Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Which is the better condensed version

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, 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.

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 [the Republican actions] 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 [the reversion of the deletion of the Repub actions info] (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 [the Republican actions] because we fear repeating their baseless propaganda on Wikipedia 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 [the Republican actions] 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 [regarding the Republican actions] 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 [1] JRSP and [2] 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, 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.

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 [the Republican actions] 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 [3][4], Simonm223[5][6][7], Ed Wood's Wig[8][9], Cathar11[10], 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 [11][12], Simonm223[13][14][15], Ed Wood's Wig[16][17], and the edit that supports by inference (he didn't revert edit, merely added a word to it):Cathar11[18].

Also remember that Wikipedia:TLDR is a Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays and not a Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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,"[19] 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rico's version" was just the original version minus the republican politicking. I put it as an RfC just to avoid another edit war with Moogwrench.

I support my second version (find the US flag), which I worked on. It has no "detail on dates and dollar amounts."

You don't have to see this as a vote between 2 different versions. -- Rico 19:50, 11 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)

I agree with your OR. Zelaya allied with Chavez and his anti-Americanism. You don't have to be a cross between a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist to figure out that -- if the US could have done nothing at all, without losing all respect from Latin American governments -- that's what the US would've done. (Pretty much what it has done.)

I support my second version. (Find the flag.)

It is brief and I worked on it.

It doesn't mention contributing factors, or conditions that gave rise to the US reaction (which Moogwrench changed to Obama's reaction in the main article).

Moogwrench's version is POV, and if you go through what he cut out, and what he kept and added, you'll see that.

Keep on supporting Moogwrench, because you're going to be working with him without me soon, and you'll see what he's like.

I think I know what he's like more than anyone else here.

Moogwrench likes to win, and will fight over anything.

And he's got limitless time to do it. -- Rico 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Rico, I am trying to assume good faith and work through consensus now that I understand Wikipedia's policies better, and I hope you can too, even when dealing with someone with whom you have had a lot of differences in the past. That doesn't mean that we agree on some things, but we can all try to be civil and avoid poisoning editors against each other, please? Moogwrench (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You've never been a newbie.. maybe a wp:cleanstart. Why don't you start an article about the US reaction to the coup? Then you could add all kinds of detail to it. -- Rico 05:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of not telling the truth. I mean, I am comfortable with myself because I know who I am and I know that I am telling the truth, but it really starts sounding like a personal attack when you say that I am misrepresenting myself as a newcomer. I know that I have made some mistakes, which I am sorry about. It has been a learning experience since I decided to actually start editing WP articles last month. I started my account a few years ago, never used it much (prob around 10 edits in a couple years) because, frankly, editing Wikipedia never interested me, and I was just kind of dinking around and used to using Wikipedia as a resource for research, not something I could actually contribute to. When I started reading the Honduras related articles (naturally of interest to me, as you can see on my user page) I felt like I had something to contribute. So again, please don't try to say that I am lying about being a newbie. It is just not nice, and it has nothing to do with the substance of content of this RfC. And I apologize to everyone else for this long post...I know that it has nothing to do with the RfC but when someone accuses me of purposeful misrepresentation on a public forum I feel like I need to respond. Thank you for your patience. Moogwrench (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo News on this topic. Moogwrench (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

McClatchy News from 11/14/09: Title-Honduras shows Latin America's 'strongman' is Jim DeMint Lede- "Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican known for his efforts to influence domestic immigration and health-care issues, has scored a foreign-policy coup by helping to compel the Obama administration to shift its stance on strife-ridden Honduras." Moogwrench (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Time, again, from 12/05/09: Title- After Honduras: Obama's Latin American Policy Looks Like Bush's Lede- "After months of delay, Arturo Valenzuela was finally confirmed as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs last month. But for a job with such a long title, he may find it's short on clout these days. Ostensibly, Valenzuela is President Obama's new point man on Latin America; in reality, that job looks to be under the control of Republicans in Congress and conservatives inside Obama's own diplomatic corps. In fact, when it comes to U.S. policy in Latin America — as events this week in Honduras suggest — it's often hard to tell if George W. Bush isn't still President." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Comments are welcome at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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, 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.
  

[Secretary of State Clinton] 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.”

The New York Times

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),

Please, explain what and how should Zelaya's opponents have done differently to remove a President from power so that you would not have declared it a "coup". Thank you! пан Бостон-Київський (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

but the edit adds content that is of interest to the USA domestically, but it's not the USA's reaction.
Per Rsheptak, the second part of the edit "[is] 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 Wikipedia we are not being neutral and factually accurate. However Wikipedia 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.”

The New York Times

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 "[is] 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 Wikipedia:Weasel#Overview. -- Rico 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wikipedia: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.

The New York Times

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.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

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.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

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, '[n]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[ed] 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.[20]
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 Wikipedia, 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 [president] be restored to the presidency to serve out his term, which ends in January."[21]
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.[22] -- Rico 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your original research is fine, but it can't be the basis of a Wikipedia 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)

References

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)