Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:37, 16 February 2020 editCommunity Tech bot (talk \| contribs)Bots267,051 edits Files used on this page are up for speedy deletion← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:19, 15 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,435,443 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old AfD multi \| date = 15 November 2015 \| result = '''keep''' \| page = International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Politics~~\|class=~~c}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{WikiProject ~~Central America~~\|~~class~~=c}}		{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~International~~ ~~relations \|class=c~~}}		{{WikiProject Central America}}
			{{WikiProject International relations \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Honduras \|importance=Low}}
	}}		}}
	{{Old AfD multi \| date = 15 November 2015 \| result = '''keep''' \| page = International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 15:		Line 16:
	}}		}}
	{{Archives \|auto=long \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=90 }}		{{Archives \|auto=long \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=90 }}

	== RfC: Is the content in the following edit worthy of inclusion in the ] article ==

	<blockquote>
	The Obama Administration's attempts to pressure Honduras into reversing the ouster of Zelaya have been complicated by some US Congressional Republican efforts to reach out to and advocate on behalf of the Micheletti government,<ref title=Honduran Leadership Finds Friends Among GOP Lawmakers>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica</ref><ref name="Is U.S. Opposition to the Honduran Coup Lessening?"> {{cite web \| url = http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930835,00.html \| title = Is U.S. Opposition to the Honduran Coup Lessening? \| publisher = Time Magazine \| date = 2009-10-16 }}</ref><ref name="US-HONDURAS: Republicans Take Up Banner of De Facto Govt"> {{cite web \| url = http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48966 \| title = US-HONDURAS: Republicans Take Up Banner of De Facto Govt \| publisher = Inter Press News \| date = 2009-10-16 }}</ref>{{Vc}} as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.<ref name="Report for Congress August 2009"> {{cite web \| url = http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| title = Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| publisher = Law Library of Congress \| date = 2009-08-01 }}</ref>
	</blockquote> -- ] 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	* '''No.''' It is not part of the United States' reaction to the coup, but rather the reaction of what called "a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress." The USA is only one country, Congress is only one-third of the USA's federal government, and "a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors" is a small part of that.<br />More importantly, there is no reliable source that indicates that this "small group" has changed the USA's reaction at all.<br />The published that "Republicans who have befriended the de facto government have little or no experience in the region, such as Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), an outspoken Obama foe. That has given rise to speculation that they are playing politics.<br />"'It's about the Republicans using what they can to attack the administration,' said Julia E. Sweig, a Latin America expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's definitely bigger than Latin America.'"<br />Despite the efforts of this "small" group of Republicans, the USA seems to be going the other way -- getting tougher on Micheletti than on President Zelaya.<br />{{Quote box \|
	quote = reserved her toughest comments for Mr. Micheletti, officials said, because the United States believes he has been “the most difficult.”<br /><br />“During the call, he spent a lot of time talking about the past,” a State Department official said. “She wanted to talk about the future.”
	\| source =
	\| width = 80%
	\| align = center
	}}
	:If it's having such a big effect, why is the United States going the other way -- getting tougher with Micheletti, rather than with Zelaya? Isn't that kind of like the opposite of what the "small" group of conservative Republicans would be wanting? If the "small" group of conservative Republicans are having such a big effect, why would getting tougher with Micheletti have any impact? Micheletti could just say, "I don't have to listen to you. The 'small' group of conservative Republicans have befriended me."<br />Regardless, it's not the USA's reaction. It's ] ] that's not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It will only become worthy of inclusion, if it actually ''does'' influence the course of events.<br />So far, things are going fine for the USA. Zelaya joined Chavez in being anti-American, and Zelaya's still not in power. I don't see the USA changing its reaction at all.<br />The United States section has gotten way too big.<br />I can understand the desire of coup apologists/deniers to include any trivia in this paragraph that makes it seem like the coup government has friends, or people saying it wasn't a coup -- always their theme (and the theme in this edit too),
	::Please, explain what and how should Zelaya's opponents have done differently to remove a President from power so that you ''would not'' have declared it a "coup". Thank you! ] (]) 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
	:but the edit adds content that is of interest to the USA ''domestically'', but it's not the USA's reaction.<br />Per Rsheptak, the second part of the edit " not a Congressional Research Office report even though Congressman Shock called it that; its a report from a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. Its been disowned by the CRS. Its a poor piece of scholarship and has been ripped apart by legal scholars in Honduras and the US."<br />More importantly, it is not a reliable source.<br />The contention that the edit makes, that the "report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster," is disingenous.<br />Norma Gutierrez, of the United States Congress' Directorate of Legal Research concluded, in the last paragraph, that the "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution." -- ] 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::We must endeavour to make the article neutral and factually accurate. It is fact that American Ultra-Conservatives are trying to prop up the coup because it's good for their ultra-conservative interests and they are putting out quite a lot of propaganda to do so. However since it's the center-conservatives and not the ultra-conservatives ruling the roost in Washington right now the official government line is that rape, terror and oppression{{citation needed}} (caused by Micheletti) are bad for business. If we fail to document what the Ultra Conservatives are doing because we fear repeating their baseless propaganda on Misplaced Pages we are not being neutral and factually accurate. However Misplaced Pages should not be commenting on the veracity of any claims made by propagandists on the ultra-right. ] (]) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::Would whether they've succeeded in getting the USA's reaction changed be a factor to consider? -- ] 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::: published, "the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy" with their lobbying. -- ] 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::As I stated below, the LLoC report is a WP:RS for its own opinion, and is also part of these Republican efforts, since it was commissioned by a Republican and has been cited by many Republicans to justify their efforts; for this it is included. If we need a secondary source that refers to this, I would be happy to supply one. That is why the qualifier "Republican-comissioned" was included to indicate potential bias. We can add additional qualifiers about the fact that the report is disputed, if you wish. ] (]) 16:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Partial agreement''' I think the fact that members of the US government have been supporting Micheletti is quite notable and should be mentioned as part of the US reaction. I do think that this should be couched by pointing out that the people doing so are members of the opposition and not the current governing party. ] (]) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:It doesn't matter that it hasn't actually changed the United States reaction?<br />What if we found that a small minority of ''every'' government supported Micheletti? Should we put that into every country's reaction? -- ] 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::I stand by my reasoning above for why this is notable and relevant - with the caveats I mentioned. ] (]) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::You assert that it hasn't had an impact, Rico, despite evidence to the contrary:
	:::One of several ] sources, , discusses the deletorious impact of the Republicans on the Obama Administration's policy:
	:::{{Quote box\|
	\|quote = Chris Sabatini, editor of Americas Quarterly, a policy journal focusing on Latin America, said the lobbying had '''muddled Washington’s position on the coup'''. The administration has said publicly that it sees the coup in Honduras as a dangerous development in a region that not too long ago was plagued by them, he said.
	But, he added, to placate its opponents in Congress, and have its nominations approved, '''the State Department''' has sometimes sent back-channel messages to legislators expressing '''its support for Mr. Zelaya in more equivocal terms'''.
	“There’s been a leadership vacuum on Honduras in the administration, and these are the people who’ve filled it,” he said of the Micheletti government’s backers. “They haven’t gotten a lot of support, but '''enough to hold the administration’s policy hostage''' for now.”
	\| source =
	\| width = 80%
	\| align = center
	}}
	:::] (]) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::You didn't answer my question. -- ] 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::I'm sorry, I was responding to ]. But, to answer your question, yes, if there was a country or NGO whose role as an international diplomatic broker was as critical as that of the United States, and there was a faction of that government or NGO that was preventing a consensus action from being established and promulgated vis-a-vis the coup, then it ''would'' be worthy of note. An example of this might be, let's say, if a minority of the OAS or the UN was preventing effective action by that body. Such is the case with the Obama Administration and the Republicans, as numerous sources have pointed out. The issue is not so much their support, but its degree and effect. ] (]) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Yes.''' Rewording, as ] suggested, for the purpose of consensus, to indicate the minority status, would be fine. But the essential information is notable. And I note, Rico, that you have been reverted again, and pretty much everyone so far agrees that this information is notable and accurate. Also, you don't have to call everyone who disagrees with you a names--"coup apologists/deniers"--in an attempt to invalidate an edit. This edit takes no position on the appropriateness of the Republican actions, merely noting their effects. Is the NY Times a coup denier just because it includes this information? In addition, the LLoC report is a ] for its own opinion, and is also part of these Republican efforts, since it was commissioned by a Republican and has been cited by many Republicans to justify their efforts; for this it is included. If we need a secondary source that refers to this, I would be happy to supply one. ] (]) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	=== Please address both halves of the edit ===

	Including:<blockquote>... as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.<ref name="Report for Congress August 2009"> {{cite web \| url = http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| title = Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| publisher = Law Library of Congress \| date = 2009-08-01 }}</ref></blockquote>
	No reliable source is cited to substantiate that the Senior Foreign Law Specialist's "report appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster."<br />
	Per Rsheptak, the second part of the edit " not a Congressional Research Office report even though Congressman Shock called it that; its a report from a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. Its been disowned by the CRS. It's a poor piece of scholarship and has been ripped apart by legal scholars in Honduras and the US."
	More importantly, it is not a reliable source.<br />
	The contention that the edit makes, that the "report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster," is disingenous.<br />
	The Directorate of Legal Research concluded, in the last paragraph, that the "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution." -- ] 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:Change "appears" to "claims" and it'd be ok. ] (]) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	::Read the box on the right-hand side of ]. -- ] 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::Sorry, the ] word "appears" was not ''really'' mine, they were from the source that I had originally read... The New York Times. I didn't think that this was actually a point of contention or a disputed fact, but then, everything is a point of contention between Rico and I.
	:::Here is the relevant source/info:
	:::{{Quote box \|
	\| quote = The competing accusations continue when the two sides discuss what led to the crisis. According to a recent analysis of the legal issues of the case prepared by the Law Library of Congress in Washington, both Mr. Zelaya and those who ousted him '''appear''' to have broken the law....Norma C. Gutierrez, an international law specialist who prepared a legal analysis for American lawmakers last month, criticized both sides. Her bottom line: '''the case against Mr. Zelaya was rooted in constitutional and statutory law. His removal from the country was not'''.
	\| source =
	\| width = 80%
	\| align = center
	}}
	:::But we can change the qualifying verb from "appear" to "claim." I am not wedded to any specific term. We could probably even eliminate it, since the last part of that article essentially reinforces that the report argues it (that the ouster was legit), and we are only talking about the report's opinion, not whether or not the opinion is correct. I still say that we can add additional qualifiers about the report if you want, but the issue is that the report is part of the Republican actions, and is frequently and notably mentioned in many articles discussing the Republican actions. We can get sources for this, too.
	:::] (]) 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::'''Also''' (and this is really important), I am '''not''' arguing, nor does the edit argue, that the report is correct, well-done, well-reasoned, factual, unbiased, etc. The LLoC report is merely part of the actions with which the Republicans are causing complications for Obama (i.e. they commissioned it and tout it). We can qualify any way we would like, though excessive qualification probably should go in a different article.

	:::And, for the life of me, I can't understand why you have placed a credible source tag on the LLoC report, Rico. Isn't the LLoC report a credible source for its own opinion?
	:::{{Quote box \|
	\| quote =
	Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.
	\| source = ]
	\| width = 80%
	\| align = center
	}}
	:::However, we can also add the NY Times source above, or another source, if you'd like.
	:::] (]) 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	Can you remove the credible source tag on the LLoC report, Rico? The LLoC report '''is''' a credible source for its own opinion.
	{{Quote box \|
	\| quote =
	Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.
	\| source = ]
	\| width = 80%
	\| align = center
	}}
	] (]) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	=== Lie in the article ===

	Moogwrench added to this article, countless times:<blockquote>as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.<ref name="Report for Congress August 2009"> {{cite web \| url = http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| title = Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf \| publisher = Law Library of Congress \| date = 2009-08-01 }}</ref>{{Vc}}</blockquote>Norma Gutierrez, of the United States Congress' Directorate of Legal Research, concluded -- in the last paragraph -- that the "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution." -- ] 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:That's not a lie. That line in the last sentence does not make the opinion that the removal of Zelaya unconstitutional, just the use of the military. Nice try, though. ] (]) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	::It stated, "After his arrest, on June 28, the military, acting apparently beyond the terms of the arrest warrant, took Zelaya out of the country. Under the Honduran Constitution, 'o Honduran may be expatriated nor handed over to the authorities of a foreign State.'"<br />It doesn't state that it was unconstitutional because the ''military'' did it, just that -- what the military ''did'' -- forcing President Zelaya into exile, was "in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution."<br />I note that you deny that there ever was a coup. -- ] 20:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::I just tried to fix that by eliminating the word "ouster" and explaining that the "removal from office" was legit according to report but expatriation wasn't and then you '''reverted''' it. I also cleared up authorship for the source issue so the opinion was accurately attributed to avoid credibility issues, as well. Why did you revert it. Just because ''I'' edited it? Why don't you revert yourself and avoid a ].
	:::] (]) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::I read the ] you put on my talk page, but I only added the tag twice.<br />Many Wikipedians consider the summary removal of properly used dispute tags, vandalism.<br />You've edit warred the whole time, ever since you showed up at these articles. Your edit warring over this content started ]. -- ] 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, '''whether or not the same material is involved'''... When reporting a user here, '''inform them of this''', possibly in conjunction with the uw-3RR warning template. -
	:::::I was just trying to give you a chance to fix it yourself, not bully you... ] (]) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	::::::"Revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation," sure looks like a ] to me -- but you can spin it any way you like.<br />Thanks for the lesson, "newbie" ;) , but you must be counting the time that .<br />Even if I had "perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," how would me reverting myself change that?<br />And if ], why would you be telling me to do something, and threatening me that you will take action against me if I don't. (Would you be arguing for abuse of tags vandalism or avoidant vandalism?)<br />The ironic thing is that I once saved your ass from a 3RR block. An administrator I know to be strict with edit warriors was just about to get down to , when I deleted my report.<br />Admins look at other things.<br />I made a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of your unreliable source (Congress). -- ] 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::Good faith? You mean, like, calling my edit a "lie"? Yes, I am a "newbie." You say it like I am lying, but all you have to do is look at my history. First time I started regularly contributing was with edit, on 10 October 2009. Before that, I had just dinked around and done like maybe 10 contribs in like 2.5 years. So don't assume that I am lying to you. If you attack newcomers to Misplaced Pages, they will never come back maybe, and that would be a loss for the community, right?
	:::::::I must admit that I had very little knowledge when I started that edit war, and I am sorry for it, but maybe you should have been a little more understanding and a little less judgmental with me, instead of assuming that I was trying violate rules and trying to nail me with a block in order to win your argument. I frankly am really surprised...
	:::::::Just look at the edit war administrator notice that I put up if you have any more questions about the reverts you've done. ] (]) 00:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I "deny there was a coup" because there wasn't a coup. That's immaterial to your claim here. ] (]) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	=== United States' part of the ] ===

	The Associated Press published today that "Many governments, including the United States, are urging that the democratically elected be restored to the presidency to serve out his term, which ends in January."<br />That has always been the United States' reaction.<br />The (very long) subsection of the USA's ] begins, "The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras."<br />That has not changed.<br />Millions of dollars of aid was paused. That aid remains paused.<br />The New York Times published today, "Most Latin American countries have said that they would not recognize the elections unless Mr. Zelaya is first restored to power. The United States has threatened to do the same."<br />Note that the United States has never said, ''for sure'', it would not recognize the elections. The threat has never been retracted.<br />The United States condemned the coup, called it a "coup", and has never retracted its condemnation.<br />The United States canceled the visas of the golpistas. Have those visas been reinstated?<br />It would appear that the Washington Post was right when it published, "the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy" with their lobbying. -- ] 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:Your ] is fine, but it can't be the basis of a Misplaced Pages article, which of course relies on reliable secondary sources. The experts and the sources all indicate that it is having an effect--"holding the administration hostage", "breathing life into the coup leaders", etc. are some of the phrases being used. Sources mention back-room deal making to recognizing elections to meeting with coup leaders previously shunned and preventing the legal designation of a military coup, which requires congressional certification, just to name a few things. Just because you don't reverse everything, as I explained above, it doesn't mean that you aren't affecting those things. I've already cited these things in discussions before so I won't cite them again. It just wastes time. ] (]) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	:: I think that the article is giving ] to the US reaction. The first paragraph is almost unreadable, full of ]. This paragraph should be condensed, there are too many unnecessary details, particularly about what aid have been suspended and what not, there are also too many small details about US politics that may not be interesting to a global audience, perhaps some material should me moved to ]--] (]) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	:::The first paragraph ''is'' too long and should probably be boldly edited down. ] (]) 13:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}

	== removing POV tag with no active discussion per ] ==

	I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at ]:
	::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
	::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
	::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
	::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

	Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- ] (]) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 163:		Line 29:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 13:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)		Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 13:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 176:		Line 42:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 19:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)		Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 19:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

Latest revision as of 15:19, 15 February 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Honduras Low‑importance

	Honduras portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Honduras, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Honduras on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HondurasWikipedia:WikiProject HondurasTemplate:WikiProject HondurasHonduras
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. 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: 5 June 2024).

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090721000551/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD994JGC80 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD994JGC80

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. 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.

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) 02:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 10:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

IDB logo.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories: