Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:28, 5 October 2009

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Central America Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roberto Micheletti article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

¿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)

• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

"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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages? (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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... /... 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 {{GFDL-v1.3}} and {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} would probably be the best for Misplaced Pages 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 {{GFDL-v1.3}} and {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

1. Cite error: The named reference official_const_honduras was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Honduran Constitution "Republic of Honduras: Political Constitution of 1982 through 2005 reforms", Political Database of the Americas (in Spanish), Georgetown University {{citation}}: Check |url= value (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R24E20090701?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
4. http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Honduras+rulers+reject+call+Zelaya+return/1758044/story.html
5. Honduras rulers renounce OAS charter http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5702483/honduras-rulers-renounce-oas-charter/
6. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-honduras2-2009jul02,0,6656137.story
7. "Pugilato en el Congreso", Diario La Tribuna, 25 October, 1985, page 16, scanned image stored here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WSwSFw8QNd0/Sl0GtEQDkpI/AAAAAAAAAgk/Zmmi3QkKV7w/s1600-h/Micheletti.jpg

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Central America articles
• Latin America articles