Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Africa / Western Sahara (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara.

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

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 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Saharawi[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I did find earlier a website that said there were Saharawi missions in Madagascar and India, but then I found something else that said India no longer recognised the Saharoud government, so I presume there is no presence in New Delhi.

I recall back in the 1990s there was an embassy or some kind of mission in Hanoi. Do you know anything about it?

On some of your more recent edits:

  • I am pretty sure there is no mission in Dili. The website you used as a source only mentioned that the Ambassador presented his credentials. Most ambassadors to Timor Leste are usually resident elsewhere, typically Jakarta or Canberra.
  • Speaking of which, I live in Canberra, and I am certain there is no Sahrawi office or delegation here.
  • If you wish to contribute in future, could I ask that you follow the same formatting as we use in all the other articles? We do not list types of missions separately. We group missions according to specific continents. We do not list cross-accreditations etc.

Thanks! Kransky (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello!. I have no idea of that Sahrawi delegation in Hanoi you mention, I will search about it. In the case of India & Madagascar, both countries suspended relations with the SADR in 2000 & 2005, so the Sahrawi embassy in New Delhi was closed. I dunno if there's still a General delegation there. In the case of Timor Leste, I think there's a non-resident embassador (Timorese foreign affairs page ain't updated since 2004). Perhaps he lives in Australia, because he's also the representative for Australia & New Zealand (see the link[1]). Perhaps the General Delegation is in Melbourne,Perth or other major Australian city. The problem is that Australia dont have official diplomatic relations with the SADR. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If you can find details about Hanoi, include it, but I suspect there has been a global shift away from recognising SADC.
The Diplomatic Missions by Country (DMBC) articles are only intended to list diplomatic missions (as their names imply), and not non-resident accreditations or honorary consulates. There is also a consistent format that we follow in terms of what information we include and how we present it. You can visit the other 180+ articles and see how this consistency is applied Kransky (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand there is a consistent format to be used at the DMBC pages, but that cannot be an obstacle to bring as more info as we can (This is suppossed to be a encyclopedia, ain't it?). Also, the case of the SADR (as for example, the case of Palestine) is special, as it's a limited-recognition state, so it's not equal as, for example, Morocco or Algeria. P.D. I finally find that the Australia & New Zealand general delegation is based in Sidney.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but just because you have found a novel fact does not warrent its inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Nor is it appropriate to propose a totally new style - the Wikipedia:Manual of Style expressly forbids edit-warring over styles. If you want to become involved with DMBC articles, may I suggest you first look at how these 180+ articles are developed together before proposing something revolutionary to the broader community.
Do you have evidence of a SADC presence in Sydney? I could only find the Australian Western Sahara Association (, which is an advocacy group and does not claim to speak on behalf of the SADC government-in-exile, or have any other quasi-diplomatic status.
So, why does consistency matter? To demonstrate that all countries, irrespective of how well recognised or powerful they are, are treated equally in being represented on Wikipedia. Consider consistency as a means of protection, as equality and "one-rule-for-all" principles has helped prevent conflicts emerging by people claiming a certain article should not be included, or included in a different way. Kransky (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Kransky (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, If you ask me to not change or delete info, I ask you for being more careful & not deleting references (for example the reference of the SADR embassy in South Africa).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the formatting to this article. It is true that we encourage editors to cite sources, however if they have linked the page to a reliable primary source (such as the website of the country's foreign ministry where all their missions are listed) then this is not really necessary. In the SADR case because a comprehensive official list does not exist, we need to find other sources to confirm our facts and be accountable to them. As it is, I have searched for a SADC presence in Australia, and having not found anything, any mention of a SADC in Australia would definitely need some form of citation.
And thank you again for ceasing your bold edits to the rest of the articles. To get a consensus could you contact some of the editors and ask them what they think? I will see what the general mood is before casting my vote Kransky (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Here you have a link that proof the SADR delegation is based in Sydney[1], so Im gonna add it. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
threads above moved to here from the discussion pages of (talk) and (talk). *** Please continue discussion here ***
I have removed the reference to Australia. The article you cited does not prove that there is a SADC mission in Australia, it only states Kamal Fadel is the Chief Representative to Australia and New Zealand and a Saharawi Roving Ambassador in the South Pacific Region. As I explained earlier, the presence of an accreditation does not necessarily mean a mission that is resident, and I cannot find any evidence that suggests the SADC has a permanent presence in Australia.
Regarding the African Union, the reference you cited does not have any reference to the SADC. I cannot imagine the SADC would be a member of the African Union while Morocco is a member and could veto an application by the SADC.
The press release regarding Lethoso does not demonstrate that a SADC mission exists in Lethoso or anywhere else, so I am not sure why you have included this here as an external link.
Could you please check to ensure that any city mentioned in this article actually has a permanent SADC presence (either as an embassy, or a more informal arrangement)? Kransky (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to doubt about your good intentions about the article. I repeat, I'm thinking seariously to ask for citations in ALL the the Diplomatic missions pages, as you are asking me in this one. Rules are for ALL. Let's see:

+Australian delegation. The links I send to you show clearly that: 1.There is a Sahrawi representative to Australia, who is also ambassador to Timor Leste (Almost sure by the info I search non-resident). 2.The other link of Kamal Fadel talk about the SYDNEY REPRESENTATIVE! what more u want?.

+African Union permanent representation. Please, take a lil' bit of your time consulting the references I give: 1.The pdf is the AU's official list of Permanent representations to the AU & embassadors to Ethiopia, based in Addis Ababa. One of them is "Mr. Lehbib Breika", ambassador of the SADR to Ethiopia & "permanent representative to the African Union". 2.One of the references of Ethiopia, states in it's own title "Lehbib Breika presents his letters of accreditation to African Union".If that's not a proof... 3.You have to update your knowledge about some issues, Morocco is THE ONLY AFRICAN COUNTRY who IS NOT member of the African Union. They withdrew from the organization in 1984, after the 1982 presence of the SADR @ the AU meetings and the full recognition of the SADR by the AU in 1984 (you can read about it in wikipedia).

+The Lesotho reference talks clearly about "the Ambassador of the Saharawi to Lesotho, Mohamed Yahia". The mission is sure non-resident (Lesotho is a tiny country), and it's sure that is based on Pretoria (South Africa), as Mohamed Yahia is ALSO the Sahrawi ambassador to South Africa (based in Pretoria). I included it as a external link because is an information that could be interesting for someone, and it's part of the diplomatic relations of the SADR.

For all that reasons, I revert your changes. I hope there is no problem on it, and all this have been a misundertanding. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the African Union - apologies, and thanks for the details. I did not notice the SADC's inclusion (and had thought Morocco had been a member)
Regarding Lesotho - I am not sure what this reference is seeking to do. You have provided another source that demonstrates the SADC has a mission in Pretoria; this article does not confirm any other information in the article
Regarding Australia - the link you provided does not tell me where Fadel resides. But I have found other articles that describe him as the "Sydney Representative" of Polisario ([1]). However nowhere do I see that his presence is regarded as a "General Delegation". Nor can I find any references to Polisario or Sahrawi in the New South Wales telephone directory. Do you have a source that specifies he runs a "general delegation" in Sydney? Kransky (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Initiation of dispute resolution procedures[edit]

Evidently we cannot agree to what goes into this article, and I note a previous editor also had issues with your edits. This is no great drama - good faith disputes are a common occurance in Wikipedia, and there are processes in place to resolve them.

My argument is that you have not yet provided what I consider is reliable evidence that the SADR government has an official presence in a number of countries, particuarly countries which do not recognise the SADR's sovereignty in Western Sahara. Indeed I have actively searched for anything that could corraborate your claims, but I have found nothing, although I stand corrected on the SADC having a presence in Addis Ababa (I am still uncertain about the authority of the website that claims SADC missions in New York and Geneva, but I will let that slide).

You have repeatedly told me to refer to sources (like this website) which you claim proves your point, but I cannot see any evidence that the persons mentioned run are "general delegations", or even if they have any form of legitimacy within the SADR.

If you consider other DMBC articles are insufficiently referenced, your efforts to improve those articles by finding references or adding "citation required" annotations would be appreciated. Just because one article is not to-the-letter consistent with a policy doesn't justify the elimination of that policy.

I understand your keen interest in the rights of the Sawahari people, as you specify on your user page, but I do not believe their cause is advanced by misrepresenting particular persons as "general delegations", no matter how well meaning the intent. In recognising your good faith, might I also politely ask you review what exactly Vandalism is before making such accusations.

Consequently I will revert the article back, but I am happy to direct this dispute to a third party to have it resolved if you still want to press the issue. Since the crux of our disagreement is over your reference material, might I suggest the matter be directed to the Reliable Sources noticeboard? Alternatively Wikipedia:Third opinion could be another option. Any thoughts?

I will post this message on both our talk pages, and the article talk page. As indicated earlier please lets debate this on just one board. Kransky (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


The article's edit history suggests that a revert war is continuing. The article has been fully protected for one month. Please debate the outstanding issues here on the Talk page. If consensus is reached, ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP. If agreement can't be reached, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of unreferenced claims of diplomatic missions[edit]

I have removed a number of cities that HCPUNXKID claims contains diplomatic missions of the SADR.

My position remains the same as when the same issue was edit-warred back in May 2010: I do not believe that the presence of a pro-Polisario activist, or a Polisario representative, constitutes a diplomatic mission. I believe I am applying the same weight of sovereignty for the case of SADR as I am to other countries. Please provide evidence that each particular mission cited is accredited by the Government of the SADR as being a diplomatic mission. Kransky (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My position remains the same too, I ask for NPOV, and avoiding double-standarts on similar cases. I believe that some users are using different mesures with the Sahrawi republic in relation with other examples: Palestine, Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, etc...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Also I have seen that you erased referenced content (the references about the Uganda and Zambia embassies), and then you talk about unreferenced content?. I dont say more for avoiding being offensive.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We will go back to the beginning then.
These articles list diplomatic missions. We do not list representatives of organisations, such as Polisario, which is what the bulk of what this article contains.
I acknowledge there are articles covering countries whose legitimacy is not fully recognised, such as Taiwan, Palestine, TRNC etc. But these articles list the diplomatic missions of what may be arguably a state - recognised by at least a handful of countries, and exercising sovereignty over a discrete piece of territory. In other words, they represent a state. A good rule of thumb is the Montevideo Convention which defines what a state is.
Do not start an edit war. Instead of complaining of "double-standards", explain clearly why you think representatives of Polisario are, for all intents and purposes, quasi diplomatic agents. Or if you think the rules by which we define go in are wrong, please provide us with a better way how to manage these articles (just keep in mind that the editors who have worked on these articles over the last five years might not be receptive to a radical proposal coming from somebody whose contributions in Wikipedia seem to be directed to a single issue cause). Kransky (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Governments or those who claim to constitute governments establish representative offices. Political parties and movements are non-state actors and therefore should not be listed. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There are legitimite Sahrawi embassies that should be listed here (I found a picture of one in Dili at But the bulk of the entries listed for several Western countries are certainly not diplomatic missions and should be removed. Kransky (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As a compromise, I'd suggest that a separate page for Polisario's representatives (which in all fairness represent the political party rather than the country, or else they would have named the office 'SADR Representative Office' or similar) is created in addition to the list of genuine SADR diplomatic missions. Polisario representatives do not generally enjoy diplomatic privileges and these offices therefore do not meet the key requirement for inclusion in the diplomatic missions-articles: namely that it has to be a diplomatic office of some sort (embassy, high commission, consulate etc.). I must admit I can't really see why this key requirement should be ignored in the case of the Polisario offices?
Best Sir Tanx (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's go again into this topic. When I talk about DOUBLE STANDARTS, it's not a personal whim, remember that the SADR is a state with limited recognition just as (no more, but also no less) Palestine, the ROC, Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Abkhazia. For that, it had to have the same characteristics as those countries. I say that because in the diplomatic missions page of several of that countries there are "quasi-diplomatic" delegations listed, with no problems for the user's part. It seems strange to me that they don't cause any inconvenience to users, in comparison with this one, wich seems to be problematic to some users. What I simply say is that it's not logic or just to treat differently the SADR missions than the Palestinian, ROC, etc, ones. Same category=same standarts. It's logic, I think.
About the POLISARIO representatives, they're that instead of SADR ambassadors because the country they live in do not recognize the SADR as a sovereign country, but recognizes the POLISARIO as the representative of the Sahrawi people (as the UN does) or simply allow them. But they had a pseudo-diplomatic status, as it can be seen on the official receptions given by foreign affairs ministers of parlament presidents to POLISARIO representatives in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Chile, Perú, etc... Also, several POLISARIO representatives had signed official accords and documents with local, provincial or autonomical governments, for example in Spain or Italy. So, it's easy to resolve, or leaving the page as it is, as the rest of unrecognized states, or modify it, modifying also the rest of unrecognized states pages (Palestine, Taiwan, TRNC, Somaliland, etc...).
And about the diplomatic status, I don't know if POLISARIO representatives had that status (don't think so), but, do ROC representatives had diplomatic status? I don't think so. do Somaliland representatives had diplomatic status? I don't think so. do TRNC representatives had diplomatic status? I don't think so. do all the Palestine missions had diplomatic status? I don't think so. That's why I talked about double standarts. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems including SADR representatives where they are recognised as diplomats. Unfortunately I believe most of the entries you have included (Jakarta, Belgium, the 19 odd in Spain etc) are only representatives of POLISARIO. Even if they have an association with the SADR state, it is a totally another matter if they have any recognition from the hosting state. Even if I am a representative of the SADR state I cannot just open an office in Ottawa and expect the Canadian Government will let me import my Mercedes tax-free, as per rights under the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations.
You raise the question of other similar states - TNRC, Taiwan etc. There are three reasons why their representative offices are listed here, and the SADR isn't.
(a) those representative offices have a clear association with the sending authority (eg the Government of South Ossetia), demonstrated for example by being listed on their official website. Unfortunately there does not appear to be a SADR website which lists their diplomatic representation (tell me if there is)
(b) their legitimacy may be questioned, but for better or worse, those sending authorities do have de jure control over the territories they purport to have sovereignty over. If I want a driver's licence in Northern Cyprus it would be approved by TNRC authority. If I want a driver's licence in territory purpotedly claimed by the SADR, it would be issued by the (occupying) Morroccan authorities.
(c) many of these representative offices have some degree of legitimacy to perform key diplomatic functions, although often they are tightly controlled. The TNRC has a representative office in London, but as the UK does not recognise the TNRC I doubt it would accept third person notes issued by that office. Taiwan is allowed to operate an office in Canberra. With Taiwan as Australia's 10th largest trading partner it can do a limited range of functions (promote business, help Taiwanese in trouble etc). While Taiwan is not in the diplomatic list
I would recommend that you visit the online diplomatic lists of hosting states, and where a SADR office is listed as an embassy (or representative office), have it included. Where it is not listed, including as something as an adjuct to the diplomatic listwe should not include it.
If you want to propose a wholesale change of policy, which would affect Israel, Palestince, South Ossetia etc, then those other contributors would certainly need to be consulted. Other editors will agree with your same standards stance; and they will certainly argue voriciously for their intersts.

If you respond, please note I will not be able to respond for about a week as I will be on holiday. Kransky (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus. We should list countries in articles that are only recognized by the host country. In the case of SADR; we should only list their embassies/representative offices in host country articles that formally recognize their legitimacy, for example: Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, etc... As for having just an 'office,' that is not the same as having a formal diplomatic presence. Countries should be listed in articles only if that particular host country has recognized their presence in their country formally by listing it on their diplomatic list. Aquintero (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to you differenciation of ROC, TRNC, Palestine/PLO, Somaliland, etc... representative offices and the SADR/POLISARIO ones, I disagree with your view:
(a) The representative offices had a clear association with the sending authority. Im not talking about websites (yes, the webs of the different SADR ministries, government, embassies, rep. offices...are a mess, outdated or unattaignable. Although, there's a list in arabic of Sahrawi missions in the world in the Sahrawi embassy in Algeria website), but for example the sahrawi children summer vacation programs in Spain, Italy and France. The children from the Sahrawi refugee camps (under SADR administration) went to that countries because POLISARIO representatives (they could not be Sahrawi ambassadors as long as that countries dont recognize the SADR) had signed accords with local, regional or autonomical authorites. So there's no difference with the other unrecognized countries.
(b) I think you are wrong when you talk about de iure control, really meaning the facto control. As long as I know, for example, the TRNC or Somaliland do have de facto control of territory, not the iure. The example about the license plates is a bit strange, but I will try to adapt it. As you say, if I want a driver's licence in territory purpotedly claimed by the SADR, it would be issued by the (occupying) Morroccan authorities. But if I want a driver's licence in territory purpotedly claimed by Morocco, called the Liberated Territories or the Free Zone, it would be issued by the Sahrawi authorities. People usually forgets the fact that not all the Western Sahara territory is occupied by Morocco, and that around 20-25% of the territory is controlled and administered by the SADR (Agounit, Dougaj, Zug, Mijek, Mehaires, Tifariti, Bir Lehlu, Bir Tighissit...), maintaining military units of the SPLA (Sahrawi Army), building basic infrastructures, holding political, social and cultural events, etc... That's it, exerting de facto control.
(c) Many Sahrawi representative offices have some degree of legitimacy to perform key diplomatic functions, that, in the particular case of the SADR (a majoritary refugee population exiled out of their land), means signing accords with local, regional, autonomical or national authorities of humanitarian help, children summer vacation camps, twinning of Sahrawi towns and dairas, donation of health equipments, vehicles, etc...Of course they dont have all the privileges of an ambassador, but that could be applied equally to Palestine/PLO rep. offices (recently, I think yesterday, Germany updated that representations diplomatic status, but I'm sure that it was listed in the List of diplomatic missions of Palestine years ago. That's what I mean when I talked about double standarts, as both are countries with limited recognition), TRNC rep. offices, Somaliland rep. offices, etc...
So, as I see, there's no difference between SADR and the rest of countries with limited recognition in that three purpoted reasons. We can leave the changes as they are in all the category, or if not, creating a new category like "List of representative offices", where we had to put all the rep. offices from all countries with limited recognition wich are above embassy and ambassadorial-level relations. Regards to all.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm back from my holidays. Thank you for being patient.
with regards to (a), I would not consider the POLISARIO officials who looked after refugee children as being diplomats, or having any kind of quasi-diplomatic status. They may just have normal in loco parentis responsibilities, as might a scoutmaster or school teacher abroad. They are not making representations on behalf of the SADR to the host country. For unofficial representations I feel stronger evidence is required to demonstrate that these representatives are performing a significant and diverse range of functions, and are doing so on behalf of a state and not a political movement.
with regards to (b), can you demonstrate that a viable state is being maintained in areas under the control of the SADR? There are insurgency movements which control parts of India, Colombia, Afghanistan etc, but I would not say that (for example) the Taliban or the Indian Naxilite movement has a diplomatic network.
with regards to (c), again what appears to be a network of individuals working towards humanitarian goals does not in my mind constitute a diplomatic network. We have NGOs advocating for support for the Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka, but we certainly would not call them diplomatic missions.
on double standards, you have raised to my attention at least one article (List of diplomatic missions of Somaliland) which should not exist for the reasons I have cited to you (thanks- I was not aware of this article). I have since renamed this article to the name you have suggested, and have made changes within which clearly marks it as not being a list of diplomatic missions (or in this case, a list of one "mission").
in terms of a solution, I would have no problems with there being two articles - one listing representatives of POLISARIO, the other listing bona fide diplomatic missions of the SADR. Does anybody else have any comments? Kransky (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, what is logic is making two different categories: List of diplomatic missions of... and List of representative offices of..., and then include articles on both categories of all unrecognized countries who had missions wich are not embassies, consulates, etc.... I see that you had worked in the Nagorno Karabagh & Somaliland articles (that should be included in the list of representation category), but we had to do the same also with the SADR, Transnistria, Abkhazia, the ROC, Palestine & the TRCN non ambassadorial or consular missions. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest then you speak to all the major editors of these articles and explain your approach and reasons. I am not optimistic you will get a consensus - many would argue that the POLISARIO network is not as substantive in terms of unofficial recognition than say that what Taiwan's network of quasi-missions operate. Kransky (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Mmmm, sincerely, no offense, but I think it's you you had to try to reach consensus -wich is clearly not reached-. Only you is making distinctions between unrecognized countries because of non-relevant arguments, as economy on the Taiwan case. This article is not about economic issues, but diplomatic and politics issues. Many would argue that the Taiwan network is, as you mentioned, composed of QUASI-missions. That means that THEY ARE NOT NORMAL DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS, as embassies or consulates of every other country. Dont take it personal, but that's what I called when I talked about double standarts. If this is a category of only full diplomatic missions (embassies or consulates), let's only include them, if it's not, let's include every mission that conducts quasi-diplomatic relations with their hosts. What we cannot do is making distinctions based on our personal opinions, non-related characteristics or groups lobbying. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious? Are saying it is my job to promote your suggestions amongst the established community? It is *your* idea to overturn six years of established policy on these articles, so it is *you* who should be presenting your case to the community, not me.
Besides, we clearly have two different ideas on what should go in these articles. After arguing this point for one (two?) years this is clearly going nowhere. If you want your bold edits to stand, you need develop a consensus - at the very least you have to get other people involved rather than tiresomely accuse me of double standards.Kransky (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, do what you want, but do not claim that there is a consensus to get off the POLISARIO representations while maintaining the PLO or ROC ones, wich clearly is not the case. There is at least another user who do not agree with your standards. As I said again and again, no proof had been given to make that biased distinction between the Sahrawi representations and the Palestinian or Taiwanese ones. If we want to include only embassies or consulates, it is OK, but for all equally. And if we want to exclude non-ambassadorial or consular representations, it is OK too, but taking the same measures for same category unrecognized countries. That's it, I think that is logic, and everyone could agree, except the ones who are politically-driven. I hope this is not the case. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)