Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moogwrench (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 15 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Rico 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I placed on your talk page, RicoCorinth: Why did you revert my reversion on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, in which you say that "Politicing among a handful of US Congressmen, is" irrevelant to International Reaction to the Crisis? Why does the Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about how Repubs are messing up Obama's chance to have a unified US reaction? Did you not even read the article I cited in the my revision? Quote: " actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... 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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction? What do you think? Moogwrench (talk) 23:38, 14 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.

I was going to write, "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.

It's nothing new that "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," but that's not what you tried to put into the article.. four times. -- Rico 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bah! Look, its not just internal US politics when you have Republican senators going down there and getting accused of being coup financiers by the Resistance. And the citations of the LLoC report and accompaying NY Times article didn't say that it was an RS, just that it is out there and Obama has to deal with it. I wish you would respond to what I actually write, and not your own straw man arguments. Oh, and next time, make sure my edits are actually destructive before you reverse them. I was actually cleaning up someone's sloppy edit with that recent one. Moogwrench (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin American activists accuse American politicians of all kinds of things all the time.

Dictator President Chavez accused Bush of being the devil.

It would be worthy of inclusion if the Republican senators actually were coup financiers.

Obama doesn't have to deal with the Legal Research report, because it found that:

"Although the arrest may have been legitimate, the military's expulsion of Zelaya was a 'direct violation' of the constitution" -- Washington Post

By the way, bitchen video!

Here's something else from the cite above:

"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.'"

The edit I reverted was destructive, in that it deleted (destroyed) a source cited to substantiate content in the article. The edit just looked sloppy at first blush. -- Rico 02:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the whole point of that article is that Republicans are messing up Obama's attempt. But fine, it doesn't need to be in that general of an article. Fine.

Next point, separate the removal from office from the removal from the country. You cite: "Although the arrest may have been legitimate, the military's expulsion of Zelaya was a 'direct violation' of the constitution." Two different things. Zelaya is back in the country; so if the only thing illegal was his deportation then problem is solved. What is Obama worried about? Moogwrench (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)