` ::::::::Okay, but why can't we reflect that the referendum was called ``non-binding`` by Zelaya and this was not contested by Micheletti's government.  It seems like the only reason that change wouldn't be acceptable is if people want to conclude from Zelaya's statement that it was non-binding that it therefore must have been so.  We already have in the article that ``[s]ources differ as to whether Zelaya was attempting to set the stage for his own reelection at some point in time``, and I personally added two of those sources that differ from the standard pro-Zelaya view...and those sources remain on this page.  But that doesn't mean that sources differ as to whether Zelaya's referendum was meant to be binding at some point in time?  Again...seriously?   `