Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Guinea-Bissau

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article

There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina & Montenegro

There is obviously some disagreement as to whether the mission in Sarajevo is indeed a real embassy or a bogus embassy. Based on the media's attention about alleged "ambassador" Desiderio Ostrogon da Costa it would be highly speculative that this mission should be "real":

• (German) http://www.gmunden.com/sn/archiv_artikel.php?xm=531209&res=0
• (German) http://www.daily-soupport.de/5.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[pointer]=554&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1505&tx_ttnews[backPid]=2
• (Croatian) http://www.novilist.hr/Default.asp?WCI=Rubrike&WCU=28612863285928592863285A28582858285B28632895288D288C28632863285F2860285C285E28602863286328632863H
• (Hungarian) http://www.csaladikor.co.yu/pages/2003/20031113/friss/esem.htm

It wouldn't hurt to add som common sense into the equation; it makes little to no sense at all that tiny Guinea-Bissau, with only 10 embassies scattered in mostly Western African neighbouring countries and countries with which G-B has historical and political ties, should maintain an embassy in Sarajevo - or in Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Chisinau etc for that matter. It simply isn't feasible for such a poor nation.

Add to the equation that the alleged ambassador has a criminal history for posing as foreign diplomatic personel in Croatia. The fact that the Guinea-Bissau embassy in Sarajevo is still listed on the MFA's Diplomatic List should rather be attributed to the fact that the Bosnia-Herzegovina MFA is ignorant, most likely unintentionally, to the nature of alleged ambassador da Costa - who quite interestingly managed to be included in the Zagreb Diplomatic List for four years before he was exposed.

Da Costa will most likely be exposed in Bosnia-Herzegovina at some point in the future, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should relay wrong information meanwhile. Sir Tanx (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote in a hidden comment - Guinea-Bissau MFA informed Croatian MFA that Da Costa is genuine. He might be misusing his diplomatic immunity but he is a genuine representative of Guinea-Bissau. Anything beyond this is OR.--Avala (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avala

I recently wrote to the Guinea-Bissau embassy in Brussels and the honorary consulate in Luxembourg regarding the matter in question. The chargé d'affaires in Brussels, Mr Gregorio Correia, replied that there is NO Guinea-Bissau embassies in either Bosnia-Herzegovina nor Montenegro, quoting:

"that all the countries from the former Yugoslavija(Slovenija,Croatia,Serbia,Montenegro,Bosnia-Herzegovina...)are under the jurisdiction of the Embassy of Guinea-Bissau in Brussels"

He moreover added that:

"any person using the symbols of our Country and the Title of Ambassador in these region and not accredited in Brussels is false and an impostor."

The honorary consul in Luxembourg, Mr Reissenberg similarly replied that "there is NO representation of any kind in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that Dr. Desiderius Ostrogonac da Costa is NOT an ambassador sent by Guinea-Bissau." He further added that he will take the matter up with the proper Guinea Bissau authorities, who he is visiting in relation to the inauguration of the new government.

I can hardly imagine that you are still insisting that these two alleged embassies are genuine - however, I suggest that you contact the embassy to satisfy your curiosity:

"For any other questions please feel free to contact us at:70,Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 1050 BRUSSELS Tel.: 003222905181 FAX: 003222905156." (quote)

But PLEASE do not base your argumentation on one article, which has been proven counter-factual on several occasion. - Thanks Sir Tanx (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability to find out what is usable on Wikipedia as a source and what is not. Private e-mails are neither external nor verifiable sources. I am sorry but the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, still keeps on its website the information on Guinea-Bissau embassy and Desiderius Ostrogonac da Costa as an ambassador. The same goes for Montenegro. We also have a news source where we can see that the authorities of Guinea-Bissau say how they are insulted by behaviour of Croatia that called Ostrognac an imposter. That is three external sources, one from media and two from official institutions of B&H and Montenegro. That is by far superior to hearsay of what the honorary consulate in Luxembourg said to someone. If you don't have the external verifiable source to claim otherwise please do not remove this information. It is that simple.--Avala (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avela. I appreciate your comments in relation to Mr da Costa, but I again invite you to satisfy your curiosity and contact the Guinea-Bissau embassy in Brussels if you are still having doubts, as suggested in February. That would hopefully sort the matter once and for all. For all the reasons previously, posted there seems to be very little persuading evidence that the mission is legitimate, in accordance with international law. I fail to see how the article you mention predates our earlier discussion? Moreover, it seems to be only an abstract, so its difficult to extract the content of it, and even more difficult to locate the part in which is mentioned that Guinea-Bissau authorities are insulted by the alleged accusations of Mr da Costa's intentions. With respect to the BH and Montenegro MFA-links: It took several years for the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make any actions in relation to withdrawing Mr da Costa's credentials; and it took even longer to delete the information from their website. Although desirable, websites do not always reflect current states of affair. Please, if you have the slightest doubt still, call/email/fax the Guinea-Bissau embassy in Brussels. They are the #1 authority on this matter, and they should be able to give you an honest reply. Thanks Sir Tanx (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can contact them but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. If you could make them post an official announcement on their website then it will be usable, but the phone call to the embassy and oral confirmation is simply not acceptable as a reference per rules I posted and especially not in a situation where we already have such official and media external sources like here. I can personally accept that this man is not a legitimate representative, that it's all true that you say and what the embassy said but the problem is there is no written proof for that to counter the evidence we have. It's not difficult to locate it, they notified the Croatian MFA that they are insulted and the media reported on this as anyone can read in the reference ("Guinea-Bissau: Ostrogonac is the diplomat, we feel resentful to the conduct of Croatia" - "According to the letter, on several occasions, Guinea-Bissau officially replied to Croatia that Desiderius Ostrogonac da Costa is a member of the diplomatic corps, but that Croatia avoided to receive their diplomats and documentation ..."). The claim that the Croatian and presumably Bosnian and Montenegrin MFAs are slow is not an argument, no matter how true, because it can not be proven with written evidence and is therefore not something we can use here for deleting information. So, the problem we have here is not with me as I also tend to believe in what you say, the problem is with the references, we have the websites of the MFA of Bosnia and Montenegro still listing Ostrognac as an Ambassador and to refute you need equally good official source - either the website of the MFA of Guinea Bissau with a statement that Ostrognac is not their representative or the website of the MFA of Bosnia or Montenegro stating how he is no longer considered an Ambassador or at least the removal of that info from their websites that is still standing. So if you want you can ask them to make that official by publishing a story on their embassy website, if not then it's just hearsay that is not accepted on Wikipedia no matter how true it is.--Avala (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this article speaks for itself: http://www.njegoskij.org/article794.html?lang=en Best, Sir Tanx (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Njegoskij, whatever it is, is below the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to the scale of reliability on matters of the foreign relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Avala (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Avala, you can't be serious?! This is as good a piece as evidence as you'll get. Do you still argue that the Mr da Costa is a well-intended representative of Guinea-Bissau after having read this article? You asked for proof; here it is ! Give it up, there is no Guinea-Bissau embassy in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Sir Tanx (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well did you read my previous comments or skimmed through them? I said before that I myself am not a problem, that it's not up to me give up anything as I do not really think that this man is a real ambassador from what I can see and hear around but the problem that remains for Wikipedia is that official sources, and that is what counts here and not "i've been told", say otherwise. I can't ignore the fact that the MFA of Bosnia lists him as an ambassador based on the claim that their website is slow because I don't have any reference for that claim. I will try to write something in this section that should be a compromise and that should cover all the aspects of this interesting case.--Avala (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're the problem, all I'm saying is that you're defending a lost cause. You can always find support for a given cause if you choose to ignore facts. The fact of the matter in this particular case is that there is overwhelming evidence in support of no G-B embassy in BiH. Let's assume for a second that the Bosnian-Herzegovinian MFA is the only reliable source of information on this matter, ignoring all evidence to the contrary: There is no link from the official MFA-list of resident embassies in BiH that Guinea-Bissau has a resident embassy in Sarajevo: http://www.mfa.gov.ba/ and http://www.mfa.gov.ba/HTML/ENG/Ambasade_u_BiH_eng.html. I manage only to find the orphan page to which you've provided a link earlier. As it stands now, the only support for the embassy is the orphan page at the BiH MFA website, while the evidence against keep mounting. I suggest that, if we're not able to reach an agreement, we have third parties intervene. Wouldn't that be a reasonable approach? Best Sir Tanx (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And the Government of Guinea-Bissau website states that they have embassies in Paris, Brussels, Lisbon and Rockville, Md. as well as three consulates in Luxembourg, Oslo (covering Sweden as well) and Barendrecht. And that's it. Should we erase information on any other embassy from this page or include that they have an embassy in the USA based on that website? We work with what we have and even your source Njegoskij states that the situation remains unclear due to the fact that the information on the website of the President of Montenegro is unchanged. I think I wrote a nice paragraph on the situation explaining it from the neutral point of view. If you think I missed to add something please expand it but do not erase it. As for the listing of embassies with others, I accept your edit to remove them due to their obviously unclear status.--Avala (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avala, I have reviewed the thread above and checked your link (not a MFA website, but a press release from the MFA nonetheless). It does not demonstrate there is or ever was a GB mission in BiH, and only confirms the point that has been said repeatedly the guy was an imposter. And the website of the MFA of BiH does not mention a GB mission in BiH (http://www.mfa.ba/ambasade_konzulati_misije/ambasade_u_bih/Default.aspx).

Anybody with common sense would regard the MFA's own website and press release being more reliable than a website from a third party, that may have relied on another source when the so-called mission was established. Kransky (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I presume you made a mistake here when you called the MFA website of Bosnia an unreliable third website. It does mention Guinea-Bissau embassy, gives the address Radnička 2, 71 000 Sarajevo and the name of the ambassador Desiderius Ostrogonac da Costa [1] --Avala (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I am half-right. The MFA website is not a third party, but it is unreliable if it still has listed as an ambassador somebody they previously declared persona non grata. This is tricky... Kransky (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)