Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Pacolli/ Africa

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/18853/

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/18848/

Max Mux (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The first of those articles isn't remotely relevant. And we can't add any information for the second, although perhaps there'll be recognitions coming from Africa soon... I'll believe it when I see it. Bazonka (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/177-pacolli-to-meet-with-mandela.html Max Mux (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador is expected to recognise on 1 June

Top-channel reports that El Salvador will recognise on June after the new president takes office. This was cited by a representative of Behxhet Pacolli's party.
The article says that Jordania too is expected to decide for the recognition soon.
source is in Albanian: http://www.top-channel.tv/new/artikull.php?id=151615 Emetko (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found some more sources for this: [1] and [2]. They provide a bit more background information about why this claim is being made. If this is to be included in the article we must word it carefully because it does seem to be just speculation. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely include that.Max Mux (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put something in. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should report facts, but well done for finding this useful info ;) Ijanderson (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can support quoting a "Jeremic said that somebody told him that..." story, then this would meet that rather low bar for admission into the article that you've helped to set, Ian. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that Geci announced that Pacolli was told that El Salvador would recognise. Of course, the unknown is whether El Salvador actually will recognise. I suggest that we remove the El Salvador news if no recognition (or other news) has come by early June, but until then I think it's safe to say that this has been reported. Bazonka (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference in English: [3] Bazonka (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Russia

http://www.palluxo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289:russia-prepares-to-recognize-kosovo-independence&catid=90:blogs&Itemid=284

Max Mux (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Big Dilemma for the US. Would Russia keep it's word if the US withdrew from the missile shield? I think this deserves a mentioning on the article. Ijanderson (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The only website to report on this is "Palluxo!" and it brings me to one conclusion - it's fake.--Avala (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How so?Max Mux (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Because at least one other source would mention this if it was true. No Russian or any other media mentioned it so far. And this Palluxo!, seems to be some kind of Anti-Serbian website. When you open the first page there is a new article called "Bosnian Serb MPs Vote Against Holocaust Remembrance Day" just a little bit above "Russia Prepares to Recognize Kosovo Independence" and "Serbia's Nazi past and the Holocaust of Jews". They should get a life instead of filling the website with slander.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avala in the sense that more sources are required before we can take this as fact. Ijanderson (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts.Max Mux (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

They did?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NKR is saying the same. But they seem to be copying Palluxo Ijanderson (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Another source [4] Ijanderson (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/analysis/184-putins-kosovo-recognition-offer-unlikely-to-be-taken-up.html

Max Mux (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Former edit

Which person deleted my last edit. It was very useful addition to the article!:

Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by a unanimous quorum[1] of the Assembly of Kosovo, with 109 in favour and with no opposition, with all 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotting the proceedings.[2] International reaction was mixed. However, a majority of the EU nations have recognized Kosovo's independence, such as Germany the U.K. and France, as has the United States of America, Japan, Saudi Arabia and also states in Africa[3]. The opposition to Kosovo's independence comes namely from Serbia, Russia, North Korea and Cuba.[4]

Explain your selves and don't resort to edit wars, its very childish indeed. Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Tocino did and I agree with his actions. Your edit was pure biased and POV. Ijanderson (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

EBRD membership

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n181210 Max Mux (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ICQ-Venezuela

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=17&nav_id=59202

Max Mux (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Algeria

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=17&nav_id=59212Max Mux (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has already been included max, try looking at the article history in future mate Ijanderson (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Max Mux (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=4606

Only time the name kosovo shows up is with Balkan countries. IT says nothing about the opinion of the government. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

India

http://www.kosovotimes.net/analysis/193-india-should-recognize-kosovo.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Max that is useless, it's kosovar POV, says nothing about India's position we don't already have; all it says is that India SHOULD recognize Kosovo. Try and remember that.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is only an analyse AKA someone random person's opinion Ijanderson (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree.... Kosovo times doesn't seem all that useful really.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's useful. I would also say it's news is a reliable source, however the analyses they publish are a different matter; they are not news, they are journalist's opinions therefore should not be used as sources. Ijanderson (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OIC 1

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/192-saudi-arabia-to-submit-a-resolution-in-favor-of-kosovo-in-the-islamic-conference.html

http://www.kosovotimes.net/analysis/197-saudi-arabia-to-support-kosovo-in-the-islamic-conference.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it new that Saudi Arabia supports kosovo?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is a new development.Max Mux (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything actually saying S.A. will do this. Saudi sources? other sources besides kosovo? --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source, in English, from an Arab agency. [5] --alchaemia (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. If I find them I will post it here.Max Mux (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To all the experts here a question about Kosovo and the countrybox

I guess I will find here most experts about the case "Kosovo". We have a discussion in Kosovo, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#If_people_talk_about_Kosovo_they_mean_the_Republic_of_Kosovo.2C_not_the_.22Region.22 Shall Kosovo be about the country or the region. Admin dab insist on region, I rather think it should be about the country. Please give your opinions. TIA --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All depends on context in my opinion. Ijanderson (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my question was not clear enough: Should [[Kosovo] article be about the newborn state or a region? In most Wikipedias there is the contry box and flag on top signaling that the article is about the state and admin dab denies this. I would ask everybody to join the discussion. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be about both, that's the only neutral and fair answer Ijanderson (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be even more specific: Should country box be on top like in all other wikipedias or not? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes because that is the only flag of Kosovo and tell all the essentials about the Govt. Also Abkhazia, TRNC, South Ossetia, Somaliland ect have it at the top Ijanderson (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But what can we do now about administrator dab? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way you can make the Rep of Kosovo info box legitimately at the top is to build a consensus. Try creating a poll on it. See WP:POLL for more. Ijanderson (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator dab is not accepting me as a "people in good standing" as he wrote. Can't you do me the favor and creating such a poll? TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please see Talk:Kosovo#Split_article and feel free to give your opinion on the issueIjanderson (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, here you say you want the country box on top: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&diff=290533321&oldid=290531561 but why do you not make that poll I asked you to do? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comoros recognizes Kosovo, official

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905181776/Politics/Comores-recognizes-Kosovo.html

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/199-union-of-the-comoros-recognized-the-independence-of-kosovo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add it.Max Mux (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The map also needs to be fixed. (Gomes89 (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

OK, it's definitely official now. The Kosovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms it. [6] --alchaemia (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain

Bahrain just recognized [7] Digitalpaper (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Already mentioned. Our admins are a bit slow today..Max Mux (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or not on.... --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Syria and the Organization of Islamic Conference

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=13&nav_id=59133 Jsaldarr (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Article updated with news from Syria. Bazonka (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

why is someone always canceling the "member of OIC" with the flag? is the OIC not an important organisation ? Uffe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.206.187 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To all the experts here a question about Kosovo and CEFTA

According to http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/statistics/ Kosova is a member of the CEFTA since 1 May, 2007 but some pro Serbian /§%! prevent that Kosova is mentioned as a member. Can anyone please take care? TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Kosovo is not a member of CEFTA, UNMIK is.--Avala (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The CEFTA webpage[8] consistently denotes it as "UNMIK/Kosovo". If you click at the link in the box to the right to find the responsible contact person for the country, it lists two people: some guy from UNMIK and an Advisor to the Minister of Trade and Industry of RoK. So it's not as clear-cut as you present it. — Emil J. 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no CEFTA website. You are talking about the CEFTA 2006 Montenegrin presentation. In CEFTA documents it is UNMIK.--Avala (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"CEFTA 2006" is the denotation of CEFTA after the 2006 amendments to the treaty. This is what we are discussing all the time, as Kosovo did not participate in per-2006 CEFTA. Montenegro currently holds the CEFTA chairmanship, hence it is responsible for web presentation of CEFTA. So the site is as official as it can be. In the documents I've seen, all from 2006, the moniker is "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo on behalf of Kosovo". That is, the member of CEFTA is not UNMIK but Kosovo, it was only represented by UNMIK. That, of course, does not mean that it refers to the Republic of Kosovo (which did not exist at the time in the first place), but since the governing bodies of the Republic are identical to the UNMIK-established Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (the only difference being that they proclaimed themselves independent), that's what it de facto means. — Emil J. 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo is de facto a CEFTA member, but under the frame work of UNMIK, however de jure The Republic of Kosovo is not a member, UNMIK is the de jure member, thats why Serbia and BiH refuse Kosovar goods stamped with "Republic of Kosovo", Serbia and BiH will only accept UNMIK stamps. Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia and Croatia accept "Republic of Kosovo" stamps in the same way they accept UNMIK stamps. I'm not sure what Moldova's position is. But the Republic of Kosovo is a de facto member, not de jure. Ijanderson (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia defacto recognizes Kosovo

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=22&nav_id=59324

ov

Serbia no longer issues passports for Kosovo citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.122.94 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article, it's obvious that the government have gone bananas (if the story is true). — Emil J. 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there is no confirmation of this, just one media speculating (B92 just translated this and published under "Others write" or something like that). Plus like with all tabloids later on they explain that passports will be issued, thus contradicting the pompous title, but under a stricter procedure.--Avala (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they dont feel like issuing passports for what htye would consider rebels--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's little to no interest for those passports anyway. The Interior Ministry of Serbia announced that around 1,000 passports have been "issued to Albanians" but they don't specify which Albanians; those of southern Serbia (Presheva/o, etc.) or those of Kosovo? Those of southern Serbia are Serbian citizens and they have a natural right to Serbian passports. The vast, vast majority of those 1,000 are from that region. I doubt if there's more than 15 people from the Republic of Kosovo who applied and got that passport. So Serbia can do as it wishes with those passports but one thing is clear: the EU will not cancel visas for Serbs unless they stop attempting to issue passports to people that are citizens of a different country altogether for political grounds. --alchaemia (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason is only for visa liberation. If they were to de facto recognise Kosovo they would say, "we understand that there is chance that there is to be ever Serbian administration over Kosovo". Ijanderson (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reason, but you can only legally issue passports to those people and within those borders you control. Seeing as Serbia doesn't control or administer Kosovo and its borders, those passports are highly dubious in nature. People aren't interested at all for them either. They issued perhaps 50-100 passports to K-Albanians (the rest probably goes to Albanians from Southern Serbia) as opposed to 300,000 passports issued by the Kosovan Government. --alchaemia (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Until the EU started this pressure the Serbian police said that about 15k passports were issued to Albanians from Kosovo and now it is 1000. Heh anyway I don't understand why are the same countries that were eager to recognise Kosovo as independent now so scared of the possibility that people from Kosovo could travel freely to their countries?--Avala (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's your own interior minister saying that "1,200 passports were given out to Albanians."[9] Second of all, he makes no mention of who those Albanians exactly are. I am willing to bet that 95% of those Albanians are Albanians from Serbia, and not the ones from Kosovo. As such, it's an empty story he and you are trying to sell us here about some supposed great interest in those passports that you can't even produce properly without creating two versions of the same passport, leading many states to classify them as false. [10]. Thirdly, no western country is scared of Kosovars traveling to Europe as their embassies in Prishtina are more than ready and do give out visas to anyone that fulfills the uniform and standard conditions for a visa. They have the same standards in Prishtina as those in Belgrade (where people sleep in front of foreign embassies for a chance to travel). They just don't want Serbia to issue fictitious passports as if they were issued in Prishtina when everyone knows that they issue them in some small town in central Serbia. The policy has failed anyway. With 1,200 passports issued to "Albanians" (over 95% of whom are citizens of Serbia and not Kosovo), I'd be embarrassed to go out and announce it as some sort of victory. But then again, it ain't the first time that a "victory" is celebrated when it was a clear-cut loss. --alchaemia (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you make some assumptions at the beginning of your post and by the end of it that assumption becomes a fact.--Avala (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because you were proven wrong with your 15,000 passports, does not make those presented facts - assumptions. --alchaemia (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyseni

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/265-minister-hyseni-in-new-york-meeting-ambassadors-of-30-non-recognizing-countries.html Max Mux (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Kosovo

All, a debate is going on here about renaming the article Foreign relations of Kosovo. You may wish to comment. Bazonka (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Strongly oppose. It should stay as it is.Max Mux (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OIC 2

Saudi Arabia proposed the resolution at OIC meeting that all Muslim countries recognise Kosovo in the name of Allah which was endorsed by David Miliband [11] [12]. Some countries apparently blocked the resolution (I guess the second part pissed them off). We should try to get some quotes and see who did what.--Avala (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

B92 has an article on the Organisation of the Islamic Conference too [13] Ijanderson (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not that contentful. However it gives us one info, we should look for more quotes from Syria, Egypt, Azerbaijan.--Avala (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that it failed. B92 with its 'great' journalism once again say one thing in the title and quite another when you read the article. It's simply Jeremic saying that they're trying to block it, but nothing substantial yet. And Avala tone down your rhetoric a little bit. --alchaemia (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The vote is tomorrow, so we won't know till then if it has been blocked or not Ijanderson (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It was blocked in the sense that it's text was changed by other countries. Jeremic says that this was done by Egypt, Iran, Algeria, Syria and Azerbaijan. Btw it clearly says "The document was put up for a vote during the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) ministerial gathering this Sunday." so I don't see what is supposed to happen tomorrow if they voted today. --Avala (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because those countries proposed amendments does not mean that they were accepted. And "Jeremic said..." is not proof of anything, actually. --alchaemia (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Update on this: http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905241804/Politics/19-Muslim-nations-to-recognize-Kosovo.html !Max Mux (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That link is fudging it kind of like the B92 one. This seems a little more reliable: http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/270-kosovo-expects-recognition-by-19-oic-member-states-after-the-damascus-summit.html--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• • More updates

Albania FM: Saudi Kosovo resolution not amended, likely to succeed http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905241805/Politics/Albania-FM-Saudi-Kosovo-resolution-not-amended-likely-to-succeed.html

this is the most updated and accurate info. It was update at 146am Europe central time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

http://bsanna-news.ukrinform.ua/newsitem.php?id=9263&lang=en

I have some news as well, but partly they seem to contradict each other. http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7314&Itemid=26

http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/index.php?cid=2,2,73355

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/264-serbia-tries-to-block-the-saudi-resolution-on-kosovo.html

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=24&nav_id=59349

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/270-kosovo-expects-recognition-by-19-oic-member-states-after-the-damascus-summit.html

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=32135

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/276-albanian-fm-oic-passes-the-kosovo-resolution.html

http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/region/89094.html

http://www.blic.rs/news.php?id=4486

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/274-turkish-fm-oic-should-support-kosovo.html

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905251811/Politics/OIC-approves-pro-Kosovo-resolution.htmlMax Mux (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to many sources--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you make jokes?Max Mux (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, regarding the OIC we have many contradicting sources. Pro Serbian media says that the resolution failed where as pro Kosovo media says that the resolution passed ([14][15][16]) We should not update the article yet regarding the Organisation of Islamic Conference, until we get official confirmation from the OIC website itself. Ijanderson (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Instead we should up to that point list all here.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=25&nav_id=59380

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/277-the-adopted-resolution-calls-upon-oic-members-to-support-kosovo.html Max Mux (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated for now Ijanderson (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Balkan Insight has stated that all 57 members voted in favour of the resolution which urges states to recognise Kosovo [17]. I believe that Balkan Insight is a very professional and reliable source, should we update? Ijanderson (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No source actually disputed that the resolution was approved. Those saying it "failed" were referring to amendments to the wording which would have it not calling for recognition. Until we see the wording of the resolution we should only say a resolution was passed on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The resolution, according to oic-coi.org french version, via google translate:

RESOLUTION NO 14/36-POL ON THE SITUATION IN KOSOVO The thirty-sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (Session of strengthening Islamic solidarity), held in Damascus - Syrian Arab Republic, from 28 to 30 Jumada Al Awal 1430H (23-25 May 2009); Recalling the principles and objectives of the UN Charter, the Charter of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Universal Declaration of Rights Humanities, the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions August 1949 and 1951, the Geneva Convention on Refugees and Protocols Additional 1977 and other instruments of international law; Supporting the role of the UN for a peaceful settlement of disputes and maintenance of international peace and security; Referring to the resolutions of the Security Council No. 1160 of 31 March 1998, No. 23 of 1999 September 1998, No. 1203 of 24 October 1998, No. 1239 of 14 May 1999 and No. 1244 of June 10 1999 and the statements of the President of the Board; Referring to resolution 16/31 adopted by the 31 th Session of the Islamic Conference Foreign Ministers held in Istanbul from 14 to 16 June 2004, at Resolution 36/34 adopted by the 34th session of the ICFM, held in Islamabad from 15 to 17 May 2007, the final communiqué of the 11th Islamic Summit held in Dakar on 13 and 14 March 2008, and declaration of the ministerial meeting of the OIC in Kampala in June and New York in September 2008, which acknowledged the proclamation of independence by the Kosovo Assembly on 17 February 2008; Reaffirming the strong interest of the OIC to the problems of Muslims in the Balkans and the importance of stability throughout the Balkans region; 1. TAKES NOTE of the progress made in strengthening democracy in Kosovo, for peace and stability in Kosovo and throughout the region. 2. ALSO TAKES NOTE of the accelerated reconfiguration of the mission of UN and the deployment of the contingent of EULEX throughout Kosovo as directed by the Secretary General of the United Nations and in accordance with the institutional and legal context in Kosovo. 3. Welcomes the cooperation between Kosovo and economic institutions and financial resources of the OIC and urged the international community to continue their contribution to the bailout of the economy of Kosovo. 4. Requests the Secretary General to monitor the implementation of this resolution and to report thereon to the 37 th session of AMCEN

page 34. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

English link: [18]. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who will make the appropriate edit? Ijanderson (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Me! Bazonka (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So in the end Jeremic was right. The resolution text was changed and there is no mention of call for recognition.--Avala (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure he was. Especially when he said that "the resolution has failed" due to help from such esteemed friends such as Azerbaijan et al. If he was right, I'm Pope Benedict. --alchaemia (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• • No resolution has changed. Please do not quote media speculations. This is a major violation and puts this link to another low level. Unless b92 or any other media provides the original one, everything else is speculation. Bring the original draft than you can add it. Please do not edit by adding b92. This is unacceptable. Kosovar media rejects serb claims. So please. The original resolution never mentioned to directly recognize Kosovo. Avala, plese do not violate the policies of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.23 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/283-president-of-kosovo-relations-with-the-countries-of-the-islamic-conference-are-of-a-special-importa.html Max Mux (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/serbia/89287.html Max Mux (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So apparently Bangladesh, Pakistan, Benin, Brunei, Cameroon, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Oman, Qatar, Togo and Yemen are all 'been pressured' (Vuk's words) into recognising Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope they do it and soon.Max Mux (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that Kosovo can't become a member of OIC until it becomes a member of UN - see [19] However, Palestine is a member, so I'm not sure what's going on. Bazonka (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine has at least an observer status in UN, unlike Kosovo. Furthermore, it may get preferential treatment by the OIC on the grounds of it being the forefront of the battle of true believers against the Zionist regime. — Emil J. 10:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

World Bank

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/228-kosovos-application-in-the-world-bank-is-going-well.html

http://www.eciks.org/english/lajme.php?action=total_news&main_id=913

Max Mux (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, so?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please update max, ignore Jakezing Ijanderson (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, i just didn't see the point in it, it doesn't really change anything, only that things are "closer"--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to undermine our work here. Please stop.Max Mux (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see the point in it, you're free to look for greener pastures. Your behavior here has been highly disruptive. I've yet to see you contribute anything meaningful. Feel free to look for entertainment elsewhere. --alchaemia (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Alchaemia, there seems ot be a lack of a dissenting opinion on here to question whether a source is necessary...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/287-kosovo-finance-minister-kosovo-expects-world-bank-membership-in-june.html Max Mux (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Plese stop your personal attacks!Max Mux (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I could tell you the same on the behalf of avala, or as you put it, the guy who doesn't have any senses. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yemen, East Timor

Kosovo Times reports that Kosovo FM Hyseni has met with the UN ambassadors from Yemen, Pakistan, East Timor, Haiti and Egypt. Not much info on Egypt or Pakistan... Haiti we all ready got that info, but very interesting statements by the others regarding Kosovo that can better flesh-out those nation's positions than what's currently on the article. [20]

Also, the Kosovo Foreign Ministry has an article regarding Hyseni's meeting East Timor's UN Ambassador if you want an official source: [21](in Albanian). From what I can make of it after Google translating it, the ministry pretty much says what the Kosovo Times article does RE: East Timor (although very badly translated!)

Ajbenj (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

English language versions of these articles have now appeared on the Kosovo FM website. I've updated the article with information for Haiti, Pakistan, Timor-Leste, Egypt and Yemen. Bazonka (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IMF and IBA

Kosovo has become a full member of both of these international organisations. IMF [22] IBA [23] Ijanderson (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/327-mauritania-to-announce-soon-its-decision-on-kosovos-independence.html They want to decide soon.Max Mux (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, this changes nothing as they are still legally not recognizing kosovo nor have they said anything beyond that they are coming to a final decision.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been consistently rude to people who post stories that you deem unworthy of your attention. Well, some of us might like them or find them interesting. There is no justification whatsoever for you to be condescending to other posters. If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is important. Please stop that kind of behavior. I'm tired of that!Max Mux (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same of your pro-kosovo fanaticism. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, unlike you, he brings something to the table. --alchaemia (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a source hunter, im a debater.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Highly eloquent, too... --alchaemia (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Jakezing, wikipedia is not the place for debating, go to a forum for that. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM Ijanderson (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bebating a source's notability/need for inclusion/// --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're "bebating" people, not their sources. --alchaemia (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This information is already in the article, and is discussed in the thread above! Please check these things before posting links Max! Bazonka (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Max Mux (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No Max, you are wrong. Please read the article first. Bernerd (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are always agreeing with wrong things!84.134.75.225 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you god in that you know right from wrong? Besides; you think anybody not recognizing kosovo is an "idiot"--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are not only black and white but also many greys.Max Mux (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so absolute as you think.Max Mux (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

recognition fly-in

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200905301821/Society/Kosovo-pilot-starts-recognition-fly-in-across-Latin-America.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinton/ Latin America

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/333-secretary-clinton-to-support-kosovos-cause-in-latin-america.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=05&dd=31&nav_id=59515 Jeremic trys to undoe the work of others.Max Mux (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador

El Salvador to recognize Kosovo on 2 June [24], [25] Digitalpaper (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/336-pacolli-from-kosovo-to-attend-the-inaugural-ceremony-of-the-new-president-of-el-salvador.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't found anything. Why not yet?Max Mux (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pacolli

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/342-kosovos-pacolli-to-meet-with-a-number-of-latin-american-leaders.html

Max Mux (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Meeting does not entail results either way; it just means he's going ot talk to them. It's like a salesman pitching his idea. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

...and when salesmen pitch their ideas, they sometimes succeed, otherwise they wouldn't do it. We all know that Pacolli has been successful in the past. Jakezing, you seem to have a personal vendetta against Max, you might want to consider taking a WP:Wikibreak Ijanderson (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but until success DOES come from it, the source is useless.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The source cannot be used in the article, yes, but it's a good source because it gives us clues as to what might happen within a couple of days. As Ian said, you seem to have a personal vendetta against Max and I too, recomment you take a WP:Wikibreak. --alchaemia (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur on the WP:Wikibreak. As I said previously, if you haven't anything nice to say, then don't say anything. You are not the designated page critic. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has the right to recommend anybody a "Wikibreak", and the talk page for the international recognition of Kosovo is the last place when you should be trying to force users to leave Wikipedia. Everyone has a right to an argument, even if you don't agree with it. Nobody's gonna leave just because you told them to. Deal with it. --Cinéma C 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

a) Nobody asked you to tell us who has the right to do what, b) There's a difference between a suggestion and "forcing users to leave Wikipedia", c) Jakezing's behavior is nothing but disruptive so he's no asset to this place, anyway. Anything else? --alchaemia (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, CinemaC, your tone is insulting and demeaning towards those of us engaged in this conversation. I do not recall making a suggestion as being against the rules. On the contrary, the arguments here are rather notorious for their insolubility. Our acting to prevent this sort of behavior is actually a responsible thing to do. Your coming in and rather imperiously telling us to put up with somebody being rude and disruptive is hardly conducive to a productive and cooperative environment here. Further, commanding us to "deal with it" is extremely arrogant and smug and I personally resent being addressed in that manner. You've not posted in here for at least 3 weeks, which renders your own sudden interest in this discussion suspect. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who am I insulting? You're the ones telling a user to leave Wikipedia. My tone? My tone is quite normal and my arguments are more than rational. Your argument that those who disagree with something should just go away is quite confusing for me. Perhaps you could elaborate why those who question sources should just take a break? "Deal with it" is not arrogant or smug, because we really do have to deal with (or tolerate or discuss with, which ever term you prefer) people who have a different opinion, and the argument will not go away simply if the user does. Oh, you're surprised I'm commenting here? Should I also not be in this discussion anymore? Please have respect for all users and their opinion, regardless of what it is. Thanks, --Cinéma C 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a long reply written, but why bother? Deal with it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problemo :-) --Cinéma C 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a personal vendetta, I just don't like him, and most of th sources i';ve seen him post are not able ot be used directly and therefor a waste of size.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Knowing of the event could mean a quicker reaction by editors to any developments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yoou don't like me? Maybe Wikipedia is the wrong place for you.Max Mux (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/349-jeremics-media-stunt-over-kosovo-in-latin-america.html Max Mux (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

If its true, it would be a tragic development.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=104193

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/354-president-of-kosovo-says-that-the-relations-with-macedonia-are-normal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The chances of that are slim to none. --alchaemia (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation again. We don't need it here. Anyway I don't think it's tragic one way or another. Macedonia is not an important player and they did derecognitions before when they recognised and then derecognised Taiwan.--Avala (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is important on these and especially Macedonia. I agree that is not lightly to happen and I hope that they wouldn't do such a tragic mistake.84.134.102.150 (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope they do not do it. It would be too hard for wikipedians to maintain both International recognition of Kosovo and International recognition of Albanian Republic in Macedonia :P Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or Albanian Genocide. BalkanFever 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If something happened and they did, that would be a complete failure of their foreign policy. They're highly dependent on US support in their diplomatic wrangling with Greece, and such a decision would be disastrous for them. Gruevski is just trying to be a smart guy in the region but so far he has not made any new friends and he has made it even tougher for Macedonia to integrate into NATO and EU with his strong nationalistic rhetoric. I don't think he could afford to alleniate the one true big gun that somewhat supports them in their silly name thing with Greece. --alchaemia (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a load of Rubbish. Please look at the Koha Ditore source which they are all using as a source [26]. With google translator, the source says:

"Analyst Jonusz Bugajski, Center for International Strategic Studies in Washington, warns increasing interethnic tensions in Macedonia. Macedonian Newspaper proqeveritare "Vecer" reports that Macedonia may withdraw recognition of Kosovo, as has with Taiwan. Macedonia's government officially rejects this possibility"

So basically just speculation from "Analyst Jonusz Bugajski" and a newspaper "Vecer". Besides President Sejdiu rejects all these silly claims. [27] Ijanderson (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So what we have is some randoms in Macedonia suggesting de-recognition of Kosovo, and official dismissal of that. Oh, and we have everyone's irrelevant opinion on Macedonia :) BalkanFever 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we will have to await further developments. However, there were a smattering of stories a few months ago saying the same thing about the Czech Republic. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If things do develop, we will have to wait, then report facts not speculations. That's our job as wikipedians, to report facts for an encyclopaedia. But yeah I agree with Bobby. Things have been said in the past, but if they happen they happen, if they don't, they don't. We should report what happens, not what could happen. So we don't cause confusion for readers/ our audience. Ijanderson (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spokesperson of the Macedon. government: no withdrawal of recognitio. [28] --alchaemia (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another source stating the same information [29]. Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OIC 3

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/352-albanian-fm-thanks-the-oic-ambassadors-to-tirana-on-their-support-to-kosovo.html

Max Mux (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This in no way changes any political condition.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Greece

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/356-kosovo-deputy-prime-minister-is-confident-that-greece-is-going-to-recognize-kosovo.html Max Mux (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Is confident". In no way says it WILL.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at your discussion page!Max Mux (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I did and I see nothing changed--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OAS

http://www.kosovotimes.net/analysis/363-jeremics-false-claims-in-the-oas.html

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/19748/

Max Mux (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

World Bank Decision expected tomorrow

Top-Channel TV cites Hashim Rexhepi, the governer of Kosovo's Central bank as saying that that tomorrow Kosovo will be accepted as a member of World Bank. The Information that he has is that all the countries who voted pro on Kosovo's membership in IMF will vote tomorrow Pro for its membership in the WB.
Link is in Albanian: http://www.top-channel.tv/new/artikull.php?id=153431 Emetko (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, official results will be made public within a week from tomorrow. --alchaemia (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok the voting has ended and the official results will be announced in 8 days [30]. There has been some unofficial results which say the that it passed in favour of Kosovo with only 7 not in favour, but this has not been confirmed. Ijanderson (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WorldBank lists Kosovo as "Kosovo, Republic of" [31] and the word around the campfire is that 100 voted for, with 7 against. --alchaemia (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Kosovo Times, 96 voted in favour [32] Ijanderson (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That source actually just says that 96 voted in favour for Kosovo's IMF membership, and that more voted for WB membership. Bernerd (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thaci says that he has received official notification from the Board of Governors that the motion has passed. They have to allow a week or so for any complaints about procedural things, and then the official notification will be posted on their website and made public. --alchaemia (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/377-diplomatic-relations-between-kosovo-and-macedonia-to-be-established-soon.html

Max Mux (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the word hope before the line you gave us.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say anything/...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ops, sorry. Please have a look at your disc.Max Mux (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador government recognizes, the parliament to ratify

The Government of El Salvador recognized Kosovo, the parliament is to ratify within this week.

http://botasot.info/home.php?gjuha=0&category=43&id=18420

El Salvador can be placed in the immediate/soon recognition list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.217.226 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We have no such list, for good reasons. And we have only Pacolli's word, we need a statement by an El Salvador official. — Emil J. 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We had that liost and should have one again.Max Mux (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We did have it at one point, and i remember the arguments about what is and isn't on it.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be back!84.134.126.31 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200906031823/Politics/El-Salvador-recognizes-Kosovo.html

And kosovothanksyou.com is awaiting confirmation.Max Mux (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My source tells me that all that remains are the formalities of the parliament voting to approve the establishment of diplomatic relations, which will occur by the end of business tommorow. The Government of El Salvador has the right to grant recognition, which it has, but the check on that power is that of the parliament to control the establishment of ties. El Salvador has recognized Kosovo and what remains are the legislative formalities - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

this is saying something similar to what Bobby is saying. Ijanderson (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/387-pacolli-el-salvador-to-conclude-the-recognition-process-for-kosovo.htmlMax Mux (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Pacolli, the Dominican Republic is to announce its recognition of Kosovo "soon." [33] --alchaemia (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dominican Republic

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/399-pacolli-the-dominican-republic-has-decided-to-recognize-the-independence-of-kosovo.html

Max Mux (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Added to article. Bazonka (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

move to International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus is to not move (common name+simplicity). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo → International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo — 08:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have complained to this administrator who has moved the article's name without consensus or discussion. Our archive has a discussion which rejects the articles name which is now "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo", the archived consensus says the article should be called "International recognition of Kosovo". User:Dbachmann should have followed the policies of WP:RM, been an admin does not give him the right to ignore these policies. Here is the message I have sent User:Dbachmann

"I would like to show my strong objection of your recent move of the article without discussion or support from the wiki-community. About three months ago, there was a big discussion on the name of the article, consensus resulted in "International recognition of Kosovo". Here is the archived discussion [34] (Ironically it is hard to find the archive now that you have moved the article). In this discussion, the name "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" was rejected. I know that you are an administrator, however that does not give you the right to use your powers against the views and consensus of the wiki-community. If you thought the name of the article should have been changed, you should have done it via WP:RM. Please move the article back to it's former name and gain consensus before you move an article in future and move the article via the policies of WP:RM. Ijanderson (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"
Hopefully users here will agree with me and get the article changed back to it's former name. If the article name needs changing, it should be so with consensus and via WP:RM. Ijanderson (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have voiced my objection as well. batobatobato (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that this could be considered controversial, and I still fail to see it is. The move discussion you link concerns the move from Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which was of course a good idea, and I would have voted "support" there, too. The present move wasn't a return to the old "diplomatic reaction" title but a simple point of accuracy, seeing that what is recognized or not recognized isn't the existence of "Kosovo", but the legitimacy of the declared Republic. If for some reason you still consider this move controversial, I invite you to revert me, but I would be grateful to hear some sort of rationale how it may be considered controversial.

If there is something I am missing here, and there is any reasonable grounds on which the current title can be considered controversial, I am of course more than happy to revert myself and go through the proper channels. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this new title is more appropriate and less ambiguous, however it should absolutely, definitely have been discussed first. Bazonka (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dieter, you are confused. The move you mention was discussed more than a year ago, and is completely irrelevant. The RM discussion Ian linked to (and you obviously did not bother to look at before replying) is about a recent move from International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo to the current title, International recognition of Kosovo. As far as I can see, you did not vote in the latter. — Emil J. 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

well, ok, if you insist. I would still like to hear one reason that would speak against the move. Here is what this article is about: The "provisional institutions of govermnent" of UN-administered Kosovo in 2008 declared full independence from Serbia as the "Republic of Kosovo". Some countries have recognized that declaration as valid while others have not. This article lists the countries that have declared that they recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent entity. Everyone recognizes "Kosovo", some as UN-administered territory and others as a Republic. This is about who recognizes the Republic. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm neutral to the move, I could say one reason for not moving is, the title is more concise and I dont feel its ambiguous. chandler • 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

the difference between "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" is rather crucial, and a hotly debated topic at Talk:Kosovo. Of course if you take the pro-independence pov you will emphasize that the two terms are equivalent, but if you take the anti-independence pov you will insist that while there is certainly a "Kosovo", there is no such thing as a "Republic of Kosovo". The only agnostic, neutral thing to do is to cleanly disambiguate between the two terms. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The "Republic of Kosovo" may be the official full name of the country, however I believe the short name is more common and appropriate. Also the previous discussion resulted in "International recognition of Kosovo", so if it is not broke, why fix it? Another reason why I strongly oppose this is because the proposed title is pro Kosovo, users who support Serbia's position on this topic may not like the name. This article is about recognition of Kosovo as either an independent country or a Serbian province, this new proposed title narrows it down to recognition of just a country which is POV. I feel the current name is more Neutral. Ijanderson (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is an ill-conceived proposal. The whole political and legal debate is on the independence of Kosovo (not of the "Republic of Kosovo" which is only the name of the disputed state). Moreover, the short name is more common and appropriate. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This will, snowball, i can see it: and if did pass, we'd just see a lot of attempts ot get it back to this hard fought title. As for other reasons, agree with above, there is just to much opposing this.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no reason to use the long formal name, just like we do not use International recognition of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia. KISS. — Emil J. 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before making any such unilateral moves, try to follow the official channels first. Just because you didn't bother to read the discussions does not make your move legitimate or OK. --alchaemia (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

sigh, I can see this is going to be another party-line vote. We don't vote, we argue. Apart from Ijanderson, I don't see anyone even adressing the point. As DaQuirin correctly points out, the question is the independence of Kosovo, or equivalently, the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo. International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo would be equivalent to a title of International recognition of the independence of Kosovo, but not "international recognition of Kosovo". Seeing that people are not willing to take a reasonable attitude towards this very simple point, I see myself forced to slap an {{NPOV}} template on this article. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on the international recognition of Kosovo of course. This is what I clearly stated. Your proposal is ill-conceived and, in best case, well-intentioned hairsplitting. In the end, you suggest a less accurate title of our article. In the official documents of the specific states, you will in most cases find some standard formula "recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state" (for example in Switzerland's case, "to recognise Kosovo", not even mentioning the republic once see here). If the Republic of Kosovo will change its name in the future, the recognition of Kosovo by the recognizing states will stand (as usually happens in such cases). Your odd partisanship - shouting in bold letters is not helping much - sets a bad example here. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dieter, stop your baseless accusation of all people around of partisanship. You are the only one here making partisan actions ignoring long-standing consensus of both pro-independence and anti-independence editors of this page. For your information, the one and only reason the rather silly sentence at the end of the lead section is there is that someone insisted that the name of the article appears, bolded, in the lead, to satisfy WP:LEAD. As long as the article retains its current name, the sentence must reflect it, otherwise it defeats the only reason for its existence. — Emil J. 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But that title implies that the article is only about recognition of Kosovo as a country, not recognition of Kosovo as a Province of Serbia. The current title is more open. Countries either recognise Kosovo as a country or as part of Serbia (apart from NZ), which the current title reflects. Also by mentioning the "Republic of Kosovo" rather than just "Kosovo", implies that Kosovo is a country and that is POV. Ijanderson (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment How is the neutrality of this article disputed? Ijanderson (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion either title works - in fact I prefer the proposed one, but I don't really care much either way. To respond to Ian, I can't see how the proposed title is POV - it clearly applies to countries that recognise the Republic of Kosovo's independence, but its scope also validly includes other countries' arguments against this (i.e. those that recognise Kosovo as a Serbian province). And mentioning "Republic of Kosovo" certainly doesn't imply that it actually legally exists; compare the hypothetical article title People who believe in God - does this imply that God exists? No, only that some people thinks that he does. This Kosovo case is the same - the proposed title indicates that some nations have recognised the independence of Kosovo, but it does not imply whether that's right or wrong. Bazonka (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Kosovo is by far the most common name of the country and thus this article should also do that. It has nothing to do with neutrality (I don't get why anybody refuses to recognize Kosovo's legal right to be independent. Kosovo IS a country, regardless of Serbia's claims otherwise), it purely has to do with Wikipedia policy to use the most common name. TJ Spyke 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose BTW, isn't it time to de-admin user dab? He will continue this destructive behaviour as it is not the first time he did such a thing. --Tubesship (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Wow, what drama. The article is not about the recognition of Kosovo, it is about the recognition of Kosovo as an independent republic. The entire structure of the article centers on that: there is no section on "international recognition of Kosovo as a province of Serbia". It doesn't matter much, since everyone will know that when we say "recognition of Kosovo" that's not what we really mean, but the melodramatic response to the move is rather pathetic. No-one's pushing a POV here. It's not like he moved it to "international outrage at the illegal dismemberment of Serbia" or "hypocritical attacks on the rightful sovereignty of Kosovo". All this is, is a debate over the use of the formal vs. colloquial name of a country. There's no substance to it, it's just a stylistic preference: precision vs. comfort. And for that we have idiots calling for a punitive response? kwami (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

IMF

Kosovo is a full member according to B92 [35].

IMF Executive Director Age Bakker is currently on a visit to Priština, just days after Kosovo became a fully-fledged member of the organization.

We should update accordingly. Ijanderson (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IMF website does not confirm this yet. We had this discussion already above - while the IMF has in principle agreed that Kosovo should accede, and Kosovo is willing to accede, the accession will only enter into effect whenever the relevant Kosovar authorities have ratified it and the IMF's Articles of Accession are signed in Washington. See also the following press release. Khuft (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Law on Accession to the IMF and World Bank has been adopted. All that remains is the official signing ceremony of the accession documents in Washington. They will sign for both IMF and WB. --alchaemia (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is a member of the IMF, they just have to sign a couple of documents ect. They have a guy sitting in the IMF, hes called Wilson Mirdita I think. Ijanderson (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't just redefine when a country is officially a member of the IMF or not. Whenever the procedures are complete (and I presume this will be soon), Kosovo will be a member of the IMF. Currently it's just a soon-to-be-member. Khuft (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not redefining when "a country is officially a member of the IMF or not", there is just the signature ceremony is needed before the website etc is updated. Kosovo already has a guy sitting in the IMF building, participating under the name Kosovo ect with all the other 185 members. There are many sources proving this. Ijanderson (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense that Kosovo should already be having someone there to look into matters, but still the signature is necessary before it all becomes legal (it's not just a matter of "updating the website"!). I'm not questioning whether Kosovo will be a member of the IMF (of course it will) - it's just that legally Kosovo is not yet a member. After all, didn't we on this very same page discuss similar cases time and time again? I.e. just above: El Salvador will only officially have recognized Kosovo whenever the Salvadorian parliament approves it (and maybe some other procedures are necessary too according to Salvadorian law) even though the Government already said they recognize Kosovo. Same thing: some papers have to be approved and signed before it all becomes legal and official. For what we know, El Salvador may already have a soon-to-be-ambassador waiting in Pristina, but he's not an ambassador yet. Khuft (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand, so there is no point repeating myself. I never said that you were questioning whether Kosovo will be an IMF member. That signature isn't needed to make Kosovo a member as Kosovo already is one. Ijanderson (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeating what? You still haven't presented any reliable source stating that officially Kosovo is now an IMF member and you don't provide any argument contradicting mine apart from stating that there's a guy from Kosovo already running around the IMF building. Great - so what? If you're in favour of throwing all conventions of International Affairs overboard (like: a country only officially has joined an International Organisation once some documents have been signed and filed somewhere), fine for you, but please keep your twisted view on how international diplomacy works out of wikipedia - the readers deserve correct information, not approximations. Khuft (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the readers deserve correct information, then there isn't a guy from Kosovo "running around in the IMF building." He's there to represent Kosovo. Since you're so pedantic about "correct" information... --alchaemia (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that above in my previous comment - it certainly makes sense that Kosovo already has a representative at the IMF in order to smooth accession. Anyway, this isn't a chatroom. Concerning the article itself, it currently states: On 8 May 2009, the IMF's Executive Board certified a vote by their Board of Governors to offer membership to Kosovo. Kosovo will become a member once it has agreed to and signed the IMF's Articles of Agreement and any related terms and conditions. Whenever these Articles of Agreement are signed, it can be changed to stating that Kosovo is an IMF member. Khuft (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a chatroom, then don't claim that Kosovo's representative is "running around in the IMF building" as we're talking about an official representative of a member state, not a buttler. Otherwise it doesn't bother me that we need to wait a week or two until those documents are signed. --alchaemia (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It was not my intention to picture the Kosovar representative as a butler - if it came across that way, I'm sorry. I'm glad, though, that you agree that we should wait for the formal process to be completed - which anyway can't take long now. Khuft (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

new recognitions

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/353-president-of-kosovo-new-recognitions-to-come.html Max Mux (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And here i had my hopes up... it's the President saying he expects new recognitions ot come from unknown countries on many continents. I'd say not useful; it doesnt even guarentee anything will come from it.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9654/122/

Max Mux (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They are nice articles to read max, but they aren't really changing anything.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=06&dd=07&nav_id=59668Max Mux (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how things develop when Kosovo becomes full members of IMF and WB Ijanderson (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

CoE

According to Jean-Louis Laurens, Director General of Democracy and Political Affairs at the Council of Europe EMNI; Kosovo can become a member of the CoE if Kosovo achieves 2/3 of a vote and Kosovo already has more than 2/3 recognition in the CoE. [36] Is this worth a mention? Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. I've heard rumors that Kosovo will apply for membership after IMF & WB are concluded successfully (around June 15, 2009). Kosovo will also apply to the EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). --alchaemia (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[37][38] Here are more sources for the CoE, Kosovo may gain Observer status in the CoE before it get full membership. Ijanderson (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier if they had those documents on CoE website.--Avala (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A new tone from Slovakia...

Jan Skoda, the Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia told the media that Slovakia will wait for the International Court of Justice before it takes a decision whether to recognize the independence of Kosovo. “Let’s wait for the decision,” Skoda is quoted as saying. Slovakia is one of the five EU countries which has not recognized Kosovo and which supports Serbia in the ICJ.
source: http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/425-kosovo-to-consider-kosovos-recognition-after-the-end-of-the-icj-process.html Emetko (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers updated Ijanderson (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that someone rewrites Slovakia again please, it seems really messy. A load of information has just been banged together in chronological order, it doesn't read well. Anyone fancy this job? I'd do it but I'm dyslexic and I don't have the time to do it either. Ijanderson (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try but I will not make some major shrinking ie. summarizations because such attempts usually end up looking like OR.--Avala (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) OK I hope I put it into prose so that it doesn't look like a chronological list that much and without making major cuts in content.--Avala (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

But a major shrinking is what is needed there! It should not be that difficult - if you can't manage it, maybe somebody else... :) --DaQuirin (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No there is no need for it, WP:NOTPAPER. There is always [39] if you can't stand to see too much information.--Avala (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And there's always the question of relevance. Just because the software can take it does not mean that we should stuff it with irrelevant information. --alchaemia (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There was an agreement that if the article was to be renamed there would be no requests for cutting the content. Please respect that.--Avala (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't need every statement that some official from Slovakia may or may not make. Some of them are more important than others. Also, there was an agreement not to copy-paste into this article huge chunks from this article [40], yet you don't seem to respect that. A little hypocritical, don't you think? --alchaemia (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How could we copy/paste content from there into here if that was created from the content of this article? Makes very little sense if we put it on a time line, because for that happen that article had to precede this one which is not the case. As I proved in the discussion below you made it up that I added the information today, I re-added it after you removed it but it was there for months. There is no hypocrisy because in both situations I am fighting against removal of content.--Avala (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Timelines don't matter to users. They don't know your minutiae here and they don't particularly care. You have copy-pasted huge chunks of a separate article and inserted it into this one. End of story. --alchaemia (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How did I copy/paste the content from a separate article in here months ago when that article was still not created? Just explain me that, I mean I see you are into alchemy but I don't see how could we copy/paste from then future articles.--Avala (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1) There is an article dealing with ICJ and the advisory opinion. 2) That article contains details from voting, statements, etc. 3). This article does not need to contain the exact same information as the other article. --alchaemia (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And it doesn't. Anyone with eyes can see that the main ICJ article is about 5 times longer than what we have here. How don't you understand that the main article was created out of this content we have here?--Avala (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible news from Kenya, El Salvador, Bangladesh and Guyana

Kosovo's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website has published articles on meeting between Skender Hyseni and the UN ambassadors of Kenya[41], El Salvador[42] and Bangladesh/Guyana[43]. (There's also a report of a meeting with the Saudi Arabian ambassador[44], although I guess this is less relevant since they've already recognised.) All of these reports are in Albanian, and Google is not really able to translate them properly. I'm sure there's useful stuff in there though. I've had a go at updating the details for Kenya - I think I got the general gist, but it could really do with an Albanian speaker's expertise. Quite possibly, English translations will appear in a day or two though. Bazonka (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

- Here is another update from Telegraphi about Armenia, Botswana, Cape Verde, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Tonga [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.19.42 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we keep watching the Kosovo MFA page for updates - these are bound to appear there soon, in English hopefully. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another that lists more countries, but I agree that we shoud wait for the MFA [46]

It looks like at the very least Iraq, Kenya, Tonga and Cape Verde are now also going to recognize.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully they do so soon. Any translation?Max Mux (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They're on the front page of the MFA website's english version, too. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they? I can only see reports for Yemen, East Timor, Egypt and Pakistan in English. There's much more in the Albanian pages. Bazonka (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that's what you had meant. I would think they'd update the MFA website tommorow with the rest, but one never knows. The Google Translator isn't the best, but it's better than nothing. You can usually sort of get the gist of what's going on. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

News from Suriname, Bhutan, Brunei, Honduras and Jordan has now apeared on the site - also in Albanian. Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have realised that if you replace all ё's in Albanian text with e's, the Google translator works much better. I've therefore managed to update or include news from El Salvador, Suriname, Bhutan, Brunei, Honduras and Jordan. The Guyana/Bangladesh news doesn't actually tell us anything about the position of those two countries, so I haven't included anything for them. Also, an English-language version of the Kenya report has appeared, so I've updated that too. Bazonka (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

News from Tunisia [47], Mauritania [48], Lebanon and South Africa [49], Qatar [50], as well as the Dominican Republic [51]. --alchaemia (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated the article with all this. Note that despite the news referring to the Dominican Republic, the meeting Hyseni held was with Crispin Gregoire, who is the UN ambassador to Dominica - not the same country. I think the MFA has made an error. Bazonka (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, never even heard of Dominica! Learn something new every day. --alchaemia (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo MFA has fixed their article to refer to the Commonwealth of Dominica, not the Dominican Republic. Bazonka (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ICJ section

Is it really necessary to have huge chunks of International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_the_legality_of_Kosovo's_unilaterally_proclaimed_independence copy-pasted into this article? Don't we have a separate article for this very reason? User Avala seems to think so, and when I reverted him, he threatened to "block" me from editing. I seem to remember a discussion about this not a long time ago, and the consensus was that we didn't have every singe country voting for/against/abstaining listed in this article, especially since they're also listed in the other article. What are your thoughts? --alchaemia (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you opened the article you linked us to, the main article, you would have noticed that it is not the same as the peace of it we have here, there is no copy/paste. The main article was expanded from the information in this article so any retroactive cuts would make no sense. You seem to remember about the discussion but you can't point at it, and even if you could I am pretty certain that it would be your words again. You are removing the content from the article that stood there for months, there is a consensus and an agreement not to remove any content from that article and you can't point at any discussion that led to the change of consensus. You did so not only with the content regarding ICJ but also with the content regarding the OIC where you were reverted by at least three other users. Unlike what you claim, this information was not added by me tonight, it was here for months but it was removed by you two weeks ago which I noticed today. Information was here on April 1, March 7, February 1, January 2 ... etc. By removing information that indeed was here for months, you are violating the established consensus as well the agreement of not cutting the article. --Avala (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It was removed as it's a copy-paste of a separate article. And, in case you didn't know, today is June 8th, and January 2 wasn't "two-weeks ago." --alchaemia (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I write? January was months ago when the content was here (and even much before the January, that's only how far I went in history). You conveniently removed it two weeks ago, that is what the two weeks ago is all about. In simple form - Two weeks ago, Alchaemia removed the content that was standing here for months. Do you understand now? And no, this content is not a copy/paste, because for that to happen that article had to precede this one which is not the case. That article was created out of this one.--Avala (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't copy-paste messages you post into my talk and re-post them here. Let others have a say too, don't try to dominate the discussion with your superior copy-pasting abilities. --alchaemia (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you ask me the same thing here and on the talk page I have to answer on both places and I don't have any reason to change the content of my answer. Like I said we've hit a language barrier here but I tried to explain it to you in a simple form (Two weeks ago, Alchaemia removed the content that was standing here for months.). 1) This content was here for months as you can see by checking the article history (April 1, March 7, February 1, January 2 ... ) and you removed it about two weeks ago which I now noticed. I am telling you that removing the content of an article that was here for months is breaking of the WP rules of consensus as well as the agreements we made here. Also your removal reasons do not stand because as I stated above but let me repeat myself - 2) Anyone with eyes can see that the main ICJ article is about 5 times longer than what we have here and 3) The main ICJ article was created out of this content we have here, not vice versa, ie. the copy/paste went in the other direction of what you claim - the main ICJ article is a copy/paste of this content + some other content. This comments sums my point.--Avala (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) The discussion Achaemia refers to is probably this one. The consensus was that the information on country votes in the UN concerning the ICJ case should not be duplicated. The solution implemented by Mareklug back then was to keep the list here and redirect the ICJ article (as it had no other useful content). There was clear understanding that this was a provisional solution, until there is enough new information to warrant recreation of the ICJ article. This has recently happened. Since the basic argument against duplication remains, there is no longer any reason to keep the detailed list of country votes here, we should only give a brief summary/introduction and refer the reader to the ICJ article for the rest. — Emil J. 11:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Emil J. for finding that discussion. I appreciate it. --alchaemia (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. The Advisory Opinion article should contain lots of detail (e.g. lists of who voted for what); this article should contain only a summary (e.g. numbers voting for and against). There is absolutely no need for unnecessary duplication. This longer text was only here in the first place because there was previously no need for the Advisory Opinion article. Now there is, so it more sensibly should go there - not here, and certainly not in both articles. This is not the first time Avala has tried to sneak it back in. Bazonka (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See also the talk page of the Advisory Opinion article for further discussions. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet when I reverted him, he threatened to "ban" me (see my talk page). I agree with your argument and that of Emil J. --alchaemia (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted again. Let's see if I get a warning, despite the utter lack of consensus in having this information in two articles. (If I remember correctly, Avala originally also included this text in two or three other articles too.) Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Emil J but that was the case in October when the content was the same in the main ICJ article and in here. Then we agreed to shut down the main article until it can be expanded over the size of what we have here. This was possible only after the proceedings began and the written statements etc. were provided. Mareklug redirected the article back then with that clause for the article to be reopened once it can be filled with more content. This is the case now, the main ICJ article is substantially longer than the content remaining here. However the content here has stood for months even after the recreation of the main ICJ separate article and I don't see any reason for some wide scale cuts now. The idea not to include the list of countries was made back then because like I said the content was the same, so it was a proposal how to differentiate the main article from the section in here. In the end the decision was made to shut down temporarily the main article until there is the content to expand it with (which is the case now). So basically that discussion doesn't apply to what we have today, it was just a proposal back then when the content situation was different. Nowadays we can obviously say that the section here is a short version of the main article, which corresponds to the rules of the main article and the extracted content (for an example History of xyz country is the main article but there is always enough content on history in the article about the country as well with the link for the main article). Btw the list of countries was put into a collapsible hidden table so I don't see why would anyone mind it that much. If you don't like it, you just don't click the "show" button. --Avala (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The content here has not "stood for months" recently. If you check the article history, you will see that the Advisory Opinion article was reinstated on 24 April. The duplicate text was then removed/reduced here by EmilJ and me on 4 May. Avala, you put it back to its original lengthy state on 17 May, which I reverted on 19 May. The only time it "stood for months" was when the Advisory Opinion article was a redirect to this article. Now it is a proper article in its own right, only a summary is needed here. The list of countries who voted for or against requesting an advisory opinion is not directly relevant to the opinion - it's a footnote, and as such does not warrant inclusion in a summary, although I am very happy for it to remain in the main article. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo became a member of 3 more organizations today

Kosovo became a member of the following 3 organizations today [52], [53], [54]:

European Organization for Quality [55]

International Federation of Automatic Control [56]

Associaton for Project Management [57]

Can someone please update the article? Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Source in English [58]. --alchaemia (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these of sufficient notability to warrant inclusion? Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If these organizations have WP article then yes, otherwise no.--Avala (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Chartered Quality Institute#European Organization for Quality, International Federation of Automatic Control, Association for Project Management. I don't think it's particularly important to mention these, despite their articles. Bazonka (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know, I guess we should vote.--Avala (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Of ourse we should include them!Max Mux (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include them as Kosovo has not applied to many organizations and any new membership is something to note and annotate. They may not be important in and of themselves, but the act of gaining membership in international organizations is notable. --alchaemia (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If we want to treat Kosovo as a basically "normal" country, we have to think about which organisations we would normally also mention for "normal" countries. Eg. does any page related to Japan or Japan's international relations refer to any of those organisations and whether Japan is a member of it? Khuft (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you said. Perhaps they're not notable at all. --alchaemia (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... what does the International Federation of Automatic Control do?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a wiki article that Bazonka linked to. Please take the time to read things before commenting them. --alchaemia (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I did, but i still couldn't honestly tell what was going on--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All three seem pretty non-notable to me. Just for information, has anybody of the people here heard about any of these organizations before yesterday? — Emil J. 10:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I expect max to show up soon and start saying they are important again.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games with me.Max Mux (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop with this kind of behaviour Max Mux? It's not helpful, it brings no good to the article at all.--Avala (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The only unhelpful attitudes here are those towards Max. He didn't even take part in this conversation and cheap shots of him were still taken. --alchaemia (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this article going to benefit from Max Mux saying "Don't play games with me."? Please explain this to me because I am failing to see how is that related to the article.--Avala (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux was only defending himself after Jakezing, the perpetual troll, started taking cheap shots at him. There's a thing called chronology of events. It's a useful thing. --alchaemia (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Standalone membership of Kosovo in technical and professional organizations is important in so far as it acts as a barometer of the degree to which Kosovo is approaching normalcy as an independent state. For that kind of barometric purpose, perhaps we should treat it a little like we did Membership of Kosovo in international sports federations (on a similar basis, a lot of people won't visualize Kosovo as independent until they play soccer and compete at the Olympics). The reason we don't do this for Japan, is that Japanese independence is not in doubt, so that comparison was not really valid. A much fairer comparison is that Taiwan's membership of the WHO (and China's stance on it) has been considered a pretty major diplomatic issue, and received a fair amount of coverage. On a distinct note, some of those technical and professional organizations will have significant implications for Kosovo. For instance, Kosovo's non-membership of the Universal Postal Union has implications for the postal system (see [59] for the UPU's guidance on how letters should be addressed to Kosovo - the country name should be written as "KOSOVO (UNMIK)" rather than "SERBIA" or "KOSOVA"). Incidentally, according to our article, a state can join the UPU without being a member state of the UN, so long as it can obtain the support of 2/3 of UPU members - so Kosovo could join the UPU before the UN. Joining the International Road and Transport Union will have implications since the IRU acts as the guarantor of the TIR System. For other organizations like the International Bar Association (which the relevant organization in Kosovo, the Kosovo Chamber of Attorneys at Law, has joined), the effect may be less obvious, although it does raise the prospect of assistance being given to Kosovo to support the judicial system and Constitutional Court.[60] Membership of all these organizations seems likely to open up opportunities for Kosovan governmental and non-governmental bodies to seek technical and professional aid and co-operation. It seems to me that membership (or rejected membership) of some of these organizations should be listed on this page, just as we list the IOC reaction rather than just putting it in the separate Membership of Kosovo in international sports federations article, but for other organizations Kosovar membership (actual, prospective, or rejected) is not sufficiently noteworthy for this article (NB the discussion for this page should focus on whether Kosovo's membership of the organization is sufficiently noteworthy for an article about reaction to Kosovar independence rather than whether the organization per se is notable). Should we create a similar article for these non-sports bodies, perhaps Membership of Kosovo in international organizations or Membership of Kosovo in international technical and professional organizations, to mirror what we did for sport? TheGrappler (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've decided that since this discussion was already basicly over... and that was am assive block of text, not to read that. Learn to type in smaller sentences at some point, people don't like having ot read big blocks of text on the internet--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

People don't like short sharp comments that generate more heat than light, either. That isn't intended as a personal remark - many of the comments in this discussion have been in that category. I don't believe this discussion can be deemed "over" if no consensus has been reached on what the criteria should be for the inclusion of international organizations here, or what we should do with the information that Kosovo has joined these ones. Doing the equivalent of what was done with sports bodies seems a fairly sensible new suggestion and actually adds something to this discussion - which only seems to have "finished" because it descended into an unproductive exchange of personal abuse. I'm sorry I have produced another paragraph of text, but as you may have noticed, this is an encyclopedia, which contains articles, some of which contain one (or even more!) paragraph of text. I do try to be concise, and often I fail. Sorry. But so long as it contains fresh points or thinking relevant to the discussion, is relatively considered, is not overly repetitive, and does not contain personal attacks, I think a paragraph's worth of text is legitimate. Anyone who wants to edit an encyclopedia should be able to cope with a paragraph of text. TheGrappler (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Spain and Kosovo

It went unnoticed here (?), but I think it's worth mentioning: [61]. The Spanish article (May 14) from ABC says (similar articles appeared in the Spanish media) that Juan Fernando López Aguilar, head of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) list for the European Parliament Elections (and former minister of justice), hinted that Spain might recognize Kosovo in the very long run, referring to the development of relations between Spain and Israel. Though he admitted the official position of his government (of non-recognition), he signalled some kind of long-term flexibility in Spain's position towards Kosovo. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. This bit is particularly interesting: "In some ways it is considered that Spain might consider rethinking your position if the number of countries that recognize Kosovo to be elevated to the hundred." It has been said before and I'll say it again, that number 100 is the psychological barrier needed to get some countries to rethink their positions. --alchaemia (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone please, update! Reliable source. From the horses mouth! Biden's message that Kosovo recognition is irreversible made major headlines in Spanish media and it was widely discussed in what way could Spain possibly recognize Kosovo. A few analysts had very interesting points and positive signal. This was on Spain's TV station TVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.127.76 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

un;ess its from the government or a news group sourcing a government that isnt of use as it chnages jack.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Our government is slowly approaching the pro-independence stance. The article is accurate!--Spanishboy2006 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jordan

http://www.ora-online.ch/index.php/wirtschaft/67-wirtschaft/365-jordanien-an-investitionen-im-kosovo-interessiert

Max Mux (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions for you, Max. 1) How does this relate to the international recognition of Kosovo? 2) How do we incorporate this information into the article so that it is relevant to the topic of the page? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask exactly what it was saying--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Must of it is not relevant here but it mentions Jordan recognizing Kosovo.84.134.113.238 (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Then read it.Max Mux (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

... erklärten, dass sich die Anerkennung der Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo durch Jordanien als Erleichterung auf die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen beiden Staaten auswirke = Kosovo businessmen stated that the recognition of Kosovo's independence by Jordan will ease (or: might ease) the economic relations between the two countries. The quote is ambiguous, but as we know recognition has not taken place. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So some people from Kosovo want Jordan to recognise. What a revelation! Another pointless article. Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not. It says otherwise.Max Mux (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, humour me here please Max - give us an English translation of a relevant part of the article that states Jordan's position re recognition of Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Its already above!Max Mux (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Kosovo businessmen say that if Jordan recognises Kosovo, then economic relations between the two countries will improve. Statement of the bleedin' obvious. How can it possibly be of use?? It doesn't tell us anything about Jordan's position!!! Max, you really need to think carefully before you post any more links. Bazonka (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you clearly missunderstood that sentence. It does not say if it said that because of recognition. You see its in the past.Max Mux (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Max your the only one here saying jordan recognized kosovo. NO other news outlet, NOTHING from what little i could get that was intelligable from putting the kosovo FA stuff into a translator said nothing... your theONLY one, ANYWHERE saying kosovo was RECOGNIZED by jordan...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it actually happened yet but the article seems to claim so.Max Mux (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It didn't happen. Topic closed as pointless.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyana

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/foreign-minister-rodrigues-birkett-attended-foreign-ministers%E2%80%99-meeting/ Max Mux (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading a few paragraphs and skimming others...I cna tel you not ot bother reading this. It mentions kosovo in the context of what we alreadty KNOW about the OIC meeting, and basicly rambles on about Guyana. Max are you honestly going ot post ANY news source related to kosovo?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned here.84.134.71.31 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is to mention! The entire thing was about the OIC and guyanna! It BARELY mentioned kosovo besides that the OIC supported kosovo--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down!Max Mux (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. It says the OIC passed a resolution about Kosovo and that it's up to Guyana to decide whether to recognise or not. I could've told you that without an article. Just because an article has "Kosovo" in it doesn't mean you have to post it in here, Max. I again invite you to answer the questions I previously put to you: 1) What does this have to do with the topic of this page? 2) How would we incorporate this into the page? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think we can incorporate anything here but it should be known.Max Mux (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WHAT! What is there to learn from this max!--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux, this talk page should be only for things that can be incorporated into the article not for things that should be of interest to people in general per your view. As the top of this page read "This is not a forum for general discussion of International recognition of Kosovo. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article."--Avala (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain recognizes

"MANAMA, MAY 19, (BNA)--BAHRAIN RECOGNIZED TODAY THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE, A FOREIGN MINISTRY STATEMENT SAID. IT WISHED THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE STABILITY, PROGRESS AND PROSPERITY. AOQ 19-MAY-2009 19:40"

http://english.bna.bh/?ID=79090

Someone should update

Adding a timestamp for MiszaBot I. [sd] 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/455-president-of-kosovo-wants-diplomatic-relations-with-macedonia.html

Max Mux (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Really... you do realize we could do the same thing for EVERY country--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really.Max Mux (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Max I didn't bother reading the article, the headline says enough "President of kosovo wants diplomatic relations with macedonia". What does this change, what could we add to the article. Heres so advic,e stop adding articles unless it actually changes the political sphere, not every single possible news article involving kosovo... because so far, most of the sources i;ve seen you dump max, have NOT been useful.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't call me dumb. Stop your personal attacks on me! I have never done anything to you but you behave like a six-year-old.Max Mux (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux, President of Kosovo could say that he wants diplomatic relations with Serbia but doesn't change anything unless the diplomatic relations act was signed by two countries.--Avala (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you write for Kosovo Times? I could post every other article from Tanjug if you wanted me to. This is spam pure and simple. --Tocino 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This link is irrelevant to the article. Mr. Sejdiu can say all he wants, but we are interested in concrete action or something more authoritative than a wish list. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jakezing, Tocino and CB. Also, Max Mux, Jakezing did not call you dumb, he said you dump useless links. Jakezing, try to use more polite and civil language from now on. Thanks, --Cinéma C 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thew point is always more clear when your not so civil.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that? You'll find that using incivil language only makes people not to take you seriously. In any case, you are required to behave in a civil manner on Wikipedia, see WP:CIVIL. — Emil J. 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember, Max Mux has been posting irrelevant links since last year. You can't seriously tell me he hasn't learned anything. BalkanFever 11:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not posting irrelevant things!84.134.113.238 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm... --78.30.153.144 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?Max Mux (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure how to respond. Maybe if I answer with a question: What is I'm not posting irrelevant things! supposed to mean? I haven't challenged the claim of not posting irrelevant things, neither have I supported it. I'm merely expressing my deep inner thinking. And even deeper inner thoughts. :-) Biblbroks's talk 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This information should be taken to "Foreign relations of Kosovo" Ijanderson (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

IMF

http://kosovotimes.net/flash-news/521-on-29-june-kosovo-officially-member-of-the-imf.html

Max Mux (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect - this confirms exactly what I stated above: Kosovo is not yet officially an IMF member, but will become so on 29th June. Is it worth mentioning this date in the article? I'd say so. Khuft (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The source is not very clear on the point, it only says that there will be a ceremony of sorts on 29 June. Ceremonies are often held at convenient dates which do not necessarily correspond with the date of the actual event being celebrated. There is better evidence that Kosovo is not yet an IMF member, such as the IMF web site[62] (NB: updated yesterday). — Emil J. 15:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet, the WB lists it as "Kosovo, Republic of."[63] Loving their incosistency. :) FM Hyseni has stated that Kosovo will sign the Articles of Agreement of both WB and IMF on June 29th. [64] --alchaemia (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency. The WB page you mention is the list of "Activities by country". An organization may carry activities wherever it wants, it has nothing to do with membership (notice that it also includes "West Bank and Gaza", which is not a member either). Now, the link "Member Countries" in the "Learn more about our work..." box on top of that page leads to the actual list of members[65], which, as you can see, does not include Kosovo. The "activities" in Kosovo include a link to this statement[66], confirming that Kosovo will become a member of WB "when its authorized representative signs the Articles of Agreement in Washington D.C.", which is expected to happen at the end of June. Anyway, the Hyseni statement is quite clear, so the official admission to both organizations will indeed happen at the 29 June ceremony. — Emil J. 10:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyseni

http://www.kosovotimes.net/flash-news/561-kosovos-foreign-minister-meets-diplomats-in-new-york-requesting-recognition-.html Max Mux (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@Max How do you propose we update the article with this source? Ijanderson (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a better source on the MFA website 64.115.19.42 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...but still, what are we to do with it? There may well be a better source on the MFA website, but what are we to do with the source? Ijanderson (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the link?Max Mux (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[67] There you go. What do you want us to do Max? Ijanderson (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We can add it.Max Mux (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You should give it a go, you should read WP:BOLD. Ijanderson (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added news from Bahamas, Mozambique and the Arab League. Bazonka (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WorldBank

The WorldBank has officially offered membership to the Republic of Kosovo. [68]. It confirms that the signing ceremony will take place at "end-June." --alchaemia (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Can't find this anywhere else, wonder if someone can verify: [69].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Telegrafi [70] and Gazeta Express [71] have picked the story up. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo Times is also reporting the same story, but are using Palluxo as the source. [72] Ijanderson (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The same Palluxo that said that Russia is about to recognise Kosovo? The same Palluxo that had these news titles "Bosnian Serb MPs Vote Against Holocaust Remembrance Day" just a little bit above "Russia Prepares to Recognize Kosovo Independence" and "Serbia's Nazi past and the Holocaust of Jews" and "Serbia Participated in the Holocaust of Jews, Helsinki Report". And now in this news they come up with "Knesset member Otniel Schneller said she is concerned about Serbia's nazi past and that Israel is in in "no debt" to Serbia." which is absolutely insane as everyone knows who apart from Jews suffered the most from the Nazis - it was the Serbs and this website is trying to deny this, basically a Holocaust denial website that is twisting the truth. Not to mention that there is no such person as Netanyah and that they didn't meet in June and on top of that this is Otniel Schneller that Palluxo lists as "she" - [73]. Palluxo is a website intended only to slander Serbia and if there is no reliable source to confirm these news on Israel it must be removed.--Avala (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it has an anti Serbian agenda, but there is no proof that this particular story is false. Ijanderson (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Obama didn't meet Netanyahu in June and especially not Netanyah and that this story couldn't have been commented by Mrs Schneller as he is Mr Schneller? I am sorry but the Holocaust denial obsessed websites do no fall into the category of reliable sources and if there is no source from Israel or the US to confirm this without copy/pasting Palluxo it will have to be removed as there is not a single reason to trust this information, there is not even a proof of their meeting, there is no quote (except for the fake one with the wrong gender of the person that supposedly spoke), they can't even be professional enough to spell those names correctly. There is not a single proof there and they are not to be trusted for above mentioned reasons. They lied before when they said that Russia is preparing to recognise Kosovo and they are lying now when they say that Israel is actively preparing to do so.--Avala (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do Telegrafi and Gazeta Express use Palluxo as a source? Ijanderson (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the source does not say that Obama and Netanyahu met in June. Ijanderson (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gazeta removed the story and Telegrafi has the direct translation of the Palluxo story only omitting the "quote" by Mrs Schneller. So they waited two months to publish a breaking news story? If this was a public statement by Netanyahu as they claim it would have hit the news when it was made not now.--Avala (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get 2 months from? Ijanderson (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought they met in early May but it was late May. Sorry about that but it's still not common to get breaking news one month later. This is simply fake, I don't see any reason to defend a source that is trying to twist the truth about Holocaust and Ustashe crimes in the same text they are writing about Kosovo. It's like adding to the article on Iranian election as a reliable source on some information the text that also mentions the Holocaust myth or obliteration of Israel. It simply doesn't go that way. The website is extremist and it fails the WP verifiability check and it has a history of publishing fake news and extremist views. I am sorry but unless a major media writes about this in their own words we can't have it in the article.--Avala (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But that Palluxo source does not say anything about them two meeting, it just says "His decision comes as a result of recent negotiations with the President Barack Obama. "; this could be anything, via ambassadors, over the phone, with messages sent via FMs, etc. If Netanyahu wanted to send a message to Obama, he doesn't have to tell him face to face. They may have met in May, but this could be something completely different. Ijanderson (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but let's not speculate. We judge only by what is in the article by Palluxo and it is - a lot of factual errors, no sources, no quotes, libelous claims...If there is a mainstream media we will add it.--Avala (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because you have certainly raised standards around here with your liberal usage of such pearls of journalism as glassrbije.com. --alchaemia (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not worth the struggle. If it's true, we will soon hear more about it. For the moment, it looks a bit fishy (and what about "Serbia's nazi past" ?). Let's wait and see. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is pure Serbophobic garbage. Notice how there are no quotes or sources, it's as if their "news" has been pulled out of thin air. Also, if you read the last paragraph of the propaganda article it reads exactly like the first paragraph from this article in the Background section. [74] They even spell recognize the British way on that last paragraph (copied from here) while spelling it the American way everywhere else on the article. This shows that the website in question lacks credibility if they are going to plagiarize from Wikipedia. And most importantly, no serious politician would claim that Serbia had a "Nazi past". --Tocino 22:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo Times has declared the story a hoax [75]. My own source told me it wasn't true, but I imagined the apoplectic hysteria that would've ensued from my reporting this here, so I kept that information to myself. I don't think "Serbophobic" is a word, Tocino, and regardless, "phobic" indicates an irrational fear, which I don't think is the case at all. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bobby. @ Tocino: Many news agencies make spelling mistakes in consistency, for example B92, Balkan Insight, NKR and Serbianna. I've seen both spellings of recogniSe on all of these sites, does that mean they all lack credibility and thus we can't use them? Also I already stated above that I acknowledge that Palluxo seems to be extremely anti Serb. I think it would be wise if we boycotted Palluxo as a source from now on, not just on this article, but Wikipedia as a whole as it defiantly does not pass WP:V. Ijanderson (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That last paragraph from the Palluxo article is clearly a copy and paste job from this very WP article. We should not use any source which plagiarizes WP. As for Serbophobia, if claiming that Serbia has a "Nazi past" and that it participated in the Holocaust isn't Serbophobic, then I don't know what is. --Tocino 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So you claim that the writers of Palluxo are scared off Serbs because they claim that Serbia has a "Nazi past" and because Palluxo claims that Serbia participated in the Halocaust and thus Palluxo are/is scared of Serbs? Ijanderson (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond anymore about this because it's off topic, but you should read the definition that WP gives for Serbophobia, Ian. It says either fear or hatred of Serbs. It's similar to Russophobia, Anglophobia, anti-American, anti-Semitism, etc. Whoever went through the trouble of publishing that fake article, and the entire website for that matter, with its outrageous, offensive, and blatently false claims, has some serious psychological problems with Serbs. --Tocino 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing the victim card, and recognize that Palluxo is no better or worse than Serbianna.com, which you have no problem using here. Serbianna.com is obviously known for its Albanophobia and Croatophobia and other phobias that you like to throw around. --alchaemia (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is right!Max Mux (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add external links that are called Serbianna or Kosova Thanks you as they are biased and unofficial. They are the violation of the Wikipedia:External links policy. If you really want external links add that list of countries that reocognise Kosovo of the Kosovo MFA and for balance add the link to the Serbian ministry for Kosovo but don't add biased one man websites please.--Avala (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot remember using only one link as a source on a recognition. I do not recall the announcement declaring you the official interpreter of wikipedia's policies. Kindly refrain from lecturing the rest of us. Kosovo thanks you is run by two very skittish teens who won't go out on a limb for anything, so you don't have to worry about them being biased. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No one made Avala the interpreter of Wikipedia's policies. Also, refrain from using that tone with us as you're in no position of authority to do that. --alchaemia (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need me to interpret them, you can read them yourself. Canadian Bobby, so you are saying that the good external link for this article is a website run "by two very skittish teens"? What do you think this is, a joke link depository or an encyclopedia?--Avala (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When they manage to work themselves up to commiting to a story, they are correct. The reason for that being that they won't publish anything until everybody confirms it for them or everyone and their brother runs the story. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avala, no external links, we need to maintain NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is true that kosovothanksyou check their story carefully when it comes to bare facts, but that does not change the basic principle that it is a promotional Kosovo-POV-pushing website. — Emil J. 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your position above is basically, "Yes, they're reliable, but they've got 'Kosovo' in their name, so no way!" We've used them before to no ill effect. This is all a non-issue. If a fact is true, who cares where it comes from? This is why we do cross-checking, anyway. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not at all my position. My position is that their facts are more or less reliable, but the propaganda written around the facts is POV. Since the facts are already included in this article, the only additional value of the link would be the propaganda, and that's not a valid reason to include it. It is a quite different thing to use the website, and to promote it by putting it in the external links section. — Emil J. 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bobby, no we didn't have external links before and a long time ago we agreed to not to use kosovathanksyou as a source. As EmilJ said we have the facts here, and the only additional thing the el would add is propaganda.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, sites like Serbianna or Kosovothanksyou have a particular point-of-view. I don't think that automatically means they are ineligible to be used as sources. Of course, they are unofficial, so official sources should be preferred. However, for bare facts, if their record has been shown to be trustworthy (and I have no idea whether it is), they should be OK. And even for interpretations, so long as the interpretations are qualified as those of one side. --124.19.0.118 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovothanksyou is a site specifically about the international recognition of Kosovo - therefore it is pertinent to this article. Serbianna, on the other hand, is a general news site, and whilst many of its articles relate to the Kosovo status, it's not specific enough to warrant inclusion here. The issue here shouldn't be whether the sites are biased, but their relevance to the subject matter. However, having said all that, Kosovothanksyou doesn't really add anything more to what's in this article already, so it's inclusion isn't actually necessary. Bazonka (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Ambassador

B92Kosovo TimesNKR We now know that there is a Japanese Ambassador to Kosovo, but is there an Embassy in Kosovo? There was/is a Liaison Office, has this been upgraded to an embassy? None of the above sources mention an embassy. If so we should update a accordingly. Can someone help verify this please? Cheers Ijanderson (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Kosovo Times source mentions that the ambassador is nonresident, and the New Kosovo Report source calls him the Japanese Ambassador in Vienna, so that's presumably where he resides. — Emil J. 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo now officially full member of IMF and WB

[76][77][78][79][80] We need to update as according Ijanderson (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just did. I didn't know if we should have a section for the World Bank as well since it would be kind of redundant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the World Bank is pretty important, seeing as it has an additional four organizations that form the World Bank Group. I think we should have a separate section for it. --alchaemia (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Alchaemia, the World Bank is an important organisation for this article. It features in lots of media, plus it is important in the current development of Kosovo. Ijanderson (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A more official source [81] Ijanderson (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth: World Bank press release [82] and IMF press release [83] --alchaemia (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have included this in the main Kosovo article, I've also started a discussion on whether Kosovo should now be considered in that article as a country or state at Talk:Kosovo, any editor with a view on this is welcome. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to find a list of the countries that voted in favour of Kosovo's membership of the IMF and the World Bank? It would appear that nearly 100 countries voted in favour of its membership of both international organiations. This would indicate that over 30 countries which do not yet formally recognise Kosovo as an independent state have voted to accept its entry into international organisations that only have members which are generally accepted to be sovereign independent states. At the very least this indicates a de facto recognition of Kosovo as an independent state by a significant number of additional UN members. I have e-mailed the IMF to ask which countries voted for and against Kosovo's membership, but I am not holding my breath expecting a reply! Moldovanmickey (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the IMF uses a complicated voting system whereby each country vote has a weight related to the amount of money the country gives to the IMF. The top 9 countries together already have a voting majority, see International Monetary Fund#Members' quotas and voting power, and Board of Governors. It thus does not at all follow that nearly 100 countries voted in favour of Kosovo, in fact it is rather unlikely. — Emil J. 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked around and it seems the vote is confidential, although I found that Greece voted in favour http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8651fd90-39d5-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Emil....you are smocking right?...You speak as you were attending it. Admit the reality that over 100 countries voted for Kosovo's membership —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.2.87 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA, dude. The reality is that, according to the FT article above, Kosovo and its supporters had a serious problem to persuade at least 93 countries to vote at all (for or against) in order to make the vote valid. Your idea that "over 100 countries voted for Kosovo's membership" is thus patently ridiculous. — Emil J. 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

138 countries voted for IMF membership; 95 for, 10 against, and the rest abstained. For WB, an unknown number voted, 96 for and 6 against. I don't think that qualifies as having serious problems but to each his own, I guess. --alchaemia (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the Financial Times' quote "The new Balkan state, ... narrowly overcame calls for abstentions by Serbia and Russia. These nearly prevented the necessary quorum by the deadline yesterday." That sounds like serious problems to me. Since you seem to have access to a better source of information, why don't you share it with us? — Emil J. 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My source is the PM of Kosovo and the Minister of Economy as well. They both gave an interview on national television and revealed these numbers. Suffice it to say that FT may be exaggerating a bit. --alchaemia (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)