Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.30.153.144 (talk) at 14:02, 11 June 2009 (→Macedonia 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!


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

El Salvador

El Salvador to recognize Kosovo on 2 June [1], [2] Digitalpaper (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [3]

Also, the Kosovo Foreign Ministry has an article regarding Hyseni's meeting East Timor's UN Ambassador if you want an official source: [4](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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[6], El Salvador[7] and Bangladesh/Guyana[8]. (There's also a report of a meeting with the Saudi Arabian ambassador[9], 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)[reply]

- Here is another update from Telegraphi about Armenia, Botswana, Cape Verde, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Tonga [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.19.42 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Here is another that lists more countries, but I agree that we shoud wait for the MFA [11]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

News from Tunisia [12], Mauritania [13], Lebanon and South Africa [14], Qatar [15], as well as the Dominican Republic [16]. --alchaemia (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMF and IBA

Kosovo has become a full member of both of these international organisations. IMF [17] IBA [18] Ijanderson (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I could say the same of your pro-kosovo fanaticism. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, unlike you, he brings something to the table. --alchaemia (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a source hunter, im a debater.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Highly eloquent, too... --alchaemia (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
Bebating a source's notability/need for inclusion/// --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're "bebating" people, not their sources. --alchaemia (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No Max, you are wrong. Please read the article first. Bernerd (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bazonka.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
Yes but until success DOES come from it, the source is useless.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I had a long reply written, but why bother? Deal with it. Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo :-) --Cinéma C 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Its a load of Rubbish. Please look at the Koha Ditore source which they are all using as a source [19]. 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. [20] Ijanderson (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Spokesperson of the Macedon. government: no withdrawal of recognitio. [21] --alchaemia (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source stating the same information [22]. Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

While that is true, official results will be made public within a week from tomorrow. --alchaemia (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the voting has ended and the official results will be announced in 8 days [23]. 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)[reply]
WorldBank lists Kosovo as "Kosovo, Republic of" [24] and the word around the campfire is that 100 voted for, with 7 against. --alchaemia (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Kosovo Times, 96 voted in favour [25] Ijanderson (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

According to Pacolli, the Dominican Republic is to announce its recognition of Kosovo "soon." [26] --alchaemia (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMF

Kosovo is a full member according to B92 [27].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [28] Is this worth a mention? Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
[29][30] 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)[reply]
It would be a lot easier if they had those documents on CoE website.--Avala (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cheers updated Ijanderson (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No there is no need for it, WP:NOTPAPER. There is always [31] if you can't stand to see too much information.--Avala (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [32], yet you don't seem to respect that. A little hypocritical, don't you think? --alchaemia (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Thank you Emil J. for finding that discussion. I appreciate it. --alchaemia (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See also the talk page of the Advisory Opinion article for further discussions. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kosovo became a member of 3 more organizations today

Kosovo became a member of the following 3 organizations today [33], [34], [35]:

European Organization for Quality [36]
International Federation of Automatic Control [37]
Associaton for Project Management [38]

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

Source in English [39]. --alchaemia (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these of sufficient notability to warrant inclusion? Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these organizations have WP article then yes, otherwise no.--Avala (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I really don't know, I guess we should vote.--Avala (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't disagree with what you said. Perhaps they're not notable at all. --alchaemia (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... what does the International Federation of Automatic Control do?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did, but i still couldn't honestly tell what was going on--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=295782299"