Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 18

Macedonia (Again)
BalkanInsight.com, a very reliable news information agency is reporting that Rep of Macedonia will recognize Rep of Kosova very soon. I completely believe it since the Albanian coalition walked out of the bipartisanship and split the country into two. It seems the Kosovar government influenced the Macedonian government to recognize before border demarcation. Source Kosova2008 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Wait, no one from the Macedonian government is saying that they will recognize. It is only the Kosovo Albanian Prime Minister who is saying this. Thaçi is pressuring the Macedonians to recognize. --Tocino 21:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Albanian party left the government because they^ didn't want to recognize not because they wanted to. And they just left the government, there was no split of a country of any kind. --Avala (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't the Albanian party want to recognize Kosovo? Gugganij (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * they^=Macedonian government. sorry. --Avala (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes more sense ;-) Gugganij (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, “Kosovo’s institutions have confirmed when Macedonia will recognise Kosovo’s independence, which will happen soon”, Thaci said, adding relations between the two neighbours are “excellent.” You are right that no Macedonian official's are saying anything but Thaçi doesn't come out and blurt insanities. You can expect results soon. Avala, I didn't mean split as in territorially, I was referring to the politics in Skopje. 68.187.142.80 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * Actually, the albanian parties that left the Macedonian government did so because they had six commands, one of which was instant recognition of Kosovo, and not because the other parties were against the recognition of Kosovo - but because they didn't recognize it "directly". • YllI  18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OIC membership relevance?
Why is OIC membership of a country noted alongside EU, NATO, and UN Security Council membership?

Yes, EU, NATO, and UN membership info is important, but as far as recognition of Kosovo goes, whether a state is an OIC member or not is totally irrelevant. It would be great if someone removed those notes, because they do nothing but clutter the section with useless data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.72.219 (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo Albanians are 99% Muslim, so it is likely that they will want to join the OIC. --Tocino 02:47, 18 March 2008
 * Ticino could you please source your claim? Kosovars are at most 90% Muslim. But we are secular and we are born into Muslim traditions, only those 65+ years actually pray 5 times a day. Our constitution is going to reflect our uniqueness and our secular democratic Republic of Kosova. The reason why OIC is here is because after the UN it is the largest int organisation, not because Kosova wants to join the OIC (could you provide a source for this as well?). 68.187.142.80 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

According to kosovothanksyou.com Kosovo is more interested in being an EU member rather than an OIC member Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tocino knows this facts, OIC is there so that Kosovars are portrayed as future fundamentalists and terrorists, while he forgets that Serbias ties with Islamic countries which support terrorism are no secret to anyone. Late Slobo and late Sadam were best buddies. OIC should be removed, since not one single Kosovar politician has ever mentioned that Kosovo will or should apply for a membership with OIC, while future EU and NATO membership was and is on every government agendas. And Wikipedia is based on facts and not likelihoods, if you are interested in those set up a blog. Jawohl (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The OIC is the only significant International governmental organization to officially support Kosovo's Independence. Weather or not this warrants listing which country is a member should be discussed. Wiz9999 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The OIC took note of the UDI and left it up to the members to decide what to do with it. The first statement on the 18th of February was made by the President of the OIC without a prior meeting or discussion of the member countries. So his statement which was attributed to OIC, because of his position, could be seen in the same light as the statement of the president of Poland. In Dakar on the other hand OIC took note of the UDI and nothing more. BUt then so did UN, EU, OSCE and European Parliament. There were attempts to recognize Kosovo by all the remanning OIC member states in "a bloc" but the fact of the matter is that very few countries will do so. I understand that few editors would like to have this whole issue under a religious context (putting all the churches is one example), but this whole issue has to do more with power then religion.  Jawohl (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan recognized
Please change the color in the map to "recognized. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Already has. Asia is more greener now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The vast majority of Asia, as well as Africa, South and Central America, as well as Eastern Europe is grey. Kosovo will struggle with over 3/4ths of the world boycotting them. Wait.... Kosovo is already struggling with their awful economy and corrupt politics. More than likely they will ask to be annexed by Albania within a few years. --Tocino 20:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3/4 of the world boycotting Kosovo? I love statistic propaganda :) First of all, you should know that pro-Kosovo countries (those that have recognized so far) form 2/3 of total world GDP. From Power standpoint, that's what matters. Not numbers. Second of all, that "vast" majority of Asia and Africa isn't against Kosovo either. They have more important priority list that instant decisions of a recognition of some country/region they never heard of. What do you think, that #1 priority of Chad politicians is to discuss this issue? And are you not embarassed that you boast how backwards African countries are pro-Serbia, while those who make 66% of world GDP are pro-Kosovo? :) One could also notice that muslim countries did not recognize Kosovo yet. My opinion is that they are waiting for dust to settle down, as to avoid any "muslims are taking over the world" headlines. Personally, I would be shocked if Kosovo is not recognized by 2/3 muslim countries by the end of the year. As third, did you just complain about Kosovo corrupt politics? Wow.. I mean, they did learn from the best didn't they? Being a part of Serbia for so long must have had an influence on them ;) JosipMac (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo, or "Drugovo" as the Slovak deputy PM recently put it, is controlled by the mafia. Serbia is not controlled by the mafia and since the overthrow of Milošević it has been a stable democracy. Also, there is nothing to be embarrassed about the fact that 163 of the 182 U.N. member states recognize Kosovo as a province of Serbia. Let's face it, the only reason why Afghanistan, Peru, and the other sheep recognized is because the American govt wanted them to (and the only reason why the American govt is so pro-Kosovo is because they want to create a pro-American Muslim country). The Kosovo Albainian PM recently said that it's Kosovo's goal to get 100 countries to recognize them by the end of the year. At this pace they will be lucky to get to 50. It looks like Kosovo is going to become the Taiwan or Western Sahara of Europe (unless they ask for annexation by Albania which I predict will happen in a few years). --Tocino 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, and your ally Russia isn't controlled by mafia? I guess that doesn't bother you does it? Conclusion: Serbia is supported by countries controlled by mafia (Russia), poor countries who didn't recognize Kosovo because they don't have Internet so they didn't even hear of Kosovo yet, and countries who are afraid of their own shadow (= their own separatists) so they are reluctant to recognize Kosovo. Uh.. yeah, quite a company ;) OK let's move on. Serbia a stable democracy? Yeah sure, looking at your government last year and this year that doesn't look stable to me. And besides, I can't stand democracy at all, so "Serbia is democratic" means nothing to me, really. Serbia was democratic when Milosevic was on power as well. And now that democracy in Serbia means Radicals will get even more votes on next elections. As for your last sentence, and I'll repeat, who cares how many countries recognize Kosovo? Those that matter do (except I'd like to see India and China recognize it too, but I understand China's reasons against it). Kosovo won't be Taiwan because Kosovo is not Taiwan already. Even if no other country recognizes Kosovo, they already have enough Power behind them. Western Europe, USA, Japan and Australia recognized Kosovo. So far over 66% total world GDP. And that's a start. JosipMac (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well however much you like to insult non-NATO countries, the fact is 3/4ths of U.N. member states recognize Kosovo as a province of Serbia. Kosovo will never be a thriving, prosperous, independent nation (independent meaning that it doesn't have to rely on international aid to survive) and you know it. BTW, I am not Serbian. I am American. --Tocino 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not pro-NATO, so there is absolutely no reason why I would "insult non-NATO countries". Where on earth did you pull that out from? I don't care if you're American or Alpha Centauri citizen. You are strongly pro-Serb so you're probably of Serbian origin, and in any case you identify yourself with Serbia. What is your formal nationality doesn't matter to me. Whether Kosovo will be a thriving and prosperous nation is not my concern. I'm not pro-Kosovo either. I support their independence, and that's all. So let's get back to the topic. You say 3/4th of UN member states recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. I say that over 66% of total world GDP supports Kosovo. I wonder who would win a rope-pulling contest :)JosipMac (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a fairly fast rate tbf, since its only been independant just over a month. It took Serbia over 9 years to get internationally recognised. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise over maps
As I've stated before, I find the current map to be misleading as to the currently very complicated geopolitical situation regarding Kosovo's independence.

Whereas there are people who, for some reason, prefer to obscure countries on the map with differing stances on the issue, may I suggest a compromise, i.e. to include both the map with the countries which recognise in green and the map with different colours next to it, or at least just above the "countries that do not formally recognise Kosovo" heading?

The or the  made Wikipedia a reference on the current situation. The current map, however, neglects that there is a spectrum of diplomatic stances, not a binary "Recognise/Not Recognise" as the current map implies.

I propose, for the sake of consensus, to put both maps next to each other - failing that, to put the coloured map above the "Countries which don't recognise" heading.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acachinero (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it misleading? Its fairly simple. green means that country recognised Kosovo. Grey means it doesnt. And black is Kosovo. That other map is misleading and makes Kosovo seem to have more support that it does have and makes kosovo seem to have only 23 countries not recognising it. That map you want is not NPOV and countains other users POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The current map is based on pure fact. That other map is based on peoples opinions to as wich section a countries fits in. Threfore is not NPOV and thats what is meant to be on wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, there is no one map version of the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg/Image:Kosovo_relations.png graphic. I am maintaining this map in accordance with the sources presented in this article, including the ones wiped out repeatedly by User:Tocino and User:Avala (thankfully, this information, which I spent many hours gathering and formatting and adding -- is reflected/quoted here, on this talk page, and cannot be wiped out from here (only archived), cuz removing it by another user would be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy).


 * And, Avala is maintaining these maps, and overwriting mine forcibly, because, as you might have noticed, Avala always has to have the last word.


 * So, there's no one map to include as suggested. Perhaps, both mine and Avala's versions could be included with appropriate captions.  That would be fine by me.  I am all for more evidence, as opposed to suppressing evidence based on POV. I just uploaded my updated versions, correct as of 18 March 2008. Let's see how long they manage to persist before being forcibly replaced (as opposed to, updated as the need arises, which is the civilized way to collaborate). And, lest it be forgotten, I am one of the map's attributed authors, having added the missing Northern Cyprus and Brunei in the SVG version, so I feel I have certain moral rights here, even though anyone can expressly edit them because they are Public Domain... --Mareklug talk 15:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * «Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.


 * You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:


 * If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.


 * If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.


 * Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article. »


 * --Avala (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think there should be at least a link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acachinero (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * @Avala: It's bordering on ridiculous, how you can quote Wikipedia boilerplate and mechanisms and use its jargon at people you notoriously edit war with, and are completely oblivious to the possibility that all these texts, suggestions of konsensus building or warnings might actually pertain to your edits and your lack of cooperation or consideration of others. Your blithe disregard for others views and lack of respect for their work (you overwrote my maps with edit summary "rv vandalism") make it easy to hate you. Especially when you leave in place lies such as Brazil's Minister's quote, which you manufactured, and anyone who bothers to read the Portuguese source you used or the Ministry's press release it in turn references -- would immediately know. Your chutzpah is quite amazing.  And, dare I suggest, it sheds light on the pervasive lack of civility characterizing the region we are writing about.  My way or the highway is just a pit stop in this year's Ethnic Clensing 500. Food for thought. --Mareklug talk 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

San Marino
I know, small, but scrappy! Its really neat because I can't believe that I found this! I think they may have stated some sort of position at the OSCE regarding Kosovo, but I can't follow it and online translators muck it up. There are a bunch of ways it can go, so its better that I post this here and have someone who understands Italian well add it to the article (if it should go on there). My best guess is that they are analyzing what to do. *Shrug*

Article at the San Marino Web Portal news site:

Ajbenj (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell:


 * 1) They confirm the right to self-determination
 * 2) They confirm that the Helsinki Final acts play an important role in the precarious equilibrium
 * 3) and San Marino waits with the recognition


 * Gugganij (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Going to add it in if someone else hasn't already! Ajbenj (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia estimate of 23?
The current text says: "However some 23 other UN member states have either officially declined to extend their recognition, or are unlikely to do so." Where does this figure come from? --Camptown (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandalism/OR. Mr. User:Top Gun, the lately missing click :) of the troika of the Serb government POV-pushers, changed the text from "20" to "23", naturally, without so much as a byte of edit summary or any justification/referemce/sourcing. Of course, this has not bothered User:Avala, as it is a pro-Serbia government development.


 * The original "about 20..." with the text that followed was a ballpark plausible figure that I left in place long time ago, loosely basing on estimated the official, irrevocable rejections (Russia, Serbia, Romania, Asiatic CIS countries), and assorted politicial noise evidence a la Messrs. "I don't rant" Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez/President of Bolivia. i.e. not all "about 20" are officially rejecting states; some are "delaying recognition", as in, indefinitely, but that is a reasonable way to bet, and reducing that to 15 would be just petty. --Mareklug talk 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about it being there. But what we do need is a reference to back this claim up. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Swedish office reorganized
There is a Liaison Office of Sweden in Pristina, which used to be under the embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, but since the Swedish recognition of Kosovo is now under the Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia. --Camptown (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada recognizes Kosovo
Why Canada was removed from the list: "Canada to recognize Kosovo; Serb envoy to leave" (March 18): --DaQuirin (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what list, or who removed what (did not look yet in the latest revision history), but: "The information that the ambassador has received is that Canada will formally recognize Kosovo today at 3 p.m. (1900 GMT)," an embassy official told Reuters.". So it hasn't yet happened (it's 2:18 p.m. or 3:18 p.m. Ottawa time as I write), or just happened, and so does not yet belong in the table of officially recognizing states, since we can't source it yet.


 * Rest assured that as soon as it can be sourced, it will become post and parcel of the article. Meanwhile, be sure to update the Canada Evidence column in the table. --Mareklug talk


 * Canada recognized Kosovo: --DaQuirin (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: For Canada's Foreign Ministry statement see here --DaQuirin (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

God bless Canada!! I am joyous and full of happiness. Someone updated the MAP72.161.206.124 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

'The entry about Tibet has nothing to do with Tibet's reaction; its all about Russia' & Other Problems
The entry about Tibet is not about Tibet's stance on Kosovo declaring independence; its about Russia's. This entry should be deleted; ideally replaced with an actual response from Tibetans, the Dalai Lama, the Free Tibet Movement, et al

Also, why have 'unreocngized states' and 'regions seeking more autonomy' been merged? Classing the self-declared 'Republic of South Osetia' with the Parti Quebecois (which for some reaosn has been relisted as 'Quebec') is absurd. 141.166.243.146 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet
--Avala (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Tibet entry, because:
 * 1) It was not a statement, or information about such a statement, by the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan Government in Exile, or, in fact, by any Tibetan;
 * 2) It was an utterance and a paraphrase of utterances made by the Russian Foreign Minister!
 * 3) A Tibet entry in this article would describe the reactions of Tibet, the independent one (considering the flag used with the entry is illegal in People's Republic of China) and not some reactions of Russia to the Chinese soldiers killing Tibetans.

Some things are beyond pale. This Tibet addition, marked with the Free Tibet! flag, was made by User:Tocino. I consider it gross vandalism and an example of WP:POINT or something disruptive and provocative along those lines.

How would User:Tocino like, if we replaced the Serbia entry with statements by Kosovo government that listed grievances that the Kosovars have received at the hands of Serbian governments? --Mareklug talk 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) spelling corrections and wikified at 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I've been looking for Tibet evidence far and wide for weeks, and there simply is none. No representative of Tibet liberation movement or government in exile -- and certainly not the Dalai Lama -- have said a thing about Kosovo that I could use as a source. Believe me, I tried. However, if anyone can find any verifiable and encyclopedic Tibetan speech on the subject to the independence of Kosovo, please of course add it. --Mareklug talk 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all it's spelled Tibet, not Tybet. Secondly the Tibetan separatists are too incompetent (they seem more focused on attacking innocent Han Chinese) to have a website or a spokesman. Thirdly, this article is NOT about Tibet or what is happening there, it is about Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and the international reaction to it. Russia's thoughts on Kosovo and the link it has with the current Tibetan separatist-fueled violence is relevant to the article. --Tocino 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Warning: This article, and its talk page, are within the scope of probation levied by the Arbitration Committee on all articles pertaining to Kosovo and is currently subject to remedies adjudicated under the probation of articles relating to Macedonia. Your speech, above, denigrating Tibetans, a whole nation, is inflamatory and aimed to provoke. Your earlier calling me "Polack Fascist" and referring to me in passing as "Polish fascist Mareklug" are earlier examples of similar ethnic-based denigration. This is your last warning. --Mareklug talk 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And you compared me to a horse, told me to shut up, implied I was stupid, called me a "sophisticated computer loop", had a problem with my ethnicity and also you told Tocino that his questions are stupid. You are the last person who has the right to complain as you first provoke and then cry when someone hits back. --Avala (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only person I called a name was Mareklug (in hindsight it was immature for me to do it and I apologize to those I've offended) and that was because of Mareklug's non-stop abuse of Avala, who has honorably resisted the temptation to responded with attacks (unlike myself). --Tocino 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tibet is not a nation. It is a province of the People's Republic of China, just like how Kosovo is a province of Serbia according to 163 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. --Tocino 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously you do not know what a Nation is:
 * nation |ˈnā sh ən|

noun a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. Tocino and Avala, you are of no help by behaving this way. Maybe you should consider setting up a blog. Will someone remove rusian FMs statement. He does not represent Tibet. You guys really crossed the line now. Jawohl (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tocino: Don't confuse nation and independent state - Catalonia is a recognised nation of Spain, but it is not a sovereign independent state. Scotland is a nation inside the UK, but it is not an independent state either. Khuft (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of Scotland and Catalonia's status. However in the PRC and Serbia, neither Tibet or Kosovo are recognized as constituent nations, they are recognized as provinces. --Tocino 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tocino, do you want to change your nickname maybe??? Jawohl (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Tocino that depends on which country you listening too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties
Scottish National Party, Parti Quebecois and the party for Basque are not countries, they are political parties. They should be in a separate group or removed all together. Its false information and should be removed as it makes out that Kosovo has more support than it does have, therefore is not NPOV (also the majority of the Scottish Nation Party does not want to be independent as its not in its interest) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a political statement to list the parties under what countries or regions they belong to. It is for clarity. If you organize just by political party then it's not just Scotland, Québec, and Basque Country that needs to be removed it is also Kashmir because the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front does not speak for Kashmiris and Flanders because Geert Bourgeois does not speak for all Flemish and Crimea because Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People do not speak for all Crimeans and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria because the separatists do not speak on behalf of all Chechens and so on. It is listed by country because this is the most user-friendly way. --Tocino 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. it's in the SNP's manifesto that Scottish Independence is the policy of the SNP. That's one of the reasons why the SNP is in power in Scotland is because they are the only major party to advocate independence. Scottish independence is slowing gaining in popularity (it's around 40% now) as the World War II generation dies out. --Tocino 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How come in a recent poll only around 20% wanted Scotland to be independant? The Scottish parliament economically benefits from being part of the UK as it gets more more money than it generates. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Ive created a new table, lets put the rest of the political parties under it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * New table looks good. --Tocino 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it does. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ljanderson977, the note for Serbia..shouldn't it read "member of UN"? Kosova2008 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Map: "state"->"UN member state"?
What counts as an independent state, or not, is the subject of controversy (well, obviously, else we wouldn't need this article!). For that reason any "definitive" list of "states" can not be NPOV. This has been mentioned above when discussing how to deal with ROC/Taiwan, and similarly Vatican City, Palestine, and Western Sahara, as well as some of the less widely recognised (or completely unrecognised) entities.

The map mostly seems to have settle on the use of "UN member state" as its criterion for displaying "states" recognising (or not) Kosovan independence. This is controversial (see arguments throughout the rest of this talk page) but has several advantages (e.g. don't need to get into a country-by-country argument about who to include). I am not complaining about the use of this criterion (though other criteria are possible). However at the moment the legend simply says "States which formally recognise..." which I think is a problem, because it implies for example that the authors of the map do not count Taiwan as a state, in their opinion. There do seem to be a couple of exceptions e.g. Vatican City and Western Sahara are demarcated on the map but are not UN member states, though judging from the treatment of Taiwan it does appear that "UN membership" is the main criterion being used.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to change the legend on the map to "UN member state" rather than "State", do something about Western Sahara and Vatican City (maybe "UN observer" could be indicated in a different shade of grey to indicate Vatican and Palestine? Not entirely happy about subsuming Western Sahara into Morocco but perhaps do what many atlases do and "dot" the disputed Western Sahara/Moroccan border?).

It is possible to debate endlessly about whether using "UN member state/observer" as the criterion on the map is the best mode of presentation but at least it would not be an arbitrary choice - and it would certainly be better than making the legend just say "State" (i.e. "state in the opinion of the map authors") as opposed to "State as defined by a specified criterion". Does anybody agree with this? 87.114.158.185 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be done areas/ countries which are administrated and governed. For example Taiwan administrates and governs the island, same with the vatican, whereas western Sahara doesnt. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the virtue of this but bear in mind you'll get into other difficulties with this approach. North Cyprus is self-administered and governed but is largely unrecognised. More so with statelets like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Somaliland which self-govern despite complete lack of recognition. At least using UN member states on the map avoids the problem of sorting between these ambiguous cases. Western Sahara would also be more messy than you suggest - remember that the eastern fringes of Western Sahara are actually under the control of the Polisario Front ("administration" might be pushing things a little too far - there's basically nothing there to administer) even though the bulk of Polisario activity (and the population under their control) is in Algeria. I have seen atlases indicate Western Sahara with multiple "disputed border" lines - indicating both the area of Polisario control and the extent of their territorial claims. Would the eastern fringe be shaded the appropriate colour for the Polisario administration and the rest of Western Sahara be shaded as for Morocco? Your suggestion has a great deal in its favour but the fact is that, this being Wikipedia, you'll end up tangled up in all kinds of arguments with people all over the world to work out who counts as "self administrated and governed". UN membership has a definitive list, even if it's imperfect as a guide to who actually runs the world. 87.114.158.185 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree: something has to be changed. As I have stated multiple times, this map doesn't correspond to the article. If we do use UN membership as a criteria, I suggest the Holy See still be considered as a state with an asterisk indicating that it has gained all the rights of full membership except voting, by choice. If we use self-administration as the criteria, we'll have to add the Palestinian Authority (West Bank and Gaza).--Scotchorama (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil OPPOSES
Just because you pro-Kosovo Albanian editors don't like the fact that Brazil refuses to recognize (read translation below) does not give you the right to delete sourced information which proves Brazil's opposition.

http://www.clicrbs.com.br/diariocatarinense/jsp/default.jsp?uf=1&local=1&newsID=a1774669.xml

Translation from FreeTranslation.com... http://ets.freetranslation.com/

"Brazil does not recognize Kosovo without agreement with Serbia I Govern does not support unilateral independence occurred of form THE Brazilian government does not support the independence of the Kosovo by to have occurred of unilateral way and only it will recognize when will go the result of a political agreement with the Serbia, under the conduction of the Organizations of the United Nations (UN). That interpretation of recent statements of the chancellor Celso Amorim and of an official note divulged in this Friday, in the which the Itamaraty expressed his worry with the wave of violence in the Serbia and with the attacks to the embassy of the United States in Belgrade, was confirmed by diplomats. "

I think everyone can make out what it says. Brazil does not support independence because it was not made with consent of Serbia. Unfortunately User:Mareklug and his minions are determined to throw out the facts in favor of pro-Kosovo Albanian propaganda (such as saying only 20 UN member states oppose when in reality the number is 25). --Tocino 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug listen to reason, the reality is that Brazil is against independence and the number realy is 25. I have a question for you. It doesn't have to do anything to do with Brazil but why are you so against adding countries that do not support independence for Kosovo and why are you attacking constantly editors that try to add them. Are you so pro-independence that you do not know what the reality is?--Top Gun 05:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should ask the Brazilian Wikiproject for an accurate translation instead of relying on a Babelfish like site. Agreed? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That would make sense. Even asking a European Portuguese speaker, like the (other) admin User:Husond, would be a good idea (since it is the same language).  Balkan Fever  05:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also content to that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about an agreement between Kosova and Serbia and that the countries which recognize Kosova put the UN in the "second place". He does say, that BRAZIL expects a position from the UNSC before "setting its official position on the issue". This article is mainly an opinion of Celso Amorim. Kosova2008 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * Not quite. Celso Amorim, the Minister, is not quoted. He is paraphrased near the end. The huge mass of text up front is some journalist's paraphrase, attributed to "diplomats". All the quoting in the middle comes from a 22 Feb 2008 press release, which I linked on the Ministry of External Affairs website (English version).

I already discussed and illustrated all this in, before "editing boldly", fixing an obvious fault. And I fixed it, but, sadly, my work was reverted by Tocino multiple times, and now by User:Top Gun, after triggering 3RR alerts. I've been editing since 2005 and never had a 3RR warning... :(


 * Certainly, ask a Portuguese/Brazylian to rule on this. First show her . Then, my version:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" align=center width=100%

! width=175px | Country !! Evidence !! Notes
 * 🇧🇷 || In a 22 February 2008 press releases titled Attacks against diplomatic missions in Belgrade, Brazil's Ministry of External Relations of Brazil stated: "The Brazilian Government has learned, with great concern, of the acts of violence in Serbia, with regard to attacks against diplomatic missions in Belgrade.
 * 🇧🇷 || In a 22 February 2008 press releases titled Attacks against diplomatic missions in Belgrade, Brazil's Ministry of External Relations of Brazil stated: "The Brazilian Government has learned, with great concern, of the acts of violence in Serbia, with regard to attacks against diplomatic missions in Belgrade.

The Brazilian Government is confident that Serbian authorities will act to reestablish order, so as to insure the safety of the population and the adequate protection of diplomatic missions and staff in that country.

The Brazilian Government reiterates its appeal for restraint and reaffirms its conviction that a peaceful solution to the Kosovo issue must continue to be sought through dialogue and negotiations, under the auspices of the United Nations and within the legal framework of Resolution 1244 (1999) of the Security Council."

Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil also defended Brazil's intention to wait for the UN Security Council's ruling before issuing its official position on Kosovo's Indepndence, and that countries that have recognised the independence of Kosovo put the United Nations in "second place." (Wikipedia-translated Portuguese web citation)
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Here's a snippet I translated from source. It is omitted from User:Avala's version (quotation on the right):
 * Here's a snippet I translated from source. It is omitted from User:Avala's version (quotation on the right):


 * "Em suas recentes declarações" = In his recent statements (declarations)
 * "o chanceler" = the minister
 * "espere" = await
 * "uma decisão do " = a decision of
 * "CS" = SC, as in the UN Security Council
 * "antes de" = before
 * "definir" = (hmm, what could that mean?)
 * "sua posição oficial" = its official position


 * Be that as it may, User:Tocino's Tibet addition, listed with regions seeking more autonomy for a spell last night, bitterly fought over while Brazil was contested, his first addition of it, one of a series. Note the edit summary vs. the actual edit, featured the Free Tibet! flag prohibited in ...Tibet by the national government of China. So, maybe Tocino should have used the flag of the Tibet Autonomous Region? After all, "Tibet is not a nation" (Tocino says). Well, Tibet, however one defines it (Tibet, dear ol' Tibet functioned for a spell last night on our page as Mr. Tocino's noticeboard for the Russian Foreign Ministry.

User:Avala's work on Brazil is model reference work, viewed in such a Tibet sunrise.

Ah, who cares. Brazil opposes. But, the devil is in the details. Why are you editing wikipedia? --Mareklug talk 10:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So did anyone get a translation from a Lusophone Wikipedian yet? If not, one of you seriously should.  Balkan Fever  10:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the article about protests so who ever added the whole quote about the protests in Belgrade was wrong. --Avala (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Translation: In his recent declarations, the Minister of Foreign Relations defended that Brazil should await a UN Security Council decision before defining its official position on this matter. Hús  ö  nd  12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that we have a translation, why is the mistranslated, fabricated version still in the article? @Avala: This is not an article about fabricating quotes and putting texts into mouths of Foreign Ministers, while dropping the actual statements they made indicating the opposite so whoever added "the whole quote" about not recognizing Kosovo by Brazil is wrong. @Tocino, @Top Gun: Why don't you fix your obviously wrong reverts?  Is there no shame here? I am disgusted that obviously, demonstrably false and OR-synthesized quotes still linger in the article. --Mareklug talk 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What part of, "Brazil does not recognize Kosovo without agreement with Serbia" do you not understand? --Tocino 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary
Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary join the list of the countries which recognize Kosovo: Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary recognize Kosovo. Soon to be reported in other media too. Congratulations! --Soft needed (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here ist the statement of the three governments "with regard to their forthcoming national decisions on the recognition of Kosovo" --DaQuirin (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the three be moved back to the "departure hall"? --Camptown (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so. Everybody here has interest to have exact information. So don't rush please. The fight for and against recognition should not take place here, as some edits suggest. --11:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaQuirin (talk • contribs)
 * Well, the recognition is a fact and we have to news agencies reporting it. And FOCUS is much respected. Moving them out of the list will not change the reality of recognition. --Soft needed (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but this article has been very careful to wait for formal recognitions before listing the recognizing countries. (See e.g. Norway, where the decision has been waiting for weeks just to be signed by the King.) Anyway, it's probably only matters of hours before such formal decisions will be made. --Camptown (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS They already recognized it. Bulgaria did so yesterday and today they announced it jointly. --Soft needed (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the official statements issued by the respective governments? --Camptown (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.mvpei.hr/custompages/static/hrv/templates/_frt_Priopcenja.asp?id=3660 <= This is as official as you can get as far as Croatia is concerned. Bulgarian link has been already posted. There is even no need for Hungarian one; it's a joint recognition, as stated on both of these (official) links. JosipMac (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this, the formal recognition seems to have taken place. I'd suggest we move the countries back to the recognition list. --Camptown (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody can read: The statement says "with regard to their forthcoming national decisions on the recognition of Kosovo". The statement can indeed be seen as de facto recognition, but the national decisions are still "forthcoming". --DaQuirin (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the official statement doesn't include that sentence, but "The decision on the recognition of Kosovo is based on thorough consideration and on the conclusions adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union on 12 February 2007 and 18 February 2008, as well as by the European Council on 14 December 2007". So, the question is, does this rather unique joint statement need to be ratified by some national institutions before we put it up? --Camptown (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the official statement includes the mentioned sentence. What is your problem? Moreover, Focus states that "recognition of independent Kosovo will be discussed at the regular session of Bulgaria’s Council of Ministers on March 20th 2008, Thursday" (be it true or not). --DaQuirin (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it is obvious. I personally don't mind delaying the update of the article, but what's the point? It is obvious that these states recognize Kosovo and that is a fact. If you delay the update with a several hours or a day, that doesn't change anything, cause it is plain clear that the three countries recognize Kosovo. BTW this is a little bit nasty. So now Serbia will have hard time (de facto) breaking its diplomatic relations with three of its neighbors. As far as I know the traffic will be directed Bulgaria - Romania - Hungary instead of the current Bulgaria - Serbia - Hungary. Note that the Turks and the some of the Greeks use the same way and most trucks from and to the Middle East also take that way. It's a serious blow for Serbia. I know their highways and tank stations - most of the traffic (maybe some 85%) consists of foreign vehicles. --Soft needed (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you'd even expect the Serbian borders to be closed for transit traffic? --Camptown (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change. The whole thing is somewhat in limbo now, but you will see that all three governments will announce their national decisions soon (today or tomorrow). And these will be the formal recognition statements. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe? We didn't feel safe to travel through Serbia even before Kosovo declared independence. I myself have had troubles with the Serbian policemen at the border two times. On the 18th of February 2008 the Union of the Bulgarian drivers advised everybody to travel through Romania instead of Serbia, shall Bulgaria recognize Kosovo. Actually in January I wandered whether to take the Serbian or the Romanian route and I took the Serbian which coasted me €20. The policemen wanted €50, but finally I got out with 20. For nothing. Before that they've wanted from me a PC video card, cigarettes, cell phone cards (medical) drugs etc. I imagine how is it now. They maybe hate us (Bulgarians) even more. BTW check this out: Reuters: Serbian PM expected to make statement to respond to neighbors’ Kosovo recognition. --Soft needed (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that Hungary and Croatia are expected to formalize their recognition after cabinet meetings later today, with Bulgaria due to follow with an official announcement tomorrow (March 20). --Camptown (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have the right: .--Soft needed (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny Bulgaria - the President "was not familiar with the text of the declaration very much" --DaQuirin (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ... "and added the document should be adopted by the Council of Ministers before commenting on it" --DaQuirin (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What we see, seems to signal a turning point in the crisis towards recognition, see also. Our Serb friends should not forget that at the end of the day, all European will accept them as good neighbours. Everybody should refrain here from nationalist comments. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to delay anything the statement is formal just update the list. Hobartimus (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can keep enlisting more sources if needed (well, for Croatia at least). Here it goes:
 * http://www.predsjednik.hr/default.asp?ru=1&gl=200803190000003&sid=&jezik=1 JosipMac (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia recalled ambassadors from Hungary, Croatia and Bulgaria. Here is the source (Reuters):. You can add this information to the appropriate place in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.0.168 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, please, don't recall your ambassador from Croatia. We will be accused of ethnic cleansing and our president will have to go to Haag. JosipMac (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Monaco Principality just recognized
According to this link http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,714. Jawohl (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted. And how about Liechtenstein? --12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The recognition date should be changed to 19.March. As for Liechtenstein you can read about their stand in the table. Jawohl (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know (I wrote it)... ;) --Camptown (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

India - outrageous edit
Someone changed this
 * It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states.

to (all with bold marks):
 * It had been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states.

Now the source in English says:
 * It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states.

I'll look into it and try to find out who was the original editor of this. This is blatant changing of the words. --Avala (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it - User:Mareklug made this edit at 05:00 on March 19, 2008.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I was editing from memory, under very difficult and stressful circumstances, as ZScout will attest -- User:Tocino was reverting and throwing away a lot of my work. I rememberd that there was an issue on the talk page with India's press release using a tense different from expected and I misremebered that it was in fact has been. Honest mistake.  I believe, the issue was, that it was quoted on the talk page as "It is" and I was the one to draw the attention to peculiar indication of a past tense.  I overcorrected. --Mareklug talk 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm still confused -- I think the peculiar tense actually arises more so in the next sentence, and that is what I thought I was correcting: We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties. Yes, that's it. We were discussing it with JosipMac, I believe or another editor -- it's in the archive, where I found the link that we are using, because bfore it was being sourced to a paraphrase on a press website. Yes, We have believed is an odd thing to write, sounds like regrets.  Are we quoting this sentence in the article (as we should be)? I haven't checked just now. --Mareklug talk 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You were discussing it with me Jawohl (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is India going to recognise Kosovo or not? --83.176.143.208 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungary Recognizes
Here is the official statement  http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/actualities/spokesman_statements/Kosovo_recognition_080319.htm   Jawohl (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Laos
The link to the statement of Laos is not the correct one. It needs to be updated. Jawohl (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Their MFA keeps only daily news it seems. Their website is in .html and not in .php or some other dynamic format. --Avala (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lao news agency is the official organ of all government news coming out of Laos. Should their position change, you'll see it there. Keep checking that and diplomacymonitor.com. If Laos says anything those are the two places you will see it. Ajbenj (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, here is the mirror source . Thanks Ajbenj. --Avala (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the page now blocked?
What is the dispute about? I wasn't aware of one. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To many countries recognized at once :). Jawohl (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You made my day! *LOL* --Tubesship (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no edit war. Too much edits probably, so the administrator got confused... --DaQuirin (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the worst reason. I welcome every country recognizing my homeland. :) --Tubesship (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, thats what i was thinking. There was no disputes or edit wars or vandalism or anything. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) temporary full protection - constant edit warring that is doing nothing to move the article forward. Grsz 11 05:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Comment - users seem unwilling to use talk page for discussion, and just undo changes. Grsz 11 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Fully protected for a period of 4 days. After 4 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well who made a request? Anyway the good thing is that it didn't get locked on an outdated version. And according to some sources this was the so called "second batch of recognition" so there might not be any important news until the 23rd. Perhaps Lithuania and Norway.--Avala (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is strange that the admins do not confess being confused and revoke the blocking. --Tubesship (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * : Well until then we can check out kosovathanksyou.com, who seems to be more factual then wikipedia (the do not have Bullgaria on the list). Someone mentioned also that they just populate their list but to me it seems that they have had or have more reliable infos. Maybe we should concentrate on the things that need to be fixed instead. Jawohl (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now unprotected. Thank you for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A good resource for diplomatic notices on Kosovo
I have found a site that helps me scoop diplomatic news about Kosovo. It is the St. Thomas University School of Law Diplomacy Monitor, linked here:.

It is also good for OFFICIAL news and press releases from govennments, MFA's, etc, and should be consulted. Right from the horse's mouth! It can be a few hours behind the official announcements, but it does have ways to find most MFA, Government info sites, and Governnment home pages. It is where I found Paraguay's, Laos', and a few other responses and is pretty reliable. It is updated on NY/UN working day time, but sometimes really important stuff gets caught up in their web beyond those times. I just thought that I would pass this on in case anyone was interested in using it too. :) It has been a major help for me to find information. Ajbenj (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia - Security Council
Croatia is also a non-permanent member of the UNSC at the time of the recognition of Kosovo's independence. Same as Costa Rica, Italy, Libya and Belgium.
 * And NATO candidate country. Jawohl (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The independence of Kosovo is for instance illegal
The only institution who has the right to recognize or not a new country is UN. Because of the opposition of some members of the Security Council, Kosovo is from a legal point of view still part of Serbia. Even if some cool countries as US, "big" UE members, etc... recognized Kosovo as a country, legally this is not true.

Summary: whoever says whatever, Kosovo is for instance part of Serbia ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.75.179 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria date
Edit request: Date for Bulgaria should be changed to March 20 as the official recognition document will be adopted tomorrow it seems -. --Avala (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No point really, cos all that will happen is that we will ask for an edit request again tomorrow to change it back. Best if we just leave it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say remove Bulgaria but just change the date to March 20 from March 19. --Avala (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry miss read what you were saying. sure yeh ask to change it Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada
It seems almost like Canada (the last G7-member to recognize Kosovo) opened the flood gate of recognition. --Camptown (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has more to do with the fact that peace loving serbs threw bombs and shot at UN + KFOR personnel. All of it was orchastrated by the Belgrade "action plan". If Canada supported Serbia it would be a sign that Canada supports state-sponsored terrorism. In situations like these you distance yourself from the bad and you recognize Kosova in order to bring peace and stability to the region. We are almost 3/4 of the end of the first stage of recognition. Second stage should start by the end of '08, expect recognition from Muslim countries and few Asian countries as well. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008
 * Actually this is the second stage according to media. First was those who recognized immediately ie. USA, UK, Germany, France then countries that took time to think like Canada or Japan and third stage is sporadic recognition and it will start as soon as Lithuania, Norway and Czech R. finish their recognition process. --Avala (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Avala, you are wrong my friend. Please don't source your "media" as serbianna.com. Let's wait and see what happens by the end of '08 when as I claim the second stage of recognition begins. 72.161.206.124 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

17 shkurt 2008
My Albanian is not so good, but didn't Monaco actually recognize Kosovo according to a decision of March 17? --Camptown (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It recognized today. "Shkurt" is short, the shortest month of the year. Jawohl (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shkurt means February or Short. Camptown I would be glad to translate any text in Albanian if you wish, I am a Kosovar. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

Typo error - can admin please correct?
"NATO member state" should clearly not be in the heading for the notes column in the table of states with intent to recognise. Can an admin please correct this? It is clearly undisputed that it shouldn't be there, it's just a typo. 87.112.15.110 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Tocino 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Partially recognized states
Can we change this heading to "Non UN member states". There is no clear definition as to which state falls into this "partly recognized"category. I think that "non UN member" is a better description since China for example is also not recognized by 23 countries which recognize Taiwan. Then there is N. Korea. Also Macedonia which is recognized by 120 states under its constitutional name. Any thoughts? Jawohl (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, because many countries are not recognized by every country, Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on: http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621 --Tubesship (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pointlessly sortable tables and alternative
The pointlessly sortable tables are a distraction. It makes sense to be able to sort a table that has country name plus date of recognition. Otherwise there is no point to the sortability at all. Columns like "notes" and "evidence" there is are not usefully sortable.

One thing that could become usefully sortable is membership of international organisations. What about, e.g. for a sample of the first table:

Now it is possible to put countries into batches e.g. OIC members, UN Security Council membership (permanent and non-permanent batched separately), EU and NATO members/candidates. I EFTA membership could be made by an appropriate comment in the "EU" column.

This could also be implemented for the other tables not just the "recognised" one - it is an example of how to use the sortable tables in a productive way. If this is not implemented then surely the other tables should be non-sortable? There is no virtue in being able to sort e.g. by the "evidence" column in alphabetical order... 87.112.15.110 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dysfunctional table, it really wouldn't be an improvement. Soon we'd have as many columns as countries recognizing Kosovo. Hús  ö  nd  00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we listing memberships anyway? Just stick with the dates of recognition and establishment ::of relations.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates for Status of reciprocal diplomatic missions
Can we please mention that date on which a country started diplomatic missions with Kosovo? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think listing the date of the establishment of diplomatic relations would be a very positive
 * improvement to the page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Obscuring Taiwan
While I understand why Taiwan/ROC is not on the top list, listing Taiwan towards the bottom of the page, alongside unrecognized states that have not recognized Kosovo, obscures the fact that Taipei has recognized Kosovo. Taiwan should be put in a separate heading toward the top of the page, between states that have recognized Kosovo and states that have formally announce they intend to recognize Kosovo.

The other partially recognized states can remain where they are under the heading 'partially recognized states that do not recognize Kosovo.'

I would note that only one entity, UNPO, is listed under the heading 'International non-governmental organizations'. If this is acceptable, I fail to see why a category called 'partially recognized states that recognize Kosovo,' consisting only of Taiwan, is unacceptable. Further, a 'partially recognized states that recognize Kosovo' heading might be expanded if the TRNC, SADR, or the PA recognize. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest splitting section
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I recommend splitting the section "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" in two: one section for the countries that have explicitly stated they will not recognize Kosovo's independence (e.g. Serbia and Russia) and one section for the countries that haven't made up their mind yet (e.g. Bangladesh). A ecis Brievenbus 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how it all started. But then there were many discussions about multiple possible interpretations of the positions of many countries. Often it could not be determined in a declaration issued by a country's government whether it would not recognize at the moment, or not at all. In the end, the tables were merged into a single one to avoid this situation. Hús  ö  nd  01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the status quo. Since we've combined the two sections we haven't been having edit wars over where the likes of BiH, Cuba, Slovakia, etc. belong. --Tocino 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Splitting into two sections would cause lots of arguments. For example some would say Cuba have explicitly not recognised Kosovo, on the other hand users such as myself may disagree. Also its sometimes someones POV on weather a country has choose to explicitly not recognised Kosovo, as it depends on how a reference is Interpreted. With the current system it is based purely based on fact and stops  like i have mentioned above from happening. Also if we choose to list countries which have explicitly chose not to recognise Kosovo, it implies that Kosovo has less opponents than it does have and that is not NPOV Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian election
Are the Serb nationalists expected to notably benefit from the recent wave of recognitions? --Camptown (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Victory probably imminent. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of the EU members
Correct the following sentence, please: "Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (18 of 27)"! The actual number is 20. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.0.168 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual number is actually 19 but the table is messy and you counted Croatia as EU member by mistake, which is what I also did. Jawohl (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to confuse you. I wrote the original post, but I did so without counting the EU countries. I just counted quickly the EU flags in the table. The real number of the countries is 18 indeed. 9 countries (Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Spain, Malta, Greece, Cyprus) are the missing ones. Sorry again! Please, write back the number to 18! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.0.168 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean Romania, not Bulgaria. Bulgaria officially recognised today Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is 19 incl Bulgaria today. Jawohl (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Austria upgrades Kosovo Mission to Embassy
Please Update:

Source:

"Austria establishes diplomatic relations with Kosova

20.03.2008 ET KosovaLive (Prishtina)

The Republic of Austria established today officially diplomatic relations with the Republic of Kosova by transforming its Office in Prishtina in Austrian Embassy, whereas it will be headed for a period by a temporary Ambassador."

Ajbenj (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it in Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables which shouldn't be sortable
Forgive me for prepending, but this is technical info, and you might be looking for it, or whatever:
 * just add or remove the word sortable to enable or prevent sortability - in: class="wikitable sortable" up top.
 * individual columns of a sortable table can be excluded by placing the following in the column header immediately before the column heading: class="unsorted"| (or "unsortable", I forget which - if you used the correct one, it'll work under preview, before saving.
 * JavaScript makes sorting, so users of browsers with JS turned-off or lacking it altogether will never even see it. --Mareklug talk 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no point having the following tables at sortable - there is nothing useful to sort by.


 * "States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo" *
 * "States which do not recognise Kosovo or have yet to decide" *
 * "Partially recognised states"
 * "International governmental organisations"
 * "International non-governmental organisations"
 * "International sports federations"
 * "Ecclesiastic and other religious organizations"
 * "Unrecognised states, regions and entities striving for more autonomy or independence"
 * "Regional political parties that advocate independence"

The tables marked "*" it might make some sense to sort by membership of international orgs (see proposal and mock-up above) but since that proposal was apparently overwhelmingly rejected then I can no longer see any argument for the tables that do not have a date in to be sortable. 87.113.103.239 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you getting at? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the table at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence for example. All three columns are sortable but it is completely pointless. The only column worth sorting by is the "country" column which is already in logical order. Why sort by "evidence" or "notes"? So we should remove the "sort" buttons. They are excessive and serve no purpose. They make sense in the main table as you could reasonably wish to see countries in alphabetical order or in order of recognition date. Arguably it makes sense to give users an option to sort countries by international organization membership too but this suggestion was rejected above somewhere. The tables in the list above should not be "sortable" and their sort buttons should be removed. 87.113.103.239 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia wants to avoid a revert war by placing the states that haven't decided and those which reject Kosovo's independence in the same table. While not the soundest logic, it is quite understandable. Leoboudv (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with that. All I am saying is that the tables used should, aside from the table for actual recognitions, not be have class="wikitable sortable" because there is nothing in the tables to be sorted! 87.113.64.15 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab reaction to Kosovo
It is strange that none of the Arab states have yet recognised Kosovo partly since it is a Muslim majority state. Only a few OIC states like Malaysia, Senegal, Turkey obviously and Albania have recognised Kosovo while most of the former-Soviet OIC "...stan" states have rejected it. I read some newspaper reports that the Arab states would be the first to recognise Kosovo's new status but it seems as if most Arab states are biding their time...much like Canada bided its time for 1 month before making a decision. DO you think that eventually most Arab states will eventually recognise Kosovo? This Kosovo based web site claims that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia and Mauritania will eventually recognise it but so far, nothing has happened yet. Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They are guided by principles (respecting international law and the sovereignty of nations), and while they listen to the West, they make their own decisions on these issues (unlike Afghanistan, Peru, Costa Rica, Poland, and the other sheep). Algeria, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, and Tajikistan have already said that they will not recognize with many more Muslim nations likely to side with Serbia including Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Syria, and Uzbekistan. This unilateral declaration by the Kosovo Albanians has been a disaster. They said they wanted 100 nations to recognize them by the end of the year, but at the pace that they are going they will be lucky to get to 50. --Tocino 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Must you be so inflammatory, Tocino? This sort of grandstanding was not an appropriate reply to the query made.  You act as though Serbia is going to give you a medal for your disruptive activities here.  Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know how long Croatia had to wait before any country recognized it? Much, much longer then Kosovo. --Tubesship (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh. There is no need to refer to th countries which have recognise Kosovo as sheep. take your personnel rantings else where plaese Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad we have people like Tocino here. Now everyone who wasn't in ex-Yugoslavia in the last century knows how difficult it was for us to endure millions of people like Tocino. JosipMac (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 66% of world GDP supports Kosovo only one month after declaration of independence. Stop with your foul serbian propaganda. We already discussed this on this page. Do you have to repeat it like 10x? JosipMac (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tocino, I already suggested you once to set up a blog. Jawohl (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO Muslim countries do not really see Kosovo as "truly" muslim. Albanians are secular, their conversion to islam was purely for economic reasons. Many muslim countries have invested in building mosques in Albania proper and have seen no attendance. Hence I am assuming they are not really that eager to consider Albania part of the "muslim family" and take the Albanian side in Kosovo's case. Albanian parliament has never endorsed membership in the OIC, the membership there is considered illegal decision by the Albanian president at the time. PMs are requesting removal from this organization, which I am sure does not help improve relations with the OIC. --Bacterius (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacterius (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflist
The reflist in the article has problems. Some links don't work and there is a cite error.  Balkan Fever  00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Avala added this piece of information about the Slovak Deputy Prime Minister. Avala, could you please fix the broken reference? I tried to find out what's the source of this statement via the article's history, but I couldn't find it. Thanxs Gugganij (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See, concretely, my echoing of the Slovakia entry, when the reference was still intact. It's the 4th reference in . Btw., do read it. You'll see the extent of POV-tailoring that went into crafting the Slovakia collage in our article: the reference itself is multi-faceted and depicts diverse views within Slovakia -- hey, its titled "Slovaks divided over Kosovo", but you'd never know that from our article. --Mareklug talk 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting HELP in keeping this article factual and undamaged...
Casual review of revision history will reveal systematic abuse of editing by User:Tocino, User:Top Gun and User:Avala. These people are doing the ridiculous tag-team wrestling routine. The edits are POV towards Serbia, that's bad enough. But synthesizing outright nonexistent quote by Brazil's Foreign Minister, AND bringing it back repeatedly -- by all three -- I think, is worthy of disciplinary action by admins. Blocking. At any rate, please PLEASE monitor their edits and, if you can't fix them, report them here. Let's make this a reasonably NPOV, solid Wikipedia article. Already the maps on Commons have been corrupted and are worthless. Countries such as Brazil, which obviously have not made up their official minds, are reported as such, blatant lies. And here, Libya's position is sourced to first Serbian TV, then Serbian Ministry. Does anyone else see the pathethic lack of solid editorship here, besides me?... --Mareklug talk 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I locked the article to the last edit by Top Gun. It feels like that you, Mareklug, always revert when someone else edits. There are many guilty parties to this, myself included, so locking the article to make people actually discuss here is the only way to stop this madness. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With all respect, I'm not so sure that putting everything up for debate is such a great idea, because every time we debate a change in here we go in endless circles with certain contributors, who will deny the most emphatically impeccable sources just for the sake of inflicting a petty blow. I would direct your attention up this page to the pointless and absolutely unnecessary debate over whether Malaysia had "really" recognized Kosovo or not, which was the product of insultingly frivolous hairsplitting over the translation of a single word in Malay.  We can play these semantic games every day but the only purpose they would serve is to give smug comfort to people who wish to supplant reality with nationalism. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, just apply WP:ARBMAC and ban them from this page (for a few days, at least).  Balkan Fever  02:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we still have some broken links in the reflist, and one citation error (apparently from Avala, see above), these need to be fixed as quickly as possible.  Balkan Fever  02:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * @Zscout370: Yes, it seems that way, and it is that way. Now, care to actually evaluate the content of my reverts? I am quite distraught over being in this adversarial position with people damaging Wikipedia in the first place, let alone being blocked (along with Avala) for 3 days on Commons, and a day after giving up there!  If editors actually paid attention and acted, I would not be in a position of alone contesting a tag-team of people damaging the article/maps.  I have no horse in Kosovo; Wikipedia is to me far more than waving a flag, of whatever country.
 * @BalkanFever: Nice of you to be so even-handed. But you did pay attention to the threads about Brazil, and you asked there yourself for a native speaker's translation. That was done. The fact of fabrication of the Brazilian FA Minister's quote is obvious to anyone caring to look.  Why don't you look?  Why is fabricating quotes given the same weight in culpability as reverting them??? --Mareklug talk 03:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just revert after revert after revert and the Commons actually blocked users of this. Given it has involved a lot of people, I can't just block everyone. Now that people have to come here, this could get issues sorted. As for the dead links, BalkanFever, put a editrequest up with the exact links that are broken. To make it easier for me, can you format the links using http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php ? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need. I solved the mystery -- see my reply to BalkanFever above at . A working copy of the broken thing is live on this talk page. --Mareklug talk 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Essentially the text from ref 4 in the section above has to be copied into the text for ref 150 in the article (of which there currently is none). Zscout, sorry but I don't really understand this link formatter, so I'll just give you the numbers from the article.
 * 143 and 194 need the dates formatted to 25 February, 2008 . The others are just red links that need to be un-hyperlinked:
 * 118: Lao News Agency
 * 133: Julia Gorin
 * 195: New Kosova Report
 * 206: kurdishaspect
 * 209: Ministerstvo inostrannyh del NKR
 * 211: Gosudarstvennyi komitet po informatsii i pechati Respubliki Yuzhnaya Osetiya
 * 217: Avui
 * 218: E-criteri
 * 224: MidLothian Today

 Balkan Fever  07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * @Zscout370:
 * Here, stick this citation in place of the last ref under SVK (Slovakia): --Mareklug talk 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank God someone decided to stop the unsourced blanking. It wasn't a problem for Mareklug to add Bjork among official reactions but Slovakian deputy PM, Brazilian MFA and Cuban foreign policy advisor are obviously not on the same level for him.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's consider all of what you just asserted, point by point:


 * 1) Adding excessive, bordering on off-topic characterizations to an already bloated article, much of which were simply irrelevant, did not justify retention. Why should Quebecois separatists merit more than a single reference mention, when they themselves are on record discounting relevance of Kosovo to their cause? Your irrelevant sourcing of a former Prime Minister was already amply criticized and challenged on this talk page, but, of course, to no Avail. Irrelevant and redundant material should be redacted, and when it is, in no way does it constitute your bogus accusation of "unsourced blanking". Remind yourself, what Wikipedia isn't -- it isn't a collection of random facts. A sin of ridiculous or fabricated sourcing, as we have in the case of Slovakia/Quebec and Brazil, respectively, is damaging to Wikipedia. Sourced statements are not a holy cow you are making them out to be. This kind of function/worthiness-follows-form mentality is, frankly, appalling, and has bogged the writing of this article in parliamentary manouvers, jargon, baseless justifications of bad edits and interminable conflicts. Cutting to the chase, and to be blunt about it, it's all procedural bullshit, masking partisan, nationalistic, partial presentation of facts. When an editor sources Libya's official position first to Serb TV, then to Serb Ministry, the community has a damn good reason to find fault with his judgment.
 * 2) Other editors have already remarked on disproportionately long Slovakia entry, and have paired it down. What is the real reason/need for quoting the Deputy Foreign Minister -- who, notabene, is dismissed in the very same source as a flake, to be blunt about it (calls Kosovo "DRUG-ovo"; makes claims which an expert dismisses as groundless, yet, it is that which is solely quoted from this source, nothing else, even though the source is about the variety of views held in Slovakia). We already have the Prime Minister, the President, and the Foreign Minister quoted. Is the real reason the desire to source unsaviory insinuation about Kosovars, forgive me, Kosovo Albanians, as was repeatedly put in the article lead by another questionable edit?
 * 3) My talk page is evidence that you baited me and outright demanded that I make good on my idea of adding the exposition/synopsis of Björk dedicating a song in live performances in Japan to independent Kosovo, and consequently being dropped from the line-up of the hugest festival in Southern Europe, Serbian, which attracts over 150,000 people, half of that from abroad, to Novi Sad, in the heavily Hungarian-populated melting pot of the province of Voivodina. The implications and international importance of this is plausibly notable, even now. Yet, it is clear from your repeated bringing it up -- my eventual addition of this, under other relevant entities, that you consider my having done so a great indicator of my feebleness or something deeply discrediting. You have referred to it sneeringly a number of times in edit summaries both here in main article space and in uploads on Commons. Do you know what entrapment is? Don't you see your goading me on my web page to add the information, only to use it as a weapon against me as unethical and unbefitting an administrator, which you are on the Serbian Wikipedia? Not to mention, edit warring and skewing evidence. And now you intone in pious wikijargon, what a great relief it is that at last the page is blocked, due to unsourced blanking. And you still blur an op-ed piece by Fidel Castro with an official rejection of Kosovo's declaration by the Cuban government, and, speaking of blanking, you have covertly removed from Cuba text saying as much, as you have done for Uruguay, another country which has not acted officially, except in your mind and on your Commons Kosovo_relations PNG and SVG map markup. Why all these lies, manipulations, and dicking with me. and with the truthful, accurate portrayal of facts? Why is this talk page drenched in people's objections to your edits? Food for thought. --Mareklug talk 15:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was never impressed by quantity but only by quality. Your lengthy post can be summarized in these quotes - 1."Sourced statements are not a holy cow" 2.a."Other editors have already remarked on disproportionately long Slovakia entry" b."even though the source is about the variety of views held in Slovakia)" 3.a. Bjork... 3.b."skewing evidence"

My answer 1.what is? POV? don't think so. 2.a. why did you then include statements by MFA and President when the PM has a final say? b. but we are looking for the official reaction only not for the "expert" reaction. 3.a. you were the one who suggested adding Bjork and I encouraged you to add it for one and one reason only - so you can see for how long it will stay in the article and I promised I will not be the one to remove it. It stayed for about a few minutes. So stop accusing me I made you do it as it was your decision. I have no mind control skills neither it was my idea. b. oh yes the one you were never able to point at but you keep mentioning it.

--Avala (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE
Kosovathanksyou.com is going to bring a new list of countries.

S.Korea thinking about recognition

Portugal sends more troops to Kosova

Greece MIGHT recognize Kosova

Interesting fact: "—During the week of Feb. 18-24, when Cuban President Fidel Castro announced his resignation after nearly 50 years in power and endless confrontations with the United States, the story accounted for 6 percent of total U.S. news coverage. By comparison, the story about Kosovo’s independence got 7 percent." Source

UN has ROCK-SOLID evidence BELGRADe planned attack against KFOR + UNMIK

Think-tank 1st month of independence = well

Blic: Samaradzic knew that UNMIK would enter the building on Monday

Kosova2008 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

I just opened the South Korea (will not bother with others) and unlike your fantasy title "S.Korea thinking about recognition" I see this:


 * S. Korea reviewing Kosovo issue


 * South Korea has yet to decide whether to recognize Kosovo, a Foreign Ministry official said Friday, with the sensitive issue viewed as a litmus test for the new Lee Myung-bak government's diplomatic policy.


 * "The issue is still under review," said Lee Eun-yong, director of the ministry's Central Europe division. "It requires a prudent decision." He refused to predict when a decision will be made.

--Avala (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it, it was not just his "fantasy" about S. Korea as they just recognized. --Bacterius (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)--65.170.144.161 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User Avala would it made any difference if I said reviewing? Kosova2008 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

PREDICTION Macedonia recognizes Rep. of Kosova tomorrow March 22, 2008 Kosova2008 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008


 * I suggest this every time you get an urge to post predictions - WP:NOT. --Avala (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look who is talking. Mr. Nostradamus himself. The friend of Tocino who uses phrases such as "it is likely..." Jawohl (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks :) --Avala (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not refer to anyone as a Polish fascist. Jawohl (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. Neither do I compare editors to horses and then complain why did someone insult me back. --Avala (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vatican error
It isn't the Vatican City state which establishes diplomatic relations but the Holy See. Currently the page is uneditable so I can't change this. --Vuo (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the correction. Because of the template scheme used, I just added the Holy See next to the Vatican name. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vuo is correct on this. The Holy See is the entity that would recognize Kosovo as it does this on behalf of the Vatican (the Vatican can also send diplomats but it chooses not to). For more see Holy See and the CIA World Factbook FAQ. As for the templates, I've found the Holy See's code in the template scheme and added the Vatican in parentheses beside it. I've also done some light editing to the second column. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)