This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
International recognition of Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
International recognition of Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
There is no need for a "withdrawal" section because 3 out of the 4 never recognized Kosovo in the first place and the fourth is still questionable pending confirmation from that government. Nigeria and Uganda stated they had never recognized Kosovo. Sao Tome's government stated that the recognition was invalid since the government that extended it did not follow the legal process to do so, which rendered it null.
The sudden appearance of this subsection would seem to have the intent of creating some sort of impression of a steady stream of "derecognitions," which is not the case for the reasons stated above. - ILBobby (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of the section probably was done for political/Serbian partisan reasons, but a comparable section does exist on International Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I suggest finding some sources noting the non-withdrawals, make sure they're noted in the country response in the non-recognizing country table, and then delete them from the chart.Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three out of the four were falsely reported to have recognised Kosovo, however it transpired that they never officially recognised Kosovo in the first place; therefore they cannot have withdrawn a recognition that never occurred in the first place. We have an archive on this talk page which has previously discussed this in depth. As things stand on our article, we currently include three countries that have "withdrawn" recognition, despite never recognising Kosovo initially. Not only is this misleading, it is factually incorrect. This is an encyclopaedia. Including false information undermines Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do recall the discussions in the talk page back in the day. The solution is probably to delete the 3 misleading countries from the table, correct? I can just do that now. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering a minister traveled from Bissau to Pristina to personally deliver the Note Verable of recognition, I think we should await further news. [1] - ILBobby (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a copy of the note verbale revoking recognition: [2]. TDL (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dubious "note verbale"; it says that it revokes the recognition of the independence of Kosovo (the letter is supposedly addressed to Serbia), but then it takes the opportunity to "avail assurances of its highest regards" to the REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO. --alchaemia (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[3] this appears to be at odds with the above - ILBobby (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FM Pacolli reaffirms--and presents a freshly-received note verbale from Guinea-Bissau--that the latter recognizes Kosovo. See here [4]. alchaemia (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new Note Verbale says that the withdrawal of recognition was invalid, so the old recognition was never revoked. GB's initial recognition should be restored on the list to its original place, as the January 30th Note was not a new recognition. - ILBobby (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've updated. TDL (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case it comes up again and someone says Guinea-Bissau "didn't really recognize" Kosovo, as happens from time to time, here's yet another instance of interaction [5] - ILBobby (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guinea-Bissau Foreign Minister Fabien Sagna traveled to Prishtina where he met with President Thaci and Foreign Minister to hand-deliver the note verbale of recognition, and to reconfirm once again that Guinea Bissau recognizes Kosovo. Source in Albanian and English [6], [7]alchaemia (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guinea
@AirWolf: Why exactly did you remove the Republic of Guinea from the list of countries that recognize Kosovo's independence [8]? We have sources that say the Republic of Guinea-Bissau revoked its recognition. But, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau are two different countries. Please, put Guinea back and change the number of countries that recognize Kosovo to 109. Vanjagenije(talk) 18:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've fixed. TDL (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emk9: Regarding your edit, where exactly the source says that "Burundi denies claim"? I can't find it. Vanjagenije(talk) 18:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
headline according to google translate "Pacolli's advisor says the news of the withdrawal of recognition from Burundi is not true" Oh, now I see that Burundi didn't deny it, my mistake Emk9 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should we do with Burundi? Kosovan minister claims that Burundi did not revoke recognition, but Serbian source ([11]) provides a document of the revoke. Vanjagenije(talk) 19:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's been done in the past for this page? I'll look through the archives Emk9 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of archives. It seems usually only Kosovo or the recognizing nation's statements were taken into account, but in this case there is an image of Burundi's statement. Assuming it says what the article claims (I used google translate on one paragraph and it seems to, though somebody who can read french would be ideal), Burundi should probably be moved to withdrawn, especially since if they no longer recognize the government of Kosovo, they wouldn't be sending statements directly to Kosovo Emk9 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on that page confirming that Burundi has withdrawn recognition. It's not clear what's on second page of the document, and in fact Burundi has also argued in front of the ICJ back in 2012 in support of Kosovo as an independent country. Either way, if it's confirmed it'll be an odd one taking into account Burundi's position in the past and its argument in support of Kosovo in front of the ICJ. Source for the ICJ argument by Burundi here [12]alchaemia (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchaemia: You say that the fact that Burundi supported Kosovo's independence in 2010 is an evidence that recognition is not withdrawn. I have to remind you that to "withdraw" means exactly that: to change position, not to support something that one have supported in the past. We all agree here that Burundi was once recognizing Kosovo independence, we don't need evidence for that. Vanjagenije(talk) 20:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that at all, so way to twist my words. I said that it would be odd--not impossible--for a state that not only recognized Kosovo but that has actively supported its independence in front of the International Court of Justice, to withdraw recognition a few years later. alchaemia (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it did - so, what's the hold-up? Remove it from the list. WickoTeget (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all clear that it did - that note verbale looks incredibly suspicious (a "@yahoo.fr" e-mail, inexistent website, etc.) alchaemia (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it's fake? WickoTeget (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's not at all as confirmed as some people are claiming. alchaemia (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty confirmed - there's a link to a document that proves that in this very section of the talk page. I see no reason to keep Burundi on the list "Entities that recognise...". WickoTeget (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original note verbale has been published - [13]. Without a shadow of a doubt, it says "Government of the Republic of Burundi [...] 3° revokes the recognition of Kosovo".--Avala (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda fishy that the address on gmaps points to a cremeriè, that diplodbi.org is not accessible, that the official website is http://www.burundi.gov.bi/ and that the email in that paper address is hosted on yahoo.fr ErmirI 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The web page is down, but the archive shows it is the page of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (http://www.burundi.gov.bi/ is the page of the Government of Burundi). And the address does match. Google Maps gives the correct address when searched for『Ministère des Relations Extérieures et de la Coopération Internationale』( [14]). Vanjagenije(talk) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Burundi should be moved to the states which have revoked recognition now. TDL (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It passed 7 days. Let us suppose that Foreign Ministry of Serbia issued on TV a false note verbale. Any state would react in a such case because this is a scandal in international relations. Burundi would issued announcement denying the claim of Serbia. I remind you about case of Mali, where foreign ministry of 'Kosovo*' showed false document which was denounced by the President of Mali. So it is shame that you are rejecting the obvious facts. You may support party you wished, but if you are doing for wikipedia you should be at least professional to not neglect true that Burundi clearly revokes the recognition. This is unethical behavior. Also, Guinea Bissau revoked and then reaffirmed recognition again because previous prime minister resigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.67.3 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ask @Vanjagenije: why there is no change. He is following this page closely and has reverted previous edits who are in line with the sources that say Burundi revoked recognition. He is also waiting for some kind of "consensus" even though he has been provided with sources and many days passed already. Tempsuspen (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have consensus to move Burundi to those that revoked recognition. I am going to make that edit now. Vanjagenije(talk) 14:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Burundi II
Burundi recently withdrew its recognition for Kosovo, the page doesn't say anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosuFan2004 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait. Dačić said also that Guyana withdrew the recognition and that wasn‘t true. At the moment serbian sources aren’t seriously. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmedinfeta: Can you provide a source of that information about Dačić saying that Guyana withdrew the recognition? Vanjagenije(talk) 19:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I‘m sorry. I mean Gambia. [15] It isn‘t also true. I know that Facebook isn‘t a good source but Pacolli writes that Dačić wants Kosovo to provoke at the independent day as he said that Burundi withdraw the recognition Ici-cij.org, Facebook post --Elmedinfeta (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmedinfeta: That sources does not say that Dačić said Gambia withdrew recognition. Did you even read it? It says that Dačić "proposed" that Gambia "reconsider" its decision. Vanjagenije(talk) 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia says Burundi withdrew recongnition, Kosovo says it did not. Why should we believe Serbia and not Kosovo or vice versa? Some time ago another African country was said to had done same, but in the end it was proved that the withdrawal claims were false. Since the government of Burundi has not commented on the withdrawal claims yet, it is premature to make changes to the situation of recongnistion of Kosovo by Burundi. Burundi should be kept in the list of countries that recongnise Kosovo together with a note on claims by Serbia about a possible withdrawal of recognition. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this argument. But still I think that Burundi has to be kept only in the list of countries that recongnise Kosovo. See german Wikipedia --Elmedinfeta (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991:Why should we believe Serbia? Because Serbian side provided an official document from Burundi's Ministry of foreign affairs, and because Burundi did not dispute that document. Serbian Ministry of Foreign affairs also published photos of Burundi foreign minister Alain Aimé Nyamitwe signing the said note verbale and giving it to Dačić [16]. If you think that this source is not reliable, you have to refute it with some arguments. We don't dismiss sources just because someone says they are wrong. You have to prove they are (probably) wrong some way. Vanjagenije(talk) 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia provides documents, Kosovo as well [17]. Guinea-Bissau was inolved in a similar situation some time ago, where both Serbia and Kosovo provided documents, and Guinea-Bissau refuted the withdrawal claims later than a week after those claims emerged. In the past Kosovo presented documents of recognition by countries that later dismissed to had done so. This war of words between Kosovo and Serbia is part of propaganda, and editors should not be tricked by it. By the way, why do you claim that consenus is to place Burundi in the list of countries that have withdrawn recognition? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can a document from 2010 be an evidence that something didn't happen in 2018? Are you joking? I totally agree with you that this is propaganda, and editors should not be tricked by it. That is why I insisted that we analyze all sources and discuss the issue before making edits. But, yes, I say that now we have consensus for this edit because nobody gave any evidence to refute the official document. In Wikipedia, consensus is measured by the strength of arguments (see WP:CONSENSUS), not by the number of !votes. I still see no evidence that the document is false. Papers from 2010 are certainly not an evidence that a 2018 document is false. If you want, you can make a WP:RfC, but that would be a waste of time, because you can't provide any arguments. Vanjagenije(talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The document of 2010 is the last document regarding status of recongnition by Burundi that Kosovo has recieved. If a country changes its position on such issues, it sends documents to all parties/countries involved. In this case, Burundi should send relevant official documents to both Kosovo and Serbia. On concensus, nah, I do not see it. You changed some content of the article today, and those changes are being disputed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I changed the content of the article eight days ago [18]. After it was disputed, I waited for eight days for consensus to build. I even reverted those who wanted to make the same change [19][20] because I thought we should give chance to all editors to provide sources and arguments about this dispute. Since after eight days there were no reliable sources that dispute the originality of the document, I concluded that we have consensus to make that edit. If you don't agree with me, you can ask for WP:THIRDOPINIONorWP:RfC. Your argument that Burundi needs to send the all parties is, of course, wrong becaouse (a) why would they send anything to someone they do not recognize, and (b) even if they did send it, why would the Government of Kosovo reveal it. Vanjagenije(talk) 22:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the pre dispute version was that Burundi currently recognises Kosovo. You, one of socks of VJ-Yugo, someone else, whoever changed it did so in face of lack of consensus. Since it is you, not me, who insists in some changes to the pre dispute version of the article, it is on your onus to persuade me for your preferred version. If you do not have any other argument, I am going to revert you. Of course, you can open a RfC if you wish. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not my onus to persuade you. It is my onus to provide reliable sources for proposed edits, which I (and other editors) did. If you wand to dispute those sources, then it is your onus to provide reliable sources that dispute my sources, something that you still did not do. You can't force something out of Wikipedia just because you don't like it, even if no one likes it. So, please, stop WP:WIKILAWYERING and start providing some real evidence for your position (aside from 8 years old documents). What was "pre dispute version" of the article is irrelevant here, because there was no issue to discuss before the disputed withdrawal happened. Vanjagenije(talk) 23:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think my source is irrelevant, I do not think so. Add a note on Burundi, open a RfC or stick to other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanjagenije. Obviously a source from 2010 has no bearing on whether recognition was revoked in 2018.
Ktrimi991, your statement that "it sends documents to all parties/countries involved" is purely a guess on your side. And even if we accept your assumption as fact, the point is that Burundi no longer thinks that Kosovo exists as a country, so it would contradict this fundamental position to inform Kosovo. And if you want to take this position consistently, you would naturally need to accept the converse: if states don't inform Serbia of their recognition it can't be true? What evidence do you have that any of the states listed as recognizing Kosovo have informed Serbia of their decision? Or to use your logic, "why should we believe Kosovo"?
We have to go with the best available sources, and at this point that points to recognition being withdrawn. If further evidence surfaces later we can update. Likewise, when Serbia disputes a recognition, but can't produce and hard evidence, we keep it in the recognition column pending better evidence.
Note that your summary of the Guinea-Bissau situation is not accurate. GB acknowledged the original note of November 2017 in the note of January 2018, but "invalidated" it. So even retrospectively, between those two notes the only reasonable conclusion was that their position was non-recognition. (There was a change in PM during the interim, which likely explains the flip-flop.) TDL (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That Kosovo should recieve a notification for a withdrawal of recognition is not my guess, it is what my source (officials of the gov of Kosovo) says. In the case of Suriname, it was not just Serbia that spoke about withdrawal but reliable media, Western and Balkan one. Some media like Balkans Insight even published some analysis on the outcome of withdrawal. Guinea-Bissau, claims about withdrawal of its recognition were even accepted by a large segment of Albanian media, though later those claims were nullified. Whatever happened with GB's recognition, it just proves my words that delicate actions need time and reliable sources to be rightly evaluated. Years ago Kosovo's officials claimed to had recieved documents of recognition from coutries that later refused to had done so. After a long time of flip-flops and false claims by both sides (Kosovo and Serbia), I doubt just another one-sided and not supported by reliable media (and Burundi itself has not commented yet) claim should serve as a reason to change so much stuff on the article. If you do not prove that Burundi withdrew recognition with sources like reliable media (no Albanian, Serbian, Sputnik and other of that kind), I ask you to revert the current version and place a note on claims of Serbia and Kosovo regarding Burundi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From an easy Google search Several years ago, there were dilemmas about the actions of Sao Tome and Principe when it comes to recognizing Kosovo, and there was also a mention of revocations of recognition by African countries that remained unnamed. During a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) in Belgrade media reported that Oman and Guinea Bissau had revoked their recognitions, but this was later denied. Vuk Jeremic, at the time Serbia’s foreign minister, said that these two countries never recognized Kosovo in the first place, and that he received assurances of this from their officials, adding that “two NAM countries had launched procedures to revoke their recognitions.”[21]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: What you say on this source? I think we have to focus more on the kosovan government. They added Barbados in the past and does‘nt removed Burundi or Suriname. Suriname wrote an officially withdrew to the UN...ok. Kosovo said we don‘t take a note verbal. But Burundi havn‘t wrote about a withdrew or wrote something to the UN but remind the Resolution 1244. So, Burundi still recognize Kosovo. --Elmedinfeta (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not new source, that is the same source we've been discussing here (the Government of Kosovo). Vanjagenije(talk) 18:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo can complain that Burundi should notify them if they change their mind, but obviously they're under no obligation to do so just because Kosovo thinks that they should.
Here's a quote from Burundi's FM confirming the withdrawal:
In 2012, Burundi recognized Kosovo as an independent state, but in the meantime, we had the opportunity to reconsider our position and found that it is only good to reconsider this position and strengthen the good and excellent relations that existed between the former Yugoslavia and Burundi. ... We have returned to our position since before 2012, which means that we have relations with the Republic of Serbia only.
Pacolli seems to concede here that Burundi has withdrawn recognition here:
Kosovo’s First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Pristina "would not be surprised if more countries emerged that will withdraw their recognition" – noting however that this will not be the case with "serious countries with an old tradition of democracy." “We have taken all measures to prevent this from happening. I hope this country will soon invite us to establish diplomatic ties,” Pacolli said during an interview with KTV."
There are 112 countries in the list, while the main text says 113. Guinea bissau is not in the list while it is in the map. I know that you guys don't agree in the exact number, but at least you should agree that your disagreements are not reflected in the article.--Salvadorcases (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
112 + one that has revoked the recognition (Suriname) = 113. Guinea Bissau is on the list No. 74. Vanjagenije(talk) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then what I would say is that it looks inconsistent.--Salvadorcases (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Cassama added that Guinea Bissau has a firm stand on the issue of the territorial integrity of Serbia.
"Guinea-Bissau was at war for 11 years and we have no doubts on this issue. We will continue to support your country and support territorial integrity. We will also continue to support the UN resolution, and I will convey that to members of parliament and my colleagues when I return to the country," he said. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.36.84 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have conflicting information. The last official information from the foreign ministry was when it sent representatives to Pristina earlier this year to reaffirm their recognition, which seemed fairly definitive. I've no idea how to explain the discrepancy, but I would think the safest line would be to follow what the foreign ministry says. If they affirm what Cassama has said, then we'll go with that. For now, I guess it's just his own opinion. - ILBobby (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[25] the KS ambassdaor in Dakar calls it untrue and says he met with the government recently. (Link includes pictures of said meeting.) - ILBobby (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few days are to be waited till things become clearer. The IP is a sock of VJ-Yugo, as showed by previously collected evidence. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991:WP:SPI is thataway <--- Please do not accuse editors of sockpuppeting on article talk pages. I agree that we should wait for more sources, though. byteflushTalk 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ambassador of Kosovo to Senegal presented his credentials in Bissau today as non-resident ambassador, thus establishing diplomatic relations, so I think we can consider this issue closed [27] - ILBobby (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian foreign minister claims that today, Liberia withdrew the recognition of Kosovo.[1] Kosovo government claims that it's "fake news", as usual in those situations.[2] I think we should wait few days for further development. Vanjagenije(talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, just like Guinea-Bissau, it is disinformation. - ILBobby (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have now photos ([28]) of Liberian foreign minister Gbehzohngar Milton Findley handing a note to Serbian Foreign minister Dačić. Is there any objection to moving Liberia to the list of states that have revoked recognition? Vanjagenije(talk) 11:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I object. This sort of thing has happened before, the Serbian media announces to great hooplah that a recognition has been taken from Kosovo, then it turns out not to be true. The Liberian foreign ministry's website, which is up-to-date, has no mention of it [29]. When the Liberians affirm it publicly, that will be the time to edit. - ILBobby (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some non-Serbian source. "the Serbian media announces to great hooplah that a recognition has been taken from Kosovo, then it turns out not to be true" please give me an example. MilosHaran (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua is simply repeating the original story. - ILBobby (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are also repeating the original story with nothing added. - ILBobby (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video link were minister of FA of Liberia confirmed it. According to some editors here even Liberian authorities know nothing about politics in their own country --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minister of FA of Liberia is not good source... we should have confirmation from Behgjet Pacolli :v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.126.149 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liberian foreign ministry released a statement reaffirming ties with Kosovo [30]:
"The Government of the Republic of Liberia wishes to refute reports in some international and social media of its revocation of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Kosovo.
According to a Foreign Ministry release, Liberia was one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty on May 30, 2008 following its declaration of independence, and remains committed to the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations. The two countries continue to enjoy mutual confidence and friendship." - ILBobby (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition and diplomatic relations are two different things. Belgrade has diplomatic talks with Kosovo representatives, but it does not recognize Kosovo as an independent country. Greece accepts Kosovo passports, though it does not recognize Kosovo as independent. Therefore, Liberia has withdrawn recognition of Kosovo, while reaffirming diplomatic relations. Liberia should go to the withdrawn recognition column. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is absurd. Kosovo has diplomatic relations with Liberia - diplomatic relations are official government-to-government relations; you can't have diplomatic relations with a state you don't recognize. The Liberian MFA statement is definitive in that normal relations, and recognition, continue. - ILBobby (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign minister Behgjet Pacolli was in Monrovia on the 27 June and met with the Liberian president George Weah who promised to open a Liberian embassy in Pristina and reaffirmed its recognition of Kosovo. [31].Resnjari (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This gives right to my concerns expressed earlier that the Kosovo and Serbian governments alone are not reliable, though making changes without consensus or several reliable sources has messed this article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau don't recognize Kosovo anymore (source). The only source which says that they recognized Kosovo again is the Pacolli's Twitter account (what a reliable source!). Please fix that! MilosHaran (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) That story is from a month ago. 2) The KS ambassador preented his credentials in Bissau on 19 June [32] - ILBobby (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Serbian minister says he got confirmation Guinea-Bissau is still not recognizing Kosovo as independent state. I think that this disputed states that have not clear position (Guinea Bissau, Liberia) should be in separate part of article. Not in states that recognize or states that have withdrawn recognition. It should be in part with unclear position. --Јованвб (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that this is 
![[13]](http://mfa.gov.rs/sr/images/slike/desktop/17022018_nota_01.jpg){kind=link}