confirmed that Malaysia acturally recognize the declaration of independence. We shuold also remember that the procedure of recognition differs from country to country. What's the exact procedure in Malaysia? -- Camptown ( talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, we have a press release of the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia and a press release of the Kosovar president (whose translation was provided by cradle):
Pristina , 20 February ,2008 : The President of the Republic of Kosovo met today with the chief of the Malaysian office in Pristina , Mr.Mustafa J Mansor. Mr.Mansor informed President Sejdiu that the government of the country that he represents has recognized Kosovo as an independent state. He also said that Malaysia has decided to make it's office in Pristina an embassy, where Mr.Mansor would be the Ambassador
Those are the two sources we have to rely on in order to determine whether Malaysia recognized Kosovo or not. The UNMIK source is in fact a Media Monitoring citing a Newspaper ("Dailies"), thus we cannot be sure that they checked the facts. Additionally, just because MOFs website states that they have a Liason office in Kosovo (Host country: Kosovo) doesn't say much, look at [12]. Gugganij ( talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
B92 obviously believes that Malaysia recognized Kosovo [13]. On the other hand, they might just have consulted our article ;-) Gugganij ( talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If UNMIK misinterpreded the Malaysian government and wrongfully believed that Malaysia had recognized Kosovo - why didn't the Malaysian government protest? Probably because there wasn't anything to protest about.... -- Camptown ( talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, if the foreign ministry press release was the only information we have, then I would agree with Avala that Malaysia has given no formal recognition. However, we have more current sources that say that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo (including independent sources like Xinhua). The foreign ministry source does not contradict anything the other sources say. Therefore, the article should state that Malaysia does recognize Kosovo. I think the consensus in this discussion is that the article should be changed back. Borisblue ( talk) 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The no from Slovakia is apparently not necessarily forever, but only temporary, see http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48371 . — Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[15] Ijanderson977 ( talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Reportedly planning to recognise, but no official statement: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=11&nav_id=48370 — Nightstallion 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The present text says: "...the official recognition date has not been set." The provided source does not confirm this speculation. --23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)