I appreciate that editors can sometimes be enthuastic, but remember we are an encylopaedia. We are supposed to report things accurately and can afford to wait since there is no deadline. As such, we should NOT be saying that countries have recognised Kosovo when the articles we are using specifically say the countries have NOT yet recognised Kosov. Recognition is a very formal process and it can't just happen on a whim. As it stands, After removing countries which were just reported as likely to recognise Kosov, I was left with 2 countries which we at least had official statements where it was stated they were going to recognise Kosovo. Not wanting to leave an empty list, I changed the header to 'countries that are expected to recognise'. This is far from ideal, but seems the best solution. IMHO, the best bet would have been to wait until we actually had something to add to the list before creating it, but perhaps that's just me... Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct, we should wait. How about a section for countries expected to recognize Kosovo, to dissuade other editors from inserting unofficial recognitions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally would prefer to wait, at least until Monday - Tuesday since things should be a lot clearer after that but I won't remove anything which is accurate and sourced. (Actually I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia recently so I probably won't be removing anything) Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed Bosnia from the list as there two articles give contradictory statements. This article says they will not recognise soon, while this says they will recognise Kosovo. Davewild (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Bosnia can not recognize because Serb Republic has Veto in presidency. So they can not accept independence because the serb leaders in Bosnia said they would never do so.
I cannot find any reference that it has recognised Kosovo. This just says they have congratulated Kosovo. If they do recognise Kosovo then I think they should be included in the list. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Its likely they would like to recognize, given their similar situation with China. However Taiwan has a long history of non-official political stances. Find a definite source if one ever materializes --Lemmey (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan is a delicate problem. The country was one of the first to recognize Kosovo, but the question is whether Kosovo will ever recognize Taiwan.... --Camptown (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Another argument, diplomatic relaion need both side, but Kosovo recognize Taiwan may not a dream due to trade and PRC reaction. Matthew_hktc18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If we consider the long-lasting recognition duel between the mainland and the island of Taiwan, it is not a surprise for me to see Taiwan's fast recognition of Kosovo. The government of Taiwan itself hopelessly needs some power in the world arena in order to survive. I can say that Kosovo is a valuable card for Taiwan, at least it is more publicly known than the little countries which Taiwan is recognized in. The world is divided into two camps on the Kosovo issue, just like it used to do back in the good old days of the 20th century. Deliogul (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovo government has officially recognized [2] (The website is a government website it can be accessed through www.ks-gov.net/portal/eng.htm) Taiwan's recognition of Kosovo [3] (Official press release stating 'Recognition' not just 'Congratulations') which basically puts it on par with all the other countries that have recognized Kosovo in the world. Mods please change status accordingly. Thanks! Vinniereno (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosova Thanks You just added "this is not a Kosovar Government site" to their page in red letters. And in the HTML comments, I found this:
We have received many many different e-mails from both Taiwan and China about the recognition of Kosova, and Taiwan's position on this. We value all your e-mails. Please understand that this website is created to thank all the countries that are recognizing Kosovo as an Independent State. We are not in a position to take a side about the Taiwan issue especially at this critical time. We have decided to list only countries that are members of United Nations. Thank you for your understanding! We Thank Everyone for their support.
Its Sunday. I don't know a gov't in the world that works on Sunday. (except maybe the Vatican). The TV probably misstated recognize for will recognize.--Lemmey (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland has NOT yet recognised Kosovan independence. It is expected to do so but no official recognition has yet been given. MacTire 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Section headings
Please stop dividing the opposition category into "stated" and "reluctant". It's impossible to demonstrate reluctance, and the BBC and Xinhua sources actually say "oppose" for the countries they cite. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Solution for reluctant. Nations that are expected to recognize in under a week should be expected. Nations that have no official stance (Czech Republic) go in the Other section. Nations that are expected to recognize after a longer period (Japan) go in the Other section. --Lemmey (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
British English
As this is a European subject, it should be in British English, meaning all the "recognize"s should be "recognise". Does anyone object? J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute — "Recognize" is the spelling of the OED. It is something of a misconception that the -ize suffix is an Americanization. Of course a lot of British publication now use the ise ending… Evil Monkey - Hello21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading around a little, I see both are acceptable, but -ise is in much wider use in Britain, meaning that it makes sense to use that in this article. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the ise VS ize wiki entry - "ize" is not an americanism, and is the preferred spelling of OED. Changing a correct spelling to another correct spelling seems, uh, sub-optimal. I'm not going to revert it back because that'd be even more sub-optimal. But please please please, if someone does revert please leave it. Dan Beale-Cocks11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, claiming that that is why they are not recognising constitutes original research. Such comments should be reverted. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Firs Wave, Second Wave
This is what the analysts are discussing all day on the news in Serbia and Macedonia. Albania, Austria and Irland are to be in the fist wave, The rese of EU and US in the second wave... i think that since the article is List of countiries that have recognised Kosovo, it is important to state that NO COUNTRIES have done it officialy. And since wikipedia is not an oracle, there can not be a section with ... will recognize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.236.123 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
BH
Someone should find a source I can't. The Presidency has just concluded its decision and declared it to the public. The Bosniac and Croat representatives have agreed to not recognize independence of Kosovo without approval of the Serb representative. In return, the Serb representative has guaranteed the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and reaffirmed the country's sovereignty, denouncing possibilities of separatism. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
According to one of the biggest Norwegian newspapers, Aftenposten, Norway will not decide what to do before they have seen what other states will do, both in the EU and NATO. Norway will also consult their Nordic nabours, according to the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre. Erik2sen (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Norway has not recognized Kosovo yet. They will do it, they have decided in principle. But the formal decision has not been made yet. So Norway shouldn't be moved to the states that had made formal decision. You can read that at the bottom of the press release.--Trigor (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Abstract: "Norway to recognise Kosovo as an independent state
“I can announce today that Norway is going to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. There are several reasons why we have arrived at this conclusion,” says Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
“Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that further negotiations would lead to a mutually agreed solution to the status issue. At the same time, the status quo is no longer viable. There is a need to clarify Kosovo’s future status so that it can continue its economic and political development. In the current situation, it is important that the members of the international community as far as possible take a common position. This in itself would contribute to clarity and stability. A large number of European countries, including other Nordic countries, intend to recognise Kosovo. Given the situation, we feel it is appropriate to signal that Norway will do so as well,” says Mr Støre."
they haven't said any single world, have they?. the source was from a year ago, and it's likely they changed their mind. Maybe you should includes it to the other states.--w_tanoto (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's "recognition", and then there's Recognition.
Diplomatic recognition is not carried out by prime ministers talking into microphones, or even by foreign affairs ministries issuing press releases. It is an international legal process, built on centuries of protocol, that requires the formal transmission of a diplomatic note.
Yes, Australia, Ireland and a few other states have been pretty explicit about their intent to recognize. But it is not one and the same as recognition. It will happen, but hasn't happened yet, so be patient. The Tom (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, sorry, I was being too snappy. Apologies to anyone who I offended, I agree this works better, but I just really don't want to say 'will recognise' when they already have. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I imagine there'll be followup news stories (there were when Montengro went through the process), or alternately the Kosovan foreign ministry will make much of it each time they get a note. Montenegro actually had a web page where they displayed scanned copies of them. The Tom (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Prime Minister said Australia "would offer official diplomatic recognition in the near future ... would extend recognition at the earliest opportunity".[4]203.7.140.3 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on a map, but with contradicting edits every 2 minutes, it's impossible to keep one up to date at all times. A Max J (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is linked very prominently on the main page, and is attracting a lot of traffic. I am not opposed to the idea of discussing a merge, I am just opposed to the hideous tag. Apologies if I caused any offense, that's the second aggressive comment I have made tonight... J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WP:RUDE. If a move is made I think the list of non-recogniZing nations it as important as the recogniZing ones. --Lemmey (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The declaration of independence just happened today, and the UN and EU are still debating the issue. I urge that you allow events to unfold first. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge The reactions associated with the independence declaration are sufficiently notable and verifiable to have a separate article. Superm401 - Talk22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
www.kosovothanksyou.com say that the following countries recognize Kosovo:
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Greenland
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia, FYR
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritania
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Tonga
Tunisia
Turkey
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.255.18 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It also says that it is the Republic of KOSAVA not the Republic of KOSOVO
Slovakia declarated that it will not recognize independet Kosovo. Czech Republic´s president Václav Klaus said that he disagree with indepedence of Kosovo - note that he is honor chairman of main coalition party ODS. Greece also declarated that it will not recognize independent Kosovo so your source is untrustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Poland is going to recognize Rep. of Kosova, my source is in Albanian but a reliable source which says "Prime minister of Poland Donald Tust has announced today that his government will recognize the independence of Kosova in the assmbly held on Tuesday. ETC ETC"
I have no problem with changing the title as long as it's not needlessly complex or just plain dumb. But I do have an issue with the merge, which I've registered elsewhere. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no. There can't be a neutral title as of yet. A neutral title should take consideration of what I say in my move summary,[6] and I can't see that happening (unless the title has the size of a train). NikoSilver00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The former implies there are two kinds of statuses. The latter implies there is one (recognition). Both are POV, so the article should have simply not been created before the first recognition. BTW, the merge above is where we need the feedback mostly, because it solves it (ergo title becomes "Foreign relations of Kosovo", which is by far the most neutral). How about templatizing it as I said above? (reply above for continuity) NikoSilver00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the EU itself expected to take a stand on official recognition? Is the EU in the business of recognizing states? What sort of permission from its members would it need?
I'm asking because the article states that Croatia and the Czech Republic are waiting on the EU before making a decision. скоморохъ01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The EU is having a meeting today in order to reach a common stand on the status. But the recognition is in hands of each country (parliament/government, whatever the case). --Tone10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The EU works in the following way, effectively every country is free to make its own derisions, the EU can only speak out what has been agreed by all member states. If all EU members where intending to recognise Kosova then the EU would state its recognition, however it would also be up to each member state to recognise it formally. If even one EU country had flat out opposed any of this then the EU could not take any stance on the issue at all. What will happen (has happend), is that all EU countries will agree to support the effort to secure peace and rights and freedom in Kosova, but not all countries will agree to formally recognise it. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of EU "recognition" (or whatever you want to call it), we seem to have a misread source. The article introduction (citing the Washington Post) talks about "formal EU recognition" in exchange for Kosovan acceptance of EULEX; the referenced Washington Post article, when I read it, only talks about "most of the European Union," as in most of its member states. The way this is represented in the Wiki article is NOT accurate at all (Spain, Romania, Cyprus, et al are strongly opposed to formal recognition, and no such recognition will go through without their consent) and I am editing that sentence to make it accurate. Vonschlesien (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a policy for this...
Namely, WP:NOT#CBALL... Unless an article is written about the dates on which various countries recognized the independence of the US (for example), this list falls outside the guidelines... Tomertalk04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
i doub tit , Hemlock. this article si going to be a source of violent constroversy over the next few week and for the sake of peace it woul d be better perhaps if it was speedily-deleted. i have already been forced to go into an indept review because a lot of sources don't actually say what the article pretends like their are saying and it is getting on my nerves. Smith Jones (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Every article written on Kosovo from here until the end of time, from sports to cooking to education is "going to be a source of violent controversy," shall we then speedily-delete them all? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
you dont knowthat. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you dont know what will happen after creating article until after creating the article and watching the flalout. Already after the creation of this article there is going rto be a special session of the UN to discuss it. After Russia fucks that up what yout do think is goingto happen? Major diplomatic fallout and possibly military prosturing to try and get Kosovo abck inside Serbia. people could die. which is why we have to report things during or after they happen instead of making wild speculation based on a handful of sources that some of them dont even match. Smith Jones (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no grounds whatsoever to speedy delete this article, regardless of what you think is more "peaceful". If anyone does so, I will revert. Superm401 - Talk12:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait for you to qualify yours. Better yet, work on improving something or contributing to constructive discussion. Thanks, Tomertalk07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with this "article" is in its very name... there are no criteria outlined for inclusion, so everything is dumped into it, without regard to the unasked question "Expected ... by whom?" Then we find in the list a section for countries "planning" recognition, among which I've only taken the time to examine the sources cited for the USA, and found that neither of them indicates that the USA has made any statement regarding recognition... although 3 Democrats have said that they'd like to see the US recognize Kosovo. In fact, from what I can see, the only entity "expecting" the US to recognize Kosovo is Reuters! That certainly doesn't qualify for the bald assertion that the US is planning to recognize Kosovo. Tomertalk07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Their difference is oblique. Some on the "not to" list have reasons to not do it 'at the time being' yet some on the "other" list are about the same. --Leladax (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
planning to not recognize v. countries that have stated that they don't recognize
The head of the section shouldn't be contries planning not to recognize or contries planning to not recognize. Those countries (Russia, Spain, etc.), have, according to the sources, already stated that they DON'T recognize the declaration of independence, and that they support Serbia's claim of territorial integrity. So, this is not a plan to not recognize, this is already the action of not granting recognition.
And we must remember that, under international law, only the recognition is a formal act, since the decision is made in writing, according to a certain protocol, etc. The act of not granting recognition, on the other hand, does not require such formalities. A country that does not recognize Kosovo need not reply to the Kosovar appeals for recognition, since they do not acknowledge the Kosovar "authorities" seeking recogition as having diplomatic status. Thus, such country can merely deny recongition by making an explicit statement of that position, for instance, in a press conference by the Foreign Minister, etc.
Denial of recognition works by omission, since one is not required to indicate denial by a formal document. Accordingly omission of a formal act of recognition of independence, coupled with a declaration that one does not recognize the declaration, or that one does not intend to make the act of recognition in any circumnstances, or that one support's Serbia's claim of territorial integrity, is already evidence of the decision not to recognize.
And Russia, Spain, etc, have already asserted in unequivocal terms that they do not recognize the declaration, and have indicated that they support Serbia. So, instead of saying that those countries plan not to recognize Kosovo, it should be stated that they recognize Kosovo to be a part of Serbia or that they have stated that they don't recognize Kosovar independence. --Antonio Basto (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This article [9] states in Latvian, that Latvia will base its decision on the decision of EU. I couldn't find a translation of the article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.243 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I edited the page before I saw your comment, but I'm positive if you look at the two revisions you'll see something is wrong. BalkanFever09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are saying that next to the word "Canada" you see the flag of Canada, not the flag of Brazil, I'm going to have to take your word for it, but even after I reopened my browser, I am still seeing the Brazil flag there. BalkanFever09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is fraught with problems, as has been pointed out several times above. Please contribute constructively to the discussion there, rather than creating further "crystal ball" problems with sections such as this. Thanks, Tomertalk11:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As an afterword, let me say, when I first found this shoddy excuse for an article, my reaction was much the same as yours. Being something of a purist I regarded this article as an affront to the high standards I hold for Wikipedia. I have, however, come to understand the relatively relaxed attitude many people have apparently adopted with respect to it... give it a few days and the orgy of advocacy will go away. The single-issue anons will disappear back to whereëver it is they came from. Then the matter of what to do with the "article" can be resolved by responsible and regular editors, whether it's kept or merged can be resolved then. If it's deleted now, somebody somewhere has undoubtedly got a copy of it that they'll resurrect somewhere else. At least here the hyperbole and hypotheses are kept relatively well-restricted to a central location. For a few days the article will be completely unreliable, but that's what the tags at the top of it are for. Keep an eye on it to keep the more obvious rubbish out, but otherwise just let it run its course. Come Wednesday already, most likely, the cleanup will be able to commence in an orderly and reliable fashion. Cheers, Tomertalk11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is going to be merged, but given how this is in the press now and going to be rapidly changed over time, we can't do much now. But the new article title every 2 hours is making me a little bit pissed. Just pick a name already and stick with it. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The article quotes the Foreign Office and says that the official standing of India is that sovereignty ans territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected and that India supports further dialog of the concerned parties.
I think that India should be moved on the list of countries which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations.
"Countries planning not to recognize" vs. "Countries plaining to not recognize":
As Estoy Aquí mentioned, the "to not" phrasing is awkward. Which is in part why phrasing it that way conveys an emphasis on the definitive nature of the action in question. The usual word-order "not to" would imply that these countries are planning to have no formal opinion about it one way or the other. They are, for the most part, in fact planning to have a definite formal opinion about it. Leaving it as "to not" is the best way to convey that sense in a short-hand "headline-ese" way.
