Talk:Roberto Micheletti/Archive 1

Castro references and bias
There seems to be a little back-and-forth editing in progress, with an IP address keeping adding references to the Castro brothers and how they are/were dictators, seized power with violence, et similia. This is clearly slanted and irrelevant to the article, making it appear horribly biased. I don't want to keep reverting things, so please just stop it. See WP:NPOV for the standards that Wikipedia aims for. LjL (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Castro reference is no bias
Fidel and Raul Castro are dictators, both by definition and by the admittance as such by foreign governments and non-governmental institutions like the OAS, the UN Human Rights Commission, Reporters without Borders, Human Rights Watch, among others. From Wikipedia: In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.[citation needed]

1. Abuse of en extraordinary amount of personal power. Fidel Castro was the Army Commander in Chief, the President of the Ministry Council (Prime Minister), the President of the State Council (President), and General Secretary of the sole political party, the Communist Party of Cuba, who in the 1976 Constitution is declared as the leader of the nation and the institution in charge of dictating the nation's policy. In addition to keeping the highest executive powers, and being a leader of the only political party of the nation, Fidel Castro held a seat in the National Assembly, or the legislative branch. Another important source of power is the State as the sole provider of source of income for the population, thus a citizen discontent with his employer would lack any means of living and end up pauper, as it is in fact the case of political dissidents and opposition. Again the best source is the Constitution itself that prohibits private property and employment by private citizens. Look up Oscar Elias Biscet, Proyecto Varela, Marta Beatriz Roque, Rene Gomez Manzano Imprisoned Trade Unionists: Alfredo Felipe FUENTES, Lester Gonzalez PENTON, Nelson Molinet ESPINO, Hector Raul Valle HERNANDEZ , as determined by Amnesty International 2. Suspension of election and civil liberties. In 1959 Castro;s government suspended the democratic Constitution adn replaced it with "The Law of the Nation". In 1976, a more formal Constitution was drafted by an old communist, Blas Roca Claderio, to resemble the Soviet Union's Constitution. In itslef, civil liberties were restricted: from the Constitution "None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and the law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the Socialist State,  contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism.  Violations of this principle are punishable by law." See the OAS repot on Cuba: http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Cuba79eng/chap.1.htm 3. Proclamation of State of Emergency. In several occasions a State of emergency has been called. the last one, the Special Period, was called in 1991 and remains in effect after 29 years. See Wikipedia: Special Period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period 4. Rule by decree. The legislative body, the National Assembly, gather twice a year, with the Presence of the Head of State as a member. It is worth noting here, that out of the 481 members, the mayority are ministers and have other executive responsibilities, and a large percentage are army officers. All members belong to the Communist Party, the leader of the nation as you now know, as explained in the Constitution. General Assembly President: Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. This is the group of fourteen people who hold an inordinate amount of power, its President used to be Fidel Castro, Vice President Raul Castro, and the other twelve have direct access to the Castro's. All are members of the National Assembly. They stamp all the "Decreto Ley" (Decree-Law), dictated by the President in the previous six months. Since 1976, all votes have been unanimous. Ina addition to that, the Juditiary is not independent, but us run by the Justice Ministery, an executive brach. Again many members of the National Assembly are judges in exercise, as it is the case of AYMÉ BLANCO SAM, Judge of the Municipal Tribunal. 5. Single party state: just look at the Consitution of 1976. It is there. As you can see, the Politbureau runs the Parliament. 6. Cult of personality: the whole Cuban landscape is filled with Castro's images and phrases, the only two national circulation newspapers, the Granma, and Juventud Rebelde, have shown Castro's related articles and pictures in their front pages, daily for over four decades. That is the dictatorship part. Now with regards of the relevance of Micheletti's article, I will explain at length soon. But you can look it up in the web in the meantime. The whole Micheletti issue is a direct consequence of Cuban and Venezuelan interventionism in Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Independient (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This all has to do with Roberto Micheletti personally... what, exactly? Please, stick to the article's topic, and don't add any redundant adjectives to people who are merely linked to from the article. They have their own article already. LjL (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Micheletti, "a current event"?
Since when is a person "a current event"? This is one of the most absurd tags I've seen, and I've seen plenty. On the other hand, ALL people, literally every human being on the planet, might be regarded as a "current event", as conditions, actions, and events in a person's life come and go. Thus, undeniably ANY PERSON's "information may change rapidly as the event progresses". Or slowly. Whatever. But there's always change. So, what a stupid tag! --AVM (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a whole section of this article entitled to "events of 2009", and if you just look at the article's history for a minute, you'll easily find most of the editing is about current events. So the tag is entirely appropriate. I'm reinstating it. --LjL (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Every update not of the liking af the activist that has taken upon himself the task not to allow this page to evolve. He has allowed, though, Micheletti successor to be shown, —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Independient (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer: legitimate President
Who says so? The relevant organizations. Neither the OAS, or the UN, who boasts among its members Khadafi's Libia, Castro's Cuba, and Kim Yom Il's North Korea, choose Honduras President. The ousted President Zelaya was impeached by Congress, in a process vetted by the Supreme Court of Justice, who ordered his deposition for blatant violations of the Constitution, the laws, and his lack of respect for the institutions. President Micheletti was sworn in by Congress, as the successor, in accordance with the democratic Constitution. The process was deemed legal and Constitutional by the Supreme Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Independient (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the ones you mentioned meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:Reliable sources. If they were sources, they'd be primary sources, and anyway they're direct part of the events so they can't be used as sources at all. LjL (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"if they were sources, they'd be primary sources, and anyway they're direct part of the events so they can't be used as sources at all" ??? Circular reasoning has trapped you in the impossibility of including a topic in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Independient (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh? No, it has not. I never claimed all sources are primary sources, just the ones you mentioned (government, court, Constitution, etc.). Secondary sources mentioning them are fine. You know, like in any article, per WP:RS... --LjL (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the ideas in the preceding paragraph are understandable, sorry about that. Which "ones"? --AVM (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So which is it? On Roberto's page he is listed as "Interim", "Acting", and "Disputed" in three different places. Should these not be consistent? KevinEdward (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I doubt they can be consistent when they get changed in the single articles (like Manuel Zelaya) about daily or twice a day. I'm getting sick of this, really; it goes from "disputed" to "deposed" and back without so much as an edit summary. This really should stop. --LjL (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A few disputed topics
I would like to point out that I believe Taiwan and Israel have both recognized Micheletti as the legal president of Honduras.

I would also like to say that at least in Honduras, it is widely disputed whether or not what took place was a coup. Many say it was not. Also, the Supreme Court has also announced that the military acted on a court order. It's not just the military that claims that.

I do not have sources to prove what all this, but I would like to suggest that someone look into it, because I think that some of the information in this article is either outdated or not 100% undisputed fact.

Unasillabonita (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You "believe"? Sources, please. Of course, if countries start explicitly saying that Micheletti is the de jure president in their opinion, we could actually start a list of countries that recognize him as de jure president, though we would have to be very careful since such recognitions are sometimes used by small unrecognized states to get diplomatic attention. On the other hand, due to Nicaragua recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the chances that any of these two or Kosovo will announce their recognition of Micheletti as de jure president are rather slim. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This a discussion, not the article, thus it does not need to abide by the same standards. Now, the fact that Congress and Supreme Court demoted Zelaya, is as clear as the fact that the sun rises in the morning. It has been covered for almost a week now by every media around the world. If you can't admit to that, either you have been in Mars for the last 5 days, or you are totally biased toward Zelaya ,and against the new government. Anyway, the sources: Honduras Supreme Court: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.133.59 (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan and Israel have recognized the new government, That is a a fact. It is also a fact both countries are democracies with international recognition, not "rogue states". On the other hand, government are recognized as such by foreign powers, no matter the jure or de facto. When a nation recognizes a government, and establishes an embassy, it does not qualify it as de jure or not. So that point is moot. The source that proves beyond any doubt that the Supreme Court removed the President is the court website itslef: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Independient (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually neither country has recognized Micheletti, and both have stated so publically. Micheletti claimed that they had recognized him when they had not.  Google news is your friend.  Rsheptak (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Born in Italy...in 1943 or 1948?
Before a photo was added to the article, I scoped around at google images, and saw this photo of Micheletti. Later I scoped around to see if he was born in Italy as his surname suggests, and found this information, which contradicts the birthdate currently shown in the article, by exactly five years. Personally, I lean towards the 1943 being more accurate than 1948. For ease of reference, here is Google's translation of that Italian text: Translation: Italian » English Roberto MICHELETTI BAIN (El Progreso, 13/08/43) Partido Liberal ''Already member alternate in 1979, was MP for various legislatures holder since 1981. Member in 1998-2002 term, with the suspension of the mandate during the presidency of Enterprise Honduran telecommunications, has been abroad several times delegate to the Congreso Nacional. It is one of the candidates for President of the Republic for the elections scheduled in 2001.'' ''Graduated in Law, has dedicated his career to the ventures and trading companies. From 1998 to 2000 he was Director General of Enterprise Honduran telecommunications. The Liberal Party has held, among other things, the office of secretary of the Central Executive Council (1988-1992). He has repeatedly represented Honduras at the international level, particularly in the transport sector and has received numerous awards and many honors.'' Italian region of origin: [Lombardia] 70.244.243.218 (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This page doesn't have any information about his DoB but confirm most of the info from this Italian site. I think we should change his Dob in the article as well. And he looks older than 60 anywayV1t
 * Done. Corrected DoB from 1948 to 1943. Maybe the correction is premature, news reports don't mention he's 65, but this one says he's 60. Still, I won't be surprised if his age is soon corrected in news reports to 65. It is possible that reporters who give his age as sixty did so after reviewing his Wikipedia Bio earlier today. But again, he looks older than sixty in this pic, and the Italian source is more authoritative than initial media reports tend to be. 70.244.243.218 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a short remark: it was somewhat short-sighted to conclude from his surname and from the webpage of the Italian Chamber of Deputies that he was born in Italy (actually, the page is stating his place of birth quite precisely: El Progreso, 13/08/43). There are tens of millions of people in Latin America with Italian surnames and, it is true, of Italian origin, but only very few of them are first generation emigrants. --Alib (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tens of millions? citation needed. Maybe "hundreds of thousands." Bottom line for me was, the guy doesn't look Spanish, doesn't look Hispanic, and looks as if he were either born in Northern Italy, or born to two parents who were. I don't read Spanish or Italian, and assumed that "place of origin" meant place of birth, and that "El Progreso" meant he was a progressive, and forgot that the Italian word has an additional "s", as in El Progresso soup. We're each doing the best we can, and the article is better for it.
 * Yes, neither name nor appearance determine nationality.190.77.117.50 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

70.244.243.218 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * china.org] article say he was born in Honduras and his parents where imigrants from Italy so I removed Italy. 193.25.0.3 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tens of millions was only a very rough estimate. But I think it's pretty reliable: Have a look at it:Emigrazione italiana: Le nazioni dove più si diressero gli emigranti italiani furono gli Stati Uniti nel Nordamerica, ed il Brasile e l' Argentina nel Sudamerica. In questi tre Stati attualmente vi sono circa 65 milioni di discendenti di emigrati italiani. So it's 65 millions in the US, Brazil and Argentina. Subtract the US and add the roughly ten remaining states of South America plus the seven Spanish-speaking Central American states (and Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc.) and you'll probably be in the tens of millions very easily (Uruguay for example had 1.3 million Italian descendants already in 1973). Hundreds of thousands? Yeah, sure.
 * Scientific racism irish.jpg Doesn't look Spanish, doesn't look Hispanic, but obviously Italian – looks like you're an expert craniometrist, huh? What's more, you're even an expert of Italian philology. And I always thought the masculine article in Italian is il. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check with your grocery store – there's no such brand as El Progresso, or at least it's not the original.
 * We're each doing the best we can, and the article is better for it. – No comment. --Alib (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * well okay then: I'm doing the best I can. I initiated discovery and correction of his birthdate and obtained information about his genealogy. No comment about your degree of civility, or lack thereof. I said I don't read Spanish or Italian, so we needn't check anything with our local grocery stores. I also don't mock Wikipedia users as if this were middle school. 70.244.243.218 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Initally, my only comment was: [I]t was somewhat short-sighted to conclude from his surname [...] that he was born in Italy. This led to quite unnecessary and, well, somewhat surprising revelations (doesn't look Hispanic, maybe "hundreds of thousands" [of Italian origin in Latin America]). I don't see anything wrong in mocking sheer ignorance within an encyclopedia where it should be all about reliable facts. And yes, I think that's a standard you could even expect in any middle school in the world.
 * But let's get back to business: I think http://www.proceso.hn/2008E/micheletti.htm and http://www.elheraldo.hn/subsistemas/especiales/elecciones2008/roberto.htm would suggest that the birthyear 1943 is somewhat disputable. I would therefore propose to make mention of this in the article. --Alib (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed 1948 cos this article suggest its impossible for him to be born in 1948 - he was arrested in 1963. He prob. started using "1948" since 2008 election or a little earlier. --Vuvar1 (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Around "hundreds of thousands" of persons with Italian surnames in Latin America, not tens of millions, since most immigrants to the Americas altered or change their surnames for different reasons, and many more intermarried, etc. Alib may admit to be sheerly ignorant of this reality, and pretend to be offended when someone accurately guesses that a Honduran has parents native to Italy, but WP civility suggests we overlook his errors and idiosyncrasies, and try and hold to standards of an online encylopedia instead of some mittelschule gym class standard of scholastic inquiry. Vuvar1, thanks for your contribution here, I hope you don't mind but I corrected the '1938' in your comment to the '1948' which you intended (even though 40 thousand Germans might take offense) and also added your signature. Willie Chile (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this new member of Wikipedia has some reservations as to participation in this project by people of German mother tongue. What a great start for a career in this project that embraces people from all over the world and of various cultural, ethnic or linguistic origins! --Alib (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Italian link has been deleted and replaced with a Chinese one, which no longer works well (I aonly get Chinese charcters on my screen) ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Roberto is the eighth of nine children (6 boys, 3 girls), all were born in Honduras. I can confirm you have his birthday correct as 1943, and that he was born in Honduras, however, only his father was from Italy, his mother was born in El Progreso, Honduras. Roberto lived in the US 1973-76 in Tampa, FL, then in New Orleans, LA for two years before returning to Honduras. I've never posted on Wiki so I'm not exactly sure how to link references, but even if I did the only link I could make is El Progreso. All of this information came directly from Aldo Micheletti, Roberto's younger brother who currently lives in Tampa, FL. I've known Aldo over 20 years and spoke with him at length yesterday and today. I'll leave it to you experts as to what info is pertanent to post, but please make the correction that his mother was born in Honduras and only his father immigrated from Italy. Thank you.KevinEdward (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference used by AVM to claim both his parents were immigrants from Italy makes no such statement. His mother was born in El Progreso, Honduras. Only his father was from Italy. This information comes directly from Aldo Micheletti, Roberto's brother. I doubt that you'll find a reference to her birthplace anywhere on the Internet to cite, but it is a fact. How does one resolve this?KevinEdward (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I copy/pasted into the article some of the data You provided. Thanks. V1t 10:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Micheletti WSJ text
Kevin, you cannot put all of this into the article in a chunk. There are issues of copyright and fair use that it abuses. Pick the key points and add them separately, where they belong in the article. Thanks.

Here's the text I removed from the article so you can cut and paste:

In an open letter to the Wall Street Journal published 27 July 2009, Roberto Micheletti listed the Honduran government's reasons and justification for Zelaya’s ouster. Micheletti claimed the following:
 *  The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.
 *  Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.
 * The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.
 *  Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.
 *  The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.
 * Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.
 * A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.
 * ''I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false/online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwNzEyNDcyWj.html

Rsheptak (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap. And I worked so hard at figuring out how to do this too. Thanks, I'll give it another shot.KevinEdward (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ...And in recognition of your work, I saved all your text here, so you don't have to do too much retyping...just cut from here and paste into the article where you want, and use a named reference. If you need help, write me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help you out.  BTW, you do know I've written a refutation of each of Micheletti's points as a series of comments to the WSJ op ed piece (eg, these are opinions, so treat them carefully when you use them in the article; none of them are "facts" and all are contested).  Rsheptak (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Billy Joya, Battalion 3-16 links - please discuss
In this edit, a user removed:
 * On 31 July 2009, Zelaya claimed that Micheletti's security advisor, Billy Joya, who had been a member of the death squad Intelligence Battalion 3-16, was leading Battalion 3-16 reorganised under a different name. Zelaya stated, "With a different name, [Battalion 3-16 is] already operating. The crimes being committed is torture to create fear among the population, and that's being directed by Mr. Joya." 

with the explanation for removal "This was taken from a Zelaya interview and has no relevance to this page.".

Sorry, but i don't understand this explanation for removal. It's true that it was from a Zelaya interview. It's Zelaya's POV and presented as such. It is relevant because Billy Joya is Micheletti's security advisor, he is a well-known member of Battalion 3-16, one of Honduras' most infamous death squads, and Micheletti claims to be the president of Honduras. If he associates closely - in fact, has as his security advisor - someone who participated in a death squad, then surely that's a relevant piece of information. Zelaya makes an even stronger claim, that Joya has revived Battalion 3-16. Maybe his statement is true, maybe false. That's why we cite it as a claim, not as a fact.

If you can find information that says that Joya is not Micheletti's security advisor, then please add it with a WP:RS. If you can find a statement by Micheletti or Joya stating that Joya has cut off all contacts with previous 3-16 members and the military/intelligence community and that he has cut off all contact with the people who carried out the assassinations, then please add it in order to keep the statement NPOV. Boud (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you that its relevant. Billy Joya is a direct advisor to Micheletti.  To be fair, he was an advisor to Zelaya's security minister, I'm told, before that.  The main thing to note is, that the deaths of Pedro Muñoz in El Paraiso, and Martin Rivera in Tegucigalpa show the same pattern of torture and violence as bodies during the early 80s when Battallion 3-16 was operating.  These people are never far from the seat of power in Honduras.  Another of them is Micheletti's head of immigration.  Rsheptak (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * i think your points have now been included (apart from "the main thing to note") - including Dir-General of Immigration Nelson Willy Mejía Mejía from B 3-16 and the 7 B 3-16 people playing a role in Zelaya's administration, for NPOV. If you have some good RS for "the main thing to note", then please help on an appropriate page (maybe not here, unless it's directly linked to Micheletti). Boud (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deputy.. National Constituent Assembly Member ?
This is the current text under Deputy header...

In 1980 the Honduran government began drafting a new constitution and holding elections. Micheletti contributed to the drafting of the new 1982 Constitution of Honduras and won a Congressional seat which he has held since then, although he did at one time leave to run Hondutel, Honduras' state-owned national telephone company

This text is tied to reference 3 (and article from The Miami Herald). I have checked the original source Decreto 131, enero 1982, La Gaceta, Diario Oficial de la Republica de Honduras. and Mr. Micheletti does not appear in the list of Constituent Assembly Members. I have also checked a hard copy of Honduras constitution and Mr. Micheletti does not appear in the list. I will procceed to remove this text unless someone else provides a more reliable source.--Congolon (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will proceed to change the text. --Congolon (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting...If you check the full list there are only 71 names listed and I believe there were 82 members in the National Assembly elected from the 1980 elections. So names listed may not mean 100% of the assembly members. The names on the decree are from the assembly the was constituted after the '81 elections and this was the ratification decree of the constitution drafted by the previous assembly. As you can see its president was by then Efrain Bu Giron. The National Assembly which drafted the constitution was presided by Roberto Suazo Cordova, who became the first president under the new constitution. Let me check around to get the full list of the 1980 and 1982 Assemblies, the fact that the signature of a few members doesn't appear in the ratification decree may not mean that the person was not part of that assembly or part of the people drafting that constitution. Wikihonduras (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikihonduras, I have a hard copy of Honduras Constitution Matute López, Darlan Esteban; Constitución de La República, Decreto Número 131 (1982), Reformas-Ratificaciones e Interpretaciones; Editora Casablanca; 2009; ISBN = 978-99926-673-8-5, the list of Assembly Members that appears in this book is the same list that appears in. If you find more reliable sources I will be glad to discuss this issue (and revert to the original text if neccessary).--Congolon (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got it the first time. You may be very well correct, but that is exactly the reason Wikipedia asks for WP:secondary sources not primary (primary sources should be used with extreme care). What you are doing is called WP:original research. You took the primary source, read it and came out with a conclusion. Which may be very well correct. But as I pointed out there are some holes which ought to be checked. Like I mentioned before Roberto Suazo Cordova's name is not in the provided article's list neither. Yet he was the President of the National Assembly which drafted the constitution between July '80 and December '81. Neither are the names of a dozen at least congressmen (Found a couple references which define the number of congressmen to 82+). Names listed may not need to be the full membership (Like Suazo's case, who by Jan '82 was transitioning jobs). Just trying find a proper secondary source or another primary which would either validate your findings or put reasonable doubt enough to go back to the previous assertion from the Miami Herald. Wikihonduras (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One last thing which I forgot above. The article from the Miami Herald, doesn't say under which capacity Michelitti helped in the drafting, neither it says he was a member of the original assembly. It says that he helped in the drafting, he won a seat to congress. So I am not sure now that even the comprehensive list of the Assembly members and Michelitti not being there would be enough to justify removing the Miami Herald reference for unrealible. Again the whole point of using secondary sources as opposed to primary sources. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User Wikihonduras, I have carefully read the wikipedia definition of both primary and secondary sources and it seems to me that: a) Primary sources are allowed when extreme care is observed by the editor, if  is considered a primary source, let me tell you that I have read it very carefully before posting this issue and it does not contain any interpretation from myself, it is just a list of assembly members  2) It seems to me that Matute López, Darlan Esteban; Constitución de La República, Decreto Número 131 (1982), Reformas-Ratificaciones e Interpretaciones; Editora Casablanca; 2009; ISBN 978-99926-673-8-5 is a secondary source because Mr. Matute did not participate in drafting the original text, he used the original text as a source to compile his book. It seems to me that I have a primary source that is confirmed by a secondary source. Regarding to your posting on the level of participation of Mr. Micheletti it seems to me that it could only be relevant if Micheletti particpated as an assembly member. What do you think?, I'd like to see what other editors think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.12.228.19 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking extreme care. At the end you came out to a conclusion on your own, you didn't take analysis or conclusions from any of the sources provided. Because the name R. Micheletti is not on article 139, or in another publication which only reproduces the same article without again doing any analysis of its own, then you concluded that both assertions from the Miami Herald reference were incorrect: That Micheletti didn't help drafting the constitution and that Micheletti didn't win a sit in Congress which he kept until now. The relevancy can only be taken as such from the relevant source itself, if a relevant source concluded that his participation was relevant enough to be printed, that should be enough for the article. Replacing a source which have been considered reliable until now, with the one of an editor...Well as you mentioned before we should let other editors add their opinions. Wikihonduras (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikihonduras, according to the sources that I have provided, Micheletti was not a member of National Assembly that created current Honduras Constitution. I never removed the assertion that Micheletti was elected deputy for the national congress in 1981 elections and that he hold that seat until now. I'm using verifiable sources, not my own thinking to do what I'm doing in this article. If you feel that The Miami Herald is a more reliable source or you think that its assertions fit better to Wikipedia polices please feel free to restore the text that I removed. Anyway I would like to know what other editors think.--Congolon (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's lots of bad press coverage in the US that states "facts" which are demonstrably not true. That said, the proper wikipedia way to handle this would be to note that Micheletti is not listed as a member of the National Assembly in the publication.  That way, if the Miami Herald is wrong, then we've caught it, but if somehow the publication is wrong, we also have caught it.  This is the tortured way we have to use original sources on Wikipedia.  Rsheptak (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interim President?
Honduras constitution was violated when president Zelaya was expelled from Honduras, because of this action any further actions conducted by any Honduras power (congress and supreme court) is void. This is the reason because of this Mr. Micheletti cannot be qualified as President. He is actually a Ruler, see Honduras constitution for details (in spanish).


 * Nobody can read your refs, please re-format, and your claims need verifying WP:V with reliable sources WP:RS, we cannot just take your word for it due to our policies. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to current Honduras Constitution (spanish). I'm wonderig SqueakBox if media sources are more reliable than Honduras Constitution. Would you tell me what kind of verification is needed to make sure than Honduras Constitution is a reliable source. 


 * No problem with it, that's a reliable source, and its cited in numerous articles. There's also a copy of the constitution on the Congreso Nacional website at  though in less usable form (baseline 1982 constitution, then separately, each reform and decree that modifies it).  You can also find it on the Library of Congress website in the US.  Rsheptak (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * he is NOT a ruler, ruler is Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il, Micheletti is the interim president because it's only provisional, for six months. I live in Tegucigalpa, Honduras and i'm a lawyer, i know the Honduran Constitution. Vercetticarl (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm honduran as well and my claims of NPOV are based on the fact that the following articles of Honduras constitution were violated when president Zelaya was arrested and expelled to another country: 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 84, 89, 90, 94, 99 and 102. Supreme Court, and the military violated Honduran laws when president Zelaya was arrested and explelled to another country, because of this violation any futher action by any power (including naming a new president by congress) is void. Mr Micheletti was named president by congress based on an ILLEGAL action and that is the reason because he connot be named Interim President but Interim Ruler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolon (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * and what about the violations that Zelaya made to the Honduran Consitution? he NEVER presented the national budget of the republic which was supossed to be presented in september of 2008, last year! that is a violation of the consitution! Also the constitution firmly states that A Honduran citizen who has held the title of Executive can not be President or Vice President of the Republic, and the person that breaks this regulation or proposes its amendment, as well as those who assist him directly or indirectly, will cease immediately to hold their respective offices, and will be disqualified for ten years from holding any public office. and Article 374 states, It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period. Vercetticarl (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your original research is interesting. Have you encountered secondary sources exposing similiar positions? --LjL (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Read articles 239, 373, 374 Vercetticarl (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you replying to me? --LjL (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

President Zelaya tried to modify Honduras Constitution, there is not discussion about of that fact. The fact under discussion here is that the procedure used by supreme court and the military to remove president Zelaya from power was also illegal and, as consequence, the actions used by congress install a new president are VOID. That is the reason because Mr Micheletti connot be called Interim President but Interim Ruler. Vercetticarl has removed my NPOV tag. My question to other editors is if that action allowed in Wikipedia? (Congolon 15:35 local time) --Congolon (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * is NOT void, the presidential sucession was completely legal, according to the Honduran constitution, the next in sucession to be president of Honduras is the president of the national congress which was Micheletti, therefore the presidential sucession was legal and NOT void, Micheletti is the Interim President of Honduras, there is nothing to argue about. Vercetticarl (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Vercetticarl should not have removed your tag without throughout discussion here.
 * Anyway, will the two of you eventually get the hint that the Constitution, while a reliable primary source, cannot be used to synthesize conclusions it does't reach? Does the Constitution talk about Zelaya and Micheletti specifically? No, it doesn't. Find reliable, secondary sources that do. --LjL (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is certain is that different people read the constitution differently; at wikipeida we can report the various interpretations but not claim that any specific interpretation is the correct one. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but surely you're not saying that we should take the "various interpretations" from Wikipedia users rather than secondary sources. Otherwise, my own interpretation is that the Constitution says Honduras is supposed to be ruled by pineapples, and you'd have to include it... --LjL (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Vercetticarl should not have removed your tag without throughout discussion here.
 * Anyway, will the two of you eventually get the hint that the Constitution, while a reliable primary source, cannot be used to synthesize conclusions it does't reach? Does the Constitution talk about Zelaya and Micheletti specifically? No, it doesn't. Find reliable, secondary sources that do. --LjL (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is certain is that different people read the constitution differently; at wikipeida we can report the various interpretations but not claim that any specific interpretation is the correct one. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Verceticarl, (and Congolon), the question of whether succession could take place, eg, was Zelaya actually removed from office in a legal fashion, is the question. Succession cannot happen if Zelaya was not removed properly.  My take is that it wasn't a legal process, at least, not the one spelled out in the combination of law that is the Honduran Constitution and Penal Code, but I invite you to take the discussion over to my wife's blog (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/), where August is Honduran Constitutional Law month.  Guess what we're discussing?  Unlike El Heraldo and La Tribuna, intelligent, on point comments get posted, even if we disagree with them.  In case Squeakbox and LjL were a little too gentle, we can't discuss, or synthesize the law here on Wikipedia, except insofar as it is reported on in other media, or to cite the text of law cited it other media. Rsheptak (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To all editors If Honduras constitution cannot be used as a source because it requieres interpretation these are some links to media (primary sources?). In those reports new goverment members (included Mr. Micheletti) are called Rulers. Honduras rulers defy world pressure to restore Zelaya http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R24E20090701?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews Honduras rulers reject OAS call for Zelaya return http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Honduras+rulers+reject+call+Zelaya+return/1758044/story.html Honduras rulers renounce OAS charter http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5702483/honduras-rulers-renounce-oas-charter/ Honduras is given a deadline to reinstate ousted president http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-honduras2-2009jul02,0,6656137.story --Congolon (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * these are links to media in which they refer to Micheletti as interim president.

Honduras' interim President Roberto Micheletti gestures during a news conference in Tegucigalpa Monday.Honduran authorities on Sunday lifted a curfew ... /Earlier this week the European Union cut aid and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, told the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, to back down... /[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD999C9QO0 ... the OAS, the United States and European countries were working behind the scenes Monday to seek common ground with interim President Roberto Micheletti, ...] /According to a former Honduran government official, interim President Roberto Micheletti told the chief mediator in the crisis, Costa Rican President Oscar ... /Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton added to the pressure, phoning interim President Roberto Micheletti over the weekend to warn of consequences if he ... Vercetticarl (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So what comes next?, I have provided links to sources where Mr. Micheletti is called Ruler, Vercetticarl has provided links to sources where Mr. Micheletti is called interim president, I can provide links to sources where Mr. Micheletti is called de facto president. There are claims from Vercetticarl that the process to install a new president was legal, there are claims from myself the process was illegal and void. So the question here is (to all editors) what do we do to enforce the fundamental Wikipedia principle of Neutral Point of View (NPOV).--Congolon (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ruler is clearly unacceptable as it isnt neutral; interim President is neutral and more generic; it doesnt negate President, I would be happy, though, with de facto President. The important thing is to explain the crisis in the opening, this way our readers can make their own minds up about what is happening. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To Rsheptak, LjL, Boud and other editors.. do you agree with SqueakBox opinion? --Congolon (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, Micheletti is interim President. Vercetticarl (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with "de facto president".

I agree that ruler is not neutral but SqueakBox suggest that de facto president (which is frequently used by international media) would be an alternative if we explain the crisis at the beginning. I agree with de facto president.--Congolon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * de facto is for example Raul Castro and Kim Jong-il. Micheletti is interim because it's only provisional for six months until january 27, 2010 (Honduran general election, 2009). Micheletti was appointed president of Honduras by the congress so it's NOT de facto. Vercetticarl (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So "de facto" means "not provisional"? That's news to me. Maybe you want to add that to the De facto article? --LjL (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I use de facto when I write on wikipedia. Rsheptak (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed from Interim President to De Facto President --Congolon (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * what's your problem changing to de facto without consensus here. i changed again to 'interim Vercetticarl (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears from the above that there is consensus, in favor of "de facto", and you are the only one against it. Consensus is not unanimity. I'll change it back. --LjL (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * it is NOT de facto, see the definition there De facto, Micheletti is not de facto because he was named president because the Honduran constitution clearly states that the president of the national congress is the next in line for becoming the president of honduras, de facto is Raul Castro, you know what, i'll just will do that to Raul Castro's article because he is de facto because his brother just pointed him to become president. Micheletti is interim, and to be consensus everyone has to agree, and i do not agree with de facto Vercetticarl (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your original research about what "de facto" means in your opinion doesn't change consensus about it (and I've seen the definition, it clearly applies in this case, and is neutral). Please respect consensus; it is absolutely not true that everyone has to agree; you are mistaken.
 * As for your edits to Raul Castro, you really must not disrupt articles to illustrate a point. Please refrain from doing so in the future. --LjL (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * so your telling me the Micheletti is de facto but Raul Castro is not? and de facto does not applies with Micheletti beacuse the honduran constitution states that the president of the congress replaces the president, so Micheletti is interim because is only provisional, election will be in November Vercetticarl (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Every president that's actually acting as a president is a president "de facto", because "de facto" means "in actuality". They may or may not be president "de jure", which means "in law" (of course, there can also be the opposite situation of someone who is a president "de jure" but, for some reason, cannot act "de facto"; some would claim Zelaya is an example).
 * Micheletti is therefore certainly a "de facto" president, but whether he's also "de jure" is debated, so we shouldn't mention that; by mentioning "de facto", however, we hint to the fact that there is a controversy about it, without taking a side. We're basically saying: "look, we know he's acting as president, but we just don't know or agree on whether he's doing it rightly, perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't"
 * He is also an interim president for the reason you said; feel free to put both ("de facto, interim"), that's fine with me. --LjL (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Roberto Micheletti is interim president of Honduras, he acted based on the law, on the Honduran constitution, he is acting right. Vercetticarl (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Edmundo Orellana article (translation: here). Rd232 talk 08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you aren't even listening to what I say here. Well, don't be expecting to have your way trumping obvious consensus, and without even trying to make a substantiated argument. You will be reverted. --LjL (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with "interim" is that it carries POV, it can easily be construed as a recoginition of the legality of the presidency. This we know is the subject of wide debates in all related articles. As to follow Wikipedia policy, I'd suggest to stick with "de facto" as opposed to "interim". There is no doubt that Mr. Micheletti is the head of the executive branch in Honduras, wether legally or not, the point is that "de facto" can't be debated, after all any elected president like Zelaya was until June 28 was also de facto (and de jure). Wikihonduras (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Interim" and "de facto" are not mutually contradictory. "Interim" merely means that his term is limited in the fashion of a "fill-in"; that's certainly the case, although, additionally, he might, according to some, not even have such a term. But if he does, it's certainly no more than an interim term. I support the inclusion of both terms. It would be nice if Vercetticarl did this himself. --LjL (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion started last weekend, the goal was to use the most appropriate term to enforce NPOV. The terms were ruler, interim president or de facto president. The consensus beteween all interested editors (except Vercetticarl) was that de facto president was the most appropriate term. I stick to de facto president, I would also support using interim de facto president. Vercetticarl, your original research is interesting but it cannot override editors' consensus nor wikipedia rules.--Congolon (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can live with interim de facto president (if such a description exits). Honestly, I can't see too much of a difference on the technical side, as both definitions support the current status. The term "de facto" carries a certain negative connotation whereas the term "interim" carries a bit of a positive, more acceptable one. But the bottom line is they both apply in this case. "Ruler" is out. So is "Disputed". Anything can be disputed, but Micheletti is still heading up the Honduran government regardless of the dispute over the legality of it. And "Acting" is such a hollow term it really doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. --KevinEdward (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * to Congolon: if you live in Honduras, like myself, you know way better like anybody else who lives outside Honduras, that Roberto Micheletti acted right, on the law, acted upon the Honduran Constitution, so you know that he is NOT de facto, he is interim. i repeat, Raul Castro and Kim Jong-il are de facto, but Micheletti is NOT. Vercetticarl (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Vercetticarl, you need to immediately stop reverting the page to a state where it doesn't say "de facto". The is because everyone above, except you, clearly showed their willingness to use "de facto" or, at most, "de facto" together with "interim". DO NOT remove "de facto" again against consensus. That is not appropriate. This has gone on for too long; now that we have a consensus, you need to respect it. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It wasn't that terrible, was it? I might suggest that we change the "De facto interim President of Honduras" section name into simply "Presidency of Honduras" (which doesn't imply or negate legitimacy), since it looks quite awkward as it is as a title. --LjL (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * you are welcome LjL! agreed. i have changed "De facto interim President of Honduras" to "Presidency of Honduras" Vercetticarl (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick explaination of my latest edit... It looks radical, but nothing was really eliminated except the redundant repetition of the same statements. All references were retained (even ones where the articles have expired). This was a grammatical clean up of the first few paragraphs.--KevinEdward (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know I am way late in on this conversation, but I have to completely disagree with the "de facto" explanation on this article. You are adding your opinion on whether it is a lawful government or not. It is a biased interpretation of what type of government it is. True Honduras (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that, as I explained in detail above, "de facto" doesn't say anything about the lawfulness of the government or lack of it. I'd rather not have to explain it all over. --LjL (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definition of de facto: De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". Your opinion, by adding de facto, is that it was not officially established. Interim is fine but de facto is incorrect. True Honduras (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making my point. "In practice but not necessarily ordained by law". Not necessarily, not "not". Which means "de facto" doesn't say anything about law. --LjL (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To True Honduras... I agree with your assessment of the legality of the transition of power to Micheletti, and that he is the legitimate interim President of Honduras. However, the Wiki definitions of interim and de facto both lead to the same technical conclusion and both can reasonably be applied here without appearing biased. Those who have contributed to this article have debated this to death and the consensus has been to use both terms. Believe me, there are supporters from both sides of this "adjective war" and it has already been fought. The most viable solution is to use both terms, while avoiding "disputed, acting, or ruler". Please concentrate these efforts on providing new, unbiased, uncontrivertible information that might water down your feelings that this article is biased against Micheletti. I support Micheletti too, but see no further advantage to fighting over the word de facto. --KevinEdward (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Organization of American States, in their conclusion of the trip to Honduras, did not even once, refer to Roberto Micheletti as the "defacto" president. Maybe the world is starting to understand:

http://www.elheraldo.hn/Especiales/Honduras%20en%20contra%20de%20la%20ilegalidad%20del%2024%20de%20junio%20de%202009/Ediciones/2009/08/26/Noticias/OEA-se-va-sin-consenso-por-falta-de-legalidad Its in spanish so hope you read spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.238.6 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Unconstitutional," according to whom?
The article currently contains: "Micheletti was informed that the proposal was unconstitutional and given a chance to remove his signature from the bill, but he refused. ... "

1. As LjL shows a few topics higher in this page (see "Interim President?" above), people are doing all sorts of Original Research by giving their personal constitutional-interpretations which I'll paraphrase as "Micheletti was acting unconstitutionally" and "No, Zalaya acted unconstitutionally first"; this can occur outside of Wikipedia as well, e.g. in the above quote we don't see who is calling Micheletti a violator-of-the-constitution, it is implied that it's just "unconstitutional" and that's that. This alone didn't tempt me to remove the text, but made me mark it with and  issues (clarify who the source(s) are that's making this constitutional interpretation; are they credible? e.g. "Micheletti was informed that the proposal was unconstitutional..." Informed by whom, for starters? What is their constitutional expertise? And do they have any obvious biases? By excluding the primary source, it's impossible to verify the veracity of this accusation that a Living Person has violated the (constitutional) law; if it's merely his opposition's opinion unverified by judgments in the Honduran judiciary, then it should be stated in the Wikipedia article as conjectural not informational--as in he was "informed".  But the WP:V problems are worse than this; see next paragraph. Someone fluent in Spanish should please insert into the article _who_ is interpreting this as "unconstitutional" and then they "informed" Micheletti that it's "unconstitutional" (and please note what their expertise (and/or bias) is, if any).

2. Also, the citation is a private blog (see WP:V) without 3bp.blogspot.com giving anyone's identity (let alone it being notable blogger in accord with WP:V), purporting to show a photo of a major newspaper. Most properly, the original source's identity at the very least (and hopefully their constitutional expertise as well) should be verified; not the blogger's identity, and not the newspaper that the blogger purports to cite (which really should lead to the La Tribuna website anyway, not a photo of the paper, since it's quite easy to print a fake "front page" that looks like a real newspaper in this day and age. I wouldn't put it past either side's propagandists on a major issue such as who takes over an entire nation), hence I'll add, which instructs me to move the statement to the Talk page since this is "doubtful (violates WP:V guidelines) and potentially harmful" to an entire country's search for verifiable (WP:V) truth as they move thru a major political crisis...not even to mention that it's a Biography of a Living Person. The following text in italics also needs a verifiable source (source(s) with constitutional expertise, again, because, e.g. Articles 373-5 may be overridden by other parts of the constitution; it's up to the Honduran judiciary (ideally), and noteworthy experts whose ID is disclosed (at the least) and meeting WP:V standards, not Wikipedians, to interpret what the Honduran constitution forbids, and to what extent(s)): ", which forbid reform of the Constitution".24.155.205.244 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, especially about the interpretation of the Honduran Constitution. We do have to strive to not interpret it ourselves as we write these articles. In this case, the insertion of the article number and the claim of violation was not particularly well justified by the sources cited (I don't know who added it), and also unnecessary, so I've removed it.


 * In this case, the person informing Micheletti it was unconstitutional was Efrain Bu Giron, then President of the National Congress. Why cite a less than ideal scanned image of a newspaper page posted on a blog?  Generally I try and avoid this, for many of the reasons you cite above.  In this case I had a choice of citing a print source, or the image of the print source.  This is a  Honduran newspaper account contemporary with the event which is an source that is otherwise unvailable digitally because there are no Honduran newspaper archives available digitally that go back that far.  I could have simply cited the newspaper account itself, as a print source, and left you to struggle to look it up, but I thought this was at least a bit better.  I know who scanned and circulated that image, and its not the blogger, BTW, so I know, at least, that its not doctored.  You are free to consult any print archive of the newspaper, however, to verify that it is not doctored.  I also know of, but do not currently have access to, contemporary articles from other Honduran newspapers that also covered the event, and an account of it in the memoirs of General Walter Lopez Reyes, just published by the Honduran Institute of Anthropology and History.


 * I've gone back and modified the text to make it conform more to the actual description of events as documented in contemporary newspaper accounts and remove the issue of someone interpreting the constitution.


 * Rsheptak (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

¿Acting president of Honduras? Who says so?
Excuse me, but why english wikipedia says Micheletti is the acting president of Honduras if he laks recognition by the community of countries & he was not elected by the people of Honduras? Can I be recognized as "RULER OF THE UNIVERSE" by english wikipedia if someday I wake up in the morning and edit an article in this virtual page? Don't be confused ZELAYA is the current PRESIDENT of Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.80.197 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) For you to be recognized a the RULER Of THE UNIVERSE, you would need the Universe's Supreme Court vet an act of the Universal Congress electing you. In the case of Roberto Micheletti, is the President of Honduras by an act of impeachment in which the Supreme Court declared a "rogue President" was blatantly violating the Constitution and ordered his arrest, with the approval of the democratic Congress. Whether insulza, Chavez, Castro or Obama or the Universal Ruler likes it or not is irrelevant, since Honduras is acting within the constraints of its own sovereignty and laws. And please don't use this a forum, it isn't.
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. We just present the facts and what credible sources report. Micheletti is the technically "acting president"; whether or not you agree is irrelevant. --Thorwald (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Micheletti is twice listed among presidents who came to power by way of a coup. There is really not much else we can do here as far as he is concerned. If you are worried by the astroturfing that is probably going on on Wikipedia articles about Honduras, I would advise you to take an account, read what WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is, and start discussing and editing on the Honduran articles. The more concerned editors on both sides we get, the better and the less POV the encyclopaedia will be. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who was your (Paul Pieniezny) comment directed towards? --Thorwald (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Acting president" means that he is acting as president, not that such acts are legal. Dfoxvog (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definition of de facto: De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". Your opinion, by adding de facto, is that it was not officially established. Interim is fine but de facto is incorrect. True Honduras (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As you say, in practice but not necessarily ordained by law.  De facto denotes that the fact is present and the law may be or may not be. 208.58.16.10 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yu need to read the Honduran Constitution...Michelletti is the President
Honduras surrealista

Gabriel García Márquez podría haber escrito "Cien años de soledad" en cualquier país de Centroamérica. Ésta es una región repleta de personajes, paisajes mágicos, y mitos con el poder de hacer que el pelo se te erice tras el cuello sólo con oírlos.

En las culturas y estados donde decir la pura verdad puede llevarle a uno a la muerte, siempre es más conveniente envolver la historia en mito. Aquellos que desenvuelven los mitos, a menudo desaparecen en el aire - es decir, o hasta que son encontrados, como sea, desnudos, castrados y asesinados después de ser horriblemente torturados.

La prensa de la derecha, por supuesto, repetiría la historia oficial culpando a los gánsters de "maras" en el asunto.

En Honduras, donde hay un apagón de la perspectiva de la oposición, aquí el gobierno aún no ha tenido que considerar la contratación de miles de civiles o de los miembros de las "maras" que operan en nuestro país como ocurrió en El Salvador. Hasta ahora en nuestro país los militares han estado contentos de hacer el trabajo de eliminar o aterrorizar a los opositores del gobierno del "golpista" de Honduras, Micheletti. El 5 de julio, por ejemplo, los militares dispararon con ametralladoras contra una multitud de miles de personas. Esta es la historia no oficial, por supuesto. Los periódicos, entre ellos El Heraldo, La Prensa, La Tribuna etc. dijeron que los militares habían disparado contra la multitud con balas de goma. Oficialmente, también, sólo murió una persona. Manifestantes dicen que hubo ocho o nueve víctimas que murieron de camino al hospital, y de los que sus cuerpos desaparecieron. Habida cuenta de las armas de fuego, es sorprendente que no murieran más.

Una vez más los periodistas de Honduras están llamados a hacer horas extraordinarias en psyops. PSYOP: Operaciones militares diseñadas para influir las percepciones y actitudes de los individuos, con la participación logística de grupos económicos de poder y gobiernos extranjeros que solo buscan proteger intereses mezquinos de sus inversiones bilaterales. Por supuesto, la prensa en Honduras bajo el gobierno "golpista" no es peor que la Fox News, o CNN Dicho esto, todo lo que tiene que ver con las noticias en torno al reciente "golpe" porque  (golpe) tiene un rango que va desde la interpretación  surrealista a la propaganda negra. Parece ser que los periodistas de los principales periódicos y televisión de Honduras realmente fueran escritores frustrados de ciencia ficción distópica.

Los hondureños vemos asesinatos, secuestros en nuestros vecindarios a diario lo que multiplica la alquimia periodística hondureña por seis al día siguiente. Lo tengo en cuenta mientras estoy sentado en mi habitación, hojeando lo que mi esposa en casa llamaría "el paquete diario de mentiras.", Estamos siendo víctimas de una conspiración de terror, somos un país amenazado constantemente por el miedo,  aterrorizado y es aquí que los medios de comunicación alejados de la realidad y en total desvinculación con los problemas del pueblo han dado su mayor aporte. El miedo ha sido el tablero sobre el que se han movido las fichas de la política, cada cierto tiempo tienen que inyectarnos la dosis de miedo necesaria para cegarnos. Bajo ese estado de letargo no podemos ver lo que realmente está detrás y aceptamos las consecuencias de esos actos. La reducción de nuestras libertades de manera progresiva y gradual. Al mismo tiempo, esta dosis de miedo impide, especialmente a los dormidos y a los que empiezan a despertar del largo letargo, atender a la posibilidad y realidad de una conspiración, y pasar a considerarla más bien como una teoria de la conspiración Pero, ¿sabes que, el miedo no crea adicción? Seriamos masoquistas en tal caso. Sólo lo consideramos si nos lo inyectan. Existe un antídoto muy bueno, que consiste en investigar y hacer un seguimiento a la búsqueda de la verdad en aquellos valientes dedicados a la investigación independiente desvinculada de los grandes medios monopolistas relacionados con la Desinformación. El miedo y la amenaza son entendidos en una investigación como elementos de Un tipo de relación social específica, cuya significación es definida por el contexto Político en que se produce. El miedo se genera en la subjetividad de sujetos concretos, y Como tal es una experiencia privada y socialmente invisible. Sin embargo, cuando miles De sujetos son amenazados simultáneamente dentro de un determinado régimen político, La amenaza y el miedo caracterizan las relaciones sociales, incidiendo sobre la conciencia Y la conducta de los sujetos. La vida cotidiana se transforma. El ser humano se hace Vulnerable. Las condiciones de la sobrevivencia material se ven afectadas. Surge la Posibilidad de experimentar dolor y sufrimiento, la pérdida de personas amadas, Pérdidas esenciales en relación al significado de la propia existencia o la muerte.

La relación entre la amenaza política y la respuesta de miedo individual o social Forma parte simultáneamente de procesos psicológicos y procesos políticos que se Influyen dialécticamente. El miedo internalizado y crónico ha delimitado invisiblemente el espacio de la Existencia de las personas. Por otra parte, la represión política sostenida durante años, Introdujo una dimensión intolerable en las relaciones sociales: lo siniestro como una Cualidad de la realidad política. Freud definió el carácter de lo siniestro, lo ominoso, Haciendo referencia a la pérdida de los límites entre la realidad y la fantasía. La tortura, la Desaparición de personas, las ejecuciones o asesinatos, como otras violaciones de Derechos humanos son una expresión de lo ominoso en las relaciones sociales, ya que la Realidad sobrepasó los límites que la fantasía más perversa que jamás se pudo imaginar. Esta dimensión sustentó el desarrollo del miedo crónico ante el cual las defensas habituales Dejaron de ser efectivas.

Aunque los gobiernos no deciden explícitamente cuales son los tipos de fuerza (coerción) que Aplican ni qué dosis de esa fuerza aplicarán, es de suponer que recurren a alguno de los Sistema de sanciones a su alcance: la fuerza normativa, considerada fuerza positiva o Simbólica, ordinariamente identificada con la persuasión, tiene su apoyo en la actividad Educativa; la fuerza material apoyada en la seguridad social, los salarios y las recompensas, y la fuerza coercitiva estrictamente hablando cuyo funcionamiento está basado en las multas, los castigos y la vigilancia policiaca. En el pasado los políticos prometían un mundo mejor. Tenían distintas formas de lograrlo. Pero su poder y autoridad surgía de la visión optimista que ofrecían a su pueblo. Esos sueños fracasaron y hoy, la gente ha perdido la fé en las ideologías. Cada vez con más frecuencia, los políticos son vistos simplemente como administradores de la vida pública.

Pero ahora han descubierto un nuevo rol que restaura su poder y autoridad. En vez de repartir sueños, ahora los políticos prometen protegernos de las pesadillas. Dicen que nos rescatarán de peligros terribles que no podemos ver y que no comprendemos. Y el mayor de todos los peligros es el terrorismo internacional, Virus con enfermedades terribles, Redes poderosas y siniestras, con células asociadas en países de todo el mundo. Una amenaza que necesita combatirse con la guerra al terrorismo. El golpe "ha salvado a Honduras de caer en el proyecto de Hugo Chávez y que ha guardado a la democracia del golpe constitucional que Zelaya esperaba llevar a cabo". ¿Cuál era el "golpe constitucional" que Zelaya estaba tramando? Involucrar a la gente más profundamente en el proceso político del país preguntándole si deseaba redactar una nueva constitución. Por lo tanto, de acuerdo con el golpe militar fue una forma de salvar la "democracia" por medio de llevársela? el elemento de los disturbios en Honduras no es "Mel" Zelaya ni la discusión de si regresa o no" (eso sería una sorpresa para los cientos de miles de personas que marchan a diario en Honduras con el único propósito de tener a su presidente de vuelta) ", lo que se pide es sino que El retorno al orden y no al caos Es decir, comenzaremos a investigar el iceberg a partir de su punta visible que, como sabemos, es apenas una mínima fracción del total. Una vez más, la totalmente inverosímil acusación de que Chávez, y no los golpistas, está detrás de todos los problemas del país. Aislar a Chávez de Honduras y todos los problemas se resolverán.

Lo fascinante de este análisis es que no hay ni siquiera una pizca de verdad en él. En primer lugar, las marchas no son financiadas por nadie, excepto por los propios manifestantes. En este mundo surrealista, donde Chávez está trabajando con narcos, infiltrándose en las costas y pagando a la gente para manifestarse, la influenza H1N1 causando una verdadera “Pandemia”, Células subversivas listas para impedir el circo político transformado en elecciones del pueblo, los pobres golpistas también están siendo injustamente perseguidos por "la OEA, Naciones Unidas y la comunidad internacional."

Si éstos fueran los desvaríos de un loco en la calle, podríamos permitirnos el lujo de ignorarle. Pero esta serie de declaraciones se publican en todos los grandes diarios de Honduras, con grandes titulares. Y obviamente el gobierno está tomando este “sitio narrativo” paranoide en serio, Aquí hemos regresado definitivamente a los malos viejos tiempos, no es la propia definición de golpe de estado la de un representante electo destituido de su cargo, el cual en lugar de ser detenido, juzgado y  condenado o devuelto a su cargo, es echado del país al exilio a punta de pistola. Pero la respuesta fue simplemente disparatada: "Estaban tratando de evitar el derramamiento de sangre. Si lo hubieran mantenido aquí, sus seguidores lo habrían causado." ¿Pero tenemos que creer que las personas que enviaron a los militares al aeropuerto el 5 de julio para ametrallar a los manifestantes, están realmente preocupadas por el derramamiento de sangre. François Marie Arouet más conocido como Voltaire Dijo: El que tiene miedo de la pobreza no es digno de ser rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.195.98 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I beliave seriously that the peoaple who talk or give their extremely biased and definitely uninformed opinion about this matter need to go back to Journalism 101 because you first read and investigate not just watch TV and repeat everything they say their. Michelletti is legally, constitutionally, and mayority supported President of Honduras. At no time has Michelletti obtained this office by means of force, threat, or agression, on the other hand he was handed this office beacuase our Constitution demanded so, and demanded him obliged to assume this office due to his prior presidency of congress. Those reports from various ¨Human Rights Commitees¨ which i believe now are only extreme leftist operators of convinience, are totally and unterlly biased, unsustained, and filled with prejudice, just as a reference 160 persons presented themselves to the office collecting these reports - only in tis case the trying to acuse the alleged (paid) ¨resistence¨ for all the physical and agressive damage they have caused to people and infraestructure. You want to know what the commitee did? They DID NOT RECEIVE ONE SINGLE CLAIM. Not even listen to them.......why? Because that is what they are instructed to do, those reports were elaborated way before hey even got here. Please i beg of you and your intelligence, do a further and deeper investigation and do not call us al 7.5 million Hondurans a Defacto Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.227.145 (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This biography has been compiled by many contributors using 35 different verifiable sources, with strict adherence to Wikipedia rules. It is not an "extremely biased and definitely uninformed opinion"--Congolon (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free photo problem - image deletion after 6 September 2009
The photo presently used seems to be a cutout of a photo at the National Congress of Honduras. Since by default we have to assume that any image published on the web is copyrighted with a standard copyright (not GFDL nor CC-BY-SA), this means that not only are we re-publishing a standard-copyrighted photo, but we are re-publishing an altered (cut) version of a standard-copyrighted photo. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a blog, and there are plenty of authoritarian groups (depending on your POV, mentally insert one or another of the groups in conflict in Honduras into this term) who would be happy to attack Wikimedia Foundation for copyright violation. We don't even know if Congress is publishing the photo legally, even though it looks very official-ish.

Click on the photo, and click on appropriate pages and read and understand their content if you want to understand this more deeply. There are plenty of help pages written. Finding a legally valid photo should not really be too difficult, but unless you took the photo yourself, then you have to get proper authorisation from the copyright owner and email it to the Wikimedia Foundation. Follow the links to see the process. i did this work and got a positive response for one Honduras-related photo. For another email i sent requesting authorisation, i got no response. Try and you might be lucky. But please remember - we're all volunteers here.

Anyway, the main link is File:Roberto_micheletti.jpg.

Boud (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the above discussion, someone claimed to be a very good friend of a brother of Micheletti. It should be relatively easy to convince Micheletti's brother that having a freely-licensed photo of Roberto Micheletti published on the wikipedia would be useful. Of course, a free licence is a free licence. People will be able to legally modify the photo and use it for any purpose consistent with the licence. Boud (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, File:Zelaya_en_Cumbre_Iberoamericana_2007.jpg on Manuel Zelaya is CC-BY-2.5, derived from Cumbre_Iberoamericana_2007_-_Foto_oficial.jpg which is CC-BY-2.5 by the Brazilian press agency that published it. Boud (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will speak with Roberto's brother this weekend and see what he may have that we can use. It's been a few years since the two have gotten together so I don't know how current any of his photos may be. --KevinEdward (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Spoke to Aldo this morning. He said several of his siblings visited Roberto several weeks ago and he has photos that were taken. He will email me something to see if it's useful. If so, I'll post it in place of the current one. --KevinEdward (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool! My recommendation is that (assuming you consense with Aldo on a photo to use), you upload directly to Commons, but you ask the author of the photo to send an email to Wikimedia Foundation (with cc: to you) with a copyright declaration - see Commons:Commons:Email_templates. i'm certainly no expert in this stuff, but AFAIK, multi-licensing and  would probably be the best for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. When you've read enough of the relevant licensing-related pages that you think you've understood enough of what's needed, go to Commons:Commons:Upload and there'll be help guiding you through the steps. Multi-licensing probably requires leaving "no-licence" in the pull-down menu, and putting the tags  and  in another box for other text. Preview works as on normal wikipedia pages, and you can edit after uploading is finished to clean things up if needed. Boud (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, Aldo has sent me two images to choose from. I'm trying to decipher the Commons rules and roadmap and hope to be able to upload the image before the Sunday deadline.--71.42.162.208 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)--KevinEdward (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This image of Roberto was of he and his siblings taken in August 2009. Roberto was cropped and the image was sent to me by his brother, Aldo Micheletti along with permission to use (GFDL - multi license). Commons forms were filled out (correctly, I think). Any questions... --KevinEdward (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again a disclaimer - i am not a lawyer :) - but here's my understanding anyway. i think it's easier to link directly to the commons photo "roberto micheletti 01.jpg" - i've made this change. "file:blabla.jpg" automatically searches for a commons photo - i guess that as long as there is no file with the same name on en.wikipedia, then the wikimedia software (as installed for wikipedia etc.) will use the commons photo. The advantage of this is that it copies all the info from the commons page to make it look like it's in the en.wikipedia (maybe it really is copied, for legal reasons, but i only know what it looks like from the user point of view), but also makes it very obvious that you can go to the "original" commons page to check the "original" uploading history, copyright details, any discussion about the image, etc. Remember that this is especially important for other language wikipedias - now it should be easy for them to check that they are allowed to use the photo.


 * If you haven't already done it, it looks to me like the only other thing still needing doing is forwarding an email from Aldo to a wikimedia.org address as described step-by-step in commons:COM:OTRS - or he can send it directly. If you think this sounds excessively paranoid, try to look at it this way. Imagine that the Micheletti family eventually decide they don't like the Wikipedia, and they search for a legal attack. They could claim that we published this photo in violation of copyright, and that we even falsely claimed that it came from the Micheletti family while the Michelettis totally deny it. What defence do we/the WMF collectively have? So far, we can only say "We had no reason to doubt User:KevinEdward and nobody brought up any doubts". A stronger defence would be to say "In addition, in our OTRS system we received such-and-such an email, from a credible email address, in which the apparent author of the photo quite clearly agreed to such-and-such a copyright status." Maybe (since you know at least one of them personally) in this particular case, this scenario is unlikely, but when we multiply this situation for the presumably huge number of uploaded images for all the wikipedias and other WMF projects, the chances of someone getting upset are higher. My guess is that all of this procedure minimises the chance that the Wikimedia Foundation is going to have to get involved in legal defence stuff regarding image copyrights. Think of it as reducing the potentially necessary amount of work by other volunteers like yourself... :) Boud (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I sent an email from my address and alerted Aldo he may need to do the same. I'll go ahead and have him send one directly to me and I'll forward it to Wikimedia as you suggested. I've been a professional photographer for 30 years so I understand more than most the issue of copyright and the need to cover your bases. Thanks for your help.--KevinEdward (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I forwarded an email from Aldo to Wikimedia last night giving permission to use the photo.--KevinEdward (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Micheletti is not a true "president"
The "government" is what is referred to in Spanish as "Gobierno de los golpistas" (Government of the Coup-mongers). He is the president of the "Golpistas", and the people never elected him. Congress said that Zelaya violated the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that somebody, in government office or not, can overthrow the government? On Wikipedia, he needs to be treated as what he is: a golpista's dictator with no respect for human rights or international law. Jonas from Nevada 216.241.55.204 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sources and can reference them properly (e.g. edit a section without saving and copy/paste the content into a text editor on your local computer in order to learn the syntax), then you can introduce this material appropriately into the text. We don't want to overlap too much with other articles - part of the constitutional discussion is in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and another part in Constitution of Honduras - but documentary knowledge that is directly related to Micheletti would make sense to go in this article.


 * For example, can you find a documentary source for someone claiming that Micheletti is directly responsible for thousands of arbitrary detentions, and for torture, forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions? The decree PCM-M-016-2009 suspending constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, press freedom and right to a fair trial seems to be uncontroversially seen as an authoritarian action by Micheletti (though some sources suspect that he himself is a puppet of others involved in the coup). Western mainstream media, by definition, very much underreport the human rights violations under PCM-M-016-2009. So feel free to do the online literature analysis and editing work like other volunteer editors.


 * Incidentally, under the principles of the International Criminal Court, the accused, no matter how horrific their alleged crimes, have full rights to not be physically abused, rights to access to a lawyer, their family, a doctor, etc, and the right to be presumed innocent until "proven" guilty. In the wikipedia, we don't try to prove that anyone is innocent or guilty, but we do in some sense assume (from the encyclopedic point of view) that s/he is innocent, unless there are reliable sources that document otherwise.


 * So my suggestion for easy work to do is to start on PCM-M-016-2009, since that is directly and uncontroversially associated with Micheletti. Regarding violation of international law (the Vienna Convention in particular), i haven't seen any sources that show Micheletti as being directly responsible for the radiation weapons/emitters - Long Range Acoustic Device (acoustic radiation), mobile phone jammer (electromagnetic radiation) - and the chemical weapon used against the Brazilian Embassy. As de facto president, it would be common sense to hold him politically responsible, but under wikipedia principles, that would constitute original research. It could be that Lanny Davis, who is being paid a third of a million dollars to help the de facto government, for example, had the idea of using "non-lethal" weapons that just damage people's hearing or make them ill, as a way of putting "deniable" pressure on Zelaya, and the military carried out this suggestion without even informing Micheletti. That's just one speculation among many possible. Anyway, enough blabla from me - my suggestion is try PCM-M-016-2009. Boud (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)