Talk:Arístides Mejía

I removed
I removed the last little bit "He currently has an arrest warrant in Honduras for corruption." as per Wikipedia's rules since it was unsourced and contentious material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brumere18 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I added back (and slightly modified since it was poorly worded) the followup on the arrest warrant. I believe this is relevant and it was referenced, however another editor took it out, could you explain your thinking please? Brumere18 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * aristides mejia currently has an arrest warrant in his country, Honduras, for corruption, there's no discussion about that 190.53.225.34 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And that is why after the relevant references were added I stopped taking it out. However, the articles you linked did not say corruption, it said abuse of authority which under Honduran law is different. Also, the follow up to the arrest warrant is relevant, and there is no discussion about that either. Brumere18 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the balanced version, with the rebuttal of the charge, if the citations say abuse of authority then we should stay with that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the arrest warrant was NOT for political issues, it was for abuse of authority 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says that in the article. It was Interpol that said they thought it was for political reasons, as in politically motivated. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * interpol is wrong as the rest of the world is, it was not for political reasons, it was just interpol's opinion 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * i merged the two parts so that everyone stays happy 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Interpol are quite someone so we might as well include their comment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy, about that, yes that changes everything, everything is OK now. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to confuse, this comment was sarcasm. I couldn't be bothered with the IP reverting to his posiition. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I am happier with the merged version than with the one 190.53.225.34 (talk) was trying to push, do y'all think it'd be worthwhile to add what Mr. Mejia has been up to after the coup d'etat? I would just add a little blurb, separate from the line that brought so much discussion. I also feel that 190.53.225.34 (talk)  is reluctant to call what happened a coup, and to call Mr. Micheletti's government a de facto one? Since international reaction is to call what happened a coup, it would seem on spot to call it that. I hope that we can continue this in the discussion page instead of having to edit and re-edit the main page, so I won't change anything until somebody replies or a prudent amount of time has passed. Also, thanks a lot for your help Off2riorob (talk)! Brumere18 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is totally relevant to mention the Coup, that what it is called in the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks for all of you for using the talk page first before changing anything on the article, that's what the talk pages are for. yeah I do think that the coup should be mentioned but i prefer we use another word instead of coup, i say we use constitutional crisis for example, but let's avoid coup since it was not a coup, yeah, I know you say that the entire international community calls it a coup, but it was not, i live here in Honduras and i can tell you for sure that it was not a coup. please before anyone wants to add something controversial on the article, please discuss it here first so there's consensus among all of us, thnaks! 190.53.225.34 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, you guys seem to be quite knowledgeable, talk about it, find the middle ground, all good, if you need me to join in just leave a message on my talkpage, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey man, thanks for continuing the discussion over here. I had added something, but I just took it down to put it to discussion here is what I have:

"After the 2009 Honduran coup d'état Arístides Mejía chose to exile himself and do diplomatic work abroad to restore Manuel Zelaya's constitutional government  ."

As to the coup appellation, I think it's fair to call it that. I also live in Honduras and I can see that due to our different political views why you would push for not labeling it as such but international reaction has been to call it a coup, and even wikipedia has an article up with that name. Since we must strive for objectivity and try to represent the widely held view, I do believe that it is most a propos to use that. Brumere18 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree with that content and i already have restored it 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i changed it to "After the 2009 Honduran coup d'état Arístides Mejía chose to exile himself and do diplomatic work abroad to restore Manuel Zelaya in the presidency." it's well suited that way 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)