Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 10 November 2009

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.

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)

RfC: 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)

I think that the article is giving WP:undue weight to the US reaction. The first paragraph is almost unreadable, full of WP:proseline. 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 Honduras-United States relations--JRSP (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Consensus regarding removal of reliable source tag for LLoC report

The tag was placed on there before much discussion, and so we may as well have the discussion now. LLoC may back off their report, or they may not. We need to wait to see how this turns out. Meanwhile, the wording has been changed in the text in question that makes it her opinion, not the LLoCs. Can we consider the LLoC report a WP:RS for Norma Gutierrez's opinion, since she wrote it, and get rid of the tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Inter Press Service: Again

While I am at it, can we get consensus on whether or not IPS is a WP:RS for the information we use it for? I encourage everyone to do a little research on Inter Press Service and also to view and participate in . Please excuse the back-and-forth between Rico and I and scroll down to the bottom to make your comments for posterity. I won't put any arguments here, because you've seen enough on both sides. But please do leave your consensus idea, so we can either delete the source or untag it. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Condensing the US reaction

Per comments by JRSP and Rd232 and others, I condensed both paragraphs of the article, as the first paragraph truly was becoming unyieldy with its minutiae, and I eliminated all references to the LLoC report in the second and made it clear that the Republicans are in the minority per Simonm223's comments. I made a good faith effort to please consensus. Please let me know if this bold edit works? Moogwrench (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add that I took the suggestion of both JRSP and Rd232 and moved content in toto to Honduras – United States relations. Nothing has been deleted, or changed, I might add. Moogwrench (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Different condensed versions

There are two condensed versions proposed, one by Moogwrench. It retained wp:IINFO WP:Recentism, of a certain POV. I consider the edit -- as a whole -- POV, and in the same POV direction Moogwrench has always taken. I proposed a different condensed version. I welcome comments by other editors. We'll see if Moogwrench considers still BRD, BRRDRDRDRD now. -- Rico 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss before reverting the edit I made? It is not as if you haven't reverted this content before and setup an RfC on Repub actions content that is not yet closed. Maybe you should have reverted the content that wasn't the subject of the RfC? So far in one area or another Simonm223, Rd232, EdWood's Wig, Cathar11 support mention of Repub actions. Why don't you see how people respond to this thread before reverting again? Moogwrench (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you just want to put back the content in the RfC, fine. Otherwise, it's a BOLD, Revert, Revert -- your usual style. -- Rico 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to be fair by condensing both the details that everyone has been complaining about (i.e. 10+ sentences of the multitudinous quotes and details about aid suspension, etc.) and the Repub reaction sentence. That was my attempt to help and be fair, by showing that I wasn't attached to having the LLoC info in the article, and I see that you kind of missed the point of my edit. Moogwrench (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AbbyKellyite's edit pretty much destroyed the worthiness of the "LLoC" report. -- Rico 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this story still has legs and the Librarian of Congress refuses to retract it. Look, the edit was never about whether or not it was true, just whether or not it was complicating Obama's efforts. Which it was, and still is. Why do you think Berman and Kerry wanted it retracted and tried so hard to discredit it? Would they waste time on something that wasn't important and notable? If anything, this shows why the LLoC report is notable. Because of your previous vehemence about coup deniers/sympathizers, it would seem that you don't like it because of its conclusions, not its notability. But realize that it has had an impact, and the edit does not qualify it as correct or not, so you shouldn't mask your opposition to mentioning it behind Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and essays. Moogwrench (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

McClatchy news: "The chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees are asking the Law Library of Congress to retract a report on the military-backed coup in Honduras that they charge is flawed and "has contributed to the political crisis that still wracks" the country." In case anyone wants to use it for the article, it is yet another source explaining why LLoC is "flawed", but notable. Moogwrench (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Which is the better condensed version

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.

This is the way it started:

•  United States: The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. President Barack Obama said in a statement, "I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter." In a written statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all." "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past." Although U.S. officials have characterized the events as a coup, they have held back from formally designating it as a "military coup", which would require them to cut off almost all aid to Honduras. On July 1, 2009, The United States Pentagon announced that joint military operations with Honduras had been suspended pending assessment of the situation. On July 2, 2009, The United States State Department announced that some foreign aid to Honduras had been paused pending assessment of the situation. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stated: “We’ve taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs which we would be legally required to terminate” if the State Department ultimately determines that a military coup has taken place. On July 7, 2009 The State Department announced that "we are suspending, as a policy matter, military assistance programs and a few development assistance programs that are for the Government of Honduras. The dollar amount associated with the military assistance that has been suspended, including Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education & Training, Peacekeeping Operations, and 1206 assistance, is approximately $16.5M. We are halting activities related to basic education and some environment and family planning programs, as well as support to the Government of Honduras for CAFTA-DR environmental standards. The assistance suspended by USAID thus far totals approximately $1.9 million." The Office of the Spokesman also noted that humanitarian assistance for the people of Honduras was still being supplied: "Thus, among other things, all assistance supporting the provision of food aid, HIV/AIDS and other disease prevention, child survival, and disaster assistance, as well as elections assistance to facilitate free and fair presidential elections, is still being provided to the people of Honduras." On August 4, 2009 Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma sent a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that rejected calls to impose harsher economic sanctions against Honduras. While condemning the coup, the letter stated: "Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual." The letter also stated: "We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal." Approximately one thousand pro-Zelaya demonstrators protested outside the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa after the State Department letter was made public. Effective August 26, 2009, in support of the OAS Foreign Ministers mission and as a consequence of the de facto regime’s reluctance to sign the San Jose Accord, the U.S. Department of State is suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of its embassy in Honduras.
  The United States made a point to criticize the events while carefully avoiding formally labeling it a "military coup", which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country.
  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 report by US Law Library of Congress senior foreign law specialist Norma Gutierrez that supports the constitutionality of Zelaya's removal from office, while condemming his expatriation. In turn, the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees have asked the Law Library of Congress to retract the report, charging that it "contains factual errors and is based on a flawed legal analysis that has been refuted by experts from the United States, the Organization of American States and Honduras."

This was after Moogwrench's bold edit:

•  United States: The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. Although U.S. officials have characterized the events as a coup, suspended joint military operations and all non-emergency, non-immigrant visas, and cut off certain non-humanitarian aid to Honduras, they have held back from formally designating Zelaya's ouster as a "military coup", which would require them to cut off almost all aid to Honduras. The Obama Administration's attempts to pressure Honduras into reversing the ouster of Zelaya have been complicated by Republican minority party 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).

This was after my edit:

•  United States: The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past." On July 1, 2009, The United States Pentagon suspended joint military operations with Honduras. On July 2, 2009, The United States State Department announced that some foreign aid to Honduras had been paused pending assessment of the situation. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stated: “We’ve taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs which we would be legally required to terminate” if the State Department ultimately determines that a military coup has taken place. On July 7, 2009 The State Department announced that "we are suspending, as a policy matter, military assistance programs and a few development assistance programs that are for the Government of Honduras. The dollar amount associated with the military assistance that has been suspended, including Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education & Training, Peacekeeping Operations, and 1206 assistance, is approximately $16.5M. We are halting activities related to basic education and some environment and family planning programs, as well as support to the Government of Honduras for CAFTA-DR environmental standards. The assistance suspended by USAID thus far totals approximately $1.9 million." The Office of the Spokesman also noted that humanitarian assistance for the people of Honduras was still being supplied: "Thus, among other things, all assistance supporting the provision of food aid, HIV/AIDS and other disease prevention, child survival, and disaster assistance, as well as elections assistance to facilitate free and fair presidential elections, is still being provided to the people of Honduras." Effective August 26, 2009, in support of the OAS Foreign Ministers mission and as a consequence of the de facto regime’s reluctance to sign the San Jose Accord, the U.S. Department of State is suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of its embassy in Honduras. -- Rico 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Rico for the helpful comparison of the two versions. I will state my case for my bold edit in just a second. Moogwrench (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all I think needs to be in the USA's reaction:

(1) The USA condemned what it called a "coup" which it said was "not legal."

(2) The USA continued to recognize President Zelaya as the president of Honduras.

(3) Some aid was paused. (One sentence. Didn't the EU suspend all aid?)

(4) The USA urged the return of President Zelaya, ultimately pressuring Micheletti to refer Zelaya's return to the Honduran Congress.

(5) The USA suspended joint military operations.

(6) The US canceled the golpistas' diplomatic visas, a tepid move, since the golpistas could still get regular visas.

The USA has not retracted its condemnation of the coup, nor its description of it as an illegal "coup", nor its threat that it might not recognize the results of the November elections if President Zelaya isn't returned to the presidency before the elections. (The US's Secretary of State said, "The action taken against ... Zelaya ... should be condemned by all.")

(4.1) Something we agree on, to some extent: The USA's reaction was more tepid than many, it didn't recall its ambassador, didn't suspend all aid, and sent mixed signals.

I attribute that to Zelaya's joining the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, anti-Americanism, the fact that Zelaya was trying to permanitize himself. You seem to attribute it to the politicking of a small group of conservative Congressmen, but we both agree that the USA has been more tepid and sent mixed signals (like when Clinton criticized Zelaya's appearance at the border when his hopes of return were dying).

My personal opinion is that this should be included in the article in some way.

(7) The USA said it was the first Latin American coup in a long time, and returning to this "dark past" would be bad. -- Rico 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This would satisfy (1), (2) and (7): "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past." -- Rico 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• My bold edit: First of all, let me say that I do respect Rico's arguments. I try to base my arguments off of both my personal feelings regarding the information's relevancy and the apparent consensus that existed before I did the edit. Before I did it, I had read several commentaries such as these:

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

• Rd232 (in revert edit summary): "rv sourced and relevant (though getting a bit long - maybe move some details to Honduras – United States relations"

• Simonm223 (in discussion): "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)

• Simonm223 (in discussion): "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." from Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Simonm223 (in discussion): "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)

• Ed Wood's Wig (in edit summary): "rv, looks entirely relevant"

• Ed Wood's Wig (in edit summary): "rv. I see no problem with Moogwrench's addition here, it's sourced and relevant."

• and Cathar11's edit where he merely added the word "some" to the Repub info and did not revert it. (emphasis added in the above quotes)

and I concluded that while the Republican action is notable, it, and the first paragraph especially, could be condensed, leaving only the essential parts in both paragraphs in one smaller paragraph of comparable size to that of other countries' reactions (i.e. to conform to WP:Undue Weight).

This conclusion was further supported by:

• JRSP's comment (in discussion): "I think that the article is giving WP:undue weight to the US reaction. The first paragraph is almost unreadable, full of WP:proseline. 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 Honduras-United States relations" (emphasis added) --JRSP (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So I concluded that both paragraphs should be condensed quite a bit, and the content moved in toto to Honduras-United States relations vis-a-vis the suggestions from both JRSP and Rd232. I first moved the content (without making any modifications to it in the target article), and then I edited the paragraphs in the following way:

The first paragraph:

The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. President Barack Obama said in a statement, "I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter." In a written statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all." "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past." Although U.S. officials have characterized the events as a coup, they have held back from formally designating it as a "military coup", which would require them to cut off almost all aid to Honduras. On July 1, 2009, The United States Pentagon announced that joint military operations with Honduras had been suspended pending assessment of the situation. On July 2, 2009, The United States State Department announced that some foreign aid to Honduras had been paused pending assessment of the situation. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stated: “We’ve taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs which we would be legally required to terminate” if the State Department ultimately determines that a military coup has taken place. On July 7, 2009 The State Department announced that "we are suspending, as a policy matter, military assistance programs and a few development assistance programs that are for the Government of Honduras. The dollar amount associated with the military assistance that has been suspended, including Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education & Training, Peacekeeping Operations, and 1206 assistance, is approximately $16.5M. We are halting activities related to basic education and some environment and family planning programs, as well as support to the Government of Honduras for CAFTA-DR environmental standards. The assistance suspended by USAID thus far totals approximately $1.9 million." The Office of the Spokesman also noted that humanitarian assistance for the people of Honduras was still being supplied: "Thus, among other things, all assistance supporting the provision of food aid, HIV/AIDS and other disease prevention, child survival, and disaster assistance, as well as elections assistance to facilitate free and fair presidential elections, is still being provided to the people of Honduras." On August 4, 2009 Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma sent a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that rejected calls to impose harsher economic sanctions against Honduras. While condemning the coup, the letter stated: "Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual." The letter also stated: "We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal." Approximately one thousand pro-Zelaya demonstrators protested outside the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa after the State Department letter was made public. Effective August 26, 2009, in support of the OAS Foreign Ministers mission and as a consequence of the de facto regime’s reluctance to sign the San Jose Accord, the U.S. Department of State is suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of its embassy in Honduras.
The United States made a point to criticize the events while carefully avoiding formally labeling it a "military coup", which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country.

was condensed to:

The United States recognizes ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. Although U.S. officials have characterized the events as a coup, suspended joint military operations and all non-emergency, non-immigrant visas, and cut off certain non-humanitarian aid to Honduras, they have held back from formally designating Zelaya's ouster as a "military coup", which would require them to cut off almost all aid to Honduras.

eliminating much detail while retaining the essential information, conserving nearly all sources, except those relating directly to quotes that had been eliminated.

The second paragraph:

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 report by US Law Library of Congress senior foreign law specialist Norma Gutierrez that supports the constitutionality of Zelaya's removal from office, while condemming his expatriation. In turn, the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees have asked the Law Library of Congress to retract the report, charging that it "contains factual errors and is based on a flawed legal analysis that has been refuted by experts from the United States, the Organization of American States and Honduras."

was condensed to:

The Obama Administration's attempts to pressure Honduras into reversing the ouster of Zelaya have been complicated by Republican minority party 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).

This was an attempt to strike a balanced compromise by excising the LLoC-related information in an attempt to eliminate what some might see to be unnecessary detail to the notable content of the Republican reaction.

I also changed the text to indicate that the Republicans are the minority party per Simonm223's suggestion in discussion: "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)

In conclusion, I think that this was a bold, but thoughtful edit, which took great care in preserving essential information and citations while conforming to consensus and the suggestions of several editors. It is my opinion that Rico's edit neither condenses the first paragraph sufficiently (it is still 13 sentences long) nor includes the current consensus--among Rd232 , Simonm223, Ed Wood's Wig, Cathar11, and me--that the Republican actions information is notable and relevant to this article. Moogwrench (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG! <lol>

<lol>I agree that my edit didn't condense it enough. I'd like to see the aid pause be one sentence. -- Rico 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is current consensus, subject to change of course, for the retention of mention of the Republican actions?Moogwrench (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's an RfC on that.

I can't read through all of this. -- Rico 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just read the first part then, with all the edits/comments specifically supporting the retention from Rd232 , Simonm223, Ed Wood's Wig, and the edit that supports by inference (he didn't revert edit, merely added a word to it):Cathar11.

Also remember that Misplaced Pages:TLDR is a Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays and not a Misplaced Pages:Policies and Guidelines. I apologize for having made such a long post, but I felt its length was necessary to accurately analyze both consensus and editing content issues. Moogwrench (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a life. I'll have an answer for you by first thing Monday morning. Meantime let other editors get a word in edgewise, and read Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.
Volunteer editor Rico has left the chat room talk page. -- Rico 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• How about this:
  
•  United States: The United States continued to recognize ousted President Manuel Zelaya as the only constitutional president of Honduras. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past." The Pentagon suspended joint military operations with Honduras. The State Department paused some foreign aid to Honduras, and cancelled visas for a number of senior figures that backed the coup, but the US didn't recall its ambassador. The United States warned it might not recognise the results of the November 29 elections if Zelaya was not allowed to return to power first, and ultimately indicated that the November election would not be recognized, persuading interim President Roberto Micheletti to softened his position and agree to refer Zelaya's return to the Honduran Congress.
  I think it incorporates the main/important/significant reactions of the United States of America. It doesn't incorporate the reactions of "a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress," but the reactions of "a small group of conservative Republican Cold Warriors in Congress" aren't the reactions of the USA nation.
  It's more condensed, and I eliminated the Misplaced Pages:Proseline. -- Rico 04:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll see how many people think that the Republican actions are irrelevant to this article. Up 'til now, no one has agreed with you. Moogwrench (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a minority of the minority repulicans' viewpoints are not particularily relevant anywhere. I sugested originally they be posted here because they definitely were'nt relevant to the 2009 Honduras constitutional crisis article. I think a far greater impact was the lobbying by close Clinton associates paid for by pro coup Govt and business supporters. i added the word some to diminish the importance of the reaction. Opposition reaction is in general irrelevant regardless of how important the US feels it is in world affairs. The same would apply to the EU or France, Germany, or the UK. Should we put in that the Bolivian opposition welcomed the coup? I think not. This is just internal politicing and bickering.It's done for internal consumption and is not an international reaction.Cathar11 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I must respectfully disagree, since the US has a role as a diplomatic power broker that far surpasses that of any other nation and most any other NGO (including OAS but perhaps excluding UN) and I believe that anything that affects its course of action is notable for that reason, not because it is opposition in and of itself. Moogwrench (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Time article discussing the historical reasons for Obama's deal and changing position on recognizing coup government: "Still, the coupsters - backed by conservative Republicans in the U.S. Congress angry over Obama's stance - dug in, even while acknowledging that it was wrong to toss out Zelaya militarily. As a result, Washington for weeks now has been looking for a way to bless the November balloting with or without Zelaya's restoration." An awful lot of secondary sources mention Repub actions in prominent places. Is this not a notable part of international reaction? Moogwrench (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm happy with Moogwrench's version - it's short and clear. Rico's version has too much detail on dates and dollar amounts, which may be better covered elsewhere (eg Honduras/US relations article), or could be summarised in a footnote. Rd232 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

support moogwrench: I'd avoided reading this section until now, now that I do, I support Moogwrench both for brevity and on the point of (briefly) mentioning the effect of Republican opposition on the US position. (Actually, I suspect Obama would be tepid without the Republicans, but they make a great excuse; anyway, that's very much my OR.) That's not to say that there's anything unacceptable about the other version, just that Moog's is better. Homunq (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The request to rename this article to International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup → International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état — I happen to agree that it's a military coup, but there is legitimate debate on the question (unlike on whether it is a coup at all). The primary distinction between a coup and a military coup that I know of is in US law, where foreign aid is suspended for a military coup but not for a coup. The two terms are almost synonymous in everyday speech. This makes the use of "military coup" both POV and unnecessary. Also, this article is about reactions of all countries. Almost all say "coup", only some say "military coup". --Homunq (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Move. I think for issues of standardization across article titles, we should have one way of referring to this discrete action taken by Honduran military officials: "coup d'état" Doing otherwise lends confusion. We can always express in the lede that some consider it to be a "military" coup. Moogwrench (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Move. "coup d'état" is consistant with WP RS. Military were only one of the actors.Cathar11 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest International reaction to the 2009 Honduran Constitutional crisis, any mention of coup is POV due to the reasons I have stated substantially elsewhere; ie one side in the dispute doesnt think its a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to accept the generally accepted viewpoint of this as a coup d'état from RS is a reflection of your POV. International reaction quoted is to the coup d'étatCathar11 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

International reaction to the constitutional crisis? That doesn't even make very much sense. "Akinostan would like to convey its condolences to the people of Honduras for their problematic constitution"? Homunq (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, Squeakbox, that one can separate the "correct" way to call something versus the WP:NAME policy, which says the following:

In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...In discussing the appropriate name of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.

So even if coup is not the "right" word to use, it is what the majority of the RSs call it, and it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be on the "right side of history" so to speak. Any notable opposition to this classification of the events as a "coup" can be described in the article body. Moogwrench (talk) 23:06, 10 November 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.
4. ^ "U.S. says Zelaya is the only president of Honduras". Reuters. 2009-06-28. Retrieved 2009-06-28.
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC-2009-06-28 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. "Obama calls for order as Honduran military arrests President". Fox News. June 28, 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2009.
7. ^ "Situation in Honduras". US State Department. June 28, 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2009.
8. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
9. ^ Mohammmed, Arshad (2009-06-29). "U.S. holds off on cutting aid to Honduras". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
10. ^ Sheridan, Mary Beth (2009-06-30). "U.S. Cautious on Calling Honduras a "Coup"". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
11. ^ "Background Briefing on the Situation in Honduras". US State Department. July 1, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2009.
12. ^ Weissert, Will (July 1, 2009). "Honduras government's isolation grows after coup". Associated Press. Retrieved July 1, 2009. Cite error: The named reference "AP-2009-07-01" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
13. ^ Martinez, Andres (July 2, 2009). "Zelaya Supporters Protest as Honduras Return Delayed". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved July 2, 2009. Cite error: The named reference "Bloom-2009-07-02" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
14. ^ "U.S. Assistance to Honduras". US State Department. July 7, 2009. Retrieved August 7, 2009.
15. ^ Cromwell, Susan (August 5, 2009). "U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras's Zelaya". Reuters. Retrieved August 7, 2009.
16. ^ Verma, Richard (August 4, 2009). "Letter to Senator Lugar" (PDF). US State Department. Retrieved August 8, 2009.
17. ^ Bridges, Tyler (August 7, 2009). "U.S. cools its support for reinstating Honduras' Manuel Zelaya". McClatchy News Service. Retrieved August 7, 2009.
18. ^ Kelly, Ian (August 25, 2009). "Temporary Suspension of Non-Immigrant Visa Services in Honduras". US State Department. Retrieved 2009-08-25. Cite error: The named reference "STATE_2009_08_25" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
19. ^ "U.S. To Reduce Visa Services In Honduras". Reuters. August 25, 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
20. ^ Clark, Lesley (28 October 2009). "Lawmakers ask Library of Congress to retract Honduras report". Miami Herald. McClatchy News Service. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
21. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
22. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
23. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
24. "Obama calls for order as Honduran military arrests President". Fox News. June 28, 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2009.
25. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
26. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
27. Leaders from Obama to Chavez blast Honduras coup
28. Charles, Deborah (October 21, 2009). "U.S. Revokes More Visas to Pressure Honduran Solution". The New York Times. Reuters. Retrieved October 30, 2009. {{cite news}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
29. ^ "Honduras Regime Uses Noise Attack as U.S. Cuts Visas". The New York Times. Reuters. October 21, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2009.
30. Zamorano, Juan (October 21, 2009). "Ousted Honduran leader: Pact will restore me". Associated Press. Retrieved October 30, 2009. {{cite news}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
31. Felix, Esteban (October 21, 2009). "Ousted Honduran says pact restores him to power". Associated Press. Retrieved October 30, 2009. {{cite news}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves