Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.30.153.144 (talk) at 16:15, 23 July 2009 (→Perhaps enough time has passed to discuss the article's name change: something on consensus and forum-like, more on recognition, and a pleed again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Perhaps enough time has passed to discuss the article's name change

Since the previous discussions were rather hastily ended (this lengthy one too quickly closed to develop, and this one merely started but nevertheless expediently abrupted) I propose another one in the name of this marvelously spirited one. Please comment. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week has passed since the last lengthy discussion. Maybe you missed that one? --DaQuirin (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we supposed to discuss here? What has changed since last week? --alchaemia (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could discuss the proposal for new title. And proposal would be this expression: Stance of the international community regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Rationale would be this:
If the proposal propagates toward the possible merge with Status of Kosovo (the Kosovo status process article)... well... maybe it doesn't. But if it does... well (again)... then it does. At least it would be less neutral than the current not neutral point of view that the recognition term doesn't imply a process. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one very important detail you omitted: 60 countries RECOGNIZE Kosovo, so that word cannot be avoided. Nothing ambiguous about those recognitions. --alchaemia (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This and all your previous attempts to rename the article hinge on your belief that the word "recognition" is ambiguous. I certainly don't think it's ambiguous, and I suspect hardly anyone else does either. Biblbroks, please can you explain why you say it's ambiguous - I'm really struggling to understand your argument. Bazonka (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the term recognition ambiguous and actually I am not alone. If I may be so obnoxious to quote other editors' words regarding this same issue, I will. So here the quotations go (followed by my interpretation):
  • - using the first, lengthy discussion
  1. ... You have used the wrong definition of recognise. The second definition given by Wiktionary is To acknowledge the existence or legality of something - and that's what this article is about. The definition you used isn't appropriate here - an example of its use: when you see somebody who you've met before you recognise them, i.e. you recall the previous encounter and so are able to know who they are. This is very different to the situation here. - as if there are different definitions to be used when interpreting the word. And there are different definitions. Yet I'm not certain that there are any trusted sources that define when, where and how to use which definition. Who can be authoritative enough to connect the context and the meaning in every given case? I presume you have recognized that I quoted your own words, Bazonka.
  2. ... You do understand that people don't take you serious when you go on with that your POV has to be met (not caring for NPOV)... - words taken out from the beginning of the sentence, but hopefully they are informative enough. And I will do this again - take the words out of context hoping they are informative and trusted enough to represent the authors original thought or idea. In this case I interpret the words as if the situation is such that my POV isn't met, when the article's title is considered. Well if it isn't met, then my POV should be met too, shouldn't it? Merely so to be more NPOV. And again, this implies that there could be a gradation of neutrality.
  3. ... Oppose this issue has already been resolved and the current proposal is a pedantic and pointless exercise in semantical hairsplitting... - as if semantics doesn't count for anything, when in reality it does and the words itself confirm it does count. And the proof for my claim is hidden - it could be discovered when the words are read aloud. I interpret this like this: the author of the words (Canadian Bobby) actually expressed his current inability to counter the arguments given, and so used the expression hairsplitting to develop sarcasm. While the emphasis was actually on the term semantical, and then hairsplitting is what we do when writing for wikipedia. So to follow his thought, I might ask: if writing for wikipedia is hairsplitting why do we bother so much then. Actually we do bother and that's why writing for it is a form of hairsplitting also. A little cause-effect inversion is what I trying to describe here.
  4. ... It is quite possible for an entity (it doesn't necessarily have to be a country) to recognise another entity as independent through diplomatic (or other) means - a third entity may have a different opinion and not recognise it as independent. It is the POV of those entities that defines whether they recognise or not - but it is not POV to report the positions of those entities, which is what we're doing here... - as if we are also in some kind of process (we are doing). And then the process would be recognition, and that the recognition of which entities do recognize and which entities do not. Again, I quoted your own words, Bazonka, and I hope that you are far on the "path" of recognition of ambiguity of the word recognition.
  5. ... You actually believe a word ALWAYS has to mean all it's definitions? Seriously. You're on your way to AfD List of common words that have two opposite senses then? Words aren't allowed to not mean only one of their definitions are they?. Or maybe it's just you that's wrong. If you don't understand what the word "International recognition of Kosovo" means in that context, it's not English that's wrong it's you English skills. It is not the international community suddenly recognise that they've seen that Kosovo guy before... The definition used is stated on wiktionary "official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country", it is the correct interpretation of the word in this context... - as if in this context it is clear which definition should be used, but actually only adds up to the arguments that a "deeper" investigation should be taken when considering the authorities in this issue of connecting context and meaning. At least in this case should be taken, if not in every given case.
  6. ... Biblbroks, I have re-read your words and I'm still finding it very hard to understand what your problem is with the current title. It seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the meaning of "recognition" in this context (it does not mean the first definition in Wiktionary!!!), and an insistence that recognition must be a "process". There is no specific process - entities recognise in a variety of ways... - as if the ways of recognition couldn't also be the ways that are processes. And when an entity goes one way or another, an entity usually must think over the possibilities, and then decide on the choices, and finally follow the chosen way - all of which takes time. As if the recognition can take (consume) time - as a process does. So could the recognition take time - as the process does. Aren't then them two somewhat similar? Somehow? Bazonka, again it's your words which I quote.
  1. ... I think Biblbroks is actually concerned about the word's ambiguity. It could be considered POV that the article's title assumes that we mean recognition of Kosovo as independent, not recognition as a Serbian province. I think there is a valid case for renaming the article to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" to remove this ambiguity. But this is pedantic semantics - I don't think that anyone (other than Biblbroks) would even consider that it means anything other than recognition as an independent state... - as if there is an ambiguity in the word, and this ambiguity should be removed. Bazonka, isn't this one of the things I was claiming in the start? And here in a way you acknowledge and recognize the existence of some of the word's ambiguity also, don't you? Whatever the ambiguity of the word might be, there might be some, couldn't it be?
  2. ... But there is nothing factually wrong with the title. The fact is that there is some international recognition of Kosovo – it's minimal, only a small minority of nations recognize it, but there is some recognition and this article documents it. Look at the article International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for precedent.... - as if there are different quantities of recognition (some international recognition). Couldn't it be then that the recognition be could be measured? Now a process could be measured - for example by the time it consumes. Now, there is another similarity between recognition and process.
  3. ... Very poor choice of words. Firstly, recognition of the Republic of Kosovo is far from "minimal": it's quite a considerable minority of countries, not just one or two like those that recognize the independence of Abkhazia ("minimal" would be appropriate for this case). Secondly, it sounds quite in-denial and unrealistic to refer to the majority of the world's democracies and greatest economies with words such as "some recognition", "small minority of nations"... - as if there could be minimal recognition. Now this is another account of gradation of the recognition, is it? Process could be gradated as well, when some of it's features/parameters is taken into account and measured. I might add that this is yet another similarity between recognition and process.
  4. ... Less than 25% of the world recognizes Kosovo, so yes it's pretty minimal. And who cares if they are democracies or not, that doesn't make them better, or more important than other peoples. You don't believe that Western Europeans are superior to the rest of the world do you? I thought Western Europeans would've gotten rid of this imperialist attitude long ago considering the amount of problems they created in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but I guess I am mistaken... - as if numbers could be taken to represent the "intensity" of recognition. Here the intensity would be the possibility or ableness (ability) to recognize. When it reaches 100% the Kosovo is fully recognized... or in terms of the proposed semantics: the process has ended. Now this could represent some kind of mathematical model for the process of recognition, couldn't it represent? If so, how come noone else is at the end (or at least near the end) of the process of recognition that the recognition could be regarded as a process.
As for the argument that 60 countries recognize Kosovo is concerned - I believe that many or at least some of the translations of the term that represents the actual change in the country's stance on status of Kosovo are inappropriate. Or to the least not best chosen. Therefore they shouldn't be easily substituted with the english term recognition for all of the cases of recognition mentioned.
All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) You don't have to write novels here. It's not likely that you're gonna get any consensus for changing the title of this article. It has been discussed many times before, the latest was merely a week ago. I admire your insistence on trying to implement your POV here, but it's not getting anywhere. Your "philosophical" explanations are laughable at best, but you are providing some much needed relaxation in the form of entertainment here. Thanks for that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering for a long time, whether to respond to this challenge. And finally have decided to act upon it anyway. The reaction of mine is in the form of questions to Alchaemia: 'If you claim that you admire my insistence, why aren't you insistent too in sharing some of your thoughts regarding my writings, not only about it? Why describing my writings, when you can challenge it and give some deeper thoughts regarding the arguments I state. Give some arguments (for your writings) of your own instead of estimations and descriptions you provided. --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a little harsh ("laughable at best" is a tad cruel). But I do agree that it's essentially pointless to attempt to re-ignite this discussion when consensus had clearly been achieved. Incidentally, I wonder whether the fact Biblbroks is not a native speaker of English is contributing to the confusion? Just because a word has more than one meaning doesn't mean it is ambiguous. For instance, if I were to write "John was buttering Jill up", no native speaker of English would conclude that John was smearing Jill with dairy products, even though that is actually a grammatically plausible meaning of the construction. The technical ambiguity is removed by the context. Non-native speakers may find it hard if they were confronted only with the dictionary definition and the listed alternative meanings, without an awareness of actual proportionate usage in English. Between two people, "butter up" is almost always used to indicate "sweet-talking"; applied by a person to a piece of bread, "butter up" is always used to mean "to spread butter on"; between two people who happen to be dairy produce fetishists, "butter up" could well have the second meaning rather than the first. Through context we can see that the second (man-on-bread) meaning is not directly relevant here, but if as English (and societal norms) evolve, the first usage were to become less common, and third more so, then the initially rather innocent sentence "John was buttering Jill up" would begin to take on much more interesting overtones to a native English-speaking audience. However, the dictionary entries would probably look the same... which is why non-native speakers may be at a disadvantage. Looking up alternative dictionary meanings for "recognition" is flawed for the same reason - "International recognition of [some place that has declared independence]" has just one, unambiguous meaning to a native speaker of English, without implying any legitimacy (or illegitimacy) to the independence of the place in question, regardless of how many different entries for "recognition" can be found in a dictionary. I apologise for the length of this comment but I hope that it was at least mildly entertaining, for those who appreciate that kinda hoojamaflip. TheGrappler (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TheGrappler, thanks you for the try of understanding my concerns. I appreciate it much, really. I wonder though, if you had thought about the fact that non-native speakers may also have some advantages to native-speakers. For example, you suggest that context defines the meaning if I follow you. But isn't it then that a title of some written text could be connected with the meaning of the text only after reading the whole text? Couldn't it be that the "status" of the title of the text in comparison with the "status" of the meaning of the text that follows the title, isn't at all the same as the "status" of one syntagma (a not-beggining part of the statement expressed with a sentence) in comparison with the "status" of the statement (that could be constituted with the meaning of sentence). The title of one text is far more important than one of the syntagmas in some statement. Isn't it? --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-native speakers should use wikipedia in other languages, DUH!! I do apollogize I'm not sure what you two are discussing to be exact but when I read your post I just had to reply. Why are you guys fighting over a name when an article regaring [Republic of Kosova] / [Kosova Republic] do not exist? It's well understood that the ligitimacy of the DOI of Kosova is disputed but Republic of Kosova is the de-facto ruler of the state, period. There are lots of countries that aren't recognized by everyone, is wikipedia playing by UN rules? Kosova2008 216.106.61.194 (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you could be suggesting that if people use wikipedia of their native language they shouldn't be using the wikipedias in their non-native language. If you comprehend this exchange of thoughts and ideas as a fight, I suggest you should reconsider your vision of the terms communication and conflict. Does the existence of articles that you mention has anything with the statement that the term recognition is ambiguous? Your statement that some something has the property "de-facto ruler" is that, but even if it had been verifiable, what does it have in common with the statement that the term recognition is ambigious in this or any other context? Just hypothetically, if you were to proclaim a country of your own, wouldn't you be playing by your own rules neglecting some other already existent, if not even disregarding many rules. Or even ignoring all of them? --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-native speakers are certainly welcome here! Biblbrok's contention is that the word "recognition" is ambiguous because there are multiple definitions in a dictionary. All I am stating is that to a native speaker the word is not ambiguous in this context, although I can understand that a non-native speaker there may appear to be some ambiguity. It seems highly unlikely that any proposal to move the page from its present location is unlikely to succeed. TheGrappler (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TheGrappler, thank you again. I cannot find the words to express my gratitude for yours. They appear to me very kind in this somewhat harsh environment. :-/ Nonetheless, I must ask you, some other questions, too. If you could consider the might (as in the noun of the verb may) of appearance of the term recognition to a non-native speaker, couldn't you consider the might of appearance of ambiguity to a native speaker also? And if so, wouldn't you consider the ambiguity to a person regardless of preson's nativity of language? The use of the term recognition is quite biased here, I reckon, and that is because of the subject and the matter of the article. Because of the context of the term recognition here. What is it exactly? Couldn't it be that is possible to comprehend the context only after reading the whole text of the article? And I must state this too: the importance of the title of text is greater if the text is constituted of more strings. Even more important if the strings have some meanings, not to say if the meaning from the text could be derived. But as far as the meaning of the title of the text is concerned the importance could be regarded even as vital. Id est critical. Couldn't it be? --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reasons I opposed one month ago and the month before that and the month before that etc. Is there really a need to discuss this every month? No consensus will be reached. Ijanderson977 195.229.235.39 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be so kind and repeat your reasons? Perhaps the reasons you write about radiate a new light on the subject, or a new light could radiate upon them. If it weren't the need to discuss this we weren't be communicating, right? I believe that a consensus is reachable, and hope that it will be reached. --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is clear, straightforward, unambiguous. There is nothing unclear, ambiguous or unclear about the word "recognition" as used in this title. I agree with comments above by TheGrappler, that possibly the idea that it is ambiguous comes from a confusion deriving from insufficient fluency in English. --SJK (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask I will: what is clear about the title? And what is straightforward about it? If it were unambiguous, then we wouldn't be communicating about its ambiguity, would we? Again I ask: how come you claim that there is no ambiguity? The proof of non-existence, is much more non-"accomplishable", than the proof of existence, is it? But this words of mine were just a reminder to the one who could just try to point to the arguments in favor of property of non-ambiguuity of the term recognition. Believe me - imagine just the effort of putting all this here. All the best --Biblbroks's talk 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biblbroks, allow me to answer your questions:
  • What is clear about the title?: The words of the title are "International recognition of Kosovo". That means that it pertains to Kosovo's recognition internationally. That should be clear to all who read it.
  • What is straightforward about it?: The interpretation of the words given the context. (Whilst all are welcome to English-language Wikipedia, if you're not fully comfortable with use of the English language, then may I suggest this version of Wikipedia as a first step.)
  • If it were unambiguous, then we wouldn't be communicating about its ambiguity, would we?: We're not. You are. And only you. You're in a tiny minority - I don't think anyone else thinks it's ambiguous.
  • The proof of non-existence, is much more non-"accomplishable", than the proof of existence, is it?: Erm, OK.
  • Imagine just the effort of putting all this here: Indeed. You're never going to achieve anything with your patently pointless arguments that no-one else understands/agrees with, so why not save yourself the effort and recognise that this is not a battle worth fighting? (Did you see what I did with the word "recognise" there? I used a different meaning! But in this context it makes perfect, unambiguous sense.)
All the best -- Bazonka (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will question your answers and occasionally answer your questions:
  1. So you know what is that SJK had in mind or meant by stating the words which he stated?
  2. Your statement: The interpretation of the words given the context. (Whilst all are welcome to English-language Wikipedia, if you're not fully comfortable with use of the English language, then may I suggest this version of Wikipedia as a first step.) - You know that you are the only person who may connect the context and the interpretation? Or even the only person who may connect the context and the meaning? Naturally you may suggest whatever you like, I cannot prevent not to say prohibit it. Nevertheless, your actions do have effect - here one of the effects is that your "defenselessive" irony is again at large. And thus, I presume, your credibility at stake.
  3. Your statement: We're not. You are. And only you. You're in a tiny minority - I don't think anyone else thinks it's ambiguous. Again you acted upon my act of communication by communicating yourself too. I suggest you not to try and communicate if you just imagine that the exchange of thoughts and ideas might be "hardlyer" viable, as it appears to me in our case of communication. Your estimations of minority/majority/popularity/statistics are non-referenced to the least. If you try and comprehend the section where this discussion has been taking place and the discussion itself, then you might find some alternatives to your statements.
  4. Your statement: Erm, OK. So you know what I stated, or just comprehend it, or something else? Is the erm semantically sufficient in this context? If you are 'the only person who may connect the context and the interpretation' you should have an authoritative explanation to the connection of context and interpretation of the term erm in this case. Try elaborating your words, it could be easier for me, and for the rest as well, and even for you I assume.
  5. Your statement: Indeed. You're never going to achieve anything with your patently pointless arguments that no-one else understands/agrees with, so why not save yourself the effort and recognise that this is not a battle worth fighting? (Did you see what I did with the word "recognise" there? I used a different meaning! But in this context it makes perfect, unambiguous sense.) The term never what is its context and what is its interpretation here? Irony I suppose. The term anything what is its context and what is its interpretation here? Irony I suppose. The term patently what is its context and what is its interpretation here? Irony I suppose. Or is it lapsus calami supstituted for patiently? I would prefer the "lapsus calami" case. The term pointless what is its context and what is its interpretation here? Irony I suppose. I have stated numerously my point of view, though in shorter form with the term POV - I admit. How come you state wikt:-less (lacking) point, when there are plenty. Should I point you to my points? You state ...that no-one else understands/agrees with..., so should I presume that you have some statistics or at least reference on that statement? You state: so why not save yourself the effort and recognise that this is not a battle worth fighting?, so is it that you know the worth of this "battle" I saw what you wrote and read it likewise. Also I acknowledged your trial of pointing me to the fact that a word can have a different interpretation depending on the context. But what about its meaning? Is it that it could be different depending on the context, too? So this complicates matters even further and even broader and even greater. Should I ask again in different form to illustrate my point: who is at least responsible enough to connect context and interpretation, not to mention context and meaning? And even more, I should refrain myself of mentioning this question again, but I can't: so, who is authoritative enough to connect context of the term with its meaning - or at least with its interpretation? If I try to use your interpretation of the term recognise with the same context in your statement ...why ...recognise that this is not a battle worth fighting?, I could come up with several interpretations of your statement: the first two are the interpretation that regards and includes the previous use of the term "not" again in this case (one context), and the other is the one that doesn't include the term "not" in the statement (second context). The third and fourth interpretation of your statement are which I come up with if I use different interpretation(s) of the word 'recognise' - again one with the "not" included and one without. And so I come up with at least four different interpretations from two contexts and two interpretations. Now, are you responsible enough to at least explain which context and which interpretation you meant? Not to say which one is what you wrote? And then which meaning you wanted to share? You state: I used a different meaning! But in this context it makes perfect, unambiguous sense.) - I hope I don't have to point how many meanings could be derived from your statement with the terms you used, and then try to show how the property of perfection and "unambiguosness" of the sense of words (as you refer to them) is much disputable.
I would be glad if someone recognised (as in To match something or someone which one currently perceives to a memory of some previous encounter with the same entity.) that in my writings I tried to be more concise or at least comprehensible enough to illustrate my point. Even if I used the syntheticivity of somewhat isolatingiveness of English language, I hope it would be understood as an attempt to achieve more comprehensibility. All the best (I hope) from me. --78.30.153.144 (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as anonymous 78.30.153.144 (talk) was added by Biblbroks's talk 13:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A country can either recognise Kosovo as a Serbian province governed by UNMIK/EULEX or as an independent country called the "Republic of Kosovo", therefore the title fits the article just perfectly! Ijanderson (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biblbroks, here are my responses to your points above (I have taken the liberty of editing your post to number the points):
  1. Yes, I did know what SJK meant when he said that the title is "clear, straightforward, unambiguous". He meant that the words "International recognition of Kosovo" are entirely appropriate as a title for the article because they adequately describe its content.
  2. Why am I the only person that can connect context and interpretation? The context is the subject matter of the article; the interpretation is the ability to equate the article's title to this subject matter. It would seem that everybody can connect this context and interpretation except you.
  3. Nobody has ever agreed with you about the ambiguity of the title, and numerous people have opposed your intention to change it. Therefore my statement that you're in a tiny minority is correct.
  4. The "erm" was an exasperated response to your statement regarding the proof of non-existence. I agreed with the logic of the sentence, but (as with all of your comments) it was very verbose and it didn't seem entirely relevant.
  5. Has anyone ever told you that you over-analyse things? You're never going to achieve anything with your patently pointless arguments that no-one else understands/agrees with, so why not save yourself the effort and recognise that this is not a battle worth fighting? There is no irony in this sentence, and the word "patently" was not a spelling mistake. I will rephrase it because it seemed to cause you so much confusion: You (Biblbroks) are always going to be unsuccessful in your attempts to rename this article, because (based on the evidence of previous responses) nobody agrees with you. Therefore you should stop.
Biblbroks, you are a very difficult (some may say impossible) person to work with. Whilst, on the one hand I enjoy arguing with you, you are in no way contributing to the article. Please accept that its title will not be changed because of your arguments about ambiguity. Leave it. Bazonka (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, DNFT. — Emil J. 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Biblbroks is a troll; I think acts in good faith, albeit in a difficult way. But I appreciate your sentiment - arguing/discussing with him is going nowhere and only results in more and more of his text. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away... (Or do you mean that I'm the troll? Perhaps some of my responses to Biblbroks are a bit sarcastic, but I am trying to maintain a good article here.) Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Biblbroks, and I guess I shouldn't have used such a strong word. However, I'm not convinced that he is bona fide trying to achieve that the article is moved. Looking at this and the past discussions, he seems to be arguing for the sake of argumentation itself, his goal is to outsmart the other guy in the discussion, it has nothing to do with this article. — Emil J. 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The proposed title Stance of the international community regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence is way too long. "Recognition" is an accepted common-use word for a country starting to address a territory as a new country. Also, WP:NOTDICTIONARY wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't need to take into account all the meanings of a word when using it, we can't do anything about English language's level of ambiguity, and translations are never perfect.

Also, we are not making direct translations of the countries' communicates, we are saying that their position meets a certain criteria that we take here as recognition. Discussions about how a certain country uses a word that does not mean "recognition" belongs to a discussion focusing on that specific country, not to a general discussion of the title. I'll repeat that: if there is a country that is not actually recognizing Kosovo, and this is caused by a mistranslation, then open a new discussion about that country and don't fill this discussion about the title. Simply asserting that there are entries in the list that are mistranslated is unhelpful, go fix them instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin lock down this thread please? It won't get archived until it's left untouched for 2 weeks, and there's no benefit in keeping it here. Bazonka (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have been some time away from the discussion actively (although I tried to catch up with it reading it), it appears to me that some interesting issues have arised in the meantime - apart from some amount of irony and sarcasm which I unfortunately but reasonably have to encounter very often when stating my arguments. SFirst of all I will explain why the discussion has been from the archive retrieved by me (please do take a notion to my not-usual sentence's order of words - which has a meaning of its own). Now explanation is that my POV (point of view) still exists and if the article and especially its title has to be NPOV - neutral (whatever that should mean), I consider that my point of view must be taken into account if it hasn't been yet. Why? Because otherwise Neutrality of point of view of the article isn't ubiqutous, universal, and final. And why again? Because if something is to be neutral it has to be right in between - in the very middle of all the possible stances, points of views, impressions, fronts, aspects, perspectives... - you choose the word.

Next I will list some of the issues that I've recognized that had arisen: potential overanalization of the issue (is there really such a thing), realization that there could be "recognitions as smth" and "recognitions as smth else", terms for the "recognition" by other countries (let's call it translations) are mentioned but not enough convincing arguments were given for not to take other languages terms into consideration, commonity of the term "recognition" for the "contries starting to address a territory as a new country." All the issues which I will take into account and address appropriatelly to their significance and in due time. As for the Enric Naval constructive critique: Also, we are not making direct translations of the countries' communicates, we are saying that their position meets a certain criteria that we take here as recognition. Discussions about how a certain country uses a word that does not mean "recognition" belongs to a discussion focusing on that specific country, not to a general discussion of the title. I'll repeat that: if there is a country that is not actually recognizing Kosovo, and this is caused by a mistranslation, then open a new discussion about that country and don't fill this discussion about the title. Simply asserting that there are entries in the list that are mistranslated is unhelpful, go fix them instead. - I will pose you some questions: which are the cirteria for recognition (1st definition in the wikt:recognize? If discussion of the country's (USA, UKA, Australia, big part of the rest of the world...) usage of the word (recognition) doesn't belong here on en.wikipedia, where does it belong? You meant to fix the entries myself individually for every country? Isn't it by changing the title is the only most truly neutral way to represent the global view? All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no support whatsoever for your philosophical musings, so I suggest you drop it. This is not a forum. --alchaemia (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken the liberty to state that "this is not a forum", and I presume that you've had this talk page in mind when "ontologically" trying to define it - but it was unsuccessfully - in my opinion. When stating that about not being a forum, why haven't you thought of giving some kind of contribution to the discussion instead. Repeating what is a general policy for the wikipedia (it's articles and its talk pages as well - I hope), is not productive, constructive, or positive contribution in any way - I think. Perhaps, you disagree with me about your "non-contributivity". Perhaps that is because you think that by stating this is not a forum (TINAF) you could stop me in what I am trying to contribute (if stop me is what you want). And when you state TINAF perhaps you presume that the discussion will point to some other direction you would prefer more - if to any direction at all. But do you really think I would just easily drop it as you say it. Just for the reason of many "insultive" ironic remarks given, authoritative suggestions proposed and proposed subject of the discussion disregarded by many, one person could (and I suppose it did) encounter here, you honestly suppose that this very person could back away from the treatise. And I suppose you reckon that it is logical that this person would then drop it. Presumably with much grudge and mournfully maybe mainly just because its opinions were ignored without much or even any respect. But for some other kind of person (like me) such a situation would be motivating instead. It would give such a person's standings of the issue just more justification and arguments than it already supposedly has (if you think carefully enough, this will come to your mind). As for your description of my writings as philosophical musings, couldn't you think that I could take your statement as a rhetorical tool or even demagogic musing on your helplessness with responding to my questions and issues. Please, all of you readers, be tolerant enough and allow me one excursion in my thoughts of grief because of the current situation against/with me. This grief is mainly because of the (not just Alchaemia's) lack of etiquette and sometimes even personal attacks I had experienced in this discussion. My grief will be expressed in the form of sarcasm and that is (unfortunately) aimed at one person's (Alchaemia's) ironic comment about no support whatsoever. Perhaps I'm wrong, and please forgive me if it is so, Alchaemia, but I honestly think you deserve such a response most of all the "non-etiquetters". So my response to you is: "Have you any reference on that statement of no support whatsoever(NSWSE)? Or could at least give some statistics on the NSWSE?" But, to finally conclude, and not tire you all too much any more, I will state some things which I will try and work on in the future. I will try to viciously support my opinion that the term recognition is ambiguous in this title (and of course in this context). Moreover, from now on I'm thinking of navigating my course of endeavours even more penetrative. This effort of mine will hopefully be evident in me trying something more. And that is to try illustrating that the term recognition when using the (wikt:recognition fourth) definition: # official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country is systemically biased and therefore unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. Will write you all soon, till then all the best, --Biblbroks's talk 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can I request that an admin locks this thread please. Archiving it didn't seem to work. Bazonka (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Bazonka, why do you succumb to the administration when the subject in matter could be discussed. What is your reason to lock this thread? So many questions have been left unconsidered, not to say answered. Please, do explain, Bazonka. Is it my overly expansive illustration of my opinion and dilligent responding to every comment given here? Why should that be the reason? My opinion is that yielding to the use of force-administration, when there are other options, is a sign of weakness. I hope your reasons are not those. Sorry, for still being offtopic - but I have to act in this way because, this appears to me as a matter of urgence. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things around here are done by consensus, especially such things as changing the title of the article. You simply don't have that consensus. You need to understand that and stop posting essays here as this is not a forum. --alchaemia (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the consensus part that things should be done through it, but I too represent part of that consensus. Don't I? Just by repeating similar and/or same statements (TINAF) you won't succeed in your intentions - whatever they may be. Some of Joseph Goebbels's methods you exercise are not just beyond being obsolete, but even scowled upon, I believe. As for my essays as you call my writings - have you ever tried to comprehend the meaning of only one of those, or have you usually just disregarded them: as too long, as biased, as too profound (philosophic as you name it)... or because of some other reason?
I'm back to the topic: Enric Naval stated that "Recognition" is an accepted common-use word for a country starting to address a territory as a new country. Well this statement penetrates deeply and directly to the core of my point. If recognition is ...word for starting ...to address then isn't it then that the title of this article is addressing the starting of countries ("internationals") to address the Kosovo as a new country. If you add internationally to the beginning (as it already is there) it just emphasizes this aspect even more. So "internationals" (countries) can either start addressing it or not start. And that is not start yet. But when something has been started to be addressed (as some internationals started to address entity titled Kosovo), as something it wasn't being addressed as before, it appears as it is just a matter of time when others (and that means other internationals along), would start doing this addressing too. Maybe firstly as a slip of tongue. Or mistranslation. Perhaps later as an intentional (mis)translation between/among diplomats and/or politicians just for the sake of more expedient communication. And I fear that this (and every) communication becomes much more expedient day by day, which itself is not a shortcoming necessarily. But if and when it is at the expense of more accurate and more precise, and moreover interchangeably more comprehensible, communication, then, right then, is a major, if not "maximus" drawback comparing to expedience. This is were the term recognition starts to resemble a word with an interpretation for some kind of process - as I have been stating a long time ago. Recognition (process) of interpretation of the term recognition (official acceptance of the status of a new government by that of another country) has been started a long ago - by me. And at least from this moment on - by others... I sincerely hope. Think about it, please, and by doing that attempt to enter the process of recognition of my point. Please do try and invest some effort in that. All the best, --78.30.153.144 (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan recognizes Kosovo

Here's the link in albanian : http://www.telegrafi.com/?id=2&a=4787

According to the source the news has been confirmed by the Kosovo foreign ministry. Probably we will find more sources on this shortly. Mesuta (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English: [1]. — Emil J. 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't rush into things, its best to wait for confirmation in my opinion. We have done things straight away before and they have been wrong. So lets wait for either Kosovo/ Jordan MFA to report this information of for some more mainstream media to report this information. Ijanderson (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo Times is reporting the same thing [2] Ijanderson (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these reports are to be believed, the recognition has been confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I think it's safe to update, but there's no harm in waiting a day or two. Bazonka (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=nw20090708104225462C192103) says: <<< Jordan announced on Wednesday its recognition of Kosovo, becoming the 61st nation to support Pristina after it declared independence from Serbia last year.

The cabinet announced "the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" in a brief statement without elaborating. >>>
It doesn't declare the source from which they got the cabinet announcement though. Emetko (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Jordan confirms recognition http://kosovotimes.net/flash-news/760-jordan-confirms-the-recognition-of-kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.142.213 (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Jordan Times is confirming it in a little blurb. It's in the "Dubai underlines need to incorporate decentralisation in development" summary: "...the Cabinet also decided to recognise Kosovo’s independence."[3]. Even the rag b92 is reporting it [4]. I think you can all stop wringing your hands and add it to the article. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead. — Emil J. 12:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Official source: [5] --alchaemia (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An English-language source would be better. An Albanian-language report is on the Kosovo MFA site [6] - I expect an English report to appear there in the next day or two - we should use this in the article when it appears. Bazonka (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should use both an English and the official source. --alchaemia (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs not official enough for you? A day or two after they publish an Albanian report, an English one will be published - that's what normally happens anyway. Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the official Jordanian government source on top of the Kosovo MFA English source, so drop your attitude. --alchaemia (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. But I don't understand why you want to include the unreadable Jordanian source when an official English-language one is (likely to be) available. There are too many references in this article already - I think we should try to keep them to a minimum. Bazonka (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacolli: Qatar and Kuwait next

[7] It in Albanian, I used google translator. It says that Jordan was first out of the 20 expected to recognise and that Qatar and Kuwait are next. Can we update the article with this? Ijanderson (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, we are friends..we talk on msn, your my friend and you dont ask me to translate even tho im fluent in Albanian & American?? It says that by the end of the year Pacolli expects 20 recognitions. I'm not sure where is this rich mofo gonna get 19 more countries. Vojvodina next? LOL

68.187.143.184 (talk) -Ari ---- PS, canada sucks —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Good find, but I don't think it's usable. It's just speculation from Pacolli - perhaps he's had information from the countries in question, but if so he hasn't stated how or when he got it, or from whom. Idealy we need something from Qatar/Kuwait, or possibly a statement like "In a meeting with such-and-such Foreign Minister, I was told..." Bazonka (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to B92, which quotes the Kosovan Epoka e Re (which has good connections within the government): the Dominican Republic has already decided to recognize Kosovo and the diplomatic note of recognition should arrive in Kosovo today, Friday the 10th. [8] --alchaemia (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit to the first paragraph of "Background"

Currently the paragraph reads:

As of 8 July 2009, 61 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Notably, a majority of European Union member states have formally recognised Kosovo (22 out of 27). 24 out of 28 NATO member states have recognised Kosovo. Of the four countries that border Kosovo, only Serbia refuses to recognise it. On 27 February 2008, Germany became the first country to formalise its recognition of Kosovo by renaming its diplomatic office in Pristina as an embassy.

I propose the following slightly amended version:

As of 8 July 2009, 61 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states, and the Republic of China (Taiwan), have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Notably, a majority of member states of the European Union (22 out of 27) and NATO (24 out of 28) have recognised Kosovo. Of the four countries that border Kosovo, only Serbia refuses to recognise it. On 27 February 2008, Germany became the first country to formalise its recognition of Kosovo by renaming its diplomatic office in Pristina as an embassy.

This version cuts out some repetitive phrasing and avoids starting a sentence with a number. I also think it would be helpful to mention ROC next to the number of UN-member recognitions (I think it clarifies the number, given that both the figure excluding and including the ROC can be found quoted by different people). Just wanted to check that nobody had any objections to this text - I am mindful that some editors may not want the ROC to be given such a prominent position in addition to the UN recognitions. TheGrappler (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. Bazonka (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather neutral to me, do it!. Ijanderson (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any improvement - mentioning the Taiwan issue in the first paragraph ("given such a prominent position", quoting your own words). There is no need of a "clarification" here. It is even misleading because the reader could assume that Kosovo and the Republic of China have established diplomatic relations which is not the case... --DaQuirin (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new version gives undue weight to ROC. The other changes look OK. — Emil J. 09:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the change, but omitted the bit about Taiwan. Bazonka (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wary of "just doing it" because on articles like this I'm not a big fan of WP:BRD, and I would rather use a talk page first (one day I'll write WP:TIMID :)). I disagree with DaQuirin in that it seems to me there is an argument for a clarification on the total number of recognitions. The purpose of the sentence "61 out of 192 sovereign United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state" is clearly to give a "headline figure" for the recognition count, but it's easy to find people who quote the statistic "62 countries/states have recognized Kosovo" by including ROC/Taiwan. By stating explicitly 61 UN members + 1 non-member (ROC), my intention was purely to reduce confusion for people who had seen both figures (certainly not to make Kosovo appear more recognized, or the ROC appear more legitimate). I feel somewhat uneasy about this because the "+1" is rather anomalous (ROC is in some respects more of a "partially recognized government" than an "partially recognized state", and Kosovo does not reciprocate recognition) and clarifying those anomalies would unduly complicate what was meant to be a simple summary, whereas leaving them out could be misleading (to which extent I do agree with DaQuirin). The table of recognitions is very clear, but somebody who had seen the "62" figure elsewhere would need to scroll a long way down through a lot of table and then work out that the other figure had included ROC, to understand the source of the confusion. Would a footnote be a better way to give a clarification?TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote is fine with me. — Emil J. 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of passport issue

The statement that "ability to travel using the new Kosovan passport does not correlate with diplomatic recognition" is not strictly correct - they are actually highly correlated (given information about whether a country recognizes Kosovo, one can predict with a high probability whether or not the Kosovan passport will be accepted, and vice versa). The data at Kosovan passport would give a correlation coefficient of 0.954 for UN member states, which is hardly uncorrelated. A more precise expression of this fact would be "ability to travel using the new Kosovan passport is not perfectly correlated with diplomatic recognition".

There are some contradictions between this article and Kosovan passport: "Greece, Romania and Slovakia make it possible, while Senegal and Poland do not yet" is problematic. The passport article lists Greece and Slovakia, as well as Haiti and New Zealand, as accepting the Kosovan passport without recognizing the country (perhaps in the case of New Zealand, not "explicitly recognizing" would put it better). Romania is not such a good example as it is listed as having "special travel provisions", where it seems (although I don't claim to understand this fully) the Kosovo passport is not considered sufficient on its own. The passport article doesn't list any states which have recognized but the passport is not considered valid - in particular, the way that article is phrased suggests that travel is possible both to Poland and Senegal. That article is silent about acceptability of the passport to authorities in Taiwan, but for all other states on the recognition list seems to state that the passport is acceptable. I don't know whether it is this article, or the passport one, which is in error on these points - I can't tell from the references. TheGrappler (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the "correlation", I fixed it. As for the other problems, the Kosovan passport article takes it as an axiom that every country which recognizes Kosovo also accepts its passports. I'm not convinced that this is correct, it does not seem to be backed up by any source, and in fact it directly contradicts the information provided by Kosovo MFA. However, the latter may also be unreliable, as the MFA website has been known to suck in the past, the information may be outdated. The list provided by kosovothanksyou is noticeably longer, nevertheless it includes only a half of the countries recognizing Kosovo, and it is not an official source. — Emil J. 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every country that recognises Kosovo accepts the passports, remember how many news we have afterward of countries notifying that from now on they will accept it even though they recognised Kosovo months before that. And remember how some countries like Slovakia recognise Kosovo passports for humanitarian reasons but after this, as some might have though, things didn't get better on other plan, they remained the same and there were new negative statements by their officials. So passports are a completely different issue and there is no example to confirm the correlation in either way.--Avala (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is strong reason to believe that every country that recognizes Kosovo also recognizes its passports; if you recognize the authority issuing those passports, then by extension, you recognize those passports themselves. Just because no one travelled to Palau or Sierra Leone with a Kosovan passport does not necessarily mean that they don't recognize that passport. On the other hand, we need those announcements or stamps from countries that don't recognize Kosovo yet since it doesn't logicall follow that they will recognize them (most do, but there are those that don't: i.e. Russia). As for your political theories on Slovakia, they're so deep and well-thought out that I'm not gonna be able to analyze them at this point. --alchaemia (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is +highly unusal+ for a country that has diplomatic relations with another country not to recognize that country's passports. The only case I can remotely think of is Somalia, which is recognized as a country ba many but whose passports are not widely recognized due to the way they are issued. However this is the very rare exception not the rule. There is no such thing in diplomatic or legal terms as an explict recognition of a passport. If a passport is not recognized as a valid travel document this must be expressly declared.
Some countries do not recognize certain travel documents issued by other countries, such as non-biometric passport or certain classes of passports, however there is never a full non-recognition, unless (as in the case of Somalia) all travel documents are deemed insufficent - which in this specific case is due to the fact that these passport are widely available on the black market.
If anyone has a specific source stating that a country that does recognize Kosovo does not recognize its passports, please post it here. But please use up-to-date sources, not outdated ones that stem from the time prior to diplomatic recognition. Please also note that statements that passports are now acceptable for travel may post-date the actual recognition date for the simple reason that these press statements and website changes are usually the last thing embassies and MFA take are of. However this does not mean that the actual recognition doesn't take plade at the same time. Btw : this also shouldn't be confused with a technical delay of acceptance, which may occur for a couple of weeks as software and visa issuing technicalities are updated to enable immigration and embassies to process the new passports.
On the other side (recognition of passport only) : this should never be seen as a step toward the recognition of a country . Taiwanese passports are widely accepted but that does not mean that Taiwan is any closer to recognition. Passportguy (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what caused a lot of this confusion was the continuation of UNMIK documentation after independence, followed by its withdrawal in mid-2008. For several months, those states that had recognized Kosovo couldn't accept Kosvan passports, because they didn't exist. As the new passports were introduced, several states indicated their acceptance. My suspicion is that the flurry of reports of countries officially accepting the passports was due to the novelty of the new documentation, and that the reason these stories dried up wasn't because the remainder of recognizing countries refuse to accept them, but because the documentation regime had simply become normalized and acceptance was no longer regarded as newsworthy. This hypothesis would be consistent with the information Passportguy has kindly added here, and though I have no sources to cite for it, it seems far more plausible than the currently uncited statement that Senegal and Poland do not accept the passports. Avala, is your assertion that "Not every country that recognises Kosovo accepts the passports" based purely on that (unsurprising) lack of news, rather than documentary evidence? TheGrappler (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland definitely recognizes the Kosovan passport as a valid travel document. Here's a copy of an e-mail from the Polish consulate in New York:


from VisaPassport <visapassport@polishconsulateny.org>
reply-to visapassport@polishconsulateny.org
to XXXXXXXXXX
date Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:17 PM
subject RE: Inquiry regarding the Kosovan passport


Dear Sir!


Yes, Poland does recognize Kosovian passports.


Best regards!


I've omitted my details from the e-mail reply, however, you can find a screenshot of the e-mail here. [LINK DOESN'T WORK] I've had similar replies from all the Baltic states and many others that are not on the list, but haven't posted them here as people would classify them as OR. EDIT: For some reason my TinyPic link doesn't seem to work. Something about it being blacklisted or some such. Go here then: [9] --alchaemia (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countries which have recognised Kosovo don't have to separately recognise the Kosovan Passports as well. There are hardly going to say, "we recognise you as a country, but we will not let your citizens use their passports". Generally recognition of the country will include the passport too, it just might a take a little while before the updates are done at boarder control points and at immigration etc Ijanderson (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but I posted that as proof that many countries routinely accept and process Kosovan passports even though they haven't publicly stated anything on the matter. --alchaemia (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why Kosovathanksyou.com does not list Poland as a country that recognizes the Kosovar passport? --Tibetian (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have it, as of today. They've also added Congo. --alchaemia (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Positive signals from Israel (Lajm)

Lajm reports that AKR leader Behxhet Pacolli met with Israeli President Shimon Peres, and that they discussed recognition of Kosovo by Israel. “The signals are positive,” stated Pacolli. He also noted that El Salvador and the Dominican Republic have already reached the decision to recognise Kosovo’s independence and that it is only a procedural matter until the decision is formalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.142.213 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could show us the source, that would be good. Also as regards to El Salvador, I heard it was something to do with it having a full Parliament as of yet. Ijanderson (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently El Salvador doesn't have functioning institutions as of yet (the Parliament is blocked for some reason) so they can't recognize officially since the Parliament has to approve it formally. Pacolli said that it'll happen but that they're waiting on this. As for Israel, he said that there are positive signs that they're (positively) thinking about it, but he didn't give a timeframe. --alchaemia (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria to open its embassy

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=105578 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.142.213 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get that link to work. But no matter - here's another: [10] Currently the article cites this reference [11] from May 2008 which says that Bulgaria already has an embassy, but I guess it could be inaccurate. I'll update to a better source. Bazonka (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link you just inserted in the article gives "You are not authorised to view this resource. You need to login." for me. In contrast, the novinite link works fine. — Emil J. 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it works now. As further evidence that the original reference was in error, Kosovo MFA lists the Bulgarian mission as a Liaison Office; even allowing for the usual delay it's unlikely that it was converted to an Embassy in March 2008 as Balkan Insight claimed. — Emil J. 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Republic recognises Kosovo

The Kosovo Times is reporting that the Dominican Republic has taken the decision to recognise Kosovo and that formal notification will be made of this decision today.[12]. Further sourcing is needed, obviously, but I thought it was noteworthy. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b92 reporting as well

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=07&dd=10&nav_id=60404 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Times is confirming that the DR has recognised Kosovo [13]. Gazeta is also reporting it [14]. Pacolli has the note verbale, same as he did with the Comoros. He has consistently been a reliable source. You guys have taken Jeremic's word that somebody told him something as factual, so with that low bar, we can take Pacolli's word for it. You may start the handwringing. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Foreign Ministry Confirms recognition

http://www.kohavision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20347&Itemid=40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KosovaPress says that Kosovo MFA has confirmed it, as well. [15] --alchaemia (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add it. Nevermind! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Kosova Report as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please update the map? Thanks! - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

original copy from Foreign Ministry of DR http://www.gazetaexpress.com/images/documento_importante-1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.142.213 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's dated 10 July. Should we change the date on the main page? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo MFA confirmation [16] --alchaemia (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for OT, but I can't help but notice that the guys responsible for the Kosovo MFA web page are hopeless. When they ran the story of Hyseni meeting a representative of "Dominican Republic" Crispin S. Gregoire, they finally realized the error and changed it to "Dominica" in the article[17]. Now, they put the same photo of Gregoire with Hyseni to the article about Dominican Republic recognizing Kosovo[18], mixing them up again. — Emil J. 16:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting indeed! --DaQuirin (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've obviously just got the difference between Dominica and the Dominican Republic confused. It's definitely Dom Rep that's recognised, so despite the dodgy photo, the reference is still appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no doubt which country recognized Kosovo. — Emil J. 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thaci: Serbia considering to recognise Kosovo

http://www.beta.co.yu/default.asp?m=Vesti%20dana,ves&j=sr&h=Home,sr&prikaz=2135956 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.120.238 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Useless for this article. --alchaemia (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything.. Only that Thaci is claiming that Serbia is thinking about recognising. Thaci has said this many times before. Rozafaaa (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Insight is also reporting this in English - but of course it's utter pie-in-the-sky speculation [19] This B92 article is more realistic: [20] Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Thaci has said that Serbia is considering recognition of Kosovo and has taken the first steps towards the warming of an independent Kosovo, not that Serbia is going to recognise soon, that is not what Thaci or the sources have said. Please don't get the wrong end of the stick. Ijanderson (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First embassy" claim

Maybe better to skip that, agreed. But I did not find a source for the fact that Albania opened the first embassy in 2008. The respective link is not working. Instead, for the German claim, there are several online sources (not only the Serbian MFA). Anyway, it's not too important. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this link[21], it's just yet another official MFA web site which sucks. For reasons which escape me, you have to click to "English" at the top of the page, and only then the statement appears. — Emil J. 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. "decided to raise the diplomatic relations between the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Kosovo at Ambassadorial level" - this is not equivalent with opening an embassy, so I don't see any contradiction. But anyhow... --DaQuirin (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw opening an embassy =/= establishing diplomatic relations (not even establishing diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level as it can be non-residential). Diplomatic relations are established by a separate act.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria will not recognise Kosovo

The President of Nigeria, Umaru Yar'Adua, told visiting Serbian President Boris Tadic that his country, remembering its own civil war, will not recognise Kosovo [22]. Since we have no information about Nigeria on the page, this would seem to warrant inclusion. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Terrible tragedy in Egypt and the subsequent national day of mourning brought to that the details from NAM meeting were very scarce. So there were almost no news on meetings but it's good that this Nigerian media reported on it, at least we have an update on one country.--Avala (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Countries that do not recognize..." sections

Is the point of these sections to give the current position of each country on the recognition issue? If so, why keep outdated information on the position of former governments that are no longer in office? I can understand keeping Putin's position, as his party is still in power: but why keep statements made by regimes that have been voted out? Kosovo will remain unrecognised by Cyprus etc for decades to come: will you have a statement from every administration kept in? Surely the present situation is what matters? Vizjim (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to twist it by saying how it is outdated, while in reality nothing changed on this matter. If the initial reaction was the same as the later confirmations then it's not outdated. The way you are trying to carve this article is to erase all of the data that came immediately following the independence declaration and make it look like some countries took their time to react, that it took them a whole year to do so even though it didn't, even though they reacted immediately. Obviously your edits are a complete failure, not only because you erased information from this article calling it an update which is contradicting to itself, you also made that we now have the entry on Cyprus staring with "President Dimitris Christofias has confirmed that Cyprus..." and I as a reader am wondering what in the world did he confirm when it was the first reaction? And then I realize that I am supposed to go into the article history to find that out, because Vizjim thought that this piece of information is outdated enough to be removed from the article but not outdated enough to keep it out of the Christofias statement. So, yes we will keep the information from all administrations because this is an encyclopedia and not a news website so we cover the historical aspect as well and not just the situation as it is on this particular day.--Avala (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Is it worth pointing out that I support our (Cyprus's) government's position, so there's no question of trying to "twist" anything? Your telepathic ability to understand my motivations is stunning in its inaccuracy. Vizjim (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I wonder if the situation in terms of country-specific details included in this article is more complex than either Avala or Vizjim have recognized here. There is clearly some merit in making sure that statements concisely summarize the positions of the governments of the countries listed, and that might actually justify something of a skew to "recentism". But Avala is also correct that preserving historical context is important. This doesn't necessarily involve change of governments either - changes of the policy of a continuing government also happen, and in general I would suggest that it would be a sensible and reasonable compromise to summarize the older positions more concisely and give more detail to the current position. If it is felt that this would involve the loss of noteworthy information, then a spin-off article may well be in order, where there is naturally more room to document the changing of positions over time. In cases where the new position is merely a reinforcement of the old without additional exposition (as Cyprus appears to be) then the need to rebalance in favour of the newer position is clearly far less. We must bear in mind that concision and fair summarizing is a hallmark of good encyclopedic writing, and that overly long entries may be unhelpful to the reader; the "non-paper" ability of Wikipedia to offer unrivalled depth of coverage is best served by proffering the information at other suitable locations. Cases where a country's position on the Kosovo situation are complex and changed over time may well be suited to spin-off articles - such a scenario suggests that the Kosovo question is a notable issue in that state's internal politics, and there will clearly be multiple media sources available, so prima facie it would cross Wikipedia's notability threshold for an independent article. The longer this article exists, and the more sources accumulate, I think we should be prepared for this eventuality to become more frequent. Several sections here (Greece, Russia, Indonesia for instance) are at least nearing the point where a trim would be in order; I suspect nobody here would want those sections to be twice their current length, say.
In some cases we have been prepared to lose historical contextual information from the article, perhaps too heavily. This has occurred when countries have recognized Kosovo - all information about the sequence of events leading to that has been removed from this article. This may turn out to be a regrettable loss, particularly if Kosovo enters a stage when both recognitions and derecognitions occur (I'm not so much crystal-balling as considering the analogy of Western Sahara, another partially recognized state whose recognition numbers fluctuate both up and down). Our current article makes clear that, say, Iraq is more likely to recognize in the near future than Russia, but a casual reader would get no sense of the fact that the Czech position supporting Kosovar independence (where the decision remains controversial and there have been calls to derecognize) is far less secure than the American one (where no major party is suggesting derecognition as an option). I also think it would be a good idea for positions listed here of governments no longer in office to be marked as such (this would apply to New Zealand, where the old Clark government's stance is listed) even if we haven't picked up indications of a change in policy yet. (A reader who walked into a high school debate and quoted the "New Zealand PM, Helen Clark", would look silly if a rival pointed out she was no longer New Zealand PM; a newspaper making that claim would be likely to receive a letter of complaint requesting a correction). Our article should, as a matter of basic accuracy, reflect she was PM when she made that comment but is no longer. TheGrappler (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a sensible suggestion - I'll get to work on a Cypriot position on Kosovo article tomorrow: that way the historical data can be preserved without creating an overly long article in one place. Suggest the same is done for Russia and others. Vizjim (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow Avala's example, we'll seen have a Russian entry that's longer than all the other entries put together. The idea that an entry - in this case the Russian entry - should be updated every time the Russian ambassador to Serbia sneezes is clearly counterproductive. But it's exactly what Avala does. If the Russian position has not changed, there is simple no need to include everything and anything the Russian ambassador to whatever said. Same with Cyprus, Slovakia, etc. --alchaemia (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that some, but not all, reaffirmations of position are spaceworthy - but that usually they will only deserve a short sentence. In particular, reaffirmations that occur substantially later than the previous statement of position (some positions we quote date from over a year ago, confirmations that those positions have not shifted would be useful), after the change of a government (as in Cyprus) or after speculation of a potential change in position (e.g. Egypt reiterating support for Serbia following reports it might recognize Kosovo) clearly merit acknowledgement, but unless a statements adds substantively to that state's position on Kosovo (which is rare) our coverage surely need only be brief, and in this main article extensive quotation is rarely necessary (I'm talking here particularly about statements that are purely reaffirmative, clearly fresh viewpoints are more likely to deserve quotation; even with repeated viewpoints, country-specific daughter articles can afford more detail to the interested reader - as can the cited sources, of course). If a state makes essentially identical declarations about Kosovo in three different fora, I also suggest that coverage could often be concatenated into one paragraph rather than three separate ones as we tend to do at the moment ("In a May 2008 statement to the National Assembly of Foovalia, President Foojohnson stated blah blah blah[ref]. Support for the Serbian position was reaffirmed at a meeting of ambassadors at the UN in July 2008[ref] and a regional conference of foreign ministers in March 2009.[ref]") Of course, we should try to avoid the wikisin of synthesis but in an article intended to summarize the position of over 100 states on a complex problem of international relations and law, and where the number of statements of position are only going to multiply, we should also remember that we do our readers a disservice if we serve up too many facts and not enough information. TheGrappler (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree, however keep in mind that summarization is very dangerous and any attempts have to go through talk page first. Direct summarizaton and synthesis, like we have here have, led to this article getting locked numerous times in its early days.

I disagree with cutting this article content because there is a spin off article for as long as that new article is a stub. If you want a spin off article you will have to create one that will be substantially longer - meaning covering historical views and statements, positions after the declaration was made, any reaffirmations, oposing views, declarations, statements following meetings, votes in international bodies, detailed analysis, indirect relations and so on and so on. If you can't do it, if you plan only to copy what we have here and call it the main article while cutting a few sentences from this article then don't do it, as it's not what we are looking for.

As for details on countries that recognised, the information on that should go to separate articles like Czech–Kosovan relations.

I will try to reword the entry on Cyprus to reflect the situation and emphasizing the current govt while keeping the statements made immediately following the declaration in order not to loose the valuable information when did Cyprus make a reaction. Also if he said that Cyprus would not recnogise Kosovo then don't change it to "will" and more importantly read WP:NOTCENSORED before you decide to carve the statement to make it sound nicer because if he said that that "sovereignty and independence are violated in the most brutal manner" then he said that and not "sovereignty and independence are violated".--Avala (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will support Avala on this issue. We should retain old information as it is encyclopaedic and it shows how their position has changed/ progressed or if it hasn't changed. Obviously we don't want to add to the article each time Russia says it won't recognise Kosovo because they have said that trillions of times and it would just get silly. I don't think we should delete any information from Cyprus's entry on the article either. Ijanderson (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, countries aren't going to offer a new opinion on Kosovo every day, week, month, whatever. If they say something, then that's their position until they say something else to modify or change it. It doesn't matter when they said it. If a new administration or government has come to power and said nothing, then it would appear their silence conveys consent to the position of their predecessor, otherwise they'd make a new policy statement. Kosovo is not a priority for 99.9999% of countries out there, so it is unreasonable to put an expiration date on stated positions. Niger or Haiti aren't going to check in and say, "Yes, our position is the same" every 90 days or whatever. Vizjim has popped in out of nowhere to pick a fight over a non-issue. Leave things alone. We've haggled enough to get things the way they are now without wasting time on this tripe. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and one more thing - even if countries repeat themselves like Russia we sometimes add the repeated statement if it has something new, if it is not a boilerplate statement.--Avala (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of you clearly need to read WP:OWN and WP:FAITH again. I made an edit that seemed to me to be sensible and left an explanation in the edit summary. In response, I have been insulted and told that I am talking "tripe". Well, I'll leave the article alone. Clearly the current editors don;t want anyone else messing with their content. Vizjim (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's like this: you made an edit which deleted content without adequate explanation, with the misleading edit summary "update cyprus", and when that was unsurprisingly reverted, you started to revert war over the issue. That's not the way to behave, and it's really testing the limits of everybody's good faith, so you shouldn't be surprised by the response you got. — Emil J. 11:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original edit... "updated" the Cypriot entry. Hence the edit summary... "updated". The revert was, however, done without explanation. Clearly, I am in the wrong, eh? Surely the "way to behave" (oh, get over yourself) would have been for the "offended" editor to take the issue to the talk page? Vizjim (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting valuable content is not considered to be any kind of updating. It is that simple.--Avala (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, there may be disagreements on what constitutes valuable content. Such disagreements can be resolved through discussion, or through blank reverts followed by accusations of vandalism. You have your preferred method. Vizjim (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can't accept it you resort to conspiracy theories how editors of this article "don't want anyone else messing with their content" while in reality, four editors that are standing against you here had a fair share of content disputes based on different views on this talk page between each other. This should make you understand how wrong your edit was if you united all these editors who you claim to be generally united in some kind of article ownership.--Avala (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says the person who started this section accusing me of trying to "twist the facts" to achieve some bizarre conspiracy theory! Vizjim (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Actually, if you read WP:BRD, you will realize that it was up to you to take it to the talk page after the first revert. — Emil J. 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case if I thought I was doing a controversial wholescale edit, but it doesn't apply in this case. WP:ROWN applies to the way in which the revert was done. Vizjim (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erasing perfectly fine and sourced content from articles is actually considered vandalism, type: blanking, so there was every right to revert. You should see the Uw-delete warnings as well.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should try reading the policy before quoting it? Here's the relevant section: "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Again, your failure to assume good faith is what precipitated this whole mess, not my action.Vizjim (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restrict my comments to content. This article has largely evolved by "consensus on aggregation" - as new material has emerged, there has been debate about how to incorporate it, followed by additions (usually a paragraph at a time) to the article. This may be inevitable in a contentious article covering an ongoing political process, but it has also left some structural flaws in the article since it has diverted attention from treating the article as a coherent whole (please try reading it from top to bottom, as we are providing it to our readers - bearing in mind it is meant to be a summary article, are you really satisfied with the way we are presenting the information? It may be the result of painful complex compromise but - perhaps as a result - to fresh eyes it reads in places like a complete mess). It's all too easy to get into a mindset that "it's a disaster if such-and-such a fact doesn't appear here" - this is a contentious article where achieving a balance of points of view is vital. But that mindset can be harmful if it makes the article nigh unreadable. It's better to think in two stages: (1) is a piece of material really encyclopedic? (2) If so, where in an encyclopedia should it be presented? Choices might include a summary article (in one of the main tables, or in one of the textual sections outside tables?), appropriate daughter article(s), or both. Such a two stage process may help avert unnecessary fears about "lost information", and focus energy on the best way to present the information.

For countries which have been moved from the "non-recognizing" to "recognizing" sections, there was consensus for a wholesale transfer of content into daughter articles like Kosovan–Maldivian relations. This moved a large amount of information, much of it outdated and therefore of only historical value, away from this article - certainly the "recognitions" table would have been hopelessly clogged up if all that text had been preserved in it. However, this was essentially "reactive editing", responding to new events. It was probably justified on a case-by-case basis but there has been a cumulative negative effect - someone reading the entire article for the first time is left with no idea that among recognizing countries great variations exist between the strengths for support for Kosovan independence, that in some countries there are strong political calls for derecognition, and that the Serbian FM has encouraged certain states to withdraw recognition. In other countries, support is far stronger (e.g. the USA; Biden has called Kosovan independence "irreversible"). I believe that for a reader to be left reasonably well-informed about international recognition of Kosovo, they ought to be made aware that such variation exists, but too much of this information now exists only in the daughter articles. Perhaps an extra paragraph in the "Background" section is needed?

On the other hand some entries are getting long - in a non-scientific list, my browser gives about a page or more for Bosnia and Herzegovina, People's Republic of China, Egypt, Greece, India, Indonesia, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. I'm not necessarily advocating spinning daughter articles off right now, but I do think people need to consider the possibility seriously: they'd all exceed the bare "stub" length that Avala proposed as a test. I doubt anybody here would want them to reach twice their current lengths, but if they keep just accumulating more material then that is bound to happen. Try reading through those long sections while bearing in mind the question: would a reader really be left worse-informed by a good 2-3 paragraph summary, say? (There would be a link to a daughter article too, of course, so the focus need only be on whether this is a good summary, not if it's a complete record of anything Foolandian officials said about Kosovo.) I reckon that in most of those cases about half of the material doesn't really add much, though you may draw different conclusions. To my surprise, I found Egypt and Indonesia appeared more complex and less easy to summarize than many of the others, although Kosovo isn't a major political issue in either. While this article is relatively "quiet", it is an ideal time for editors to start thinking about it more holistically rather than in terms of piecemeal additions. Synthesis is certainly dangerous, and I agree with Avala that it would be a good idea to discuss proposed summarizations on the talk page first. It would be good to hear different opinions on what kind of size would be an ideal target for the currently long sections, that really needs to be agreed before it's worth spending the time to prepare draft summaries.

I still think it's true that if governments have changed (e.g. New Zealand) then sections should be updated to reflect the fact. It doesn't mean what the previous government said should be ignored or removed from the article, and the presumption that unless there is an announcement to the contrary the old position still holds is sensible. The problem with leaving things unchanged is that it gives the incorrect impression that, for instance, Helen Clark is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Does anybody (I'm particularly thinking of Canadian Bobby - I'm not sure whether to interpret your "tripe" statement as opposition) really have a problem with this? TheGrappler (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=303759826"