Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The reference provided says Bush stated that "The Kosovars are now independent.". That does not constitute formal act of recognition, therefore I'm removing the US from the list of states that recognised Kosovo.

Nota bene: I'm not doing that because I hate Kosovo or something, it is quite obvious that US wil recognise Kosovo sooner or later. The problem is that order in which states recognised Kosovo is important. Therefore, please keep US off the list until it formaly recognises kosovo. Thanks, 90.157.254.177 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

US has officially recognised Kosovo. See http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2008-02-18T131827Z_01_HAM534379_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOSOVO-SERBIA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-worldNews-2

find the BBC report then. Single sentence news reports aren't very helpful. "Biggest meat recall ever announced, independent source." --Lemmey (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

People should actually READ sources. President Bush stated that an independent Kosovo was something that he personally was for, but the USA won't immediately recognize Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

this says that the US have officially recognized kosovo --Cradel 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This: [1] says that there has been no official recognition. What the news agencies is saying that the US has recognized it, but they are only talking about bush saying he supports it. In your source, it just talks about what he said in an interview. Contralya (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no official recognition from the United States yet. Bush said he is for it but it didn't come into law.

Afghanistan has indeed recognized Kosova, being the first nation to do so.[2] I thought it would be Albania. (Maybe it has to do with how Afghanistan's government came to power: NATO intervention.) Contralya (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the source: "The United States has officially recognized the former Serbian province of Kosovo's declaration of independence." So ? Kormin (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[3] Bush said he was for it, but there has been no official recognition. The news agencies are only talking about bush's support. It is NOT official yet. Contralya (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[4]]

There is no such thing as "planning not to recognize". If the state says they do not recognize it that's it, they consider Kosovo to be what it was up until yesterday. And all countries that haven't specifically said they recognize Kosovo are in the group of countries that haven't recognized it. --Avala (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong - it shows Afghanistan has recognized kosovo whereas it should be Pakistan that is shaded blue. ReluctantPhilosopher ([[User talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's Afghanistan that recognizes Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::But the article list says pakistan and not afghanistan! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry my mistake. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds to me like they haven't made up their mind, rather than deciding against it:

"We neither recognise nor not recognise," she said. "We are not intending to make a formal statement."

They don't explicitly say they are against it. So I guess that is why it is in purple, right? Contralya (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"New Zealand will not recognize Kosovo", premier says and She told a news conference that "it was never the government's position to offer diplomatic recognition in such circumstances." --Avala (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My point it that that the text is confusing and self-contradictory about the subject. What is with "We neither recognise nor not recognise"? So how do we know either way? Contralya (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"We will neither recognise nor not recognise" sounds more like neutrality to me, than concern or a wish for further negotiations. NZ is in the wrong category IMHO Bazonka (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_1.html

France is "going to" recognize Kosovo this evening. Not done yet. Be patient ;). The same for UK and Germany. Kormin (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html According to this, they already have. MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to all others french source and the foreign ministry, France haven't yet ! http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-france-kouchner-ca02f96_2.html

France is going to send the letter tonight: "Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

When the Kosovo will receive the letter, the recognition process will be ended. Not before !

I won't change anything in the article, because it's doesn't change anything, right now, tonight, or tomorrow ;) Kormin (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[5]This says says that they are officially planning to recognize it, but haven't yet. This looks more concrete than the US links, since it has this quote from a foreign minister: "On behalf of the United Kingdom, I can announce that the British government has decided to recognize Kosovo," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters at the end of the EU foreign ministers talks in Brussels.

The UK minister's statement has got to be more concrete than an informal statement like Bush's was. Should this be marked as official recognition? In any case, there is the link.

I also found this [6]:

-"Germany will recognise the independence of Kosovo, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

"A majority of (European Union) member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law. Germany, too, will make this step," Steinmeier said following talks among EU foreign ministers in Brussels."-

I know all of this may not be official, but it is more concrete than most of the other nations on the list of 'planning to'. Perhaps a section of text quoting the respective Minister's statements? Contralya (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about online mapping service such as Google Maps, Google Earth, Yahoo! Maps, and Live Search Maps? So far I see that Kosovo is still part of Serbia according to these websites. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those kind of maps don't get updated to state boundaries that often. And there would probably have to be UN recognition and half-a-year before it was updated. Contralya (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It took Google Maps about 2 years to update Montenegro as a separate political entity when it voted to break from the union, and that wasn't even anywhere near as controversial as Kosovo. Don't expect online maps to change overnight, or overyear. Mikebloke (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the delay that Google Maps had updating Montenegro, the lack of recognition of Kosovo should not be interpreted as a political statement. Hence, I removed the Google Maps mention from this article. Lovelac7 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a little bit of an edit war over adding UK, Germany, France, USA, Belgium and Taiwan to the 'have recognized' list. The way I understand it, there have been statements that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and USA are confirmed to be PLANNING to recognize it, but haven't actually done it yet. Chances are they will have recognized it by a day or two from now. Should we take a vote or something? Contralya (talk)

Belgium's foreign minister Karel De Gucht just released a statement to television in which he declares he will send a KB (Royal Decision aka a law ;-) ) for the King to be signed tomorrow (http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redactie/buitenland/080218_Kosovo_EU (only for people understanding Dutch, i'm afraid))--SalaSSin (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I found this link about two other nations [7], perhaps these count? Contralya (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, "recognition" is a rather elastic concept, and most EU member states who are in the "planning", are only waiting for an official resolution by the EU council. France, Britain and others have decided not to wait for that decision. --Camptown (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this, France has announced it's recognition - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-uk-kosovo-serbia-ca02f96.html MILLANDSON (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the little 'war' is still going on. Contralya (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesss!! Vote! I love votes!! Lets have a vote!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I vote that the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and the US be put on the list of countries that have officially recognised Kosovo MILLANDSON (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A big yes vote on semi-protection. As a perma-anon this would lock even me out, but the sheer volatility of this article's lists make it necessary. --85.5.222.103 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this source the US has recognized (or is going to recognize) kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, US has thereby "recognized" Kosovo. The formal decisions will be where to set up the embassy to Prishtina. --Camptown (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251359.stm ) "Washington formally recognised Kosovo as a 'sovereign and independent state'." So yes, the States have recognized it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it change, really. They do not recognize Kosovo juts right now, but tomorrow, or tonight, or in 2 days ! Kormin (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found confirmation: [[8]]

Yes, the section "planning to recognize" is probably not so fortunate. What planning implies is usually practical arrangements related to diplomatic functions etc. --Camptown (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] (USA) [10] (Afghanistan)

It doesn't get much more formal than this. You can't say that they haven't after reading these, can you? Contralya (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

finally --Cradel 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC confirm that the Western Great Powers now recognise Kosovo - [11] - Germany, Italy, France, Britain and America. David (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright let's update the map then. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Le président de la République a écrit en ce sens au président du Kosovo, la lettre va partir ce soir et, dès que cet échange aura eu lieu, et bien, la reconnaissance par la France de l'indépendance du Kosovo sera acquise", a-t-il ajouté.

The recognistion process is on the way. The french president will send the letter tonight, and the process will be complet when Kosovo governement will receive it. Not before ;) This is the administrative part of the process. So, if you are really "pointilleux", you can edit, cause France doesn't recognise Kosovo legaly, but doesn't change anything, tonight, or tommorow morning... Kormin (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to template all of the refs. If someone can lend a hand, that would be appreciated. Spencer^T♦C 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put numbered lists to know how many countries are in each section --Cradel 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only for those sections where a common view is held by those countries (i.e. the first three). -- SCZenz (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Should North Cyprus be on the map?

2. Did Italy really recognize Kosovo (yet)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080218/tts-kosovo-union-ca02f96_1.html For Italy yes, as Germany, France and UK. Legaly not, cause the process is on the way, but right now, or tonight or tommorow change anything ;)Kormin (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it in Wednesday.

And did Latvia recognize it? Its source only says that it will. What about North Cyprus? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus can be with other reaction (like Chechnya, Québécois), but can't really count as a country ... Kormin (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And why can Taiwan? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

North Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey AND NO ONE ELSE! Kosovo will, within a few weeks, be recognised by most of the Western world including the major powers of Britain, France, America, Germany, Japan... David (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read actually what this is about and cool down. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't going to take a position on whether Kosovo is a country, it just lists which countries have recognized it as such—so I don't see how your comment helps. A relevant point for discussion would be whether Taiwan and/or North Cyrprus belong on the list of nations supporting Kosovar independence, but you seem to have missed that. Please use the talk page only for discussing how to formulate the article, not to argue. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Taiwan recognise by most country in the world ? Kormin (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like 23. See Political_status_of_Taiwan#Position_of_other_countries_and_international_organizations -- SCZenz (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

why is this typo never fixed --Cradel 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To amplify Chochopk's comment, it's not a typo. That's the correct spelling in many English-speaking countries. His link will explain Wikipedia's rules for dealing with this. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly recognise! David (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The first version of this article used the z-spelling [12].--84.217.113.54 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With people from the world typing in this article, you are bound to have a mixture of British and American English. It's fine for now, but probably should be British English in the near future. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I always have to remember to turn off my firefox SpellCorrector for wikipedia. It doesn't recognize recognise. --Lemmey (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania will not be the first country to recognize Kosovo. It wants a "re-unification" instead... [13] ---Camptown (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be its eventual aim (though Kosovo's constitution currently does not allow the new Republic to join any other state) but Albania will recognise Kosovo before. David (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me , albania would recognize it right away but it might cause problems , so it is awaiting other countries to do this first--Cradel 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What talks against a "re-unification" in the long term...? --Camptown (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU, the UN, everyone. It's written down as a constitutional law that Kosovo can not unify with any other country -- somehow like Austria was forbidden from unifying with Germany after WWII. —Nightstallion 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of Kosovo, Chapter 1, Article 1, §3 doesn't allow Kosovo to join any other state. Bardhylius (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good link that talks about Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Italy and the USA recognizing Kosovo [14]. In case there were any doubts...

And by the way, should Italy be on the recognize list? It is in the list at that link.Contralya (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In french: http://fr.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080218/twl-kosovo-independance-ue-0ef7422_5.html

So, following country will recognise Kosovo declaration: Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Slovenia, Polska, Czeck republik. They all said they began the official process.

Kormin (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the middle east? This link makes it look like a lot of middle eastern nations are going to recognize Kosovo: [15] Contralya (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the OIC under International Organizations. For individual countries, we'll have to wait for individual announcements. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised on turkey. I would think nations concerned about Kurdish breakaways (Turk,Iran,Iraq) would not recognize. Pak would cause a break (indian kashmir) would go in their favor. --Lemmey (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they support it because of Northern Cyprus --Quastar Vaan (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm from Turkey and we don't afraid of Kurdish rebels because Turkish Armed Forces are very powerful. The Turkish Army is one of the largest standing armies in the world and the second largest army of NATO. And Turkish nation won't let Kurds declare independent Kurdistan!! Izmir lee (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria is on the wrong list perhaps, look at this page: [16] Contralya (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. —Nightstallion 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[17] If not on the recognized list, than it probably belongs on the will recognize list. Contralya (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone has messed up the lists big time. Now China, Greece etc. are in the "planning to recognize list" ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the US and UK too! David (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Deutschland will das Kosovo am Mittwoch anerkennen, kündigte Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Brüssel an.

— [18]

Translated, this gives: "Germany wants to recognize the Kosovo on Wednesday, as Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier announced in Brussels". Germany definitely hasn't formerly recognized it. - Comartinb (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely New Zealand should be blue on the map? David (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

indonesia should be grey--w_tanoto (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because New Zealand is not recognising Kosovo.

Incorrect. They are simply not going to make a decision now.--James Bond (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealand government is not going to provide official recognition of Kosovo or official denial of recognition and that has already been their decision: "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.216.240 (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think only UN member state and Holy See should be listed. except Palestinian territories. Matthew_hk tc 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Taiwan? David (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For establish an diplomatic relation, currently no source for Kosovo willing to establish with countries "outside" UN, likes recognize Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Matthew_hk tc 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be some consistent system. However, on what basis would you make a special exception for Palestine? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move non-UN countries to their own section? I think there view on this matter is extremely relevent. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other self-proclaimed states with disputed status" or similar? That seems the fairest thing to do to me. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Yeah, I suppose so. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Serbia isn't in Red ? Kormin (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the map they refuse. In the article, they said nothing about recognition. ? Kormin (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is contradictory: Belarus is both in the "others" and "doesn't recognise" section, but the source does not clearly state that Belarus won't recognise. —Nightstallion 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked Lukashenko's statement, they said nothing about recognition. So I will remove it from the latter section until I get something more definite. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

nods I've updated the map, too. —Nightstallion 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do see Belarus believing that Serbia should have Kosovo, it is just only a feeling and not explicit support for either side with regards to recognition. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As the statements explicitly points to the UNSC resolution, it seems we'll consider it to follow Russia's orders not recognise the UDI. ;) —Nightstallion 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that, but I don't see anything saying "we will not recognize the country". With the way this article is being edited, mind as well give up now and sort it out hours later. Tired of wasting my breath on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. I was similarily tired of reverting Belarus on the map... —Nightstallion 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now with the statement from the national parliament, I feel ready to accept that Belarus is in the No camp. I just have to read in between the lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started to add some reasons to the list of countries that will NOT be recognizing Kosovo. Any thoughts? Thanks. --RobNS 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should either have reasons for everybody or nobody. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing it for everybody, and think it's a good idea, but the idea got shot down, unfortunately IMHO.--RobNS 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour, but ONLY if we've got sources which explicitly state the reason. —Nightstallion 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see reasons for everybody, since it would help build the article to a more comprehensive level. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the reasons contained in the cited sources? If not, then reasons should not be added, Wikipedia not being the place for original research. Furthermore, the reasons already included don't seem official. After all, China is not announcing that it will deny recognition because it fears Tibet and Taiwan independence. It is saying that it is denying recognition because it recognizes Serbia's right to the territory of Kosovo under international law. So, it seems POV to add reasons that are not the official ones, as if you were "uncovering the excuses" created by sovereign States that don't want to recognize Kosovo. Also, since you only add reasons for those countries that won't recognize the declaration, but not for the countries that have recognized or that are planning to do so, it does seem a violation of the NPOV policy. It can seem as if a State needed to justify itself in order to deny recognition, but not to grant it, and, depending on the way the "reasons" are included in the article, it might seem as a critique of the country's foreign policy. And it is not right for the encyclopedia to take sides like that. So, my opinion is that such reasons should not be added. Such notes only make sense in the case of the "other" states (those that have announced no sides), because it then helps explain what are they waiting for, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that makes perfect sense, and I hadn't thought of it. We should, therefore, not include reasons for not recognizing Kosovo, since it would really just be an opinion, rather than official fact.--RobNS 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's okay with me, too. —Nightstallion 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Xinhua reports that the foreign ministers have decided that the EU won't recognize a country, but instead leave it up to the member states. Keep an eye out for announcements from those nations that said they were waiting for the EU's response, since they'll likely decide soon. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, though, the EU cannot recognise a state, and never has--it cannot legally enter into international relations on its own. The statement merely confirms that there wasn't a consensus reached, which honestly should come as no surprise to those states that are "waiting for an EU response." The Tom (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it cannot legally, but it has a tendency to do such things anyway, in order to set a precedent. And anyway, assuming the Reform treaty gets through in the next couple of years, the EU might (on some interpretations) in fact have the right to maintain its own diplomatic relations with external countries. That the EU is "leaving it to the member states" was in fact a matter of some debate in the EU institutions, and it could well have been decided another way, were it not for the strong opposition of a broad group of members. Vonschlesien (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The IOC is not an international organization in the legal sense of the term under the Vienna Conventions. Its members are not sovereign States, but rather the several sporting federations of the different olympic sports (that are legally private entities operating internationally), such as FIFA, FIBA, etc. So, it should be included in the category "other organisations", and not in the same category of international organizations created by States and covered by the Vienna Conventions, such as the UN, the OCDE, the Council of Europe, etc. --189.25.64.171 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, IOC is set to accept Kosovo as a member. http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/sportsmonday/story.html?id=565c537a-bd2c-4a0f-bf78-4e0f62c655f7 Antipoeten (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria should not be on this list as an unrecognised country, because it's not even on the list of unrecognised countries -- it's currently only a rebel movement. It should be down with "other organisations", like the Basque and Quebecois separatist political parties. —Nightstallion 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statement. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria really has little control over present day Chechnya.--RobNS 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Have they recognised Kosovo officially yet? The source doesn't really state that IMO... —Nightstallion 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reuters says that Britain, Germany and Italy followed Paris minutes later, saying they had or would imminently inform Priština of their decision. Finland said it would be among those recognizing too. " this is brety clear to me here pretty clear to me pretty clear to me here that this shows that Finland, and Germany have definitievley agreed to recognize Kosovar independence. Smith Jones (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany will recognize it on Wednesday. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"agreed to recognise" is fundamentally different from "have already recognised", that's why we've got two different sections for it. In the light of the evidence, I'm fairly certain both Finland and Germany belong in the "will recognise" category for now. —Nightstallion 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

...and Finland said it would be among those, in other words, still short of 'I's dotted and 'T's crossed. Much as the distinction is academic, I think we should move both of them back. The Tom (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

fine be anal about it i dont care. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to be insulting; I know I tend to be quite pedantic, but in issues as controversial as this one, I think that's a good thing. So, I think we should move them back, then. —Nightstallion 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry i lost my coolf or a sec there. dont worry; i already placed them where you wanted. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer reading, I see I may have jumped the gun a little on Finland. Germany is a little more ambiguous, but if you have other sources saying it won't be until Wednesday, then feel free to revert. Just be careful because I had to rearrange some of the references. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah well i think we are leaving goign to leave the finland and germany links on Planning TO REcognize UNtil they release a press statement or a source says that they alread hy have recognized. the, Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why they are even mentioned, the Parti Québécois that is. They are not the ruling government in Québec, and in fact, are not even the main opposition party these days. Seriously, are we going to include quotes from every one of the hundreds of seperatist parties in the world (Femings, Tibetens, Peurto Ricans, etc?). I think it should be removed.--RobNS 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay, they are one of the strongest peaceful separatist movements in the world; their reaction is certainly notable. —Nightstallion 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against them, and I am a Canadian, born and raised in Québec. I just find that the statement on the main page from them makes it seem to the world that thye are a lot more important now than they really are. At least the Flemish Vlaams Belang seems to have more power.--RobNS 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VB never managed to get one, never mind two referendums held on independence -- and they almost succeeded with the second one... —Nightstallion 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that Nightstallion, but today's Quebec people do not feel oppressed, and can separate anytime they want (with a majority vote). Anyhow, it's not that big a deal, but I do think we giving the party a lot of recognition here, more than they would really get back home (here).--RobNS 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article here misinterprets the Parti Québécois as they could declare independence based on Kosovo's move where their party leader himself indicated Canada should recognize Kosovo because "Every case is different" ^[1] NewBorn08 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBorn08 (talk • contribs)

On this link ^[2], in french, it's say that Indonesia has not recognise Kosovo... Kormin (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Find one in English so we can all verify it. WP:RSUE. Indonesia is a large, populous democratic country. There should be a common English publication / broadcaster that has mentioned it. --Lemmey (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I found one yesterday that said no, and I swore I included it in here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw a referenced Indonesia here, the article moves too fast. Good stuff gets reverted by mistake, and bad stuff hangs around for too long sometimes. Seems here that something good got removed, and no one noticed... J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post: here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203283464688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . We can put Indonesia in the country which refuse. Kormin (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Official from government's owned press office: http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/2/18/ri-yet-to-recognize-kosovo-independence/ . Trust me, it's government owned. I am Indonesian.--w_tanoto (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So Indonesia's position is still officially "we don't know yet"? —Nightstallion 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid the same confusion that we had earlier, I'll ask first- doesn't this say that the Chechnians recognised Kosovo on the 17th? I think it should be moved out of 'other organisations' and into the section with Taiwan. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Chechnya is currently not even an unrecognised country, it's only rebel movement. —Nightstallion 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they really are just a movement at this point, and control little territory.--RobNS 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I guess I give them too much credit as a 'nation' then. So they're more comparable to the IRA than to Taiwan? It's just that that article says that Russia recognises that Ichkeria recognises Kosovo, and calls that a 'dangerous precedent'. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, IRA seem to be more appropriate comparison, may be even Real IRA and similar splinter groups, as number of less radical elements joined Russians. Therefore I'm not about their current placement in the same group with Parti Québécois and regional governments of Basque Country and Catalonia. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lemmey is removing a lot of information cited to foriegn language sources, and I just want to get a discussion going to work out our stance on the matter. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, foriegn language sources are acceptable, and though an English source is preferable, a foriegn language source is preferable to no source. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Need foreign sources. Kormin (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the sources can be considered reliable, it is okay to use them. Lemmey should instead replace them with english sources if he cares so much about the issue. Suva Чего? 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So far there is only 1 state with foreign sources that haven't been changed to English. Whats the point of WP:RSUE if the avg en.wp editor can't read the source? Currently 90+ eng sources are from sites all around the world. Its a big topic, eng sources are available for every country.--Lemmey (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic, print sources should not be allowed, as the average reader cannot summon the book/magazine/whatever into their hands. On the other hand, as I said, changing the sources is fine, but please stop removing them and leaving us with unreferenced entries. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don;t think print foreign print sources should be allowed for Current events. How can anyone verify a newspaper in spain if it doesn't have a weblink? --Lemmey (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can fix the issue by replacing the current source with english one if you can find one. If you can't, then just wait when it pops up. Until then, the foreign language source is fine if it matches other conditions of reliable source. Disrupting the article by removing sources/sourced content is not good either way.

Also I have to remind you that, you are not making the rules. :) Suva Чего? 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're comment has been noted. --Lemmey (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This distinction is complete nonsense. The media seem to portray this as a kind of race to be among the first countries to recognise. Wikipedians want their country to be at the top of the list, Hence we find UK and USA in the recognised list, whereas all other countries keep swapping. I cannot find a shred of evidence that UK/USA have indeed recognised - only a lot of sloppy reporting by various media outlets. The only illuminating statement I could find is an interview with the German foreign affairs minister in The Spiegel that says he is going to recommend recognising to the cabinet and Germany should officially recognise on Wednesday. This is what I would expect: recognition is a formal process that meeds some time for the burocracy to work its way. Is the president of the USA powerful enough that he can just recgnise countries as he sees fit without consulting Congress/Senate? The UK foreign affairs minister is quoted as saying "The UK is starting the recognition process this evening". What does that mean? I presume the same as in the German case: recommending recognition to the appropriate bodies. So why is UK listed in recognised, but not Germany...? So why not join the two sections into: "states that have officially announced their intention to recognise". That is at least verifiable. And no: I'm not going to join the edit war and do it myself. --195.128.251.93 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. President doesn't need Congressional approval for diplomatic relations like this. The Senate's advise and consent power applies to treaties, not simple diplomatic recognition. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's "advice" to you.  ;-D Tomer^talk 06:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if that is a Wikipedia record? --RenniePet (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. :) Suva Чего? 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So what sort of things result in greater numbers of edits, and is there a known record? --RenniePet (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that Suva? Actually I'm curious about that now. Maybe the Virginia Tech massacre made a record for edits. 9/11 would have, but not sure of Wikipedias status at the time.--RobNS 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 really was covered well on Wikipedia, Jimbo has said he was amazed how well covered it was and that he realised Wikipedia was gonna be a big thing when he saw everyone writing about it. Wikirage is an interesting site, and puts this article top at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are not trustworthy sources in English for everything. So please DO NOT remove the sources in other languages if you can't provide sources in English. Gothbag (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just here to re-iterate the point. Foreign language sources that are reliable and verifiable are welcomed. If you have concerns about these sources, please contact someone who can be trusted and who can translate the content through the user languages categories. Users who remove sources in languages other than English may be considered disruptive and might be blocked if they repeatedly remove foreign language sources. Nick (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)