Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 15

Orthodox churches
Please stop adding orthodox churches on the list for propaganda purposes. Of course they will support Serbia, we all know that (unless you're totally clueless about religion, in which case it won't matter to you anyway). So putting an opinion of each orthodox church is redundant, it's like putting an opinion of muslim community of each country. Someone even put orthodox church of Poland. That's like putting muslim community of Bolivia - no one cares, and it carries no importance whatsoever, nor is it an interesting fact people would like to know. We already had a discussion on redundancy of 200+ Serbian communities in various countries in the world, which someone started adding onto a list. That seemed to have been concluded, but now someone is trying to bypass that by doing exactly same thing with orthodox churches, even putting churches of non-orthodox dominated countries. JosipMac (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more orthodox in Poland, than muslims in Bolivia, I think. Orthodox population makes up to 30% in the city of Bialystok. Szopen (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then, why did you not delete the Serbian Orthodox Church, to be consistent. Besides, that, and the Islamic Community of Serbia, are neither "diplomatic" nor "international" reactions, and I doubt, relevant to "recognition" (should the article ever migrate under a relevant title). --Mareklug talk 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of a compromise. If it was up to me I would have deleted both islamic and orthodox church of Serbia, but before that I wanted to see what others think. Having one of each is tolerable but recent spamming of a zillion of orthodox churches and serbian communities is way too much propaganda. JosipMac (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quebec parties are not international they are not diplomatic and they are not relevant to Kosovo but they are still included. --Avala (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly - it's not important. Numbers alone don't make someone important or relevant. I take your point about Polish Orthodox church. Can you still tell me which orthodox church is AGAINST Serbia? Until you tell me which Orthodox church is against Serbia, my argument still remains - orthodox churches support national interests of orthodox countries. As such it's enough to have 1 opinion of "Orthodox Churches", instead of listing each one by one. JosipMac (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree about the Russian Church, but sincerely the other churches it's kinda redundant.--80.80.161.153 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention on the Edit page: I merged Orthodox churches (all but the Serbian one, I'm asking permission to merge that one too but so far I left it). JosipMac (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia green
can someone make Malaysia green on the map please. This is an encyclopedia, so it needs to be upto date. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Camptown (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you, i can't seem to edit it, it just won't upload for me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden
The Foregein relations committe is chaired by the King; it does not make any formal decisions and its minutes are classified. A formal cabinet decision to establish formal diplomatic relations with Kosovo is expected shortly after the committee meeting which was summoned at 9am today. --Camptown (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So is Sweeden likely to formaly recogise Kosovo later today? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweden has now officially recognized Kosovo. First point of order at the extra cabinet meeting. And the Swedish ambassador to Belgrade will have a meeting with the President and Prime minister of Kosovo later in the day. --Camptown (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden will recognise Kosovo after a meeting which will be held at 12.30 PM (that is, in about a quarter of an hour). (130.237.227.172 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Map: Taiwan + TRNC
I don't want to open Pandora's box here, but why is Taiwan in green, and not TRNC (or vice-versa)? Nothing to do with POV, but with consistency.--Scotchorama (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But, after all, the Taiwanese case differs greatly from the case of TRNC, which is only recognized by the state that occupied the land and set up the state. --Camptown (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that; but neither one is actually given a number on the list. So if we leave Taiwan in green, we should give it a number, and consider it a full state. Otherwise, we should remove the green. As it is, the map and list are not consistent.--Scotchorama (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, done. Konekoniku (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a very specific case under international law. It revolves around which state is legally recognised to be China. For the first three decades after the foundation of the UN, Taiwan was recognised as the Republic of China and held the Chinese seat in the UN. However, countries started to migrate recognition across the the People's Republic of China in 1971. However, a few states still continue to recognise Taiwan as the government. So, in this sense, it is an ambiguous situation. This said, I think it would be better to have Taiwan listed in the other relevant entities.


 * Please sign your comments.--Scotchorama (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan
It is not recognized as a country by most of the countries in the world, and China definitely does not see Taiwan as a country, so it should not be listed under "countries" and it does not hav the power to officially recognize other countries (seeing that it is not a country itself). Therefore i've moved it to the "Seceded regions and national liberation movements" section, as that is a more accurate description of the Taiwan State. --Ruolin59 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted, and no, it isn't. ROC predates People's Republic of China as a continuously existing state, and was a charter member of the UN before it was kicked out for political pressure by that country. In no way does any of this make it a seceded region or a liberation movement. Taiwan (ROC) is a state, and it is recognized as such by 23 other states. It has a powerful army and an even more impressive economy and technological presence in the world, and a democratic government elected by its population which does not supress it or any ethnic minorities under its jurisdicition, unlike some other countries in the region. Its unique status among states is unambiguously noted with a superscripted reference, and furhter redacting here is uncalled for. POV-pushing and seeming denials of reality apparently motivated by what "China sees" or doesn't, as if it mattered to the Wikipedia's NPOV presentation of facts, detract from the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and is not welcome, here, or in any other article. Kindly desist from further edits along these lines, because such contributions will only lead to highly unjustified and entirely avoidable edit-warring, and if sustained, in banning for disruptive behavior. Best Wishes. --Mareklug talk 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First, please do not edit my comments on the talk page. That is not the way to refute someone's arguments. Second, yes, ROC predates PRC, and it WAS a charter member of the UN, however, it no longer is, and the PRC is seen as the legal successor of the ROC. the ROC state, is, in effect, no longer in legal existence. During the period of Chinese Civil War, the ROC was recognized as the sole government of China. However, when it kind of lost the war and retreated to Taiwan, most countries switched to recognizing the PRC government. This automatically makes the old regime illegimate. In addition, since no formal treaty was signed between the two groups, the Civil War is in fact still on going. When a state is only recognized by 23 other countries, and these countries have barely any influence on world affairs, the state cannot said to be a country. You marked that as "irrelevant", however, it is very relevant. It says something when the ROC is not even a member of the United Nations any longer, thought it was a charter member. When the countries switched to recognizing the PRC, the PRC has become the de jure successor to the ROC. No countries recognize both the PRC and the ROC. for these reasons, the ROC should not be listed under "countries", so i've reverted it back.

By the way, your time is wrong --Ruolin59 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm? What does "your time is wrong" mean or refer to? I just noticed, that your time stamp says, recently added, says: "02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)", while it is already past 22 hours in a time zone several hours west of UTC, on the evening of 7 March 2008. Who's time is wrong, prey tell. And double-check with a correctly set atomic clock near you... It seems that you are a living anachronism...


 * I did not edit your comments, only interjected my replies, perfectly legibly indented, in close proximity to/correspondence with your objectionable assertions.


 * You, however, have removed those parts of my comments, and now it's not at all obvious, what you are quoting, when quoting what I wrote! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


 * There is no need for me to argue with you on the score of placing Taiwan in this article among states, or go beyond WP:1RR, since you are evidently so unreasonable and hopelessly biased as to not know what time it is, while parroting China's official stance on Taiwan (there's poetic justice in this! how philosophically apt!), which has nothing to do with presenting NPOV reality on Wikipedia.


 * Accordingly, someone, and if needed, many someones :), will promptly revert your removing Taiwan (ROC) from the list of states, only to shove it baselessly into some completely inappropriate rubric.


 * How does one go from stating a premise of de facto ("kind of lost the war") to a conclusion supporting de jure, in one go? I believe that this is known as "might makes right", as opposed to the other, accepted kind, "right makes might".


 * Now, please tell us how the PRC's occupation and repression of Tibetans and their culture constitutes a de jure continuation by the Tibet Autonomous Region of the independent Tibet, you know, because the latter kind of lost the war (in 1959), and consequently is in no position to recognize independent Kosovo today, unless it were to do so as "other relevant entity", which, thanks to its island geography, armed forces, and implicit defense by the United States of America, the wealthy, independent, socially and technologically advanced democracy of Taiwan (ROC) has the luxury of doing, and has in fact done so, which all your Wikipedia edits won't obliterate from reality, never mind, persist in main article space for much longer. :) Don't forget to answer about whose time is wrong. --Mareklug talk 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure my time is right because i searched it on google. Don't get me wrong, but I'm the one trying to be NPOV here. I DID delete your "insertion" into my comments, but that is because you were editing my comments first. You could have quoted me, but you went ahead and directly edited my posts. You are obviously one of those people who know very little about china and is brainwashed by the "human rights" propaganda against China. I'm stating it again, having 23 countries recognizing you is not enough to become a country. I formally believe that Taiwan legimately has a government, however, some people do believe in the government, so I decided to keep it NPOV and put it under "seceded states", as that is a almost-perfect description of the current status of Taiwan. Taiwan has not formally declared independance from China, and has yet to have a referendum on independance. I'm not going to talk to you about Tibet here, as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I believe that to be POV is to either list Taiwan as a country or not listing it at all (as it is a PROVINCE of China). Therefore I decided to put taiwan as part of the seceded states. --Ruolin59 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino seems to know what I'm talking about, and has promptly changed the title of that list, thus making it more NPOV towards your side. I applaud him for that. good job, Tocino! --Ruolin59 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, Ruolin59, these are your recent edits in local spacetime:

00:24, 8 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) (top) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(Undid revision 196688181 by MaartenVidal (talk) Please discuss in Talk Page, Taiwan. The current version reflects POV) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Taiwan) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(I'm sorry, but you are being POV when most of the countries in the world do not even recognize Taiwan as a country) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎ 00:05, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎(→Seceded regions and national liberation movements) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (hist) (diff) International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎


 * All of the above measurements are in Central Standard Time (USA), or +6 UTC. The one marked "20:11, 7 March 2008", is the one your server marked as 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC), and the one that follows, is where you claim, without providing a time signature of any kind, that my "time is wrong". If you are that kind of an anti-social, time-bending wikibandit, who denies even the correct UTC time of his edit, who's to take your side around here, if not our equally linear paragon of veracity and truth-or-consequence, Tocino, the same individual, who first noted that personal attacks were out of order, shortly thereafter personally referring to me in passing as a "Polish fascist Mareklug"? Perhaps his time server is also snafu'ed, and consequently, so is his sense of order?


 * All together, I'd rather be brainwashed by 'the "human rights" propaganda against China', than be a mor^H^H^H student in today's public high school system of an evidently fiscally exigent urban (-sprawling) California jurisdiction. At the very least, in my high school, students for the most part were rather successful at telling time truthfully, let alone reliably. Perhaps the google server to which you have alledgedly synchronized is in actuality an institution of discord, a literal Chinese People's Time Server, dedicated to furthering an irregular denial of chronicity, and by doing so, ending it? An attempt at chronic, if asynchronous, chronology denial? Not every measurement is relative; some are actually absolute errors or, hark!, disinformation. Ceterum censeo Res publica popularis Sinarum esse delendam. --Mareklug talk 07:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Mareklug, I may have screwed up the time by writing the wrong day of the month. As for your completely irrelevant attack of where I go to school, you might want to read the article a bit more carefully. The school is funded through the state, but directly through the local city. I do not like your attitude of irrelevant attacks, personal attacks (ie. "you are that kind of an anti-social, time-bending wikibandit") and possibly racial attacks, ie. "a literal Chinese People's Time Server, dedicated to furthering an irregular denial of chronicity", which I take to be an insult to my home country. When I pointed out that your time was wrong, I was merely trying to be helpful, but you used it to discredit me. Time is of little issue, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You have yet to respond to my arguments. --Ruolin59 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruolin, your position is blatantly NPOV and against WP policy. Number of recognized countries is not an objective definition of statehood: very few countries (if any) are "fully recognized" states.  China is not recognized by 23.  Israel is not recognized by more than 30.  North Korea still is not recognized by more than 100.  Before 2003, Afghanistan was not recognized by more than 3.  Nor is UN membership an objective definition: until 2002, Switzerland was not part of the UN, and even now the Holy See is not.  Without an objective, widely accepted definition; an objective, widely accepted WP policy; and in light of the fact that Taiwan uncontrovertibly functions as a fully independent state, POV requires us to treat it as such.  Please feel free to find me on my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further.Konekoniku (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Konekoniku, I did not really get what you were saying in the first sentence, where my "position is blatantly NPOV and against WP policy", because that statement contradicts itself, WP strives for NPOV (Neutral Point of View), therefore I cannot be "blatantly NPOV" and "against WP policy". Now I ask you, what IS the objective definition of statehood? The definition of a country cannot be purely objective, it is always relative. If other major credible countries do not recognize you as a country, then you can advocate that you are a country all you want, but that does not make you a country. If you take a look at this page, ROC is listed under "limited recognition" along with countries like Kosovo, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. All of these countries are either the topic of the article or listed under "Partially recognised nations, seceded regions, and national liberation movements". And also if you take a look at North Korea, it actually is listed under "majority recognition", which I doubt will happen if it is "not recognized by more than 100 [countries]". UN membership may not be an objective definition of the countries you have listed, because those countries chose not to be a part of the UN. On the other hand, the ROC strives to be recognized by the UN, yet is unable to be recognized. The status of the ROC is highly ambiguous, therefore to maintain the NPOV policy of WP, its status should be listed as ambiguous as well. --Ruolin59 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Taiwan's special status is duly noted in the text, and is governed entirely independently. To be honest, there is no objective definition of statehood -- that is why we use the facts on the ground (Taiwan is governed independently and maintains effective foreign relations with the rest of the world) to judge statehood rather than a controversial definition of "statehood" based on recognition.  If you're interested in the ongoing political science debate I would look up the WP article on sovereignty as an introduction (as a brief run-down, a major contending theory is the Montevideo Convention, whose definition Taiwan unequivocally fulfills).Konekoniku (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is governed independantly, yes, but it does NOT maintain effective foreign relations with the rest of the world. Major countries (such as the United States) does not even have formal relations with Taiwan. Therefore, even by your Montevideo Convention, Taiwan cannot be classified as a country: a permanent population - yes, that works; a defined territory - kind of works, it is VERY ambiguous what its territories span (ROC claims all of the PRC, Mongolia, etc etc); government - yes, but even a state in the USA has its own government; capacity to enter into relations with the other states - does not work, because it does NOT have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. --Ruolin59 20:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good discussion! First of all, ROC no longer claims PRC, Mongolia, etc. -- it has since dropped its claims on those territories.  (Moreover, even if it claimed those territories it would still constitute a "defined territory" -- if a highly ambitious one!)  Second of all, it does have the capacity to enter into relations with other states -- it maintains clear economic, consular, legislative, and cultural relations with just about every country in the world by whatever definition you choose to use (cf. article on TECO and TECRO, for example).  Moreover, it maintains military and diplomatic relations with a significant subset of states, including functional diplomatic relations with the United States. Konekoniku (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for relations, sure, ROC has de facto relations with other countries, but de jure relations with only 23 countries. When it comes to law, it is de jure that matters; de facto counts very little, because anything de facto would be POV. --Ruolin59 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob, good having this discussion with you! Keep in mind though that this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias reflect the facts -- the very meaning of de facto.  Also don't quite see your logic in stating that "anything de facto would be POV", when it seems that "de jure" would be more POV in the sense that while de facto by definition reflects realities, de jure often only reflects points of view.Konekoniku (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

However, de jure is what the law says, while de facto is what happens, or what people thinks, therefore to be the most NPOV, we should go by the law. --Ruolin59 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have thought of another way we could solve the problem of where to put the ROC government, please scroll down to the second "Taiwan Again..." and read my proposal, and tell me what you think there. From now all opinions on that matter will be discussed there. --Ruolin59 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You got one thing right -- de facto is what happens, the reality on the ground, not "what people think."  Moreover, there is no "de jure" consensus, as our discussion above indicated.  Please get a developing consensus before making any changes.Konekoniku (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'
'The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' should not be included in the main list of countries. Instead, it should be put under the other relevant entities. It is not recognised by any state other than Turkey and has actually been declared illegal by the UN Security Council under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 541 (1983), which specifically called the unilateral declaration of independence to be invalid. Putting it in the list of countries that recognise Kosovo is absolutely incorrect (this is one thing all the members of the Security council would be able to agree on). It has either been done out of ignorance of the situation, or represents an attempt to push a Turkish point of view. Either way, for the sake of accuracy, the TRNC should not be in the the main list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the notes you will see, that it is clearly stated that the TRNC is just recognized by Turkey. Although I wouldn't mind shifting it (together with Taiwan) in a separate category, I nevertheless think it is perfectly NPOV the way how it is currently presented in the main list. Gugganij (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is pretty much NPOV, so there's no reason to change it now. Moreover, if it were changed the Vatican would have to be moved too.Konekoniku (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but noting that it is only recognised by Turkey is still misrepresenting the argument. The TRNC has actually been declared illegal by the Security Council. (This is fundamentally different from Kosovo, which has not been declared legal or illegal by the Security Council.) It should not be accorded any formal legitimcy by inclusion in the list of states, even if this is footnoted. Its inclusion is most certainly an attempt to push a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, why do you think the UNSC has the final word on whether or not countries exist?Konekoniku (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New lists are not very useful.
The older lists, seperating, approval, negotiations and refusal were much better than the current list! please undo these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.196.5 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your comments.--Scotchorama (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Map


In order to make the article more "understandable", the comprehensive map should also (at least) be used. It is virtually used by all orther WP langage versions. And unlike the English version, the image is vecorized. --Camptown (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the old map was more useful. However the categories should be reduced to :


 * 1) has recognized
 * 2) has started he process of recognition
 * 3) has not recognized

The other sub-categories lead to endless edit-wars over how to interpret statements by offcials.

Passportguy (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree! Thank you! --Tubesship (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is more or less the current map. Blue - has recognized. Grey - has not recognized. --Avala (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Avala, you are misrepresenting the situation. Not recognised and refused to recognise are two very different things. By presenting them as one, you are in fact suggesting that many states have not recognised because they have not started the formal process of recognition. It is important to note that many countries have stated openly and officially that they do not intend to recognise the unilateral declaration of independence.Special:JL (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or you can have the following categories:

1) Has recognized 2) Said they will recognize 3) Neutral or ambigous 4) No Response 5) Considers the move a threat to Territorial Integrity or Will not recognize unless the security council recognizes it. 6) Called the move Illegal and Will not recognize it.

I think with better explanations there will be no more edit wars or arguments. 64.105.27.56 (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SWEDEN DID IT
Look: http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ Sweden recognised today, the 4th of March. Tak Sverige! --Tubesship (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM--Avala (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but Wikipedia found the right sources almost an hour before "kosovothanksyou.com". --Camptown (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see this is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&diff=195807220&oldid=195807006 at 15:00 there was no Sweden in the recognised list as I posted this. And my link is indeed reliable as they always include the recognition text so that everybody can be assured it is nothing faked. --Tubesship (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP was updated only seconds after the Swedish government announced its decision, i.e. 30 minutes before Kosovothanksyou.com. However, unlike kosovothanksyou.com, wp is subject to some revisionists who are not always 100% content with the realities and possibly found the Swedish decision too biased to be included here... --Camptown (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is edited by only 2 Kosovars wherease wikipedia by a ton. 128.206.160.99 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * Kosovothanksyou is not a reliable source. They state Tuvalu will recognize Kosovo just to populate the list. Sorry --Avala (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * just had to whine! it's spelled "Tack", Tak = ceiling/roof :p Chandler talk 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungary
"BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) - The prime minister said Tuesday that Hungary will recognize Kosovo's declaration of independence, but he did not name a date for doing so, reflecting the concern of some officials over the harm it could do to relations with Serbia and Russia."

http://www.pr-inside.com/hungary-faces-delicate-balance-with-russia-r469512.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.160.6 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is more and more vague as time goes on. The violent reaction of the Serbs is frightening - they will probably attack the 250'000 Hungarians living in Vojvodina. No other country has so much reason to fear of Serbia's reaction like Hungary. Zello (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? The chance of Serbia attacking Hungary is the same as Hungary attacking Austria. --Avala (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Hungary itself but the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina. This means about 250'000 people who are basically unprotected in case of violence. We all know what Serbian militias are able to do in a situation like this. I'm serious, and Kinga Göncz, Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed her concern also. Zello (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda that some politicians are running in Hungary doesn't necessarily correspond to the truth. --Avala (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The fears are real that Vojvodina can be the next place of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Hungary delayed the recognition until the emotions ease up in Serbia. I don't see any propaganda here, after the past 15 years you can't claim that ethnic cleansing is totally impossible in former Yugoslavia. Zello (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungary should be in the countries section. 128.206.48.6 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Australia
is missing from the list... — Nightstallion 15:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's there but it was hidden with a symbol left behind TRNC. --Avala (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New map


Could this be a workable compromise? Includes only states with clear positions for or against the unilateral declaration of independence. --Camptown (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, if you fix some obvious untruths (with regard to the legend used): The states of Armenia, Cuba or Bosnia and Hercegovina have not announced (nor have their foreign minsiters announced) that these countries will not recognize Kosovo; only some influential politicians within those countries or sub-state entities have gone on record opposing it, and in the case of Armenia, that an official decision will be announced in the future. So, coloring these countries red constitutes OR/synthesis and is an extrapolation into the future, even if that's the way to bet in the cases of Bosnia and Cuba (Armenia can well go either way, depending on the escalating confict over Nagorno Karabah with Azerbaijan).  And, perhaps the coloring of the "will-recognize" states should be a very light shade of green? Incidentally, the added on the Kosovo_relations.svg/.png maps Uruguay, marked there already as an officially nonrecognizing state in red, is not justified by the content of the reference used -- this Spanish-language reference is a "sources say"/"according to the informant" type press rumor, and not a notice of official state action.  Just thought you should know this. Oh, and vectorize the map as an SVG graphic, so that modern browser users (Opera, SeaMonkey, Firefox, Safari, even IE7 with a plug-in) can have the benefit of blowing up the map to examine small areas (such as Kosovo :) or Pacific islands, or details within Europe or Asia). --Mareklug talk Updated and augmented. --Mareklug talk 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am tired of repeating the same thing - countries that do not recognize have NO obligation to publish an official document of this. They are not legally or anyhow obliged to do so. They don't have to adopt a parliament decision. President does not have to sign a decree. They don't need to make it official as they legally consider the situation unchanged. These countries are not obliged to publish anything at all. I hope I made it clear now after 20 or so times explaining this. --Avala (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uruguay? How do you justify your coloring Uruguay red and writing (which I since corrected) that "Uruguay does not recognize", sourcing you edits with a Spanish-language website which clearly says "the informant said" and "sources say", without naming any official or claiming any state action. Your edits, again, are of unsubstantiated sort and downright false. --Mareklug talk 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish to state that I prefer this map to the one currently posted. In addition, I believe that the list in the article should be organized in a similar manner to denote countries that intend to recognize and countries that have stated they will not recognize. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It also solves current edit disputes since it only lists countries that have firmly stated that they recognize, plan to recognize, or will absolutely not recognize. There map does NOT interpret ambiguous government statements. What it does is provide accurate info to readers. And it allows informed readers to see the obvious patterns among both recognizing and anti-recognition states. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't solve anything. You are simply trying to make it look that Kosovo has more support and less opposition then it actually does, thus making the article entirely POV and against Wikipedia standards. Also countries like China, that called Kosovo's move "illegal" get colored the same as counties that have no position at all. So by removing the original map, you are saying that "illegal" is the same as no position and leading the readers away from the truth. This article in this state is bullshit 68.166.135.163 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with comment above. It's important to show on maps countries which we have any information vs. totally unknown. --TAG (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How does including the countries that officially refuse to recognize Kosovo POV? That is basic facts. Countries with ambiguous positions should not be included on the map but should be left grey. However, countries, like Russia, that absolutely refuse to recognize Kosovo, are no ambigious. If anything, leaving them off promotes a pr-independence POV since it hides such opponents among neutrals/ambiguous/unknown. Oh, and as to China, it did not explicitly join Russia in refusing to recognize. Thus, for purposes of the map it cannot be included. Its statement that the move was illegal, however, can be represented on the list. 141.166.226.105 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, map must show undecided vs. unknown to Wikipedia. As example for Angola we have no any information, while we have opinion of Canada Prime Minister. Those should be colored different color - because Angola can be on any side of conflict, while Canada is clearly neutral. Maybe this can be different levels of gray color. --TAG (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's illustrate the difficulties involved using your concrete examples of Canada and Angola: Whereas I think everyone will agree today, that we have no information whatsoever on Angola's position and intentions, Canada could be and perhaps should be designated neutral/undecided (khaki color on the maps we used before), but the editor, who colored it, colored it orange for who knows what reasons; certainly, its government has very carefully been saing all along that it is studying the issue, when it has been saying anything at all. To butress the call that Canada belongs in the same color category as China, a commentary about separatism in Quebec by a former prime minister is sourced in the article (because, obviously, it was impossible to get any current government official to say anything substantive on the subject ). Yet, equally justifiably, if not more, based on recent influential press statements (editorials)           and statements of the opposition party's leader, Stephane Dion, and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who doesn't see recognizing Kosovo's independence as implying anything in the matter of independent Quebec , Canada should be perhaps colored light blue, as eventually recognizing.  Take a look at this important opinion, quoted on the left, of the chief aide and foreign policy architect of the very same former prime minster quoted to justify orange coloring of Canada on the map, and see if you don't think it persuasively signals expert Canadian opinion, that Canada is really a light blue state.--Mareklug talk 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There should just be just three categories: a) recognised, b) refuse to recognise, and c) undeclared. States that have said that they will recognise will remain in the third category until such time as the process is finished, just as those states that oppose independence but have not issued a formal statement to this effect would as well. This would be the fairest and most accurate system. Russia's outright rejection deserves to be noted just as much as the US position to recognise. Also, can I ask that the colours be changed. I am colour blind and the red and green are difficult to tell apart. JL (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.216.218 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Three categories seem reasonable to me. 141.166.243.146 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and whoever made this map needs to update it: Iceland and Slovenia have recognized. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mareklug, I agree that coloring Canada with orange was wrong. But how about different shades of gray ? Gray color is often used to describe "gray areas" in black and white world ? It will be informative to show countries not involved at all in conflict. --TAG (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan
Why is Pakistan in light blue? There is no reference stating that they intend to recognise Kosovo as independent. This is just someones POV. Thats why the map was changed Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The map is based on the Commons version (Image:Kosovo relations.svg), currently used by many WP editions. If Pakistan does not intend to recognize Kosovo, the map should be corrected accordingly. --Camptown (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Greece is not included in any of the three categories related to this map. --17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry about greece, i read the map wrong. i should have maximized it. however it is containing other users POV and that is not what whikipedia is about its meant to have a NPOV Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to be a litte more constructive. What exactly is POV with the new map? --Camptown (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Its based on what other users believe a countries position is rather than it being based on fact Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to be more specific than that. What exactly is POV? --Camptown (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV is someone point of view. Now it is somebodys point of view on Pakistan intending to recognising Kosovo and it is also someones point of view is Kosovo explicitly doesn't recognise Kosovo because there are no sources backing it up, and thats because there isn't any. Your map contains these points of view. Therefore is not NPOV which it should be. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the quality of this image which is horrible. You can't even distinguish borders between countries. --Avala (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

POV is when User A says that Pakistan should be grey and User B says it should be blue. Then the edit war starts. The easiest way to stop this is to include only countries that have officially recognized. --Avala (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Avala. The page was locked for 2 days last time after an edit war. I shouldn't happen again. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

African Union flags
Just out of curiosity, why aren't we showing flag icons for members of the African Union, since we show them for the EU and OIC states? I think we should include them. -- Rob NS  17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a European issue not African. Also the AU has not said anything on the matter of Kosovo declaring independence unlike the OIC and EU. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is because Kosovo or Serbia are not and will never be AU members. --Avala (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But will they ever be OIC members? If not, why are OIC flags shown? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Because Kosovo Albanians are 99% Muslim. Albania and BiH are members of the OIC if I remember correctly. --Tocino 07:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Senegal for example in the list should also have the African Union flag. 128.206.160.99 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Well Albania is a OIC member, and since Kosovo is 92% Albanian, yes Kosovo may become a OIC member.

The African Union has nothing to do with Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Map?
Why are on this map only countries that recognize Kosovo? And why are countries that don't recognize Kosovo & undecided countries in same table?
 * Why don't you check out previous discussion on this subject and answered questions before opening a new section? --Avala (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They might be in the same "table" because they all have in common, not recognizing Kosovo? Chandler talk 13:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or they might be in the same table (or chart, or list, or whatever we wish to call it today) because individuals like the above posters are too lazy (or POV?) to differentiate countries have announced they will not recognize Kosovo from countries that have not recognized Kosovo but have NOT announced categorically that they will or will not recognize in the future. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel section misspell? Uruguay or its government members have NOT made any statements (no basis for claiming, that it ALREADY rejected independent Kosovo)
In the Israel section it says "Wary of Palestinin declaration of independence" Should this say "Palestinian"? 72.248.122.243 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, by removing the phrase - it was restated more precisely later in the sentence. Also made Uruguay's evidence conform with the actual content of the source used to make that call. Those, who can't read Spanish, can use the Babelfish web translator to convince themselves of the veracity of my say. --Mareklug talk 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Purge please
The page is way too long. At least 2/3 of it need to be Archived. JosipMac (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once I did that someone reverted it. --Avala (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I support this. Hobartimus (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some archiving, but it will probably be considered POV and biased and accordingly reverted before nobody will notice... --Camptown (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia
The bullshit of this article continues to astound me. For instance the Russian-supported Sukhumi gov't. is the legitimately elected government in which most Abkhaz people voted, and it controls all of, (not most of as mistankely stated) Abkhazia. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although this is off-topic: a quick glance at the article on Abkhazia will learn you that the separatists and their Russian allies control 83% of the Abkhaz territory and that the fact that more than half of the original population (among which around 200.000 ethnic Georgians) has been expelled might contribute to the high percentage of pro-Russians. MaartenVidal (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral article, part 2
All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list. You have a problem with them not officialy yeling at the whole world and saying they are against independence like the US and 4/5 of the EU are doing. They are talking non-stop about parliament decisions and their goverments positions on the pro-independence decision. But you are constantly removing the countries that are against independence because their parlament didn't said so, because their president or prime-minister didn't said so. The thing is they cann't all say so openly they are against, because then they will be attacked by the US or some other pro-independence country for taking that position. We have to rely on statements from the press like in the case of Uruguay, or ministers like in the case of Cuba. Fidel Castro himself has said he is against independence for Kosov, and now some people are not letting Cuba on to the list of those that are against independence because Fidel Castro is not president anymore so it is not an "official" statement. First of all Fidel was still president at the time when Kosovo said they are independent, so what does that tell you, also he was president of Cuba for 50 years and if you think he is not running the country still then you are a MORON. No offence. Also as for China, and you know which China I am talking about the Red China because there is no other, Taiwan is not accepted by the international comunity to be independent and doesn't have a seat in the UN. Back to the topic, as for China like user 68.166.135.163 said, China stated that Kosovo's unilateral declaration was "illegal" and because they said it is illegal and didn't say they are against independence you do not want to put China on the list of anti-independence. C'mon people, illegal, what do you think they are trying to say. I know this is a very hot topic but as for the anti-independence countries you just have to read between the lines. And also stop attacking editors that are against the independence of Kosovo, none of them have attacked the pro-independence editors. Stop attacking editors like Tocina, Camptown, Avala and me. And I am specificly telling this to users GreenClawPristina, Mareklug (who is the greatest violator of all) and user Ijanderson977. And this is on a personal note to Ijanderson977, I saw your user page, where do you come off representing yourself as a Marxist. You probably don't have an idea what Marxism is realy. A real Marxist wouldn't be doing what you are doing. And you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who realy doesn't know what he is talking about.(Top Gun)
 * Now I even see Japan in the no column, though I have not heard anything from the Japanese MOFA in about 2-3 weeks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what column is that? The article only lists Japan in the table presently titled "states that do not formally recognize independent Kosovo", together with the likes of Russia. :) And the 3, properly sourced and attributed personally to named Japanese officials, utterances on the subject of recognizing Kosovo's independence by Japan, in the "Evidence" column, taken together unequivocally indicate that the country plans on recognizing, but will take its time doing so. Apparently, they are being true to their word. In what way is any of this violating NPOV, the allegation made in this section of the talk page, or countered by verified sources? If contradictory information can be sourced, by all means, please add it to the Evidence column.  And the map used in the artifcle at the present time certainly makes no indication of "yes" on the part of Japan, since it is displayed in gray, not dark green.  The other maps show it in light blue, as intending to recognize, which is consistent with the Evidence column's content. Your point? --Mareklug talk 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That I personally don't like the changes of the format and the constant moving of the title. But as for my personal issues with regards of Japan and Kosovo, I keep them outta here and in my blog. On here, I just wish editors can make up their minds and figure out how to sort this out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally find that the article is starting to look pretty good. The categories are based on facts, not on speculation, adn are verifiable. this avoids any POV-pushing. I was one of those who at first wanted several categories, but this suits me as it is encyclopaedic and factualy. We seem to have gotten rid of most "dodgy" entities, sports federations are separate, and the views of separatist movements are taken into account. I'm happy with it: perhaps a vote would simplify discussions and give legitimacy to the current article?--Scotchorama (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TopGun. I think that the way information is sorted is incorrect and biased. I accept that this is a highly political issue. But just as recognition is important, so are statements explicitly rejecting the unilateral declaration of indepedence. A fair system, and an accurate system, would have three categories: a) recognised, b) refuse to recognise, and c) undeclared. I really think that this would actually serve the purposes of the article far better than the current system. Russia is not simply a country that does not recognise Kosovo. It is a country that has actively rejected the declaration as illegal. Surely this deserves to be recognised as an important position. The current position is in fact biased. JL (talk)

I agree with TopGun.Vladar86 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey TopGun. Theres no need getting all personnel with me. Just calm down mate, go watch an episode of Star Trek or sumet, release all your anger by watching fictional aliens getting killed yeh. Theres no need to discriminate against me because of my age and saying "you shouldn't be involving yourself with things like this and have no right speaking on this discussion page because you are just a 17-year-old kid who really doesn't know what he is talking about." thats just fascist and not a very nice think to say. Its a bit like me saying "you have no right here, because your Serbian and this is English Wikipedia, not Serbian Wikipedia" But luckily im not like that. I think its fair for me to say that we should all be equal here and ive got as much right to be here as you do. I thought you knew about the 5 pillars of wikipedia, as its mentioned at the top of user talk page. Obviously not. Also please stop criticizing me for things you don't even know about me. Have you got any evidence to suggest that i don't know what i'm talking about? Because i would love to see it. And Ive not been attacking any of them users you have named. In fact ive been working with Avala, and im pretty sure Avala will back me up when i say I'm neutral on this article. One last thing TopGun, if you have any problems just let me know. I'll help you out, you can have my shoulder to cry on. Cheers mate x x x x x x x x x x x Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Taiwan
Taiwan (ROC), like the Turkish Republic of Cyprus has no place in this article as it is not a legitimate government or nation. Please revise the map showing the recognised countries to reflect this fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.99.139 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They been moved down towards where Trandniester and other regions are at. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also 67.84.99.139, please sign your posts --Ruolin59 01:35, 10 March 2008

Why you deleted Germany
somebody have deleted Germany from the list. shame. Germany has embasy in Kosovo

Link for Pakistan
According to this, Pakistan supports independence. It doesn't, however, say that they have formally recognized it.

P.S. it looks like it is about time to archive this page and start a fresh one. Contralya (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecclesiastic group
With the increasing list of Orthodox Churches represented with their opinons here, how about including them in a group named Ecclesiastic organizations. --Camptown (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Initiated the new group, as it doesn't feel really fair to put the Serbian Orthodox Church in the same group as various separatist movements. --Camptown (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it also contains the Islamic Community of Serbia, shouldn't the category rather be called "Religious/Spiritual organizations", as ecclesiastic has Christian connotations?--Scotchorama (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the article should focus on the Orthodox Christians and the Serbian Orthodox Church which maintains a very special relation to Kosovo. How about: "Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations"?--Camptown (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Thanks.--Scotchorama (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article reported as NPOV (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) Admins never said it was NPOV
Recently posted by 68.166.135.163 (talk) at: Wikipedia:Administrators's noticeboard --Camptown (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hi, I couldn't find anywhere to place this, so I am going to enter the problem here: the arcticle about Kosovo's Independence that I came across 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence' is extremely biased. Three editors, GreenClawPristina, Mareklug, Ijanderson977 are doing whatever they want, no matter how other editors and viewers vote. After reading the discussion page, I believe that the neutrality of the article is severely flawed. For instance the article's title was 'Diplomatic Reaction to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence' and the trio, with no support from anyone, changed it to 'International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence'. In addition they re-did the whole map to their whims. We need a an NPOV and unbiased moderator there, FAST, because soon the whole article will turn into an edit war. On of the most neutral editors made this comment: 'All right what is wrong with this article. Why is almost every editor here pro-Kosovo independence and against Serbia. Some of you even insulted Serbia talking about genocide. You have attacked again and again editors that are not of your opinion who want to add countries that are against the independence of Kosovo to the list. You remove those countries again and again from those lists and put them to the neutral list.' Serbian 'genocide' has yet to be proven, kinda like WMDs in that one place, so asserting it in the faces of the other editors is POV. So again, please send someone who has no stake in Kosovo's Politics one way or another to help us with this article, or delete the whole damn thing, but it's as much NPOV as the Communist Pravda used to be. 68.166.135.163 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"


 * Please stop denying the genocide for the sake of the victims! We will always honour the innocent, unarmed men killed in the so called protected zone of Srebrenica. Rest in peace, brethren! --Tubesship (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't want to start a whole discussion, but "One of the most neutral editors" as you say actually states "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohija ." on his personal page. 2) As Tubesship says, don't forget Srebrenica. The ICTY has ruled Srebrenica to be a crime of genocide. In any case, this isn't the place to debate such matters. 3) Regarding the current map, it is a factual map of countries that recognize Kosovo and countries that don't. A country that firmly opposes recognition of Kosovo is a country that doesn't recognize it. An undeclared country also doesn't recognize Kosovo. And thus begin countless edit wars on the subjective question of who does, and who doesn't, and who is waiting, and who will probably recognize... and it becomes impossible to sort things out. By using the standard of who recognizes and who doesn't, we base the category on verifiable fact. That is the most NPOV policy. Now, the choice of colours may be questionable, as the grey has that "blank" look. Perhaps blue and red, or green and red would be better, but I really do not see how this map is POV when it is based on the only verifiable criteria there is: official documentation. I'm not pushing one view or the other. I think the comments explain the policy of each country clearly.--Scotchorama (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is my reply on the noticeboard:


 * And in any case, the accusations and finger-pointing are misplaced, partly groundless, not supported by evidence from revision history. For one, I did not participate in the article re-architecting, its actual renames (I made a proposition which was disregarded, "Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"), or instituting/editing the new map (or even, editing the old maps). Ironically, the new version was conceived of, discussed, and implemented by Avala/ljanderson, who if anything, represent the pro-Serb/pro-Kosovar viewpoints and are working together. :) Anyway... while I remain agnostic as to which version must be adopted, the new one, in a constructive reaction to edit warring that occurred earlier and caused page protection of both the page and its maps, avoids much POVing and ORing, by eliminating interpretation on the part of editors. The fact, that POV edits continue to be made (see: Uruguay) speaks for this version and its new map, as it is easier to correct POV in this version, apparently without engendering vicious revert cycles, or POV beyond hope of fixing. --Mareklug talk 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kudos to you Mareklug. It may be the lowest common denominator, but at least it is a common denominator.--Scotchorama (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If China says it's illegal, it's illegal, and therefore they won't recognize something that's illegal. If Fidel publishes something in the OFFICIAL Cuban newspaper and it's not challenged by anyone, it's Cuban policy. There's no interpretation here. And the fact that you moved this down, shows that you don't want the readers to know how biased your views are. 64.105.27.56 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not take part in changing the name to "International Reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of Independence". Please check the page history in future before accusing me of thing I didn't do. I have never mention "genocide" in the article or in the talk page either. Yet again, please check the page history before accusing me of thing i haven't done. I am NPOV in all my editing, to prove this i have worked with User:Avala on many occasions on editing the page. He happens to be pro Serbian and I am pro Kosovar. So since I've been working with him, he is going to notice if i write anything Pro Kosovo, and i will notice if he writes something Pro Serbian. So we represent both view points and work together neutrally. So get your facts correct before blaming people. Also user:Mareklug has not done anything he has been accused of either, because i have checked the history on him and there is no sign of him editing of what you have accused him of doing. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The map
I know the old one was kind of confusing, but now it- is off. Now, it says even countries that are planning to recognize it, do not. And countries that havn't taken a postion, either saying its part of serbia or not part, are listed as saying it is. Therfor, this map is ALSO bad. I know countries waiting for a UN postion basicly are saying we don't recognize, but by saying they don't recognize kosovo just based on the un thing, is POV, and also unsourced since these goverments NEVER said they don't recognize kosovo, so now this map is off, the other map atleast put other postions besides "recognize", "don't recognize" and the location os kosovo. Basicly, the countries planning to recognize it soon, apparently do not anymore.--Jakezing (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Björk
I worship, like many millions of others worldwide (and, who ever listens in Deep Space...), in the church Björk. Considering her dedicating some of her recent performances of "Declare Independence" in Japan to independent Kosovo (she has also done this in China, but dedicating the song to independent Tibet, and many times before that to the indpenendent Faroe Islands and independent Greenland), and, apparently, has been dropped as a consequence of the Kosovo dedications from the upcoming Exit Festival in Novi Sad in Vojvodina this summer for doing this, should we not add her to the page? After all, many more millions worship at the church of this Icelandic pixie than at most of the ones listed before and currently, and, dare I say this, the worldwide population of Björkists far exceeds the populations of many a virulent little country on record this way or that on this issue... As a proponent of world without borders, but conceding that, alas, sometimes borders make for good neighbors, at least, until the neighbors learn to behave, I propose listing Her, with sources, of course, under "Other relevant entities", emphasis on relevant. And here is her own statement in this matter (see quote on the right). Naturally, having seen her twice live in Chicago (once from the 1st row, even), I feel really sorry for all her fans in Serbia, who have been waiting forever to see her live in their country and, apparently, won't get to, at least for a while longer. Thus, a musical consequence of the international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence became rife with its own chain-reaction consequences in the lives of good many good people... --Mareklug talk 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice but Björk's opinion is absolutely irrelevant for this article. You can add it to Björk. If she was some kind of world known influential Kosovar or Serbian maybe but even then I would be against, but Icelandic pop star has nothing to do with this. But you are just proving your attitude here. Just how you consider Bjork more important than small countries is sad. --Avala (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Far sadder is you chronic skewing of reality, including my plain and nonjudgmental statement of fact (not comparing importance of either countries or churches, only of relative sizes of populations involved). And, you didn't have to misspell her name. That's plain disrespect, and that is sad. --Mareklug talk 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not misspell her name - but I guess you have run out of ideas what to accuse me for. I suggest you add it to the article and I promise that I will not remove it so we can see for how long will it stay there. --Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't we get Michael Jackson's reaction too? Kidding. Bjork's opinion about Kosovo is very irrelevant to this article. --Tocino 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be better suited at the article on the festival or on Bjork. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did eventually add it, nicely sourced and contextualized, and it did not survive a minute. Since I put a lot of work into it, I transplanted it, with added historical-political context to her biogram, where someone added a blurb re her shouting Tibet. The festival page contains a small section with two sources, too. And, linking from here, it has an archival value to any future browsers of this subject. --Mareklug talk 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia
Slovenia is widly expected to recognize Kosovo today. The Parliamentary debate has just begun, and a vote is expected later in the day. If, as expected, the Slovenian parliament recognizes Kosovo’s unilateral independence today, the decision will enter into force immediately. Slovenia will then become the 15th EU member state to recognize Kosovo. (B92) --Camptown (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has added Slovenia to the list, and quoted a source. My Slovene isn't all that great, but from what I understand it seems to be legitimate. Passportguy (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I added Slovenia. The Slovenian Press Agency provided also a short summary in English. I replace the current source with the English text. Gugganij (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is convincing, I mean is it official?Mucirylli (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Parliament voted in favor of recognition and this decision is effective immediately. --Avala (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. • YllI  19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slovenia was the first ex-Yugoslav country to recognize Kosovo. The Serbs cannot possibly have received the decision with light hearts. And one can only imagine the low sentiment at the Prime Minister's office in Belgrade tonight... --Camptown (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Iceland
The wwww.kosovothanksyou.com page claims that Iceland recognized Kosovo today... Zello (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone that speaks Albanian translate the text given as a source at kosovothanksyou

at : http://kosovothanksyou.com/files/IslandRecognizesKosova.pdf 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation (Alb-Eng): "Iceland recognizes Republic of Kosova, as an independent and sovereign

Prime minister of Kosova, Hashim Thaçi has received today a letter from the minsister of outside work of Iceland, Ingibjorg Sor....,in which he has confirmed the recognition of REpublic of Kosova as country which is independent and sovereing." That is the first paragraph..I hope you get the picture.Kosova2008 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * That website is not a reliable source as it's clearly not neutral. --Avala (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to do that. You can find the official source at the Iceland Foreign Affairs Ministry at ... --GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC) ICELAND DID RECOGNIZE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA AND THE PDF DOCUMENT IS A GOVERNMENT RELEASED DOCUMENT.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between "Iceland to recognize Kosovo's independence" and "Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence". Now turn off your caps lock. --Avala (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I doubt Icelandic government would release an official document in Albanian language. --Avala (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AVALA DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. And the document is a Kosovar Official Document.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Icland have today formaly recognize Kosovo as an independent state, here the source from the Foreign Ministry of Iceland http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/frettaefni/frettatilkynningar/nr/4134 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.58.22 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice One who ever you are. Thanks for the source. Next time please sign your Comments. :)--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I Guess that after all kosovothanksyou.com is Reliable hehehe.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, kosovothanksyou.com is not reliable in itself. Gugganij (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody add Iceland to the list of the States that Recognized Republic of Kosova. I would do it but I have to leave.--GreenClawPrishtina (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true. I can understand enough of it to confirm. Hmm, they must have read Avala's disparaging B. as a "pop star" and mobilized instantenously. How else to explain such quickening, after they just said they don't know when they'll act... At this rate, Norway, a done deal, will be the Scandinavian laggard... Yes, be happy to. --Mareklug talk 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Iceland has now been added to the list of recognizing countries Passportguy (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to reports, Iceland seems to have made the formal decision last Friday, February 29. (Xinhua) --Camptown (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. That was only the decision to recognize, not the recognition itself. Passportguy (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore old map and tables
Please, can anyone revert the present green-grey map to the previous colour-code? This one mislead information falsely atributing all the categories of countries not recognising yet Kosovo as Serbia integrity supporters. --193.144.12.226 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the countries categories have also been changed, erasing valuable information in a way, i think, to bias the article.

The old version was biased. It made Kosovo seem as if it had more support and less opposition. For example only the countries in red seemed to be the ones not recognising Kosovo, when plenty of others don't recognise Kosovo too (all the grey ones on the current map). Also the countries on the map, which intend to recognise Kosovo make, Kosovo seem to have more support on the map, and half of them didn't have reference to back up that they intent to recognise Kosovo. the old map contained other users POV, it wasn't NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm almost inclined to agree... And that was a far better reply than the replies you gave yesterday, when you only said that the map was POV, and only elaborated about the concept of POV in general terms. ;) --Camptown (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

''':;Again, how is it POV to denote Russia, Serbia, and Venezuela on the map as countries that refuse to recognize Kosovo - that is their official government position. Now, I will agree that countries with ambiguous positions should not be denoted and that this was a problem with the old map. The new map, however, is not any more satisfactory since it hides opponents to Kosovar independence among the countries with ambiguous, neutral, or unknown stances. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)'''


 * Oh yeah, my bad above: I didn't intend to type in bold. 141.166.153.142 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Camptown, that is why i believe the current map is NPOV. Hopefully we can work better together in future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ijanderson977: I do hope so too! --Camptown (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but neutral countries still don't recognise Kosovo and it mentions that the country is neutral in the "evidence" section. So that is why neutral countries are to be grey and are with countries such as Russia and Serbia, because the all don't recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The only objective criterion we have is official recognition vs. no official recognition. Khuft (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Khuft, that puts it nicely and more simple. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly, we should reconsider the green color, though. The current map bears some striking similarities with the map of the Islamic Conference. --Camptown (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. These colours (silver/green) have been commonly used in maps throughout Wikipedia for ages (see for instance this map of Austria-Hungary or this map of the Ottoman Empire) A couple of years ago, all the image locator maps in country articles were like this. bogdan (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should have a bright colour, such as light blue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also make Kosovo a colour such as red, so that it will stand out more on the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This map was based on Wikipedia map of Taiwan recognition - Image:CountriesRecognizingROC.png (Taiwan - black, recognizing - green) It is not hiding anything and is not based on OIC map. There was huge misunderstanding what constitutes "non recognition" and there were many edit wars which led to locking of both article and image. Now the article has been stable since this layout was introduced because it is only reporting on positions of countries without any interpretation from our behalf. And green is more of a "yes" color than blue. --Avala (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * :This map is baised, the old map was biased to, but this map is more biased in that it says that kosovo has less supporters then it does, that "will recognize" catagory should be re added just because those countries are not in the exact same class as "don't recognize".

Oh, to the [ rmv'd --LS ] above me, STOP EDITING YOUR THING SO QUICKLY!, I HAD TO GO TO THE EDIT CONFLICT PAGE TWICE NOW, Second, all other maps, well, alot of them, use BLUE to show things.--Jakezing (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my edits caused you edit conflicts. It was definitely not my intention to do so. I would also appreciate if you would address the matter in less aggressive way next time. Thank you. --Avala (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mate, i agree with Avala more and there is no need for getting personnel and swearing. This map is not biased because it is based on fact. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a rather annoying gap created by the map. As the map is followed by a table, I understand that the only practical way to avoid the gap is to relocate the map to the embedded by the text in the top part of the article. How about moving the map to the space between the first and second paragraph, locating it to the left with a width of, say, 500px? --Camptown (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

yeh, i agree with that. Just make sure the map is big enough to see the countries that have recognised Kosovo without having to maximize the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal
Reading through the above I see two main arguments :


 * 1) Having too many catageories of recognition/non-recognition/intended/planned/whatever will lead to endless edit-wars and is inevitably based on interpretation on statements.
 * 2) Not including countries which explicity do not recognize Kosovo might be considered a non-neutral point of view, as the map only shows pro-Kosovo countries.



I have made a map which includes


 * 1) Countries which have officially recognized Kosovo independance (green) and
 * 2) Countries which have explictly stated that they do not intend to recognize Kosovo or have condemned Kosovo declaration as illegal and/or invalid (red). This list does not inlcude countries that "just" voiced concern or would prefer more negotions.

I included Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Cuba, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Tajikistan, and Venezuela on the red list, based on quoted provided on the table. I may have missed some (I'm not perfect), if so please list below.

I specifically didn't include Sri Lanka (the quote given seems ambigious) and Uruguay (where "unamed sourced" are quoted). Maybe someone can find better sourced citation for these two countries. Vietnam also doesn't seem to have stated that it will not recognize ? Passportguy (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This map just makes out if there is two sides. the pro Kosovo side and the pro Serbia side. It just splits them into two. Not good i don't think. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also there is no reference to say that Cuba has explicitly stated they don't recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The map actually has three "sides" the green (pro), the red (against) and the grey (everybody else). As for Cuba, the quote states that the country will follow Castro's opinion (negative). I am not advocating this map as perfect, but I do think that some of the anti-Kosovo editiors may have a point that the present map only allows one side (the pro-side) to be shown and does not include any information on opposition to Kosovo's independance. Passportguy (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least we should have states which have declared their intent to recognize separate from the rest and noted on the map.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh the Cuban reference states Fidel Castro's opinion. The reference is dated after he gave all power to his brother Raul, so that reference is useless, as its just the opinion of an ex-leader. I never said there was two sides, i said "it makes out if there is two sides." Also this map is biased in favour of Kosovo, as it suggests there is only around 20 states not recognising it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Cuban citation isn't perfect and I don't want to get into a detailed discusion of Cuban politics (e.g. the Castro is still the leader of the KP and thus not completely out of the picture) and agree we need a better source for Cuba's position.

I don't fully understand why you would view the map as biased, though. No, but the map implies that only 25 countries have recognised Kosovo. Also they are all purely based on fact. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC) A country is not required to say it doesn't recognise Kosovo, for it to not to recognise Kosovo. They can do nothing if they wish and still not recognise Kosovo. So all countries that have said nothing or have said they are neutral still dont recognise Kosovo. So all countries, which haven't officially/ formally recognise Kosovo should be grey.
 * a) you could also hold against the map the its biased against-Kosovo as it implies that only 25 countries will recognize Kosovo (???)
 * b) If you like, the subtext explaining the colour grey could read "countries that have not recognized Kosovo and have not stated whether or not they intend to do so" (or something similar) Passportguy (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And by including countries, which intend to recognise Kosovo on the map, this will also be biased in favour of Kosovo as it makes it seem to have more support, than it actually does. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those countries are (intentionally= not included on the map ! Passportguy (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate said something about intending to recognise Kosovo. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this because there are countries like China who were not explicit but their position is obvious. Let's just stick to the standard map used in other partially recognized territories like Taiwan. --Avala (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except you have several countries which are clearly going to recognize, they're just not finished with their proceedings to do so or they're waiting for some specific thing. Croatia, for instance, said they'd recognize when a majority of EU members do and a majority have.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. Its just better that way. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Norway and Finland are no furhter from being green than either Cuba or Bosnia are to being red. So. What justifies introducing a map, on which the first two are not green, but the latter two, are red? Don't you see the asymmetry and POV inherent in this? Norway is waiting for the King to decree something that is in the can, ready, done. Just waiting. Finland also - scheduled to approve this Friday. We might be surprised by other countries approving in the interim (Japan? Croatia? Portugal?), but these two are the logical bet. Meanwhile, we don't have even a shred of official position from either Cuba or Bosnia, but all you guys (save for ljanderson) have no qualms coloring them red. I am amazed. Basically, if you won't color Norway and Finland green, don't color Cuba and Bosnia red. --Mareklug talk 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That nonsense. Norway and Finland are much farther from recognizing Kosovo than, lets say Russia and Spain because Russia Spain have stated, as a matter of official policy, that they will not recognize. There is a difference between a country that has officially decided it will not recognize and a country that has made no real decision. 141.166.229.162 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New table
I created a table for the states which have said officially they're recognizing Kosovo eventually, especially those which initiated proceedings to do so. I felt the other table was much too long and shouldn't include those intending to recognize alongside those outright against it. I didn't include some countries because they haven't come out to explicitly say they will recognize Kosovo. Japan, for instance had said it is "leaning" towards recognition, but so far we don't have a straight answer from them.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you should have discussed it first. Because now its biased, with your POV in it. It now makes out that Kosovo has more support than it does. Its not NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus Portugal said it will "consider", so it hasn't officially said they will recognise. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

When you said Croatia will recognise once the majority of the EU does, it depends on what you call majority. Because you consider Majority over half. And Croatia may consider majority over 75%. You just don't know. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow talking about overcomplicating :) If it says "majority" then that means 50%+1 (in some cases known as "absolute majority"). 75% is "qualified majority". Unless stated otherwise, everyone considers a "majority" to be "50%+1" and not "relative" or "qualified" majority. Also, Croatia will recognize Kosovo on March 15th. It's pretty much set already, so all this talk about majority is irrelevant. JosipMac (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Bulgaria haven't said they will officially recognise Kosovo, just that they would propose to the government to establish relations with the Kosovo authorities. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bulgarian government is split on this matter atm. And the opposition is against. So there could very well be 50%+ votes against recognition in the parliament. --Avala (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And if Bulgaria wants to wait for the Ahtisari plan to work, they might have to wait for a long time... --Camptown (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, presumptions of bias abound. Oddly I've been accused of being biased against Kosovo on other articles. It actually doesn't make out that Kosovo has more support than it does because plenty of nations expressed support, but are not included. Bangladesh and Pakistan expressed support and other nations expressed support, but haven't announced any plans to recognize. Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have all said they will eventually recognize though each put different limits. Croatia's is the most important as it probably means they'll be recognizing soon basically following the lead of Slovenia as many pre-declaration reports stated. The other three are not as certain, but all declared they ultimately would, though not necessarily very soon so they were included. Norway, Finland, and Lithuania are just not finished with the process.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day. You went ahead a did it without discussing it. Wikipedia is not for your opinion, its ment to be factual and neutral. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense. Every edit doesn't need to be discussed and the fact is there does need to be a division because right now you have an exceedingly long and bothersome table that really doesn't help anyone understand the situation.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative
Another idea: some states went through some process other than declarations with regards to the independence. A lot of the countries in the second section have entries like: the president said will consider the issue at some time in the future; while some of the countries in the same table had a wider debade (e.g. parliament vote). I think the latter should be placed separately since they are a lot less likely to switch positions and recognise the independence. Nergaal (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Only Finland, Norway and Lithuania are officially in the immediate process to recognize Kosovo. The rest are just speculation. Most countries are probalby just going to be passive for the time being, and the next wave of recognitions could possbily come from governments which haven't yet been very vocal about their intentions.  --Camptown (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i agree with Camptown. No point having a seperate list for 3 countries. Put it back to how it was for now and if loads of countries say they intent to recognise Kosvo, then we can re-discuss having a third tabel for countries. But keep it how it was for now. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created this list well he just made everything white and black. Just because Croatia and other countries have AMBIGIOUS or unofficial stances doesn't mean that they are OPPOSED or AGAINST independence. Block quote

Pusic: Recognition this month

- It is realistic to expect Croatia will recognise Kosovo independence this month, but despite this fact, relations between Zagreb and Belgrade will remain good – Vesna Pusic said today in Belgrade, where she is attending Cedomir Jovanovic`s Liberal Democratic Party convention.

Kosovo has right to independence: Croatia March 05, 2008 6:57 AM

TOKYO, March 5-(Kyodo), Visiting Croatian President Stjepan Mesic dismissed concerns Wednesday that Kosovo's independence will trigger problems for countries with similar autonomous regions and stressed that Kosovo is entitled to declare its independence.

TOKYO - Croatian President Stipe Mesic warned on Wednesday that Serbia would only be hurting itself if it seeks reprisals against countries that recognise Kosovo.

Croatia has not recognised Kosovo’s independence from Serbia declared on February 17. But Croatia says it will follow the lead of the majority of the European Union, whose major players have given Kosovo the nod.

Here is proof that Croatia will be recognized from Croatia..the Albania media is reporting of next Thursday, but if I put that here Avala would slam me for POV bc the links are Albanian and I'm Kosovar. Kosova2008Kosova2008

REMOVE Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations
Remove this. It's a cover for pro-Serbian propaganda. There are no religious organizations who are getting involved aside of those from Serbia, and all outside Serbia are orthodox. Check the list. Do you see any organization listed which is 1) Not from Serbia 2) Not Orthodox ? And when I type that it's redundant because Orthodox churches promote national interests of orthodox countries, then clueless people yell at me "POV! POV!". Stop creating an illusion that there is more support for Serbian than there really is. What is next, a World of Warcraft Serbian clan listing with their stance on this issue? JosipMac (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What he said. And, in light of this, I really don't understand the extreme prejudice with which Björk was terminated from the "Other relevant entities" table.

It's not like we are suffering slings and arrows of outraged Kosovar or Serb chanteauses and tennis players (although Novak Djokovic is in the news, with a broken heart...) -- I think she and her concert situation in conjunction with the cancellation of her appearance for her recognition of Kosovo (!) at the huge Serbian festival in Novi Sad is very topical, ency, salient, and appropriate. I say, only after you have experienced the feared attempted addition gazillions of private individuals (well, at least 2 :), then remove her. But not before. Before is prejudice. Hear me out! She is part of the international reaction, and the Novi Sad organizators' reaction to her, is part of international reaction... --Mareklug talk 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other relevant entities section should be removed entirely. Barring that at least it should be cleaned of irrelevant entries, those without any power or influence. Hobartimus (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of this. Perhaps a small reference to these "without any power or influence" should be there to help set a tone for the article (i.e. expresses tensions and conflict.)--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The group Ecclesiastic organizations is relevant. The Serbian Orthodox Church is rather pivotal in this drama. It is recognized as the Patriarchate of Pec (a location within the new republic), and much of recent Serbian propaganda (or sound information) seems to have been orchestrated by the church. --Camptown (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring your "arguments", I just didn't find any arguments. Look, you're a Serb, and I fully understand you're about to do anything to spread Serbian propaganda and Serbian influence. Maybe you don't notice all that, just like your countrymen didn't notice it throughout last century (OMG is this POV?), but we (read: former Kingdom of SHS and Yugoslavia citizens) are already way tired of all that. I have no intention of spending days and days refuting your "arguments" because those are not "arguments", it's merely a byproduct of a lack of perception. I have suggested that all Orthodox Churches be merged, but Serbian nationalists objected and here we are again - not only did they not get merged but they got a whole new section.
 * You want a counter-argument? Then tell me again what Ecclesiastic organization fits both of the following criteria: 1) Isn't from Serbia 2) Isn't Orthodox? ...the answer is: none. That alone makes it pretty obvious this is about propaganda. Of course, not to you mr Vladar, your name alone ("Ruler, in English) fits Serbian mentality very well. Oh geez is this another POV? ;) So it's not like I expect you will accept anything less than "Serbia to Tokio".
 * The fact that this "Ecclesiastic" selection you call "neutral" despite of the fact that I clearly proved it is not: that alone says enough for any unbiased person to vote in favor of removal of this section.
 * As for my POV, I'll repeat again - tell me what Orthodox Church supports Kosovo independence? What is the real reason of having multiple Orthodox Churches listed, if every single one without exception supports Serbia? Don't give me the "not all voiced their opinion". That's irrelevant. If they don't express pro-Kosovo stance, it means they are for status quo (otherwise countries wouldn't vote for the recognition of Kosovo but against it). How many Orthodox Churches have therefore "voted" for Kosovo independence? None. Absolutely none. This section is redundant.
 * Your next argument was "because they are large communities with millions of members". Polish Orthodox community has less than half a million. That doesn't fit your "millions of people" argument, so it's obvious you resort to enumerating these Churches without any rule set whatsoever. And furthermore, we have already discussed in this section about communities with millions upon millions of members, and it was concluded that numbers are irrelevant. It was concluded that only relevant organizations should be posted, and thus some huge international organizations were removed. If this was about population as you say, then why not include World of Warcraft community too? Go make a poll on their forums, check the result, and let us know. That makes more sense to me than including half of these Orthodox Churches since WoW population is higher, and it has the same relevancy.
 * There, your "arguments" are gone with the wind. Now delete the section. JosipMac (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the Albanians have never considered hiring me for spreading their propaganda... ;) Anyway, the diplomatic relations maintained by the Vatican is not necessarily the same as the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, which is probably staying away from this politically hot potato. --Camptown (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You "understand that I'm Albanian" haha... that's great. It just proves my point about you and your "arguments". I'm not Albanian nor Kosovar. "and only 6 made statement".. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like repeating myself. You're unable to understand those simple lines that I wrote. Same thing about World of Warcraft - you failed to comprehend my point because your judgement is so clouded by your wants, that you see things you want to see regardless of their accuracy. I wasted enough time debating with people like you a long long time ago, and I don't intend to repeat that. JosipMac (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Vatican shouldn't be moved. The Vatican is a sovereign state with capacity to establish diplomatic relations with foreign nations. --Camptown (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

kosovothanksyou.com
What is known about the website kosovothanksyou.com? Is it operated from Kosovo (its domain is registered by a California based company)? There have been somé reports that the site is semi-official - is that true? --Camptown (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou.com is supposively run by 2 Kosovar guys but I wrote them, I got an e-mail from the "team"..and yes it is somehow linked to the government because they put Taiwan in there and hours later had to take it off because China contacted Kosovar Government (indication that China recognizes Rep of KV). They are more ogranized and more dedicated to this, I was pissed off because Avala insulted them when he said they just put Tuvalu to populate the list, I got a response from them with evidence (Albanian). They know what their doing. Kosova2008 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Is that why they now took Tuvalu off the list? :) --Avala (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala I hope you are not mocking me. Exert: "Sa per informate, jemi duke punuar ne listen me te re te shteteve qedo ta pranojne Kosoven, qe do te del publike se shpejti. Faleminderit, Ekipi". Their sources are clear and pretty reliable, and unofficial..that's why Tuvalu was removed. You know by simply writing an embassy you can get a lot of information.72.161.50.5 (talk)Kosova2008
 * btw adding countries which have yet to recognize Kosova on the "not recognized" is populating the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.50.5 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

debatable, i reckon they should be in th "Not recognised" list because they haven't yet recognised Kosovo yet, and that by putting them in a separate list suggests that Kosovo has more support than it actually does. So i believe two lists is fairer, so we have one list "countries which have formally recognised Kosovo" and the other list "countries which haven't formally recognised Kosovo." Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we make 2 lists, one of them countries which FORMALLY have recognized and states which have EXPLICITLY stated that they haven't. How does that sound? With your idea it gives of the idea that more countries are against it when we don't have any comments/opinions/statements from over 120 countries.72.161.50.5 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * No because countries are not required to make an explicit statement if they don't recognize. --Avala (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor are they required to make an explicity statement if they do recognize it. Macedonia hasn't made any statements regarding independence but it sure continues to trade with Kosova. Same with Montenegro, Croatia, and every Balkan country. My suggestion is perfect, 2 lists that we know 100% that way neither list is "populated". This is an on-going event and we will have to update it. 69.29.82.119 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Serbia also continues to trade with Kosovo. What does it change regarding recognition? --Avala (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How does a sovereign country like Serbia trade with itself? Kosova is an independent country or entity, you can't trade with yourself. Trading implies that is done with someone else. 69.29.82.119 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

The country tabels that explain the map
Ok, they work, but only when people realize they are there, but this is on the idea that countries are undecideed and those who have speceficly said they do not. The undecideed should be in their own catagory in a similar way that the intend to recognize are, as finding all the do not recognize in the mass of nuetrals(those who also don't recognize, but are to lazy to say it) should be in their own table, both to show they speceficly are "Nuetral" and to make it easier to see those who have stated they will not.--Jakezing (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)