Talk:Foreign relations of Kosovo

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

Delete Oman and Guinea Bisao from the list[edit]

Oman and Guinea Bissau have withdrawn their decisions to recognize Kosovo’s independence

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=09&dd=08&nav_id=76291 77.105.49.83 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Nothing was withdrawn.2003:DB:6738:901:BDA5:C013:8471:1C5 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

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 no consensus to merge. The merge proposal was rejected. Bring up new proposals in light of the below comments. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL
Please There is no point in having two articles and there is not enough content to justify a split. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose for now. This list is the key thing people are interested in on this subject at the moment. Just make sure it has all the relevent links for now, then probably merge with something later.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Maybe in the future. Limongi (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for now. The time to do this tidy up is a bit later, not in the hea fo the moment. That would be putting tidiness before relevance and currency.--Richardb43 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Foreign relations of Montenegro article combines a list of the international organizations and nation states that formally recognize Montenegro. I see no reason why the Foreign relations of Kosovo article can't follow this model. --Tocino 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Tocino. --Prevalis (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per IceDragon64, and please get that ugly merger tag off the page! The Montenegro article was too long with all those links, and horribly slow to load. Lampman (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the list to foreign relations of Kosovo per Montenegro. —Nightstallion 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the article covering the international response is basically a long list of opinions of states and organisations regarding Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. --Camptown (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in is a good idea, but you should wait for a month or so :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.92.197 (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for now as per [User:Hemlock Martinis|Hemlock Martinis]] and per Richardb43. Alexsmail (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Hemlock Martinis. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tocino. The list is an extension of the foreign policy topic and one page can handle both easily. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as long as the process is going on. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's impossible to know right now how large the article of the reactions will become. We might have to unmerge them back. Gothbag (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - wait until we have final or close to final picture and then take final desision of merger of not. M.K. (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Foreign relations are how Kosovo associates with other nations, whether independent or not. A subnational entity can have separate foreign relations with third countries (e.g. Quebec may have 'foreign relations' with France, for instance, that go beyond Canada's foreign relations with France). Recognition is which countries recognize Kosovo as independent. I can't but see these two topics as completely separate. --NellieBly (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Foreign relations of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, and International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence (formerly titled List of states that have recognized the Republic of Kosovo are all significant enough to stand as separate articles. Foreign relations of Kosovo isn't that well-referenced or complete yet, but it can be, and it is an important enough subject for an article that it can't be merged anywhere else. Superm401 - Talk 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - let's let the dust settle a bit first.--RobNS 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is still developing. Hobartimus (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Its a bit too early to merge these 2 articles when the majority of the world's states haven't decided on Kosovo's independence. Wait for maybe 2-3 weeks when emotions calm down and states behave more rationally and then we'll see. Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at some later stage, merge also Kosovo status process, although it is no hurry to merge. Wait till it has settled more. --Oddeivind (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is very dynamic and important issue. Merger should be discussed at a later date --Trigor (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Merge -- There is now a direct link to the specific International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence currently posted on the front page of Wikipedia. While it is true that Montenegro's international recognitions were posted directly on its foreign relations page, Kosovo's independence is much trickier and more controversial. Unlike Montenegro, many more countries are opposing Kosovo's independence for various reasons. It makes for a dynamic separate articleScanlan (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As long as nations are actively debating whether or not to recognize Kosovo, the recognition page should remain separate. When things cool down a bit, I'd be willing to entertain another merger proposal. Lovelac7 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The stated opinions of national governments regarding Kosovan independence is of wider interest than just the consequences for Kosovan foreign policy. It is a valuable historic overview, especially when the next state or statelet in the world will declare independence. jax (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The scope of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence is political soap opera. What does not fit in Foreign relations of Kosovo, fits in 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Too many articles with too many details will lead to biased information Klungel (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment[edit]

Could we not have straw polls at two places at the same time? —Kurykh 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

The two articles should never be merged because the article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence‎ in future will remain as a historical document to the response of Kosovo Independence. The foreign relation article will not be able to document the international facts in details. So the two articles should never be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

When Montenegro became independent, all the recognitions and establishments of diplomatic relations and embassies were noted in foreign relations of Montenegro; I see no reason why the article foreign relations of Kosovo can't serve in the same way. —Nightstallion 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Montenegro's independent wasn't nearly as controversial, hence diplomatic recognition was not important enough to merit its own article. Lovelac7 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging consensus?[edit]

Maybe It seems like the consensus is to merge in a little while, so I guess a week or so? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd wait at least a month, but let's see what happens. Lovelac7 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fair to me -- it'll take about a month to cool down, I expect. —Nightstallion 09:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy to have it closed then automatically re-open it at a near future date. How about exactly one month? I expect the "planning to recognize" countries will all be in the "formally recognize" section by then, so we'd be able to make a more accurate assessment. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (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.

Comment[edit]

The articles should not be merged. Kosovo is not legally a state under UNSCR 1244 and under Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter, therefore it cannot have foreign relations. Kosovo's foreign relations are legitimately dealt with by the government of Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one of the two prevailing points of view around the world, and we have to present both. —Nightstallion 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, by the way, that we have an article on the Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus, a state (like Kosovo) entirely composed of land claimed by another state, but unlike Kosovo, without recognition from some countries worldwide. If we reject the idea of an article on the foreign relations of Kosovo, we first ought to delete or merge the TRNC foreign relations article first. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is a state as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Therefore this article should stay and continue to develop. Jawohl (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia ?[edit]

Since when is B.Clinton Ambassador of Saudi Arabia in Prishtina? Jawohl (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some kind of difficency in identifying obvious vandalism? Be bold, remove it. --Lemmey talk 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am new around and would like to know who did it. They also put Mother Teresa as ambassador in Slovenia!!! Jawohl (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo at Miss Universe[edit]

I posted this at the "International Reaction" page but they weren't too charitable... just wondering whether its worth mentioning that for the first time there will be a Miss Kosovo competing at Miss Universe 2008. The pageant is being held in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government initially would not give her a visa to compete... she eventually travelled on an Albanian passport although apparantly the officials weren't thrilled about that situation either. And please don't dismiss Miss Universe as fluff, its been around for nearly sixty years and as far as I am aware this is one of the first major international competitions that will have a Kosovan representative. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got sources? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At second thought, do not add it here. This is related to countries and countries cannot really have "relations" with a contest of sorts that makes their own rules. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia[edit]

This is a particularly relevant foreign relations issue that should be included in the article. I'm just putting the idea out there and will not actually bother with adding it. Reaction of Kosovo and the subsequent intellectual criticisms would make for a good article read. Peace. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see[edit]

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

I am proposing the merger of 2 bilateral relations articles, for the main reason that the level of relations with Kosovo is very small and can easily be covered in a line or two in this article. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They should be separate. --Turkish Flame ☎ 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Turkish Flame and because there is information on the articles which are not on this page. Ijanderson (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you are commenting on a merge proposal from 14 May which has become obsolete a long time ago. The two articles proposed for merge were Kosovo–Luxembourgian relations (originally named Kosovo–Luxembourg relations) and Iceland–Kosovo relations, and both of them have been AfD'd meanwhile, as you can see from the redlinks. — Emil J. 10:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

This article should be renamed to "Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo", because that title unambiguously describes what it is about.
The current title is inadequate because the word "Kosovo" can be taken to mean two mutually exclusive things: an independent state (thus capable of having foreign relations) or a province of Serbia (thus incapable of having foreign relations).
If we just refer to "Kosovo" in the title, then this can be interpreted as implying that all meanings of "Kosovo" are capable of having foreign relations. Since only independent states can have these, we are in effect saying that there is only one definition of "Kosovo": an independent state. This is a biased, unacceptable POV.
However, if this article's title refers to "Republic of Kosovo", then the status of Kosovo as a Serbian province is excluded from scope. This would be an unambiguous, NPOV title.
Even if you disagree that the Republic of Kosovo should exist, de facto it does. And it has foreign relations, whether you accept their legality or not. This proposed title in no way implies that Kosovo is an independent state, but that the foreign relations described in the article are with nations that regard it as such. It's NPOV.
Do you agree that the article's title should be changed? Bazonka (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note for the purposes of WP:CANVASS I must point out that I have brought this discussion to the attention of User:DIREKTOR and User:Turkish Flame who previously have tried to rename this article, and revert that rename, respectively.) Bazonka (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for the invite, Bazonka.) In my view the matter is simple: "Kosovo" ≠ "Republic of Kosovo". The terms which are usually thought to be interchangeable in similar cases, are undoubtedly not. The title of the article implies they are. To imply that "Kosovo" = "Republic of Kosovo" is to
  • (1) forget the international dispute on the legitimacy of the Republic of Kosovo and that of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, while both exist simultaneously in the region called "Kosovo", and
  • (2) to forget the Serbian enclaves which the Republic claims, but which are not a part of it in a legal or de facto sense. This also means that "Kosovo" is significantly larger than the "Republic of Kosovo".
Have a look at the Kosovo article. You'll see it characterize as a region, not a republic, and you'll also see the infoboxes both of the Republic of Kosovo and of the UN-controlled Serbian province. (Of course, the Republic of Kosovo does not consider itself UN-administered. (UN administration in Kosovo = UN administered Serbian province) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - The "Kosovo" article is not a disambiguation page. It's about the Republic of Kosovo and the "Republic of Kosovo" article is a re-direct page to the article of "Kosovo". That's why we have to use the name "Foreign relations of Kosovo". For instance, Australia, Malta, Cyprus, etc. are islands and countries. An island itself can't have foreign relations. Only countries can have foreign relations as you said above. Please see Foreign relations of Cyprus, Foreign relations of Malta, Foreign relations of Australia, etc. I also want to add that the Serbian province was Kosovo and Metohija, not Kosovo. Serbia can't administer Kosovo and Metohija since 1999, when the UNMIK established. So "Kosovo is a Serbian province" statement is improper.--Turkish Flame ☎ 22:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a disambiguation page, you're right. However, a lot of users complained that the article is too "dual", but any attempts to fully separate the article are blocked by the "pro-Albanian side" of the dispute which wishes to equate the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo". That of course, is not the case in the main Kosovo article, as that is neither neutral, or in accordance with actual facts on the ground. The Kosovo article is an article on the Republic of Kosovo, as you say (hence the redirect), but it is also an article on the UN-administered Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (which also redirects there).
It is simply and obviously false to claim that the Kosovo article deals only with the Republic of Kosovo - it deals with the entire region of Kosovo, as it states plainly in the lead. "Kosovo" is a broader term than "Republic of Kosovo", as the latter does not include Kosovar Serbian enclaves and excludes the side of the debate which considers Kosovo a UN-administered Serbian province, the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Wikipedia treats both sides of the debate as equally as possible (in accordance with WP:NPOV). To equate "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" is not only geographically and politically incorrect, but it is also a violation of policy which demands we treat both "Kosovos" equally. Hence the dual infoboxes and painfully neutral wording in the Kosovo article. This article does not meet the main article's standards of neutrality and accuracy and should be modified with that goal in mind.
With regard to your comparisons with Cyprus and others. The first thing I wrote is that what is usual practice in other cases is not so in Kosovo. The region of Kosovo does not indeed have foreign relations, as you've suggested. However, "Kosovo" on Wikipedia refers both to the Republic of Kosovo and the UN-administered Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Both can have foreign relations. The other Serbian autonomous province, the AP Vojvodina, has the right to establish embassies to foreign nations. This article addresses only the "Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Serbia can't administer Kosovo and Metohija since 1999, when the UNMIK established. So "Kosovo is a Serbian province" statement is improper."
I'm afraid that's simply false. Serbia agreed/was forced to allow the UN to administer its province, but that does not mean it stopped being a Serbian province by that act. It simply means that that particular part of Serbia is UN administered. This is one of the most basic facts on the dispute. Even now while Serbia claims Kosovo it officially accepts UN administration over it. (The Republic of Kosovo considers itself a sovereign country and does not accept UN authority, and is not recognized by the UN.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree This is a non-starter, as no other country is really referred to in such a manner. They are referred to by common name i.e. Sweden, not "Kingdom of Sweden" for the purposes of article titles. The only one I can think of that is not is the Republic of Ireland, which is pretty much in standard usage all around in order to differentiate the country Ireland from the island Ireland. Leave it as is.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*... Is anyone reading my posts? :) I just stated a number of times that "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are not synonymous terms (check the article) - exactly like the terms "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". The fact that the Kosovo article incorporates inforation on both the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo itself does not change this in the slightest, as the article's lead clearly specifies. Hypothetically the phrase "Foreign relations of Kosovo" can just as easily refer to the foreign relations of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (see redirect) which also exists within the borders of "Kosovo" (a much broader term than "Republic of Kosovo"). Serbia's other Autonomous Province of Vojvodina established seperate embassies of its own. I do not understand how people simply say they "disagree" without having a thorough look at the arguments for a proposal. Please read the above. Wikipedia does not function by vote, guys... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...no other country is really referred to in such a manner."
Incorrect. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is referred to in such a manner. Serbian autonomous provinces, i.e. Vojvodina, have seperate foreign relations.
"They are referred to by common name..."
Yes, usually. But as I said three times, the case of Kosovo is exactly like Ireland. Ireland is a place that incorporates both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Kosovo is a place that Incorporates both the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The only difference is that in Kosovo's case the information on both is contained within a single article, which is clearly explained in the lead.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the Federal-level country? Refer to it by that name without any adjectives. Subdivisions don't mean anything here. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very late to this party, but since the thread is still here, I want to point out to any future readers that the comparison to Ireland is misinformed and actually doesn't support the notion that "Republic of Kosovo" should be used in preference to simply "Kosovo". The constitutional name of the sovereign republic located on the island of Ireland is simply "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland", despite the fact that this republic no longer claims the Six Counties that comprise Northern Ireland and its territory is therefore in no sense coterminous with the island of Ireland. Kenji Yamada (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. per Turkish Flame. DIREKTOR can write essays all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that: a) they're biased, b) they are, by and large, wishful thinking, and c) they contain no amount of verifiability to them. In other words, they're false and can be easily proven as such ("'provinces' of Serbia have separate foreign relations...", etc.) --alchaemia (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this matter needs to be brought to the attention of more Users, and a proper move proposed. Perhaps then the arguments that actually caused this issue to be raised can be properly addressed. If you find my "essays" boring, Alchaemia, feel free not to read them. History has thought us that the end result won't be much effected either way, no offense.
FYI, Alchaemia, on 15 October 2008 Serbia's other autonomous province, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, adopted a statute which gives it the power to establish diplomatic relations with other governments, among other things. Serbian autonomous provinces have diplomatic relations of their own, not without controversy in Belgrade, but they do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alchaemia, can you say the same about my arguments for renaming the article at the top of this thread? Bazonka (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can, and did, say that I disagree with them. Regardless of DIREKTOR'S wishful thinking, Serbia doesn't have "an autonomous province named Kosovo" and as such, there isn't any way that a reader would be able to confuse the two (the actual Kosovo with the fictitious one in Belgrade offices). When we think of Kosovo, we think of the region and in that region, there's a state, the Republic of Kosovo. One can disagree or not with the idea of this state, but one cannot logically disagree with the fact that this state is there, is recognized by many other states and that it has relations with those states and organizations. --alchaemia (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not what people would expect, its just that "Kosovo" doesn't mean "Republic of Kosovo". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I think you should give it a try and write an article on the Foreign relations of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija - just to make your point clear to everybody. --DaQuirin (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazonka The weakness of your argument lies in the fact that the different diplomatic counterparts of Kosovo in general, be it states who do recognize or strictly oppose the independence of Kosovo, the United Nations, the European Union (see Accession of Kosovo to the European Union), the OIC or CEFTA don't have relations only with the Republic of Kosovo but with "Kosovo" in its many legal facets, "UNMIK/Kosovo" or whatever. In the same time, they are dealing (directly or indirectly) with the present "independent" or "self-governing" Kosovo institutions which were created under the UN umbrella. Following your well-intentioned logic, you will have to create multiple articles - one article named Foreign relations of Kosovo (for relations with the UN, the European Union, the OIC, the Council of Europe, and other international organizations), another one called Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo and maybe a third one on the Foreign relations of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (I am still curious what this could be). This is the kind of improvement (or "neutral" stance) that you suggest. It looks like a terrible mess - and it's not what you had actually in mind of course. The way out is very easy. Everything can be and should be summed in one single article, even the "foreign relations" of the Autonomous Province, and the title of this overall article is not hard to find... --DaQuirin (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with renaming the article; because only the Republic of Kosovo and not any of the other meanings of Kosovo, can truly be said to have foreign relations in any meaningful sense. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously about the foreign relations of the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo, not Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo. When will people learn to distinguish between pieces of territory, and human institutions claiming governance over pieces of territory. The foreign relations are held by such institutions, not by the patch of land known as Kosovo. There are two rival institutions, and we are talking about the one known as Republic of Kosovo. As long as people refuse to concede this very simple point, this article is pov-pushing by article title. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to tell me that it's not China that has foreign relations but the PRC only? Because China is partially recognized too. I think you're the one with a POV push here. --alchaemia (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seperate articles[edit]

Most of these articles are already summed up in the one sentence line on here... so we relaly need them to be articles. Believe me, i don't see any notability panning out between kosovo and some african country --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

There is an NPOV tag dated this month and no corresponding section in the talk page to explain it. So I'll have a go.

I notice a whole list of countries that recognise Kosovo and some mentioned that are thinking about it. Apart from Serbia, I can't see any stated as having announced that they definitely won't recognise Kosovo, This suprrise me as I'm pretty sure that, for example, Russia has made announcements on the subject. For the article to be balanced all countries that have made announcements one way or the other should be listed.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo they do not have foreign relations with the Republic of Kosovo. Thus, these countries would not be relevant to this article. This is, however, covered in the International recognition of Kosovo article. Khajidha (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a sentence to the international recognition section of this article - text free sections are rather dubious and this will make clear what issues are covered in the main article.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Road and Transport Union (IRU)[edit]

This is not a governmental international organization -- it is a private body. Kosovo (the government) is not a member of IRTU -- a private association registered in Kosovo is. Therefore it does not belong on this page, unlike the other international organizations listed, so I am removing it. --SJK (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similary the FTA with Albania is no organization at all. Kosovo also had interim FTAs with few other balkan states, but anyway all of these are integrated in CEFTA. I think the Kosovo FTAs should be listed/discussed in the sections/articles for the relevant countries (Albania, Croatia, etc.) and not in the organizations list. Alinor (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognitions vs. Foreign relations. Is this article even necessary?[edit]

What is this article actually about?
Is it about countries that have recognised Kosovo? (e.g. "Canada recognized Kosovo on 18 March 2008") This is a clear overlap with International recognition of Kosovo, and this is not the sort of thing that I would call a "foreign relation of Kosovo".
Or is this article about Kosovo's embassies, ambassadors and suchlike? But again, this is an overlap with List of diplomatic missions of Kosovo and List of diplomatic missions in Kosovo.
I don't really understand the need for this article. Can someone clarify exactly what it's for, and then we can clean up all the unnecessary stuff? If no-one can clarify this, then I may suggest that it's deleted or merged. Bazonka (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has clarified this, I'm going to nominate the article for deletion. Bazonka (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I've just drastically reduced the amount of information in the article. This is all in better articles elsewhere. Alternatively, the likes of List of diplomatic missions of Kosovo and in Kovoso could be merged into this one. Bazonka (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the removed sections for each country (most of them just stated the dates for establishing relations - thus were realy redundant with the table), but maybe in some of them there was content not included elsewhere? Alinor (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are separate Foreign relations and List of diplomatic missions of/in for almost every country, so why merge them in this case? Alinor (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on EFGS[edit]

As of Feb 2nd, 2010 Kosovo has become a member of European Forum for GeoStatistics. Could someone please update the article. Please & Thank You!! 68.187.143.184 (talk) Kosova2008 —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Link is http://www.efgs.ssb.no/news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.184 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what you'd really call a "foreign relation". It could conceivably go in the Membership in international organizations section, but I don't think it's notable enough. Bazonka (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

international organizations[edit]

Recently the section on Kosovo membership/relations with internatnional organizations was removed with the reasoning that those are not "foreign relations". I think that they should be included, because a great part of the foreign activities of every country is related to the international organizations where it participates. Also most of the foreign relations articles contain references to the organizations where the country is participating (even if not as list/table, but inside the text). Also, membership in international organizations is much more "foreign relations" than membership in sports organizations, that are currently included as link-section. Alinor (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a matter of opinion as to whether these are "foreign relations" or not. You think so; I think not. What do other people think? (I agree that sport organisations are not foreign relations - this should be removed.) Bazonka (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our opinions differ. But can we agree that in any case both the governmental and sports organizations should not be just deleted, but at most moved and then at least linked to. Alinor (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable information and it should be included on a article, but which is the most appropriate article? I think is ok for this information to remain on this article until/ if we find a better article to keep this notable information on IJA (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I propose that only countries that have established diplomatic relations be listed in this article, not the countries that have recognised but have no relations. The full list of recognisers is at International recognition of Kosovo - they are more appropriate there, and there is no point listing them twice. (Note that I have started a related discussion here.)
What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one has responded, I shall assume that no-one objects, and make the change. Bazonka (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need a WP:RM[edit]

  • According to the Kosovo article lead, which is strictly defined by Wikipedia consensus, "Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans". "Territories" do not have diplomatic relations.
  • Furthermore, when we say "foreign relations of Kosovo", what do we mean? "Foreign relations of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" or "Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo". The fact that the first of teh two overlapping Kosovo entities is an autonomous province of Serbia does not disqualify it from having foreign relations. Indeed, the other Serbian autonomous province, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, has foreign relations.

This article quite obviously needs to be moved to "Foreign Relations of the Republic of Kosovo" - the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are not synonymous. In addition to the above, there are many precedents to this: Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland and Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia come to mind. This article needs a very LOUD WP:RM that will catch the attention of the community. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposed new name. Bazonka (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an article about the Albanian Kosovo state, the proposal (though perfectly justified) is likely to be voted down on a political basis. The wider community of objective unbiased editors should be notified. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the level of controversy in the above section, #Article title, I'd say that the move proposal should be discussed, rather than boldly carried out. Whether this is done via WP:RM or by means of a content RFC is largely immaterial, I think. A requested move would be the more structured option. To get wide input, it might also be advisable to advertise the RFC to any relevant WikiProjects, obviously wording the notice as neutrally as possible. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the proposal. As the ROK will always stay in the same article as Kosovo, there is no need for renaming. --Sulmues Let's talk 00:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense, Sulemues. Both the RoK and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo are in the same article - that's all the more reason to move. As I said, political bias from Albanian users will very likely play a part here, but a full proper RM will be posted eventually. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Everyone knows what is meant by "foreign relations of Kosovo". Also an autonomous province doesn't have the capacity to conduct foreign relations, so this seems all a bit fussy to me. If it aint broke don't fix it. IJA (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone"? You & your acquaintances? :) As I clearly pointed out from the start, autonomous provinces do in fact have the capacity to conduct foreign relations. E.g. the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina does have the capacity to conduct foreign relations.
As for "fussy", like I said, there is precedent: Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo. "Everyone" knows what "foreign relations of Ireland" refers to, but have a look at the title of that article (Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland does not even have foreign relations). Its a question of neutrality and WP:NPOV. Until "Kosovo" actually refers only to the "Republic of Kosovo" (as I'm sure will be the case sooner or later), such a title is highly POV. Esp. in light of the extremely controversial nature of the dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, piped or otherwise, exists for the moment as an article title does not make it stable, or a precedent, or necessarily a good example for the point you wish to make. RashersTierney (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens, lets not make this about Ireland as well as Kosovo or we might as well start digging trenches. :) My point is simple: when a country and a region/island are not synonymous, i.e. when more than one political entity exists on the territory, we do not name articles by choosing which is "more important" - that is a textbook violation of WP:NPOV. Its the most basic logic, Ireland was but an example. Foreign relations of China is another, Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia another, etc. in short: wherever the region and country are not synonymous - it is paramount that the title disambiguates between the two. And when there is, in addition to the region, another political entity of the same name, and when there is a bitter dispute about them - there can really be no dilemma. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself why "Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland" and "Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia" have such titles. Due to Greek nationalists and British nationalists/ unionists users. Also what happened to the article "Foreign relations of Vojvodina" then? IJA (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also what information is there which we could include to the "Foreign relations of the autonomous province of KiM"? What would you include? IJA (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um... you've just proven my point and confirmed it. We are not here to take sides in disputes, or to claim that "British nationalists" or "Greek nationalists" are any worse or better than "Irish nationalists" or "Macedonian nationalists" or "Serbian nationalists" or whatever. This is exactly why we have WP:NPOV.
As for your second point, it is nonsense to suggest that this article should cover the foreign relations of two political entities. And as I said, it is irrelevant whether APKiM actually has active foreign relations at this time, its a question of POV: "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are not synonymous. Disambiguation is necessary (for the same reason, e.g., that the coat of arms of the Republic of Kosovo has been removed from WikiProject Kosovo, etc.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article "Kosovo" covers APKiM and Rep of Kosovo therefore why can't this article do the same? IJA (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no sense, how would you structure such an article? No precedent. There are probably almost a hundred [1] "Foreign relations of" articles, and none of them cover two very different fiercely opposed political entities simply because they happen to share a similar name (I say similar, because "Kosovo and Metohija" ≠ "Kosovo"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably because there is no such thing as Foreign relations of APKiM. IJA (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean we can now proclaim the Republic of Kosovo synonymous with Kosovo, simply because we fancy it that way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every single foreign relations article refers to the country. This one isn't any different. Macedonia and Ireland are named differently because there is more than one them. However as far as I'm aware there is only one "Kosovo" as such. So obviously Foreign relations of Kosovo is going to refer to the foreign relations of Kosovo. IJA (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuously shifting your argument so I can only surmise you've already decided not to agree regardless of any argument and at all costs. This discussion is pointless.
There are many things wrong with your above post. 1) "Kosovo" is not a country, it is a "disputed territory in the Balkans", the Republic of Kosovo is a country. The two are not the same. If you disagree with that characterization, as I'm sure you very much do, try to change the consensus and then come back. 2) The foreign relations articles talk about political entities, such as the Republic or Province of Kosovo, etc., not regions or territories or areas of land. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Ecological Fund[edit]

please add to the list http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=05&dd=22&nav_id=67294 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "foreign relation". Bazonka (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Malawi[edit]

The President of Kosovo has been in Malawi for the last couple of days. Has anyone got a source saying that Kosovo and Malawi have established diplomatic relations? IJA (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date not sorting....[edit]

I tried to sort the table by date, but it is not working propertly. user:mnw2000 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. That would require someone to reformat the dates like {{dts|format=dmy|2008|02|18}}.—Emil J. 15:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No moves please[edit]

I saw that user:DIREKTOR, had made a move of the page, although no consensus was reached above Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#We_probably_need_a_WP:RM. Please refrain from such controversial moves. --Sulmues (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuatu - Diplomatic Relations[edit]

According to this article, it looks like the Vanuatu PM and the Kosovar President signed and agreed to establish diplomatic relations. http://www.president-ksgov.net/?page=1,6,1350 Can we update? 69.203.217.91 (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map Editing[edit]

Someone please update that map to remove the inclusion on Abkhzia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Nargono-Karabakh, Trandneister,Somaliland. Also, I do not think Kosovo has established diplomatic relations with Luxembourg, Liechtenstein,etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.217.91 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, etc. are present here or here as having diplomatic mission to/from Kosovo, thus relations with it.
About particular entities from these here and here. I don't think that we should "remove from the map" these that you list - they are shown just as Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine, Israel, Sahrawi Republic, Republic of Cyprus, Armenia, Israel, PR China or any other of the entities from these two lists that you don't suggest to remove. Alinor (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

table - numbering; recognition date; accredited ambassadors[edit]

I propose that we add to the table two columns - number and recognition date. And that we add countries that only recognize, but haven't established relations yet - such as in Foreign relations of Montenegro.

Also, in the mission to/from columns I propose that we mention non-resident embassies (accredited ambassadors) and other missions types (consulate, liasion office, etc. from here and here). Alinor (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose your first set of additions. There is no point in duplicating the information from International recognition of Kosovo.—Emil J. 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to have both in a single place, but fine. Alinor (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic relations with Luxembourg[edit]

Luxembourg has accepted Ilir Dugolli as non-resident ambassador of Kosovo to Lux. This marks the establishment of diplomatic relations [2] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic relations with Portugal[edit]

The Portuguese ambassador to Bulgaria has presented her credentials as non-resident ambassador to Kosovo, which constitutes the establishment of diplomatic relations. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic relations with Iceland[edit]

The Kosovar ambassador to Sweden presented his credentials to the president of Iceland on 15 May, thus marking the establishment of diplomatic relations. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein and Poland[edit]

[3] is about future diplomatic relations with Liechtenstein. It also states "MFA has initiated the process of establishing diplomatic relations with all states that have recognized Republic of Kosovo" - in this context it's interesting to watch for Kosovo–Poland relations and Polish reluctance. Japinderum (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EBRD vote breakdown[edit]

Kosovo is set to join the EBRD in December. There are already news reports that more than 2/3 of EBRD members voted in favor of Kosovo admission. I know that isn't equal to recognition, but does somebody have a link to a the vote breakdown? Who was for, against, abstain, absent? Japinderum (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we have a source showing how is the new member defined - as "Republic of Kosovo" or as agreed in the Belgrade–Pristina negotiations for representation at regional organisations - "Kosovo* (*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.)"? Japinderum (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic relations with Liechtenstein[edit]

Naim Malaj, non-resident Ambassador to the Principality of Liechtenstein is the title of the news published today by Kosovo's MFA.

"The Principality of Liechtenstein has recognized the independence of the Republic of Kosovo on 25 March 2008. Both countries have established diplomatic relations on June 22, 2012." reportedly the press release.[4] --Irvi Hyka 16:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan diplomatic relations[edit]

It seems that'll happen soon [5], then [6]. Japinderum (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another source was added. Done. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi and Brunei[edit]

Those were shown on the map as having established diplomatic relations, but for Brunei we don't have any source and for Malawi the source provided doesn't state so. I asked the editors who added those about sources, so most probably they will add those soon. Until then I'll hide Malawi from the table. Japinderum (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

65 vs. 66[edit]

In the article about Senegal establishing diplomatic relations with Kosovo, it says that Kosovo now has diplomatic relations with 65. However, adding Senegal pushes our number up to 66. We have an extra. Anyone know which country we have listed that actually hasn't established relations with KS? - ILBobby (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nauru establish relations or not? I was never sure about Nauru and Kosovo establishing diplomatic relations. IJA (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea. I'd say it's Nauru or Mauritania. - ILBobby (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for Mauritania says "Republic of Mauritania has recognized Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state and has taken the decision to establish diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level". So just because they've "the decision to establish diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level", doesn't mean that they've got round to doing it. IJA (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts, too. It indicates intent, but doesn't state they've actually done it. Wanna make the edit? - ILBobby (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can do, but what info do we have regarding relations with Nauru first? IJA (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In their Note, linked in the citation, the Nauruan government states that, "...the Nauru government accepts the proposal for the establishment of full diplomatic relations..." Diplomatic relations can be established by mutual agreement in this fashion. - ILBobby (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo → Foreign relations of Kosovo – The page 'Republic of Kosovo' was recently moved to 'Kosovo'. This requested move is in line with that recent move. Also it is the short name for the state/ entity. No other Kosovo has foreign relations other than the Republic of Kosovo, so we aren't disambiguating anything by using the longer name "Republic of Kosovo". Regards IJA (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course Red Slash 07:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No need to disambiguate which Kosovo the article is focusing on since it is unambiguous: only one Kosovo engages in foreign relations. TDL (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Kosovo-Panama relations[edit]

There's nothing of substance in the Kosovo-Panama relations article that can't easily be fit into the main article. There's no evidence that this subject merits an independent article per WP:N. - MrX 16:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign relations of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Island[edit]

Why is the northern most island of Japan blue on the map? 99.248.171.62 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's Sakhalin, which is Russian not Japanese. But that doesn't explain why it's blue. Presumably an error. Bazonka (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign relations of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nato and eu.[edit]

nato and eu. I ask you to add to the article current information on whether Kosovo is going to join the EU and NATO in the future. Now it is not clear from this article whether Kosovo wants to become a member of the EU and NATO.46.72.199.115 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo&oldid=1206711166"