Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

POV article name

"Constitutional crisis" doesn't seem neutral to me. Also, it's 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. That's inherently POV. It takes sides.
What was notable was the coup. -- Rico 22:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think this article is misnamed. It should be named 2009 Honduran Coup. Civilian Coup, Military coup, Civil-Military coup, it doesn´t matter, it was a coup, not a "constitutional crisis". Fcassia (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, a reference: (BBC) "Obama says Honduras Coup Illegal". Obama says Honduras coup illegal Fcassia (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Like there hasn't been enough consensus seeking. There is a compromise, and we're all sick and tired of this being brought up again by now. --LjL (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It also may imply that the "crisis" was about:

1. Zelaya's alleged desire to change the Constitution, so that he could run for a second term.
2. That Zelaya's alleged attempt to change the Constitution was unconstitutional.

All of these are pro-coup.
The ambiguous name deflects attention from what made this notable -- the coup -- to justifying it.
I'm not the only editor that has expressed this.[1] -- Rico 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You certainly aren't, but then a number of other editors have, instead, expressed the idea that "coup" is POV and inappropriate, this has (as you very well known) been discussed at great lengths, and the current consensus was reached (with the intervention of a couple of administrators since we didn't really seem to be able to be civil ourselves).

So unless you have some novel proposal...? --LjL (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been consensus that "constitutional crisis" is not POV. -- Rico 00:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'm pretty darn sure there is consensus that the current compromise is the best we could achieve for now. There are uh, like three or four archived calls for discussion to show that. Do you have anything new? If so, I'm all ears. --LjL (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally Agree with Rico. Calling it a Constitutional crisis is wrong for the reasons that he has already stated and which i'm not going to talk about any longer. I'm tired of this, and please dont leave me messages on my talk page insisting on my participation on this topic, i no longer want to deal with thisEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. "Crisis" is a compromise largely because a highly vocal but actually fairly small group of editors insisted that "coup" is insupportedly POV, and the rest disagreed with varying degrees of intensity but didn't want to spend eternity arguing the point. I still think a split into Coup (28 June+) and Something Else (political conflict background, including Constitutional Assembly plan) would be better, but I don't have the will, time or energy to argue it any further. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ability of some to rewrite history -- which happens to be archived -- regarding previous discussion -- ad nauseum -- and state, unabashedly, that the title is the result of a small, vocal minority asserting undue influence, is laughable, if not completely disingenuous. I, for one, am glad to see that after all this time, the overall integrity of the article has improved, despite a great deal of bullying bluster and repeated nonsense. VaChiliman (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and found it to lack a NPOV. Use of the phrase "business elite" and "working class" especially in the same sentence (or heading) evidences a clear point of view. Who is a better arbiter of the meaning of the constitution of Honduras? Supreme Court of Honduras, Congress, the country's attorney general, and the supreme electoral tribunal or random editors of this article??? The Honduran Constitution forbids reforms to the articles in the Constitution that refer to reelection of the president. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads: "No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Whatever the motives of the various parties, it would seem more appropriate here to state the facts, then state to position or claims of the opposite sides equally. This article seems to take the side of the supporters of Manuel Zelaya and his supporters.Natwebb (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I Object to the general thrust of the article. The title is wrong if you consider that the Congressional Research Office has found that Zalaya was removed from office legally http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf. But I also feel the article is following leftist biases. It is noteworthy that an indiginous military in Central America protected a democratic government with such action but that action was not an illegal military coup and the article should state that. Facts not propaganda please.Da'oud Nkrumah 03:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

First, its not a Congressional Research Office report even though Congressman Shock called it that; its a report from a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. Its been disowned by the CRS. Its a poor piece of scholarship and has been ripped apart by legal scholars in Honduras and the US. Second, your supposed "facts" are opinions, not facts. I support your right to express your view that the article is left leaning and biased, but point them out in a talk page item and we'll either agree with you and address them or point out where you are wrong. Like in Honduras, discussion is good, ranting is bad. So, if there are things you dislike about the tone of the article, please start a discussion about them. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost think that there should be a separate section to address this LLoC report, since it does comprise a significant part of the US reaction to the Honduran crisis, accurate and correct or not, as the case may be. According to a WashPo article , CRS referred it to LLoC, so it was not exactly "disowned by the CRS," Rsheptak. Now I am no legal scholar, but some agree with its reasoning, and some obviously do not. Remember that opinion pieces, per Wikipedia policy, can only be used to source the author's opinion, and not facts. And until we see the State Department's Harold Koh's legal reasoning, it is the only official legal analysis emitted by the US government (Directorate of Legal Research, Law Library of Congress) regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster and subsequent deportation. Moogwrench (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing with the CRS, not me. They're the one's who wrote my wife an email disowning the LLoC Study as "having nothing to do with them" when contacted. You can call that what you want; I call it disowning it. The head of LLOC promised to put up an FAQ about the piece right after the flap; its still not up. Rsheptak (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is more notable in Honduras: changing the constitution or the military removing a president?

Maybe this way of looking at things might help (though i haven't yet checked the archival discussions, sorry if i'm repeating here).

The Constitution of Honduras was modified at least 22 times after being initially established in 1982. So the concept of modifying the constitution is not something out of the ordinary in Honduran history of the last two and a half decades. So i assume that Hondurans have been arguing heatedly about what changes to make or not make to their constitution nearly every year over this very long period, but this is the first time in the post-1979 era that the military removed a president. Which is more notable in the 1979-2009 history of Honduras? Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

i browsed through the archived discussions. This point seems to me to be new.

• the previous coup d'etat in Honduras was in 1978 by Policarpo Paz García
• the 1982 Constitution was amended at least 22 times, most recently in 2005

Which of the two aspects of the June coup d'etat is more notable in this context? Boud (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this a good point that you are making about relevancy. What some people may point out is that the Honduran consitution is not unlike other constitutions, in which it may be modified in almost all its parts. Actually it's easier to modify the Honduran constitution than the US one, which I believe is part of your point. The main difference which makes the Honduran constitution special, is that within it, it defines some articles as unchangeable. Not only that, it specifies that it is a crime to even suggest to modify them. These articles, are related to the borders, being a democratic republic and the presidential sucesion. Wether having a law that prohibits modifying itself and other laws makes sense is another thing (I personally believe is nonsense), but that's what Honduras has today. In that context none of those specific articles has ever been modified, just as long almost as Honduras had without a Coup until the recent one (my personal view). I believe there was an attempt by President Suazo in 1985 but it was unsucesful. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is abnormal for a constitution to say an official is immediately (which means even a trial not needed) removed even if he try to change the constitution article. However, that means the constitutional order is heavily relying on the clause of presidential office term limit, Honduras democracy cannot live without it, and mostly everything can be done to maintain this constitutional order. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The constitutional scholars in Honduras agree that there still has to be due process in the case of a violation of article 239. The de facto government has been interpreting the constitution largely without reference to case law precedents. Their interpretations of the constitution are quite novel and creative, but not particularly well formed legal arguments. Rsheptak (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide reference for any of these scholars? I haven´t heard that and I live here. None of the Supreme Court who are obviously scholars have said any such thing.--Summermoondancer October 9, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summermoondancer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What do international political authorities - say?

Whether this is mainly a coup d'etat or mainly a constitutional crisis is to some degree a question of sociopolitical judgment. The present "International reactions" summary line starts: "All Latin American nations (with the exception of Honduras), as well as the United States, Spain, France, and others, have publicly condemned the forced removal of Zelaya as undemocratic and most have labeled it as a coup d'état." (my emphasis). Unless this summary is factually wrong, then WP:RS would seem to say that the correct title should be "coup d'etat", not "constitutional crisis", it seems to me. Please remember that en.wikipedia is for knowledge about the World - it is not intended to be USA.wikipedia.org - so POVs from media or politicians in one particular country (e.g. USA) should not count as being more "reliable" than those of media or politicians in other countries.

Is the word "most" in the above summary correct or wrong? Boud (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is already present in the 2-11 July (Archive 4) move proposal. Boud (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And the result of that lengthy discussion "was that the article should be at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. The majority has made the valid argument that the use of the word "coup" is inherently biased, even though it may be commonly used."--75.36.183.75 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it was more like a compromise with people actively wanting it under "crisis", and it was understood that things may change once time passed and/or an international court officially labelled it as a coup. --LjL (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An international court that did not even bother to check Honduran constitutional law. It's disgusting that the rest of the world is calling this legitimate process a coup when everything was handled by what is stated within Honduran constitutional law. Because of international ignorance, numerous country leaders have made fools of their selves and played right into Chaves's hand. Some "international court" does not make the laws and decisions for what is right and wrong in Honduras; the Honduran government does that. To bit this in retrospect, it'd be just as silly as other countries around the world denouncing and not recognizing the United States government if we did something within constitutional law that the rest of the world did not agree with. Think about that one for a second; people that aren't US citizens are telling us how it should be and if we don't revert the situation then they won't recognize us as a country. If that doesn't sound completely ignorant to you, then I can understand why you're then pushing for a "coup" title in the article. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This place is not a forum. Please focus on verifiable, reliably sourced article content, and not on your original political views. I will remove further comments in the same tone from this talk page. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A Neutral Title

In light of the controversy of neutrally naming this article, I propose using an ambiguous title. Ambiguous because the title will only indicate a crisis, not one of constitutional or coup d'etat type. For example, the Honduras WP article calls what's happening in Honduras a political crisis. Ambiguous in that no mention of the coup or constitution is made but accurate because Honduras is in a political crisis. Would this not satisfy both parties, coup proponents and dissidents? Is this not neutral?

This will allow any denial of the coup to take place in the article not in its name. Superdan006 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehm... this has been discussed to death, please check this talk page's archives. "Political crisis" was used at one point; I doubt it'll satisfy anyone any more than "constitutional crisis" does, as the debate was about "crisis" vs "coup", with the adjective put before "crisis" being disregarded by most.

Also, the current title is exactly an attempt to be "ambiguous" in the sense that a "constitutional crisis" may have a coup d'état as part of it - and in fact, there is a "Coup d'état" section in the article (that was also part of the compromise).

I !voted for "constitutional crisis" at the time, but right now, if anything, I'd change back to "coup" unless international sources have changed their minds. --LjL (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Political crisis" works for me, but "constitutional crisis" doesn't make sense. Other related wikipedia articles refer to it variously as a "political crisis" and as a "coup," but "constitutional crisis" goes against common usage. A constitutional crisis usually involved conflict between branches of government, which we don't see here, to any degree. Also please refrain from making the "discussed to death" argument. Many people have only recently happened upon this page, and their views weren't counted in those past discussions. It's fine for it to be brought up again.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its definitely a constitutional crisis. All of the questions around this, whether it was a coup or not, whether it was a consitutional succession or not, whether the de facto government is legitimate or not, revolve around the consitutionality of actions of various branches of the government, so "Constitutional Crisis" describes it perfectly and precisely where "Political Crisis" waters it down and difuses the focus. Rsheptak (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Next time I will be more thorough before I post. Thanks for your help. Superdan006 (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Title "Constitutional Crisis" is appropriate and neutral. The language used even by those that have characterized the events of June 28th as a Coup have stated it is an interuption to Constitutional Democracy. That is the official language used by the OAS and various governments. The "restoration of constitutional order" is language used by the OAS and US etc. to describe the Arias meetings. The Honduran political establishment for the most part considers the succession constitutionally proper. Whether or not it was an interuption of constitutional norms, or a constitutional succession is at the heart of the ongoing dispute. By adding "crisis" it is implied there is a problem or dispute of a constitutional nature - which is exactly the case. Calling it a Coup takes one side. Calling it the "presidential succession of 2009" would imply bias legitimaizing the change over.DrivelEliminator (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is constitutional in nature, as well as political. But constitutional is a closer description, as all constitutional considerations necessarily include the political, as it is a political document. Int21h (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it seems rather clear that "coup" is debatable. The connotations of the word are inherently negative and at least imply illegality. Since at least the Law Library of Congress has said that the removal was entirely legal except for Zelaya's deportation I think it wise to avoid using a word like "coup" that at least implies that illegality is established. "Removal from office" is purely neutral; whether it was legal or not, whether it was right or not, the man was indisputably removed from office. Molon Labe (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in Wikipedia that "Molon Labe" thinks "it seems rather clear that 'coup' is debatable."

It doesn't matter in Wikipedia that "The connotations of the word are inherently negative and at least imply illegality." Read WP:NAME and the guidelines it incorporates by reference.

It doesn't matter that, "Since at least the Law Library of Congress has said that the removal was entirely legal except for Zelaya's deportation [you] think it wise to avoid using a word like 'coup' that at least implies that illegality is established." The Law Library of Congress isn't a reliable source, and didn't state the coup was "entirely legal" -- it stated that it wasn't. We use the word "coup" because RSs do. The US Congress isn't a reliable source and hasn't declared it not a coup.

We're not going to stop using the word "coup", just because of an extremely small minority viewpoint. -- Rico 01:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is The Coup D'Etat heading violating PoV?

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm on my last revert protecting this compromise solution from last month's endless debate. Can we get eyes on this?Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You just beat me to that last revert. The title and section heading were a combined compromise hashed out after much digital ink was spilled. I "vote" for not reopening the issue. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be reopened, and changes it without even discussing it here first should be treated as bad-faith disruption, as the warning comment in the source is very clear. --LjL (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a closed topic and I see no reason to re-open it, and anybody who wants to complain it violates NPOV also should know about WP:3RR which the offending user has violated overwhelmingly today. Just FYI, reverting for the sake of maintaining a consensus state in the face of vandalism is one of the exceptions to WP:3RR I believe. Rsheptak (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? It is too far to call a change a vandalism. This kind of accusation is worse than foul words. If the topic can't be reopened, what kind of change can be treated as good-faith? --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll remember that in future rather than resorting to an otherwise pointless RFC.Simonm223 (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has spilled over a little into Honduran general election, 2009. i have done most of the editing there, so it would be better for someone else than me to revert (or confirm if you disagree with my judgment) the recent edit discussed at Talk:Honduran_general_election,_2009#constitutional_crisis_vs_coup_d.27etat_NPOV. Please go over to that talk page, and add a comment if you wish to and/or edit the article. Probably best not to edit the article without adding at least a brief comment in the discussion section. That editor may not be aware of the previous discussions. Boud (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose the name 'Detention, Forced Exile and Constitutional Crisis' instead of "Coup d'etat". The word "Coup d'etat" has two meanings, one is on cutting off the head of state (on non-democratic states), and the other is cutting of an accepted constitutional order (on democratic states). The word "self coup" is used when a head of state try to abolish execution of a key clause of accepted constitutional order. It shows that the word "coup" is ambiguous here and is very misleading, because the major point of concern is the constitutional order, not the head of state. All parties maintain that Honduras should adopt or return to democratic constitutional order, and the only question is "how", and particularly on what is the way, respecting the rule of law, to reinforce the constitution article of limiting presidential office term.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of this. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read up the previous debates about the name of the article. Unless there are significant new arguments in addition to previous arguments in the debate whether this article should be "2009 Honduran coup d'etat" or rather "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis", then there is no point trying to rename the section. The section name was a compromise to avoid an ugly compromise title such as "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/coup d'etat" or an eternal move-war on the article title.

Regarding "all parties" - please remember that the large numbers of typically (but not only) poorer Hondurans who are campaigning to have a constituent assembly also constitute an important party in the issue, and they continue to use the term "coup d'etat". If Western media have stopped using the term coup d'etat (mainly because they are not saying anything at all now?), that doesn't change the fact that it was used in the past, nor does it change the fact that the US State Department has just a few weeks declared that it has "determined" that a coup d'etat occurred, nor does it change the usage by many governments around the world.

i do not see any use in considering a title like 2009 Detention, Forced Exile and Constitutional Crisis in Honduras for this article. The compromise of "constitutional crisis" in the title and "coup d'etat" as a major section is probably the only consensus that is likely to be obtainable (except for the reverse: coup d'etat as the article title and constitutional crisis as part of the background and situation during the coup d'etat government; however, the amount of talk and energy investment required for this reverse solution would be better spent in other ways). Boud (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussions. I took Kittyhawk's statement as a comment on one of the subject headers, not the title of the page. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject header "Coup d'etat" and the title of the page are fundamentally linked as a solution for an otherwise-unsolvable disagreement. There's a yellow box at the top of this talk page, saying "Important Note: The presence, or absence, of the words "coup d'état" in the title and/or section titles of this article is a controversial subject, and has generated considerable discussion. Please do not make any changes in this regard without first discussing them here and allowing some time for response. The most stable compromise has been to have the words in a first-level section head, but not in the article title, as the article's focus extends further. ..." i did not put that summary box there, and i did not participate in the original discussions. i did make a comment that i thought might be new, but it wasn't seen as strong enough to re-open the old discussions. My general perception is that the yellow box is consistent with the parts of the talk page that i read.

Maybe someone could find section links and archive links (is some of this talk page archived?) so that people new to the debate can go more quickly to the points of the previous debate and see if there if things have changed enough to reopen the debate.

For example, if the huge majority of governments around the world who considered this to be a coup d'etat withdrew their statements (does someone have a RS for this?) and if there was serious evidence that Zelaya was not forcibly removed from Honduras by the Honduran military (any RS's? e.g. maybe it was a hoax, like claims that NASA never really sent men to the Moon), and if there was serious evidence that the massive popular resistance by ordinary Hondurans decided to withdraw its usage of the term "el golpe de estado", then maybe this would be enough to reopen the debate.

Again, i don't see how talk by world governments of aiming for constitutional government could change the importance of a coup d'etat having taken place. This is the third case of military in a Latin American democracy removing the elected president this decade - it's not clear to me that it's so much softer than all the previous coups d'etat in Latin America over many decades - some were quite bloody, some were less bloody, with various levels of human rights violations committed by various big-business–military–president–court–congress coalitions giving more or less apparent control to civilians. In any case, this is a wikipedia article, not a wikinews article. The most recent political aims of international governments or Honduran groups of various demographic sectors are not necessarily the most important pieces of knowledge for this article. Boud (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is reality, unfortunately. That we got it wrong in July is no reason to continue getting it wrong in October. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• support 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis → 2009 Honduran political crisis — The current title, "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis," is contested, is not NPOV, and is not descriptive. The nature of this political crisis extends far beyond any question of constitutionality.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Heyitspeter (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Presidential Crisis" or "Presidential Dispute" instead of "Political Crisis"? "Presidential" is surely NPOV (this is about the Presidency, after all) and it's much more specific than the hopelessly vague "Political." Elliotreed (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What serves to make the title "2009 Honduran political crisis" precise and descriptive are the terms "2009," "Honduran" and "crisis." Add the word "political" and we've got a title that is obviously about the events in question. There's nothing vague about it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• oppose. This is much more than a political crisis, it's a coup d'etat used to try to prevent a political solution. In other words, soldiers with guns have been used to "solve" the political dispute between elite and poor Hondurans instead of using "politics", i.e. discussion, meta-discussion on "what-the-rules-should-be", i.e. a constituent assembly has been prevented (in the short term) by the use of guns, the threat of the use of guns, and systematic human rights violations by those who de facto took power. In other words, a better title would be 2009 Honduran use-of-the-military and thousands-of-arbitrary-arrests and closing down of the media in order to prevent a constituent assembly crisis. However, that's a bit long. The short form would be 2009 Honduran coup d'etat. That's how historians have talked about this sort of situation in Latin America for many similar events during the XX-th century and the two previous Latin American coups d'etat in the XX1-st century. Boud (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - i think that someone should first give a good list of links to the points raised the previous time this was discussed. Boud (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think either "constitutional crisis" or "political crisis" would be a valid title. With respect to "coup d'etat", I am curious how many of the previous situations historians referred to as such involved the country's supreme court authorizing the military to replace the president with the #2 from his own party due to the president's unconstitutional actions. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Chile, 1973. Which is pretty much universally understood as a coup d'etat. A military overthrowing a government is a coup, whether it's a caretaker coup, a veto coup, or anything else. I don't understand the refusal of this site to use the actual description of events. Anything except "coup d'etat" is POV on the side of the perpetrators. --86.42.149.102 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Chile, 1973 is not at all comparable to this situation. In Chile, 1973 a military leader took over as the head of the government. In this situation, the miltary's only involvement was to enforce the Honduran supreme court's order to remove Zelaya due to Zelaya's constitutional violations and replace Zelaya with the constitutionally valid #2. The military's role was no different than if a US president was constitutionally impeached and removed from office, and the appropiate US forces enforced the impeachment by allowing the vice-president to take over. I think the POV is on the other foot. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The only RS for this being a coup or a constitutional transition would be those whose job it is to interpret that country´s constitution Has the Supreme court of Honduras called it a coup in any legal opinion?--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• oppose. We've discussed and rejected such a change before; see the archive of this talk page. Rsheptak (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It doesn't matter what you did before I wasn't here. The Title 2009 Honduran political crisis is certainly more neutral. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)
• Neutral - it's worth understanding that both sides see this as a constitutional crisis, between the current one and one that a constituent assembly would provide. Changing the title to "political" would certainly reflect what's been written, but the kernel here remains the constitution. I used to be of the opinion that the folks wanting to keep it at "constitution" were equivocating, and using the word to hide the "bigger picture". When you realize that pro-Zelaya or otherwise anti-coup and pro-constituent assembly are as deeply concerned about the constitution, you realize that the bigger picture is the constitution. Long short short: I don't think it makes a difference one way or another. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, clearly this isn't a Constitutional issue as we know it. Political is much more accurate. 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Wood's Wig (talk • contribs)
• Strongly oppose This is more than a political crisis. It is a crisis caused by interpretation of the Honduras constution and a desire by some groups to alter it. The appointment of Micheletti as successor instead of the vice president shows a violation by the de facto government of succession rules laid down in the constitution. The constitution is being used to avoid altering the political status quo. It really should be called the 2009 Coup d'etat because that is what it is univerally recognised by governments throughout the world. This has already been argued ad nauseum and the present name was the compromise. Cathar11 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CRS report

The US Congressional Research Service has a report that the ouster of Zelaya was allowed under the Honduras constitution. Here's a link: http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdfMikeR613 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some rather serious concerns regarding that report. See the analysis Serious errors of fact in CRS LL File No. 2009-002965 on Honduras by Prof. Rosemary Joyce, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences and Chair of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. Boud (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That analysis may or may not qualify as a reliable source. The CRS report obviously does, and should be referenced. Then we should decide whether to reference criticisms of it.MikeR613 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look, its not a CRS report, its a resport by a Senior Foreign Law specialist with the Law Library of Congress. The CRS disclaims it. It has serious problems, but yes, you can cite it in the same way other "Opinions" can be cited against it. Rsheptak (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I might add that if you look at the Law Library of Congress report, you'll notice it makes reference to phone conversations with guillermo perez cadalso to confirm the novel thesis it comes up with. Perez Cadalso is a golpista who testified before the US congress on the rightness of the coup. Tainted scholarship. Rsheptak (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another serious flaw in the report was to say that Micheletti was next in line. While it is true that the vice president resigned 6 months before to concentrate on his election to be president his successor Vice President Aristides Mejia then became next in line under the Honduran constitution. The report makes no mention of this merely mentioning that the VP had resigned. Cathar11 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite...Mejia became the Vice President Minister, because there is no process for replacing a vice president if they die or quit, and now, there is no Vice President in the constitution due to a CSJ decision in November 2008. Its back to a president and 3 designates.

So which version of the decree is correct?

Elsoc has what the claim to be the decree: http://www.elsoca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=501:honduras-decreto-ejecutivo-del-presidente-manuel-zelaya-para-consultarle-al-pueblo-sobre-la-cuarta-urna&catid=16&Itemid=11 They use the word "consulta popular" translated as referendum.

La Tribuna quotes parts, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422, using the word "encuesta" translated as "opinion poll".

Is any of these trustworthy? The supreme court obviously saw it as a referendum... --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

answered on your talk page. The Elsoc decree is from May, the La Tribuna article refers to a replacement decree published June 25th. BTW, translating consulta popular as referendum is an interpretation, not a translation. Rsheptak (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, so then he first called for a referendum, and then changed it to a poll after the supreme court told him not to do the referendum. In that case the article should reflect this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, he called it a "consulta popular" which some people choose to translate as referendum. It was always intended to be a public opinion poll, from its initial discussion and presentation. It suprised Zelaya when people thought a "consulta popular" meant referendum (with binding as implicit) and forced him to change the language. Rsheptak (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not "some people", but most everyone. But a look at the constitution makes it clear that the constitution talks about "referéndum", "plebiscite", "consulta" and "consultas populares" more or less interchangeably. He can hardly be surprised that in a conflict about teh constitution, the word "consulta populare" is interpreted as meaning what it means in the constitution. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you say calling it a Coup D'Etat is neutral?

Calling it a Coup D'Etat is exactly the debate here. A Coup D'Etat is the "unconstitutional" removal. So calling it the 2009 Honduran Coup D'Etat would not be neutral at all as the constitution is the basis for debate here. I think everyone is aware of what Article 239 says, and the real debate comes in the interpretation of this part of the constitution. 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis is the best description as it all started with an attempt to change the constitution, and now the argument surrounds the interpretation of article 239. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.242.7 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A wise IP address.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: "Calling it a Coup D'Etat is exactly the debate here ... the real debate comes in the interpretation of this part of the constitution."

129.110.242.7, Wikipedians are not allowed to base article content, article names -- or much of anything else -- on talk page debate on interpretations of anything!

Such editor opinions and debates, no matter how good, are considered "original research" -- and are irrelevant within the confined context of the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

The debate you propose would be a waste of time, and would serve only to muddy the waters.

The only legitimate debate would be which Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, and what they dictate we do.

Wikipedia has an English Wikipedia policy specifically on how to name articles, and it is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Rico 15:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate policy for calling this act a coup d'etat is WP:SPADE. It was a coup we should name it thus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the article is also so much about the constitution. I think splitting the article into two would help this problem, but I also think a lot of us have approached this article from a rather entrenched mentality, and will confuse a split with a POV fork. We're kind of stuck on technicalities with one article, since this is as much about the coup as the constitution. Maybe we should call it the coupstitutional crisis :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, since in reality it wasn't a coup, we should respect WP:SPADE and rename it as such, right? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"In reality it wasn't a coup," because Ed Wood's Wig says so?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press."

The New York Times published, the day before yesterday, "supporters of the coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya three months ago have for the first time suggested his return as president" and that "There are other signs that the coalition of politicians, businessmen and the military that supported the coup is feeling pressure from the international community."[2]

The Times in Britain published, September 23rd, that "Roberto Micheletti, president of the interim government that took power after a coup on June 28, said that Mr Zelaya must first accept elections to choose a new president on November 29" and "Mr Zelaya made his surprise return to Honduras on Monday, three months after being ousted in a military-backed coup" and that "Mr Lula said that he had spoken to Mr Zelaya by telephone on Monday and urged him not to give the coup plotters any pretext to resort to violence."[3]

The Associated Press published, yesterday, "UN rights council condemns abuses in Honduras coup".

The Washington Post published, today, "The [Obama] administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup'."[4] -- Rico 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically because the reliable sources that are speaking from authority, as opposed to the partisan governments and uninformed media, are noting correctly that it is not a coup. We even have the US legal group that noted that the situation was entirely legal. So no, it's not because I say so, it's because the reliable sources that are authoritative on the subject of law in Honduras say so. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your "reliable sources" -- the ones that state that, "in reality it wasn't a coup." Otherwise, we only have your word that these sources exist, and state what you say they do, and we cannot take them into consideration.

The high-quality end, mainstream news organizations I quoted are explicitly recognized by Wikipedia as reliable sources.

"The US legal group" sounds like an actor in these events, not a reliable source. -- Rico 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They're all linked above and in the archives. The US legal group as well, who is not an actor in the situation. Keep in mind - I can find reliable sources that say that Barack Obama is both a non-native born Muslim and that he's a reptilian from another planet. That the source exists does not mean that the source is correct. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What planet do you exist on? Every Government in the world is wrong according to you. Your argument isn't based on reality.Cathar11 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument is based solely in reality. 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that, "[you] can find reliable sources that say that Barack Obama is both a non-native born Muslim and that he's a reptilian from another planet," suggests that you don't understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I am discussing "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia.

The difference is important because Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy states:

The policy goes on to state:

In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy

I don't know what "the US legal group" is and, despite my request for a citation, you have not provided one.

The burden of providing citations to reliable sources is on you, not me. So far, all that you have established is that Ed Wood's Wig claims there are reliable sources out there that substantiate Ed Wood's Wig's claim that, "in reality it wasn't a coup."

I've already done all I had to do, and I'm not here for a discussion that wastes bandwidth. -- Rico 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link from above [5]. If you'd have spent 10 seconds looking backward at the discussions, you'd find this and many other links that disprove this claim of a coup entirely. I am also discussing WP:RS, and that you don't understand that reliable sources can provide unreliable information tells me that, perhaps, you don't really understand the concepts there and at WP:V. We are not tied down to relying on the New York Times if they are clearly incorrect, as example. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Directorate of Legal Research concluded, in the last paragraph, that the "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution."[6]

This hardly substantiates your claim that, "the US legal group [...] noted that the situation was entirely legal."[7]

The Directorate of Legal Research is an actor in these events (just as the Honduras Supreme Court is), and neither is a neutral, third-party, reliable source. -- Rico 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum; we are not here to prove anything to anyone. Please take opinions elsewhere. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Our debate needs to focus on our NPOV policy and not on the Honduran constitution. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A debate concerning how to name an article would clearly be incomplete without consideration of Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy's first sentence is, "This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles."

That, Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy is pertinent in a major way -- in a debate about "how to name an article" -- is a truism. It's true, by definition.

Jimbo is quoted in our NPOV policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources..." -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

If a viewpoint does not even belong in Wikipedia, then it can't control how we name an article.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy does that. -- Rico 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions guidelines

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy begins:

This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles. It is supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy

I was wondering. Has anyone looked into this second sentence? Some have led me, and perhaps others, to believe that there is an apparent conflict, or contradiction, between Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and Wikipedia:NPOV.
A resolution may be in these guidelines. -- Rico 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it not being a coup is a significant POV with many reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view

Oh my gosh! Here it is:

Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. Rules to select a name should be applied in the following sequence:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime".

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view

Resolving conflicting points of view
Regardless of which rule applies, there may still be different points of view on how to characterize the event, and some of these points of view may be contrary to the title. These points of view should be discussed in the article. However, the title may contain a word of questionable neutrality, such as "massacre" or "terrorism," if this word is part of the common name.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Resolving_conflicting_points_of_view

Even if "coup" implies a point of view, and even if "coup" is a strong word, and even if "coup" is a word of questionable neutrality, it should still be used! -- Rico 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, used to show why the belief is in error, not in a subject heading providing misleading information. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What. How can you quote NPOV correctly, Rico, and then argue the exact opposite. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is that this was a Coup de tat. Clearly it was not and the Library of Congress among others says so:

Forgive me if I edit in a mess its unintentional: From Wikipedia the definition of a coup A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.

Now under such a definition you can not call the events in Honduras a Coup. References supporting the lack of a coup are as follows: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html, describing a court order to detain Zalaya http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html, Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs, Honduran Supreme Court on lawful Constitutional Succession http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8217393.stm>, The State department saying the situation in Honduras doesn't meet the legal definition of a coup http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8236996.stm, Congressional Research Service http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf, These are opinion pieces supporting the non-coup view point http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/honduras-zelaya-insulza-opinions-contributors-william-ratliff.html?partner=whiteglove_google http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html and though probably not noteworthy enough this blog article does a good job in pointing out the articles of the Honduran Constitution allowing the court and military to act http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras

Get the propaganda off of Wikipedia. Just because you wish it to be a coup doesn't make it a fact. The fact that there are legal reason, whether subject to debate or not, existing by legitimate bodies of the Honduran government is sufficient to disprove the "unconstitutional deposition" required for this change of government to qualify as a coup under Wikipedia's own definition of coup. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, blogs and the declarations of actors in these events are not reliable sources for statements of fact:

Da'oud Nkrumah	Rico
The opinion is that this was a Coup de tat.	The verifiable fact is that reliable sources refer to the event as a "coup".
Clearly it was not and the Library of Congress among others says so	The Library of Congress, among others, are actors in these events. also, that is not an official LoC publication, simply a publication by an employee within the LoC database. (The distinction is meaningful) Homunq (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Well, the report indicated that it was issued by the Directorate of Legal Research at the Law Library of Congress and only at the end of the report does it indicate who prepared it. Furthermore, this report was commissioned by Congressman Aaron Schock (R., Ill.)So it is not just merely a publication by an employee, but an officially commissioned document.Moogwrench (talk) 13 October 2009
From Wikipedia the definition of a coup A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is [...] Now under such a definition you can not call the events in Honduras a Coup.	Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
References supporting the lack of a coup are as follows: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html, describing a court order to detain Zalaya http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html, Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs, Honduran Supreme Court on lawful Constitutional Succession http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8217393.stm>, The State department saying the situation in Honduras doesn't meet the legal definition of a coup http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8236996.stm, Congressional Research Service http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf	The "court order to detain Zalaya" did not order his expulsion from the country, nor does it establish that the reliable sources that regularly refer to the coup as a "coup", aren't. The Honduran Supreme Court, the State department, and the Congressional Research Service are actors in this event, not reliable sources.
These are opinion pieces supporting the non-coup view point http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/honduras-zelaya-insulza-opinions-contributors-william-ratliff.html?partner=whiteglove_google http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html	Per Wikipedia:RS, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact" (emphasis in original)
though probably not noteworthy enough this blog article does a good job in pointing out the articles of the Honduran Constitution allowing the court and military to act http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras	This blog is not a reliable source.
Get the propaganda off of Wikipedia.	I couldn't agree more.
Just because you wish it to be a coup doesn't make it a fact.	An editor's wishes are irrelevant. The reliable sources call it a "coup", knowing that the coup-installed, de facto government, its cronies, and its political trumpets deny it was a coup (for obvious reasons).
The fact that there are legal reason, whether subject to debate or not, existing by legitimate bodies of the Honduran government is sufficient to disprove the "unconstitutional deposition" required for this change of government to qualify as a coup under Wikipedia's own definition of coup.	"legitimate bodies of the Honduran government" are actors in this event, not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

-- Rico 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources also state it is not a coup.
• They can only be cronies if you have already made up your mind that they are guilty
• The Library of Congess is not an actor in the event thus they are a reliable source, Please what did they do load the weapons?
• The sources show there is a legal process within legitimate governmental bodies to remove Zalaya from office.
• The Exile is a separate issue.
• Opinion pieces are quoted throughout the article to justify pro-zalaya material

Da'oud Nkrumah 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Extrajudical executions

Unless the sources specifically use this term, this is an OR violation of the most egregious type. People involved in insurrection that are killed while participating are not being executed. When a police officer kills in the line of duty, it is not an execution. This is extremely biased language and should be fixed. Any suggestions on how to do it?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Being that the article redirects to Extrajudicial killings, I think that renaming it to that might be the best thing we could do now. "Execution" has perhaps too strong a connotative meaning. Even then, the text doesn't quite substantiate extrajudicial; it is all very suspicious, though... but we can't have a title that reads "suspicious killings". I'm thinking extrajudicial is the best word between "assassination" and "suspicious deaths". You got any ideas? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

High profile deaths? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the neutral "Deaths" that does not require OR violations. If the source does not label them as such, neither can we.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Ed Wood's Wig seems to feel there's ample discussion on this talk page to merit putting an UNBALANCED tag in the article. I don't see it, so I'm inviting him, and anyone else who feels that way to open a discussion of the points they feel are unbalanced. Lets try and maintain a separate discussion of each point. Rsheptak (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• <Fill in first point here>
• <Another Point>
• <Still Anohter Point>

Summermoondancer: please remove the name Martin Florencio Rivera Barrientos that was killed the 2nd of August. His family has repeatedly requested that his name not be used as a death related to the Honduran crisis because he was NOT killed due to the crisis. He was murdered by a 15 year old that he told to stop smoking pot. Here is the proof. http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=25859 Please respect the family and their wishes about NOT using this person´s name since doing so is dishonest and already refuted since the guilty person has already been identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summermoondancer (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already taken care of this. Thanks for the clarification, and the source. Rsheptak (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

Ed Wood's Wig feels the contents of this section are disputed. I don't see the dispute in this talk section so I'm opening the discussion here. This section is to discuss the points he, and others, wish to dispute about the background section. Rsheptak (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• A Disputed Point
• Another Disputed Point
• Still Another Disputed point

• The background should discuss only those things relevant to the removal of Zalaya from office. What does Displeasure of the conservative business leaders and conflicts with leftist interests have to do with removing Zalaya from office? The man was removed for violating the constitution.

Sorry, I disagree; this ssection is quite relevant. The business people were the financial backers of the coup, and the history and reason for their disagreements with Zelaya are part of the motiviations for what happened, and actually are the main reason, in my opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Key being in your opinion. The "coup" didn't need financial backers, as it was a Constitutional necessity, so the relevance is somewhat questionable, or at least is being presented in an unbalanced way. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole arguement of the Government of Honduras is missing from this section. The claims that the president was not implementing laws passed by Congress, The claims that he ignored the lawful orders of the Supreme Court are mentioned not mentioned. Insttead we have a leftist attempt at presenting evidence supporting the leftist viewpoint that this was a coup. It is not neutral it is not npov.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the article and add, in an NPOV fashion, the de facto government's arguments and I urge you to do so. Rsheptak (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Previous coups d'etat

Many coups d'etat occurred in Latin America during the twentieth century. In Honduras during the second half of the century, five coups d'etat occurred: in October 1955, October 1963 and December 1972, April 1975 and August 1978. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, two coups d'etat occurred in Latin America before 2009. The first occurred in Venezuela on 11 April 2002 and was reversed in 47 hours. The second occurred in Haiti on 29 February 2004. Claims and counterclaims of United States involvement in the Venezuelan and Haiti coups d'etat remain controversial.

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HONDURAS. What does America in Haiti have to do with this article?

Absolutely nothing, and I would support removing it. Cruft always creeps into articles and needs to be pruned. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we have this paragraph removed then?Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have removed it, but I removed it, and the subsequent paragraph about military and human rights abuses because it was not on-point with the topic of the article. I reviewed both paragraphs and agree with you. gone. Rsheptak (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Role of the military and human rights abuses post-1979 WHAT does this have to do with Zalaya being removed from office?

Goes to attitudes of Military, and their role in previous coup's. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But this wasn't a coup. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all world governments except the de facto government of Honduras disagree with you. Whether or not it was a coup has been beaten to death in the archives. Do you have something new to add to the discussion besides a simple assertion that it wasn't a coup? Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What world governments have to say really isn't the point nor do I think most of their statements are legitimate references. The Honduran Supreme Court says it wasn't a Coup as does the Honduran People and the Library of Congress. At the very least that view...that there is no coup needs to be represented throughout the entire article. Otherwise it is slanted. I posted plenty of references above that it is not a coup but that instead the removal follows the Constitution.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The detailed references overwhelmingly note it's not a coup - the "it's a coup" is solely based on the words of Zelaya and the political machinations of the world stage. We should be focused on accuracy when we have reliable sources advocating both sides - making sure we're accurate while acknowledging that some beleive there was a coup as opposed to working off of the assumption that it was a coup as we do now. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph referenced above is now gone, "coup" has nothing to do with it in any case..it was about the military role in human rights abuses pre-june 28 and not on topic, so I axed it at Da'oud Nkrumah's requesst. Feel free to add the de facto government POV, in an NPOV fashion, to the article. Rsheptak (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revert yourself in the continued edit warring over the tags. you're being highly disruptive by pretending there is not a conflict on this matter. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully no. I believe if you're going to tag the article you need to have first made a good faith effort to identify the nature of the disputed and unbalanced items, which with the exception of the use of the word "coup" you haven't yet done. You act as if one party's opinion makes the whole article disputed and unbalanced. If you can so lightly add the tags, without explaining what it is that's disputed and unbalanced, then there's no mechanism that can be used to evaluate when/if its time to remove the tags and they either remain forever, or some editor removes them and another editor adds them back. I added these discussions to open up the discussion about the appropriateness of the tags to other editors because such tags merit a discussion. Think of this as a process by which you establish both the merit of adding the tags, and a benchmark for evaluating when they are no longer appropriate. Rsheptak (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm forced to believe you're not interested in fixing the problem. By misleading readers and other editors that there are not serious conflicts with this article, you're doing the whole thing a disservice. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup d'etat is the universally used term in global quality newspapers for the ousting and exiling of Zelaya. It is also the description used by most world governments. The conflicts you have result from your personal POV and not reliable sources ar generally accepted belief. Cathar11 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflicts I have result from what actually occurred, not the political machinations of the world leadership or the media who can get it wrong. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We rely on reliable sources. Concerning "the media," Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." An editor's opinion that the media has "gotten it wrong," is irrelevant.

I've written you that before, and you've read it, but you refuse to get the point. You seem to know something about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because you refer to them using shortcuts.[8] I'm beginning to suspect that you are trying to game the system (using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately). WP:Game states, "Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive." -- Rico 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "an editor's opinion," but the opinion of experts as noted in the reliable sources you continue to ignore, for what I can only presume, to keep this inaccurate article as it is. Since you've decided that, instead of demonstrating why these sources are right and the relible sources I'm relying on are wrong, that I'm being "disruptive" and "gaming the system," it tells me that you're incapable of assuming good faith and, in fact, are providing me with evidence to the contrary that you are approaching this as such. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel this section should end with a paragraph or two summarizing the problems Zalaya begin to have with his Congress, business groups, the courts and the military. Da'oud Nkrumah 08:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

All of this is already in the article, so if you want to move things around, I'm fine with looking at your proposed changes either by discussing them, or by you making the edits, and having other editors review them. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I made edits please review.I started at the top of the article and am working down I reached the Background section. It will take a while to get to the rest so please look over the changes I made to add the regimes view point and clean up language.Da'oud Nkrumah 09:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Some are welcome additions to the article. Many of the edits will require correction to restore the original language. Changing the language used can be POV. Ouster, Coup, De Facto government are terms used by global quality newspapers and most world governments. Some contain too much irrelevant detail and inexplicable removal of text already there. Please sign your comments here with 4~ and not on the edit summary which is meaningless. It saves them being autosigned Cathar11 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and unlike newspapers wikipedia does not exist to inflame opinion. The reason neutral language was inserted was to remove POV. Ouster and removal have the same meaning but to use ouster is giving the point of view that the removal was illegal. de facto government has been left in places but the correct legal term from the honduran authorities is interim. Some newspapers have also used interim. I have tended only really to change terms where it makes the language flow better. I typically keep whats there. Their view point needs representation. We need to represent the facts, facts only please. Also, I do sign my edits but sometime it still gives an autosign. Da'oud Nkrumah 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I am checking the references while I go through this. Many of the references aren't relevant to what is being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup d'etat Section Discussion

Ed Wood's Wig feels that the contents, and the title of this section are Disputed and added a DISPUTED-SECTION tag to this heading. I don't see a discussion of the contents, though I incorporate by reference the discussion of the heading above. Discuss the appropriateness of this tag, and be specific about what facts are being disputed here. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Use of The official line of the Honduran government (Sounds like you are saying they are lying)Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand where in the article you're talking about, yes, the implication is that the de facto government has lied. Even the NYT has said that there are things about the documents supplied then retracted by the de facto government (such as the alleged resignation letter, but also many other documents) that suggests they were constructed post-coup and then backdated. I think that's what the section is trying to say in a nutshell, but I agree, its confusing and its not clear why all these timestamps are being marshalled. The argument could be made and supported more concisely and clearly. Rsheptak (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you are trying to sway opinion. Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

This wording violates NPOV further it doesn't fairly put about the Honduran Government Position, The position of the Supreme Court of Honduras nor the View of the Honduran Population.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not me, I'm just trying to explain it to you. Again, you can edit the article and add the material you think relevant in an NPOV way, and change text you feel is POV, though remember other editors will be looking over your shoulder and make changes as well. Rsheptak (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• available digitally with a timestamp of 2 July in time zone UTC-5 (Doesn't add to article, sloppy)Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I dispute the whole idea of a coup de tat as stated in the How can you say calling it a Coup D'Etat is neutral? section of talk. First you have a whole section of the Congress moving to impeach Zalaya above this section. Then you have the Supreme Court ordering the Military to arrest Zalaya by unanimous vote. Two branches of a government that are wholly legitimate at the time of their actions. You have an arrest warrant and a Constitution authorizing the military to act. You have the same legitimate parts of the government after this ouster by vote picking a successor until regular elections. Again following the constitution of the country in question. With this legal process you can't call this a coup it doesn't meet the definition even the definition here on Wikipedia.

I recommend that Removal of President replace Coup D'etat Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As heavily discuussd in the Archives a compromise was arrived at in the naming of the Article which involves the present name and naming of a section within the article Coup d'etat. This consensus is now being reargued. Every government in the world (except Honduras) has described it as a coup. International bodies such as the UN, EU and OAS similirarily. This does not make the article unbalanced but balances the non descript name of the article. Cathar11 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed in the archive and Da'oud Nkrumah doesn't bring anything new to the argument. I'll dredge up some old stuff here. (1) There is no constitutional way in Honduras for Congress to remove a President. It can only disapprove of actions (but not the person). Congress ammended the constitution to remove this capacity from itself. It delegate it to the Supreme Court, which hears charges against high government officials. (2) The Supreme Court did not vote unanimously to have the military arrest Zelaya; Justice Tomas Arita Valle did. Hoever, the order should have been directed at the Police, not the Military. Its the constitutional role of the Police to carry out court instructions, not the military. That was a mistake. (3) The constitutional role of the military does not include removing the president. The constitutional mission of the Military is clearly spelled out in the Honduran constitution, and it does not include anywhere "removing the president by force." I won't address the whole issue of "constitutional succession" which was bogus as well; I'll simply point to the analysis of Honduran Consitutional Law Professor and Zelaya oponent Edmundo Orellana.

So your argument boils down to the NPOVness of the use of "coup" to describe what happened in Honduras. The compromise in removing the word "coup" from the title of this article involved using it as a section title. Do you have new arguments about the use of the term that were not in the previous discussion? Otherwise, I don't thing there's anything to discuss. Rsheptak (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the coup compromise; but we must not use the word coup in the title as a significant POV (the so called 80% in Honduras who believe it was a constitutional succession) rejects coup; as long as a significant section of Honduran people believe this everyone else in the world and all nations may explicitly call it a coup but we still cannot in the title due to our WP:NPOV policy; any claim that a significant stream of Honduran thinking is not a significant POV must be rejected without consideration. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how using an inaccurate section heading as a "compromise" helps with accuracy. Or are we allowed to discard accuracy by way of consensus now? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Squeakbox, are you sure its only 80%? A poster to my blog this morning assured me it was 90%. Seriously though, Ed Wood's Wig, do you have some argument besides the fact that it wasn't a coup because there's ample disagreement on that topic and we've hashed that over and over since June 28. Do read the archived discussions and see if you've got something new to add, please. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps by your reading there is nothing new bought up. I believe the Congressional Research Service is pretty new information and it does show a plausible legal method for the Supreme Court and the Military to remove the President. In short pay attention to the Honduran Constitution section which demands immediate removal and the section where the military polices the Presidents term of office. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help here at all. Its not by the CRS, its by a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. I've read every word of it. Its a poorly researched OPINION that relied on personal communications with Guillermo Perez Cadalso, a coup member, to justify its novel legal theories and ignores the May 7,2003 Supreme Court legal precedent which says Congress CANNOT Interpret the Constitution. You can cite it on Wikipedia as an opinion, but not as a source for facts, any more than I can cite OPED pieces for matters of fact. As for the military role, their single constitutional role in this affair is to guarantee the alternability of the presidency, and they can only act when the proper succession doesn't happen, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. Rsheptak (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats not what Congress says (http://schock.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=146377). Present your evidence that it is not an official study of the CRS or the Library of Congress.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cover page of the document in question? Several websites, including Congressman Schock's have it available for you to download. Look at the cover page. Congressman Schock himself issued a retraction but didn't change his website, its not a CRS study; I have email from the CRS disavowing it. Many news sources have pointed out its not a CRS study. Look at it. Read it. Verify its origins yourself. I did. Rsheptak (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say Congress but it is the Honduran Supreme Court by unanimous vote that ordered the Presidents Arrest and Removal. They are authorized to act in that manner by the Honduran Constitution. Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs Da'oud Nkrumah 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court issued a "detention" warrant for Zelaya; they did not remove him from office -- Congress did that. Download and read the documents about it from the Supreme Court's website, and from Congress's website to understand what they say happened. Read them; they're quite informative. Rsheptak (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We got it wrong in June, it's high time we fix the problem. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense and POV trash. You need to show references that the CRS report is not a legitimate U.S. Government document or I am editing this article by the following Wikipedia guideline:

Major edits Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you downloaded the document from Congressman Schock's website and opened it? The first page says "Law Library of Congress" at the top of the page. Nowhere does it say Congressional Research Service, which, as I learned when they wrote to disown the study, is a completely separate branch of the Library of Congress. Again, I urge you to download and look at it and you'll see I'm right about its origins.Rsheptak (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have and yes the CRS works through the Library of Congress they even offer jobs at the Library of Congress. Place references showing its not an official government document. Because you say its not doesn't mean a thing. Oh here is the document number which starts with CRS for Congressional Research Service, CRS LL File No. 2009-002965. Now, do we all want to discuss serious changes to the article to make it NPOV or shall I edit the article myself pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines.

Da'oud Nkrumah 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough. I did not say it didn't come from the Library of Congress,just that it did not come from the Congressional Research Service. If you downloaded it and looked at it, you would see that it says Directorate of Legal Research LL File No. 2009-002965. If you looked at the Library of Congress organization chart, you would see that the Directorate of Legal Research is part of the Law Library of Congress. Also on the cover is the URL www.loc.gov/law/congress. This is my last post on this topic. Rsheptak (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will start my editing. You have not presented one reference to back up anything you have claimed. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Da'oud Nkrumah your edits are tantamount to vandalism and your;e unilaterally ignoring all discussion that took place on these pages and its archive.Cathar11 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you get vandalism from my edit note when I called your edits of cutting sentences off in the middle, removing obviously referenced material and generally trying to present a pro-zalaya viewpoint vandalism? I even went so far as to leave quotes in the article asking you to cite references disputing my references so they could be integrated. YOU haven't referenced a thing. Oh, I am sorry I am suppose to assume good faith but your actions speak for themselves. Look up and you will see where I was told to add the governments viewpoint and we would review it when I am done. Learn to read and spell. I will continue my editing, I expect to finish in a day. I will consider using your talk page but per the editing guidelines of Wkipedia I am not obligated.

Da'oud Nkrumah 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Da'oud Nkrumah 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Legality

The de facto government, including the National Congress and Supreme Court maintain Zelaya was replaced constitutionally. This view is echoed by a Senior Foreign Law Specialist at the Law Library of Congress, in a report[93] made public on the afternoon of Sept 24, 2009, which argues for instance that "the National Congress [implicitly] made use of its constitutional prerogative to interpret the Constitution and interpreted the word “disapprove” [in article 205, section 20 of the constitution] to include also the removal from office." Such arguments for legality have been rejected by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law,[94][95][96] who point out that the Supreme Court, in 2003, denied congress's power to interpret the constitution. Both the de facto government and its critics, however, agree that forcibly removing Zelaya was illegal.[16]

I think its important to point out the use of improper references and allegations in this part of the article. The De Facto Government only says the removal of Zalaya from the country was illegal and only a few people in the current government says that. The De facto government does not say removing Zalaya from office was illegal. The reference number 16 though in spanish does not say that.

94 and 95 are opinion pieces from the same newspaper/website. NPOV requires that more of the explanation of constitutional legitimacy from the CRS report are included in this section. Also as a further reference their is a link to a totally non-authoritative site in reference 96. You can keep it but I want the interpretation from this website and its conclusion included as well: http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras Da'oud Nkrumah 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

I disagree, the document you call CRS and I call Law Library of Congress is an opinion, just like the pieces you choose to call invalid. Those you dismiss are by lawyers in Honduras, all of them Constitutional Law professors (and one a Congressman), and I will argue that all of them are valid to discuss in this setting. By bringing in one, you allow the others.

Actually, Micheletti said as recently as yesterday that removing Zelaya from the country was both illegal and a mistake and blamed the military in an interview published in a Brazillian paper and widely quoted in the Spanish language press.

I think rather than trying to summarize arguments here, its better to, via references, point outward to let people read the arguments as proposed by these opinion pieces. I would cite the following:

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/giving-constitutional-research-bad-name.html http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-congressional-research-service.html http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/grade-d-flawed-research-from-law.html http://www.voselsoberano.com/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=856:golpe-de-estado-en-honduras-un-analisis-juridico-por-edmundo-orellana&catid=1:noticias-generales

Rsheptak (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you are saying but I think within the material that is there now there is an attempt to quote part of the so called CRS report and then argue against it with out really giving even a summary of the argument of legality. There has also been several sites like the one I mention above who have pointed out their opinions that the military is constitutionally required to act if a president tries extending his term. I really am only dismissing the reference number 96 because the site doesn't even have a page rank of 1 and that tells me few if anybody cares what that site has to say. I don't argue that the exile was legal, I and the Honduran regime say the arrest and end of his presidency are legal. Anyway, there are several anti removal so can we even that up by adding a few pro-removal (I think forbes has a good piece and maybe the site above) and remove the argument portion ("the National Congress [implicitly] made use of its constitutional prerogative to interpret the Constitution and interpreted the word “disapprove” [in article 205, section 20 of the constitution] to include also the removal from office.") and just summarize positions? Da'oud Nkrumah 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I edit this section slightly? I also need some help on the Constitutional Assembly plans section: I read that Zalaya initially wanted to hold his referendum to extend the term limits of the presidency. After some trouble with the rest of the honduran government he dropped that and just said he wanted to vote for the ballot box thing on the november ballot. Is there any reliable information for this assertion?

Never mind what I just said. Thanks for the edit of the legality section. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

There is no reliable support for the notion that Zelaya changed his referendum plans. The first decree calls for the cuarta urna question, and he never once stated that he wanted to prolong his term in office. Rsheptak (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So there is some evidence you all just don't like it. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Nope, there's no evidence. Rsheptak (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

False, POV references

At least one of the references is false and also misspelt - 'cencorship' - while seeming to support an anti-Zelaya case. Attempts to edit the Reference list are thwarted. => Wikipedia in the hands of golpistas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed yesterdayCathar11 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America

The VOA article reference keeps getting tagged with a verify credibility tag. What is the issue? The VOA, or the specific contents of that article? Please elaborate. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America isn't a reliable source. The existence of other unreliable sources in your article does not make VOA a reliable one. Your suggestion that I tagged the source as a possibly unreliable one -- because of "the specific contents of that article" -- is uncivil. Please stop being uncivil and removing the tag sans resolution of the issue. Thank you. -- Rico 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America is certainly reliable and its reputation over 67 years has been built on honest reporting. Please state some evidence other than your personal opinion that VOA is not reliable. They are a lot more reliable than the Catholic News that's quoted throughout the article. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Neither Voice of America, nor Catholic News, is a reliable source -- and neither should be used anywhere in the article as a reliable source for statements of fact. Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. The number of years Voice of America has existed does not make it a reliable source. "Please state some evidence other than your personal opinion that VOA is [...] reliable." -- Rico 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The VOA is as reliable a source as any of the others we are using in the article, and that's not just my opinion, but lets see what others post here. We use all sources at our own peril. As for the suggestion that you might be objecting to something in the content not being reliable, that's not being uncivil. I've seen NYT articles that had "facts" that I know were false based on first hand conversations with the same informants. I would ask you to air your problem with the VOA before tagging the article. I seem to recall you had a problem with La Prensa being cited previously.... Rsheptak (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The VOA is a WP:RS reliable source, which is not to say that it's point of view is completely unbiased. The same can be said of La Prensa, Telesur, etc. I think we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither VOA, La Prensa, nor Telesur are reliable sources. Your opinion that, "we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters," is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, not include content from unreliable sources "and letting [readers] decide the truth."
Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. -- Rico 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is La Prensa an unreliable source in your opinion? It is a local Honduran newspaper with a very good reputation for reporting honest and accurate news. It is printed in San Pedro Sula. If you can please provide some proof that it is unreliable. La Prensa is no different than Atlanta Journal Constitution is to Atlanta, Georgia.----Summermoondancer October 9, 2009

I don't know of any reliable Honduran media sources right now, due to the media war. See also:

• In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post.
• Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure, Washington Post.
• Honduran army smothers media after coup, Reuters.
• Honduras new government is censoring journalists, The Miami Herald.
• Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Associated Press

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles".

Most, if not all, of the news media here are unabashedly partisan, Honduran journalists say, with newspapers and broadcast outlets allied with political parties and local power brokers.

In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post

-- Rico 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia explicitly recognizes the NYT as a reliable source, a result of consensus. Your irrelevant and unverifiable contentions of your personal experiences don't change that. I have aired my concerns. Your summary removal of the tag was one of your WP:OWN violations. Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. I don't know what the "specific contents of [those articles]" are, and using the RS tag for that purpose would be a misuse of the tag. Voice of America's the USA's propagangizer -- and using it as an source for anything more than for what the opinions of Voice of America are, is an affront to Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Many of us have known about Voice of America since before the average Wikipedian was born. -- Rico 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok That is a ridiculous opinion and Telsur is an actor in events and doesn't qualify as a reference. Well lets remove all references VOA. I am just sick of hearing your non-sense. But we remove VOA all info wheter republished or not that begins in Telsur and La Prensa have to go. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TeleSUR is an actor in events? Really? Prove it. Rsheptak (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about VOA as a source to attract a wider audience. Rsheptak (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Telesur

Under the Wikipedia wp:verifiability policy: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[7] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Information from Telesur/Telsur whatever its name, the state run media center of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p07s02-woam.html is being used to provide apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. to wit Telsur claims to have a letter written 2 days before the removal of Zelaya by Micheletti in which he says essential lets get together Mr. Army chief and overthrow the country. This is not in the Times, not on MSNBC, Not in the BBC, not even in Al Jezeera or CNN.

Furthermore, as the Chávez regime is the regime that sent the ballots to Zelaya it is a participant in events and therefore not a third party source. All referenced information from Telsur should be stricken from the article. Further, many of the alternative sources for this information are simply republishing the Telesur nonsense and there is not a great abundance of them doing that. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only three things I can argue here, so they may appear as strawmen. Worth considering though: 1. Telesur is at the front of this, so they do get primary documents, and 2. The traditional Western press has been amazingly poor at reporting this story as a whole. Lastly, Telesur is being explicitly attributed for its claims.

On the other hand, I don't know its record. Just saying, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for cleaning up the section anyway. I got cut off then I looked and it was all messed up. Then I got axed again. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest you actually read the article on TeleSUR. It's a public company sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela, among others. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(I wrote this in the above section on VOA but it's relevant here too) The VOA is a WP:RS reliable source, which is not to say that it's point of view is completely unbiased. The same can be said of La Prensa, Telesur, etc. I think we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither VOA, La Prensa, nor Telesur are reliable sources. Your opinion that, "we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters," is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, not include content from unreliable sources "and letting [readers] decide the truth."
Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. -- Rico 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The traditional Western press has been amazingly poor at reporting this story as a whole."

It's nothing new that media coverage of something can be shallow, stupid in an effort to be balanced, and wanting when it comes to identifying the real issues (first Latin American coup in a long time, Zelaya trying to make himself permanent, the USA pretending to do something, when it could have done so much more -- and appointing a committee to determine whether it was a coup, a classic Washington tactic to avoid doing something).

My question is, do you think it would be better to include information from weekly magazines like Time or The Economist.

I've seen Time get pretty biased, but The Economist seems like a reliable source.

Are there any Latin American studies/ Honduran history textbooks out yet, published by university presses? It's been long enough. -- Rico 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Two points. TeleSUR isn't an arm of Hugo Chavez; you've confused it with the Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias. TelesSUR doesn't invent news; they are a WP:RS, but they do have their point of view, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE we cite in the article. As Abby Kelleyite says, our discerning readers will be able to form their own opinions about matters. Telesur should not be stripped from the article. That letter was widely distributed as you would see if you googled it. I received a copy of it on the 16th myself in my email. Rsheptak (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p07s02-woam.html States clearly that the network was founded by Chavez. If the letter is so widely circulated you should have no trouble finding a source that doesn't get its information from Telesur. This is not a reference as stated above and if it is not removed I will initiate a dispute. That means an independent source that through its own research verifies this letter. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not confused but perhaps the Cristian Science Monitor oversimplified things. TeleSUR was created by the Venezuelan Council of Ministers in 2005 (so yes, indirectly by Hugo Chavez) and its news agenda is set by its board of advisors, primarily leftist intellectuals from many countries. Its hardly controlled by Hugo Chavez; it is "controlled" by its board of advisors. Either TeleSUR is a WP:RS or its not. I think it is. You think it isn't. I've opened a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a wide range of opinions Rsheptak (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no one other than Micheletti can verify the letter so your insistence that someone else verify it is misplaced. The article makes reference to documents stored in all sorts of repositories such as ScribeD and Libertad Digital, that are not authenticated, and some of them are just translations of documents, not even the originals, so you're not being at all consistant. Rsheptak (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources -- Rico 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the cited quotation complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources; the original spanish text is in a footnote, per the policy. Rsheptak (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be neutral to be reliable as very few newspaper sources are neutral. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources have to be reliable, by definition. -- Rico 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You refer to only part of the policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources begins, "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." -- Rico 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe, "All referenced information from Telsur should be stricken from the article." I believe all (the many) TeleSUR citations should be tagged {{Verify credibility}} while this discussion is going on here and on the WP:RSN. Then, after it is determined that TeleSUR is not a reliable source, the citations should be replaced with dated {{Needs citation}} tags, so that reliable sources can be found (if they exist) to substantiate the statements of fact that rely on TeleSUR.
The original citations can be commented out with commentation code, like this: <!-- [original TeleSUR citation] -->. That will help editors that wish to find reliable sources that substantiate the statements of fact.
After a month or two, if no reliable sources have replaced the TeleSUR citations, then delete the essentually unsourced, not-necessarily-facts from the article.
Given the amount of rogue editing and incivil discussion going on with this article, be prepared to restore summarily deleted dispute tags. I will back up either side on this. I'm neither pro-coup, nor pro-Zelaya. -- Rico 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anything even happening in Honduras?

so much activity in this article.. warring between factions of Most Interested Persons? Anti-Zelaya side going to try to put it in the article fifty times that some unreliable source bolstered a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority (an NPOV violation)? The only thing I see in reliable sources is that Talks yield signs of hope and that Diplomats urge return of ousted Honduran president. Oooo, wow, not. -- Rico 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, plenty going on, just not talked about in the narrow universe of english-language news reporting. The english language press isn't interested, so there's next to no coverage. El Universal, La Jornada in Mexico? El Pais, or Milenio in Spain? Clarin in Argentina? La Nacion in Costa Rica, El Tiempo in Honduras? All of them will have more news on what is going on than any english language source.

To take your post serious, talks have just adjourned, resuming tuesday. There are some signs of agreement but they're not dealing with the hard stuff yet. Today's reports suggest there's some sort of agreement on a power sharing government, and an agreement not to implement amnesty. Tuesday they take up restitution. Rsheptak (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "they're not dealing with the hard stuff yet."

Let me guess. "The hard stuff" would be whether Zelaya is reinstated as president. Zelaya says that has to happen and the interim government says, "de manera ninguna."

There've been talks for how long now?

Let me guess. Zelaya'll be returned to power 15 days before the elections. (The US said two weeks wasn't enough.) The opposition media will be allowed to resume operations, "real soon now."

Any feedback on the reliability of the Spanish-language media? Anything in their reporting besides that there's nothing substantially new to report -- besides that "talks yield signs of stalling and delay hope," again, and that "diplomats urge the return of the ousted Honduran president," like usual? -- Rico 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was barely touched for ages till that fateful day when Zelaya returned, and interest has renewed in this country's fate. Nice piece in El Pais last week included an interview with Pepe and implied that PNHs own polls suggest far from 90% supporting Micheletti that the majority support neither President; neither viewpoint held in Honduras favouring one President or another is an extreme minority viewpoint and to suggest that presenting both POVs is a POV violation is extremely unhelpful and should be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That, "the majority support neither President" isn't any more new than your incivility.

"Micheletti? Zelaya? Who cares? As long as I can run my IT business."

In how many countries does the majority support the president? -- Rico 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"an agreement not to implement amnesty"? For real?? So when Zelaya is reinstated as partial president -- (with restrictions on making himself permanent?) -- he'll be able to go after the soldiers that exiled him? The interim gov't will be able to go after Zelaya for treason, or for abuse of office? -- Rico 02:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what the AFP reports tonight. I would like to see the courts try Zelaya on the charge of "publically holding up a baby with H1N1" which is one of the eighteen charges Luis Rubi, the public prosecutor filed. Rsheptak (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have it wrong. AP reported, 3 days ago, that "No breakthroughs were announced. [...] Insulza presented a proposal that would [...] offer amnesty to both the coup leaders and the deposed president"
Hmm, maybe there's something to be said for my "narrow universe of english-language news reporting" -- that's comprised of sources that are explicitly recognized by the English Wikipedia as reliable. -- Rico 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you can do is make claims of incivility where they don't exist and then start to attack your fellow volunteers I suggest you go elsewhere or find a new hobby; I mean really what do you expect me to do, abandon my own job and make others unemployed because Honduras has a crisis. We are actually here to write an article; if you can't engage with that please don't contribute. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How ironic that you write, "all [I] can do is make claims of incivility where they don't exist," while simultaneously writing, "I suggest you go elsewhere" and "don't contribute."
I'm glad to see you confess your COI, finally: that you run a business in Honduras (which currently works exclusively for a business in Europe). You employ people, and don't want to make them unemployed. I don't expect you to abandon your own job, just that you be civil.
What would happen to your business if the USA formally classified the coup as a military coup, and had to cut off millions of dollars in monies it sends to Honduras?
"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." -- WP:COI -- Rico 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

lede scrubbed of illegality admissions

We now have two sources in which high-ranking sources inside the coup - Micheletti and Bayardo - admit an illegality in exiling Zelaya. This is clearly relevant to the paragraph in the lede which discusses the coup government's position on the legality of the coup as a whole. (currently footnotes 97 (search "bayardo") and 116 (search "Clarin)) 187.143.6.130 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup apologists are essentially jamming in pro-coup/anti-Zelaya arguments all over

Just how much of the coup apologists' side is going to be jammed into this article, throughout it? Why don't we just rename the article: The interim government's answer to the world?
It makes the article harder to read, less clear, more full of trivia -- is this all being justified in the name of presenting both sides? What about Undue weight? The world isn't buying the interim government's story that the coup wasn't a coup. The reliable sources unabashedly refer to the coup as a coup, and while they don't state Zelaya was an angel, they don't report every other sentence that he was the devil, or that the coup was justifed. WTF? In the name of NPOV, the coup apologists are violating NPOV! It looks like everywhere a coup apologist could find a place to insert something that calls into question about whether the coup was a coup, or whether Zelaya was bad -- or whether some mayor or US Senator agrees with the coup apologists -- there's been the insertion. It's crazy! It's too much. Maybe Zelaya was a schmuck and the coup was bitchen, but it doesn't have to be inserted after every other sentence.
The [Detention order] coup [Detention order] article's [Detention order] about [Detention order] the [Detention order] coup. [Detention order] The [Law Library of Congress] military [Law Library of Congress] exiled [Law Library of Congress] the [Law Library of Congress] president. [Law Library of Congress]
It's this kind of partisan struggle that makes Wikipedia into crap.
The articles become not like encyclopedia articles, but more like arguments, with one side putting in something, and then the other side putting in something to soften or contradict it
Back and forth. -- Rico 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Deep breath, stay cool ;-)

Where do you propose we start? Many people are looking and editing this article, so why not start small? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the lede:

This article is about a coup -- but there was a detention order.

The miltary exiled the president -- but he was pushing the cuarta urna.

The coup -- but he was trying to permanitize himself.

No he wasn't.

And on and on.

The article can't get through one whole sentence without the back and forth argument?

"Numerous" Honduran Government bodies declared that the 28 June poll would be illegal. -- Rico 04:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this can be solved structurally, I think. Developing stories tend to have really, really poorly-written ledes... by encyclopedic standards. But this is a wiki, after all, so things tend to pile up on top of each other without much structure (sometimes I think the paragraph breaks are just for show ;-) )

Can you think of a structure for the lede? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I once worked on the lede. after I was done, it flowed. It looked a lot like a justification for the coup, believe it or not, but it was all sourced, it explained the major events, it didn't overly dwell on the trivia, and it wasn't essentially full of back and forth arguments. -- Rico 04:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The detention order belongs. The Library of Congress doesn't belong in the lede any more than any of the WSJ opinion pieces. Congress is full of liars, and its institutions do whatever they politically want.

But are you seeing what I'm seeing about the back and forth?

Read the first few sentences, and see if it doesn't say just what I said. -- Rico 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, least we can do is try :-) and try, and try, and try. That's how it works. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But the article was way better when I left it. -- Rico 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then you're viewing the Wrong Version? :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) seriously: this is a collaborative effort. Things change, and the best you can do is fix them, have them broken, and get them fixed again

I changed the article to another Wrong Version. ;) -- Rico 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to just start again at the top?

Zelaya was leaning left, the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez, the supremes said it was unconstitutional, Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway, the supremes issued a detention order, the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica, the legislature voted in Micheletti, the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid, Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in -- and can we do it without too many details that just serve to further the argument of one side or the other?

Is there something else that was IMPORTANT before this stuff? -- Rico 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ud) Indeed, that is most of the world's view on it. But you have to play devil's advocate to get things done, because you know that version won't gain consensus here. What is the other side to this story, and how do we work it into the lede? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) It's also my view, for the record, but this is advice I'd give to anyone interested in Getting Things Done.

I took something out of the lede that was jammed in there just to say, "see, it wasn't a coup, most of the legislature was from Zelaya's party."
It had been jammed in there so hastily, the editor didn't even bother to capitalize the first word in the sentence.
Next thing I know, a bot points out that the info was lower down in the article too.
Maybe it should be put into the article in a few more places. After all, it bolsters the coup apologists' side.
</sarcasm>
Pleasure to make your acquaintence, btw. -- Rico 04:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine :-D

The reason I asked what you think the other side (as it were) should be in the lede... if you don't play devil's advocate with your lede, the devils themselves will play it for you. Y'know? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other side? Am I on a side? I mean, outside of really not wanting WP:NAME violated, and not wanting the article to be just the result of a back and forth debate between coup apologists and the other side, with the article peppered with coup apology (for no other reason than coup apology), I don't think of myself as being on a side. I'm not exactly Zelaya's bud. Rhepshack and I came to terms. -- Rico 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Three of the coup deniers are really uncivil, but when I went through D'alo'Idontknowwhat's edits, I didn't see *that* much damage. (I missed some.) Last time I went through the lede, SqueakBox watched me like a hawk, but barely changed anything. He was busy putting in some erroneous facts from TeleSUR, about how many people'd been shot, at the time. Somebody's wig is just incivil beyond belief, but doesn't seem to edit the article much -- just argues on this page that it wasn't a coup. -- Rico 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other side? You just described it. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you assume I have sympathy for Zelaya, or that I care if he gets returned to power or not?

I think I could be described as a coup apologist.

I wouldn't call myself anything other than a "coup" apologist, though. -- Rico 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, we're in complete disagreement ideologically, then :-) Didn't even notice!

But did you assume I cared? :-p I'm only talking wiki-editing, here. Doesn't matter who's on whose side ideologically. But there's always an "other side" when building consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like more of the Honduran affluent have Internet connections, and most of the poor don't. The Most Interested Persons, that don't identify their COIs, are overdoing the slanting of the article. It's not about writing an encyclopedia article anymore. It's about making an argument.

Since most of the debate's been about whether we should call the coup a coup, I come off as firmly on your side -- especially because of all the shenanigans the coup deniers are pulling (not to mention the incivility, which appears very lopsided).

I find myself trying to stop the coup deniers from making Wikipedia a joke.

If you were to ask me if I was glad they kicked out Zelaya, you might be surprised at my answer.

You're gonna find this hard to believe, but I really want Wikipedia policies and guidelines followed on the article. -- Rico 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that hard to believe at all! I'm curious why you'd think I thought that? No matter. I want the policies and guidelines followed too, but that involves consensus building... which is what we're doing. Except it's just us two in this thread, for some reason :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) This is the best on-wiki conversation I've had, after years of working at the mediation cabal. It's weird.

I'm not a Most Interested Person, so I doubt I'm exceptionally well-loved by either side, and I don't think that many Wikipedians want Wikipedia's policies and guidelines followed -- (so I assume nobody might believe I do). They just use the rules.

I'm not convinced I'm on a side.

I've read the rules, and I'm very convinced this article should be called the "coup".

We could try a collaboration in a sandbox and then drop it in as the lede, and see what people do.

Sometimes the coup deniers make me want to write, "The coup, that was a coup -- as in 'coup d'etat' -- did I mention it was a coup, as in the military coup that it was (a type of coup)?" -- Rico 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the sad state of affairs, init? Anyway, sandbox sounds good: 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox. Start with an ideal version, work from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I came across the sandbox while working on WP:DEP; per Wikipedia:SUBPAGE#Disallowed_uses I've moved it to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox. Cheers! (not watchlisting)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "you know that version won't gain consensus here":

Why not? It's pretty balanced.

Anti-Zelaya: Zelaya was leaning left

Anti-Zelaya: the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez

Anti-Zelaya: the supremes said it was unconstitutional

Anti-Zelaya: Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway

Anti-Zelaya: the supremes issued a detention order

Anti-coup: the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica

Both: the legislature voted to accept Zelaya's 'resignation' and voted in Micheletti

Anti-coup: the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid

Simple facts: Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in.

Would anybody argue that any of it wasn't true? -- Rico 05:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming no-one responds... :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better than:

Zelaya was leaning left -- but there's a contra to that!

the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez -- but there's a contra to that!

the supremes said it was unconstitutional -- but there's a contra to that!

Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway -- but there's a contra to that!

the supremes issued a detention order -- but there's a contra to that!

the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica -- but there's a contra to that!

the legislature voted to accept Zelaya's 'resignation' and voted in Micheletti -- but there's a contra to that!

the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid -- but there's a contra to that!

Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in -- but there's a contra to that! -- Rico 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, assuming no-one responds. Now you and I wait: who disagrees? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Rico's structure is basically sound. A few minor adjustments: The "leaning left" could be included as part of the "affluent alarmed", if we could get a decent citation that showed the "alarmed" pov without being too inflammatory. You could defuse the temptation to put in a contra to "unconstitutional" by attributing it to Zelaya in the "I'm doing it anyway", if you could find a good quote where Zelaya alleges political/extralegal motivations from the court - again, scrubbing for just the argument with a minimum of inflammatory rhetoric. And of course you'd have to expand the scare quotes around "resignation", I think in the lede you can just flatly call it a forgery because I don't think even the coup supporters are hanging on to that one now. Homunq (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to simplify this youve got to emphasise the elements what makes this a coup d'etat. This centres around the issuing of a detention aorder for Zelaya for contempt of court. The army instead exiled him. (the joke is the AG sought the arrest order because he inter alia considerered him a flight risk). Resignation Zelaya letter /appointment Micheletti. An aside to give context (The military were on the streets ptotecting key buildings before the issuing of any arrest order or SC hearing on the 28th. It is the job of the police (not army) to enforce court orders. Before being appointed a SC judge José Tomás Arita was a lifelong National Party politican. It doesnt appear to have been the SC's intentention for him to act in the way he did, they intended to wait till the 30th June ie after the Poll). Cathar11 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That last contention about the SC's intention (when they appointed Arita to handle the case 15-0, I assume) is new and interesting to me. Do you have a source? Nonetheless, I don't believe such a fact belongs in the lede - I assume that's what you meant by calling it an "aside". I think that something to indicate that both sides generally agree that the exile was illegal although the pro-coup forces call it justified, would be fitting for the lede. Homunq (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is still the same - it was not a coup. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig has had ample time to understand our policies. Ammunition leads credence. There are better things to discuss, Rico. Homunq's comment directly below mine (and I'm hoping it stays directly below mine) applies to everyone, after all. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig, this is not a discussion forum. Please orient your comments towards improving the article according to Wikipedia standards, including WP:RS. Homunq (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The continued attempts to make this into an article that asserts a coup that does not exist is the problem. The reliable sources are clear on this. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Ok, so the consensus is -- and by "consensus", I mean Rico and I, as far as I know (but I can imagine) -- the consensus is that the lede would benefit from a rewrite. Above was given a speedy description of the events:

“ Zelaya was leaning left, the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez, the supremes said it was unconstitutional, Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway, the supremes issued a detention order, the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica, the legislature voted in Micheletti, the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid, Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in. ”

The rationale for this version has been given above. This doesn't mention the constitutional aspects, which should naturally include A) the interpretation as given by those who wish to maintain it, and B) the interpretation as given by those who wish to change it. My idea for the structure of the lede right now is (each bullet is a para):

• basic basic summary of the contents of the article: the coup, the constitution, and the very minimum of the whos, whats, whens, and wheres. I figure the bare minimum of the "whos" is Zelaya, and Michelletti et al.
• Rico's version above, rewritten, which summarizes the whys and hows (and the international "whos").
• The aftermath, up to the present, as generally as possible (and The People "whos").

The biggest problem with this is that it doesn't include much on the constitutional aspects. Actually, the bulk of the article isn't about the constitution.
I see only two ways to resolve this: A) add more weight to those who do wish it changed, since as of now it's mostly about those who don't wish it changed, or B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with).

So, there's my disorganized ideas. I gave 2: the organization of the lede (immediate), and the organization of these articles (less immediate). Any thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

When the two concurrent name change requests were added to this page, SqueakBox was leading the charge -- arguing that there were "two sides" and naming this article "coup", "took sides" and was, therefore, not neutral.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was just the interim government that was denying that it was a coup. Reliable sources were aware that the de facto government was denying it was a coup, and publishing that fact -- and then in their next sentence they would refer to the coup as a "coup".

The coup-installed government's political trumpets were expressing the viewpoint that it wasn't a coup (but they weren't reliable sources).

The interim government obviously had cronies.

In the back of my mind, was something Jimbo wrote, that has been paraphrased in NPOV for at least four years: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

The policy goes on to state, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

I began to think in terms of numbers.

The world (UN, OAS, RSs) had always said it was a coup.

If half of the population of Honduras held the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup, 0.06% of the world is of the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

SqueakBox had been quoting numbers like "millions and millions," and "thousands and thousands."

As it turned out, this was disingenuous.

The protestors weren't necessarily of the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

Reliable sources reported that the protesters were either pro-Zelaya, anti-Zelaya or anti-Chavez -- and most Hondurans didn't care.

It wasn't about whether or not it was a coup.

The de facto government, its political trumpets, and its cronies weren't more than an extremely small minority.

No reliable source had published that more than an extremely small minority held the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

I began to compare the coup denial to "other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial" -- WP:NPOV

An extremely small minority denies the Holocaust, yet we have an article named, "The Holocaust".

I believe there are more people that deny that the Holocaust was a holocaust, than there are that deny that the Honduran coup was a coup.

But there was an even more powerful rebuttal. (Stay tuned for Part 2.) -- Rico 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison of those who disagree with your terminology for the Zelaya ouster to Holocaust deniers is inappropriate and, frankly, ridiculous. The issue with Holocause denial isn't over what to call the murder of millions of people, but that Holocaust deniers deny that the murder took plpace at all. That is in no way comparable to a dispute over what name to give the replacement of a particular head of state, especially when there is no disagreement that the ousting took place. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Xav, not Rico) I definitely agree this article should be forked. I would draw the lines: current article with current name, gutted, as an overview; a "before" article, which would probably be titled "2009 Honduras Constitutional Rewrite Attempt" or something along those lines, and would include all the legal and political back-and-forth that implies; a "Coup" article, which would include both the events for about 1 week total, plus the legal arguments over the degree of illegality of those events; and a "Micheletti regime" article (not calling it "coup aftermath" in an attempt at compromise) which covered the events since (based on the existing article, but needs smoothing and the standards for inclusion are very inconsistent there, some trivia present while some important stuff missing.)

I understand that this would upset the fragile compromise by which this article is not named "coup", but since it is essentially expanding the "coup" section into a sub-article, IMO it actually respects the basic substance of that compromise (WP policies support calling the specific events a coup, but not applying that term to an article which includes a wider context.)

Meanwhile, please, be bold about rewriting the lede. I made some comments above about how I think your schema is essentially sound, with minor adjustments. Certainly it would be hard to make it worse... no, I take that back, it is far from NPOV but it could be worse; but what I'm saying is that I trust you to take the first step, and trust the community to make sure it's an improvement. Homunq (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, and a sidebar! Does Honduras even have a sidebar? (I like sidebars)...

I'll get started on the coup article in our sandbox. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it does have a sidebar. I wrote the first sentence of the lede, although I have a feeling that the more I write this, the more it's acceptable for this article. Everyone is free to contribute. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means rewrite the lead.

BTW have you read the August 2009 COIMER public opinion survey done in 16 of 18 departments in Honduras in late august. Here's a link to the PDF of the results: http://www.webcitation.org/5kLzRp9Nk. You'll find it interesting.

Esta a favor o esta en contra del golpe de estado del 28 de Junio pasado a Presidente Manuel Zelaya?

52.7% against, 17.4% in favor, 29.9% no response.

Debe seguir en el poder o dejar el poder el actual gobierno de Micheletti?

60.1% favor Micheletti leaving power, 22.2% remain in power, 17.7% no response.

Apoya o no apoya el retorno de Manuel Zelaya Rosales a la Presidencia de la Republica

51.6% support the return, 33.0 % oppose, and 15.4% no response.

Rsheptak (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this opinion poll is it isnt neutral in nature. It may well be corect but the information can't be used within the article. Micheletti has never had much supportCathar11 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you say that? I'm not defending the poll, but I haven't seen a reliable description of problems with it, other than we don't know who commissioned it. I should point out its cited in at least two other related wikipedia articles. Rsheptak (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

he problem I see with this oppinon poll is that it asks loaded questions. Within Honduras to describe events as a coup is partial to Zelaya. Voting intentions are majority LPH 60/40 etc. It reads as being partial. Its not reviewed in the media so Ive nothing to substantiate this. Cathar11 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could the AG's failure to be reelected to the supreme court in January 2009 have influenced his behaviour. AG is a demotion from SC judge where he was previously a LPH appointee.

Well, his article is a redlink... :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Abuses Rampant After Coup - Rights Groups

I don't know how to work this into the article, but it's really big. It can't be put in chronologically, because it's an ongoing thing. Here's another link.
I was afraid this might happen, having lived in a similar military coup-inspired situation in Latin America several decades ago, where people disappeared in the night for saying the wrong thing. The 'president' suspended the congress and I asked, "What good is having a congress, if the president can suspend it?" A concerned schoolmate told me to watch what I said. It was clear from the tone of her voice and body language, that she wasn't kidding. She told me that our history teacher was really brave to have said the things he'd said. Years later, the policia pointed guns at us just for standing at a bus stop.
This is what happens when the military and police get too strong and the government, that was installed by the military, looks the other way from the lawlessness -- and is actually part of the crackdown and repression. -- Rico 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The fork suggestion above - to keep this article, and to move the coup part to a coup article and the Micheletti government parts to a Micheletti government article would... ugh, I'm not going to even bother trying to present a clear idea... this would work great in the latter article. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The UN agrees - there was no coup.

Translated link here. Again - reliable sources about the actual legality of the situation agree there is no coup. Those who believe there was a coup are not relying on proper secondary material and rather on the words of politicians and the media who repeat what they have to say. This article must reflect this reality. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't read babelfish from work. However I don't think hondudiarioh.com counts as a WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not WP RS no actual document quoted just alleged sources from a digital media.Cathar11 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues locating the article on the webpage too. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduran president’s ouster is ‘coup d’état,’ UN Secretariat reaffirms.

14 October 2009 – A recent Honduran media report implying that the United Nations Department of Political Affairs (DPA) does not consider the ouster of President José Manuel Zelaya as a coup d’état is inaccurate, the world body said today...“The Secretary-General urges the parties in Honduras to avoid distractions at this critical moment in the negotiations and remain focused on arriving at a consensual agreement to end the crisis in Honduras through dialogue. He continues to strongly support [the Organization of American States] OAS-led efforts to assist the parties in reaching a solution,” it concluded. un website Cathar11 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that is that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The important part isn't quoted above. The statement goes on to state that the Honduran press reports are "highly misleading" because it represents the report submitted by a consultant as representing the Department of Political Affairs views. "The Department of Political Affairs routinely receives reports and analyses of this type from consultants, academics, and other experts, but its views are strictly in line with that outlined with the General Assembly Resolution" (63/301) of July 1. Rsheptak (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So, again, that's that. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

US International Reaction and the Republicans

I am a little confused about some undone revisions I have made. A description of US reaction under International Reaction to the Crisis should mention the fact that Republican interference is messing up Obama's attempt to present a unified US reaction. The Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about this. For example: "[Republican] actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction, but my edits have been undone several times, saying Repub reaction is irrelevant. Who is right, them or the WaPo??? Moogwrench (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US internal Politics is irrelevant to this section which contains headline reaction from global and regional bodies. If you want to elaborate your point do it on the main International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup page. Cathar11 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)