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 Tubesship (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 3 June 2009 (→move to International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo: log in didn't work--~~~~). 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!


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All depends on context in my opinion. Ijanderson (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It should be about both, that's the only neutral and fair answer Ijanderson (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you. But what can we do now about administrator dab? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Everyone please see Talk:Kosovo#Split_article and feel free to give your opinion on the issueIjanderson (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson, here you say you want the country box on top: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

OK, it's definitely official now. The Kosovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms it. [1] --alchaemia (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bahrain

Bahrain just recognized [2] Digitalpaper (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Well Kosovo is not a member of CEFTA, UNMIK is.--Avala (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CEFTA webpage[3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or they dont feel like issuing passports for what htye would consider rebels--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
First of all, it's your own interior minister saying that "1,200 passports were given out to Albanians."[4] 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. [5]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [6] [7]. 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)[reply]

B92 has an article on the Organisation of the Islamic Conference too [8] Ijanderson (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


    • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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

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 ([9][10][11]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Updated for now Ijanderson (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Balkan Insight has stated that all 57 members voted in favour of the resolution which urges states to recognise Kosovo [12]. I believe that Balkan Insight is a very professional and reliable source, should we update? Ijanderson (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

English link: [13]. Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who will make the appropriate edit? Ijanderson (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me! Bazonka (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

It may be worth mentioning that Kosovo can't become a member of OIC until it becomes a member of UN - see [14] However, Palestine is a member, so I'm not sure what's going on. Bazonka (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

El Salvador

El Salvador to recognize Kosovo on 2 June [15], [16] 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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ya, so?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please update max, ignore Jakezing Ijanderson (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[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. [17]

Also, the Kosovo Foreign Ministry has an article regarding Hyseni's meeting East Timor's UN Ambassador if you want an official source: [18](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

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 [19] (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]

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[20], El Salvador[21] and Bangladesh/Guyana[22]. (There's also a report of a meeting with the Saudi Arabian ambassador[23], 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 [24] —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 [25]
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 [26], Mauritania [27], Lebanon and South Africa [28], Qatar [29], as well as the Dominican Republic [30]. --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]

IMF and IBA

Kosovo has become a full member of both of these international organisations. IMF [31] IBA [32] 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 [33]. 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. [34] 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. [35] --alchaemia (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source stating the same information [36]. 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo&oldid=294076808"