Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 29 October 2009

Chavez reference on the 1992 coup violates the neutrality on the article

The information is not relevant, is provocative its intention is clearly to criticize the Venezuelan president. Chavez did lead a coup in 1992, which was not bloody at all, wasn't done by the army (it was a fraction from it), was failed and was supported by the people (since it was a reaction to the Caracazo), far different from what happened in Honduras. President Carlos Andres Perez was never detained at his house and he was never removed from his office. Whoever wants the reader to remind that Chavez participated in a "bloody" coup and is now "crying" is not being neutral at all and only wants to criticize Chavez. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.71.161.128 (talk) 09:19, July 2, 2009

Where are the references to "bloody" and "crying" in the article? If they were there, that would for sure not be neutral. However, Chávez is the strongest critic of the actions of the Honduran government. Simply linking to the article on his attempted coup points out a relevant fact to the current crisis. It is a reminder that such strong criticism may not be as useful as it would be coming from others. --Almarco (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chávez is the strongest critic of the actions of the Honduran government because Zelaya was his new buddy. I don't see how picking out the "strongest critic" of the coup, and making him out to be a hypocrite, adds significantly to the article. I don't see what makes it such a "relevant fact." The world condemned the coup through the UN and OAS.

Chávez' statement may be more threatening than some, but he just seems like a blowhard.

I think more important facts for the lede are the world's condemnations through multinational organizations, all the recalls of ambassadors, the refusal of the world to recognize the coup government, the calls to restore Zelaya to power, maybe the negotiations, and maybe the aid suspensions and the fact that Honduras is such a poor country. -- Rico 05:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I tend to agree. I can't see any other reason for that subordinate clause to be stuck in there except to make Chávez out to be a hypocrite. It doesn't seem germain to the article.

The parenthetical comment is almost like saying, "Chávez, who's a hypocrite, made this threat."

Hypocrite or not, what makes Chávez' statement worthy of inclusion in the article, if it is worthy of inclusion in the lede, is that he threatens action.

What makes his hypocracy, or the 1992 coup, germain to this coup?-- Rico 05:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's actually not much hypocrisy. The Venezuelan political system in 1992 was ossified, corrupt, and on the verge of breakdown, and had always been a special "pacted democracy"; and the caracazo was just 3 years earlier (and another coup attempt Chavez wasn't involved with happened in 1992 as well, which is generally forgotten). By contrast, Zelaya wasn't able to stand again in the next elections, and the opportunity to write a new constitution was quite the opposite of ossified. Rd232 06:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Chavist, I disagree. As you say, the '92 coup and the current one are nothing alike. If the '92 page is NPOV, the link is a good thing, as people are likely to learn that Chavez' coup attempt was as popular as George Washington's (and more just). If the '92 page is the usual right-wing bias, that would be the place to complain. That Chavez participated in a coup rules just one possibility out: that Chavez, without hypocrisy, opposes all coups. The remaining possibilities are 2: either Chavez is a hypocrite or he opposes only certain (unjust) coups. As the hypocrisy argument is easily falsifiable, I can't imagine a rational person coming to that conclusion. The mention of '92 only clarifies the Chavez reaction to the Honduran coup: it's stronger, and the Honduran coup is unjust in addition to its classification as a coup.

That said, from an objective standpoint the coup attempt Chavez suffered is more relevant than the one he led. In addition to being more recent, the 2002 attempt, like the current coup but unlike the '92 attempt, was actively supported by the U.S. and resulted in public outrage. One might also argue that the '92 attempt was absolved by the impeachment of its target and the fair election of its leader. It's unlikely the current coup regime would win a fair election at this point. I'll add 2002, and if someone wants to delete both for concision's sake they have my blessing. Tomblikebomb (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

The consensus on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état is that coup is not the proper name for it, I will change the name accordingly. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the new name is: 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, thanks! --Caltrano (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(a) no there isn't a "consensus". There is an ongoing dispute which one side claims to have won. The other has mostly been worn down by the vociferousness of those who claim a spade isn't a spade. (b) it would be POV beyond belief, as well as an abuse of language, logic, and fact, to change the title of this article to International reaction to the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Countries and organisations did not react to Zelaya's supposedly illegal actions. They reacted to the 28 June coup perfectly legal and usual expulsion of a sitting democratically elected President by the army from his country. Disembrangler (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are often very strong ideological motivations for calling something a spade that is very debatably something else. A more neutral title reflects the disagreement better than one that is strongly provocative (to a significant portion of interested parties). A large portion of Honduras, including most of the major government institutions, have judged that it was a constitutional removal from office based on multiple violations. This was followed by a (likely) unconstitutional expulsion from the country, but that does not in itself constitute a coup-- this has been argued over and over, no need to repeat everything here. For consistency's sake we should synchronize the titles. --Almarco (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Only an extremely small minority denies that the coup was a coup -- mostly within Honduras, a country with a population of around 7.5 million.

I haven't seen one RS that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory, that is considered to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence.

Can you provide a reliable source for:

(1) What is "strongly provocative" to "a significant portion of interested parties" (whatever that means)?

(2) What "a large portion of Honduras" has "judged"?

(3) Your claim that "a (likely) unconstitutional expulsion from the country, that does not in itself constitute a coup"?

Or is this all just WP:OR?

Finally, please point us to the policy that states that, "for consistency's sake we should synchronize titles." -- Rico 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't looked? See the talk page on the main article for examples. There are plenty of RS that call it a "crisis."--Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not addressing what I wrote.

Where are the RS's that state that it wasn't a coup, or that more than an extremely small minority of the world's population denies that it was a coup?

The coup was a crisis. People google the word "crisis" and then pretend they've uncovered that there are sources that call the coup a crisis. It was, but that doesn't prove anything.

Thanks to international reaction to the coup, Honduran is isolated. Ambassadors have been withdrawn by the bushel. The UN has condemned the coup. Honduras is suspended from the OAS. Venezuela has cut off oil shipments.

The economy is going to go into the toilet now -- but it's because of the international reaction to the coup.

More importantly, is this article about the international reaction to the coup or not? -- Rico 20:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, no wording about what countries said about the coup was changed. If I understand your argument, it is that the main article was renamed "crisis" just to include the larger context and that there is still an event that can be unequivocally called a "coup" within that crisis. But the reason the title was changed to "crisis" on the main article was not just because there was a larger context. It is because there is legal dispute about whether it is a coup or not. On one side is Zelaya (and most of the world who are late-comers to the situation) and on the other are almost all the legal institutions of Honduras. Letting the world set the name based on an initial reaction does not give justice to what the crisis is really about, and choosing the word "coup" pre-judges the legal and historical outcome and chooses one side over the other. This violates WP:NPOV and was the main reason argued for changing the title to "crisis". This is no different.--Almarco (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article you refer to was changed to "crisis" because a single administrator declared that one side was right, while displaying little or no indication that s/he had even read the "coup"-in-name arguments. The admin didn't justify his or her decision, but rather just briefly repeated a tiny part of the no-"coup"-in-name argument -- so all it amounted to was one editor's opinion. The admin's referral to "the majority" suggested a lack of respect for Misplaced Pages policies.

Please provide an RS for "there is legal dispute about whether it is a coup or not and choosing the word 'coup' pre-judges the legal and historical outcome".

From what I understand, there's no "legal dispute," per se, so there is not going to be a "legal outcome" to "pre-judge".

The de facto government of Honduras says Mr. Zelaya was legally removed based on a warrant for his arrest. But nations around the world, whether through the United Nations General Assembly or the Organization of American States, have denounced his ouster as an illegal coup.

The coup government's denials aren't affecting the rest of the world. Mainstream news organizations know what this extremely small minority is saying, and yet they -- and widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press -- continue to refer to the coup as a "coup".

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal (emphasis added)

Your concern that, "letting the world set the name based on an initial reaction," is misplaced. "The world," doesn't, "set the name." Wikipedians name articles based on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions policy.

That policy states, in pertinent part:

This page in a nutshell: Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.

The policy goes on to state:

Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources states:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press.

The Washington Post, the Times, and the Associated Press, are all regularly referring to the coup, simply, as a "coup". -- Rico 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency befits Misplaced Pages well? Please refer back to the discussion on the main article. Or do you all intend to repeat all of that here? --Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're being evasive. Please point us to the "inconsistency" policy, so that we can see if it applies.

This article is distinct from the article you refer to, as it is specifically about the international reaction to the coup.

Lots of presidents violate constitutions (waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay), but it wasn't until the coup that countries recalled their ambassadors, the UN condemned the coup, Honduras was kicked out of OAS, and trade embargos and aide cutoffs began -- as a reaction to the coup! -- Rico 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tocino keeps reverting the back to coup d'état, with no explanation. There is no good reason to do so that hasn't already been covered in the discussion on the main article at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. It is best to have synchronized or similar titles. "International reaction to the 2009 Honduran crisis" seems best. --Almarco (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was CnrFallon that first changed the name, so it was incumbent upon CnrFallon to discuss it here first. CnrFallon knew how explosive this issue was. Why would CnrFallon change the name of this article before ensuring that there was consensus here first?

Tocino's doing exactly what Tocino should be doing, and there is a great reason to do so.

This article is about international reaction to the coup, not to some ambiguous "crisis". The crisis, that the world reacted to, was the coup!

All these countries didn't break off relations with the interim government because of a referendum the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

These countries haven't claimed that the coup was illegal, or that Zelaya is still the President of Honduras, for any other reason than the coup.

The OAS didn't suspend Honduras because of any other reason than the coup, and they called it a "coup".

The United Nations didn't condemn some vague "crisis". It condemned what it referred to as the "coup".

CARICOM stated, "The Caribbean Community condemns the military action". "The military action" refers to the coup, not a "crisis".

The Association of Caribbean States condemned the coup, not some nebulous "crisis".

Mercosur condemned the coup, not some ambiguous "crisis". -- Rico 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of the condemnations that organizations and countries have made has not been changed in this article, only the name to make it consistent with the main article.--Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have not addressed what I wrote.'

Here's something I wrote: "It was CnrFallon that first changed the name, so it was incumbent upon CnrFallon to discuss it here first."

Feel free to address what I wrote. Otherwise, someone might misconstrue your evasion as discussing in bad faith. -- Rico 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these comments seem to be aimed at re-fighting the naming issue that was discussed on the main article. This article refers to the "coup" in the first opening sentence, as is done in the main article. There is no confusion to the reader about what this is, by choosing a more neutral title. The insistence on calling it a "coup" no matter what, even though this is not NPOV, as hashed and re-hashed over on the discussion page on the main article, seems to be more about taking sides.--Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: coup is not the proper name for "it".

What's "it"?

Re: "The consensus on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état ..."

There was no such consensus on that article's talk page, and that article calls the coup a "coup" -- just like all of the reliable sources. -- Rico 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are re-fighting the same issue discussed at the main article. All reliable sources do not call it a coup, see the talk page on the main article for plenty of counter-examples. It's tiresome for all the same arguments to be re-aired here. --Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The notable event that the world's "reaction" was to

- The world reacted to the coup, not to some nebulous "crisis". Indeed, part of the "crisis" was the world's reaction to the coup -- but this article is about the the world's reaction to the coup. Read the article.
Stop trying to whitewash history. An extremely small minority just doesn't want the coup called a "coup". Misplaced Pages isn't a place for historical revisionism, and the reliable sources regularly call the coup a "coup". -- Rico 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The world reacted to what at first glance appeared to be a regular coup, but on deeper investigation is much more complex. --Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the reliable sources are still calling it a "coup".

Please provide an RS for "on deeper investigation is much more complex," or is that just more of your WP:OR.

The reliable sources know that the coup perpetrators are denying what they did, yet the reliable sources go right on calling it a "coup".

Did the UN take back its condemnation? Honduras is still suspended from the OAS.

The world is listening to the denials -- or, it was a "much more complex" coup -- and the international reaction and RS's are still just calling it a "coup". -- Rico 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not historical revision, it's an attempt at neutrality and avoiding the pushing of one side's (Zelaya and company's) interests. --Almarco (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's historical revision. We can name an article about the international reaction to a coup, an "international reaction to a coup," without violating NPOV -- even if an extremely small minority of people hold the POV that the coup wasn't a coup.

For the same reason, we have an article named The Holocaust -- even though an extremely small percentage of the population denies the Holocaust.

The campaign to redact the word "coup" all over Misplaced Pages -- just because the golpistas don't want it called a coup, or because an extremely small minority of the population is of the (convenient) POV that it was not a coup (and therefore we call the word "coup" POV) -- is historical revision. The world knows it was a coup. The reliable sources know it was a coup.

Renaming an article about the international reaction reaction to the coup, using some nebulous verbiage about a "crisis", is just the redaction of the word "coup", and leaves it ambiguous that the "crisis" the world reacted to was the coup! -- Rico 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW the Honduran Supreme Court is a much more reliable source that second hand news sites. As it was their actual legal ruling that this was an arrest under Article 239 and not a description of that ruling as a "coup" by a third party source. --jfraatz —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

Actually, "second hand" is the kind of source that Misplaced Pages wants: it's called a secondary source, to use a more technical term than "second hand". The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is what is called a primary source, and those should only ever be used with extreme care, secondary sources being preferred. --LjL (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduran Supreme Court is an actor in these events -- not a reliable, third-party source.

Are you confusing the arrest, with the coup?

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal (emphasis added)

-- Rico 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the world reacted to what was described a coup. Just because it is ignorantly framed that way does not mean it is an actual coup. In this case the objective facts were that the Honduran Supreme Court had Zelaya arrested under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. If you want to call that a coup then fine, just remember to change the wikipedia page on Coup d'etat's to include legal actions taken by the current government. Simply ignoring Zelaya's violation of Article 239 and the Supreme Courts legal actions leading to his arrest would revise history by leaving out relevant details. At wikipedia we should be about promoting objectivity and truth not merely consensus or apparent consensus.

Also independent investigation is needed. Just calling it that because "reliable sources" say so is an argumentum ad verecundiam.--Jfraatz (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)jfraatz

If you find that the Misplaced Pages naming guideline is flawed, then you should bring that to its talk page or other venues, I believe. --LjL (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you confusing the arrest, with the coup?

Honduras' Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest before the coup because he ignored court orders to drop plans for a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead.(emphasis added)

-- Rico 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, the legal proceedings and outcome of the Honduran Supreme Court are documented facts. It makes no sense to deny them by denying that this was an authorized arrest.--Jfraatz (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)jfraatz

Who's denying anything? I'm the one that put the detention order into Misplaced Pages, attributing it to a source Misplaced Pages explicity recognized as reliable -- twice -- and I moved it right up to the lede in one article. In fact, by the time I was done with the lede, it looked like a pro-coup explanation for the coup! SqueakBox was watching me as I did it!! He barely touched anything I did!!! -- Rico 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to re-fight the name discussion here?

It would be helpful not to repeat the same arguments that were discussed at the main article on the crisis, here. There are plenty of statements being repeated, to the benefit of no one.

OMG, not only wasn't the contentious name change discussed, but now you're suggesting that it mayn't be discussed?

This is a different article, and it's about the international reaction to the coup. -- Rico 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to claim that the supposedly same issue has been settled in another article, and so it mayn't be discussed here

The issue's not been decided -- even though I can see how it would be convenient for coup deniers to declare that.
This article is different from the other article, because this article is specifically about the world's reaction to the coup. The world reacted because it was a coup.
And nobody's denying that it was a coup, except for an extremely small minority that the reliable sources are ignoring (going right on calling it a "coup". "The de facto government of Honduras says Mr. Zelaya was legally removed based on a warrant for his arrest. But nations around the world, whether through the United Nations General Assembly or the Organization of American States, have denounced his ouster as an illegal coup.")
Even the article that you refer to calls it a coup. -- Rico 22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, and noted in the page move back to the correct title, the world reacted to what was near-universally reported and perceived internationally as a coup. To declare that the long list of reactions in the article are actually to the broader constitutional crisis (which starts with Zelaya's initial attempts to have a referendum, and is ongoing, a period of 6-9 months) rather than specifically to the events of 28 June 2009 is to simplify falsify history. Whether this is motivated by the idea that this article needs to match the "main" article on a much broader topic or simply the desire to deny that it was a coup, I neither know nor care. It is plainly wrong: whether you think there was a coup or not, the international reaction was to the events of 28 June. I suppose we could argue about weaselling in a qualifier like "perceived" (perceived coup), but coup has to stay in the title - anything else is simply rewriting history. Disembrangler/Rd232 00:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I think the main article for the topic could do with splitting, into 2008/9 Honduran constitutional crisis and 2009 Honduran coup d'etat. I think it's fair to say that there was a constitutional crisis over Zelaya's plans to have a constitutional assembly, and that one side attempted to resolve that by having a coup. Rd232 00:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Internationally, this was considered a coup d'état. So the reactions were to the coup d'état. I !voted for "constitutional crisis" on the main article, but that has absolutely no place here. --LjL (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For Article 239 Deniers

For reference purposes I would like to give a link to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution which mandated Zelaya's arrest.

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years. http://blog.gesteves.com/post/132342051/article-239-honduras-constitution

Additionally a link of Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño confirming that the arrest was indeed a legal action: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html?_r=1 Jfraatz (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduran constitution is a primary source, please see WP:PSTS, WP articles must rely mainly on secondary RS, any interpretation of a primary source requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. The NYT article is a secondary source but it does not confirm that "the arrest was indeed a legal action", only that Col. Bayardo says so and this is not an "international reaction". JRSP (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That was what Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño said.

This is the next paragraph:

Governments around the world have decided differently, labeling Mr. Zelaya’s removal an illegal act and calling for his prompt return to power. On Monday, the day after the coup, President Obama said, “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there.”

That's what this article's about, the International reaction to the coup.

I'm the one that put the seventh paragraph from this news story into an article, twice, and into the lede. -- Rico 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He's probably calling it that because that is how it has been framed in the media. This is the product of memetic engineering though and does not mean it is an actual "coup." I have seen no arguments on WP or anywhere else for that matter as to why what happened should be called a coup. The best I have seen is people saying it is a coup because that is what the news media is calling it. This is not a valid argument however but an ad verecundiam. Jfraatz (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"I have seen no arguments on WP or anywhere else for that matter as to why what happened should be called a coup." ROTFLMAO. You've really not anywhere on WP or elsewhere seen, (most obviously) the argument that the military kidnapping the President and exiling him is a coup regardless of what bits of paper the coup-endorsing establishment can come up with? Hard to believe. Rd232 11:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

based on your logic, the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper and the separation of powers enumerated therein a joke. If the other branches of the Honduran government, the National Congress and the Supreme Court, act under the authority granted to them under the Honduran constitution, then that is their prerogative. In an analogy, if Nixon had been impeached and removed from office by Congress, would you call this a 'coup'? Would Nixon have been within his rights to demand his return as the 'democratically elected president of the U.S.'? moogwrench (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I detect an assumption that I'm American, which I'm not... but anyway comparing a lawful impeachment procedure with a coup is silly. Rd232 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's ample discussion about this being a coup or not in the archive. Rsheptak (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

CRS report

The US Congressional Research Service has published a study that the ouster of Zelaya was allowed under the Honduras constitution. The link, http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf, should be included in the United States section. MikeR613 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Republican efforts important part of US reaction

Republican efforts to derail Obama's diplomatic isolation of Honduras is an important part of understanding the US's bifurcated and ambiguous reponse to the "coup." Hence, they belong in this detailed article. It doesn't necessarily matter about WHY they are doing it (if it is pure politics or principle or a combination thereof), it matters that it DOES impact Obama's efforts and the overall US reaction to the crisis, hence it is not WP:IINFO. Hence an article in Time that recently talked about Obama being "cowed by a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress." Is U.S. Opposition to the Honduran Coup Lessening? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930835,00.html

Furthermore, Cathar11 and others have recommended this information be placed in this article. You have already been reverted a couple times now, though not on the same day. If you want to delete again, put more than just the same message: "Delete per WP:IINFO. They were playing politics. It's about the Republicans using what they can to attack the Obama administration. It's definitely about more than just Latin America" It is repetitive, advances no new argument, and is disingenuous, considering the above information I cited. Moogwrench (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't think a few republicans playing politics is a substantial part of the US reaction. It's mostly an internal matter, and it's not just about Honduras. And yes, I've read all about it, but it's bigger than just about Honduras. They're playing politics. That's all. They haven't gotten a bill passed. I think it's more relevant to the United States, domestically. These members of Congress are a small part of Congress, which is only one-third of the federal government of one country. The US position is still that the coup was illegal and that the US does not recognize the interim/ de facto/ coup-installed/ coup government.

Politicking among a handful of US Congressmen, is a small fraction of 1/3 of one country's government, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Same thing goes for the Congress's Legal Research service. It's not the US's position, and it's not an WP:RS, and it declared that exiling Zelaya was unconstitutional.

Here is what's important to understand in this:

"But other 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.

"'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.'"

I'm glad that as a new, extremely tendentious Most Interested Person you have such an incredible amount of time to push your POV, and water down extremely important information that contradicts your POV.

We don't have to let you.

The US was never opposed to the coup. It just had to make things look good.

If I were you, I'd use the Time Magazine article more and stop fussing about a few Congressmen. It has better information than the iinfo about the republicans, and that helps your POV better.

I wouldn't oppose that, although that should probably be in the chronology.

This article is not for every detail about every country's reaction to the coup. It needs to have summary information, and a few Republicans playing politics is too trivial of a detail in the overall picture of the US position (until it actually changes). Before that, it's recentism -- and after that, it's IINFO.

Todo tiene que ser como ud. dice = tendentious editing. -- Rico 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, Rico, just get off your high horse about "tendentious Most Interested Person" editing on my part. If I look back at your contributions I see hundreds of edits over many days, usualy 5+ daily to the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article, so please don't criticize me for getting involved and doing a few edits.

Also, I have noticed that when you argue, your discussion posts on any given topic never change, nor do your edit summaries. You practically spam the same thing over and over again. I could list a number of additional articles talking about how US Republican efforts are complicating and changing Obama's Honduras foreign policy initiative. Do you have reliable sources to support your information? You state: "The US was never opposed to the coup. It just had to make things look good." What do sources do you base this off of? Or is this just your own personal unsubstantiated WP:OR?

Obama has done a lot more than just wag his finger disapprovingly, what with the withholding of substantive aid, refusal to meet with coup leaders, hosting President Zelaya in the United States, rejecting the coup-supporting Ambassador Flores-Burmudez, and many other actions. Is your analysis of Obama and the Republican efforts more reliable than that of the Washington Post or Time Magazine?

You say that I should use the Time Magazine article more? Maybe you didn't read it. Because it is all about how the US position towards the coup is softening, in part because of... you guessed it... the Republican efforts. It, as I stated above, posits that Obama is changing his position because he is being "cowed by a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress."

I am in no way qualifying the motives, reasoning, or appropriateness of the Republican efforts to engage the coup government. I am merely restating the information in these reliable sources that indicates that it is having an important impact on the overall reaction of the US towards the coup government. Can you understand the distinction between those two things? It may be politics on their part, the whole darn thing, but it is having an effect on our diplomacy. If you don't think so, why don't you get a source that says it isn't having any effect whatsoever on our diplomacy, and change the wording. But to deny any impact at all seems silly. To call it indiscriminate information is to ignore the fact that so many mainstream, reliable sources are talking about it and its real effects.

Oh, and as for "Todo tiene que ser como ud. dice = tendentious editing" -- think about this: at least I add a new source or new wording to the text, or new argument to my edit summary, rather than copying and pasting my edit summary and doing a second or third revert without further discussion. So like I said, get off your high horse. Please. I don't wish to fight with you or anyone, but you don't have to attack me for contributing or act like you own this or any other article on WP (i.e. "We don't have to let you") Moogwrench (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "'The US was never opposed to the coup. It just had to make things look good.' What do sources do you base this off of?"

What difference does it make? I've never tried to put it into the article.

This is in the reference you provided -- the one you suggested I didn't read: "The U.S. holds the most leverage over Micheletti and his partners in the Honduran military and business élite. many in the hemisphere have questioned Obama's wholehearted commitment to thwarting the coup."

I'm one of them.

Re: "Is your analysis of Obama and the Republican efforts more reliable than that of the Washington Post or Time Magazine?"

The question is one of worthiness of inclusion in the Misplaced Pages article. Neither the Washington Post, nor Time, has analyzed that.

This is from the Washington Post:

"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.

"'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.'"

Most of the US government disapproving finger wagging finger seems to have been directed at Zelaya.

From your source: " called Zelaya's surprise reappearance in Tegucigalpa 'irresponsible and foolish.' Many diplomats say Micheletti took that as a green light to resist the accord and crack down on Zelaya supporters inside Honduras."

The US states support for restoring Zelaya, but finds ways to signal its true intentions -- or, better put, lack of intentions.

From your source: "Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal Washington think tank, says backing away from restoring Zelaya 'sends an ugly signal that the U.S. doesn't really consider the era of using military coups in the region to be over.'"

The signal has been sent. The US's strategy is the same as Micheletti's. Recognize the elections. The president is no longer a golpista, and was elected. Neither the CIA, IT&T, nor Chiquita Banana perpetrated the coup.

You left out part of the sentence, and changed its meaning.

" it would fuel charges that Obama has been cowed by a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress." (emphasis added) -- Rico 04:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep using the Sweig quote post after post like it's a trump card. The quote from Sweig isn't even relevant to the argument. The sentence you have reverted again and again doesn't talk about why they are doing what they are doing, but the effect of their actions.

And yes, just like me, people seem to think that the Republican actions are having a substantive impact on Obama's policy, per Weisbrot. Hence, charges that he is being cowed by the Republicans or that they are preventing him from achieving his desired foreign policy initiative in Honduras. This same point is advanced in multiple reliable sources, two of which were cited in the sentence you reverted.

Understand this: Of course the Republicans are playing politics. Of course they don't have any principled kind of affinity with a non-leftist leader like Micheletti. Assuming that those things are true, it does not change the noteworthiness of the fact that their crass politics is substantively affecting the US's reaction. When people in the future wonder why the US responded the way it did, it will help to know what factors contributed to its decision-making process.

Let's look at WP:IINFO, since you keep tossing it around so much:

News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own...ur coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

Also, see WP:Notability:

Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources.

This sentence that you have currently reverted several times is not WP:IINFO nor does it lack WP:Notability, because it is relevant to the topic (indicates why US/Obama is doing what it/he is doing), has been mentioned several times in reliable sources, and it is given in proportion to the rest of the topic (i.e. I am not even trying to create a new article only about this topic, just provide a useful and relevant sentence in a very long section on the US reaction)

You also attack the sentence under the aegis of "recentism". Let's look at WP:Recentism:

Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are...It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism".

Basically, this boils down to your editing philosophy vs. mine, unless you have made it personal. But in the interest of WP:Consensus, note that no editor besides you has reverted the information that was put in there over 10 days ago. Cathar11 suggested its placement here, Ed reverted you, and so have I. You keep using the same old argument. How about actually arguing notability of Republican actions instead of arguing why the Republicans are doing what they are doing? Reliable sources keep mentioning their importance; it seems notable enough to them. And notable enough to several editors here. Can you accept that? Or is it you that has the problem -- "todo tiene que ser como yo digo" -- to use your phrase that you applied to me.

PS: Also, please stop WP:Wikilawyering, what with the constant appeal to guidelines and policies that don't even seem to apply to the case or make sense in the given context.

Moogwrench (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an WP:RS for, "people seem to think that the Republican actions are having a substantive impact on Obama's policy" -- or, "their crass politics is substantively affecting the US's reaction" -- or that "it indicates why US/Obama is doing what it/he is doing"?

There's a big difference between Obama actually being cowed and charges being levied against him that he's being cowed -- but in this case, it's not even that much.

There's an even bigger difference between Weisbrot, a liberal, -- speculating " it would fuel charges" -- and Obama actually being cowed by "a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress"."

The US reaction hasn't changed. Zelaya joined Chavez in being anti-American. That contributed to the USA's decision-making process. Few will admit that any more than they'd admit that they have smiled and chuckled behind closed doors about Zelaya's misfortune.

The US's reaction was always more tepid that the rest of the world's. That hasn't changed.

After the US recognizes the results of the elections, we won't know that it was because of "a small group of conservative" Republicans, any more than we'll know that it was because that was what the US really always wanted to do (if it could get away with it without losing all respect in Latin America).

Most Americans don't care what Obama does in Honduras, because they don't know anything about Honduras (much like Sen. Jim DeMint).

And, once again, the USA is just one country, and "a small group of conservative" Republicans is a small part of its government.

Wikipedians consider the historical worthiness of inclusion of events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not everything that happens -- that is marginally related to an event -- is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Routine news coverage of the politicking of a "small" group of conservative Republicans is not sufficient basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Every little tiny thing news media reports on, that is marginally related to the coup, isn't worthy of inclusion. Our coverage of minor events must be evaluated and considered in proportion to their importance to the coup. Breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. -- Rico 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't breaking news. Several sources, WashPo and Time included, have continued to talk about it as a major, pertinent issue over the past months. I submit that you, just as I, have an equally hard time judging the historical significance of something. But WP:Recentism cautions against excluding notable and verifiable information just because it is a recent event. I am more inclusionary, and would err on that side, as opposed to your infoclastic approach to destroying everything you see as irrelevant.

Rico, you ask "Do you have an WP:RS for, "people seem to think that the Republican actions are having a substantive impact on Obama's policy" -- or, "their crass politics is substantively affecting the US's reaction" -- or that "it indicates why US/Obama is doing what it/he is doing"?" Let me walk you through at least a portion of it again.

The portion you reverted says, in part, the following: "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..." (emphasis added)

Now let's look at what the Washington Post, an WP:RS, says:

Although the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy, their arguments have found favor with some American lawmakers. A Republican senator has blocked two key nominations for Latin America, weakening President Obama's diplomatic team. In the past week, two GOP delegations have traveled to Honduras to meet with the de facto government, which is not recognized internationally. Those actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration, which has been seeking to impress a growing crop of leftist Latin American leaders with its pro-democracy credentials. The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington. "It gives this hope you can hang on," said one U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's not helpful." (emphasis added)

So the Washington Post is saying that Republican actions have "complicated the strategy of the Obama administration," which is "pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras" and "worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock ... with the support of its allies in Washington;" hence the diplomatic efforts of Obama are being stymied, in the words of one anonymous administration official, by the "not helpful" actions of the Republicans. This is what I say in the article, so can you just accept the fact that they really are having an impact like the sources say? And, assuming that the sources are right and that they do have a lasting, historical impact on our dealing with this situation, one sentence or two would be useful in explaining this to readers. Which is what I have tried to do. And others have agreed with those edits. And you are the only one reverting.

Moogwrench (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. "The Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy." U.S. policy seems to be the same.

If they do have a lasting, historical impact on the USA's dealing with this situation, one or more sentences would be extremely useful in explaining this to readers.

I don't see that happening, though.

Re: "others have agreed with those edits. And you are the only one reverting."

This is disingenuous. We both know you were involved in an edit war with others when I first came across you. You'd tried to add this same thing four times in less than 24 hours.

You're still fighting the same war, trying to add the same content. -- Rico 02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Look pal, if anyone is fighting a war, it is you. Why don't you try to assume good faith instead of attacking me as an edit warrior? Hello! I am a new person at this! I am still learning! You have been on Misplaced Pages since 2004! Why don't you try to be a little more patient and constructive, instead of being a one-man battering ram. Remember, one of those involved in my "edit-war", Cathar11, suggested that I place this info in this article, instead of where I had originally put it, in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, and so I followed his/her suggestion, even though I did not agree with it at the time (Check out Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis if you don't believe me) . I again state to you, you are the only one on this obsessed crusade to eliminate, revert, or otherwise destroy this edit. Your addition of the credible source tag to my reference and the template show that you can't wait for anyone to agree with you.

Moogwrench (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "'The US was never opposed to the coup. It just had to make things look good.' What do sources do you base this off of?"
What difference does it make? I've never tried to put it into the article.
This is in U.S. Sending Envoys to Try to End Crisis in Honduras:
"The coup in Honduras has threatened to become a sore point between the Obama administration and the rest of Latin America, where an increasing number of leaders have accused the United States of failing to put sufficient pressure on the de facto government to force it to compromise and stop its repression of journalists, human rights activists and pro-Zelaya demonstrators." -- Rico 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like the Obama administration is starting to soften towards the golpistas. Like Time said, it probably is in part due to Republicans politicking and obstructionism. Moogwrench (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, here is what one source, quoting an expert, said regarding the effect Republicans are having on Obama's attempts:

While this support of the de facto government comes from a minority of the minority party, it is "extremely harmful" to the negotiations and democratic processes in Honduras, contends Vicki Gass of the Washington Office on Latin America, a nonprofit that promotes democracy and human in Latin America. (emphasis added)

I can get more sources that support the sentence you keep reverting. Moogwrench (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You also seem to have a lot of trouble differentiated between why the Republicans are doing what they are doing and what effect their actions are having. I am only addressing the latter, not the former, which you seem to think are the same thing. Moogwrench (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Source: Inter Press Service

One of the reasons why I chose to place the discussion of Inter Press Service in the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is because that is a good place to get a review of a source from neutral editors. Lots of editors who help with sourcing things can review it there. However, Rico, you go on there and start a content dispute, which is against that page's guidelines. Stop please. Moogwrench (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that I didn't revert your tag right away, even though I think you are wrong. And yet you complain as I try to get consensus about the source on a third-party neutral area of Misplaced Pages? You said that it would be better to discuss the source here? I think it would be better to get fresh, unprejudiced eyes to look at the source to verify that it is an WP:RS. Moogwrench (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, let me synthesize your arguments, Rico:

• We don't need this source - Well, if you are going to argue something is trivial and not notable then additional sources might show you that you are mistaken about its notability. Sources are not a bad thing. They are good. If they are reliable. Which is what I was trying to discuss. With other people, because I feel that you have too much invested in proving me wrong to objectively evaluate the quality of the source.
• IPS is unreliable because:
  • it is too small - It is a large international press organization (6tg largest) cited and used by UN and other GOs and NGOs
  • it is biased - Everything has bias. The issue is, are they reliable?
• your info is from a quote, and you don't quote it word for word - Well, sometimes we condense and synthesize as editors. We are editors, not copy machines.
• You did an edit war last week Moogwrench! bad! bad! Well, I am learning. Some of us with *ahem* 5 years of doing this, instead of less than a month, ought to have more patience and helpful attitudes with us newbies
• You already tried to put this content in an article - Well, this content was moved to this article at the suggestion of one of those people who reverted me when I tried to place it the main article, so I feel comfortable about its placement here. That person has not reverted the content. Nor has anyone else. Except for you.

Moogwrench (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is from Inter Press Service's website:

IPS raises the voices of the South and civil society. IPS brings a fresh perspective on development and globalisation.

They admit they're biased.
Misplaced Pages's entry of Inter Press Service states:

IPS’s stated aims are to give prominence to the voices of marginalized and vulnerable people and groups, report from the perspectives of developing countries, and to reflect the views of civil society.

-- Rico 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, every source has some bias. But are they reliable? Have you even bothered to answer that question? Moogwrench (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss it here.
Your edit adds a third source alongside two other sources (the Washington Post and Time Magazine), so why is the third source important?
The Washington Post is pretty reliable.
We've been arguing that your edit adds trivial recentism to the article.
It looks like, from your edit summary, that you are trying to claim that since the Inter Press Service quotes Vicki Gass as saying that "this support of the de facto government comes from a minority of the minority party, it is 'extremely harmful'."
That seems to contradict the Washington Post article, which published, "other 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. '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'."
More importantly, the Washington Post article published, "the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy."
That's what the International Reaction to the Honduran Coup article is all about, what the world's reaction was. It includes the reactions of individual countries, but not whether there is any dissent in the countries. I'm sure there's dissent in all of the countries listed, but including all that trivia in the article wouldn't be encyclopedic, because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
If the only reason you are trying to add this third source is to make the argument that the content is worthy of inclusion, then maybe the more appropriate place for this would have been the talk page, where we've been debating whether it's "extremely harmful."
I note that you have tried to add this edit many times and been reverted by several editors. -- Rico 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I am talking to a wall. I have never been reverted for trying to add this content to this article specifically. One of the ones who reverted me in the other article, User:Cathar11, suggested that I place the information here. I did so. After 10 days, no one complained except for you. No one has reverted the addition but you. You have been reverted by another user besides me. Cathar11 edited the sentence and did not revert it. Every article that you read now mentions the Republican efforts and their effects. It is a major issue because of the US's preeminent position as a world leader.

Also, it is so difficult to understand this: why the Republicans are doing something is irrelevant to the fact that it is having a major effect. I can give you more sources that discuss it but even if it were from the New York Times I am almost sure you would try to to tag it, revert it, undo it, whatever...

Moogwrench (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for, "it is having a major effect"?
I notice the gerund. I would be much happier if you had an RS for, "it is had a major effect," if you catch my drift. -- Rico 04:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of your source, and it seems to be contradicting the Washington Post (as I made clear, above).
It seems neither necessary, nor advisable -- because there are two other sources cited for the same content -- so don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.
You've already added the same content to Misplaced Pages more times than I can count. When I came across you, you'd tried to added it four times in less than 24 hours, and other editors (not me) had been reverting you.
If the only reason you want this less-than-reliable source cited in the article, is that you think that it makes your argument -- that the content you've been trying to add so many times -- isn't trivial, then the only place that source need be cited is here (not that it makes your point, because few don't care what unreliable sources publish, and the Inter Press Service (whoever they are) didn't say the "small" group of Republican's politicking was "extremely harmful." They just quoted somebody else that said that). -- Rico 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't add unreliable sources to reliable ones to try to get content kept on Misplaced Pages.
Your unreliable source adds nothing to the article, because the Washington Post and Time Magazine were already cited for the content. We never get to a need to discuss the reliability of "Inter Press Service," because there is no reason for the third less reliable source to be added in the first place. It looks like the only reason you've added the source is because you think it makes your point that the content isn't trivial recentism.
That's not a reason to add any kind of a source, much less an unreliable one. -- Rico 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, almost every article mentions the Republicans when discussing the US reaction to the coup. For this reason it is notable and relevant. Here is New York Times from yesterday (26 October):

The issue has also created political headaches for President Obama in Congress, where a few Republicans have held up key State Department appointments as a way of pressuring the administration to reverse its condemnation of the coup. The Republican group, led by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, has said Mr. Zelaya’s opponents had no choice but to oust him because he had tried to illegally extend his time in power. (emphasis added)

It sounds to me like they are complicating his strategy, don't you? Are you sure that you just don't want to be convinced that this is relevant, and it doesn't matter what I show or cite you, you have made up your mind and no evidence will change it? Moogwrench (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's something else from that article:

reserved her toughest comments for Mr. Micheletti, officials said, because the United States believes he has been “the most difficult.”

“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.”

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 are on my side."
Regardless, it's not the USA's reaction. It's trivial recentism 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.
So far, things are going fine for the USA.
The USA is now going to influence Micheletti, because the USA wants Zelaya returned to power more than two weeks before the elections (not really, but that's the story. As long as it looks good enough to the rest of Latin America, the USA'll be fine no matter what happens.) -- Rico 04:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you didn't respond to what I posted, I'll repeat it again:

I feel like I am talking to a wall. I have never been reverted for trying to add this content to this article specifically. One of the ones who reverted me in the other article, User:Cathar11, suggested that I place the information here. I did so. After 10 days, no one complained except for you. No one has reverted the addition but you. You have been reverted by another user besides me. Cathar11 edited the sentence and did not revert it. Every article that you read now mentions the Republican efforts and their effects. It is a major issue because of the US's preeminent position as a world leader. Also, it is so difficult to understand this: why the Republicans are doing something is irrelevant to the fact that it is having a major effect. I can give you more sources that discuss it but even if it were from the New York Times I am almost sure you would try to to tag it, revert it, undo it, whatever... Moogwrench (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just park it in the Chronology article, and if it works out that it's had some effect, then we can bring it over to this one. Otherwise, you're just loading up the USA section -- not with the USA's reaction, but with a reaction of a very small part of the USA. -- Rico 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is yet another New York Times article (different from the one cited above) talking about the deletorious impact of the Republicans on the Obama Administration's policy:

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.”

Moogwrench (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This bears mention, but maybe some of the detail could go elsewhere, eg Honduras – United States relations. Rd232 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the content in the following edit worthy of inclusion in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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,Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.

-- Rico 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 Time Magazine 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.
  More importantly, there is no reliable source that indicates that this "small group" has changed the USA's reaction at all.
  The Washington Post 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.
  "'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.'"
  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.
  

reserved her toughest comments for Mr. Micheletti, officials said, because the United States believes he has been “the most difficult.”

“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.”

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."
Regardless, it's not the USA's reaction. It's trivial recentism 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.
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.
The United States section has gotten way too big.
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), but the edit adds content that is of interest to the USA domestically, but it's not the USA's reaction.
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."
More importantly, it is not a reliable source.
The contention that the edit makes, that the "report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster," is disingenous.
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." -- Rico 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 (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. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Washington Post article published, "the Hondurans have not succeeded in reversing U.S. policy" with their lobbying. -- Rico 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. Moogwrench (talk) 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. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it hasn't actually changed the United States reaction?
What if we found that a small minority of every government supported Micheletti? Should we put that into every country's reaction? -- Rico 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my reasoning above for why this is notable and relevant - with the caveats I mentioned. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You assert that it hasn't had an impact, Rico, despite evidence to the contrary:

One of several WP:RS sources, a New York Times article, discusses the deletorious impact of the Republicans on the Obama Administration's policy:

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.”

Moogwrench (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, I was responding to Simonm223. 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. Moogwrench (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Rewording, as Simonm223 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 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. Moogwrench (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address both halves of the edit

Including:

... as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.

No reliable source is cited to substantiate that the Senior Foreign Law Specialist's "report appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster."
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.
The contention that the edit makes, that the "report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster," is disingenous.
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." -- Rico 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Change "appears" to "claims" and it'd be ok. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the box on the right-hand side of Misplaced Pages:Weasel#Overview. -- Rico 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Misplaced Pages:Weasel#Overview 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:

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.

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.

Moogwrench (talk) 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?

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.

However, we can also add the NY Times source above, or another source, if you'd like.

Moogwrench (talk) 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.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.

Moogwrench (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lie in the article

Moogwrench added to this article, countless times:

as well as a recent Republican-commissioned US Law Library of Congress report that appears to support the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster.

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." -- Rico 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. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 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.'"
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."
I note that you deny that there ever was a coup. -- Rico 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 WP:3RR.

Moogwrench (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the threat you put on my talk page, but I only added the tag twice.
Many Wikipedians consider the summary removal of properly used dispute tags, vandalism.
You've edit warred the whole time, ever since you showed up at these articles. Your edit warring over this content started here. -- Rico 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. - - Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 3RR noticeboard

I was just trying to give you a chance to fix it yourself, not bully you... Moogwrench (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation," sure looks like a threat to me -- but you can spin it any way you like.
Thanks for the lesson, "newbie" ;) , but you must be counting the time that Simonm223 restored the dispute tag you summarily deleted.
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?
And if it wouldn't change that fact, 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?)
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 the 3RR I filed on you, when I deleted my report.
Admins look at other things.
I made a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of your unreliable source (Congress). -- Rico 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 this 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. Moogwrench (talk) 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. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

United States' part of the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup

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."
That has always been the United States' reaction.
The (very long) subsection of the USA's reaction begins, "The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras."
That has not changed.
Millions of dollars of aid was paused. That aid remains paused.
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."
Note that the United States has never said, for sure, it would not recognize the elections. The threat has never been retracted.
The United States condemned the coup, called it a "coup", and has never retracted its condemnation.
The United States canceled the visas of the golpistas. Have those visas been reinstated?
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. -- Rico 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your original research 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. Moogwrench (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "Is U.S. Opposition to the Honduran Coup Lessening?". Time Magazine. 2009-10-16.
2. "US-HONDURAS: Republicans Take Up Banner of De Facto Govt". Inter Press News. 2009-10-16.
3. ^ "Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf" (PDF). Law Library of Congress. 2009-08-01.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment