Talk:Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

How about the events of the days and weeks leading up to the coup? (Or, to be neutral, to the removal of the president?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup" is plenty neutral. Only an extremely small minority deny that the coup was a coup. You can refer to The Holocaust, too, even though an extremely small minority deny the Holocaust. -- Rico 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we could stop using the Holocaust trope here. The other day, I was having a debate over baseball statistics on another site, and a person disagreed with my version of baseball history and accused me of being (get this) the baseball equivalent of a Holocaust denier. It's really starting to seem to me that people whip that out whenever they want an opponent to be silenced, not because they have a serious point about the domination of a debate by an unrepresentative minority. Rico, could you practice saying the following: "I disagree with you, and so do most other people." This is what you're really arguing. Phrasing it like you do makes it seem like those you're arguing with are also in league with mass murderers, which is extremely insulting and completely without anything approaching a basis in fact. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NOT POV-title

See 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, thanks! --Caltrano (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that the title is POV or is not POV? It appears POV to me.DLH (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Constitutional crisis" seems POV to me (not to mention ambiguous). The focus on the "Constitution" seems to imply one or two things:

(1) That the "crisis" was about Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum the Supreme Court opined was unconstitutional.

(2) That the "crisis" was about the lack of a clear cut constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, therefore implying that the coup was justified.

Either way, it seems to divert attention from the coup, to justification for it.

What was notable was the coup. -- Rico 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran crisis chronology

After extensive discussion at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis the title was changed from "coup d'etat" to "constitutional crisis". In keeping with that consensus, I recommend changing this title to: 1) 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis chronology OR 2) 2009 Honduran crisis chronology The former directly associates with the main article. The latter is shorter and NPOV avoids taking sides with whether it is constitutional, political or an illegal coup d' etat. DLH (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. This article is about the events of the coup d'état.

Calling the coup chronology a "crisis chronology" is ambiguous and, so, would violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy.

That policy states, in pertinent part:

The policy goes on to state:

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Wikipedia:NAME#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations

The Washington Post, the Times, and the Associated Press, are all regularly referring to the coup, simply, as a "coup".

The Washington Post included this, in yesterday's paper, from the Associated Press:

HAVANA -- Fidel Castro blames the coup in Honduras on the U.S. Embassy in that Central American country ...

Castro blames Bush appointees for Honduran coup, The Associated Press (published in the Washington Post)

The Times' headlines look like this:

• "President Zelaya gains strength despite his failure to end coup"
• "Organisation of American States suspends Honduras over coup"
• "Exiled Honduran president defies coup"
• "Honduras President Manuel Zelaya ousted in military coup"

Mainstream news organizations know what the extremely small minority is saying:

The de facto government of Honduras says Mr. Zelaya was legally removed based on a warrant for his arrest. But nations around the world, whether through the United Nations General Assembly or the Organization of American States, have denounced his ouster as an illegal coup.[1]

The New York Times

Choosing a name that, "avoids taking sides" -- not only ignores the fact that the people, that are denying that the coup was a coup, are an extremely small minority -- but it also ignores Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which states:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

There was no "consensus" before the name change, and the move request discussions make that clear. -- Rico 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I support this move. --Almarco (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this move. -- Rico 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently focuses on the events of the coup (28 June) and after. A chronology of the wider constitutional crisis (from when Zelaya started planning a constitutional assembly, and the establishment in various ways resisted that, up to the 28 June coup) would be a useful article, but this isn't it. Renaming the article purely to reflect the fringe view that the events of 28 June didn't constitute a coup is not WP:NPOV. (At least at the main article, there's some justification for "Crisis" because it has the background to the events of 28 June.) Rd232 ^talk 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

There was no page move request. The title change was only proposed.[2] SqueakBox's undiscussed ninja move was invalid. Can we get another administrator to change it back?
SqueakBox never seems to need consensus before unilaterally changing article names. He always seems to know it's controversial, but does it anyway. -- Rico 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

While consensus is not needed to WP:BOLD boldly defend our NPOV policy in fact there was a consensus to change the other name and this name must fit the other name as its a sub-article; quite apart from our NPOV policy and its clear demands for neutrality the articles must not have contradictory names and I was not even aware there had been a separate debate here on the name change; I certianly would not make a proposal here first because the name of the 2 articles needs to be the same and this is the sub-article; if you want the name changed you need to do so at the primary article for both articles; otherwise this article would become a prime target to be merged back into its parent article as a POV fork; which wikipedi does not allow; try focusing on edits not editors would be helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider your edit incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.

Your edit substituted your own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that!

We're discussing it, and then bam -- you again! WTF?

Are you really so important that you don't have to come here to discuss a controversial move first, or was this just a rouge edit? It looks just like pulling a fast one to me!

Your ability to move articles really needs to be taken away from you, because you don't use it responsibly.

You know it's not a fact that the name was POV.

There's a big difference between being bold and imposing your will over consensus.

Just claiming you're being bold, because you claim the name's POV, is just gaming the system. You know it's debateable that it's POV, because we've been debating it! -- Rico 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, aggressive? an admin? My own POV is that it is a coup so please dont accuse me of bringing my POV here; and who was I allegedlty being aggressive towards? I will say again, concentrate on the edits, dont make attacks on editors and do respond to the points I made; such as that it isnt me who is important (why would you think so, its our NPOV policy that is important and which clearly demands we take all serious streams of thought inot consideration; as an experienced not admin but editor I do know what I am doing here when I talk about neutrality POV forks and your ascertaininjg bad motives to me is unhelpfu. If you are so angry I suggest you take a break. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You knew the move you had in mind would cause upset and be considered controversial. Why didn't you propose the move first, like you were supposed to have, by leaving a note here on the talk page to give your reasons?

You might have also established a system for labelling the page itself, with a move proposal template, to make everybody aware of your intentions.

This was a drastic and unexpected change. We were discussing it, and there was clearly no consensus for the move. -- Rico 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page shows that there was clearly no consensus for this move, and still isn't. To expand on my remark above - if someone wants to create Chronology of events of the 2008/9 Honduran constitutional crisis, that might be useful. But this article is about the events of the 28 June coup and its aftermath. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea the move "would cause upset and be considered controversial". Now stop assuming bad faith, I wont tell you again as this is the third time. You cannot call the sub article by a different name from the main article, it makes it appear like a POV fork, and this needed doing urgently, not wasting valuable time with templaters and week long discussions as wikipedia cannot have POV forks. And we do have a WP:BOLD policy precisely for this kind of case. I am more than happy to see a name that does notmention constitution and only used this because this sub-article has to have the same name as the article of which it is a sub article; I suggest we ove both to political crisis, I also think the article should be a timeline for the whole crisis, which has been going on for months. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)