Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 7 May 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International recognition of Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International recognition of Kosovo. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International recognition of Kosovo at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kosovo High‑importance International recognition of Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albania High‑importance International recognition of Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Start new topics at the bottom. Please do not archive, since it is done automatically by a bot!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International recognition of Kosovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Uganda and Nigeria haven't recognized Kosovo

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=09&dd=13&nav_id=76370 referrer for Nigeria http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=02&dd=19&nav_id=78863 referrer for Uganda

Articles on following links are written in English. Please consider information as reliable because source is FM of Serbia I saw that you considered unproven statements from Bedjet Pacoli as true without searching and verifying those statements

~~Pixius~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixius (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is NOT a reliable source. We've been through this repeatedly. If it were the FM of Nigeria saying this directly, that would be a reliable source. For recognitions only the recognizing country and the recognized country's FMs are reliable sources. What you have here is hearsay. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an old story that we've already discussed ad nauseam. Any browsing through the talk archives will show that this issue has long since been exhausted. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yawn old story, check the archives. This is why they exist, so we don't have to have a debate every time a new user comes along. IJA (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop the vandalism. It is unacceptable to eliminated the recognition without a consensus. We are open to discuss. First, Jeremiç last year claimed that he had letter (DOCUMENTS) from Oman and GB officials but Jeremiç never published "letter" about this. Kosovo published all the letter. The reconfirmation by Oman and GB, also good relations Kosovo-Oman are reconfirmation by Oman Daily last month . Some countries not say explicitly that they recognize Kosovo but establish diplomatic relations with Pristina. Albania is one of these countries. In this statement of PM Berisha and FM Basha Albania decided to establish diplomatic relations. Albania, Kuwait, Qatar, NZ and other recognize KS not explicitly but establish dip rela. We can't think that Albania or Qatar hasn't recognized Kosovo. Good relations with KS and Nigeria are reconfirmed in March 2012 by the Governor of Imo State Mr Rochas Okorocha in Pristina who said that the best friend of Kosovo in Africa is Nigeria. other links reconfirmed Nigeria-Kosovo good relations. In 2011 the Minister of Trade and Investment of FR of Nigeria, Mr. Olusegun Aganga the signing MOU with the 1st Deputy Prime Minister and Head of International Affairs and Investments, Republic of Kosovo, Mr. Behgjet Pacolli. I don't understand why CR of Africa eliminated by some user. We can read the verbal note of CAR firmed by ANTOINE GAMBI, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration, and of the Francophonie of the Central African Republic. . Jeremiç said that Albanian businessmen pay money for recognition and accused western countries not that CAR don't recognized KS. These are simply speculations of Jeremiç, he accused Albanian pay money or western countries and Albanian respond/accused Belgrade to sends arms some dictator al-Assad, Gaddafi or Mubarak. Isn't the first time Jeremiç accused. He also accused for the the recognition by Maldives, but Maldives not only recognized KS but strongly supported KS in ICJ. Isn't a valid argument to say recognition not address of MFA of KS don't happens, Monaco, Palau, Belize sends the verbal note in the office of President of KS Sejdiu other in the office of PM of KS, MFA or Deputy PM Pacolli. Irvi Hyka (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The first time an IP claimed that B92's interviews are reliable sources I suggested to create a FAQ page to deal with the claims efficiently and not have to enter these discussions every time they resurface.--— ZjarriRrethues —  14:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we expand the "Serbia's reaction" section by adding something to the effect that "Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic has repeatedly made claims that various countries never recognized Kosovo or had rescinded their recognitions, all of these claims have been refuted by the countries in question." --Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh considering recognition

: "We have already discussed the matter and are observing the situation in Kosovo," she said. "You may soon hear the good news." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Brunei recognizes Kosovo

MFA of Kosovo confirm the news. Brunei Darussalam recognizes Kosovo. The MFA of Brunei Prince Pengiran Muda Mohamed Bolkiah sands a letter in Prishtina. Brunei Darussalam has recognized Kosovo as an independent state according to a communique issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo. The recognition was communicated via a letter sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Minister Mohamed Bolkiah of the Brunei Darussalam Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This makes Brunei Darussalam the 90th UN Member state to recognize Kosovo. Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

El Salvador has recognized Kosovo?

A leaked 2008 cable from the US Embassy in San Salvador states that President Saca told the Ambassador that El Salvador had made the decision to recognize Kosovo and was hoping to make a joint announcement with other Central American countries within the next few days. However, Saca said that if there was no joint statement, El Salvador could make an announcement on its own to recognize Kosovo at some point in the future. Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is old news and clearly recognition did not happen. --Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very clear! New Kosova Report in an article published in 2009 states that "the Government of the Republic of El Salvador decided to recognize the Republic of Kosovo yesterday evening, reports the US edition of the Kosovar daily Bota Sot. Bexhet Pacolli, an influential Kosovar political leader and president of the political party ARK, who attended the inauguration of the new President of El Salvador, Carlos Mauricio Funes Cartagena, confirms that "the Government of the Republic of El Salvador last evening decided to recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and sovereign country." So both, the former president Antonio Saca and the new president Mauricio Funes had said that the recognition happen. Maybe Salvador (as example Guatemala, Paraguay) has recognized Kosovo but do not disclose the news by fears of Russia. Irvi Hyka (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, this is old news. Read these Talk page archives. El Salvador's recognition, as mentioned in the New Kosova Report article, never happened because it wasn't ratified by the president - at least that's what we assume. I've added a short paragraph based on the Wikileaks cable though. Bazonka (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what would an undisclosed recognition accomplish? Recognitions show support for a country and a willingness to deal with it, not revealing a recognition is not effectively different from not recognizing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

World Evangelical Alliance

Does the World Evangelical Alliance really need to be mentioned in this article? I don't think so, but Irvi Hyka disagrees with me. What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. How important is this group? How much influence do they have? --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Scratch that, as you said in your initial removal this group is granting membership to a church not to the Kosovar state. Thus, it does not belong on THIS page regardless of how important the WEA is or isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, I don't think that the WEA needs to be mentioned in the article. Jsaldarr (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK Bazonka! If we remove WEA should remove also International Olympic Committee because they can recognize Olympic Committee of Kosovo not the state of Kosovo, also EBU because they can recognize Radio Television of Kosovo not the state of Kosovo. Kosovo Protestant Evangelical Church is recognized by the Government of Kosovo. WEA for me is important because WEA have Special status at UN They aren't a simply NGO, WEA have an office at UN but their status for me is incomprehensible if WEA is a Intergovernmental organization candidate under UN??? Irvi Hyka (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WEA only has consultative status, which means they get the opportunity to comment on various economic and social matters. They don't make UN decisions. Over 2000 other organisations have this status, so the WEA really isn't that important. Bazonka (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The World Evangelical Alliance is entirely unrelated to anything remotely concerning the legitimisation or recognition of states. We can't include the position of every NGO, community centre board, or World Chess Federation-like organisation. A little common sense on proposing edits would be helpful, or else we're going to have demands for edits including the position of the Kazakhstan men's national ice hockey team before we know it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the table

The non-recognisers table is insanely long, and this can cause problems when attempting to editing it on certain hardware, e.g. tablet computers. (I had to get out of bed early this morning to make an edit because my tablet couldn't cope, and the laptop was downstairs.) So I propose splitting the table into manageable chunks, proabably by letter. Would anyone object? Bazonka (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're selling it to me, can you be more precisest as to how you want to split it? IJA (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of ending the table after each letter, and simply starting a new table. The column widths might be inconsistent, so we might need to force them to be a certain width. I'm also toying with the idea of adding a subheading above each table - the drawback with this is that the table of contents at the top of the article will become very long. What do you reckon? See the example below (column width issue obviously not addressed). Bazonka (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I kind of wish that the TOC did show each segment of the table, as that would allow someone to click through to "S" if they are looking for "Suriname". Is there any way to get some of that functionality back? Maybe a section link at the beginning of the table? --Khajidha (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We could add a compact TOC just before the table like this {{CompactTOC8|side=yes|name=States|align=left|sep=·}}

TDL (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant - I didn't know you could do that. I've added it to the article. Bazonka (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TDL. --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A

Country	Position	Relevant international membership
Algeria	Blah blah blah	OIC member
Angola	Yada yada yada
Antigua and Barbuda	Waffle waffle
Argentina	Yeah whatever
Armenia	Stuff and nonsense
Azerbaijan	Yaaawn	OIC member

B

Country	Position	Relevant international membership
Bahamas	More exciting news
Bangladesh	You get the idea...

Yeh sounds good to me. Maybe do some in groups of three? And X, Y & Z together for example??? IJA (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at doing it tomorrow unless anyone objects. I think I'll be able to use Template:TOC limit to prevent all the letters appearing in the table of contents. Bazonka (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Bazonka. Thank you for making this article better and better. Poltergeist1977 (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea Bazonka! Irvi Hyka (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Love the idea. We could also use this opportunity to trim some of the needless repetition issues. I mean, do we really need a whole screen of Russia saying "Nope, we still aren't going to recognize"? Keep the initial reaction and the most recent comment. Even if we keep all the other references, many of them can be appended to a sentence like "Since 2008 Russia has repeatedly supported Serbia's position." --Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Job done. I decided that it looked better with each letter as a separate table rather than grouping them - but this can be easily changed if necessary. I agree with Khajidha that this is an opporutunity for reducing some of the text, but I think the suggested abridgement is a bit too severe! Perhaps we should move the Russia text to a completely new article. Bazonka (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

To me your version seems a little more severe than mine, but either way the general principle is a good one. --Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New article on Russia's reaction

I have created a new article Russia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence with text copied as-is from this article. I've replaced the Russia section here with a short sentence and a link to the new article. What do you think? We can easily put the text back here if necessary. But if you think this is a good approach, then perhaps we can do the same for other countries with lots of information - Spain, Slovakia, Egypt perhaps. Bazonka (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. This article is way too long and it would be great to move a lot of the info into separate articles. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The changes made so far to the article have really made it easier to look at. We should move the bigger reactions to a page like the Russia one. I really second Bazonka's call for moving those long descriptions of national reactions that just tell us the same thing ad nauseum. If people want to know who in India is saying something about Kosovo or the details, then they can access the Indian reaction page. We should also put Cyprus into that lot too. Lots of "We're never going to recognise" statements from them. We could also move Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, etc... They keep saying different things and just a short " has given mixed reactions to Kosovar independence, with the government officially stating , and some officials/personalities/entities have expressed ..." will suffice here. Plus a link to " reaction to reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", of course.

Ajbenj (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above: splitting off Russia's reaction does look good and make for a more navigable article. The Russia's reaction article is no stub, let me say! Since that country's reaction alone has made such a substantial article in itself, I agree that there seems to be more countries that should get similar treatment. Just a quick perusal, my candidates would be: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. Bosnia, Egypt, Indonesia and Slovakia in particular have insanely long reaction boxes, so I would recommend starting with them. If these countries get broken out into separate articles, then maybe a consideration can be made to get rid of that navigability tag that's been at the top for a year. Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Egypt moved now. Are the new article names that I've been using, e.g. Egypt's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence acceptable, or should shorter names be used? Bazonka (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been long overdue. I support these new articles. The article size was already far too big. And if lets say Egypt for example were to recognise Kosovo sometime in the future the article can be renamed "Egypt-Kosovo relations". IJA (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed...effectively these articles really are "x Country - Kosovo relations" articles where the country in question does not currently recognize Kosovo. There is some precedent for this, such as Iran-Israel relations or Republic of China - United States relations: not perfect analogies, but you get the idea. Nevertheless, for the time being the "X country reaction to etc etc" titles are probably more neutral, if a bit more unwieldy. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree! Is impossible to short the countries because a lot of countries have mix reactions. In article "Greece's reaction to Kosovo's independence is largely one of opposition." What is it? Greek position is neutral and Greek will see their interests. Slovakia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article is copy-paste of Kosovo–Slovakia relations article. At London School of Economics Indonesian in 2008 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said "we are still following the situation in Kosovo now and it is quite possible that some day Indonesia recognize the independence of Kosovo". On this page is written "Indonesia declines to recognise or support Kosovo's independence, largely due to concerns about how it was achieved." What is it? Very subjective prejudices. I'm for a neutral point of view. Irvi Hyka (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't put a lot of thought into the abbreviated statuses for these countries. Either they should be summarised properly (but briefly - I wouldn't want the summaries to be more than a sentence or two), or removed entirely, leaving just the links to the new articles. Bazonka (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Irvi Hyka: Now the listing for Greece here in the table disagrees with the Greece's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence page. If you are going to change the table, at least make sure it doesn't contradict the linked article.--Khajidha (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to go in the case of such countries as Indonesia or Greece would be a stock phrase like "Although government officials have offered a range of opinions, to date x country does not recognize Kosovo's indepdendence". Then the link to the new article. If someone is interested in what SBY or Papandreou said on the matter, they can check the relevant articles, otherwise if someone just wants the synopsis viz Kosovar indepdendence, they get it here. The other stock phrase would be for countries like Russia where you can just say "x country has repeatedly refused to recognize Kosovo's indepdendence". I agree with Khajidha - Greece isn't "neutral". A diplomatic recognition is a diplomatic recognition is a diplomatic recognition: anything else is non-recognition, and complex explanations of the details in certain countries' cases can go in the breakout articles.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not easy to condense the amount of information into just one or two sentences, so the easiest approach would be to remove these summaries altogether, and just leave the link to the new articles. But would this be a step too far? Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Konchevnik81's stock phrases. --Khajidha (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Bazonka's arguments. Is impossible to condense the information into one sentences, but Greek have clearly positions. Athens is neutral and will see their interests. The last interview in March 2012 for Gazeta Express is interesting, the head of the Greek Liaison Office in Kosovo Dimitris Moschopoulos who clarify the Greek position. Irvi Hyka (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well actually I think that example actually rather supports my stock phrase. A Greek official is quoted saying something positive about Kosovar independence, but Greece still does not recognize Kosovo. "Neutrality" on this matter still means non-recognition.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These articles are now getting the AfD treatment here and here Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And here and here. Bazonka (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Some entries are too simplified now...

While I'm not necessarily opposed to reducing the length of the page, some of these one-sentence entries are so short (and simplistic) that in my view its actually a problem. For example, all the page has to say about Indonesia is that its opinion is "one of opposition", which is so simplistic that it can hardly be called true. Indonesia could hardly be called "in opposition" to Kosovo's independence. On the contrary, Kosovo doesn't have any direct effect on Indonesia and Indonesia has never "opposed" the recognition of Kosovo by other countries- it won't recognize Kosovo itself because on the one hand, it could set a bad precedent for Indonesia's own problems with regional separatism, and on the other, it doesn't see major gain by recognizing Kosovo. If we need to leave only a single sentence, it could be one that actually describes Indonesia's position, such as "Indonesia declines to recognize or support Kosovo's independence." --Yalens (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Update them then. Bazonka (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best response I've ever read. Be Bold. IJA (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

What happened to the table of contents at this top of this page?? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. The inclusion of the CompactTOC template in the "Splitting the table" thread above seems to have caused it to disappear. I've nowiki'd this out, so we're back to normal. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New articles, possible DYKs

I'm working my way through converting the reactions in the tables into fully fledged articles. The ones I will definately move onto will be: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Vietnam. I may do some others as there may be room for expansion in some of them. For those interested in getting Kosovo-related articles onto the main page, there is the potential to get the articles considered for the Did you know section. If anyone would like to help me in creating/nominating these articles, the help would be much appreciated. Personally, I would not like to take credit for a DYK when all I have done is move the info to a new article space. After all, a lot of work has gone into this article over the years and it's only fair that the people who have worked on it get the credit. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think enough has been moved now. Bazonka (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, enough has been moved now. The Article size is not in violation. We were only moving the very long ones as they're notable enough for stand alone articles. Please ensure you get a consensus before creating any more articles. IJA (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Singapore, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Israel, Bangladesh and Pakistan should all be merged back into this article as they are not notable topics for stand alone articles, unlike Russia and Spain due to their connections to the UN and EU respectively meaning that they're more notable. But Singapore for example, how can you justify their non-recognition of Kosovo as notable enough for an entire article? I think we have gone too far with creating new articles. IJA (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Creating new articles on Kosovo might be a worthy goal, but only if they're substantial articles. CountryA's diplomatic reaction to CountryB's declaration of independence doesn't usually deserve a separate article unless there's something which really makes it notable; most of them should just be a single row in a table here. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I say leave as-is, if for no other reason than the fact that otherwise this article will be going back and forth constantly between breaking out articles and adding info back in to the table. Perhaps the above countries "should" only get a single row in the table, but the fact of the matter is that the working consensus on this article seems to be to note all potentially relevant information on a country's reaction to Kosovar independence. The above countries already had substantial information in the table, and the articles created out of that moved information are far more than stubs. These are in effect "X country - Kosovo relations" articles, and are not labeled as such simply because of the controversy of Kosovo's independence and the fact that the countries in question do not recognize it. However, as I noted elsewhere, this is more a matter of neutral language: there can be articles on the foreign relations of, say, Iran and Israel, despite the fact that the former does not recognize the latter. Regarding noteworthiness: Is Singapore's stance on Kosovo's independence less noteworthy than San Marino-Serbia relations? Probably not.

I think that, at this point, if any breakout articles are going to be either added or deleted, they probably need to be voted on by users first. Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored some of the smaller countries into this articles because they're simply not notable enough for their own articles. Some I make sense to have their own article, others don't. IJA (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There are articles for many different combinations of foreign relations between countries. I don't see why the articles suddenly become non-noteworthy if one of the countries doesn't recognise the other. See here (Category:Bilateral relations) for a list of all the articles on relations between countries. As has been said already, the only reason those articles weren't called "Israel–Kosovo relations" is due to keeping neutrality. If you simply think of them as those kind of articles, but with unusual names, there is no reason to say they are less notable than any other foreign relations article, e.g. Israel–Palau relations, Djibouti–Yemen relations, or Ghana–Togo relations. Having them in separate articles also really helps this article. It is still waaaaay too long and is difficult to navigate. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The best place for the information about any country's opinions on recognition of Kosovo in this article. The only problem is the article size - it's only the technical reasons that have led us to moving some info into new articles. Now we've taken out the big ones, and split the table into manageable chunks, I don't think that the size is a problem any more - I certainly don't think it's difficult to navigate, as implied by Delusion23, and I'm not really pleased that the Too Long template has been readded. Is size really a problem any more? Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Relations are different to non-recognition. I'm not saying that relations aren't notable, I'm saying that Armenia's (for example) non-recognition of Kosovo isn't notable enough for a single article. IJA (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness I believe it would be more appropriate to merge this content into "Foreign relations of Armenia" instead of creating a new article. IJA (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Foreign relations of X articles are a bit too general. By all means they can mention country X's recognition/non-recognition of Kosovo, but I don't think we should move all of the text about X from here to there. Either it stays here (possibly abridged), or it gets moved to a standalone Kosovo & X article. Bazonka (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thailand: In the near future you will hear positive news for Kosovo

Kosovo's Minister of Foreign Affairs Enver Hoxhaj visits Thailand. During a meeting Hoxhaj submits Thai authorities an official request for recognition. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand Surapong Tovichakchaikul has welcomed the visit of Minister Hoxhaj in Thailand and has assured him that the request for recognition to be considered seriously by the state. "In the near future you will hear positive news for Kosovo", said Minister Tovichakchaikul, adding that Kosovo's independence has contributed to peace and security in the region and Europe. MFA of Kosovo Irvi Hyka (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Libya

Do we really need such a long paragraph detailing the reasons why Gaddafi's government didn't recognize Kosovo? It's not as if that is relevant in post-revolutionary Libya. My suggestion is to say something like "The pre-revolutionary government of Libya did not recognize Kosovo in order to preserve its relationship with Russia. Libya's current government has not commented on the issue."Jsaldarr (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why information about previous governments shouldn't be kept here, although perhaps it could be reduced a bit. Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeremiç and Guinea-Bissau

Browsing in the web site of Kosovo's Foreign Ministry I see a very interesting news which brings liar Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremiç. Jeremiç said that Guinea-Bissau has not recognized Kosovo, he said that an official of GB (who is this official Jeremiç never published his name?) stated him that GB has not recognized Kosovo. Also Jeremiç said that this "official" has written this in a letter (that GB has not recognized Kosovo). Never Jeremiç publish this letter. I find this old news Some day after the publication of Kosovo's Foreign Ministry the decision of GB to recognize Kosovo. (Acting) Minister of Foreign Affairs Vlora Çitaku had a meeting today with Colonel Braima Sanha, Envoy of the President of Guinea Bissau Malam Bacai Sanhá, who delivered the letter of recognition, by which this country had recognized Kosovo. Minister Çitaku thanked the President and the peoples of Guinea Bissau for their recognition of independence of Kosovo, and expressed readiness for establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Çitaku stated that the peoples of Kosovo had suffered great sacrifice just like did the people of Guinea Bissau when they liberated themselves from a despot regime. Minister Çitaku underscored the need for Guinea Bissau to become a voice to advocate support for Kosovo, primarily among the West African countries, and also on the African Continent in general. In his reply, Envoy of the President of Guinea Bissau, Colonel Braima Sanha, expressed his appreciation for the meeting with Minister Çitaku and spoke about a genuine will of the President and the peoples of Guinea Bissau to recognize independence of Kosovo. Among other issues, Colonel Sanha stressed that the institutions and the peoples of Guinea Bissau were well aware of the sacrifice that the people of Kosovo suffered, and that the independence of Kosovo was a well deserved and necessary step. In the second photo is the document of recognition firmed by the President of GB which the representative of Guinea-Bissau shall submit Minister Çitaku. This is the document of recognition which holds in hands Çiatku in the photo Who is lying? Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is interesting here? We heard this back in December. --Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Is interesting the fact that was a delegation of GB who brought the verbal note in Pristina. This is very important fact was not mentioned in December. Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This must be some new definition of "very important", of which I was previously unaware. bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Kosovo articles
• High-importance Kosovo articles
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• B-Class Albania articles
• High-importance Albania articles
• WikiProject Albania articles
• B-Class Serbia articles
• High-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles