Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:52, 14 March 2013

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

Not only Kosovo, STP also withdrawn the recognition for Georgia; causes the fall of the government

According to these reports : The opposition led by the current PM Gabriel Costa overthrew in December the government of PM Patrice Trovoada by a motion for the recognition of Kosovo and the Republic of Georgia as independent states. STP withdrawn Kosovo and Georgia recognitions. These were the causes of the fall of the government in December. This is also reported by the media in Kosovo. --Irvi Hyka 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...what do they consider Georgia then? Territory of the defunct Soviet Union? This all just looks to me like it's become a proxy war in STP's internal politics (between pro- and anti- Western factions, perhaps, or perhaps pro/anti-Russian factions). --Yalens (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, recognition of Georgia as an independent state just happened to be in the same motion that Da Costa took issue with, so it might not actually be significant (i.e. Da Costa's intention might not have been to say anything about Georgia, maybe).--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda

Some time ago we had Vuk Jeremic claiming that Uganda did not recognise Kosovo citing Henry Oryem Okello the Ugandan FM - Jeremic says Uganda did not recognize Kosovo. For whatever reason this is not noted under disputes like Nigeria, however today Skender Hyseni said “The Foreign Ministry list of recognitions mentions states like Nigeria or Uganda... but these recognitions remain contested, not only by the respective states, but also by the US State Department and so forth,” - Dispute Arises Over Kosovo's 98th Recognition. So I think this should be added next to Nigeria in disputes.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vuk Jeremic quote has been discussed to death here, and is not relevant. The Skender Hyseni quote *might* be worth mentioning, but it's pretty vague.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant as much as the "Gazeta Express" report is on Nigeria. And what logic do you follow when you say that the former Serbian FM is irrelevant but the former Kosovo FM might be worth mentioning? Is there some sort of qualitative difference between the two that I am missing? Anyhow we are not here to declare things relevant or irrelevant as that is OR. We just neutrally report on things and let the readers decide. I think the current wording and layout is fine so I didn't change it.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions about Uganda. The relevant parties concerning Uganda's recognition are Uganda and Kosovo: the Serbian FM speaks for neither. Therefore his statement about whether Uganda has recognized or not has about as much weight in the matter as the Pope or the King of Thailand. And considering that the Serbian Foreign Ministry has taken as many opportunities as possible since 2008 to cast doubt on recognitions of Kosovo, it doesn't really tell the reader anything useful: you have mentioned Western Sahara, and Morocco does the same thing all the time. I agree about adding the Hyseni quote as a note similar to the Nigeria note though.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda is not worth mentioning but I'm trying to clear up the situation about Sao Tome and Principe. 79.243.201.254 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope there is an answer soon. 79.243.212.187 (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing yet. 79.243.206.213 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbia's new stance on Kosovo recognition

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1248211/1/.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-serbia-kosovobre90b0ec-20130112,0,3809123.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a precedent for non-independent states having UN seats: "The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had already joined the UN as original members on October 24, 1945, together with the USSR." So, Serbia (and other countries) can go on not recognizing the sovereignty of the Republic of Kosovo, while agreeing (chiefly Russia and China, with Serbia's nod) within the UNSC to grant the Republic of Kosovo a seat in the General Assembly, or perhaps, not standing in the way of a General Assembly vote. Whatever. I don't think this changes our article any, not yet, anyway. --Mareklug 08:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe what he (Dacic) is saying when he's saying that "we can discuss UN membership" is this: we can discuss asking Russia/China to stop vetoing your application, if we get something back. In essence, he's aiming for partition (northern Kosovo for UN membership, at which point Serbia's recognition or not wouldn't even matter). --alchaemia (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Soviet examples, according to UN member states, India and Philippines were founding UN members even though they were not independent at the time, and New Zealand was a member as well even though it did not have full control over its foreign affairs. All these examples came with the UN's founding in 1945, and I think especially in the post-colonial world the UN probably wouldn't recreate such members, especially as it would do little to resolve the actual conflict around the recognition of independence.alchaemia is right, and it seems like more of a bargaining position, ie that Serbia would not in principle oppose international recognition, although it would not offer such recognition itself. Interesting, but doesn't really touch on the article's subject (at least yet).Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines and India were both set to become independent states at the time of the establishment of the UN. NZ and other Commonwealth States may not have had full control over their foreing affairs but they were not part of the United Kingdom and were prety much independent. Belarus and the Ukraine pre-1991 were anomolies, it was the Soviet Unions way of cheating by having three votes in the General Assembly instead of just one; they said they wouldn't join the UN otherwise. IJA (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RKS establishes diplomatic relations with Kuwait

Not sure if this is still the right place for this kind of development, but here it goes: the Republic of Kosovo has established diplomatic relations with the State of Kuwait. --alchaemia (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably belongs under Kosovo's foreign relations... Kuwait recognized more than a year ago. --Yalens (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping -- remove both hat templates

In order to make the article shorter :) and less fugly, I propose to remove the useless hatnote templates. The first one admonishes the editors about the article being too long for comfort, and directs them to break away chunks, and to put them in other articles. I think we are doing this on a running basis as we can, so this hatnote is not needed. The second hatnote alludes to a factual discrepancy, and asks that the "disputed statements" be better sourced. Well, these statements are exactly sourced as supplied by the editor who placed the hatnote template later, when he could not get his way in the matter of how the information was presented (i.e., in which table). The fact of recognition, or its disputation, are all uncontested and well-sourced, and none of this is factually disputed. So, please form a consensus below as to the removal of these two templates. Thanks, --Mareklug 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. IJA (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. TDL (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --alchaemia (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They're gone. Bazonka (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Libya close to recognize

http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,1577 79.243.203.148 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It only takes two minutes to recognise a country, saying they're close means they're delaying recognition. IJA (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Zambia

http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=50456 79.243.206.21 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That means nothing. Bazonka (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance - Country template etc.

The Kosovo country template is in the article....but the Kosovo Province template is not. Shouldn't both be included. This is as much about recognition of the "Republic of Kosovo" as it is about recognition of the territory being Serbian....

This is the template that seems to be the equivalent (unless some one knows another):

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This article suffers from excessive size. For neutrality it might be better to remove the RoK template, rather than add another one. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How about NO. This article is about the "International recognition of Kosovo" not about the supposed province of Kosovo therefore that irrelevant info box has no place here. The foreign relations of Kosovo box is rather important to the article at hand. IJA (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some one removed the Country template I referred to above:

I would agree with removing the Kosovo "country" template. Or including both that template and the Serbian country template. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed because we don't need it here. Not on the page itself nor on this talk page. Even if we were to discuss adding it to the page there is no reason for it to clutter up this talk page. I don't see what your problem with the current page is, this article deals with the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo; therefor, templates dealing with Serbia are not relevant to this page. --Khajidha (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

All major Kosovan media report that Egypt has finally recognized Kosovo as an indipendent state following a meeting between Kosovan MFA Enver Hoxhaj and Egyptian president-aide Pakinam Hassan Khalil El Sharkawy who visited Kosovo today. Waiting for the Kosovan MFA website to be updated.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This report says that recognition is "on the way". It's not necessarily happened yet, but I don't think it will be long. Bazonka (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Bazonka seems to be right. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't read the new source. What is it saying? 79.243.208.181 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bazonka is not right. Here is the sources that indicates Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo:

http://www.zaman.com.tr/dis-haberler_misir-kosovayi-tanidi_2055012.html Egypt recognized Kosovo. Even, Vice President of Egypt (Pakinam Hasan Halil El-Şarkavi) said this. Read the above article (in Google Translate if necessary). Şarkavi is in Kosovo now. 17th February is 5th annuality of Kosovo. Şarkavi said Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo. Other sources:

• The Voice of Russia: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_17/Egypt-recognizes-Kosovo/ Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo
• Flying for kosovo: http://www.flyingforkosovo.com/?p=3227 Thank you Egypt
• Kosovo Media Report http://inagist.com/all/303095926891872256/?utm_source=inagist&utm_medium=rss Title: Kosovar media report that Egypt has recognized Kosovo, thus becoming the 99th UN Member State to do so
• I for U News http://www.i4u.com/2013/02/hashim-thaci/kosovo-recognizes-egypt Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo. 88.227.96.28 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting how you think that the Flying For Kosovo article is a reliable source - it dates from October! Also, one of your other sources is essentially a Twitter feed. But there are sources there that we can use. It would be nice to have something from the either the Kosovo or Egypt MFA though. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

http://derstandard.at/1360681750281/Kosovo-am-fuenften-Unabhaengigkeitstag-auch-von-Aegypten-anerkannt 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka - the stories say something to the effect of 'recognition is underway,' which indicates an ongoing process. I do not think it's happened. Of course, if the MFA updates its website tommorow to say Egypt recognized, or if the Egyptians issue an unambiguous statement, then that'll settle it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have that statement! Hope you can read it in german. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote is, "Egypt is on its way" to recognize Kosovo. That means it hasn't happened yet. We've heard these sorts of statements in the past. Saudi Arabia said after independence that it would recognize Kosovo "very soon," then waited a year. Rushing ahead and presenting something as fact that is only your interpretation is unwise and biased. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand anything. The article clearly states that recognition has already happenend. Thaci and the Egyptian Vice President have already confirmed it. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Sit back, get a good night's sleep, maybe tomorrow there will be a source with a clearer answer - one way or another. Until then, it's not a crisis. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I object to 79.243.208.181's interpretation and state that I do not agree with including Egypt without an unambiguous statement from either the Kosovar or Egyptian governments. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. We have a pretty clear answer. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We will have confirmation in a day or two. No need to rush for the sake of it. Also a lot of the references are say that recognition is "on the way". It is a Sunday today, Monday is the start of a new week. Let governments and the media get back to work so they can update and confirm the issue for us. IJA (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bazonka. It would be best if you teach (or show the place of that info) us how to change Misplaced Pages constants, that is, I saw: Numrec Kos link=N out of UNnum Numrec Kos link=N pcent=UN, and do not know from where to change this.88.227.96.28 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at what I did at Template:Numrec/Kosovo . Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

When I started the topic ALL the media outlets were reporting it as a done deal . The "on the way" part appeared almost 2 hours later. I did not edit the number of recognitions.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Official Twitter of the Presidency of Egypt

Again, that says "on its way". The recognition is not yet official. It seems to be certain to be announced in the morning, but we really shouldn't have posted it here yet. --Khajidha (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are two more articles that say that the recognition has happened: . Neither of them are from Kosovo or Egypt though, and I am now getting more inclined to think that we (well, me mostly) have jumped the gun. Should we revert? Bazonka (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Found a pair of Egyptian sources , google translator to help you: Both speak only about "on its way"--Murza-Zade (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should revert. You may recall I opposed the edit yesterday, but was told I didn't "know what I was talking about." - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should revert. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that recognition has yet to formally take place. TDL (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This should seal it: Sharqawy said in a post on Facebook, “I declared during a press conference with the Kosovo prime minister that Eygpt is about to recognize Kosovo.” TDL (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of Bazonka. The article from derstandard clearly says it already happenend. 79.243.200.116 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued support. What we really need is a reliable source from either Kosovo or Egypt, not Austria or Turkey. I was too hasty in updating the article earlier. Bazonka (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. The article clearly states it. It is not important whether it's an austrian or otherwise. 79.243.223.138 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a facsimile of a note verbale for this recognition? No? Then do hush up already. --Mareklug 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut it already. I'm Albanian myself and want the recognition a done deal but it's not.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But it clearly states that it has happened at the weekend. 79.243.205.4 (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of Bazonka is ridicoulous. 79.243.219.247 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

People here are only being cautious, because of their experience on this page, which has seen other similar instances after which recognition was denied. You know how politicians are. --Yalens (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate it when people talk like this. Politicians are not all the same, so your statement is nonsense. 79.243.213.144 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'am also Albanian and I have to say 79.243... that your stubbornness is getting out of control. --Poltergeist1977 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why also? 79.243.213.78 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

People need to stop feeding the troll and it will go away. TDL (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no troll. Don't call names. 79.243.213.78 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear 79.243.etc: would you mind signing in before posting on the talk page? It seems a bit unfair that you are criticizing specific editors by name when you are not logged in yourself. In this particular case there is a consensus among the logged-in editors to wait; anonymous bullying does not help create a constructive debate.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to logg in but can't. I'm not trying to bullying anyone. But I disagree with what has happened here. 79.243.205.116 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your continual sniping at me may not be bullying, but it is certainly not polite. I don't know why you can't log in, but you should be able to. Have you read WP:SIGNUP? Also, please read WP:INDENT. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka proved to be right. I also jumped based on the sources that says recognition done. We should have adopted Bazonka's precautious approach. When we saw the news are not clear very much, we should change our first position. 88.249.28.27 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing says that he is right. 79.243.202.234 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that no clear indication of an actual recognition has come forth in the past week. Everything we have seen says that Egypt is about to recognize. I don't read German, but the auto-translated version of the article from Der Standard is ambiguous at best. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous. It clearly states that recognition has happenend. 79.243.201.83 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do understand German, and I confirm the article from Der Spiegel does indeed claim the recognition to have happened. BUT as it is the only article we have found saying so, and we have loads of other ones opposing it and saying recognition is underway, and this is an article from a minor media in a third country with no direct links with either Kosovo no Egypt, and especially as there has been no official announcement from neither Kosovar nor Egyptian government, it is perfectly correct and normal not to list Egypt in the article as having recognised. Moreover I have to say I admire you all and your patience in dealing with the repeatedly agressive posts of this anonymous poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.206.25 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not agressive and I would like to logg in if that was possible. But you are not logged in yourself. 79.243.209.235 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Flagu

User:Ohconfucius recently changed all of the inline country templates (e.g. {{AFG}}, which displays as  Afghanistan) into flagu templates (e.g. {{flagu|Afghanistan}}, which displays as  Afghanistan). Essentially, they produce the same output, except flagu does not link to the country. Some would say that linking to country articles is WP:OVERLINKing, but I disagree - I think it is at best useful, and at worst harmless. Also note that flagu templates are longer, and since this is already a very long article we should be working to reduce its length, not increase it. Should we go back to the inline country templates, or leave it with flagu? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the link, since "they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article". TDL (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And weirdly it increased the data size of the article. IJA (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's roll this back. Nothing was gained. --Mareklug 08:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is handy being able to click on a link to the country and it will lower the KB data size of the article. A win-win situation. IJA (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Serbia - dacic says kosovo being part of serbia is lie is -not recognition?

How has serbia not recognized kosovo independence? His statement fulfills all the guidelines of a country recognizing kosovo indpendence. Qwerty786 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an official announcement of Serbia's position, this is one man finally having the balls to tell the Serbs the truth: Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to say. It's basically the Serbian PM prepping public opinion for the likely outcome of the negotiations with Kosovo that will be needed to move a Serbian EU candidacy forward. Another version of the news story is | here. It should be noted though that the article indicates that the Serbian government still says it will never recognize Kosovo, but a likely outcome of negotiations would be that Serbia doesn't contest other countries' recognitions of Kosovo. There is precedence for this.Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to link to "List_of_states_with_limited_recognition" and claim that this constitutes some kind of precedence for a compromise. Kosovo wants to be a UN member, and that will be the outcome, likely or unlikely. Note that no UN member figures on that list. --Mareklug 08:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

“No” is a strange way to express “six”.—Emil J. 11:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to those, there is the case of | Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic. Because of a decades-long dispute, neither country recognized the other until 2009, yet this didn't significantly interfere with either country being recognized by anyone else, or behaving as a regular member of the international community. But to bring all of this back to the subject of this article, even a positive conclusion of negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, with Serbia ultimately accepting the views of Dacic, the northern Kosovo mess being resolved, and Kosovo joining the UN, would still probably mean that Serbia doesn't officially recognize Kosovo. Konchevnik81 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbia is not contesting other countries recognition of Kosovo now. Serbia also has customs agents on the border and has appointed an ambassador it calls so far a liaison officer. Serbia is being very aggressive in recognizing Kosovo independence. I don't care what Matt Robinson says Serbia is saying. How about what the prime minister and president are saying and doing. Matt Robinson takes precedent over dacic saying Kosovo part of Serbia is a lie? Serbia is not a country that would make Kosovo partially recognized. Serbia recognizes it's independence. Though it has to remove it from it's old 2006 constitution Qwerty786 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwerty786, you are still ignoring the fact that this was not an official extension of recognition. Dacic (as an individual) made a statement. This is not the same as Dacic (in his governmental capacity) issuing an official change of Serbian position. Currently the official position held by the Serbian government is that Kosovo is Serbian territory, this report does not change that. It might indicate that that position is changing, but even if it does that hasn't happened yet. --Khajidha (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is still no official recognition, as far as I know. Please don't remove the lack of recognition until Serbia makes an official announcement that it recognizes Kosovo. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

but the article should say all the things Serbia is doing like appointing an ambassador last month and collecting customs on the border and having bilateral meetings of equal status. dacic saying Kosovo being part of Serbia is a lie and the constitution is dead letter on Kosovo and meeting with thaci and his appointment of an ambassador to kosovo Qwerty786 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, but all the sources say that Serbia still doesn't formally recognize Kosovo so you shouldn't be removing that sentence. There seems to be a clear consensus on that here, so please stop changing the text. The article already mentions the "lie" quote. Do you have source to back up the claim that Serbia appointed an "ambassador" to Kosovo? If true, I agree that this is important to mention. TDL (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a liaison officer. This liaison officer may have a similar role to an ambassador, and independent sources may point out the similarity, but it's difficult to imagine that Belgrade would encourage recognition-by-the-back-door by changing an official's job title. That's just silly. Recognition and statehood are not black and white; to argue that sending an official immediately shifted the recognition-ometer from 0% to 100% is synthesis at best. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I quit scrolling after I saw all the Non-UN member states tables. :) Terrible sorries. --Mareklug 01:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-serbia-kosovo-idUSBRE9260I520130307

• 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