Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Armenia

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=27633

Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And? Exactly why have you posted this? It doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with Kosovo, only mentioning it as an example of another region that some countries have recognized as a country.Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

More recognitions including from EU nations

[1] Czechia says that more recognitions should come, however I don't know if we can incorporate this in to the article. Maybe in the EU section as Czechia is to be EU president for the first half of 2009. Ijanderson (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like so, with a note about its presidency. Ad may I ask again, let's adjust the undue weight in the Slovakia write=up, as well as in other countries. Please. --Mareklug ^talk 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[2] More news on possible recognitons. Probably nothing addable, but interesting nonetheless. Bernerd (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, need a better source. Qatar has been on the verge of recognising for months - I'll believe it when I see it. But Maldives is a new one. Bazonka (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

@Mareklug, I have reviewed Slovakia and made a few changes. Hope it is now more balanced. Bazonka (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Qatar, the Maldives and three other states to soon recognise Kosovo... apparently

Balkan Insight 10/12/08 According to Behgjet Pacolli, he and his party have managed to secure recognition of Kosovo from Qatar and the Maldives and three other nations. Can we include this or not? Ijanderson (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yes. he's been accurate on malta, portugal and emirates.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.148.84 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Micronesia recognised Kosovo

Kosovothanksyou.com is reporting that Micronesia recognised Kosovo.

Dec 5, 2008, 22:32 CET

Today, Mr. Jeem Lippwe, Charge d’Affaires a.i. Federated States of Micronesia Permanent Mission to the UN notified Mr Hyseni, the Kosovo Minister of Foreign Affairs, that FSM has recognized the Republic of Kosovo. This news has been informally confirmed by the FSM Mission to the United Nations in New York for KosovoThanksYou and KosovoThanksYou team is waiting for the official confirmation by either party.

Considering this recognition, Federated States of Micronesia becomes the 53rd UN Member Country that has recognized the new republic as an independent state.

Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for a more official reference. I expect will get one in the next day or two. Bazonka (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Typing "Micronesia Kosovo" into Google News gives me this:

More Kosovo Recognitions 'Soon'
BalkanInsight.com, Serbia - Nov 14, 2008
Hyseni said he has received promises of imminent recognition from Micronesia, East Timor, and Oman.

So it was expected. --Mareklug ^talk 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been on the cards ever since they sided with the USA in the ICJ vote. Bazonka (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To me that vote was a big yawn,and not linear or congruent with recognizing Kosovo. Clearly it covers the ass of Serbia, w.r.t its public opinion internally. Other countries clearly voted for short term political gains or to help assimilate Serbia. We are not privy to what Jeremic thinks when he is unguarded. :) --Mareklug ^talk 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK as you wish Mareklug. The talk page clearly says

Notice the part Any such messages will be deleted. And because you were discussing Serbian Foreign Minister, covering the ass of Serbia, vote in the UN etc. in the section which is dealing with the Micronesian recognition of Kosovo I am issuing you a warning for violating the terms of that talk page which are clearly set in a Template:notaforum. Not only that it was off topic, it also did not limit discussion to improvement of this article.--Avala (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Telegrafi [3], Kohavision [4], Express [5] and other Kosovar media are also reporting the recognition quoting the Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs [6]. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200812051471/Politics/Micronesia-recognizes-Kosovo-independence.html Micronesia recognizes Kosovo independence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Micronesia still needs to be added to the recognition map. 141.166.153.117 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another world map?

Can we go back to the previous world map as the one we currently have on the article (the one that shows countries that have recognized Kosovo) doesn't prove the most useful for its purpose and continuous update? The map is so detailed that is prone to confuse the viewer. For instance, just by looking at the map, one cannot tell if Gambia has recognized Kosovo. And if Indonesia decides to recognize Kosovo some day, then someone will have to spend half an hour just coloring every single tiny island. It's just not practical. We should go back to the older one, which is still being used on the article for the countries that voted what on the UN resolution. Húsönd 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the previous .png map looked nicer. The amount of detail in the current map is too great for the scale that it's displayed at. However, I don't think it's as complicated as you think to update an .svg map. A minor change to the code will colour in an entire country. Bazonka (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PNG was nicer, plus I am able to edit PNG files, but not SVG. I'd prefer to return to the PNG file map. Ijanderson (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact it's rather easy to update the .svg map. Just download it, open it in an text editor, scroll down to the list of countries recognizing Kosovo, add the country code and save it. That's it - the additional country then gets automatically coloured green. Gugganij (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have that software, sorry. My laptop is not very good at editing images. Ijanderson (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka really did mean what he said - adding a 3 character code with a simple text file is all it needs to add a new country. It is much easier to update the svg file and for that reason I think it has been a mistake to switch to the png file.Dejvid (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about how easy it is to update the files. After all, the vast majority of users just look at the image and don't try to edit it. What's more important is presentation. The .svg image is just too detailed for the scale it's displayed at; the .png version is clearer and looks much better. This fact alone should override any updating concerns. The right decision has been made. Bazonka (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I support Bazonka on this. Ijanderson (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should use .png version too.--Avala (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

PNG is better; yes i am back. I have personal easy use with them... I edit the blank world map a lot... trying to recreate the 1914 map on the current version; which is hard because I don't remember how I did it back in 7th grade... always mess up Hungary's Russia border... now yes to PNG.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

@Ijanderson: In fact, I am neutral concerning which map to use in the article. I just wanted to point out that you do not need special software to alter .svg images - a standard text editor like WordPad should suffice. Although it might sound weird to open a downloaded image with WordPad, just try it out it's fast and simple. Gugganij (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As Gugganij, Emil, Bazonka, Dejvid and I have advocated, SVG is easy to change, and in our case, trivial. You just have to know how to. Sorry. And how it renders is completely a browser/user-agent issue, and MediaWiki makes it into a PNG anyway, at any particular size, for catholic compatibility with older graphical software. The important thing is that the SVG maps are transparent and editable even without a GUI. :) A blind person can edit and contribute corrections, by having a synthesizer or voice screen reader read aloud the simple xml markup that (usually) is the SVG-drawn map. Try that with a PNG. Making additions, such as my adding the missing Northern Cyprus boundary or Brunei was simple for our stock SVG maps. Incidentally, have a look at an SVG map vs. a PNG one on a modern interface, like the Apple Multi-Touch in a modern browser like Opera. :) --Mareklug ^talk 01:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, whilst .svg may be easier to edit, it doesn't look as good. This isn't a browser/technology issue, it's a map scale issue. Unless your monitor is the size of a cow, the sheer amount of detail in the .svg map makes it very difficult to see which countries are coloured in and which aren't. Look at Gambia for example - on the .svg it is totally obscured. The .png is much clearer as it is of a smaller scale. Ease of editing is largely irrelevant - only two or three people are active in updating the images, whilst countless others look at the maps. The needs of the majority must come first. Bazonka (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bazonka, I beg to differ with your reasoning - even as I agree with you, that the majority of the readers must be served well. Have you considered that the MediaWiki might be generating a poor PNG off of the faultless SVG, for the particular size we have chosen? Or that the editors using maps here might be undereducated in the available presentation tools for images? :) The point is, that if the SVG map is in place in the article, it can be exploded as a view, or shrunk, in a modern browser. A PNG can't.

For example, Opera 9 or 10 out of the box comes with a magnification control in the status bar in the bottom of the browser frame -- it magnifies graphics as well as reduces them -- not just the texts. And Opera is free, and if you don't like how the SVG maps are handled by the Wikipedia, or even more locally, by your own browser, try viewing in Opera. You will discover no need of a monitor as big as a cow :) Because the browser effortlessly and naturally zooms in and out of an SVG, but given a PNG, it just does not have the detail to allow the same level of control. So it is a matter of software being used.

And the limitations of software should not drive accessibility or choice of lower quality map over the higher quality map. And not that to this point I have said nothing of the ease of editing -- and here the vast majority of users can edit the thing, once they are told how easy it is, and what steps and software to use -- their text editor :). So... think it over. Also, look at the thing form a modern pocket device, such as the iPod touch. It does not even have yet a choice of browsers, and the built-in Safari Mobile effortlessly zooms in and out of the picture with pinching movement of two fingers. The SVG is not problem there at all, and the cow this size would be 2.5 inches tall. :)

You really should avail your self of proper tools before making such sweeping pronouncements. what looks better. And in the matter of making the SVG look better, let me show you here on the talk page the same SVG map, but in a different size, an you will find it adequate, I am sure. Again, having the SVG in place is much more thoughtful and permits more uses, including derivative uses in future articles and off Wikipedia including but not limited to printing out in high fidelity in hard copy. Or in use in projections to large audiences. Please don't be parochial in assessing what looks good, and who the majority is.

Here is the promised rescaled SVG, additionally set in the {{Wide image}} template of the sort popular for wide panoramic photographs of cities. It works very well for our needs, I should say. Of course, what you are looking at is a MediaWiki translation of the SVG into a PNG at a fixed 10101600-pixel size (feel free to play with different values):

Map of the international recognition of the Republic of Kosovo marked in dark green   . Kosovo itself is marked in red    in the map center.

Clearly this map is plenty fine for the joe-six-pack, laptop user, equipped only with the IE7. I know, because I tested it so (minuz the beer :)). And it looks superb on the iPod touch. Any questions? :) --Mareklug ^talk 09:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the question is what do we care if it looks good in 1600px (and ipod touch seems to be some kind of important information?) when it's supposed to look good in 650px which it doesn't. Just take a look at some countries on the .svg map like Chile (I know that they don't recognise but it doesn't mean it should like whateber) - it looks horrible. Just bunch of black lines.--Avala (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See Chile (png)

See Chile (svg) or "mane of a horse" Norway

Notice the difference in quality and detail?--Avala (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Avala. SVG looks great when you zoom in, but it's a world map - there's no need to see all the little islands and indentations around the coastlines, you only need to see whether countries are green or not. And even on a good quality browser/monitor, you can't really see what colour Gambia is on the SVG without zooming, even on the larger map above. On the PNG this is unnecessary - you can just see it. Bazonka (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I support what Bazonka is saying. This map is meant to illustrate which nations have recognised Kosovo and nation's which haven't, this map does not need to show detail as it is not illustrating geography as its primary purpose. Ijanderson (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Btw Mareklug has now expanded the map from 1010px to 1600px here with edit summary "you guys are nuts". Yet again Mareklug goes on insult spree when someone dares to disagree with him and I think we can expect in a few weeks he will start this discussion again because he is (as previous examples teach us) unable to concede that the community disagrees with .svg map. Simply put - everyone who disagrees with Mareklug is nuts. Before when he tried to put some ridiculous charges on me and no one agreed he went mad too with insulting everyone how they wont join him in accusations. His latest accusation at me is that I am doing "idiotic self-personalization with Serbia". Sigh.--Avala (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you guys are nuts. And you, Avala, are a hard-baked vengeful Wikipedian, hell-bent on having me suppressed. But that's no news.

If you guys don't want the coastlines, ask someone to make you a conventional simplified, canonical map, fit cartographically to the intended use, the kind you see in Time magazine, without the coastlines. But make it in SVG, for all the right reasons mentioned already. Your bloody laziness and (map) indolence are no excuse. EOT. --Mareklug ^talk

Those who disagree and are the majority are all nuts? Is that your argument? If that is your "argument" then thanks, now we have a complete consensus on including .png map because personal insults are NOT arguments. And you are really not helpful, you only come here to insult everyone.--Avala (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're mentioning Chile as an example of how great is the PNG version... for a Chilean, it's just awful... what's the problem with the islands... I don't see any problem in the SVG but in PNG, it's like Chiloé Island and 30% of the area of Chile has dissappeared suddenly. Maybe you can change the SVG so the borders and the coastlines look less dark... --B1mbo (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And hundreds of Indonesian islands are missing too. But do you know why? Because this is not an article on geography where we would learn about all Norwegian fjords or islands through a detailed map. It's a political article where only an overview map is needed and the .svg map is not an overview map even at 1600px (it's still dark and thoroughly detailed). So you should really wonder what is the map supposed to represent. Surely png map is awful if we are looking to showcase little islands but if the intention is to just provide a quick look for a reader on the world countries' political positions then it's not.--Avala (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to warn Mareklug to stop insulting us but he called me a "toiletpaperer". I can conclude that the warning really failed to reach to him because instead of apologizing he continued with the obscene behavior.--Avala (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Avala, the SVG file does exactly the same than the PNG file about "a quick look for a reader on the world countries' political positions"... the only problem I see is the case of Gambia that is just to small and should appear as a small circle. The only difference between both, as you said at first, is that "it seems ugly" all the islands. In my case, I think "it seems ugly" not to show the real geography in a map... in that case, we can put a map in which every country is a square or a circle located in a place over the map. Certainly, it's stupid. I trust more in a map that is more close to reality... I understand that the mess of black lines at Southern Chile, Norway and Indonesia isn't really pretty, but maybe if we reduce the size of the borders and coastlines, there won't b these problems. It is just changing two or three numbers in the SVG file. --B1mbo (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the png map is extremely ugly, because it appears crude and inaccurate, I much prefer the detailed svg map, with its geographic detail. As far as svg not being as "clear," i don't see how that's so, both maps present the same problem when it comes to smaller countries, except that svg looks more sophisticated. And contrary to what some have stated, the primary purpose of the map IS geographic detail, as far as political geography is concerned. If this were not the case, there would be no point in having a map, as we already have a written list. A map is pointless unless it is accurate, the more accurate the better. Maps can't always have such detail, but when possible, it is preferrable. The svg version is aesthetically and technically superior and more useful by far, imo.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The original style was the best looking: [7] Most world maps on WP use that style. I don't know why Ijanderson changed it. --Tocino 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tocino. (Wow, there's something I don't say often. Welcome back btw) I believe the original map was the clearest and best suited for the size its displayed at in this article.-- Bernerd (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on whether to bring back the original map or not?-- Bernerd (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Maldives to recognize Kosovo?

While at this point it is not publicly confirmed by government sources in the Maldives, it seems as if the Maldives will recognize Kosovo in the near future. [8] Maybe we could add this info to the article if it's deemed to be OK? I guess it won't hurt to mention the fact that Behxhet Pacolli, the leader of the opposition party AKR in Kosovo claimed that he got the support of the representative of Maldives in the USA (Ambassador?) for recognition and that it's due "any day now." [9] --alchaemia (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A little non-wikipedia bird told me that there are others that are to soon recognise as well. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its good that there are sources suggesting this, however we need something "straight from the horses mouth" to update the article, otherwise it can be considered POV. Lets give it a few days and see what happens. [10] This is another source suggesting the same thing. Ijanderson (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bobby I hope you were just sarcastic at alchaemia? We can't include this without some quotes. It doesn't mean that Behxhet Pacolli didn't buy Maldives (didn't he buy Malta too?) but just that this particular article can't have it atm. It's a news report with no quotes and no names and I think we agreed not to have those.--Avala (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want it included. It was just FYI for alchaemia and whomever else was interested. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaning what, exactly? I realize that this is not OMGCONFIRMED!11 - that's why I posted it here for discussion instead of doing the edit pre-maturely myself. --alchaemia (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Behxhet Pacolli "bought" Malta? Your writing is funny, Avala. Did he buy Portugal too? Or is it simply a case of Jeremic lying through his teeth? [11] We don't necessarily have to add it to the article, it's simply a lot of "rumors" that have proved to be true in the past (Malta, Portugal, UAE) --alchaemia (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was posted here. What do you think, that Pacolli just presented Kosovo case better than the State Department in February? Of course not. I don't think he bought Portugal, they said they did it under pressure. I think Jeremic misspoke because it was their President who openly said that prior to the UN vote and all, not FM. Anyway like I said, I have no doubts its true just that we should wait with article inclusion until we get some quotes.--Avala (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Pacolli did or did not do, but you shouldn't be claiming that he "bought" countries with no evidence whatsoever. Also, the article from BalkanInsight clearly states that the Portuguese government called Jeremic a liar when he said that "they told him they did it under pressure", so, stop trying to sell us that story. Yeah OK, let's wait. We don't want another premature EULEX editing, do we? ;) --alchaemia (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on him, by the way: Behgjet Pacolli (under constant attack by some IP from Lugano). Colchicum (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone he pissed off in Switzerland. Maybe the ISP should be contacted.--Avala (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the IP has been overly supportive of him. One may wonder if he is not Pacolli himself. Colchicum (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he is known to have made his fortune by editing Wikipedia. --alchaemia (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time a politician/government employee covertly edited wikipedia. Not saying this is the case here, just, don't knock it like it's far-fetched =)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to be recognized or not to be recognized from Maldives, is it very important? I think it are importance only from métropole and UN (in this case from Serbia, and all UNSC permanent members).Shadow Vogel (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to be recognized by as many states as possible. The UN is important, but not the end all be all of statehood. What "metropole" are you talking about? --alchaemia (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Behxhet Pacolli is reliable or not. This is just a "rumour". He may have been right before, but lets just wait for confirmation, so we can be NPOV. End of! Ijanderson (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

Has there been any more news since whenever?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll spare you the bickering below and say, "No." There is no news of significance beyond the usual conjecture and speculation. As soon as anybody knows anything, it will be posted. If it's not here, then nothing's happening. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean?Max Mux (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is something:

Pressure will be exerted by Western powers on the countries that have not recognized Kosovo to do so says Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic citing information received from Serbian embassies across the world and diplomatic talks held in them. “We have the information that in January and February some countries that are the most ardent supporters of Kosovo independence will increase those pressures,” said Jeremic.

--Avala (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for what Avala said Ijanderson (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't rely on that propaganda page.Max Mux (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200901021522/Politics/Up-to-50-new-recognitons-for-Kosovo-in-2009.html This seems to be more interesting.Max Mux (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Jeremic thing it's the same thing. What makes the first one propaganda and the second one interesting nobody knows.--Avala (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

serbianna.com is the most extreme propaganda I've ever read.Max Mux (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems they've got something in common with Kosova Report then:

Serbianna: Pressure will be exerted by Western powers on the countries that have not recognized Kosovo to do so says Serbia’s Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic citing information received from Serbian embassies across the world and diplomatic talks held in them. “We have the information that in January and February some countries that are the most ardent supporters of Kosovo independence will increase those pressures,” said Jeremic.

New Kosova Report: This has also been confirmed by the concerns expressed by the Serbia diplomacy. The Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic said that he expects that the countries that back the independence of Kosovo will pressure those countries that have not yet recognized Kosovo. We received information that in January or February some of the countries that back the independence of Kosovo will begin such pressure, said Jeremic. Jeremic received such information from the Serbian embassies around the world.

--Avala (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Avala's efforts, he has kindly provided us sources saying the same thing from media aligned to both Kosovo and Serbia. Cheers mate Ijanderson (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, agree with Max. That site is so wild, especially with the terminology, it's actually comical. But yeah, the general rumor is that there are an expected 50 to 70 new recognitions in early 2009. Jeremic has said 50, Hyseni has said 70. Not that it matters for this page right now, but it's nice to see that all the regular editors are checking in regularly and are ready for any new recognitions or statements. Exo (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Serbianna.com is a pathetic little propaganda machine devoid of any seriousness in its "reporting." NewKosovaReport is, conversely, pretty enthusiastic about Kosovan Independence, and is sometimes too cheerful in that regard. But while NKR is merely biased, Serbianna is downright xenophobic and laughable. --alchaemia (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican's signals

Is it just me or the rest of you? Pope's statement was Kosovo and Serbia not Kosovo and Central Serbia as the wikipedia article of Kosovo's surrounding countries is explained as.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=01&dd=09&nav_id=56310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.5.249 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Central Serbia is a more or less unofficial term for a region within Serbia. Its use has been forced on the Wikipedia article because pro-Serb editors here feel that using just Serbia shows a bias towards the Kosovan point of view. The Vatican does not have to worry about these things.Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG hes right! Seriously this is a joke. It doesn't even relate to the article. Ijanderson (talk)

ICJ section

I think the cleaned up version is much easier to read, and dispenses with a lot of useless information, like the list of every country in the UN and how they voted (already available as a map and as a reference) and the complete text of the UNGA resolution (most of which is redundant background). I know that EmilJ objected, though, so I won't revert. But I think it's a pretty obvious improvement. LSD (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We decided to have a longer section here until the article is created.--Avala (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EmilJ and Avala on this, there is no need for change, it works as it is. There is a saying "if its not broke, why fix it". Ijanderson (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Panama recognizes Kosovo

In the official web-site of the RTK (state-owned public TV in Kosovo) it states that Skender Hyseni reported that Panama recognized Kosovo as an independent state. The news is hot and probably we'll see more in international media soon. The link is below:

http://www.rtklive.com/?newsId=30906 -mmm, 10:25, 16 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=3213 has reported the news, but i could not find any english sources. --Lilonius (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, lets try and find an English Language source to back up these sources, then we should update the article acordingly. Ijanderson (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally here it is... http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/16012/

I think we can update the page now. -mmm, 11:25, 16 Jan 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesuta (talk • contribs)

Cheers done Ijanderson (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the official government source (in Spanish). --alchaemia (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for good measure, this note from the President of Panama. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina to recognise Kosovo?

Source: Serbianna This is according to Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rafi Gregorian. How/ can we update the article? Ijanderson (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Serbianna is not a reliable source and the information is purely speculative. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's highly pro-Serb, so if there were no basis to this rumour they probably wouldn't publish it. But who knows? We certainly need another source. Bazonka (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a thing can't be approved because both the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina need ethnic consensus. Unless Bosnian Serbs are pulling this so they could secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina (they did adopt a resolution to that in case the majority of EU states recognise Kosovo they will have an independence referendum) it's not going to happen. And he said "I think that it would be good to happen now, because it could have an impact on Bosnia’s division" - looks like they will indeed do it in order for B-H to be peacefully divided like Czechoslovakia all before the EU accession talks go too far (they aren't going anywhere though due to the same consensus stalemate). --Avala (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is some master plan to divide Bosnia, but I do agree that it isn't very likely that it will happen soon. It will happen, but maybe within a year or so. I read the same statement in other media as well. --alchaemia (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Finnish embassy opened

As of Feb. 1, the Finnish Liaison Office in Pristina is now the Embassy of Finland. [12] Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Ijanderson (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind

Scratch this heading.. sorry found someone posted what I found and posted earlier...

Thanks and keep up the good work on this article! Ajbenj (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New recognitions in the near future

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/16265/Max Mux (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To save you from clicking on the link... BalkanInsight have summarised the top stories in Kosovo's main newspapers. They quote the Infopress paper as saying that "Kosovo is to receive more recognitions by February. The list includes Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Yemen, some states of the Caribbean, Mozambique and East Timor". Infopress seems to have no web presence, so I can't get further information. But anyway, it all seems to be rumour and conjecture, and without a better source it is of no use for this article. Bazonka (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Some awesome Google skills there. Infopress certainly has a web presence,[13] including, but not limited to, the very same article BalkanInsight has summarized.[14] --alchaemia (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200901291586/Politics/Several-more-countries-to-recognize-Kosovo-by-first-independence-anniversary.html

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200901291583/Politics/Ternava-Kingdom-of-Saudi-Arabia-will-recognize-Kosovo-independence-soon.html

NKR is also reporting similar news. But there is not much we can do with this news yet except wait. Ijanderson (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the FM of Kosovo saying that there will be not many recognitions from the Arab and Muslim world due to Gaza crisis but that they hope for a certain number of smaller countries to recognize Kosovo. It's probably consistent with this list of Caribbean states, Timor etc. and they still hope for that soon to happen imminent recognition of Saudi Arabia.--Avala (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear that, Serbianna? That's not what he said at all. He said that due to complications with the Gaza crisis, many Arab countries are concentrating on that and have been sidetracked but that they will recognize in due course. --alchaemia (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be worth updating the main page's Saudi Arabia entry to say that they've reaffirmed that they will recognise soon? [15] Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovar Ministry of Foreign Affairs has news items up about discussions with Pakistan[16] and Ecuador[17] about recognition. These may warrant updates to the main page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea: The Kosovo FM's official list "Countries Recognitions" could be added as weblink to our article. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also talk that New Zealand will recognize soon[18][19], but nothing has been confirmed yet. --alchaemia (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh New Zealand's previous govt was really pro UN, but the new current govt is really pro UK, US & Australia. Ijanderson (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has a long policy of not recognising countries but Govts. It would be a huge slap in the face of the former PM which wants a top job at the UN, but let's wait and see.--Avala (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a slap in the face to refer to her as a thing ("which wants...") as opposed to a human being ("who wants...") ;) But in all seriousness, recognition can be granted in multiple ways, and recognition from New Zealand - when it happens - I'm sure will be in the way they see fit and in line with their tradition. --alchaemia (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh thanks for that. It wasn't my intention to refer to her as a thing. But have you seen their recognition of Montenegro? It's a congratulatory letter for joining the UN. That's it, nothing further. NZ doesn't have mutual diplomatic relations on ambassadorial level with Serbia too. It would be very odd to see them both changing their policy of recognition and getting sudden high interest in the Balkans. But like I said, we'll wait and see.--Avala (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily the policy of New Zealand per se. That was just Helen Clark's position, but since she's no longer the PM but someone who's very pro-US and pro-UK, that "policy" may very well change - obviously, establishing diplomatic relations is a perfectly normal procedure when recognizing someone; Qatar does it that way too, for example. --alchaemia (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ will have recognised Montenegro, though there will not have been a "big fuss" about it in the media as it won't have been as notable as it would be if they were to "recognise Kosovo", because everyone was expected to recognise Montenegro because it wasn't unilateral and was 100% legal. However it is a different matter recognising as it is more controversial and it is not expected from every country, also the media has a field day each time someone recognises Kosovo as it makes "good news". Ijanderson (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't specific enough. It wasn't the media coverage, but the MFA of Montenegro that proudly published a scan of each recognition letter they got. So now check the difference between what they got as the US and NZ recognitions - US and NZ. While one uses the clear wording "I am pleased to inform you that the United States government recognizes the Republic of Montenegro as a sovereign and independent state" with congratulations, the second one only says "The New Zealand Government congratulates the Republic of Montenegro on its entry to the United Nations" omitting the recognition as such because New Zealand simply doesn't do it. Talking about Kosovo and some other issues a few months later their FM said that NZ has this policy so that they wouldn't end up in a position to derecognise later. And as Helen Clark said, it is not their position to recognise unilateral moves. And obviously a UN congratulatory letter is out of question here.--Avala (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Helen Clark is not the PM anymore, so I'm not sure how much her words bear significance. Yes, it wasn't the policy of her government to recognize countries swiftly and with letters of recognition, but she doesn't have a government anymore to have a policy of. There's a new government in town, and it has new policies and new rules. We know that they're very friendly towards the US, and the UK - two principal backers of Kosovo's independence. A recognition by New Zealand is not an exercise in futility, but a very logical turn of events in light of changes in government and new information. Also, just because NZ sent a congratulatory note to MNE on their membership in the UN does not mean that that's the moment they recognized. That's just the moment they felt it was necessary to congratulate MNE for their membership in the UN. If membership in the UN was the criteria NZ set toward recognition of states, it wouldn't have recognized Switzerland, for example, nor, for that matter, Vatican. It clearly does. --alchaemia (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well considering she was the PM for so long I guess that she was indeed talking about her Govt but I am not sure. Like I said before, that letter is officially considered by Podgorica to be the letter of recognition by New Zealand. It's not the media reporting, it's not my guess but the position of Montenegro MFA. Anyway regarding Switzerland and Vatican, they are not disputed it was/is their wish not to be part of the UN and you know it. Vatican today as Switzerland was before is member of many UN bodies and has permanent observer status which means they only don't vote (not because someone doesn't allow them to do so but because the nature of Vatican is such that they don't want that. Swiss didn't do it for the sake of neutrality.). Let's not play to be ignorant and destroy the discussion.--Avala (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all important what MNE considers to be the letter of recognition in this case. What is important is that Helen Clark doesn't have a government anymore, and her words should be viewed in that context. Somebody else is leading NZ now, and that somebody else has different perspectives on various matters. So, let's just wait and see what happens. --alchaemia (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Greece is expected to announce the recognition this month. The internal sources from the Helen government confirm that the greek gov't has already made their decisions. Greek FM is to visit Kosovo and Serbia on February 2 and 3.

http://www.kosova-sot.info/?p=23182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Link is dead.--Avala (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And now after I searched the web I found that this is yet another attempt to fill Mrs. Bakoyannis with words she never said. It's probably the third or fourth attempt by Kosovo media and politicians to do this. The media have talked to her today and she again had to refute this, she said that the Greek position on Kosovo remains unchanged and they will also consider "in the spirit of friendship and cooperation" to send documents to the ICJ like Serbia asked them to do.--Avala (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? And the link works. --alchaemia (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It only says "Së shpejti, gazetën KOSOVA SOT mund ta lexoni me abonim.". Ijanderson gave the link.--Avala (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The link works. I'm not sure why it isn't working for you. Here's a quote (in Albanian):

Burime diplomatike bëjnë të ditur se Greqia do të njohë shpejt pavarësinë e Kosovës. Shteti helen është në prag të njohjes së pavarësisë së Kosovës. Sipas burimeve diplomatike të gazetës, njohja do të ndodhë gjatë këtij muaji. Në rastin më të mirë, para njëvjetorit të pavarësisë

Not vouching for its factual accuracy, obviously, but its existence cannot be denied. --alchaemia (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

we shall see you Carpathian Shkja! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Source: B92 "Greek FM: Position on Kosovo unchanged" 01-02-09 Ijanderson (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Informal probe: rename to International recognition of Kosovo

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to International recognition of Kosovo. ~~~~

---

09:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please. It's time. If there is substantial interest, I will initiate the WP:RM procedure. I just created the pl interwiki to this article, which is why the issue of its correct, concise naming came back to me. Best wishes to all. --Mareklug ^talk 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The current name was suitable around the time of the declaration of independence. Back last February and March was when countries gave their reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. But since them, some countries have changed their position. Some have changed their position from been neutral and decided to recognise Kosovo such as Malaysia and Montenegro. Some have also switched from been neutral and decided to become anti Kosovo, such as Slovakia and Singapore. Also some countries at first have appeared neutral or anti Kosovo, but have hinted at possible recognition in the future. Many countries have changed their original position since the the declaration of independence almost a year ago, therefore the title is no longer appropriate. For this reason I support the name change of the article to "International recognition of Kosovo". Also recognition is the key theme to the article, countries have stated whether they will/ have recognise or that they wont recognise. Ijanderson (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree per nominator and User:Ijanderson977.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that votes should wait until Marek or someone else makes a formal request of the move at WP:RM. He just asked whether there is enough interest to start this formal procedure. — Emil J. 11:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a formal request at WP:RM, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#4 February 2009 Ijanderson (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle to this move, although I think some further clarification is needed in the title. Serbia recognises Kosovo... as part of its own territory. But it doesn't recognise the independence of Kosovo. So perhaps "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" or "...of the independence of Kosovo" would be more appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" then, shall I update on WP:RM? Ijanderson (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see already some people support making the name simpler and more concise this time. But the creeping dismantling of concision, as evidenced here, troubles me. @Bazonka: Just as nonrecognition can be described no different under the new title, as it ever was under the old one, Serbia's (also) evolving recognition/nonrecognition is nothing out of scope. There's no reason to encumber the title with more "stuff". It's only an address for us to anchor the recognition-related content to, and it's supposed to be cookie-cutter simple, replicable, guessable. "International recognition of Whatever" works for me. --Mareklug ^talk 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And the "Whatever" in this case is "the Republic of Kosovo". Just "Kosovo" is potentially ambiguous (a redirect would mitigate any concerns of guessability). Bazonka (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I think that in this case common sense suffices to understand that Kosovo refers to the Republic of Kosovo. Either version of the new title is fine with me. — Emil J. 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - if it is renamed to that then we will have to remove all of the information that is not concerning the recognition which means all sections except "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" must be erased in that case. It would be OR to put information regarding nonrecognition to an article that specifically deals with recognition. I think you should just create a new article called International recognition if you want to have the concise one. In other case we are up for a massive cut in the article which would be sad considering all the effort.--Avala (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reasons why a country won't recognise are surely relevant to an article on recognition. I don't see why the content of the article needs to change at all.Bazonka (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My point, also. I don't personally see me cutting anything on account of making the title apt and concise. --Mareklug ^talk 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka and Mareklug, we don't need to cut anything. Reasons why a country won't recognise Kosovo would also belong on International recognition of Kosovo. If we were to only include nations which have recognised, that would be in violation of WP:FORK. Therefore we would include states which have recognised and countries which haven't recognised, just like the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Changing the title does not involve cutting any information at all and I can't see how changing the title would be in violation of WP:Original Research. Ijanderson (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, because this is what the article actually deals with. Therefore, there should not be any cut in the article after a renaming. --DaQuirin (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM:

• I am not so sure about this one. Do you really want the article to deal solely with recognition, omitting reaction? It means that we will have to erase almost 70% of the article and keep only one table, and that would be sad considering all the effort.--Avala (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It means nothing of the sort. We have no article anywhere of the form: "international reaction to XYZ's independence". We don't even have an International reaction article, because that is a vague, useless notion in and of itself. All "international reaction to something" articles pertain to various sundry events like milk scare in China or a another skirmish on the Lebanese-Israeli border. But we do have an International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and we have a redirect International recognition of Northern Cyprus, pointing to Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus (not enough happened there to justify a separate article!). And yes, we do have an International recognition -- a redirect to Diplomatic recognition, because it is synonymous and the two terms describe the same thing. And there is something to describe there. :) Finally, making the article title properly concise and predictable in no way calls for cutting out 70% of its content! That's just a straw man argument. The article discusses recognition afforded Kosovo by states. Some do, some don't. The article tries to describe each case, as it arises or undergoes evolution, per WP:WER/WP:NPOV. What any one country says regarding this issue, once it says anything, boils down to recognizing Kosovo or not recognizing. There is no middle ground. There is no reacting that is not recognition or denial of same. I don't know how any of this could be controversial, as it is self-evident. There must be other reasons for insisting on keeping an awkward name, but the argument given here, in its defense, is just not germane or persuassive. In an ideal world, a person once acquainted with one such "international recognition of Whatever" article, would safely assume that in some other case, that article will also be called "international recognition of Something". And that is the real reason why we need to rename this misnamed article, not as slippery slope to cut stuff. Any content that is removed is removed for a good reason, such as it being biased, or untrue, or possessing undue weight. --Mareklug ^talk 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM: (please keep all discussion here) 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes that is your opinion but the opinion that recognition deals with recognition only and not reactions (especially not neutral) could prevail at some point and we would loose a lot of information. I am not proposing that we erase, I only think that someone could show up and say that and actually do it. And I still don't see any specific hard reasons to do this, and you need them to move an article that has had this name for almost a year.--Avala (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• @ Avala Non-recognition fits under the criteria for International recognition of Kosovo and so does the reasoning behind non-recognition. You keep mentioning about erasing and cutting part of the article, but this is only you. Every other person in this discussion does not want to delete anything, just changing the title. Ijanderson (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes someone added this from another discussion (at WP:RM) here so it looks like I am insane repeating myself lol. Anyway I am afraid that reactions, that are not nonrecognition or recognition, just neutral comments like Nicaragua could get erased. I also added some more thoughts there.--Avala (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    WP:RM is just a place for notifying the proposed move. All discussion in the "Other" section there gets methodically moved to the relevant talk page. The "more thoughts" you added have been moved here as well, see above. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Strictly speaking, your argument goes well against the "2008 declaration of independence" too. All the newer reactions are not focused on the declaration itself but on the ensuing "recognition war" as some people call it. I think you could join the majority here, because everybody seems to agree with your underlying assumption that nothing should be left out from the content of the present article. --DaQuirin (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with Avala that we would have to remove anything from the article if renamed. The entire set of reactions described throughout the article is related to the recognition of Kosovo so it is relevant and will remain. Húsönd 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not proposing that we erase, I only think that someone could show up and say that and actually do it. And I still don't see any specific hard reasons to do this, and you need them to move an article that has had this name for almost a year.--Avala (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because the title change could give certain editors an incentive to abuse the article. --Tocino 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support per User:DaQuirin's arguments above. What ever the article or situation once was, the target title reflect what the article deals with now. A move would not entail removing any information. — AjaxSmack 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article could do with a more concise title, and as Ian noted, new statements coming in are no longer direct reactions to the 2008 DOI which happened a year ago. The only arguments raised against are apparently baseless accusations of evil intention on part of unspecified editors. — Emil J. 16:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support as well. The new title would be clearer and shorter. --alchaemia (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: currently 9 supporting users (including nom) and 2 opposing users. Ijanderson (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to move away and vote neutral for the sake of consensus, under one condition - Mareklug should make a statement here that he will not use the new title to abuse the article by any content removal. I am sorry but the experience on this article has thought me to exercise caution.--Avala (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything for Wiki. And an occasional Vicky. I will not use the new title to abuse the article by any content removal. --Mareklug ^talk 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that, no content removal. Purely title change. I will revert any content removal coincided with title change. We should now archive this discussion. Ijanderson (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we of one mind now?

With only one "oppose" apparently remaining, issued because the title change could give certain editors an incentive to abuse the article, now followed by a pledge by two prominent editors who vowed not to do so :), do we have complete unanimity? And if so, Wikipedia:Be bold would suggest to me, that anyone may simply move the article to International recognition of Kosovo, acting so with the wishes of the community. Well? --Mareklug ^talk 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) P.s. With 2 entries in the page history, albeit trivial, it may require page deletion by and admin, should a move over the redirect fail.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Parliament

The EP has adopted a resolution calling on all EU states who have not recognised Kosovo to do so. B92 We should update the article. Ijanderson (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the section on European Parliament should be expanded with this.--Avala (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another report: [20]. I've added something to the article. Bazonka (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Morocco, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Barbados on Kosovo MFA site

Some more info from Kosovo's MFA on some states with previously undeclared positions:

People and institutions of Morocco Kingdom support the will of Kosovo people

Recognition of Kosovo by Pakistan just a matter of time

Ethiopia to come up with a decision for Kosovo at right time

Minister Hyseni requests recognition from Barbados

Perhaps we can add more country listings and update Pakistan in the "not recognised" section? Ajbenj (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some news we could use in the future Ijanderson (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuff added. Bazonka (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maldives

Kosovar media is reporting the recognition of Kosova's independence by the Maldives. See link [21]. Shall we wait for a confirmation from other sources or should we act now? Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's in New Kosova Report too (English language): [22]. There's a factual error about the location of the islands though. They also hint at future recognition from Namibia, Angola and Qatar. Bazonka (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We should update the article. The Maldives doesn't have a large internet presence but I dare say Serbian and Balkan sites such as B92 and Balkan Insight will report the news soon. Ijanderson (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

'Tis done. Bazonka (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Maldives Foreign Ministry website has a story up, dated today, that says the Maldvies will recognise "soon."[23] Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a bit of a conflict of information here. I've undone my update to the article - we need clarification of what's going on. Bazonka (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Albanian article says that the recognition was confirmed to Pacolli by the authorities of the Maldives, but the MFA of Maldives speaks of "recognition soon" and the MFA of Kosovo has not released anything either. Kosovothanksyou.com is also waiting for confirmation. Exo (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Maldives recognition is the result of work undertaken by a Kosovar opposition politician. Since he was the pivotal person in this recognition he was informed this morning of the decision -- and decided to share the news to demonstrate that his work is producing results -- and later today the official recognition paper will be handed to the Kosovar representative in Washington. So, it might be smart to wait for a few hours until the Kosovar MFA confirms this. Although the Kosovar MFA will be in a particular rush to publish the news that has come as a result of the work by an opposition party. Hope this helps clarify the situation. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is still "coming soon", the following link seems to mean that this is a real imminent event not a Saudi Arabia style "coming soon". http://www.foreign.gov.mv/v2/news.php?news=3029 Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon later today, or Monday at the latest. Time will tell though... Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. Also, we will probably see several/many new recognitions in the next few weeks. With the anniversary coming up soon Kosovo is probably in detailed talks with many of the undecided states, hoping to hit a significant milestone (75 or 100) in number of recognitions. Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maldives Update

OK, the news source that announced the recognition is clarifying that the MFA of Maldives will post the news of the recognition today before their workday ends on their website. [24] Exo (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated again: Here is the exact text of their letter: "You can let your Foreign Minister know that the Maldives recognize the passports of Kosovo, while the matter of full diplomatic recognition can happen soon if he officially writes to us." Exo (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Maldives did not recognise Kosovo today. Kosovothanks you.com says that it will recognise "soon." Can anybody add anything else? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Pacolli says that the Foreign Minister of Maldives will hand the recognition letter to the Kosovar Ambassador to the US today (Avni Spahiu). Maybe they'll formally announce it on Monday. --alchaemia (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody called up the Kosovo embassy to ask them if they know anything about this? Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we add a section under "states which do not recognise Kosovo as Independent" with the statement of the Maldives MFA? That is until actual, official recognition is announced... Ajbenj (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I considered doing that, but since indications are that the recognition is coming very soon, I thought it probably wan't worth the effort. Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just called. A recording says, "Thank you for calling the Embassy of the Republic of Kosovo. For the ambassador, press '1.' For all other staff, press '2.'" I hit '2' and the phone rang and rang and nobody answered, so I guess they've left for the weekend. Drat it all ;-) - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the official recognition will come this weekend, so I've added Maldives to the non-recognisers section for the time being. Bazonka (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just journalists jumping to conclusions or misinterpreting information, some sort of confusion. However we have been able to make an update for Maldives. Ijanderson (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There we are, it seems the Maldives have recognized Kosovo. But no: This is the main reason for recognising Kosovo, Maldivian foreign minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed said. The Maldives will announce the date of its recognition after official discussions. [25]. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This source says the same [26] Ijanderson (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have done it now. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=36280 84.134.67.229 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. That source is just quoting the original questionable New Kosova Report source. Bazonka (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE "Kosovo declared independence from Serbia last year despite angry protests from Serbia and Russia. On Monday, the Maldives recognized Kosovo, becoming the 55th country to do so. Turkey and many Western countries swiftly recognized Kosovo soon after it declared independence and pledged to improve ties with it." Source = http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=166606&bolum=100

Kosova2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.0.131 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

- It seems that Maldives initiated the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state or will do it very soon. Have a look at Kosovo ministry of foreign affairs official website:

http://www.foreign.gov.mv/v2/news.php?news=3029

We probably need another confirmation, but I think we have to keep an eye on this subject because it will probably happen very soon. Mesuta (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How about you try reading the previous discussion and the article, both reflect what you have just said Ijanderson (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about ignoring it? :), I realized that after I posted so apologies... Mesuta (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies on Wikipedia in this matter

• C'mon. We can't ahve two articles saying different things here:
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo%E2%80%93Maldives_relations&diff=next&oldid=269239998
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=269992513#States_which_have_officially_expressed_intent_to_recognise --Mareklug ^talk 13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sort of, anyway; we should not have an article on foreign relations between Kosovo and the Maldives in the first place until they recognize each other, but I don't think it's a good idea to try to delete the article just now when there is a good chance that recognition will come soon. — Emil J. 13:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That user Turkish Flame was warned so many times for creating those articles that are against the AfD decision. He is always very close to getting blocked for many other reasons but he keeps doing it. It's almost obsessive behaviour.--Avala (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Add "About to recognise" section again

I think that this section should be added again, even if it will last only for a few days, so it would include Maldives and Pakistan. Any thoughts?--Avala (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but its not needed as such, plus it wouldn't relate to the map. Just add them when/ if they do recognise. This way if they decide not to recognise, we won't have given the reader false information. If you really want to do it, I haven't got an issue with it. But I just think, "if its not broke, why fix it". But I'm not that bothered in all fairness. Ijanderson (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a troublesome section last time because we'd add a country and then they'd do nothing. Saudi Arabia is the rather (in)famous example. What we could do is have a section titled something like, "Officially expressed intent to recogise" or similar. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We should not have an "about to recognise" section. Countries would either be in it for a very short time (not worth the effort), or could stay in it indefinitely (unacceptable). An "intent to recognise" section is better, but the countries that would go in it are still "States which do not recognise Kosovo as independent" - therefore that section ought to be renamed to exclude the intenders. Not sure how we could do that without extreme awkwardness. Bazonka (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Bobby. "Officially expressed intent to recogise" sounds good.--Avala (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Most of the quotes are coming from Kosovo Albanians instead of the actual nations. We see time and time again that nations supposedly say that they will recognize (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bangladesh, Timor Leste, etc.) and nothing ever happens. The pace of recognition is going extremely slow, so if we add this section again these "imminent recognizers" are likely to to be on the list for a long long time, or until the Kosovo Albanians accept compromise. --Tocino 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We should only add those whom we can quote at the highest level saying recognition is coming and through the reliable sources and atm it is only the Maldives.--Avala (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But this allows for unnecessary wiggle room. What if a Kosovo Albanian politician says that he's spoken to Mr. Smith from Countryland and Mr. Smith told him that his nation will recognize "soon"... do we add this, considering the track record of similar statements? I really don't see the sudden need for the reinstatement of this section. --Tocino 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They won`t accept your stupid compromises, they are independent now. Accept that!Max Mux (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with Tocino on this one. I suggest that no country stays in this section for more than two weeks (and I'm being generous there). Hence if the Maldives doesn't sort out its recognition soon, it should be moved back to the Non-Recognisers section. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ok just like with Saudi Arabia.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections

I propose that the section "States which do not recognise Kosovo as independent or have yet to decide" be renamed "States which have not formally recognized Kosovo" as it is more concise. The formally recognized section could stay at the same name or be changed to parallel this ("States which have formally recognized Kosovo"). Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to describe the current state of recognition or nonrecognition, so the past tense in not appropriate. Neither is the "have yet to decide" part, as you either recognise or you don't, there is no such thing as being undecided. IMO we should return to the original name "States which do not recognise Kosovo as independent" before Rohlip's change a few hours ago, and leave "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" as it is. — Emil J. 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how a record of what has happened is not appropriately written in the past tense. The recognitions were given, that IS past. I don't really want to push it, I was mainly trying to clean up the clunky "States which do not recognise Kosovo as independent or have yet to decide" formulation. YOur proposal does that as well, so I'll go along with that. Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Emil.--Avala (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "...or have yet to decide" bit is is utterly superfluous. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, because there's a difference between Russia and Pakistan, both in attitude and likelihood of recognition. Yet we lump both of them in one camp, with a pretty strong title inferring that recognition has been considered and rejected. --alchaemia (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Emil said, with recognition there is no middle thing - they either do or do not and that is what the article deals with, not crystallballing.--Avala (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't crystal-balling to rightly suggest that there's a difference in attitutude and likelihood of recognition between Pakistan and Russia. --alchaemia (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha, Emil, Avala, and Bazonka. Nations have had a year to decide. Either you recognize or you don't. --Tocino 19:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as it is, nothing wrong with the current title, "if its not broke, why fix it?" The "...or have yet to decide" part is unneeded. Ijanderson (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rohlip (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned Koov (talk · contribs) and should be blocked on sight. Colchicum (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo to open more embassies

The President signed a decree today ordering the establishment of eight more embassies. They will be located in Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Japan. The article should be updated with this information. [27] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremic: 30 recognitions on Feb 17

Serbian FM Vuk Jeremic says that 30 countries will recognise Kosovo tomorrow on Feb 17. He proceeds to say how he will do everything to stop it so I can imagine that the number is 15 so that he could brag about stopping some recognitions. Anyway here is the link [28] it's in Serbian language.--Avala (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find out more about this. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another link, in English: [29] Emto (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So where are all these recognitions then? I would have expected the Maldives at least to have finalised their recognition by now. I'll be surprised if there are more than two or three by the end of the day - certainly not 30, and even 15 is unlikely. But we shall see... Bazonka (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Bobby said that he is on it, trying to find out more.--Avala (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My source told me that it was simply propaganda and nothing more. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of whom? Considering that this was said by President of Kosovo a few weeks ago as well.--Avala (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this was posturing on the part of Jeremic and that he was well aware there would be no new recognitions today. It's positioning him to be able to say, "See, we thought there'd be 30, but there weren't because I stopped it!" Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Never took him for a joker. The other explanation is that he just picked it up from Kosovo president. Anyway since we are there do you have any source to tell you what are they doing in the Maldives exactly? Did India stop their action, did the global warming flood arrive few years early or are they just unbelievably slow?--Avala (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My source told me that the Maldives would recognise within one month of the announcement, which was on February 4. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah! :-) Húsönd 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The President of Kosovo said no such thing. Just because this guy is lying through his teeth - again - does not mean that somebody else said and he just repeated it. --alchaemia (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No new recognitions. You would at least expect these "imminent recognizers" such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. to give the Kosovo Albanians a present on their anniversary, but no, instead we have yet another victory for Serbian diplomacy. --Tocino 23:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Time is on Kosovo's side. The number is recognitions is growing, not shrinking. Just keep "winning." --alchaemia (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The pace has slowed considerably since the summer and I would watch out for withdrawal of recognition by a few countries (Czech Republic, Montenegro, Costa Rica, and Peru seem most likely). --Tocino 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

According to what reliable sources? --alchaemia (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you guys happen to read those things written at the top of this page?--Avala (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We should ignore Tocino.Max Mux (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive search

Now, it finally works. --Hapsala (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Australia

In the letter the President of the Republic of Kosovo received from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Australia, says that Australia has established diplomatic ties with Kosovo and the ambassador that represents Australia to the country of Kosovo, Peter Shannon who presented its credentials on Sep 15. Also google has Albanian translator now. ....

http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,1239

Australia ka qenë një prej vendeve të para që ka bërë njohjen e pavarësisë së Kosovës më 19 shkurt 2008 dhe zyrtarisht i ka vendosur marrëdhëniet diplomatike më 21 maj 2008.Ambasadori i Australisë në Republikën e Kosovës, Ekselenca e tij z. Peter Shannon, ka prezantuar kredencialet e tij më 15 shtator 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On their MFA website it says only "Australia officially established diplomatic relations on 21 May 2008.".--Avala (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, with big white letters on the top [30]. --alchaemia (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the ambassador on non residential basis.--Avala (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the letter says. Please either read what is written, or have someone explain it to you. --alchaemia (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is what diplomatic relations of 21 May covers, the credentials presenting date is irrelevant because it repeats every few years.--Avala (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro, full diplomatic relations

There are reports in the Kosovar media of Montenegro establishing full diplomatic relations with Kosova. They seem to quote the Podgorica daily ‘Vijesti,’ so I am not sure if the diplomatic relations have been established or the process of establishing full diplomatic relations has started. Here is the link from Telegrafi: [31]. Can someone find out more precise information and, if so, update the page with the relevant developments. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

B92 and Balkan Insight are reporting that Montenegro and Kosovo are soon to have diplomatic relations B92 Balkan Insight Ijanderson (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Balkan Insight: "The report prepared at the beginning of 2009 said there were ongoing talks on opening a new road and two border crossings between two countries." How many border crossings are there today between the two countries? --Hapsala (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two official border crossing between Kosovo and Montenegro. You can get a detailed map - including border crossing - from this link [32] --alchaemia (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Qafa e Cakorrit border crossing has not been open since the end of the war in 1999. Kosovar (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So I guess that's why they're in talks to open two more border points, as the one in Kulle-Rozhaje is not really suited for the kind of transport and commerce that will develop through the years between the two. --alchaemia (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Recognition map

Changing the map was not discussed and was done by a user who had never made an edit before, which suggests the use of a sockpuppet or the presence of a troll and thus renders the edit vandalism. They also made rather glaring grammar and spelling mistakes. Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. An uglier map I have not seen in a while. --alchaemia (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with changing back to the original green and grey colour scheme, however I would support using that map over the one just reverted to, as I feel it is more detailed and just less crude-looking. Any thoughts? Bernerd (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a POV map, as it lists several countries as "rejected independence" without any firm evidence. It is used on the Serbian wiki, and that wiki is less than NPOV. We already had a more detailed map, the SVG map, and people voted to revert to this map. --alchaemia (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that it is a POV map, my comment was not suggesting changing to it, but rather merely using that shell, that outline as the basis for a map using the green and grey colours. I am aware the we chose the PNG over the SVG (despite Mareklug's claims that it looked good on his ipod ;) ), I just feel that that particular outline of the world is far superior to the one currently in use for the PNG map. Not that it really matters though Bernerd (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in creating a new SVG map - exactly the same as the PNG one that we currently use, just in the easier-to-update SVG format. Not the overly-large-scale SVG map that we've used in the past, and certainly not anything that colours in the non-recognisers. Bazonka (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly condemn changing the map to that awful coloured map. Me and Avala worked hard on creating a NPOV map, now we have a fact based map, why change it to a POV interpretation based map? The current map is fine, I see no reason for a discussion on map change. Ijanderson (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The only differences in the "outline of the world" I can see is that (1) the current map features more prominent country borders, which certainly helps the readers, (2) Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard have slightly different shapes, and Severnaya Zemlya is missing entirely on the Serbian map, (3) the Serbian map contains frames around some archipelagos. All in all, I don't see switching to a map based on the Serbian one as any improvement. — Emil J. 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Other things that I feel look better in the "Serbian map" (Note - this map was also the one used on this very article for the first six months, or at least until somewhere between when Malta and Samoa recognised - [33]) are the inclusion of several islands around Scandinavia, the Baltic, the UK and Spain, Hawaii and Bioko off the coast of Africa. I also find the current one to appear rather crudely drawn, but perhaps this is just an (unpopular) personal preference. Either way, it is barely worth the effort of changing. I'll just go shush now (: Bernerd (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we in any way change the appearance of the map. What we currently use looks absolutely fine. My only thought is that SVG format is easier to update, so if we could convert what we have now into SVG then it would be better for update purposes. But it shouldn't look any different. Bazonka (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to Bernerd, not you. — Emil J. 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenya

On Serbian Wikipedia, Kenya is listed as a nation not intending to recognize Kosovo. The source is from the website of the Serbian Embassy in Nairobi, here: [34]. Could someone whom understands Serbian look at this and see if we can use anything on our English article? Ajbenj (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It just says that Kenya supports Serbia's ICJ initiative at the UN and refers to Kenya's "principled and friendly policy" towards Serbia. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an older post as well. It's about Moses Wetangula saying how Kenya wont recognise Kosovo in a meeting with Jeremic. This might not have been enough for this article back then but with new entries on what did ambassadors of certain countries politely tell Kosovo FM in Vienna this could be added to the article now.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are three snippets in this article that refer to Kenya's view on Kosovo/Serbia. I'm sure we can include something in the article from this. Crudely translated by Google we have:

8. OCTOBER 2008.

KENYA support Resolution Serbia in the UN GS

Tonight is the Kenyan time in New York at a session of UN General Assembly adopted resolution of Serbia in the search opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. Voted for the resolution of 77 member states, 6 were against and 74 uzdržanih.

Kenya again confirmed its principjelnu and friendly policy towards our country glasavši for the proposal of Serbia.

Neighboring countries of Kenya supported the proposal of Serbia and Tanzania and Sudan, Uganda has been restrained, while Ethiopia, Seychelles and Somalia are not attended to vote.

and

16. September 2008.

DECLARATION agent of the Republic of Serbia V television K 24

TV K 24 in Nairobi today in their news programs broadcast a statement d'Affairs of the Republic of Serbia Saša Nairobi in March, which stressed the consistent adherence to Serbia peace and peaceful resolution of all conflicts. In connection with Kosovo and Metohija. March emphasized the commitment of Serbia for peaceful diplomatic overcome all open issues in accordance with international law, with full respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of a member of the UN and repeated consistently against Serbia against unilateral legal declaration of independence of Kosovo and Metohija.

and

30. July 2008.

SUSRETI MSP Jeremić - MIP VETANGULA

During the meeting Ministarskog Non-Aligned countries held in Tehran, which is in the capacity of observers attended and Serbia, Head of Delegation of Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic met Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kenya Moses Vetangulom. Vetangula Minister reiterated the principled position when Kenya is in the question of Kosovo and Metohija and territorial integrity of Serbia. Bazonka (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added some text about Kenya. Of the three paragraphs above, I think only the third is of use to us. The translation above isn't very good though, so apologies if I've misinterpreted it - please correct. Bazonka (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to "International status of Kosovo"

I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Kosovo is not a independent state and it wouldn't be for a long time. So I suggest to move the article to something similar to Political status of Puerto Rico, Political status of Taiwan, etc..., i begging an administrator to do it, please, actually I already asked one but she (I guess) declined.--23prootie (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You say that Kosovo is not an independent state, but others do not see it that way. This article is about recognition, i.e. those countries that do view Kosovo as an independent state, and those that do not. I wouldn't entirely rule out a move to a different title, but I don't see what's wrong with the current one. Bazonka (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the current name was chosen after a discussion which displayed an overwhelming consensus, see Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 32. You can't just move it unilaterally. — Emil J. 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More to the point: the topic of this article is which countries recognize Kosovo, which don't, and why, hence its current name is entirely appropriate. Discussion of the status of Kosovo as such similar to the articles you mentioned is out of the scope of this article, you can find it elsewhere: see (surprise, surprise) political status of Kosovo, as well as Kosovo status process, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, controversy over Kosovo independence. — Emil J. 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

@ 23prootie 55 states currently disagree with you and say Kosovo is independent. Anyway regardless of what you believe, there was a recent (less than one month ago) discussion, with a consensus to change the name to International recognition of Kosovo. If you really want to move the name, do it via WP:MOVE, but be warned I and other users will strongly oppose your request. Ijanderson (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you may have meant WP:RM rather than WP:MOVE. — Emil J. 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I don't think having a page on the international recognition of Kosovo is "jumping to conclusions." I think the staffs of the 17 embassies in Kosovo would also disagree with your assertion that it's not an independent state, as would its army, diplomatic corps abroad and government. Besides all that, the article covers precisely what its title presents - international recognition. There is ZERO need to change anything and any attempt to do so at this point is pure propaganda and grandstanding. Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There is an ongoing political/diplomatic struggle about Kosovo to be recognized or not as an independent state. And this is exactly what the article deals with. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article - Tacit UN support

This [35] is an interesting article. It puts forward the case that the UN has tacitly accepted the independence of Kosovo, and that one can infer from the UN's inaction that the declaration was in line with Resolution 1244. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Islamic recognition expected again... apparently: Sejdiu

Source: B92 Date: 05-03-09 Here is Sejdiu's quote “We expect new recognitions to happen very shortly. We cannot give any dates. Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, as well as other Islamic Conference countries have stated that the conditions have been met for recognition, and it is only a question of time,”. Are we able to update the article. I do understand that Sejdiu can not speak on the behalf of other countries, but can we update still? Or is something more from the horses mouth required? Ijanderson (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when has Pakistan been a Gulf country? Have they moved it? Anyway, I think they have enough internal problems at the moment to be worrying about Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

HaHa, I don't know why it said that Pakistan is a gulf country, yes they do have internal problems, but they also have pressure from the US and other countries on top of their internal problems. However I'm no optimist. Ijanderson (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just B92 taking the news from media in Albanian and mistranslating several parts of it. He said "Gulf Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Pakistan and several other countries belonging to the Islamic Conference..." - making a clear distinction between Pakistan and Gulf Countries. I don't expect any imminent recognition from them. --alchaemia (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest news:

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n172745

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=03&dd=01&nav_id=57507

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200903021650/Politics/Kosovo-FM-Hyseni-visits-London.html

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200903041653/Politics/U.S.-Ambassador-to-UN-vowes-strong-support-for-Kosovo.html

http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/serbia/81099.html

http://www.isria.info/en/5_March_2009_66.htm

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=03&dd=05&nav_id=57606

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200903041657/Politics/Kosovo-FM-meets-with-Arab-League-Ambassador-in-London.html

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200903051655/Politics/Kosovo-Deputy-FM-meets-with-Turkey-FM-Babacan.html

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9304/122/

http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6494&Itemid=26 Max Mux (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacolli: Qatar to recognise "soon"

[36] (In Albanian - I ran it through a translator). This is the same guy who said that the Maldives would recognise last month and he also predicted Malta and several other countries, so he has a good track record. Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope it comes really soon this time.Max Mux (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He does have a good track record, but I'll believe this one when I see it. --alchaemia (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[37] Pacolli was in Egypt last week, where a conference of the Arab League was held, "to lobby for independence", says Tanjug news agency. He told Priština-based Albanian language daily Express that "three countries should recognize Kosovo by the end of March, one of them being Qatar". B92 is reporting the same.

Palau

Palau seems to have recognized today.Max Mux (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Source? — Emil J. 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In Albanian only, so far.[38] --alchaemia (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a surprise. Kosovothanksyou have moved Palau into their "official confirmation is needed" list. Let's keep watching for somthing more concrete. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Telegrafi is also reporting it [39] and kosovothanksyou.com has added Palau to their map and their page says, "Palau recognizes" while simultaneously listing it as "needing confirmation." That's kind of contradictory, but meh. Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets wait for confirmation. Last time we rushed and got it wrong (my fault mainly haha). B92 and Balkan Insight and other english language sites are likely to report this news of recognition if its true. Ijanderson (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

kosovothanksyou.com now have confirmation apparently Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Office of the President is reporting it [40], so I'm sure it's official and done with. --alchaemia (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidential website is good enough, Palau should be moved to official now. Exo (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is in English [41] Ijanderson (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please update the number of recognitions in the Kosovo article. The number there stands at 55. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Bazonka (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't incite this with my last comment (it happened before when some users here caused the official Liechtenstein recognition). Anyway I do think that they really forgot to recognise by Palau when they did it by Micronesia and Marshall Islands. Now we have recognition by all Compact of Free Association members. --Avala (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some users here caused the official Liechtenstein recognition? They forgot to recognize by Palau? I'm not sure what you're talking about... --alchaemia (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Avala's comment was for insiders here. But I remember the Liechtenstein incident very well... --DaQuirin (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but gramatically it made no sense. Incidentally, here's the official document of recognition. [42] --alchaemia (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not grammatically incorrect. When I say "recognise by Palau" I mean the US using its COFA means, that are - running the foreign policy and defence, for Palau, Micronesia and Marshall Islands. --Avala (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the US is responsible for the defence of these countries, it is not responsible for their foreign policies - in this respect they are independent. I suspect the US leans very heavily on them though. Bazonka (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the official document, apart from the fact that they did not bother to spell the name of Kosovo's president correctly, is that it is dated March 6, 2009. Which means that Avala should not be worried, and more to the point, we should change the recognition date in the article, right? — Emil J. 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we should change the date (also need to replace the references to this document). I guess recognition was officially enacted when the Palau president signed the letter, not when it was received in Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Liechtenstein incident? I have watched this page for over a year, and I have no recollection of such an event, could someone plaese enlightnen me? Avala, are you joking when you say that you may have incited Palau's recognition, or are you serious?--Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See here and here; and then this hilarious thread. Bazonka (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bazonka, that is quite fascinating. Original Research at its best! --Astrofreak92 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maldives recognises Kosovo - for real this time

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Maldives announces the recognition of Kosovo [43]. Please update the article with this info. Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations were established today, as well. Here's the official letter sent from the Foreign Minister of the Maldives, to the Foreign Minister of Kosovo [44] --alchaemia (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say anything about diplomatic relations? Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the letter said that. I simply linked to the letter as an alternative source of recognition. As for diplomatic relations, Foreign Minister Hyseni says that they were established today [45].

Hyseni ka saktësuar se vendosja e marrëdhënieve të plota diplomatike ndërmjet dy vendeve i është konfirmuar sot nëpërmes një letre që ka marrë nga ministri i Punëve të Jashtme i Maldiveve, Ahmed Shaheed.

which, after using Google Language Tools which now supports Albanian comes out to:

Hyseni has specified that the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two countries has been confirmed today through a letter received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Maldives, Ahmed Shaheed.

I guess that means that he received a second letter. --alchaemia (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting news, this recognition has started a 2 million dollar corruption probe in the Maldives shaking the newly appointed President and the Government.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is growing pressure on the Maldivian government to withdraw recognition. --Tocino 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and there is also pressure to maintain recognition [46] Ijanderson (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It will turn out that the Maldives is somehow crucial. I would myself recognise Kosovo if they'd give those two million for some hospital, road, school or create a thousand jobs instead of paying for the recognition of some island nation.--Avala (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So you already accepted the baseless allegations that they paid this money and that it isn't just cheap Serbian propaganda fueled by "respected" tabloids such as Kurir and Press? --alchaemia (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read about it in the Maldivian press online but whatever makes you happy.--Avala (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure you have. --alchaemia (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh you got me there. I was reading the covert Serbian tabloid press branch on Maldives called Miadhu Daily - [47].--Avala (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you found a source weeks later, doesn't mean that you first read about it in the toilet paper tabloids known as Kurir, Press, Vecernje Novosti, etc. --alchaemia (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is so great to have someone to tell me what I did and when because apparently I don't know these things...--Avala (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New title of article

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

The result of the proposal was Speedy Closed. This has already been discussed ad nauseam, last proposal occurred just last month and resulted in move to current title. Furthermore, this proposal was not listed on WP:RM, it's clearly being rejected by the community, and it's becoming a magnet for needless, lengthy discussions. Húsönd 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the recent changes of the article's content and title an issue has arised regarding the content and title of it. From my POV current title of the article is biased. That is, it is biased toward the process of recognition as it is a process. From my POV it isn't a wikt:process in its first meaning (A series of events to produce a result, especially as contrasted to product) which concerns with the goal of producing a result, unless the wikt:result is considered as turbulence in the current state of affairs in the international community. As it is so, I have taken the liberty (even if it is considered as the blind obeying to the WP:IAR, which it isn't from my POV) and allowed myself to put the title of article as International standing regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo without prior discussion. Rationale: such title is somewhat less biased in my POV. This action of mine could and should be considered as the compliance to the Three revert rule. All the best 78.30.153.144 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that the current title is biased - the article is clearly about whether international bodies (mostly countries) have recognised the independence of Kosovo or not, and (where relevant) the reasons why they haven't recognised. The current title is appropriate to this content. I don't see what the relevance of your "process" argument is - the word process doesn't appear in the title, introduction or background of the article. Please clarify. Bazonka (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You said it is clear (clearly about ) but actually you want me to clarify, so I suggest reading again. The current title is biased toward the POV that there is a process (which produces result) toward recognition, whereas there's also a POV that no process exists. Your POV is that current article is about recognition (which in itself is a process) of declaration and/or independence, my POV is that the current article is about illegal precedent of proclaiming the nondependence from Serbia.

All the best,

Biblbroks's talk 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is very good, I dont see any bias in it at all. It's short and descriptive, very unneeded to change to something that long. chandler · 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the aim is toward shortness ... Status of Kosovo is better title. Redirect of Status of Kosovo to Kosovo status process is biased.

If the aim is toward descriptivness International standing regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo or even Standings of international community regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo.

All the best, Biblbroks's talk 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The status of Kosovo (in summary) is that it is de facto independent, disputed, recognised by some countries and not recognised by others. But this article is about more than that. For example, the reason why Slovakia refuses to recognise Kosovo is not germane to Kosovo's status - it is, however, pertinent to its international recognition. I still do not see how this article has POV regarding "a process" - some countries have recognised, some haven't. That's all there is to it; it's not a process. When new countries recognise they get moved from one list to the other - you could call that a process if you like, but it's the process of maintaining an encyclopaedic article, not the process of international recognition. (The POVness of the Kosovo status process article is not up for discussion here - take that discussion to that article's talk page.) Bazonka (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So you wrote yourself: this article is more than just recognition. I write that it is also about illegal precedent... if not only about it. I myself comprehend the term recognition as a term which explains a process. Wiktionary for the english language for (Wikt:recognition) states as the first definition that it is an act or condition of being recognized, whereas wikt:recognize explains this transitive verb as To match something or someone which one currently perceives to a memory of some previous encounter with the same entity. So if we follow the literate meaning we could conclude that to make an act of recognition or come to the state of recognition one should match sth... ...with the same entity. What should should be matched here: eventual Kosovo independence with independence of othere countries. If there are some lists, which you mention, then there are lists of independent (or better nondependant) countries and other entities. Since there is a dispute whether Kosovo should be in one list or some other, some major (as in comparative of lat. magnus - en. bigger) thoughts could be given here. If you mention moving (from one list to the other, than you intuitively agree with me that there could be a POV that a process could exist, or not. Moving, by itself, is a dynamic category (Aristotel discussed this issue long ago), so it could be perceived and comprehended as a process. All this is much simpler (at least for me) to comprehend and explain in serbian language, since serbian language has svršeni and nesvršeni vid of a verb which adds to a bit more refined expression of thought, if I may be so language-subjective. Sorry if I offended you somehow, by quoting your words or in any other way, it wasn't my intention. I will conclude in hope that my too elaborate essay (I may call it now so :-) ), constructively adds to comming into terms and resolving the current dispute on the article's content and title. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have used the wrong definition of recognise. The second definition given by Wiktionary is To acknowledge the existence or legality of something - and that's what this article is about. The definition you used isn't appropriate here - an example of its use: when you see somebody who you've met before you recognise them, i.e. you recall the previous encounter and so are able to know who they are. This is very different to the situation here. Bazonka (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think taht I have used the wrong definition? Why don't you presume that numbering in the wiktionary has a certain reason? Even if the second definition is applied here, where is the way to wikt:acknowledge (To admit the knowledge of; to recognize as a fact or truth; to declare one's belief in; as, to acknowledge the being of a God. ) the existence of independent ( I repeat, maybe term nondependant is better here) country? How do you acknowledge the legality of nondependant Kosovo? Or to put it simpler, how do you recognize a country? If you have an answer to that, than you will conclude that you (as an entity) must be a country yourself (if not even be all the countries of the world). Everything you give as an argument sums up to the POV that there is no objective (not to say legal) way to recognize some country. And that a POV of the definiton of the term recognition is also subject to POV. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you write anything of that nosense again I delete it all.Max Mux (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I will presume you meant nonsense, in that case I ask why do you say nonsense? I will presume you have no reference on that. :-) As for your deletion ultimatum, should it be considered as a threat or just a personal attack. In case of latter, I suggest reading this policy. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose there was a recent discussion on the title. The current one is good enough and its not POV. Ijanderson (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was no vote proposed, but I understand it could be interpretted as such. The apparent proximity in time (in [undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help). temporal, in [undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) and [undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) vremenski) of a discussion on the title doesn't constitute as a solid-based argument. At least it shouldn't. And at least in my POV. Soundness of other statements (that the title is good enough and not POV) haven't been addressed by you with any arguments. So I dismiss your eventual vote as not well argumented, and thus not relevant enough. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) When rereading my response, I find it could be considered rather harsh as if I have the authority to dismiss or allow votes. It wasn't my intention to do so, while it was more of a natural consequence - response to a multitude of reactions... multitasking I couldn't quite cope with at the moment, but I hope I managed at last. So to conclude, I simply regard your vote, or opinion, as not well argumented... that's all. I wish all the best, Biblbroks's talk 01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that people don't take you serious when you go on with that your POV has to be met (not caring for NPOV), when the current title is very neutral, the article discusses the recognition of Kosovo by countries and other entities (and notes countries or entities that have come out against it). chandler · 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do understand that they do take me seriously, otherwise they wouldn't be responding to this. :-/ As for your statement that I go on with that my POV has to be met, actually I am not doing only this. All the time I am concurrently pointing to the fact that the current title is biased, since it is from one POV, and not regarding some others (if more other exist). And I believe that you are comprehending this, since you acknowledge that there is another POV. If I don't want to repeat myself I will try and rephrase my opinions in some other way, and thus I will ask you how come you think that the current title is very neutral? So there is a gradation of being neutral? If so, why couldn't it be even more neutral then? As for the contents of the article that it discusses the recognition of Kosovo by countries and other entities (and notes countries or entities that have come out against it), I must be tiresome and again ask a question: why couldn't be the expression recognition considered as a process? If I understand correctly, your way of thinking could be regarded as some form of just analitical: that article simply divides the countries into two categories (pro and against recognition). If so, then the article could be considered not much more than a mere list. If you (not just you) read my words once more, I haven't just writen a plethora of words which are only disruptive and maybe even non-constructive, ("god forbid" destructive). I have given a solution, maybe not completely neutral (if gradation of neutral exists), but at least less biased (from my POV): the title to be International standing regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo, or maybe Standings of international community regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this issue has already been resolved and the current proposal is a pedantic and pointless exercise in semantical hairsplitting. Leave well enough alone Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As in previous response, I will consider this statement as a potential vote. Regarding the issue being resolved I can only say: it isn't. Obviously. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing these replicas. :-/ As for the "pedanticness", I will give you a counterquestion: can you give me an argument against being pedantic when pursuing truth - as in Truth or WP:Truth or wikt:truth... pick any of the forementioned meanings and/or ideas. But, when given verifiability (as in WP:V) meaning, this a bit harder. Well, as for that, if you request it I will try (and I am certain I will suceed) finding a verifiable source that syntagma International recognition of a country is considered a process. When (not if) found, I honestly beleive that you will understand my POV - though I doubt that you don't acknowledge it even know. Semantics is what I am writing about, you are right, and exactly your mention of this expression is addition to the argument for my statement that I doubt your misunderstanding me. :-/ As for your pointless and hairsplitting attributes you have given, in the spirit of WP:AGF guideline I won't take this as a personal attack, but will take this as a simple irony, a form of mild and the least malign aggresion, when no other means are at your disposal. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

@Biblbroks - I don't know about Serbian, but in English it is quite possible for a word to have more than one meaning, and only one of those meanings may apply at a given time, depending on context. In this context the first meaning given in Wiktionary is utterly innapropriate. It does not apply here - the second one does instead. It is quite possible for an entity (it doesn't necessarily have to be a country) to recognise another entity as independent through diplomatic (or other) means - a third entity may have a different opinion and not recognise it as independent. It is the POV of those entities that defines whether they recognise or not - but it is not POV to report the positions of those entities, which is what we're doing here. Bazonka (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say that only one of those meanings may apply at a given time, can you verify that? If you say context, which context is this? Why do you say utterly? And why innapropriate? Could you elaborate on that? You persistently use the expression recognized, when analized etimologically (which I am not such an expert for, I admit) from Latin, recognition can be divided in a prefix re- and noun cognitio.

• First one (from wikt) has (been having) two meanings (and they have been ordered)

1. again, anew
2. backward

• Second one (same source) has (been having) only one meaning:

1. getting to know, study, knowledge, acquaintance; recognition; legal inquiry, investigation

Who can say what exactly is meant by the expression recognition in the article's title. I don't say I can, but I repeat that there is a meaning concerning a process. You again give me arguments that there is such a meaning: which is what we're doing here - as if you are on a task to list all the entities that have the ability to recognize and they do (as if they are more intelligent or smth) and those that don't have such an ability and so they refuse that such an ability exists. Why? Do you think such an ability exists? I don't want to be sarcastic and ask for references for such the existence of such an ability, but your persistent non recognition of my POV that an ambiguity of the meaning of the word recognition exists, would unnerve even more cool minded persons than me. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually believe a word ALWAYS has to mean all it's definitions? Seriously. You're on your way to AfD List of common words that have two opposite senses then? Words aren't allowed to not mean only one of their definitions are they?. Or maybe it's just you that's wrong. If you don't understand what the word "International recognition of Kosovo" means in that context, it's not English that's wrong it's you English skills. It is not the international community suddenly recognise that they've seen that Kosovo guy before... The definition used is stated on wiktionary "official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country", it is the correct interpretation of the word in this context chandler · 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that I believe (it must have)? Where have I written that? I'm just trying to prove my point that it can have, and must ironically admit that actually you help me with that. With implying that you mean that I could interpret this word recognition in double entendre (and you do that by implying that I believe that a word always has to mean all its definitions - that is the Darii type of syllogism), you give me the argument to think that you believe that I can think that in this case it could have at least some other meaning... and by that I reserve the right to excercise the right to think that more meanings infer ambiguity. You write: words aren't allowed to not mean only one of their definitions are they? and I can only ironically respond by writing Mu. If your question is are the words allowed to mean only one meaning, I could answer that if I have the power to define the rules I would allow them to have only one meaning. But, ofcourse that might not be so. At least for the fact that perhaps words might have a mind of their own to decide whether to have or not to have, and then my power would be moot. :-) And for the fact, that I might not have that power (taken other people's opinions into the model), at least in the sense of power as an absolute authority on issue of giving rules since such an authority would most certainly often be contested - at least by you (I believe). If your question is are words prohibited to mean only one meaning? Ofcourse, they might not be prohibited, for who am I to prohibit that - I don't even have the notion that they might have a mind of their and then exhibit the act of excercise the right of private property as in verb to have (a meaning, or more than one), not even the notion that a power to prohibit something like that could be laid upon someone (or to that point - me). Actually, I concur that English language follows a path of becoming an Isolating language maybe even Analytic language, but I believe that you would agree with the idea that it still isn't even an isolating language. And maybe it won't be for some time. The human thought is advancing much faster than a language which express it, and some morphemes (and meanings, as well) are just missing their represents in language. Perhaps this will always be so because the process of generating new morphemes and meanings doesn't keep up with the many subtle nuances a human thought generates.

You say maybe it's just you that's wrong, I don't say it isn't true, but have you considered some other POV than just yours? I don't say your current POV is wrong, but for the time I don't comprehend that your point of view allows any other POVs, and thus isn't neutral... at least IMHO.

You suggest that i lack English skills, perhaps you might not be wrong, but I must ironically ask: who are you to judge that the "sophism" you wrote "If you don't understand what the word "International recognition of Kosovo" means in that context, it's not English that's wrong it's you English skills." is accurate, not to mention correct? Your presumptions are offending me, not to mention your previous rude use of Caps-Lock in ALWAYS as a mean of raising a voice. But I will try to remain civil and just ironically and/or rhetorically ask, who are you be the judge of defining which context (you write that context) is this article's title referring to? And again, it wasn't me who hasn't considered other meanings, it is some other editors (by that I mean at least you) who gave their opinions that they might (and they even can, but I don't think that this ability should be considered accurate, not to mention correct, or even fair) excercise a right to confer only one (or at least one of or more that prove their POV) meaning and/or definitions in wiktionary. But now, if I excercise my right to think of official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country, which is numbered with the ordinal number 4. (fourth) in wiktionary and that could imply the lesser priority of the definition, the first thing that comes to mind is the word acceptance (which is the noun for the act of accepting, which again is the present participle for the word wikt:accept - To receive, especially with a consent, with favour or with approval... always following the first offered definition). This verb and word receive (to get, to be given something while the other party is the active partner (opposite: to obtain)) implies that there must be something and there are some parties of which the the other is active. Something in here would be existence of the entity called Kosovo as independent and parties would be:

1. entities called states, individually taken or as a collection (or should I say a set) of many, which are considered independent already... and
2. entity called Kosovo which should be considerd as active

Now here lies the dispute. If it is considered active, than merely by giving it such an attribute (as in characteristic, not quality), and the right of giving attributes is and should be universaly exercised even before the act of recognition (and this right helps the process and act of recognition), one should consider whether just by recognizing that the entity is active (doing the act of declaration/declaring and/or doing the enaction of a declaration/declaring and/or just by being able to declare and/or just by being able to enact a declaration/declaring... of of independence) one is able to conclude (as in decide) that Kosovo is independent. Why is there a dispute: because the right of giving attributes (which is and should be universaly exercised) doesn't necessarily infer that one observed recognition (with the arbitrarily taken attributes given) is absolute (as in unique, one and only and no other).

There, there, (I write ironically) now I'm being too philosophic (if there is a gradation of the adjective), one might say. OK, one might have a point. Then, I will build up on other grounds: so, one could take into account that there is one more word which is mentioned in the definition official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country and that is the word official. And if one takes this into account, and eventually builds on the premise that it is the most and/or one of the most important and/or at least noteworthy enough to take into account word in the definition - word as in: a characteristic and/or feature of the definition, and word as in: a quality and/or level of excellence (which could all be taken as "definitions" of the word wikt:attribute), then one must ask himself where does the attribute of "officiality" come from? Is there (wikt:official) an office or a public trust (not to mention as, official duties, or routine meaning) which has the multitude of adjectives "official" at their/its disposal as an unlimited and/or an infinite and/or a limitless and/or a constant and/or a renewable resource... to ironically be banal and/or crude to the limit. OK, I could be more "precise"/"concrete"/"to the point" (as in Serbian: konkretan Serbo-Croatian: konkretan), and ask where is that official attribute coming from when no defined and/or defining process of recognizing independence of countries, not to mention of acclamation of independence of countries, exists.

So, to answer to the sentence: It is not the international community suddenly recognise that they've seen that Kosovo guy before... - it's not about seeing as in visually (or any other way) observing something or someone, I'm writing about. But about recognizing. You could find the subtle (not quite so subtle, though ;-) ) difference exactly in the word guy which, when contested with the word officially (which you mention in your selection of definition to be taken), gives some banal, or at least crude, points of view, not to say thoughts, or even kind of jokes.

You write: The definition used is stated on wiktionary "official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country", it is the correct interpretation of the word in this context, I might only question, and potentionally disarm you your arguments, if you allow me to be so picteresque (as in descriptive), the criteria (as in plural of criterion - and thus leaving you the choice which one to apply) to which you say correct. I somehow came to be tired to explaining my POV, so I will finish my response to you (along with my deepest apologies if some expressed but non-intenional irony written wriggled in this elaborate text) with an ironical conclusion in form of a question: do you have a reference on the the correct interpretation of the word in this context syntagma? ;-) All the best, Biblbroks's talk 22:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with those who say that the issue has been discussed sufficiently. The title of the article as it stands is short, unambiguous and neutral, and I don't see any need of changing it. 96.49.136.34 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Hm, I thought I signed this. Let's try this again... Jsaldarr (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

After many thoughts I have tried to represent here, it would give me satisfaction if I read some different opinion which would be not just expressed but at least a bit more argumented, too. For instance you write it has been (discussed) - and give no evidence of that. You use the tense called present perfect which concerns with action completed at the present time (wikt:present perfect). So it's was not finished and concluded long ago... but rather the discussion continues at least with the notion to that special link with exactly this present time and/or moment. So there lies the mistake that you make (if you want to make a point of me not having a point), and that is that you take the liberty to imply that the discussion ends with you saying that (the issue has been discussed ) - at least from my POV I comprehend your words in this way. :-/ But to counterargument your argument of potential discussion concluded, I will just add that the discussion hasn't finished, not just yet, at least I'm having it still. On the other hand when you use the "sufficiently" adjective, may I ask which criteria you use to determine what is sufficient and what isn't? I suppose you haven't thought of any, otherwise you would give one, but to counterargument that to, I must concluded it hasn't been discussed sufficiently, and since in the encyclopedia, especially a free (as in free speech) one, is to discuss and weigh your arguments, I weigh thus the issue hasn't been discussed sufficiently, and that for itself is an argument enough (if you think more carefully of my words). As for the shortness, I have discussed it already, but will say in some other way this: I couldn't agree more with you that the current title is shorter than the one I proposed, but is still longer than the Status of Kosovo. The latter is is a redirect (Status of Kosovo) to Kosovo status process and this redirect is biased. And the exact redirect sums up to my point of the recognition being regarded as a process, when one considers that the title for the current title should be Status of Kosovo. On this page alone some proposal were given before, that suggest that the term status is a better solution for the current state of affairs with the content and title of the article. When considering unambiguous and neutral attributes that you suggest for the current title, I must reiterate, but by rewording my point, and simply put the link to wikt:recognition, the link that which gives more than one meaning and/or definition. As for the I don't see any need of changing it., I think it's obvious, so let me suggest you to try harder by rereading my words. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose After the previous discussion I don't see any good reason to change the precise title of the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Don't the reasons I've given account for something? If not even account for at least one good reason? Or should I address directly the issue: what is the meaning of the adjective precise you used in your sentence? The most important reason for not "current title of the article" to be (in my POV) would be the interpretation of the word recognition. To put it short: couldn't you think of possibility that at least more appropriate one (title) exists? More appropriate, if not more neutral (if a gradation of the adjective exists), or even less biased. One might be Status of Kosovo, other International standing regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo, some other even Standings of international community regarding the 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo. Now I come to the idea that a simple International relations regarding status of Kosovo, or even plain International relations regarding Kosovo would be optimal. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblbroks, I have re-read your words and I'm still finding it very hard to understand what your problem is with the current title. It seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the meaning of "recognition" in this context (it does not mean the first definition in Wiktionary!!!), and an insistence that recognition must be a "process". There is no specific process - entities recognise in a variety of ways. The current title is NPOV; your arguments are confused, confusing and unproductive. Please let it rest. Bazonka (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given you (as well as other editors also) so many words to think about, and yet you use the word problem. :-( Why do you think that there is a problem of mine? Why don't you think that there is a problem of yours, a problem of not understanding my POV? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be an abundance? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be an abundance of understadings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be an abundance of understadings instead of a lack? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be an abundance of understadings instead of a lack of understading? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack and this else could be an abundance? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack and this else could be an abundance of understandings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack of understanding and this else could be an abundance of understandings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack of understanding and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of a lack of understanding of a meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of a meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of recognition? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of recognition in some context? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of recognition in this context? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning of recognition and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of a recognition in this context? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning of recognition in some context and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of recognition in this context? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that the problem could stem from something else instead of the lack of understanding of the meaning of recognition in this context and this else could be an abundance of understandings of meanings of recognition in this context?.... Why couldn't you understand that there could be abundance of understandings and so I could continue for a long time?

• .... Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with the word insistence? Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with a lack? Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with a lack of understanding? Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with a lack of understanding that my POV exists? Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with a lack of recognition? Why couldn't you understand that perhaps you have offended me with a lack of recognition that my POV exists?

....Why couldn't you understand that there could be abundance of understandings and so I could continue for a long time... again?

• Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be abundance? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be abundance of POVs? Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be abundance of POVs and one of them is mine?

....Why couldn't you understand that there could be abundance of POVs and so I could continue for a long time... again and again?

Now for real: Why do you write insistence, when you insistently fail to see that there could be another POV from where to stem the understanding of the meaning of the word recognition?

Couldn't you be in a process of recognition of abundance of understandings of meanings of the word recognition? Couldn't you be in a process of recognition my POV right now, when reading my words? I'm insistently not writing that the word must be a process, but insist on a POV of mine that it might be interpreted as such. And then I give some alternatives to override this ambiguity. Why couldn't you recognize the existence of such an interpretation? Why couldn't you recognize the ambiguity of the word recognition? Couldn't you be in a process of recognition of ambiguity of the very word recognition right now? Why couldn't you recognize my POV that there could me some specific process? Why couldn't you recognize my POV that there could me some specific process of recognition? Why couldn't you recognize that entities could recognize by being in a process of recognition? I'm insistently not writing that the only interpretation of the word recognition could only be process, but I insist on on a POV of mine that the word recognition could be interpreted as a process, too. Why couldn't you understand my POV that entities could recognize in a way by being in a process? Why couldn't you understand that my POV could be recognized? Why couldn't you understand that my POV could eventually be recognized through a process? Why couldn't you understand that my POV could be recognized through a process called recognition? Why couldn't you recognize that, if my POV is being recognized through a process called recognition, the very title couldn't be recognized as NPOV any more? Why couldn't you understand that I am unconfusing you my arguments? Why couldn't you understand that the recognition of arguments being unconfusing is through a process? Why couldn't you understand that the recognition of arguments being unconfusing is through a process called recognition? Why couldn't you recognize that I am trying to make you my arguments less confused? Why couldn't you recognize that the trying to make my arguments less confused is through a process? Why couldn't you recognize that the trying to make my arguments less confused is through a process called recognition?

....Why couldn't you understand that my arguments are less confused and less confusing now? Why couldn't you understand that this was perhaps done through a process? Why couldn't you understand that this was perhaps done through a process called recognition?

....Why couldn't you understand that your use of the word unproductive could be interpreted as offending by me? Why couldn't you understand that I have given an abundance of less confused and less confusing arguments for that?

....Why couldn't you recognize that perhaps I could let it rest when you recognize another interpretation of meaning of word recognition in this as in any other context? Why couldn't you recognize that perhaps I could let it rest when you recognize another interpretation of meaning of word recognition in this and any other context and not offend me, in this or any other context anymore?

)-:

I will just once more address you in an ironic tone rephrasing and paraphrasing your words: please try and recognize another interpertration of the word recognition in this as in any other context, and let it rest.

/-:

(-:

I sincerely apologize to all other readers and editors for such a spam-like perhaps too elaborate essay, but I surely hope it has given some ideas to some others about my POV. Hope I won't be blocked... again. In my defense I can only write that I was trying to state my POV. Someone else's POV could be that I overreacted. Perhaps someone else could have a point. For that account, I can only say two things: that I'm sorry and that I am ready to face the consequences of my actions, however severe they may be. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you dont wanna be banned, why do you act like a dick and preform copy paste "moves" against consensus? ffs stop being disruptive chandler · 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two interpretations of your words. One is that you refer to my copy-past moves of my words and construction of new thoughts, on this very talk page. I will presume you're not talking about that meaning. The other is one is the act of mine renaming the article, or as you might say moves of the article. You could consider this act as performing a move, I consider it renaming. Since I hadn't had the knowledge whether the very option "Move" of this article is nonexisting due to some strictness in rules in all of WP (I simply forgot to acknowledge that there is a semi-protected attribute of a page, which to my newestly reminded knowledge prohibits moves to non-admins), I ignored the custom procedure and tried to improve wikipedia by copy-paste moving the very content to another title and in such way to succeed in renaming the article. But to offer some more accounts of my action, I will write that I still have no knowledge of whether this article is semi-protected, just presumptions. As for your counter consensus argument, I could consider it as the only solid argument for your words. For that account I could add that, since I considered that no consensus has been reached on the talk page, I have performed such an act of trying to rename the article (which was done through apparent content move), and decided to contemplate if a consensus could be reached in such a direct action. I could point to the fact that since I consider that edits by the editor under the name of chan didn't contribute much (if any) to reaching a consensus on this talk page, I might consider that the editor under the name of chan has less (if any) arguments to support the statement that a consensus should and/or could be reached on the talk page.

As for your calling my action "like one of a d**ck", I might sum up that right that kind of language is actually what could be considered disruptive here. As for the acronym "f*s", I have just now noted the existence of such, and that adds up to my point that you are who is being disruptive with such uncivilities. I must emphasize that am not trying to be ironic when I write you this: "please, couldn't you choose some other way to heal your frustration, and not such an aggression?", because I honestly believe that you could find some other way to express your thoughts and/or emotions. I don't want you to feel that my intentions were to hurt you (I could be considered offended by your words, too), but instead I offer you another way of your recognition of existence of your possible choices to act, by stating that you could try to discuss whether the possibility of reaching a consensus on the current dispute exists on the talk page. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have brought Biblbroks' behaviour to the attention of administrators. Can I request that we try not to inflame the situation until it has been dealt with. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If your intention was to give records or just a record, do "try" to be assured that more than one record has been taken... to put it ironically - as unfortunately a potential editor sometimes resorts to do. Here the use of a cliche expression For the record, could be recognized as a form of wikt:irony and/or even irony. To put it ironically again: there was "no" need for you to emphasize that records are given, when you already gave them by writing what you have written - I'm certain there is no need to explain that every text a potential editor posts here is being recorded... to put it ironically again. As for bringing anyone's behaviour to anyone's attention (and thus to the one of the administrators also, if there is one), i consider that it was me who was "here" to acknowledge that maybe some attention is needed in the first place. I consider that this was done by expressing a hope I won't be blocked. This was done with an ounce of fear because of my ignorance (as in state of not having knowledge of and/or lack of knowledge of) of a policy (or perhaps just a guideline) which discusses that too much text on a talk page might be interpretted as nonconstructive action or even vandalism, and thus acted upon.

You write can I request... and ...try not to inflame the situation and ...it has been dealt with.... I write questions: "why couldn't we try and search for a better alternative to irony by perhaps simply discussing the issue on the talk page" and "why couldn't we try to calm a situation" and "why couldn't we try and recognize that it could be us who could deal with the situation?". I believe that any potential reader might notice the difference, and thus be in the process of recognition, that the power to act and deal with situation is invested in any potential editor, as it is invested in us as a set and/or system of entities.

I honestly hope that no sign of trying to resort to a less desirable course of action (out of necessity or frustration) has been exhibited by me, since none of my intentions I consider as even a sign of that. I also honestly hope that any potential reader might try and become a potential editor and thus try to deal with the situation which I call a disagreement. Maybe the more accurate word for the situation might be misunderstanding, if not even lacking the ability to be in the process of recognition. And I consider that the "disagreement" (as in A condition of not agreeing or concurring) and/or "unrecognition" (as in "not doing the act of recognizing" and/or "not being in the condition of being recognized as able to be in the process of recognition" and/or "lacking the ability to be in the process of recognition") is on one concrete issue. And I consider that the issue is on interpretation of the word recognition. And I consider that the interpretation of the word recognition could be taken in multitude of meanings using definitions. And I consider that one of the interpretations could be taken as the meaning with the definition of the word recognition as of a process. And I consider that one interpretation could be taken as the meaning that the word recognition could always define a process.

...uff! ;-) To point my opinion I could rhetorically imply my POV with a question: couldn't the word recognition have been recognized not simply as a process also, but have been recognized as a process also in any chosen context? For the discussion to continue in this direction, I offer some POVs in form of questions: "Couldn't the word recognition be synonymous with the word recognizing?" and "Couldn't the word recognition be synonymous with the word recognizing in any hypothetical context chosen?" All the best, 78.30.153.144 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding signed comment added by Biblbroks's talk 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seriously now... Can we get Mareklug back please? Surely he's the only man fit for the job of throwing around super long counter-essays in this thread. Bernerd (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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