Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Coup or a legal act?

Can this event be considered as a military coup as the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered (according to the BBC) the Army to remove the president who refused to cancel his illegal referendum and to reappoint the Army Chief as ordered by the same court. I deem that this is not coup but a constitutional removal from office ordered by the Court and executed by the Army. --80.222.253.214 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article does not say that the Supreme Court ordered the army to do anything at all. All the article says is, "The Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president." That doesn't necessarily mean the court wanted the army to do anything at all. Ratemonth (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading a translation from freetranslation.com of http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/06/28/Noticias/Fuerzas-Armadas-han-actuado-en-base-a-derecho-dice-la-justicia-hondurena I think that perhaps 80.222.253.214 is right; it does appear the court may have given the military some legal authority to do this, but I am not sure exactly what the court approved. Ratemonth (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the Constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup 200.26.166.6 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the international community was quick to condemn the 'military coup', a was I. But if really the Supreme Court ordered the president's removal and its legal, then there was no coup...then there was a legal removal of the president. I also read some BBC stories about Honduras the last days and it seems that the ousted president wasnt following the Rule of Law. If there is more reliable references about the legal aspect of the sack of the president by the Court, we should replace 'Coup' with 'sacking of the president'. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Did the Supreme Court have the legal power to remove the president? I know the Congress was preparing to impeach Zelaya. In many countries legally removing an elected leader is done by the legislature, not by the courts. Does anyone know what Honduran law says about this? On the referendum article, someone linked to a copy of the Honduran constitution. Unfortunately I don't read Spanish, so I can't go and look for the answer. The link is http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html if anyone wants to try.Ratemonth (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the supreme cout would have had the legal power to remove Zelaya from office then it would not have been nessesary to do it in such "coup styled" way, I mean

1. few hours until a referendum
2. Deport the president (are they not going to judge him)
3. Sorround the presidential recidency with military
4. Do actions againts the ambasadors of other countries.

Well I dont speak Spanish, but there is Google translator... I found in the 'President section' nothing about removal of office. I did found this in the 'Supreme Court section':

ARTICLE 319 .- The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (...omission by me...) 2. Meet the offenses of both officers and senior officials of the Republic, when Congress has declared the formation of a cause;

I dont know if president is a 'senior official of the republic', but I suppose he is, and Congress did plan to impeach Zelaya. And Zelaya was kinda breaking the law by not following the court orders. About the post above me, I also found it all a bit fast. Normally you would expect a trial. But about the ambassador of Venuzuela that was kidnapped and beaten: all that I found about this was a statement of Hugo Chavez, president of Venuzuela. I do not think that we can have Hugo Chavez as a reliable source for anything, IMHO. (And I am a moderate leftist European, if you are interrested in my political views :)80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no question the congress are saying it is not a coup d'etate and therefore the name should be changed to fit our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not a coup, in Ratemonth's link I found that article 239 of the Constitution says:

"El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán :inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública."

In english, that is

"Any citizen who has served in the Executive Power will not be able to be President or Designated

He whom breaks this or proposes it's reform, as well as anyone who supports them directly or undirectly, will be discharged immediatly from their respective charges, and will be disabled for ten :years for the exercise of any public position" 200.26.166.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

The fact a completely anti-democratic element of their constitution allows them to remove him doesn't change the fact he was removed with military force. Many coup-prone states have introduced laws or articles in their constitutions that essentially authorize coups. A coup doesn't need to be illegal in the country in question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the English text given here has a critical error in the translation of the Spanish. It actually says "... will cease immediately to occupy their respective positions and will remain ineligible for 10 years for the exercise of any public function". Note it does NOT say "will be discharged" or "will be disabled", which would imply more directly that someone (e.g. the army) has the power to remove them. Benwing (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So, merely someone alleging that an executive officer is seeking to change this provision means they are to be immediately removed from office simply because the court decides this is the case without evidence? If someone alleges the current president is guilty of trying to change that provision, then he must be exiled as well? Has anyone presented any evidence that he was changing the term limits set in the constitution, or is it just the claims of his political opponents looking to oust him from office? Mulp (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay but you all guys will agree that someone will have to remove him/her from the Presidency. Specially after being acting as a rogue officer not observing the mandates neither of the Supreme Court nor the Congress. Either it should have to be the police or the military. The guy wouldn't have gone away by himself. He needed some encouragement. --Agcala (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A constitution being anti-democratic or having some anti-democratic clause will not make a constitution action becomes a coup. The word "coup" applies to non-democratic governments as well, even the person who made a coup has raise an democratic election later.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For one that specifically applies to someone proposing an end to term limits, which is only what his opponents alleged not what actually was being suggested. For another if this was purely a legal action why would they send in military forces to remove him, send him off to Costa Rica, flood the streets with troops, close down media stations, impose a curfew, and arrest everyone loyal to him even if they aren't part of government? Face it, this was a coup d'etat. I find it completely amazing that the absurd objections of a few editors is preventing us from calling a spade a spade.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Except for the part where you're dramatically sensationalizing it, and that's not at all what happened. Troops have been dispatched to protect government buildings, and confront protesters where it has gotten violent. The media had been briefly messed with by troops, but that's largely ended and people are free to report what they want online or to their respective news organization. The curfew ended on June 30th (and had an end date attached to it). And, people loyal to Zelaya have not been entirely arrested, there are pro- and anti-Zelaya protests continuing to go on nationwide (though, thanks to Mitofsky International's poll work in April 2009, we can be relatively certain which side has more protestors). Oh, then there's the whole bit about how the other two branches of the government largely agreed on his need to go, and authorized it, and then instated the next-in-line according to the Constitution. Can you name ONE other coup where that has occurred? Way to be neutral. -A Pickle (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, where neutrality is not required. The curfew didn't end on June 30th. It was extended through this friday night when the 4 constitutional sections were suspended earlier this week.

President Roberto Micheletti just stated that the Supreme Court and the Congress ordered the military to capture Mel Zelaya. Chupu (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Roberto Micheletti is recently sworn as President. While judges have no authority to decide who may succeed Zelaya, the Congress should have that authority under virtue of rule of law. Of course this practice could be questioned because it is non-democratic.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's democratic. It's constitutional. Who would succeed the President if he was found guilty of treason? The vice-president. In honduras, there is no vice-president (well, there was one, although, there should had been three Delegates). So, the next in line is the President of the Congress. He wasn't just randomly picked. And he was, in fact, elected President of the Congress by three elections, the people voted for him to be a candidate for congressman, then to be a congressman, and then the congressman voted for him as president of the congress. So he was next in line by three elections, two direct and one indirect. That's democracy. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an opinion piece. I keep seeing it called a golpe de estado, which mean coup, in the Spanish media. -- Rico 03:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This action doesn't fit the dictionary definition of a coup d'etat. The army did not take power, the people who ordered (Supreme Court) the removal of the President neither assumed power themselves nor decided who assumes power, and lastly this was not an inside job. I would also like to mention that, unlike some editors on this page have alleged, there is no violence in the street now, and there has not been any since the army moved on the Presidential residence. I am in contact right now with my family members in Honduras (I'm Honduran), and they tell me the streets of the capital are deserted except for army patrols. Manuel Zelaya has been on CNN proclaiming that the Honduran people are rioting in the streets to get him back. This is simply not true. The majority of us are glad he's gone. Is it really a coup d'etat when the people are backing it? 193.134.242.13 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey CIA-spooks, don´t get ridiculous. A coup´s a coup. Even if it´s in your favour. Or do you wanna call it a "velvet revolution"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfingstochse (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a dictionary. There was no change of government, the people supported it, it was legally ratified by the Supreme Court beforehand and Congress afterwards, and it was in response to illegal actions by the President who was deposed. The dictionary definition of a coup d'etat contradicts every single one of those points.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you can't say, "the people" support it, when there is a significant minority against it! More accuracy, pls. Also, pls check the Wikipedia article on coup d'etat. I don't see the contradiction you claim. Gray62 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on coup d'etat does a shoddy job of defining the term, it only lists three examples (all of which this action in Honduras does NOT conform to). I was thinking more the Merriam-Webster definition of a coup. Look it up. As for your request to qualify my statement regarding "the people," you're right, there is in fact a minority who want him back. We done now?92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't? From what I've read, there's a majority of people protesting Zelaya. This would seem to coincide with the Mitofsky poll, taken April 2009, that states that 1 in 4 Hondurans supported Zelaya (that would be 25%). Or is 75% a minority where you come from? - A Pickle (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How does the Inter-American Democratic Charter affect the legality of this action? VanGrungy (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

International consensus seems to make this a pretty straightforward call. 64.241.193.18 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

International consensus has no say on whatever happens inside honduras. Nor has the uno, the oas the who or whoever. This is only an Honduran issue and only Hondurans have a say. Anything else is foreign intervention. Imo what they should do is to sit tight and resist all the pressures on them. At the end of the day they will win.--Agcala (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The international consensus is also that we should reinstate Mel, even though the majority of the Honduran population are in favour of this ousting. Should we allow all the countries mentioned in the "International Reactions" section of this article to run our nation's internal politics. Very good reasoning there. I can tell you're the bright one in your family.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Would you guys mind telling my president to mind his own ****cking business? Or at the very least, tell him to extend Hondurans the same courtesy he extended Iranians? -A Pickle (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Is there any reason to keep the discussion above? It seems only to be the opinions of various posters. I thought we were supposed to remain neutral here.
    • I would like to see what various international legal theorists have had to say; or if that takes too long, what prominent or famous people have had to say. (I have my own opinion, but I'm hoping you can't guess what it is from my edits and comments: I'm trying hard to stay neutral here.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • As long as a significant number of people, and notable people, in Honduras think it was not a coup we cannot say the neutral viewpoint is that it is a coup in the title itself or as an undisputed fact within the article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the majority of people here disagree with the term "coup". Also, a google search of "honduras coup" yields slightly less results than "honduras crisis". The neutral term in this case seems to be "crisis". To call it a coup in this case is to pass judgement on the event, therefore rendering it POV. I vote for changing it back. --Henrybaker (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A "forced removal from office" seems more appropriate. That's the term used by the NYTimes today. I don't think it would qualify for a coup d'etat if simply for the fact that the government was never overthrown, just an individual. Even by the most liberal definition it isn't a coup considering the former President's political party didn't even lose the office. Micheletti and Zelaya are both from the same Liberal party. Mdlawmba (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1998 the US House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton. Charges were submitted to the senate and he was ultimately acquitted. Would this be considered an "attempted coup d'etat"? If Clinton had been convicted in the senate, he would have been immediately replaced as US President by then Vice President Al Gore. If this had succeeded, would that be considered a "coup d'etat"? Even if Clinton had refused to vacate the white house at that point, and police had escorted him out, would you call that a "coup d'etat"? If the answer to these questions is "no" than the title of this article needs to be changed. --Henrybaker (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, these seem like reasonable articles. Are there no mainstream reliable sources that make them? I'd find that strange. LjL (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is most likely that CIA fomented what has happened in Honduras, even if President Obama says it was illegal. The Bolivarian movement in South and Central America is perceived as a major threat to America's interests. The old domino theory is at work here. If Hondoras is allowed to fall, Mexico, where there are considerable economic and social problems and incipient revolutionary activity, could easily be next. It is not likely that the United States would tolerate such a situation. This is all starting to sound like the Fifties, when Eisenhower publicly denounced interference in the internal affairs of other countries, even as the CIA was involved in plots to overthrow the leftist government in Guatemala and a government in Iran that had nationalized the oil industry. Vice President Biden, while in Israel, has affirmed Israel's right to wage preemptive war, a signal that it might do so to further the overthrow of the current regime. While there might be a certain rationale to all of this, the problem is that once again, the CIA is not considering the kind of blowback that could occur from these adventures. Richard Cummings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.191.81 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the CIA also causing the protests in Iran? --75.64.137.16 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. See here, for example: http://wearechangebrisbane.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/iran-falling-to-us-psyops/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.124.210 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal process

It appears to me that the arrest is a legal process, and the army has only done to enforce an order of law court. The remaining question is, whether the arrest order is constitutional and acceptable under rule of law. This is important. An order of law court should not automatically considered as constitutional, and an arrest with order may be unconstitutional as well if its legal basis is faulty.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the constitutional justifications come from Article 239, which seems to say that trying to change the constitution to permit re-election results in the immediate cessation of office for the offender, and Article 42, which appears to state that citizenship can be revoked for supporting the continued governance or re-election of an executive. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've translated article 239 in a footnote. Note that it is a general prohibition: ANYONE who tries to reform article 239 "will cease carrying out their office" and is ineligible for any public charge for 10 years. If such a person were anyone but the president, then it's clear enough that the president should fire them; but when that person IS the president, there's no indication of how they are supposed to be removed.

IMO, even if this reading is valid and Zelaya is not president, it is still a coup, as there is no constitutional basis for the army to send him into exile. The supreme court justices may have told the army to do it, but if they did then they were not speaking with the authority of the court, as the supreme court had no official session in which they found Zelaya in violation of article 239. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate article 42 for us as well? My Spanish sucks, but I beleive Article 42, section 5 says something to the effect that they can revoke citizenship for supporting the re-election of a president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a native Spanish... here is the translation: Article 42:

ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:

[...]

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.

[...]

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file [...]

For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) the statement will be made by the Executive Power by a government agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by the competent courts.

That is the translation of Article 42. I will not interpret it. Mercastan (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have in mind that sending someone into exile seems completely out of frame with the process of impeachment. Another thing worth noting is that there's still a LOT of military activity running in the streets, there were people rioting as of a couple of hours ago and a curfew was sound for today and tomorrow by the de facto president. I live in a country that has seen both legal removals and military coups (Argentina), and this is nothing like the former 201.253.68.198 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there is some illegal element on the military actions. However, forcing someone who are no longer rightful President to leave his country cannot be a coup. This is illegal, but it cannot be called a coup. The question is, whether the military action to remove the President backed by law court order, whether the law court order constitutional, and whether the order acceptable under the natural concept of rule of law (that is, it is completely possible the law court has staged a coup because it has made an order violating rule of law, and in that case, I call it a coup assisted by army enforcement).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it is still a coup. First, if it quacks like a duck... Second, the Army is not a police force. Third, does the Supreme Court even have the power to "arrest" the president? Some Latin American countries -- like Argentina, my own -- state that elected country officials cannot be arrested while still holding office. They must be first stripped of their office by an act of Congress, which is something that doesn't happen overnight, and also Congress may not act "after the fact", like it did in this case. For democracy to function, no country official can be arrested overnight and expelled from the country without due trial! Finally, historically most military coups seek legitimacy and claim they have the support of some sector of the people (bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile and Argentina claimed so, for example). Any way you spin it, this is a nasty coup. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a coup. First, it doesn't quack like a duck, see discussions above. It was an authorized action by the supreme court. The reason for exile is to avoid a bloodbath-- also, Honduras apparently doesn't have a well-defined procedure for impeachment, lamentably. Second, the Honduran army IS the police force. Unfortunately, there is no civilian police force in Honduras (at least, during the 12 years I spent there.) You really need to know what you are talking about before you spout out such assumptions. Third, if the Supreme court does not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for a president, how on earth will a lawbreaking president ever be held to account? The Congress was already considering how to impeach Zelaya. He was already on the way out-- and he continued to provoke the situation by breaking in and stealing the ballots. The military undoubtedly did things a bit hastily and excessively, but having lived there for a decade as I mentioned, I can say that it's probably not the worst of all possible outcomes. Zelaya remaining in power, or returning to power, will only create further turmoil.--24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As an Honduran, I can tell you Argentina's case with los Coloneles and Honduras' case are nothing alike. In cases that involve the protection of the Constitution of Honduras, the army takes responsibility of running everything. This is why the Supreme Court ordered them to remove Zelaya. As for whether the Supreme Court can or cannot arrest him, the constitution does not explain what should be done when it is decided that the President needs to be removed. There is no clause in it that allows for impeachment. Basically, the Supreme Court decided what it thought would be best. Lastly, it can't be a coup when the people support it. If the media tells you it's a duck, it's probably something else. Watch less CNN193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article he wanted to change is an "articulo petreo," IE. set in stone. Even suggesting that it be changed is an act of treason. The article, which prevents any President from being reelected, was written specifically to prevent autocracies like Chavez's current and Zelaya's intended ones. According to Honduran law, treason against the nation-state falls under military jurisdiction, so the police COULDN'T have arrested him. It was the army's responsibility. Personally, I think Zelaya should be on trial for treason, facing the death penalty as a traitor.92.104.255.201 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is just an opinion, the proposed change was fine to me. If Chavez is still in government it is not because he forced himself in but because the Venezuelan population voted for him everytime in a democratic way. I believe the people's got the ultimate power to decide those things and that was what Zelaya was trying to do by conducting a poll on whether there should be a fourth urn. Making the constitution "unchangeble" doesn't seem quite democratic to me neither. Your comments on Zelaya deserving death penalty are really showing who's the facist here. Oh, and try watching independent media, not so much the CNN... The popular support seems to be a lot more on Zelaya's side. Otherwise a curfew wouldn't make any sense to me at all. Neither all the military activity. (edited, I forgot to sign it). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Nowhere in that post was Zelaya accused of being a fascist. And as for the death penalty, that's the standard sentence for a traitor to the state if found guilty. Also, as an Honduran, and a member of Mel's party, I can tell you the number of people who want him back in office are a minority, and even his own party regrets his election. There've been protests all week demanding his resignation after he tried to change the constitution. Article 239 of the constitution and a few other articles (not many) are "articulos petreos" to prevent the abuse of power in just the way Zelaya intended to do so. They have been unchangeable since the constitution was written in 1952, to preserve the spirit of democracy in forbidding one person to hold power for more than his term allows. It wasn't simply "made" unchangeable overnight. The army, ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT, acted to protect the constitution and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Honduran population.92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What,is Chávez too good to hold fraudulent elections every time? Especially when he controls all branches of government,including the electoral office?

190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, hold onto what I said about Chavez just so that you can pretend I didn't say the other half of the message and simply ignore it. Second, who are you to judge whether those elections are fraudulent? Stop getting your news from CNN buddy, Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can "judge" because I've seen it firsthand, second-hand and third-hand, so to speak, not because I've seen it on CNN, "buddy". Not only have I witnessed some of these elections first-hand as an insider; I also worked in a situation room that took electoral complaints and denouncements during one of the most recent elections. Besides that, all powers, including the bulk of the "neutral" Electoral Committee and the Ombudsman, openly support Chávez and do what he wants, for the most part. I have also followed legal developments and the legalistic contrivances that the Supreme Court judges and the National Assembly have used to justify Chávez's actions, even when contradicting previous legislation enacted by itself. If you lived in Venezuela, you would have to be blind not to see that Chávez abuses his power.

If a Constitution doesn't have "unchangeable" guarantees, then any gobierno de turno can adjust it to fit its whims through any form of fraud or power grab. Not only that; guarantees exist to protect minorities from abuse by majorities (ever changing, as well), which is why most Constitutions , including the Venezuelan one, have certain restrictions on Constitutional changes. In addition, if "the people" voted for a Constitution, that in theory implies that they accept it completely, including restrictions on changing it. Was there really any need to overthrow the entire Honduran constitution other than Zelaya's wish to extend his mandate? Also, why have a Constitution at all if the majority are "legitimately" empowered to do anything, even if it means abusing those who disagree with them (and that goes for anybody in the political spectrum)?190.77.117.50 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In Honduras, it looks like even proposing reform of term limits results in the cessation of public office. Chances are that when the Supreme Court drafted whatever order they gave to the military, they rules Zelaya was in violation of that article and as such, no longer president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that because he violated article 42 Zelaya lost his Honduran citizenship, therefore he had to be deported? ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone involved in treasonous acts against the constitution has his or her citizenship revoked and is expelled from the country. I'm assuming that's what will happen to the 150 supporters who threw stones at the army during Zelaya's arrest will face. Quite rightly.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

However, his guilt certainly has to be established in a fair trial? Even in Honduras? So who gave the military the right to directly deport him??? Looks like those who are responsible acted criminally, and maybe even traiterous as wellGray62 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think his deportation was a stupid mistake and he should have stood trial, but as far as I can read in the constitution, there's nothing illegal about it.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand you're not a lawyer? Me, neither. But afaik , it's a general principle in most democatic nations that any infringement of citizen right has to be explicitly allowed by the constitution. So, if the constitution doesn't say it's legal to deport a citizen without giving him a fair trial, then it's illegal! I would be very surprised if that's different in Honduras.Gray62 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, I'm not a lawyer. But the justices presiding in the Honduran Supreme Court are, and it's their mandate to interpret Honduran law. They've made their decision, probably according to Article 42. What else is there I can tell you?92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I accept your "no due trial" arguments and other arguments based on rule of law. I do not accept the arguments based on use of force, because use of force does not necessary means a breach of constitutional order. I must stress that the reasoning (legality) is more important. Some people just want to use to word "coup" to describe an anti-democratic military action, that is plainly wrong to me. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Honduran law empower the military to arrest a president, whether the president's serving as president violates the constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to ask the military to remove a president by force? -- Rico 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and, well, it has power to decide if to impeach him. Plus, he isn't a citizen anymore, he was trying to change the non-reelection article. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Own research?

Can we make a argument and decide, as important Wikipedia editors, that we either will or won't call it a "coup", based on arguments like, "I call it a ..."? Are there reliable sources (NY Times, Washington Post) that call it a "coup", or have published that it is not a coup? -- Rico 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Coup is a very strong word. It criminalizes the opposing faction. In this case the criminal is the ex-President and not the "coup" conveyers. I suggest avoiding the term coup because of its connotation. Chupu (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point entirely. -- Rico 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the NYT and Washington Post called it a coup. Rsheptak (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources, of the reliability level of the NY Times or Washington Post, that have published that it is not a "coup"? -- Rico 05:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NY Times: Honduran President Is Ousted in Coup -- Rico

Washington Post: "The coup was condemned throughout the Americas." -- Honduran Military Ousts President -- Rico 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post: "Chaos erupts after Honduran Coup" [1] Rsheptak (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the Wall Street Journal?

Honduras Defends Its Democracy - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.147.0 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (it says so at the bottom right), and that is not a reliable source for facts. LjL (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What about from... the New York Times?[2] I'm sorry, but given the extreme level of legal action involved here (not to mention the fact that THE OLD CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EFFECT), I am extremely hard-pressed to see this as a coup.A Pickle (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia policies/guidelines, I disagree with everything you've written here. As Wikipedia editors, we do not avoid strong words just because they're strong. We do not avoid words, based on opinions that they criminalize. If that were true, we'd have to refer to criminals as law-abiding-challenged. We do not determine who the criminal is based on own research or personal opinion. We do not avoid words because they have a connotation. If they're the right words, they are the words we use. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post refer to it as a "coup". -- Rico 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. As soon as I started to read the discussions, it occured to me that most of the discussions were OT. It doesn't matter whether editors believe this was a legal action. This is also not the place to discuss theories even referencing the constitution etc about whether it was a legal action. The only thing that matters for wikipedia is what the reliable sources say. If the vast majority of reliable sources call it a coup, then so should we. If most haved avoided the term, then so should we. If several sources suggest the military may have acted legally, then we should mention this. If not, then we don't. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a relevant Wikipedia policy quote:

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Holocaust never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

-- Rico 06:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have someone noted that this event is on going, and the majority of the press (like, NY times, who posted that thousands of protestants went to the streets armed with sticks, which is false) is still on the grey? But, objectively, this was, on the grey side of my country's law, not a coup. It was handled as one, though. He shouldn't have been thrown out of the country, specially not by the military. That's a coup's way. They shouldn't, by any means, shut down the media (we are still not receiving CNN, surely because they were fast to condemn the events). They shouldn't, either, call for a curfew. That's about 4 human rights violations right there. They came up with this obviously fake resignation letter. He was being unlawful. And he was out of the Rule of Law. Law dictated his impeachment, because he was a threat to the Constitution. But then, again, matters were awfully managed. And, yes, according to law, it was the Congress that dictates if a President if out of the Rule of Law, and, if there is no President nor Vice-President (the Constitution establishes three Delegates, but this has fallen in disuse, don't know why; now the sole political charge of Vice-President is used) is present to perform as the Head of the Executive, then the President (understand, speaker) of the Congress shall be signed for the rest of the term. The problem is that law doesn't explicitly recite how is the President impeached... So yesterday's events can't be deemed anti constitutional, this would mean against the Constitution. They would be better described as semiconstitutional.

Lastly, the key players on this, whether you call it "coup" or "impeachment", are hardly a pseudoscienc-y minority. (190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

190.53.202.228 wrote, "So yesterday's events can't be deemed anti constitutional, this would mean against the Constitution."
This is just your opinion (WP:OR).
A senior Honduran official did deem it "was not" "within the constitution."
"... a senior Honduran official ... said the country's Congress had appointed a commission Thursday evening to investigate whether the president's referendum was in line with the constitution. The commission reported back Sunday afternoon that the president had violated the constitution, and the Congress voted to remove him. That procedure is "within the constitution," said the senior official -- although the coup that occurred hours earlier was not, he acknowledged." (emphasis added)[3] -- Rico 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm 190.53.202.228. What I meant is not that the events are constitutional. They are not, as was previously stated. The problem is that there is no procedure, in law, to impeachment. It just says it will cease being in the charge immediately. That is, the events were done in favour of the constitution. But, the methods used weren't. If he was doing something illegal, he needed trial. And it isn't my opinion, remember that anti means against. So the coup was inconstitutional, as there are no procedures, but the election of Micheletti was constitutional. Not that he will be a good president. At least he will, for 6 months, be better than Zelaya MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and "reliable" source of viewpoint

I wish to stay away from the discussion of "coup or not". However, I have a deep concern on viewpoint of RicoCorinth over NPOV. Rico is right to say that majority viewpoint and minority viewpoint should not be treated equally. However, he must propose that whether the crisis is a coup is just a matter of viewpoint instead of a matter of fact. If he does not give up the claim that it could be a matter of fact, the extension of NPOV policy is simply manipulation of majority viewpoint.

To write a viewpoint in NPOV style, we cannot say "It is a coup". We have to say "Most USA media (or English using media) says it is a coup" to make it NPOV. I don't think it is true intent of Rico.

To make it a fact of matter, build a consensus. Ask people to say their standpoint (coup or not), the reasons behind their standpoint and ask them tell us what kind of evidence they need to make them think it otherwise. There is always some people who made a belief out of his political interest, or just because they could not master reasoning. That people is willing to give their reasoning, and only this process we can rightful ignore them. Labeling anyone "pseudoscience" merely because of his viewpoint will not work. That is a way only be offensive and bully. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. However, make that "Most international media and heads of state call it a coup by the military". I haven't read about a single head of state yet (uh, legal head of state, excluding micheletti, of course) who doesn't call it a coup. And media here in Germany calls it a coup, too. Aand all other media reports I found. Gray62 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, I only support this compromise because there seems to be no consensus in Honduras to call it that way. Otherwise, imho the intenrational opinion is unambigious enough to justify the usage of that word here. Gray62 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, after checking the definition of coup d'etatin Wikipedia, I'm now against that compromise. We shouldn't support political doublespeak, and propaganda here. This incidents fits the description of a coup, so it should be named as such. Gray62 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a coup. It was the arrest and exile of Zelaya, who had disqualified himself as president according to the Honduran Constitution (due to his bid to overrule the Constitution, going against the law and against a Supreme Court decision that rendered the referendum illegal). In addition, he was usurping public duties by acquiring electoral material and organizing the referendum, which, besides being illegal, is the domain of the electoral authorities, not the president, and this, according to articles 2 and 3, is unconstitutional, and no one owes allegiance to someone who does such a thing in direct contradiction with the Constitution and laws. The people also have the right to rise up against anyone who does this, according to article 2.

If anyone was infiltrating a "small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus", to be used to "displace the government from its control of the remainder”, it was Zelaya with his referendum initiative.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a coup d'état. Both supreme court and congress determined that the president was acting illegally, and thus the military (which should uphold the law per constitution) decided to ignore the pres. and throw him out. There was no "displacement of government". I can understand how heads of state the world over are crying fowl (all of them fearful that their own courts might come to similar conclusions), but wikipedia is not intended for the spread of such propaganda. To maintain NPOV make reference to the fact that world media is calling it a coup, but also mention that the military, supreme court and congress were acting in accordance with the constitution. ie. according to the definition of a coup it was no coup. --A is A (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That in their opinion , the military, supreme court and congress were acting in accordance with the constitution, and in their opinion, it was no coup according to the definition of a coup. LjL (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Developments

Tanks? Does Honduras even have any tanks? Do far all I've seen pics of are armoured cars.©Geni 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical mistake. I was saying they most likely had APCs or IFVs but after looking I'd say they mostly were armored cars. Similar mistakes are made there since they all have turrets of some kind mounted on top.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alvis Saladins from what I've seen.©Geni 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We do have tanks, though. And, remember, it's normal for undeveloped nations to have weaponry. Perhaps it's that bad priority system that made them undeveloped, aye? Haven't seen them on footage from yesterday, if I find, I will post them here. (190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

The pictures I've seen have something I'd call a tank, but it does have wheels (6 of them) and not treads Homunq (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Alvis Saladin armoured car.©Geni 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you simply google it? "The tank squadron is equipped with twelve British-made Scorpion light tanks". I udnerstand they're a bit more powerful than an Aladin. Gray62 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

heh on paper they would be pretty even. The issue was more related to their being any tanks deployed rather than their posesion of them. Article claimed they were deployed but photos only show armoured cars.©Geni 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Many sources are calling this a coup - move article back?

Wikipedia is not supposed to avoid any loaded language that's in dispute. It's supposed to base its language on the commonly-accepted language in the sources. I've seen "coup" and "golpe" in a lot of places. I'd support moving this article to 2009 Honduran coup, but I'm not going to do it myself. I'd like to see both sides argued here. Homunq (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not suggest changing it until it the constitutionality of the act is determined. I have yet to see one source calling this a coup even address the subject of Honduran law surrounding this matter. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. It simply uses the most-commonly-accepted phrase. "Coup" is in the title of the top three hits for Honduras in Google news. Please cite sources calling it anything but a coup. Homunq (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It uses the most commony accepted phrase, unless that phrase jepoardizes the impartial tone of the article. Coup is a very loaded word, and without some source explaining why this is a coup, the term should probably be avoided in the title. The fact that most nations are calling this a coup is already included, as is the dispute that this may have been a constitutional move. Articles that call it a coup but ignore the relevant issues are hardly reliable in determining whether or not this is a coup. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A senior Honduran official addressed the subject of Honduran law surrounding this matter.
"... a senior Honduran official ... said the country's Congress had appointed a commission Thursday evening to investigate whether the president's referendum was in line with the constitution. The commission reported back Sunday afternoon that the president had violated the constitution, and the Congress voted to remove him. That procedure is "within the constitution," said the senior official -- although the coup that occurred hours earlier was not, he acknowledged." (emphasis added)[4] -- Rico 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with coup is that those in Honduras who havedeposed Zelaya are very much denying it is a coup and we must havea neutral title that embraces both major points of view - that it is a coup and that it isnt't - the current tile does this whereas, IMO, coup does not. We should, of course, present the viewpoint thatit is a coup within the article, just not in its title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Keep in mind most military coups deny they are a coup, and claim some form of legitimacy. Name almost any coup in history and you'll notice this ;-) 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a coup, no matter how you try to justify it. There was no legal process under the Honduran constitution; Zelaya was captured by hooded troops who then forceably exiled him without due judicial process. However, I think the title of the article is appropriate...this isn't over yet, so its an ongoing crisis, not just a coup. Rsheptak (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There obviously was some kind of judicial process, because the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him. The contstitution appears to have some absolutely brutal laws regarding people who try to extend executive power past the allowed term. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly two sides to this arguemnt. As wikipedia we should remian neutral between the two. The military have clearly not taken power here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you Squeakbox. Micheletti spent most of thursday night/friday morning closeted with the military command according to Honduran press reports. And I have to disagree with the user above who thinks there was a process. The court issued a press release claiming there was a court order, but has yet to provide the order itself, either in its press release or on its website. Congress spent most of the day trying to find a justifiable reason for impeaching Zelaya, despite the fact the the Honduran constitution lacks any means for impeaching a sitting president. A court order is not a judicial process, only the start of one. Rsheptak (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to it is a coup but I think it is important to think what message is delivered by the word "coup". This is about Wiki consensus, and we must to try build consensus whenever dispute is found. This word, in my view, is not about what is right or what is moral. This word is not even about democracy. This word is about constitutional order. We must decide whether constitutional order is breached and who breach that. The word "constitutional order" is not just Constitution of Honduras, but we have some common sense on rule of law which is applicable globally. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't accommodate every dispute because there's always someone to dispute something especially when dealing with politics. Whether we go by most commonly used term or the simple nature of this action there is no reason why we shouldn't call this a coup d'etat. The fact there is some provision for removing officials if they propose changing term limits doesn't give them legal cover to detain those people and force them into exile. I mean, they even tendered a phony resignation! How is this not a coup?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I say move the article back. Most criminals claim to have not broken the law. At some point, we give undue weight to a minority viewpoint that is such a minority viewpoint, that it's ridiculous to pay it too much never mind. Zanu-PF says things in Zimbabwe, too. It doesn't mean the rest of the world buys into it. Giving weight to minority viewpoints, in the interests of neutrality, is not to be overemphasized to the extent that we're afraid to call a spade a spade -- not when that's what the reliable sources are calling it. The fact that the military is claiming that they weren't guilty of a coup, because the Supreme Court authorized the coup, can still be discussed in the article. -- Rico 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a coup. Just because it may have some popular support doesn't make it any less of one. I haven't seen one media source that hasn't described it as such. --Tocino 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move back to coup. That's what it is.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 07:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point it is much broader than the military booting the Zelaya out of the country. The "coup" is only a part of the events relevant to this article. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the justification that every wrongdoer claims otherwise isn't enough for this discussion. The fact is that the whole thing was coupy. But, I do agree with SqueekBox and 71.110.162.192. This is more than just the impeachment/coup. It certainly includes the unconstitutional proceedings before the impeachment/coup, that is, Zelaya's unlawfulness. So, now, in Honduras, both sides are illegal. Nice :( 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember that many newspapers, goverments and myself included first learned that the military arrested the president. That sounds like a coup. The newspapers/Reuters/Governments condemd it. Only, after the arrest, the Supreme Court said it ordered it. And after that, news came that Congress removed the president officially from office. Now I really wonder if you can say if this is a coup or just a constitutional/political crisis. We will have to wait what the independent media and governments are saying today about it. There may be some hesitation: some western nations strongly condemned the action by the army; it will be awkward to say suddenly that didnt know all the details and then will not condemn it but ask everyone to be peaceful...80.127.58.65 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, survey says: coup. But there is some justification for saying that Zelaya's own illegal actions are part of the crisis but not part of the coup. So, I guess the choices are:

• Honduran coup of 2009 ... doesn't cover the lead-up.
• 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis ... better than "political crisis" because it's more specific, but avoids the more common "coup"
• 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and coup ... wordy.

Homunq (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second and that we merge the constitutional referendum article. Certainly there is a serious current of opinion that says Mel's actions were illegal and therefore he could not continue as President and this view neeeds to be respected in the title as does the view that it is a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There can be no serious doubt that a coup was conducted. However, keeping under "political crisis" broadens the scope to include events before and after the coup, which I support, and we should merge in the referendum. (By the way, there's no serious argument that "he could not continue as President" legally; even if the referendum was illegal, simply breaking the law does not mean you automatically stop being President.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, any citizen of Honduras, with or without authority, has the right to restore Constitutional order in the case of someone usurping functions not ascribed to them in the Constitution (article 3. Organizing an illegal referendum falls into this. The electoral authorities are the ones who can do it). Also even proposing to change term limits automatically disqualifies the acting president, and prevents him or her from exercising any public function for ten years.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are articles in the Washington Post calling the events a coup, yes, but to be perfectly honest and fair, there are also several objective articles in the WP that attempt to go beyond the superficial headline (let's face it, coup is better understood, and shorter, than "constitutional crisis") and describe in detail the events leading to Zaleya's forced ouster. I would give limited weight to following the logic that if a majority of media refer to something as 'whatever', then that makes it fact, or even meets the most casual definition of NPOV (that says major media is unbiased, which it is not, and also begs the issue of what is reliable over what is not -- there are countless examples of where the NYT, WP, WSJ and others have each failed us miserably). History has constantly demonstrated how a popular point of view has changed as facts emerge, attitudes change, etc. Philosophically, do American, European, or Latin American POVs matter more than Hondurans'? The discussion here is rife with opinion, by the way -- at least be honest and admit that there are many "contributions" where personal politics are in play. The reason "constitutional crisis" works for me is that it is accurate, objective, and nuetral. Coup does not work, because it distills a complex situation and reduces it to a highly charged, emotionally loaded, and simplistic POV, which just happens to serve the interests of one side of the issue (not at all lost on Zaleya, Chavez, and others known to play the media). Moreover, my own personal contacts with Hondurans across the country support a view that Zaleya would not be accepted by the people were he to be reinstated, except through brutal repraisal and suspension of freedoms -- if that's democratic, then I do not understand, nor support, democracy. There is general consensus that the government -- all elements -- are weak, inneffective, fragile, and corrupt. Zaleya is known for his connections to the drug trade, which has weakened him politically unfortunately, drugs, and drug money, spread around, are an effective tool to enslave a people. To pretend otherwise -- that Zaleya is some heroic figure, a man of the people, a legitimate President in the eyes of the electorate -- is both disengenuous, and laughable.VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

There's no doubt it was a coup, but there is a serious argument that he could not continue as president. As the article states, article 239 of the constitution could be argued to say that, although it of course does not suggest he be deported in the morning twilight by masked soldiers as communications are cut and his resignation is forged. Homunq (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we're in agreement. It's reasonable that the Supreme Court could have come up with some legal process to remove him, possibly under article 239, but they clearly didn't. <eleland/talkedits> 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox on the name; Constitutional Crisis seems very fitting, regardless of which side of the issue you come down on. I don't know if we should merge this with the referendum article, however, because while it is background to the events, I don't think the actual crisis started until either Zelaya ignored the courts and distributed the ballots or he was rousted out of bed (depending on what side of the situation you are taking). Also, I think a separate referendum page would be good for discussion on the specifics and constitutionality of the referendum, itself, rather than losing that entire debate in the larger scope of events surrounding the crisis. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so everybody is saying "it is clearly a coup", or "it is not a coup", or "every source I've seen says it's a coup". Will someone kindly produce some reliable sources claiming either one or the other, and backing it up with motivations? It will help more than just making this section longer and longer with unsubstantiated opinions. LjL (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you accept as "reliable sources", especially about something that is clearly argumentative. Following are sources which support a different POV -- any use of the word "coup" cannot be considered neutral in this unresolved political crisis, as it prejudices one side of the argument over the other; objectively, both "sides" feel that they have legitimate positions, and all parties, internal and external, have contributed to the crisis.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html from the Christian Science Monitor, an opinion piece written by Octavio Sanchez, a Honduran who has served as a lawyer, counsel to the President, and a cabinet post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070103210.html from the Washington Post, an opinion piece written by Alvaro Llosa, a syndicated writer and the director of the Independent Institute, and author of "Lessons from the Poor".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/30/politics/washingtonpost/main5125109.shtml from CBS News and the Washington Post, pointing out the political issues involved with the label "coup", and itself using the phrase "military ouster" in its subtext -- which is concise -- there was a military compenent, and there was an ouster -- but hardly complete.

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=315139 is a brief statement from the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee prior to the ouster -- a constitutional crisis orchestrated by the key players appears to fortell a confrontation, and/or capitulation.

http://www.startribune.com/world/49177937.html is an AP article by reporter Freddy Cuevas, enumerating the actions fostering the crisis, and presaging the ouster.

All of which begs the question, how much of this was pre-meditated, a calculated move on Zaleya's part, to rescue his Presidency by 'losing it'. Can't fault a guy for being a successful planner. VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC). VaChiliman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing

Just a heads up here. User:Unmentionables is putting in edits such as "The rest of the world cannot tell Hondurans how to run itself" [5], "Hondurans by and large support the ousting of the President" [6], "Every Latin American country is socialist and publicly condemned the removal of the president despite the popular support of the decision by the Honduras' own people" [7]. The only source he has for all of this is an editoral by the Wall Street Journal. User:Allbertos was making similar edits earlier. Both of these users are brand new (their first edits have both come within the past 6 hours and all of their edits are related to this coup). I suspect sockpuppeting. --Tocino 07:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest edit by User:Unmentionables: "and perpetuate his reign as it is similar to the method employed by Hugo Chavez in order to establish his fascist rule over Venezuela, and has since been employed by many other Latin American rulers who wished to do the same and are allies of Hugo Chavez." (link here = [8]) --Tocino 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you recommend we check and see if they're sock puppets or request full protection of the article? Using an editorial as a source is a clear Wikipedia policy violation, and you may remove it. -- Rico 07:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend we check to see if they're sockpuppets, but I would be against full protection for now. I would request a background check myself, but it's 2:30 AM here and I am ready to go to bed. I just hope that some editors will be watching this article for similar POV edits, so they can be quickly reverted. --Tocino 07:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Tocino. If this is full protected now, it would be bad, as it's on going. But, seriously, this guys need to stop putting their opinions and start posting the facts. 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Better to block people than full protection. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that view. If those guys become a problem, block them. But so far, the resulting article seems to be surprisingly reasonable, so don't go to the length of restricting editing yet, pls. Gray62 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the WSJ article is easily the best representation of the current situation in Honduras, as an editorial it should indeed be left out. I'm not going to edit the article, but any hispanophones who would like to can use www.elheraldo.hn for sources. It's the most read independent Honduran newspaper.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its also extremely pro-coup as are 3 of the 4 honduran dailys. I like El Tiempo for its independence, but here's the links to all 4 for reference along wiith my comments on each from years of reading them daily:

• La Prensa for the last year or so rabidly anti Zelaya to the point of outright fabrication of news stories
• El Heraldo Tegucigalpa based; was a good source for news yesterday but strong pro-coup bias
• El Tiempo most independent of the Honduran papers
• La TribunaTegucigalpa based; pretty useless.

Rsheptak (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that there are no independent newspapers in Honduras. Tiempo just has pushed the specific agenda of the owner's and its family. Yes Prensa and Heraldo (same owner) share same very pro-coup views. Tiempo has been supporter of Zelaya since Tiempo's owner (Owner's Son) was even part of the Zelaya government. Wikihonduras (talk)

Almarco wrote, "The opinions of Hondurans themselves, who by and large are glad to see Zelaya gone and support the new government and do not see it as a coup". "Almarco" is similar to "Allbertos". Do you think? -- Rico 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? "Rico" is similar to "Ricacho" don't you think? I have no clue who or what "Allbertos" is. It's a rather random association. If you are trying to say I am posting under multiple accounts, that is false. But, by the way, the edits from IP 24.72.222.172 are mine, before I could look up my long-forgotten Wikipedia account info. --Almarco (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the clear POV that follows here, what does: "The anti-Zelaya and pro-coup Honduran newspaper La Prensa reported that angry Zelaya supporters attacked La Prensa's main headquarters by throwing stones and other objects at their windows, until police intervened. The paper also alleges that Venezuelan and Nicaraguan secret agents were behind the attack." have to do anything? This clearly has to be cut out. Serves no purpose to the article at all.--Anonymust (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Using op ed as sources

"ALBA bloc leaders' main obsession: indefinite rule" is an op ed. -- Rico 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciamento?

A lot of debate seems to be centered on whether or not to call this thing a "coup d'etat." What about calling referring to it as a "pronunciamento?"

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état#The_Pronunciamento

..in that the military did not assume control but rather instated another civil government, or at least head of government. Pr0me7heu2 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really what a "pronunciamiento" is about. A "pronunciamiento" is just an euphemism of coup d'etat used by the coup leaders. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its still the same thing as a Coup d'état.--86.26.110.119 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls check the Wikipedia article on coup d'etat: "“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État."! See? It isn't restricted to the military taking over. And in the case at hand, there is also the Supreme Court of Honduras involved, and probably Congress leader Micheletti, too. Gray62 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, this was hardly executed by a small, but critical segment of the state apparatus; It looks that the bulk of the federal/national government acted against and displaced the executive branch. I don't even know if pronunciamiento is completely accurate, though I think it is much more fitting, because this doesn't appear to be the civilian government giving sanction to an executed coup, but the civilian government ordering the overthrow of one of its own branches. Considering the breadth of actors involved, I almost wonder if this could be classified as a rebellion. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion seems more fitting to a degree, but yours is the only time I've seen it suggested anywhere.92.104.255.201 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The military did not instate anyone. The National Congress did, in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. -A Pickle (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Any news on human rights abuse or sign of abolish of furture election?

I am not hinting that there is human rights abuse nor abolish of future election, and I do not think information is available within 2 days or anytime soon. However, I wish editors could pay some attention to this area, and there should be a respectable portion in this crisis once information is available. I think there are some international concern in this area instead of who has won the crisis. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What the acting President said moments after his oath, was that he will pass on the baton to the next President on due and already set moment. That means that as soon as the term ends, he's handing it over. I just hope this doesn't escalate to more. Now, I'm pretty sure he won't retain the office. Not because I trust him (IMHO, the guy is a crook); but because the coup/impeachment was already condemned by virtually everyone, even when Manuel Zelaya was out of order. Imagine is he kept the office? It would be like, "Well, I will still be Presid-" --overthrown. 190.53.202.228 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sry, but the November election has already been irrevocally harmed. Cesar Ham, a presidential candidate of a left wing party, has been killed. He most probably wouldn't have had any chance to win, but this sure will influence the results. If the more liberal candidate will lose by a few percentage points, it could very well be that Ham would have made the decisive difference by endorsoing that candidate! Gray62 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sry, ignore my point above! Cesar Ham is alive. I apologize for falling for a news hoax. And now excuse me pls while I remove the egg from my face... :-( Gray62 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find a credible news source stating Ham was alive? I found a source, but don't think its credible. Can you point me to yours? thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Iyou'll find it among the references in the Cesar Ham article. However, ok, I can't determine how credible the source cited in the correction of Narco News is. But regarding the unclear news situation, it would be premature to claim Ham is dead. Let's wait and hope for the best. Gray62 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that and I don't consider it credible. I'm certainly hoping for the best. Rsheptak (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it legal to deport a president without a due process, even in the event of acting unlawfully?

I'm following the whole story, and conceding that President Zelaya was about to act unlawfully, I seriously doubt that deporting was a legal action against an unlawful president, as well as dismissing him without any due process, or impeachment, or whatever, before taking such a dramatic measure.

I think this is a coup, and this article should be renamed subsequently.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're a member of the Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran national Congress, and a registered Honduran voter all in one, then, right? The Supreme Court deemed this action legal, therefore it is legal, seeing as they're the ones that interpret national laws. Just because this action got your panties in a twist doesn't mean everyone has to act the way you want.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Suprme Court is not entitled to make any decision. As you said, it's the one that interpret national law. Can anyone tell which law states that a rogue president must go to exile without a due process? didn't he have the right to defend himself from the accusations?--85.136.199.112 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "national law" and "expelling an overthrown President from the country's borders" are mutually exclusive. Who else is qualified to decide to throw him out? Personally, I do not agree with his expulsion, he should have stood trial for what he did, but nevertheless there isn't a single article in the Honduran constitution that contradicts the Supreme Court's decision. It is also possible that since his party still runs the country, they "pulled strings" to have him spared, even if they were the architects of his overthrow.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also important to denote between the actions of removing Zelaya from office and expelling him from the country. His removal from office may be perfectly legal even if his expulsion from Honduras is not. If this is the case, the illegality of his expulsion would not invalidate his removal from office, and there would be no legal cause to reinstate him. I'm not taking one side or the other, but merely wish to point out the distinction. The crisis may evoke images of past coups based on the fact that he was expelled, but given that his removal from office and his expulsion are two distinct actions, the legality of his expulsion should not be a factor in determining whether this was a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.42.132 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fijian High Court ruled that the 2006 Fiji coup was legal. By your logic, do you think that the 2006 Fiji coup shouldn't be labeled a coup? 128.151.25.31 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference error

This article contains an error in the references, shown by a red message in the list, but I do not know how to fix it. Someone help!--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the error, so it must have been fixed. The red things are only articles yet not done about the source's authors, but the sources are there. Hope I helped, MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this, SOA-pedia?

I've never seen such a blatantly, unabashedly biased hit piece. <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On whose behalf? ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that it was pure pro-coup propaganda. We're fixing it rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IT IS A COUP

I cannot believe we are even having this debate. It's amazing how much Wikipedia is kowtowing to irrational objections. The notion that because the Supreme Court ordered his removal from office it is therefore not a coup is ridiculous. The Supreme Court is part of the coup as is the Congress. Do you really think they unanimously accepted a phony resignation because they had a free and honest debate? Everyone who has ties to Zelaya is being arrested, media and communications cut off, soldiers policing the street, a curvew imposed, and Zelaya himself sent off into exile. This does not smack of a legal removal and is every bit like a coup. The notion that we won't call it that just because one group involved in the coup can give it legal cover is ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite preposterous. I'm waiting to hear someone defend this ridiculous "not a coup" viewpoint. <eleland/talkedits> 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it just so happens that the entire legally-constituted government is out to get Zelaya, not that Zelaya was abusing his power and disavowing court and Congress decisions.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You see, the way you deal with that legally is by actually treating it like a legal matter. The Congress did not reach its decision until after Zelaya had been flown to Costa Rica, the Supreme Court ordered his removal and the military implemented that order without any warning while Zelaya was still asleep in his bed, and then there's that phony resignation the Congress accepted. Oh, did I forget to mention that they detained members of the Cabinet as well at the same time? I'm sorry but if that isn't a coup I don't know what is a coup.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say somewhere above, but rather clumsily due to my non-native speaker status. Thanks for putting it all in a very brief and concise way. Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's not a coup if it's actually legal under the constitution, and it seems to me that one article of it clearly states that anyone seeking to change term limits automatically loses any office they may hold and can't be realected for 10 years afterwards. And who else but the Congress and the Supreme Court can decide what is legal and what is not, there is no higher legal authority then that ? Article title should not have anything about coup in it, although the body can obviously state that's what some sides are calling it.--Helixdq (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a coup d'etat when the definition of Wikipedia's own article is applied! I was willing to accept a compromise because there is no consensus ammong Hondurans, but I have changed my mind. We shouldn't allow political doublespeak here. Gray62 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how it matches that article at all. It talks about a small group of military outsting the government, which is apparently not what happened here at all. Can you even speak of a "coup" organized by the entirety of parlament ? --Helixdq (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-- “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either --military-- or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État. (from the article "Coup d’État") --

"small" ? how exactly was this an infiltration of a small segement of the state apparatus, it seems to me like everybody but a few loyal ministers threw him out

You can clearly see the article says military force is not a defining feature. Let alone the fact that the military force seems quite undeniable (the president was arrested by the military, sent into exile by the military, and now the military are policing the streets under the imposition of a curfew). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, echoing a previous poster, how exactly was that an infiltration a small segment of the state apparatus?190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on coup d'etat is poor and contradicts itself internally. the only clear definition from that article: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." we SHOULD be arguing about whether the government was displaced, not about when or how. IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DISPLACED IT IS NOT A COUP, according to wikipedia's article on coup d'etat. And in a constitutional republic, the president is NOT the government. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The totallity of the government was deposed. They are already naming a new cabinet. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The totality of the government? so, new legislature, courts, government structure? nope - let's not overstate things. the totality of the government was NOT displaced. that said, wikipedia refers to the turkish military's domestic actions as coups. the situations seem pretty analogous to me. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cielo, did you stop to think that there's gonna be a new cabinet, because oh I dunno, there's a Presidential election coming up in November? The courts are still the same, Congress is the same, nothing's changed.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't show your ignorance of how government works. A cabinet is basically the people appointed to specific tasks by the President, and as such, is an extension of the Presidential office. A new President almost always replaces everyone in those posts, forming a new cabinet. This does not "depose" any other branch of government. --24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's say that US Supreme Court and US Congress decide that President Obama is a crook, and they send US Army to send him to exile, and they appoint a new US President. Is this a coup, or just the removal of an unlawful president? Why should it be different to Honduras?--85.136.199.112 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because... Honduras is not the USA. Do you see the difference? Both countries have vastly different constitutions, you'd realise that if you read them. There is absolutely nothing in the Honduran constitution that suggests Zelaya's overthrow is illegal. In fact, Article 375 supports the actions of the army and the decision of the Supreme Court.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some context here. Article 375 basically states that if anyone tries to overthrow the constitution, any citizen with or without authority "has the duty to collaborate to reestablish it". It does not state that if the president is a clown who's breaking the law, then the military should kidnap and deport him. Homunq (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly say that. It says that the action of anyone acting outside of the Constitution are null and void, and that if anyone assumes functions not attributed to him or her (like conducting an election), then "any citizen, with or without authority, has the duty to collaborate to reestablish" the Constitution. Overthrowing the Constitution is exactly what Zelaya was trying to do in the long run. Conducting an illegal referendum is assuming functions not ascribed to him in the Constitution.190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There were demonstrations all over the country for the past week calling for his removal as President, and under this pressure the Supreme Court decided to send the army to arrest him. Nothing in Article 375 contradicts these actions. The details of his deportation are sketchy. Neither Zelaya nor Micheletti are trustworthy politicians, and each one's stories are likely to be equally bullshit. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing that Zelaya would have wanted to face trial for what he did. It's more likely that he was given the option "stay here and stand trial, or go into exile." Even if this is not the case, Article 42 does mention revocation of citizenship and expulsion from the country for traitors to the state. As to whether to consider him one, that's the Supreme Court's decision, which they clearly already made. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this talk page are qualified to question the legality of an order given by the highest legal authority of a sovereign nation. You can say you don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legal under Honduran law.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"There were demonstrations all over the country for the past week calling for his removal as President, and under this pressure the Supreme Court decided to send the army to arrest him."!? Ridiculous. Talk about a banana republic! The Supreme Court does not get to do something illegal "under pressure". And make no mistake: absolutely *all* military coups in history have the support of at least some part of the population. It does not make them legal, either. Even more ridiculous: when an alleged crime has been committed, the court cannot give the choice to "stand trial or go into exile"! It's sad that the coup's supporters tactic is to ridicule their own country in order to save face. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article 42 does mention revoking citizenship. It also gives a two-step legal process (court judgement and government order), neither of which were carried out. Note that the very definition of government order (acuerdo gubermental) requires it to be published officially before it goes into effect, there is no such thing as a secret one.

The Supreme Court clearly has a lot of authority here. If they had had a valid hearing and published a decision that he violated article 239 and he's no longer president, then sure, Micheletti would be the president now. But if they just say "ummm... yeah, we told the army to do that" in a press release with no legal argumentation, then any rational human being has the right to question that. Homunq (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is more that this was an unbureaucratic overthrow, not that it was undemocratic? There wasn't enough red tape? I'm sorry if I'm misreading your comments, but it seems you're saying the only valid decisions by the Supreme Court are made in an official session and nowhere else.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you do know the "red tape" is there for a reason, right? That in law, it is extremely important that the established procedure is followed? Or maybe you consider other things as expendable red tape, for example democratic elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of what I'm saying. You're talking about changing presidents, for heaven's sake. If you start with an attitude of "the ends (removing an unpopular and lawbreaking president) justify the means (military takeover, however brief)" then you lose. Guatemala had a serious crisis involving the president recently - should the military have deported him? If politics is a game without rules, then we're back to the 70s and 80s, and that has a serious body count.

Zelaya is a clown and should have been removed. Legally. A coup is a step back for the whole region. Homunq (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Total body count of Mel's overthrow: zero. I really don't understand your point of view, although I do admit I'm biased as a Honduran. That's why I've refrained from touching the article itself. I'm only on the talk page to point out a few misrepresentations. As for the appointment of Micheletti, what's the problem there? He was, unfortunately but legally, next in line of succession (as the VP had already been sacked).92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Homunq, after rereading your post, I feel I should clarify my views, and ask you to clarify yours. Are we in agreement that Article 239 states that any attempt to change the number of terms a president can serve is illegal? Are we in agreement that Article 375 states that if anyone attempts to violate the constitution (as in Article 239), it is the duty of every Honduran citizen to remove him? Are we in agreement that Article 42 states that anyone found guilty of treasonous acts and/or violation of the constitution can have his or her citizenship revoked and be expelled from the country? If so, then our only clash is in the deportation of Zelaya. He should have stood trial, I would be more satisfied with his removal if he had. But he didn't, and even though my expectations weren't met, I am not dissatisfied with the result. I'm guessing you feel the same about him having to stand trial, but how do you feel about him having been removed? If our only problem is the deportation, there's no need to butt heads over it. Neither one of us is going to get the trial we want. And now I'm stuck with Micheletti.92.104.255.201 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my opinions of the specifics of the case are relevant, and (from a greater distance) I think yours are reasonable. The point is, it is a coup. In my view, it's like an alcoholic (Latin America, or more specifically, the armies of Latin America) who's been dry for 16 years having a drink (coup) again. Even if the first drink is fine, just to have some fun (remove a bad and unpopular president), it is very very dangerous, and if the friends (civil society) don't make it clear that they think it's a bad idea, it WILL happen again. Or another metaphor: when my neighbors were about to beat a thief in front of my house, I stopped them, even though the thief probably deserved it. And I did the same when the cops were about to take another neighborhood thug and kill him, even though to let them would have made me safer (I called the normal cops, who took the thug from the undercover elite cops). Homunq (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought: when you say it's a coup you're implying that one side is taking over control of the government. Both the legislature and the supreme court have just as much power within the government as the president does and he violated the constitution and both the other branches of government by attempting to proceed with the referendum. Not that his arrest and exile was constitutional, but the president clearly wasn't acting within the bounds of the constitution either. Just my two cents on the debate.--Ndunruh (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying "counter-coup". Interesting, but lacks reliable sources. Homunq (talk)

Actually I'd be more cute and say 33% coup, but no, I don't have any sources so I'm just interjecting my thoughts into the debate.--Ndunruh (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In 2008 Zelaya's performance rating was just 25%, clearly unpopular. To put things in perspective though, for a long time George W. Bush's approval rating was just as low, and even lower, furthermore, he committed or authorized many crimes much more heinous than anything Zelaya was trying to do, does that mean the military should have sprayed bullets at, arrested, then deported him to Canada while installing John McCain as President? Many of you really need to look in the mirror. --Surcer (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1) No mention of Honduran Constitution Article 3 which stipulates that citizens are not required to obey any usurping government or anybody that comes to a position of public authority by force, or by means or procedures that disavows the constitution. Public act sanctioned by such authorities are null and void. The people have the right to insurrection in order to reestablish the constitutional order.

2)There is the following statement in the article: "Zelaya's opponents claimed that his intention was to allow his own re-election, which would make it illegal to even propose" --However, this is the question that was going to be asked in the referendum (which would not directly be turned into law, or would directly change the constitution):

“¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente que apruebe una nueva constitución política?”

Translated: "Do you agree for a Fourth Urn to be installed on the November 2009 general elections in order to decide whether to call or not for a National Constitutional Convention to approve a new Political Constitution?" -- so the question is not: Do you want the current president to be re-elected? Hence the right for the people to vote on having a "fourth urn" was taken away by the Military.

3) Who ordered for the military to take action? Information regarding this is contradictory.As it appears, it was either the Electoral Tribunal (whose members are chosen by the political parties, in comparison to which the leftist party is small, so there is an opposition majority, thus mostly biased against Zelaya) or the Supreme Court, in any case he should have been taken to trial not flown to Costa Rica. An article in Spanish Newspaper el pais considered that putting up the new president was basically to get the "military coup" responsibility off the army's shoulders. That last statement, though, is just an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealitosnocturnos (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. You're only strong point is the first point. But, again, the law about impeachment is highly dubious. Then, the second point falls through the floor when you hear that there is no need for a national assembly unless you want to change a couple of laws, including, oh, surprise, reelection unlawfulness. The third point is easily addressed: the national congress has the right and duty to do that kind of things. The electoral tribunal only does electoral thingies. And, the opposition majority is null when you here that Micheletti is Liberal too, and that the Liberal party had condemned his actions since he started to be unlawful. Just because Patricia Rodas and Padilla Sunseri backed him up, doesn't meant every liberal did. ^^ Remember that usurping means taking the place of. And he ceased being president the day he started to do unlawful and treachery. So, he was usurping the presidency MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tone on your reply. Maybe it's naive to think that Zelaya wouldn't have seeked to get re-elected. However that is not stated in the question he was asking for the referendum. Thus, it is so far a conjecture. Moreover, he didn't stand a trial for his actions. The use of force to remove a president, while blocking TV signals, shutting down services, detaining ambassadors, and later on closing television channels, beating people up, arresting them, etc is very hard to see as "rule of law" and "democracy." You say, and it's well known, and these events as they unfolded would seem to prove it (although I think it's just being used as an excuse for the clumsy procedure that was followed to oust Zelaya), that the process of impeachment is not clear in the constitution. This, for example, would justify calling for a constitutional amendment. Don't you think? So I go back to my previous point. Whether he wanted to get re-elected or not, the whole rationalization behind the military action to remove him, remained to be seen. For example, re-election is allowed in the USA. The people at one point were able to make this decision. It's a sovereign right of the people to decide on this matters. If nobody backed him up, and nobody agreed, why didn't they let him do the poll? once finished, he would have undoubtedly violated the ruling of the Electoral Tribunal, and then a penal process could have been started. In any case, whatever they were looking to do, didn't work because they did it the wrong way, support for Zelaya is growing and even other countries are starting to intervene, as commenter "caoslinger" explains below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.227.61 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem will come later, though. Not being a legal overthrown will hurt Honduras worse than leaving Zelaya on the office. He should had been deemed unlawful, as he was, then impeached, arrested, then trialed, then jailed. Legally. Now we have all the international governments planning a "righteous" overthrown of the would-had-been de jure government. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No quotation possible, if organisation doesn't have a wiki link? WTF?

I just noticed this statement in edit summaries: "Without an article on them for context, we can't cite them here". Excuse me pls, we can't cite an existing organisation, just because there is no Wiki article about it? Since when? Would a more knowledgeable editor pls explain this surprising rule, and maybe show the relevant Wiki policy? Gray62 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That comment was most certainly in error. You can safely ignore it. No, I'm not an editor, but even I know malarky when I see it. Rsheptak (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your prompt answer. Gray62 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my comment, and was not any rule or proposed rule but my own opinion. My point was that UnoAmerica is a generically-named organization, and in order to quote them we need some context of who they are. It's like saying "The Organization of Doctors for Fairness opposes mandatory vaccinations" - with a generic name, there's no way to tell who they actually represent and why. Homunq (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx, Homunq! Hmm, you seem to know all the rules (I noticed you citing policies), so pls be more careful about how you state your edit summaries, to avoid confusion among occasional editors like me ;-)! There also was another user who claimed ALBA couldn't be cited, because there's no Wikipedia article, so I really believed that's a new rule. However, I pointed him to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. As for UnoAmerica, I firstly believed that's a division of the UNO. Now I notice its some kind of political NGO. Hmm, you're right, using such material shouldn't be encouraged. If they make valid points, they sure cite sources that can be used. One other point: This story includes some spanish language sources. Inevitable, as long as the reports are still coming in, imho. But shouldn't they be exchanged for englich language ones as soon as possible (that's a bit selfish demand, I don't speak spanish)? And what about that Norwegian source??? If I would understnad what's in it, I would search for a replacement, but that'slike Chines for me. What to do with this? Gray62 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While there's no specific rule, it is rare we would put comments from an organisation without an article. The reason is because the relevance of comments from an organisation who don't merit a wikipedia article (i.e. are not notable or not independently covered in reliable secondary sources) is highly questionable. Generally speaking we should only include comments of great relevance. We should not include comments from all and sundry since it would get out of hand (there's no need for 1000 comments in the article), and the random comments of some organisation no one has ever heard of are also likely to be of little interest to readers. Of course, it's possible the organisation is notable, and no one has created a wikipedia article yet hence why I emphasised they must be notable/merit an article rather then they must have an article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of events

"Zelaya was seized by soldiers and hustled aboard a plane to Costa Rica early Sunday ..." "Sunday afternoon, Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya's letter of resignation..." (emphasis added)[9] -- Rico 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is? The letter is a forgery, dated saturday, and can be found in PDF form on the net. My personal conclusion is that after Zelaya was forcibly exiled, someone with access to his letterhead (its in the presidential palace, which the military seized) and official seal (again, in the presidential palace seized earlier in the day) forged it as an attempt to confer legitimacy on the previous actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsheptak (talk • contribs) 10:34, June 29, 2009

My point was that the coup preceded the congressional approval, which was just a vote to accept a sham resignation.

At this point, I'd like to know how the Supreme Court ordered the military to exile the president. Did the justices call some general? Also, where does the Supreme Court get the authorization to order the military to exile a president?

I can't deal with this article any more. I'm going to have to leave it up to the Most Interested Persons. After seeing an IP reinsert the fact that the pres called his successor a no-good, low-down, ornery cus, or something like that, I give up. Oh, I'm sorry, he also pointed out that he'd been elected by the people. Of course, the top of that section already points that out, but -- what the heck -- we can't put that in there often enough. Did he say, "My daddy could beat up your daddy," too? It was bad enough that we have to have that Chavez said he'd attack if the army invaded his embassy, even though they didn't. Ten years from now, is this going to be so amazing that it belongs in an encyclopedia? (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

I've removed the article from my watch list. Boa sorte. -- Rico 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The letter was written and drafted on the 25th because it was the date that the president illegally went inside of the military quarters and raided and stole the material for the referendum. Chupu (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't write or sign it, and BTW, there was nothing illegal about him going to the airbase and getting the material for the referendum. No one was calling that an illegal act, even in the Honduran papers. Rsheptak (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Pushing ahead with an illegal referendum is just that: illegal. Zelaya was disavowing a Court decision. Not only that: Zelaya is not constitutionally qualified to hold elections on his own; that is usurping the funciont of both the military and the electoral bodies. 190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding. Retrieving the referendum materials was not illegal, and no one suggested he "stole" them as Chupa suggested above. I didn't say anything about the legality of the referendum itself. Rsheptak (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieving referendum materials to hold a referendum declared illegal is illegal (and unconstitutional; it's usurping the duties of electoral bodies).190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Arrested"

The army's detention of Zelaya was, at a minimum, irregular in several regards. As such, I believe that the word "arrested" is just as POV as "kidnapped". We should use a neutral word like "detained", except when explicitly reporting claims from either side. (I'm forced to add this section because "arrested" keeps getting added in various places.) Homunq (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Arrested implies legality and legitimacy, kidnapped implies the opposite. "Detained" or "seized" is preferable. On a related matter, NPOV clearly requires that we characterize the coup d'état as a coup d'état, rather than an "intervention by the armed forces" or some similar euphemism. It is universally agreed to be a coup by everyone from Fidel Castro to the Wall Street Journal, so we will call it a coup. <eleland/talkedits> 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, in the above you seem to dispute the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Honduras as well as its National Congress. Tell me, who other than they have authority? They are legitmate and Zelaya was clearly arrested and banished on the order of the Supreme Court, which appears to have the authority to determine when a president is acting against the constitution, and thus when he is to be stripped of citizenship. We cannot use Coup d'etat because it WASN'T THE GOVERNMENT THAT WAS OVERTHROWN. The Honduran constitution has no provision for the exact impeachment proceedings. What is clear is that all the branches of government other than the executive were in agreement that Zelaya was attempting to dismantle the Honduran Constitution through his byzantine "non-binding referendum" tactics. Further, it wasn't as though the military spontaneously deposed him. The military acted on orders from the Supreme Court which were then ratified by the Congress.

Also, Eleland, how would you have preferred they proceed, given that Chavez and his cronies were meddling in the affairs of Honduras? Chavez's ambassador Rodas was essentially a Venezuelan operative working on behalf of Zelaya/Chavez. The Honduran government legally deposed this man Zelaya, and the HONDURAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT OVERTHROWN, but is CLEARLY IN TACT. You are outrageously incorrect, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.206.156 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny how you disregard the Honduran institutions on a matter conecerning their own country. They certainly don't agree with that. Just because others say it's one thing doesn't mean that it is. I doubt many countries who have conedmned the turn of events has even read the Honduran Constitution. The word "coup" is POV.190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, anybody who adds "court order" (as opposed to something like "supported by the court") had better have a reference for such a supposed court order - either the actual document or a clear statement that such a document exists. Homunq (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons and reasoning

Cut:

It is also alleged that the planned National Assembly would have postponed the end of his term even if he were not re-elected.

Would the person who added this please supply a ref? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the idea from the article on the referendum. The article had a lot of unsourced allegations, I thought that this one was at least relevant as an allegation. For me the issue is not so much whether this allegation is true as the fact that it has been made, so I used it unsourced. I agree it's had enough time to find a source and should go now. Homunq (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple sources which might provide some context

It is hard to write about something like how the Honduran Constitution is being applied here without some background about how the Constitution functions in general. According to Tim Merrill, ed. (1995). "THE CONSTITUTION". Honduras: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help), the constitution has little effect on political realities, at least not in the sense of being a binding legal document which governs what happens. As for the role of the army, according to [10], they are caught in between the two parties in this political battle, including disputes over the construction of a new civilian terminal at Palmerola Air Base, administration of primary elections in November 2008 (the article doesn't expand on that one), and other issues. How any of this could be turned into something WP:NPOV is a bit beyond me, though. A lot of what I read makes it look like people's political opinions strongly color how they see events. Kingdon (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like good material to start a stub on Constitution of Honduras. Homunq (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the Constitution IS binding. Really, what he must have meant is that the country is full of corruption. Ever heard of Chimirri? Or Padilla Sunseri? Or any other politician (almost)? That is exactly the problem, that it has effect on political realities, but just when big shots want it to. For example, Zelaya is calling upon the constitution to "explain" that he is the president. I agree that his impeachment was badly managed, so much that it became a coup. But he isn't, by the constitution, our president anymore. He went to do illegal stuff (like using government money to do a non-government poll, using it for his own agenda), or to fire the commander of the military because he refused to carry an illegal act, and failed to meet with the constitutional duties he was appointed; and so, the constitution gives power to the congress to impeach him, but they butchered that power and made a coup. The facts are the facts. And the constitution is that:

"a binding legal document which governs what happens."

MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Coup or Impeachment, final act

Comments regarding the lack of due process in this event are in error or at best splitting hairs in favor of an unconstitutional power grab. Zelaya's pushing for a referendum over the last two years drew pronouncements from all quarters of the Honduran government, including the courts, Congress, and the attorney general confirming that his actions were illegal because they jeopardized the Honduran Constitution. Moreover it is impossible to state that some small cadre of individuals overthrew Zelaya--the consensus of media reporting has been that the entire government, including Zelaya's own party, as well as an overwhelming majority of the citizenry, supported the ouster of the man.Hierofalcon (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This can be called a coup. Although no government was overthrown, just the unlawful President and his followers. It does LOOKS like a coup, only being the reason (they didn't want to seize the position, if they wanted to, they wouldn't had done it at this moment) different from a coup. The military acted and the next in line for being the president took the charge. It wasn't coupy in that fact, they didn't gave the power to the ones that formulated the events, but to the ones that lawfully deserved the post. But as to why it could be called a coup: Reasons)

• 1)Public rights were forbidden (free movement, with the curfew; liberty of speech; etc, etc)
• 2)He was kicked out of the country, and with no legal process
• 3)It was not the police who arrested, but the military

BUT! We can't rename the article Reasons)

• 1)The crisis is not just the coup
• 2)The president WAS being unlawful, and he was actually threatening the Constitution

And finally, the reasons of the coup was

• 1)The police would back-up Zelaya
• 2)There was fear for Venezuelan retaliation, which, anyway, wasn't well avoided
• 3)It WASN'T fascist, actually, it was pretty much a measure that would had been taken anyway. The problem was the timing. According to Constitution, Zelaya was being unlawful. He was continuist, and although this is normal in many countries, perhaps because the reelections can be held without corruption (like US. There can be reelections there, because it would be highly unlikely your presidents to change that much the electoral votes. In Honduras, this would actually be the norm. Here the corruption can be tasted in the wind), in our country, were corruption is daily, reelections would be really, REALLY antidemocratic.
• 4)This wasn't because they lost any election. Honduras elections are going to be held. The acting president isn't continuist, and if he just tries to be, he is going to face the opposition of every Hondurian, military or not.

The errors where: There should had been a lawful process to kick Zelaya. Without it, we lost the favour of EVERYONE in the world that doesn't live in Honduras. That means we are open to the invasion of nondemocratic countries that have close ties with Zelaya (understand Venezuela). BUT! With the help of every other country. So, democratic people (USA, Mexico, France, etc) will be fighting a democratic war against people that wanted to maintain democracy, and will reinstitute a anti-democratic leader.

Final statement: The problem is that it is easy to recognize armed assaults on the Rule of Law. But, when this Rule of Law is attacked without arms? When it's attacked with corruption, with helding of budget, corruption at the ballots (I know first hand, just, if I said something, they would kill me), and continuism? Why doesn't anybody recognize that, although the FORM of the coup was completely wrong, the REASON of the coup was completely right? Why would they support a unlawful president? I'm actually a humble person. My father and mother bust their asses of daily so I can go to college (I can't go to public college, because Zelaya's government messed so highly that the public college has been in strike for almost a year), the only "rich" people I know first hand are what you call "low-middle class". And I'm pretty leftist. >>>MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"And I'm pretty leftist" You seem like a run-of-the-mill social fascist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How is Zelaya anti-democratic? He wanted a referendum about whether to extend term limits. Seems pretty democratic to me. What seems undemocratic is forcing a President to step down after only one term. --Tocino 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is written in black & white in the constitution of Honduras, Presidents can serve one term only. Been that way since '52. He wanted the public to vote on allowing him to call a referendum, but he never specified his intention on the ballot, which was to extend his term limit. It was an underhanded attempt to trick the population of Honduras in to willingly voting in a second-hand Chavez knock-off.92.104.255.201 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tocino, democracy cannot be held with lies, can it? He even stated that the problems with economy where to Constitution, or at least he said "fixing" it would fix the economy. But, if you read the Hondurian Constitution, it says that only certain articles are set in stone. Non of which relate to the economy, just to the way the game is played. Think of it as the core of the law. It IS democratic, or at least it advocates democracy. Remember, democracy is not just doing whatever the hell you want. It's also trying to secure everyone's right to have a voice and a vote. If you lived in Honduras, you'd know that politics here are overpowered. Fixing the elections is just common, but it's just discussed amongst the people, almost hushed. Know why? You'd die if you demonstrate the politics are fixing elections. So, they made this constitution, with the will of the people, that made abusing the power of holding an office to hold the office again VERY difficult. Hondurian democracy is a young democracy. Our country is still insecure, still uneducated, still undeveloped, still immature. Perhaps in some decades, the citizens would be mature enough to have reelections. But, today is not that day. This is not readily seen by an outsider, because many of the atrocities here don't get to the international light. Press is incredibly biased... but someday... 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single reference from the Zelaya camp confirming he wanted to change term limits. All the term limit talk seems to be coming from his opponents who want to characterize him as another Hugo Chavez (as if that was a bad thing - I like Chavez :D ). What I have seen from that side is comments about revising the constitution with regards to land and resource use. Considering that land use reform is THE hot button topic in Latin America at the moment this seems like something that could be very well verifiable. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a place for political grandstanding and as such should try to be neutral. The truth is that basically every major state in the world and every state (major or minor) in the region has said they see this as an illegal coup. As such the neutral stance is to treat this event as the vast majority of people characterize it, as a coup. Also, even if Zelaya was intending to put something about term limits on the non-binding referrendum he wanted to call there is significant legitimacy issues over a ruling made by the supreme court (I am assuming they are not elected) out of session to remove an elected official.Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How about from Chavez himself? See [11] "Chavez admits that they are fighting for continuismo [Zelaya continuing in power]". There is lots of other evidence as well. It should be obvious to everyone that his long-term goal was to continue in power, even to those who think his removal was wrong. --24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing to read statements such as "...Wikipedia is not a place for political grandstanding and as such should try to be neutral" while simultaneously voicing overt pro-socialist views. In any case, the preceding paragraph's absurdities clearly show that, in addition to his biased POV, User:Simonm223 hasn't done his homework, as his ignorance about Honduras shows. --AVM (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If land reform and use is all he wanted to change, he could have just tried to reform the Constitution, which is in any case easier than calling for a Constitutional Assembly. Why overthrow the Constitution if all he wanted to change was land reform? The only unchangeable articles are those outlining the political system and those outlining restrictions on reelection. If he wanted a new Constitution (illegal under the current Constitution, in any case), it was because he wanted to change these articles.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than making personal attacks AVM would like to cite a reference from a reliable third party that Zelaya ever mentioned changing term limits. I said I had seen no such evidence. Speculation that he would not want to do a refferendum about ammending the constitution without this being his motive notwithstanding 190.77.117.50 I am saying no such statement has been made that I am aware of. Neither of you have tried to elucidate me to where his statements about term limits can be referenced.Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"In addition, different sectors, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so." [emphasis added] [12] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") --24.72.222.172 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A few issues: 1) Non-neutral source. 2) Potentially unreliable source. 3) Paraphrased non-referenced quote, when did he say this. 4) Not what I asked. I asked has he ever said that the referrendum had anything to do with term limits. If this is the best you can find I guess the answer is no. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1) What about the LatinAmericanHeraldTribune is non-neutral? Give your reasoning. 2) Same thing. 3) I don't have a direct source other than those mentioned above, but will look further. What kind of source would satisfy you? 4) Assuming you reject the sources above, remember that Zelaya has a strong motive for denying that the referendum has anything to do with term limits, because it's unconstitutional to say so directly. But his actions speak louder than his words. If it is so horrible to even mention that he might be seeking re-election simply because he himself has never said it directly, then fine, it can always be attributed to his critics, who point out a similar pattern unfolding as what has happened with Chavez in Venezuela. Is it just a coincidence that Chavez and Zelaya are very friendly, that Chavez is backing up Zelaya in this fight and even threatening to invade, that the referendum ballots were printed in Venezuela, that Zelaya was flying back in a plane provided by Venezuela, and on and on? No, it would be irresponsible to pretend like there is not a strong likelihood that continuismo is Zelaya's intention. At least don't object to mentions of critics saying this is his intent, because that is widely verifiable. --Almarco (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to including information stating that his opponents have claimed he was pursuing continuismo. I object to wikipedia saying that was his objective as we have no confirmation of that.Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Constitution

This quote from the Honduran Constitution was added to lead:

The Honduran Constitution (article 42, section 5) forbids urging the continuation or re-election of the president.

It is not clear are all how this relates to the rest of the paragraph. JRSP (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We need better data on the referendum

Can people find references from both sides talking not about the legality of the referendum, but simply about its intent? I understand that the wording was simply "do you want to have a vote about having a commission to change the constitution", but there must have been discussion of why that was a good idea or why it was a bad idea. What has been said about who would have chosen the members of the commission, or what the agenda would have been? Editorials surmising the answer are not what we need; we need quotes from politicians or, even better, material published by parties to the debate (political or academic actors). Homunq (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least we now have in a reference the "acuerdo gubermental" promulgating the referendum. I'd love to see a legal analysis of that text, even if it were just OR and here on Talk. Homunq (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, many people in Honduras, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], "are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so." [emphasis added] [13] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") Chavez himself has also admitted that the fight is about continuismo . --Almarco (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chavez also said that George Bush was Satan and I don't think that was technically true either. I like Chavez, I think the Bolivarian Revolution is the best thing to happen in Latin American politics since the rejection of the FTAA at Quebec City, but the guy says lots of stuff. What matters is what Zelaya said. And on this there is silence.Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a coup

Okay, I think it's now clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion calls this a coup. Every major news service refers to it as a coup. The UN just passed a resolution - by acclamation! - calling it a coup. We can no longer justify euphemisms, or "Most news media and government sources outside Honduras refer to this change in power as a coup d'etat." We need to call it a coup ourselves, per WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

so Argumentum ad Populum is how we decide things here at wikipedia? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to each side but to give them a weight proportional to what reliable sources say. If most major news outlets call it a coup then it must be called a coup. JRSP (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There still has to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, bur rather seemed to be supportive of the coup. Otherwise, people will get the wrong impression of the events. The main purpose of wikipedia is surely to underline the stupidity of the media—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The acting government position must be presented too, but we cannot give equal weight to a minority point of view. JRSP (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not have to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, nor that they "seemed to be supportive" of the coup. In fact, you would have to find a reliable source that stated that. People can get their impression of the events from the events. The main purpose of Wikipedia is not to underline the stupidity of the media -- nor are we to include in the article what the media supports or doesn't support, unless that itself is worthy of inclusion.
Besides, the media is still pointing out how overbearing and unaccountable he was being.[14]
That should absolutely be included in the background, as his actions -- combined with a constitution that didn't provide a proceedure for getting rid of a rogue president -- caused the coup. -- Rico 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only place I see this being questioned is here on this talk page. The arguments are irrevelvant, void, and of no effect per WP:OR. All the reliable sources I've read, including the New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. There appear to be Most Interested Persons trying to argue on this talk page that it is not a coup, or that we need consensus regarding which argument is correct. We do not. We need only consensus what the reliable sources state. If it needs to be more clarified, we can do an RfC. -- Rico 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The view of a significant number of Hondurans, however misguided, cannot be considered a minority view when the topic is a Honduras subject, and indeed in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views, one saying it is a coup and the other saying it isn't. Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers but do remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras; to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish easily disprovable by a mountain of sources such as a leading liberal newspaper and a leading conservative newspaper. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "significant number of Hondurans" is, saying it's not a coup. More importantly, are the reliable sources (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post) buying into that? "Significant numbers" of people on either side of an issue, in any country, employ spin.

How many Americans say the USA is waging wars? What countries is the USA at war with? Significant numbers of Zimbabweans denied what the thugs were doing. Significant numbers of people deny the Holocaust, yet Wikipedia includes information about the Holocaust, without allowing Most Interested Person arguments dissuade them from describing things as they are.

We don't just need to understand that there's this "minority view" because you say so -- here. Provide the RS.

If, "in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views," then I would support including them in proportion to the prominence of each.

You wrote, "Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers." I cite the two most reliable American newspapers. This is supported by Wikipedia policy. A lot of newspapers are either unreliable or too biased (e.g., Huffington Post).

You wrote, "remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras."

I don't know about, "equally reliable" -- where the president can "order all radio and TV stations to broadcast his almost daily speeches"[15] -- but reliable sources within Honduras satisfy WP:RS. It is your fabricated opinion that they must be given "equal weight." Read WP:Undue weight for its exact meaning. It's not about giving "equal weight" to different sources.

You wrote, "to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish."

Perhaps, but I never stated that. Please define "leading ... newspaper." The NY Daily News sells a lot of newspapers, as does the Los Angeles Times. The NY Times and Washington Post are more reliable. Period.

Please be civil. I don't have a nickel in this. I can be convinced of many things.

I have no trouble with the inclusion of the minority view, in proportion to the prominence of it. I'm not just not convinced that calling a coup a coup is POV, just because a relatively tiny minority claims it wasn't. The reliable sources say it was. -- Rico 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

After all, media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post aren't struggling at all. "Coup d'état" is clearly no more sensational than, "Honduran President removed from power by Army after Supreme Court Judge order." The original government is still in place, as far as I'm aware, NO ONE from the opposing political faction has been hurt or killed... and the President most certainly did violate Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution. A Pickle (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras? As important maybe but no way more important.We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia. Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc. Please dont think I was just addressing you. Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant I think my opinion is necessarily right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox wrote, "Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras?"

I never said they were. The NY Times and Washington Post are America's most reliable newspapers. I never compared them to "the main sources in Honduras." Why do you reply to things I haven't written (twice now), as if I'd written them?

SqueakBox wrote, "As important maybe but no way more important."

They may be more reliable. "The authorities in Honduras have been restricting broadcasts by media outlets perceived to be pro-Zelaya."[16] "Media outlets friendly to Zelaya have been shut down, and some reporters are hiding."[17] I'm speaking the language of Wikipedia. Again, read WP:DUE. I'm not sure what "important" is supposed to mean.

SqueakBox wrote, "We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia."

I never said we were.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc."

You had written, "sources within Honduras [...] must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras." This is your own fabrication. It is not Wikipedia policy. This is the place to contradict such fabrications, when posted here.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant."

You do not know what I know. If you continue to personally attack me and be incivil toward me, I will take it to Wikiquette alerts. -- Rico 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to 2009 Honduran coup d'etat as in most other articles on coups? Unfortunately only an administrator may do this. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should, since coup d'etat is proper English. There is consensus on this page to keep the article at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat so I hope an admin acts quickly on this. --Tocino 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it a military coup. -- Rico 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP policy is to avoid unnecessary adjectives, to not get caught in debate over words like "terrorist". I agree that 2009 Honduran coup d'etat is correct. Homunq (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No that would make the title inherently POV and make reasonable people think wikipedia was pursuing a political agenda. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Coup d'état" is POV. "Restoration of Constitutional order" is POV. "Honduran constitutional crisis" is not.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:DUE. If most reliable sources call this event a coup then Wikipedia must call it so too. JRSP (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I disagree. It appears that WP is "taking sides" with regards to this situation. The use of Coup d'état is a POV opinion. The neutral term would be, "Honduran constitutional crisis". It is perfectly fine to make references in the article as to what the various parties are currently referring, but WP should NOT be endorsing a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The 2009 Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras on June 28, 2009 that deposed President Manuel Zelaya, breaking three decades of continuous democratic history in the Central American nation.". This line is most certainly POV.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the "Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras" is a redundant statement that is redundant.
I have a problem with describing a country as "continuous[ly] democratic" without a very reliable source. Most countries aren't very democratic, as in when power is vested in the people. The people elected Zelaya, and the Supreme Court ordered him overthrown, despite a lack of law authorizing the Court to do that. He may have been unpopular, but ... -- Rico 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought Wikipedia was full of people with higher intellectuality. How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out? I thought the full name of a coup was "military coup d'etat" When did the military act by itself? It was orders from the congress. The president was "kidnapped" in early morning because he passed a law that he maintained hidden stating that on the day of this referendum he could undo the congress. The congress after discovering the law, created more than a month before but revealed until Thursday, acted as fast as they could so that a national crisis would not arise. By changing the name of this article you are putting in jeopardy all of the Honduran people's lives. You are making the international community think we are in chaos and giving in to all of Mel, Ortega and Chavez's lies. I won't respond back so don't leave a comment to this message, please reconsider changing the name back. Chupu (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:"How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out?"

Reliable sources like The New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. Hondureños, the congress, the court and the military may have wanted him out, but according to reliable sources, getting him out was achieved by a military coup. It may interest you to note that the UN "condemned Mr. Zelaya’s removal as a coup."[18] Finally, it is clear to everyone paying attention that EVERYONE didn't want him out. Stick to the facts. -- Rico 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia rule that lists the New York Times, or such and such paper or diplomatic mouthpiece, as an infallible reliable source? What might shock some, is that this "Honduran presidential ousting of 2009" situation (as I would call it) has been reported by major US media sources in manners that abundantly prove them to have been unreliable, at least for this type of news. The question for Wikipedia editors to answer is not, "Do mainstream papers call it a coup?", but instead, "Do reliable sources call it a coup?" If those sources have been proven to have been unreliable by having called it a coup, then what Wiki rule demands imitation of those sources? On the contrary, the Reliable sources page states, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. ... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Samuel Erau (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it clear that calling it a coup would condemn it within international law. There is no court trial to prosecute it as such. Furthermore, this was done under Hondoras Supreme Court approval, which invalidates it being called a military coup or anything but a court ordered action. BLP overrides WP:V and WP:RS by claiming that a reliable source is only reliable if it cannot be proven to be contradictory or cannot be used as a reliable source on such matters. News articles and other statements are not reliable in determining something as a coup, only international courts are. BLP overrides any other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to regurgitate, not create. If the majority of reliable sources refer to this event as a "coup" (and 95 % of them do), then the job of Wikipedia is to reflect that reality. Right now the idea that this was not a coup is a Wp:Fringe theory, however should that change in the future, then the article would reflect that evolution. Our personal opinions as editors on the matter are irrelevant. Even if 90 % of the editors here did not view this as a "coup", it would be Wp:OR to override the vast majority of reliable sources on such a diagnosis.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that this does not apply. Even if the majority of newspapers declared that you were an idiot, a page on you could not say such if there was evidence that you were not which proved the sources wrong. WP:BLP - "We must get the article right.[1]". No source can be write about it being a "coup" as such determinations are rightfully held to courts, and no court has ruled on it. This is a legal matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only... WP:BLP is about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is not a biography of living persons, it is an article about, well, either a coup d'etat or a political crisis. How would BLP apply? Anyway, I'd say that if only 95% of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources say something, then the remaining 5% is a big enough minority view to deserve being fairly represented (although maybe User:Redthoreau never meant to imply otherwise, but merely referred about the article title). Also, the fact that something is a Wikipedia:Fringe view doesn't necessarily mean it should not be represented in an article, either. LjL (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, (1) This article is on an event not a "living person". (2) A "coup" is not a term that can only be definitionally established by a legislative body. It is a common term in the English language, and refers to the forceful removal of a nations executive leader (democratic or not, it could also refer to the forceful overthrow of a dictator). (3) Your red herring about a pejorative insult on a living person is also irrelevant here. At the moment nearly all news sources refer to this event (not a living person where you could have a legal issue of defamation or libel) as a "coup", thus we should reflect that reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To both - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." A coup is a crime. Anyone listed on the page as being participants in it fall under BLP. You are calling these people criminals. BLP makes it very clear that we are not allowed to do such. We can call it a political crisis, as such as not a crime nor a reference to a crime. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, in any case BLP refers to unsourced or poorly sourced material, "coup" is used by multiple reliable secondary sources. JRSP (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is Ottava, not Ottawa. Your reading is equally invalid from BLP, when it says clearly - "We must get the article right.[1]". That is from our founder. What it means is that in cases of BLP, if it is proven that a source is wrong, it cannot be used as a reliable source within a BLP. Since there is no court case to determine this (as it is a crime in international courts), then any source using the term "coup" is incorrect. Please also see WP:GRAPEVINE which verifies that it doesn't matter how many sources claim something if they are pushing only a rumor or an accusation. Hence why OJ Simpson's biography cannot state that he is a murderer even though many sources state that he is one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Ottava, I would suggest you to go to WP:BLP/N to get more opinions on whether your interpretation of the policy is right or wrong . JRSP (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to go straight to Jimbo and asked him what he meant. However, I have been over this plenty of times on plenty of pages. It is a legal matter and we are not allowing people to declare any living individual as having committed a crime unless there is a court ruling. This action was also ordered by their Court system, which only further requires the need for a World Court ruling before we can proceed to declare such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-zelaya protest photos

I think that 10K people at a protest deserve a photo, too. This is balance, unlike silly equivocating about calling a coup a coup. Unfortunately, this is the best I can find. Anti-Zelaya people here, would you want that photo to represent you? Homunq (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pro-coup, but I say sure, upload it. --Tocino 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Untrue Statement About Twitter

Can we please try to get a citation for the line regarding #honduras being the "primary means of communication for Honduran citizens due to the media blackout"? I live in Honduras, and I can gaurantee that most people here have barely even heard of twitter. The primary means of communication in Honduras is cell phone and --gasp-- person-to-person conversation. Moreover, there hasn't been a "media blackout." Most people here don't really even care that much about the crisis; they're just trying to go about their business. Internet, TV, newspapers are all operating normally, although I would accept that the TV appears to be under-reporting events. 190.4.42.2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a twitter user in said country I fully agree with this, unless its solidly referenced it must go. Telesur is not available on the tv but is on the internet. CNN is available. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So true. I promoted twitter at my UNIVERSITY (where you would expect people at least heard of it) and they just made the wtf expression. Even the teacher. Who looks nerdy. But, probably it meant that twitter was one of the only ways the people could communicate with the exterior. Because, you could massively communicate with anyone that wanted to hear you. It would be impossible to call, for example, news networks or make the news spread by familiars in the exterior as fast. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem?

What is the problem with "Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009"? Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Anything inaccurate? Anything POV? "Coup"s a value judgment. Consensus in itself is not enough to determine whether something is a reality. If most of the world said "the sky is red" it would not make it so unless everyone changed the definition of "red" to mean what "blue" means. The country's own views should also be given weight in the title, not just one side. Otherwise, the title of an article such as North Korea might well be changed to The Dictatorship of North Korea since that is what the majority of the world agrees it is. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stance. It should present the differing viewpoints in the article while striving to keep a neutral title. The content of the article before it was changed to "coup d'état" seemed pretty reasonable to me; all major viewpoints were presented.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesnt allow POV pushers to use wikipedia to promoter their POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop namecalling. -- Rico 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is in conflict with itself concerning definitions. According to the Wikipedia entry defining a constitutional crisis, "A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government's sovereignty, as in a coup or revolution led by the military or civilian protesters." Unless it can be established that the military is part of the government, the headline is misleading. And please don't delete the quoted sentence from the "constitutional crisis" entry.

The vast majority of reliable sources refer to North Korea as North Korea, not the Dictatorship of North Korea. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to the Honduran coup d'état of 2009 as a coup. "Coup" is the most easily recognized name. As far as I know, no law authorized the Supreme Court to order the military to overthrow the president. -- Rico 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret laws, Rico, but I concur with your first two sentences; we must follow what secondary reliable sources say. And they say it is a coup. JRSP (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The link from Honduras needs changing to the new name.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which law did I interpret? -- Rico 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not you, Rico, I said "we". You said "no law authorized..." My point is that we must not do original research interpreting laws but rely on secondary RS instead. JRSP (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Material to add to the article

The Honduras Middle-School Teachers Union (Copemh) began a strike on Monday to support the government of ousted President Manuel Zelaya, who was forced into exile by the military on Sunday, the union's president said.Alongside the strike, teachers will hold rallies in Honduras capital Tegucigalpa and place barricades across major roads all over the country, Copemh President Eulogio Chavez told the media. "We are not going to allow Roberto Micheletti to usurp the constitutional president, Manuel Zelaya, who was elected by all Hondurans," Chavez said. "We are demanding his immediate restitution and we will be in the streets until it is achieved." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/30/content_11623249.htm93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the U.N. General Assembly urged member states to recognize only Zelaya's government, and he said the Argentine and Ecuadorean presidents and the U.N. General Assembly and OAS chiefs would accompany him on a trip back to Honduras on Thursday. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55R24E2009063093.96.148.42 (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's been semi-protected. You cannot edit the article unless you create an account and log in. Consider creating an account. -- Rico 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is that not displayed on the page, as it should be? The article is currently very one sided. "The Organization of American States (OAS) has given the interim Honduran government three days to restore ousted President Manuel Zelaya to power". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8127867.stm93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? If the article's very one sided, we could use your help in WP:Undue weight compliance. I added the UN update, but it looks like just the OAS head and the Honduran ambassador to OAS (maybe) will be accompanying him. Since this is an encyclopedia, and not news, I'm not going to put anything about who may or may not accompany him. We can wait and see who does. The teacher strike looks important. You know how strikes in Latin America influence. The "three days" thing is really new. Somebody'll probably put it in. It's night in the Western Hemisphere right now. -- Rico 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Add speculation from opinion piece?

I'm uncomfortable with adding this:

Conservative writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa hypothesized in a June 30, 2009, New York Times editorial that the winner in Honduras was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Llosa remarked that Chávez helped Zeleya "set a trap for the military" and that they "fell for it", in effect "turning an unpopular president who was nearing the end of his term into an international cause célèbre." This fact according to Llosa now allows the "caudillo" Chávez "to claim the moral high ground", and exploit the situation to make himself the "unlikely champion of Jeffersonian democracy in Latin America."[19]

-- Rico 09:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes it uncomfortable, in my opinion, is that in this case Vargas Llosa is awfully wrong. Chavez "to claim the moral high ground"??? "To make himself champion" of what? A president who has broken his own country's Constitution and laws a thousand times, who has maneuvered by all means to remain indefinitely in power, and, in short, who has deliberately suppressed almost all of the rules that define a Democracy??? That's preposterous, even if Vargas Llosa himself wrote it. --AVM (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with adding this opinion piece is that any editor could feel free to balance it with a Granma editorial from Fidel Castro.[20]. I would suggest deleting it. JRSP (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We can wind up with a giant section full of competing opinion pieces. -- Rico 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Media reactions", which would lead one to the reasonable conclusion that the objective is to log the opinions/"reactions" of reliable and credible commentators in the "media". Llosa would fit that description as would The New York Times. Whether Granma does, would be a matter for debate and depend on the context and editor consensus. I see nothing wrong or unorthodox to Wikipedia about having a section on the views of notable commentators on the issue. Just because one through WP:OR doesn't like the ultimate opinion of a particular writer, to me would seem of no consequence to its inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Chupu

I think the images uploaded by Chupu are not Creative Commons as Chupu says. HondurasMarchComparison.jpg, Protestagainstmel.jpg, Nochavezortega.jpg, Cnnlaverdad.jpg, Michepresi.jpg, Nomel.jpg. I will try to find then in the newspaper they were published.--Ferreira^talk 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One I have found: Michepresi.jpg is here and is licensed under {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}.--Ferreira^talk 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why were they removed from the article? Is Wikipedia evil? Leave them until they are found copyrighted which I keep on saying they aren't. Chupu (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do not you say were you got the pictures?--Ferreira^talk 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya broke into military base where ballots were kept?

I've seen it reported that when the military refused to comply with order to distribute the ballots, they locked them up on a base.

Then, Zelaya and others came to base, broke the locks where the ballots were kept and took the ballots back to the Presidential residence.

Thereafter, the military came after him and the stolen ballots, detained him and exiled him.

69.250.186.142 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you source breaking the locks? sounds far fetched, remember Zelaya was the Commander in Chief. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writer Freddy Cuevas, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 26, 5:12 pm ET

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – With backing from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, Honduras' leftist president pushed ahead Friday with a referendum on revamping the constitution, risking his rule in a standoff against Congress, the Supreme Court and the military.

Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday's referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated. President Manuel Zelaya had led thousands of supporters to recover the material from an air force warehouse before it could be confiscated.

69.250.186.142 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Cuevas has been pretty pro-coup in his early reporting which seems to be based entirely on the content of Honduran newspapers. However, I note that the included quote doesn't address the question. It does not say anyone broke the locks. Rsheptak (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: Pictures. -A Pickle (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The pictures do show that Zelaya broke into the military base to take the ballots. The ad hominem against an AP reporter who has photographic evidence supporting his report about facts seems to be in and of itself reflective of a NPOV.69.250.186.142 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Democracy Now a reliable source? It What is in the article doesn't look NPOV to me, at all!

This is in the article:

President of the Honduran Peace Committee, Dr. Juan Almendares, speaking 29 June on Democracy Now! said: the military are taking repressive actions against some members of the legitimate government of President Zelaya and also popular leaders. There is effectively a national strike of workers, people, students and intellectuals, and they are organized in a popular resistance-run peace movement against this violation of democracy.[21]

It seems pretty clear to me that there are protestors on both sides. -- Rico 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as an NPOV source; sources are only reliable or unreliable on facts. On this one, I'd say that "effectively a national strike... against this violation of democracy" is in the realm of opinion, not fact. Something like "opponents are promoting a national strike" would be fact. Homunq (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over lede

CieloEstrellado, I and others are involved in an edit war over the first sentence. [22] CieloEstrellado's edits contain no edit summary[23], even after I pointed that out.[24] "democratic" is not sourced. My edit was. CieloEstrellado's last five edits have no edit summaries:

1. 01:43, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 01:51, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Background */")
3. 01:52, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Background */")
4. 15:05, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:24, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")

We can't see what CieloEstrellado is doing. -- Rico 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly call that an edit war. If you wanted edit summaries from me you should have put a message in my Talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Court approval needed in lead

The term "coup" is POV and fails reliable source regardless if news media use it, per BLP which requires that even normally reliable news sources must be determined if they are using things correctly.

As the article reads: "A detention order, signed on June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.[19]"

This means that the Court was acting against the President and not the Military in a coup. The proper term is Impeachment, especially with the legislature declaring a new president. Regardless, the Court ordering the military to do this is missing from the lead, which is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put that in. Hopefully, some people will see that I'm not so biased.

However, the UN and reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times and the Washington Post) simply refer to it as a "coup" and so, so do we. Whether the anti-Zelaya side can make an argument against it (WP:OR) is irrelevant. It only matters what the reliable sources call it. -- Rico 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The World Court has not yet ruled. The US President has declared people like the leader of North Korea as a terrorist before, but that does not mean that he is one. A court would have to determine such. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:OR and, therefore, irrelevant. -- Rico 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. These are Foundation standards. A person cannot be deemed as committing a crime without a court declaring it so. There is no court declaring it so in any of the links. Therefore, we cannot put it in. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a biology of a living person. -- Rico 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This page deals with the new President, their Supreme Court, their Legislature, their military leaders, and their ex-President. It falls under BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup government"?

I've never heard of this expression. Is this a common one, or is it just a slag on the current, court-ordered militarily-installed government? It's in the article three times. -- Rico 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The military didn't install the government. They enforced a Supreme Court order to remove the President that was deemed to be unConstitutional to allow their Legislature to appoint a new President. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it, but I think you're missing my point. I'd think you'd agree with my suggestion, based on your apparent, strongly-held, POV. I'm not here for endless debate over what words you'll let me use. I've heard of federal governments and state governments, but I've never heard of a "coup government." It seems POV to me. It seems to imply the illegitimacy of the coup. -- Rico 22:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a POV. Instead of condensing what happened into one word, I put forth the events that are known as to the facts of the case. The court did order it. The court did deem him unconstitutional. The legislature did appoint a new president. The military wasn't involved except in enforcing a court decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "coup government" a word, yes or no? -- Rico 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen that word before or used in an appropraite and academic manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We all have points of view. -- Rico 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the definition of POV via WP:POV. My stance is only to ensure that Wikistandards are upheld. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest "de facto government" as an alternative to "coup government"? From the wiki entry: "In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the rule of a current one." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the language used by many non-honduran spanish language newspapers, such as the Spanish El Pais. Rsheptak (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also consider "post-coup government", which is the term actually used on the Coup d'etat article. However, "de facto government" sounds good to me, although perhaps making it "current de facto government" might make it clearer to readers. I will change it to "post-coup" for now, as that seems like it cannot be more controversial than the current wording. LjL (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Post-coup government" is definitely better than "coup government", which is ambiguous at best. I'd suggested "de facto government" so as to avoid the ongoing debate about whether a "coup" had occurred, it being conveniently broad enough to encompass both legitimate and illegitimate succession. Arguments about whether the de facto government is also a de jure government could thus be avoided in the terminology itself. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press calls it a "coup-spawned government."[25] -- Rico 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• News agencies on television refer to it as an "interim government". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whose 'television' - Honduran State TV? The Optimists' Channel? Hispanic military government = 'junta' (?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Grrr.... discussion of referendum is now 100% anti-

This is ridiculous. One thing is to add your side of the story, another thing is to completely remove the actual wording of the referendum. We have to base this in facts, here, and the wording of the referendum is one undebated fact. Homunq (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and that the president was going to do something unconstitutional.

Statements that this empowered the supremes to order the military to exile the president would have to be accompanied by very reliable sources.

If there's a WP:DUE problem, let us know here, and I'll have a look. Please link to the section. -- Rico 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's editorial in the June 27th El Tiempo (still available on line) for why a constitutional convention might be a good idea. Rsheptak (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

POV sections

Questions on motives

It seems like somebody created a section in order to introduce POV stuff. This looks like opinion to me:

Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin America specialist at Pomona College, noted in The Christian Science Monitor that the crisis over use of the referendum has its roots in Honduras's cold war era constitution, which he describes as written by the country's "liberal elites", and thus does not provide for referendums. Salas went on to state that "The referendum is the primary vehicle through which change has occurred in countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and the elites know it. They wanted to nip this thing in the bud."[26]

It's bad enough we're relying on the media. Some media is decidedly less reliable than other media. -- Rico 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, the section is there to make note of the theories and views of those who question the legitimacy of / or oppose (i.e. "opposition") the coup - per Wp:Undue. It contains only Wp:reliable sources, and is only Wp:POV as far as any counter opinion to the coup being a legitimate act at the behest of the majority would be. The observation that "referendums" have been the proverbial "weapon of choice" for Zelaya and his current Latin American allies on the left is indisputable. As for the view of Mr. Salas that the Honduran constitution was written during the cold war by the elites in the country - it would be hard to find any credible sources that would disagree with that assessment. The fact that it was written immediately after the military dictatorships of Juan Alberto Melgar Castro and Policarpo Paz García (both trained at the U.S. School of the Americas and the latter with ties to the infamous Battalion 316 death squads), would lead most observers knowledgeable of the nations history to see nothing POV about the above statement or hypothesis (in the aforementioned section) that follows it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a section specifically designed to introduce theories and opinions into the article. WP:DUE does not require that a separate 'balancing' section be incorporated into the article. The sources (The Christian Science Monitor, National Catholic Reporter, and NPR) aren't very reliable from a Wikipedia perspective. NPR is all about opinion.

I have no problem with presenting both sides. I do have a problem with using this section as an excuse to simply inject opinion into the article, that has not been supported by reliable sources, or that does not satisfy WP:NOT.

You write, "The observation that 'referendums' have been the proverbial 'weapon of choice' for Zelaya and his current Latin American allies on the left is indisputable."

Of course this "observation" is disputable. More importantly, it's opinion. It looks like an op ed. That's not encyclopedic.

You wrote, "As for the view of Mr. Salas that the Honduran constitution was written during the cold war by the elites in the country - it would be hard to find any credible sources that would disagree with that assessment."

I like having that in the article, but it needs to be supported by reliable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed textbooks published by academic presses). Most constitutions are written by "elites". -- Rico 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, of course peer-reviewed journals or books are preferable, however those will not be available on this subject for weeks if not months. With a current ever evolving situation such as this, we are usually left with reliable news sources with large print/media circulations.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, but while information about the coup itself will not be found in peer-reviewed sources, information about the Constitution have no reason not to be - it existed well before the coup, I'm sure. LjL (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong, itself, with "introducing POV stuff", or making a section especially for it (well, perhaps the latter might be less-than-ideal style, if the POVs can be better integrated). Wikipedia is all about describing points of view.

I hope you won't make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that various points of view cannot be described, because, obviously, it says exactly the opposite: as long as facts (i.e. citations from [[WP:RS|reliable sources) are provided to show that the opinions are true, and the opinions are not an extremely limited fringe view - at the end of the day, the opinions can be readily verified - then there is no reason not to include them

LjL (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Off-topic comment about changing others' indentation styles removed by the author, moved to his talk page LjL (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]

I think that the contention is that the section was a WP:COATRACK. Homunq (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you might be right about that, although to me it seemed more like a simple issue of WP:Structure. Of course, it all depends on how "fringe" and "extreme" the views given in the section are. But seriously, we shouldn't give impression that the coup/whateveryoucallit was "Definitely A Bad Thing (TM)", either! Sure, most countries are calling it such, but that's called politics. LjL (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this particular section in question was moved to "reactions", I have attempted to more appropriately name it "questioning of motives" as this seems to encapsulate part of what those commenting within it are attempting to do. To the original "tagger" of the section Rico, what exactly are your specific objections to the section presently, and how do you believe they can be alleviated for the tag to be removed? Are you questioning the factual accuracy, legitimacy of the opinion per Undue, etc?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the subsections should be deleted. Anything that (really) complies with WP:RS and WP:NOT can be incorporated into the article. The media's reaction is that they produced news stories. How they felt about it, or whether they were in a quandry over things is problematic for WP:NOT and WP:OR. -- Rico 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, with all due respect if you find a published op-ed by a notable commentator to be Wp:OR then I would wager that you fundamentally misunderstand what the actually policy is. It is in reference to an editor's original research, not a published writer's research in a reliable source. Moreover, the "medias" reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, is of course relevant to an article on the subject. These are not laymen, or teenagers on a personal blog, those cited are published authors writing in major publications.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau wrote, "you find a published op-ed by a notable commentator to be Wp:OR..."

I never wrote that. You did.

I find a published op-ed by a commentator, notable or not, to be an unreliable source.

I find original thought about how the media felt about the coup, or about whether they were in a quandry over things, problematic for WP:NOT and WP:OR. That's what I wrote.

Redthoreau wrote, "you fundamentally misunderstand what the actually policy is."

Writing about me in a way that reflects on me negatively, violates WP:NPA -- especially when you're mistaken. Please stop. Write about the article, write about what I've actually written, or what I've done if you like. Please don't write about what "[I] fundamentally misunderstand," unless you know it won't reflect on me personally, negatively.

Redthoreau wrote, "It is in reference to an editor's original research, not a published writer's research in a reliable source."

Consider rereading what I actually wrote.

Redthoreau wrote, "Moreover, the 'medias' reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, is of course relevant to an article on the subject."

Point well taken. Question: What are we going to do when the article fills up with reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, now that there are handy-dandy subsections for their "reactions" and theories? How will we determine which are worthy of inclusion, in the face of Most Interested Persons who really, really, really want them in the article?

Also, how relevant are they to the coup? Relative to the importance of the facts about the coup -- itself -- how relevant are the reactions, analyses and opinion pieces? Should we start a content fork for reactions, analyses and opinion pieces by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences -- because this can get pretty big over time?

Understand, also, that while The New York Times and the Washington Post may be reliable sources, op eds published in them are not necessarily the opinions of those newspapers, and therefore do not share the same reputation for reliability as those newspapers.

Redthoreau wrote,"These are not laymen, or teenagers on a personal blog, those cited are published authors writing in major publications."

We already went through that. The Christian Science Monitor, National Catholic Reporter, and NPR aren't the most reliable of sources. I'm a "published author." I've had opinion pieces published "in major publications." I've been on NPR. I could have said anything. -- Rico 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Media analysis

This looks like it's been added to somehow inject opinionated theories into the article. -- Rico 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally out of line. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first source cited is an opinion piece. -- Rico 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, please be more specific on "this". Do you mean the entire section including all subsections? In addition, an "opinion" piece would be warranted if you are logging the reaction i.e. (opinion) of a notable observable on the issue. The majority of all articles are formulated through the secondary use of a reliable sources "opinion".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition. WP:NOT must also be satisfied. Opinion pieces tend not to be reliable sources, and most Wikipedia articles do not cite opinion pieces as supposedly reliable sources. I'm just referring to the two named subsections. -- Rico 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, opinion pieces are reliable sources for someone's opinion, which is what the section is documenting. It is not as if one were using Llosa's editorial for general facts in an article, the New York Times op-ed by him is being used to cite his actual “opinion” on the matter. This seems to be self evident, and thus not in conflict with WP:RS in any way. I would agree that Op-ed’s are usually not satisfactory references for general material in the article, but they are the clearest medium for referencing an individual’s personal views on a particular subject.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The third is to "narconews". It looks like a blog.[27]
The Media reactions section's littered with Fact tags. -- Rico 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, I have removed the material without citations (thus no fact tags remain), and agree with you that NarcoNews should be replaced if possible with a more reliable source or removed. However the rest of the section is ref'd to credible publications in my opinion, do you disagree?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tag the "Media analysis" subsection. My main concern is that we not have sections that invite editors to inject their opinions into the article, and then cite opinion pieces or less-than-reliable sources, just to get the opinions they want into the article. -- Rico 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, if you find any material in the article that appears to be the unreferenced view of an editor than please remove it. Presently, all I see is the cited views of others from reputable news outlets. If you wish to challenge NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, or the National Catholic Reporter and have them discredited as inappropriate Wikipedia sources, then there is an suitable avenue for you to do that. However, I have yet to see you question the accuracy of anything in the section, only these sources legitimacy (which are not your run of the mill blogs by any stretch of the imagination). In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources (which would meet the criteria of being reliable to most on Wikipedia).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

+ I have gone ahead and removed the NarcoNews material. The only sources remaining in this particular section as of now, derive from the New York Times and Washington Post.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

International reaction image

Is it just my PC, or is this image: [28], which is in the International reaction section, a red x and not working? --Tocino 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not working for me either (Internet Explorer 7 for reference). Abby Kelleyite (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Pinochet uncalled for

There is no evidence of any ties to Augusto Pinochet so I reckon the remark is just the opinion of the person who wrote the section. Also the fact that the Army Chief and the Air Force General had attended WHINSEC is not enough an evidence to me of foul play. There are also many officers who have attended the school and are currently backing Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Unless hard evidence is given I prefer to believe they acted on good faith. --Agcala (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agcala, the opinion is of the author cited in the quote, and he does not make "ties" between Pinochet and this coup, but merely points out that Pinochet was once trained at the School of America's as well. Additionally, it is your prerogative to have "good faith" and not be convinced of "foul play", but all of our views as editors on the matter should be irrelevant.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Did they take Military Coups 101? -- Rico 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wp:Sarcasm is always helpful.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of constitution

I've had to delete the section on alleged violations again diff because (a) the sources almost entirely fail to back up the text (b) it is such a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to accept the coup-plotters' narrative that the poll for a referendum on a generic Constitutional Assembly was an unconstitutional attempt at getting Zelaya re-elected, it's not even funny. Apart from anything else, it was chronologically impossible: the referendum approving the Assembly was take place concurrent with the next Presidential election. A new constitution would take probably a year to draft and approve. And where does the nonsense about the constitution being "unabolishable" come from? Constitutions cannot make themselves unabolishable; it's incompatible with basic legal principles. (Even the unreformableness of parts of the existing constitution is slightly dodgy.) Moreover, the existing constitution says nothing about that, it speaks explicitly of reform. Disembrangler (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Their court system ruled on the matter. That is citable and tells part of the facts of the case. It is disturbing how you phrase such things above. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted you, and I am very tempted to revert you again. The material was well-sourced. In fact, it would be justifiable under NPOV and RS to have three parts: "alleged Zelaya violations", "Zelaya defense", and "alleged post-Zelaya violations". The Zelaya defenses are easy to find RS for, whereas I have searched and failed to find any golpista defenses against the charges that were in that section. I understand that this would be a magnet for accusations of POV, but it would be on solid ground by RS.

I will not revert you again, though. I don't want to get into a two-editor edit war. I will support any other editor who reverts you (the section is in the diff you linked), and I will support you if you add a well-sourced "Zelaya defense" section. I strongly disagree that presenting relevant and widespread accusations here amounts to endorsing them. I myself added the Article 239 accusation against Zelaya, because it has been argued and I had a good source, even though I personally believe that it is ridiculously false, and that there is no true comparison or equivalency between el caudillito Zelaya and the golpistas de mier...coles. Homunq (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think a section like that, explaining what each of the parties accuses the other of violating, is very relevant, it does look, to me, like the one that was removed was very poorly sourced.

I don't see any of the sources claiming that someone accused either Zelaya or the new government of violating articles; they mention said articles, but either without directly implying a violation, or while implying a violation without attributing it to anyone (i.e. opinion pieces).

Specifically, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=15004 says: Añadió que “el ex Presidente Zelaya había caído en un absoluto desconocimiento e irrespeto a la legalidad. No le importó violar la Constitución al tratar de asfixiar económicamente a otros poderes del Estado, no enviando el Presupuesto de la Nación a este Congreso Nacional, que públicamente se propuso la derogación del artículo 239 de la Constitución, bajo el pretexto de emitir una nueva Constitución, cuya propuesta obligaba a destituirlo del cargo”

Am I wrong in reading this as saying that 1) he claims Zelaya violated the constitution 2) he claims Zelaya publicly wanted to remove article 239 - without linking the two?

On the other hand, http://www.asuntoscapitales.com/default.asp?id=3&ids=2&idss=4&ida=4393 merely say: Añaden que esa violación constitucional implica el cese inmediato en el desempeño de su cargo de aquél que la cometa, así sea el mismísimo Presidente de la República. and then Tienen razón. Zelaya habría violado el artículo 239 ("They are right. He'd have violated art. 239").

So isn't this just the reporter's opinion? The reporter claims they're right, and says it's because of an art. 239 violation. Not a source.

LjL (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On your first source: since article 239 clearly states that revoking or modifying article 239 is a violation, the link is implicit. On your second source: yes, it's the reporter's opinion. That's the point here: these sections are to report relevant, sourced, and attributed allegations; they do not and could not pretend to report facts. Homunq (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better to have the references to the Constitution and the specific violations. Olegwiki (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest also putting in the parts of the constitution which refer to potential loss of citizenship (Article 42), as this is part of this controversy as well. Also mention that the concept of the changeability of the president is highlighted in Article 278, which empowers the military to protect this principle (though it doesn't say how). I have all of these listed further on down this talk page. What's wrong with including everything on my list along with your list? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the below not included in the article? At the moment it is mostly chronology.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the article because a number of people have expressed opinions that Honduran constitutional law is irrelevant in a Honduran constitutional crisis. I am not in agreement with that view myself, but it seems to be popular. I've also posted in the "external links" section of the page the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras's documentation regarding the prosecution of Zelaya. My Spanish is only middling, so I've asked people for help deciphering what's in there, so we have a clear reliable source (the Supreme Court itself) on what the coup plotters thought they were doing. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't they be banned?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections, to aid discussion (please discuss above and leave the below clean)

If you want to edit propose an edit, like this, to the below, that's fine.

Alleged violations of the Constitution

By Zelaya's government

Zelaya is accused of violating:

• Article 239, which states that article 239 cannot be modified to allow for presidential re-election, and that any person who proposes doing so "must immediately cease carrying out their office". The violation would come not because of Zelaya openly supporting reforming this article, but because by consulting the people if they wanted to convoke a constituent assembly, he would be proposing abolishing the current Constitution entirely, thus indirectly reforming the article. Some commentators disagree, arguing that a constituent assembly would not merely reform the Constitution, but it would replace it altogether with a new one. There would be thus no violation of the current Constitution.
• Article 374, which states that the Constitution is unabolishable, thus proposing a constitutional assembly is unconstitutional.

By the coup plotters and the de facto government

The de facto government is accused of violating several articles of the Constitution in its ousting of Zelaya and subsequent actions:

• Article 84, which states that the person being arrested must be clearly informed of his rights and the reason for his arrest; the arrested person has the right to communicate with another person of his choosing at the time of his arrest.
• Article 182, which provides for the right of habeas corpus.
• Article 90, which guarantees due process.
• Article 85, which states that person may only be arrested at a place determined in the law.
• Article 88, which holds that any declaration made by the detainee is invalid if not before the presence of a competent judge.
• Article 82, which declares the right of defense "inviolable."
• Article 102, which states that "no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state."
• Article 81, which provides for freedom of movement within the country.
• Article 74, which prohibits the restriction of mass media.

Is there any provision in the Honduras constitution regarding the immunity of the President from prosecution and/or arrest? Olegwiki (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The title itself is NPOV

Whether or not the events of the last few days constitute a coup d'etat is a matter of legitimate debate. Is removal of a sitting President a coup d'etat even if approved by/requested by other branches of government due to violations of a constitution? Could Zelaya's defiance of the Supreme Court be considered a sort of coup d'etat. Is this merely defined by what other countries' executives say it is?

Doesn't smell like a coup to me and a great many other yanqui imperialist northerners, including the preponderance of our commentators, and it doesn't seem like a coup to perhaps an overwhelming majority of Hondurans. Europeans (and maybe Barack Obama) are taking it to be a coup because the military was involved. We have a legitimate lack of consensus here, and titling the article "Honduran coup d'etat of 2009" is thus POV. Bkalafut (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The user who moved the article cited a "talk page consensus" that I can't find here. I'm reading the discussion of the move, and it appears hasty at best, with the "consensus" that emerged being a short-term fluctuation not reflected in the 1 July posts. If this is a coup, it is an outlier. A more neutral title is better until the question gets sorted out, presumably by the Hondurans and not by Wikipedia editors. That's something that will take weeks or months. I couldn't move the article back to its old title, so I moved it to "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis". Bkalafut (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be portraying a limited, indeed mistaken, view of consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please don't use such a distorted view to game the system and unilaterally rename the article, again. Consensus is based on good reasons. -- Rico 17:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it isnt a dictatorship either; its governed by rules, which have been ignored in this case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Then why don't you fill me in, rather than linking nonsequiturs. Meaningful consensus is based on good reasons, and the previous unilateral move by Homunq disregarded the good reasons given in this thread re: the BLP guidelines. As for "gaming the system", you really ought to watch how you talk to people and consider when you're being simply insulting. If you think that an article title on Wikipedia is so important to me that I'd "game a system" you're off your rocker. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this should be moved back to "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis", which is a far more neutral title. It is arguably inappropriate (although not unreasonable) to call this event a "coup d'etat". Zelaya was removed at the behest of the state's courts and legislature. The word coup d'etat has the denotation of an illegal change of government by force. Whether that is the case here is highly debatable. Strikehold (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." - it's a question of "If everybody except the subject itself calls it a duck ..." Calling it anything else would be NPOV and OR. And no, Zelaya was not removed at the behest of the state's courts and legislature: the decision by the legislature was made when Zelaya was already in Costa Rica, in his pijamas. The "decision" by the court was also announced after Zealaya was expelled. Oh, and if the fact that the legislature voted unanimously (after the fact, and when anyone supporting Zelaya had been threatened with the same fate (the threat is even on this page), means the case becomes debatable, we will have to change a lot to our articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Francisco Franco ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if everyone stated that OJ Simpson was a murderer we must label him so? No, that goes against BLP, which is one of our most important policies. A coup is an international crime and unless there is a judgment, we are bound by ethics and policy not to declare it as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between OJ SImpson and Zelaya. OJ had a due process with right to defense, and he was found not guilty. It doesn't seem to me a legal overthrow to get a president out of his bed in the middle of the night and to send him abroad.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not calling the people who committed this coup criminals. Applying BLP rules to events like this (when we know that those who commit X never call it an X) would (aside from introducing OR and NPOV as I said above) be logically impossible, since calling it "a constitutional crisis" would then become a BLP violation against Zelaya and any members of his government who also deserve an article on Wikipedia. I can understand why people who support this coup do not like it being called what it is - they are afraid of sanctions, losing US aid and a credit line with the World Bank but you cannot use Wikipedia to prop up your side of the story. --Paul Pieniezny (talk)

If the army had arrested Zelaya, and detained him for trial, there might be a debate. But they expelled him from the country. Case closed, it's a coup, whatever bits of paper the coup plotters come up with. Disembrangler (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. That is the basis of a legal system. Articles of impeachment should've been brought to President Zelaya. The proper legal body would've set a proper trial and sentenced had he been found guilty. This is textbook coup, regardless of how many crimes everyone is "absolutely" sure he committed. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to all reports, the Court ruled that he was acting unconstitutionally and ordered his removal. That is a trial and follows their constitution for removing individuals. Thus, he was impeached according to their standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times reported that a "detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president."[29] Do you have a reliable source that states that "the Court ... ordered his removal," or that "he was impeached according to their standards"? -- Rico 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source right there says it. What do you think "detention" means? Do you think it means that they are allowed to operate in standard authority? It is a measure placed against someone convicted of an illegal act. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source does not say that "the Court ... ordered his removal," or that "he was impeached according to their standards."
I think "detention" means: 1. the act of detaining. 2. the state of being detained. 3. maintenance of a person in custody or confinement, esp. while awaiting a court decision.[30] It is not necessarily a measure placed against someone convicted of an illegal act. It may be a measure placed against someone accused of an illegal act. You can be detained on the street, and then allowed to go free. -- Rico 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by using coup, we are considering anyone involved a criminal. A coup is a term that can only be decided by a judiciary body, i.e. the World Court. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a biography of a living person. -- Rico 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out before - BLP deals with pages that discuss events in which living people are participating. That covers more than just their individual biography pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya was not removed at the behest of the legislature. The legislature approved the coup, after Zelaya had been removed (by the military). The Supreme Court ordered his detention. -- Rico 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Court ordered his physical removal. The Legislature ordered his removal of power and appointed a replacement. Both were involved in his removal. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." From WP:NAME: "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." Though this issue has been argued to death on this page, I have yet to see any of those who oppose the word "coup" cite reliable sources using other words. The top three results in a Google News search for Honduras all use the word "coup". To be blunt: unless you are arguing based on Wikipedia policies, you are irrelevant to consensus. Homunq (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and moved back to where it was, and where consensus and policy say it should be. Debate may continue with further discussion/evidence, but the burden of evidence is definitely on those who want to avoid calling it a coup, and moves to some awkward alternate title should be avoided unless there is consensus otherwise. Disembrangler (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV - this is a crime. Regardless of how many papers claim an individual committed a crime, only a court can determine it. Thus, only articles describing the World Court's ruling on the matter are acceptable under BLP's determination of reliable sources. The rest fall under rumor or innuendo, which Wikipedia is not to print. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the name reflects extremely widespread usage, and in the body text this is clarified, including the coup plotters' claims that it's all kosher. No WP:BLP problems with that. Disembrangler (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted, even if every article pronounced someone a murderer, WMF makes it clear that we cannot claim them as such in a BLP unless there is a court ruling which would be the only true reliable source. Anything else falls under rumor and innuendo. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not like having a Murderer OJ Simpson article, it's like having a Nicole Simpson#Murder section. The latter is no BLP violation.Homunq (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And NAME overrides BLP. If there were nobody prosecuted for the crime, could we not have an article on the unabomber? This is distinct from using the word "coup" in links to this article from other BLP-covered articles, which would be inappropriate. Homunq (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing overrides BLP. BLP is a legal position put forth by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is our supreme policy and one that has precedence over everything else. Please don't make such ridiculous claims again. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misstated. What I meant to say was that what applies in this argument is NAME, not BLP. This is not an article about the golpistas, it's an article about the coup, and using the widely-recognized name does not constitute a criminal accusation, because "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." Homunq (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the contrary. A coup would fall under the same thing as a "massacre" or anything else. Such things would need to be declared by the World Court or other body that is set up to determine that. This has been the constant application in many articles. To claim it as a word that is the name of an illegal act would violate our practices, as we are not to prejudice anything nor say anything without a strong verifiable ruling, which in such cases would mean a reference to the judiciary body declaring such. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong - this naming is absolutely in line with WP policy and practice. Further argument here isn't likely to be productive, so either accept that or follow dispute resolution. You could also file an WP:OTRS on behalf of the coup plotters (good luck with that). Disembrangler (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:BLP. You obviously also don't understand that accusing people of committing a crime before a trial has occurred is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, if you're that convinced, follow dispute resolution. You could try WP:BLPN as a start. Disembrangler (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do favor keeping it under "Crisis," not because of NPOV, but just to indicate a broader focus on the events leading up to the coup and the fallout. However, the argument that "coup" is POV is an absurd misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Everyone outside of Honduras acknowledges that it's a coup, to the point where we have analytical articles in the major media saying, "Gee, isn't it amazing how unified everyone is in condemning this coup?" NPOV requires that we call it a coup. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But this is not necessary for including background/aftermath, and if the coup-imposed government does survive, eventually there will be other articles where new information will fit better. And WP:NAME strongly suggests going with the universal "coup". Disembrangler (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We call it a coup because of the reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times and Washington Post) that have had no compunction over calling it a coup. It doesn't matter whether it is, "a matter of legitimate debate." We don't debate here to synthesize our own WP:OR. The reliable sources know that the anti-Zelaya people, and so-called "coup government," have said it wasn't a coup. They dismiss that notion, and still call it a coup.
I don't know if the removal of a sitting president is a coup -- even if approved by or requested by other branches of government, due to violations of a constitution. We do know that the reliable sources call the Supreme Court-ordered coup a coup. You asked, "Is this merely defined by what other countries' executives say it is?" No, but I will point our that the UN called it a coup.
We're not going to rename the article just because a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, no matter how vocal they are here on this talk page. -- Rico 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP may or may not be operative here. NAME might override this. It's in a grey area. Dismissing those who see a dispute as a teensy weensy minority is a weasel tactic, and I presume you know that it is a weasel tactic. Unless you can quantify this, it's irrelevant. NYT and Washington Post have not investigated the legal issues and are thus not reliable sources on whether or not this is a coup. As for the UN remark, it doesn't even merit a response. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that one of the sources we have in the article (don't remember which and I'm a bit in a hurry, sorry, but some major newspaper) says something on the lines that some US government representative, or someone, stated "the coup was illegal". That means it's being called a coup "by default", but calling it such doesn't necessarily imply it's illegal. This may go against the definitions we like, but hey... Given this, I do believe it makes very little sense to dispute the article's title on the ground of WP:BLP's rules on not saying whether someone committed a crime if that isn't known. LjL (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Every reference I've read anywhere (including USA governmental and Cuban governmental sources) says it's a coup. It's clearly considered, by the whole world, to be a coup. Name of article is not a violation of WP:NPOV if it references this event as a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly considered "by the whole world" to be a coup, then why this endless discussion? Governments and "The whole world" are not one and the same.Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See, now we've had discussion about the name. What the Washington Post and the New York Times say is irrelevant as they are not reliable sources re: legal questions. We're in a grey area where WP:NAME and WP:BLP suggest conflicting action. Probably better to go with WP:NAME for now. It's still NPOV but probably more user-friendly. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The title itself was POV and the person who said we are not a democracy is correct. When a certain name isnt inherent (we have to call Burma/Myanmar either Buma or Myanmar) we must never choose a title that reflects the POV of one party, in this case those who support Zelaya and not Micheletti as Predsident. To those who say everyone thinks it is a coup, if that was true Honduras would be in peace righjt now instead of facing the gravest crisis of its nearly 200 years of independence. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to take the world consensus as the right stance to take in this issue. Terms like 'coup d'etat' have great weight in international politics, and using it implies unconstitutionality, illegality, and wide disapproval within the country itself. Left-wing governments like Venezuela will obviously disagree with the takeover. It is unsurprising that the USA also disagrees with it, Obama probably trying to not look like he is a leader that supports military removals of leaders in South America. The EU and other international bodies like the UN disagree with it because any stance otherwise will look like they do not support supreme state sovereignty. Although I can not support these claims with evidence, the fact is that bias in their responses may possible exist, and therefore using international response as the basis for naming something like this which is a POV is inherently creating bias in the article itself. I think "crisis" would be a much more apt title. BurningZeppelin (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

UnoAmerica

Moved here for discussion: "UnoAmerica (Union of Democratic American Organizations), an international organization, has recognized Micheletti and the new government." UnoAmerica is not an "international organisation" (usually meaning an association of nation states), it is a collection of Latin American NGOs whose stated objective is countering the Foro de São Paulo. Frankly their endorsement of the coup tells you an awful lot about them, but very little about the coup. In any case, if it merits a mention, then it wouldn't be in this section on country reactions (which by the way is far too long - any chance of spinning this off, and keeping a summary here?). Disembrangler (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UnoAmerica: agreed, that's the 3rd time I've seen that weed pulled. Spinoff: good idea, done. Homunq (talk)

Lede is getting bloated

We need to cut it down to size. Suggest to start with a nut graf explaining things with an absolute minimum of detail, followed by one short paragraph each on the background to the coup, the coup itself, and the fallout from the coup. Rather than editing it in the article itself I'm going to write it here on talk and we can copy it in when ready. <eleland/talkedits> 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed replacement lede

(work in progress)

On June 28th, 2009, a military coup d'état ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya from office and led to his replacement by Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament. The coup was the culmination of a political crisis sparked by Zelaya's controversial proposals to alter the country's constitution. Although the Honduran congress has accepted Zelaya's "resignation," and the Supreme Court has defended the military's action as legal, the international community has condemned the coup and demanded Zelaya's reinstatement.

A political crisis had developed in the country after Zelaya attempted to hold a consultative poll, asking Honduras' citizens to approve of a Constitutional National Assembly which would draft a new constitution. This plan was ruled illegal by the country's Supreme Court and other institutions, who cited articles of the country's 1982 constitution which forbid certain types of amendments. Opponents described the planned referendum as a power grab and an attempt by Zelaya to stay in office after his non-renewable four-year term expired, while Zelaya and his supporters cast it as a necessary precursor to social and economic reforms favoring Honduras' poor and working classes.

On June 24th, after the Army's Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Vásquez refused Zelaya's order to distribute referendum ballots, Zelaya dismissed him from office and began organizing loyal officials to conduct polls themselves. Both moves were overruled by the Supreme Court, and the country's Congress began considering ways to remove Zelaya from office, although the country lacks a clear process for presidential impeachment. Early morning on the 28th, as the polls were due to open, the Army intervened. Power and communications were interrupted in the capital, Tegucigalpa, as several hundred armed soldiers invaded the presidential palace, detained Zelaya, and flew him into exile in Costa Rica. Later that day, amid protests and minor street battles, speaker of parliament and next in line of succession Roberto Micheletti was named acting President. Army leaders have since provided a detention order signed on June 26th by a Supreme Court justice, which they say demonstrates that the operation was legal and constitutional.

International reaction has been swift and negative, with the General Assemblies of both the United Nations and the Organization of American States issuing denunciations. Few governments have recognized the new regime, while many have stated that Zelaya remains the legal President and most have demanded his immediate return. Within Honduras, the interim government has suspended some civil liberties and shut down media outlets not supportive of the coup. Politicians and officials suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been reportedly arrested, and the leader of the left-wing Democratic Unification Party has fled to Nicaragua.

Looks like good work to me. I support. Homunq (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - the edit I just undid left out lots of important detail (as well as some less important). I think given how much the situation is in flux, this rewriting is premature. Also the lede isn't actually that bad at all: the first para is a decent summary, and then the next 3 give more details. It could be trimmed a bit, but this must be done in an WP:NPOV way (the undone short version was a lot more favourable to the coup plotters than the longer version is). Disembrangler (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of making the introduction quite a bit shorter, in principle, but I think care needs to be taken to move everything well-sourced in the current text to relevant sections, rather than just replacing the whole introduction while removing the old text entirely.

(Also, keep in mind that Homunq approved the text before the last paragraph was added - it might or might not be an issue, but). LjL (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

HMm, I haven't really succeeded in making it shorter. Maybe we should keep only the first paragraph as the lead, and then move the next three into a section called "Summary," and then restate things in more detail in the rest of the article. (Pyramid style, it's called, I think.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the court ordered the military to act, the above selection for a lead is 100% against what all reports say on the matter. Can you at least try to represent the facts instead of putting forth something obviously biased? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court now claims, after the fact, to have ordered the military to act. That is already stated in third sentence of the proposed lede; "the Supreme Court has defended the military's action as legal[.]" If you feel that claim needs to be given more prominence and elaboration, perhaps in the later paragraphs, fine. But the complaint that I haven't tried to be unbiased is vague and unsupported. As is the claim that "all reports on the matter" contradict what I've written. Please offer specific and supported criticisms so we can move forward. <eleland/talkedits> 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added one sentences specifically citing the detention order. <eleland/talkedits> 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image creep

What the heck is this? Please, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and while a couple of relevant images in an article is fine, filling up an article with redundant pictures is not. I will revert this shortly and leave only one image from that batch if no response. LjL (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The section violates NPOV and RS. There are protests going on on both sides. The media can't report freely, not if they want to oppose the coup, so the sources aren't reliable. -- Rico 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim Honduran sources are not reliable is simply not acceptable, and should be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NYT and WP as reliable sources

Reliability of sources is a function of context. The Washington Post and the New York times are known for fact-checking and reliable reporting of events. The question of whether or not what happened in Honduras a few days back is a coup is not one of facts and events but rather a legal question.

Are the Washington Post and the New York Times known for legal scholarship? Are their writers experts on questions of Honduran law? WP:NAME gives us good reason to keep the title of this article what it is, but "NYT calls it a coup, therefore it's a coup" falls flat.

Let me give you a somewhat detached analogy: When e.g. Reviews of Modern Physics and NYT conflict on a question of science or even of usage of scientific terminology, it is usually because the former is right and the latter is wrong.

NYT is not a scholarly source. There isn't yet an equivalent here. Plenty of commentators calling for the question to be addressed, but no law review articles, no real hearings in Honduras, etc. Zero scholarship has been done on this question. Do not conflate sloppy or faddish usage at a major newspaper with scholarship. The coup question is not settled. "Coup" is a convenient usage for now, verging on slang, and nothing more. Bkalafut (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." I believe "high-quality end of the market" used to include The New York Times. I don't know why it doesn't now, since The New York Times is considered the USA's best paper.

We don't have "scholarly sources" right now to use to construct a good article, as we would with Reviews of Modern Physics.

We're certainly not going to rename the article just because a tiny percentage of the world denies was a coup, whether or not Most Interested Persons want to argue and fight over this here, ad nauseum.

Your contention that " 'NYT calls it a coup, therefore it's a coup' falls flat," is just your opinion. You have not quoted Wikipdia policy, and I have seen you distort Wikipedia policy before.

The Washington Post calls it a coup. the Associated Press calls it a coup. The United Nations called it a coup. Everybody calls it a coup but the coup supporters. They are a tiny portion of the world, and they have an incentive to be in denial. -- Rico 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 150.135.51.22 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have a very confrontational style, Mr "Rico". If this is going to be the tone of the discussion, well, I've seen you assume bad faith before. I shouldn't have to 'quote' Wikipedia policy if I 'link' it. I presume that you are able to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources without me spoon-feeding it to you. But here comes the spoon: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Unless you are going to point me to experts on Honduran law checking AP or New York Times stories on the constitutional crisis, you cannot rightly tell me that these sources are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Bkalafut (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press:

"President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a coup Sunday."

"Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the Sunday coup."

"Insulza ... will meet with leaders of the Supreme Court and Congress — institutions that approved the coup."

"Zelaya's supporters staged their largest demonstration since the coup." -- Rico 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The question has been posted to the noticeboard. Let's see what disinterested third parties have to say. And let's make the discussion a little more civil from this point on. That means no more weasel rhetoric about things being "just (my) opinion". If I link Wikipedia policy, mention Wikipedia policy, etc. you should presume that I am basing my view on Wikipedia policy. Bkalafut (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article move-war

I'm now officially sick and tired of seeing this article bounce back and forward between this and that title. Earlier, I was editing stuff just to find the whole article removed under my nose. Now, someone has used the other article's talk page, so they'll have to be merged. If I'm not much mistaken, some of the moves were made by administrators. In either case, I don't find this particularly professional, and I do find it's become a sort of WP:Edit war. So, how about give it a break? LjL (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis → 2009 Honduran coup d'état — 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis → 2009 Honduran coup d'état - I suggest this is discussed further and the page not moved until a consensus has actually been reached, which it apparently hasn't. LjL (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Per WP:VOTE: This is not a vote, it's a discussion.

NOTE: Please make your preferred name clear when discussing, don't simply say "support" or "oppose", because the article has been moved while discussion was already taking place.

• I second the proposal to keep it 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The New York Times, Washington Post[31], Associated Press, Reuters[32], the United Nations, and the Organization of American States[33] all call it a "coup". Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR. -- Rico

We are an encyclopedia not a bunch of psychologists and your opinion re people being in denial is completely irrelevant; save it for a blog or twitter, it has no place here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of Hondurans themselves, who by and large are glad to see Zelaya gone and support the new government and do not see it as a coup, seem to be given very little weight by Rico and others. Having grown up there, I know many people there and their opinions, and the way the country operates, etc. It is very frustrating to Hondurans to see the outside world effectively discuss the situation over their heads and condescendingly attempt to tell Hondurans what to call it, not to mention how to run their own country by their own laws and constitution. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We're neither telling Hondurans what to call it, nor how to run their own country by their own laws and constitution. We're calling it a coup because reliable sources call it a coup. The fact that many Hondurans are glad to see Zelaya gone, doesn't mean it wasn't a coup. You're free to put into the article that many Hondurans do not see it as a coup, as long as you can attribute it to a reliable source. The media in Honduras has not been free since the coup, because they've been prevented from expressing anti-coup viewpoints. The people are being propagandized. In the USA, the politicans in power are experts at molding public opinion. -- Rico 17:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is your source for your OR claim that sources in Honduras are not reliable. This claim of yours should and will be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

These so-called reliable sources can easily become merely echo chambers of each other and of the opinion-leaders they respect. The media in Honduras is NOT being restricted from publishing the truth, that is an allegation by pro-Zelaya forces. I'd like to see so-called reliable sources for your statements a) that the media in Honduras is not free since the coup and have been prevented from expressing anti-coup viewpoints; b) that the people are being propagandized (by the way, since when have people NOT been propagandized, from every side possible); c) that in the USA, politicians in power are experts at molding public opinion (boy, doesn't that just drip with sinister overtones). All of these are your own POV you are trying to inject into the discussion, and they suggest very strongly that you yourself are coming at this from a leftist point of view. I'm sure you don't consider me a reliable source, but I lived in Honduras many years and ordinary people there are telling me what is going on. The truth is not being held up here, though again I'm sure you won't take my word for it. --Almarco (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" per BLP concerns as it is the only title put forth that does not mention a crime that has not yet been proven in a judiciary body with jurisdiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As a casualty of other title wars, I second the call for consensus before moves are performed. That said, I do not have a strong opinion on this. Given that everyone can get here via their preferred terminological re-directs, it's not really that important what the title is now (it'll change in a month or a year anyway) as long as there is a good description of what appears to be a dispute between some not insignificant number of Hondurans and virtually the rest of the world. In fact, the dispute is broader than that, as, e.g. the US State Department is currently involved in legal parsing about whether what the US President has recognized as a "coup" is a "military coup" requiring the automatic suspension of various forms of foreign aid. http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/07/02/when-is-a-coup-not-a-coup/ Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" because it better covers the overall situation, which includes, but is not limited to a coup. Remember we're not arguing here whether its a coup or not; that's argued elsewhere. We're only arguing over the name of the article. Keep on topic. Rsheptak (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "coup d'etat" name because anyone searching Wikipedia for an article about the events in Honduras would be very likely to use the word "coup" while searching. They would not be very likely to use "constitutional crisis." Ratemonth (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is irrelevant, as it can be addressed with a simple redirect from "coup" to main article. The issue is not whether to have a page with the title "coup", but whether it should be the article page.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is also irrelevant because the title should describe the thing accurately and neutrally, and not change just for the convenience of searchers. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" not because it is not a coup (too many reliable sources like the Economist and the VoA describe it as a coup) but because this article should be more expansive than a single, time-stamped wire story. Unlike the general media, we should be providing background and description of preceding events, plus ongoing future developments. Is a new article going to be created for dealing with attempts by Zelaya to return? Because if he returns that will create its own constitutional issues (how would overriding the will of both the judiciary and the "almost unanimous" legislature to reinstate him not itself be a coup de facto of sorts?) and those issues are not necessarily the same as the issues concerning the coup. re "anyone searching Wikipedia", "coup" would redirect such that anyone searching for "coup" would find the article anyway. Finally, this is not a choice between "not a coup" vs "coup" whereby both are equally POV. "Constitutional crisis" is less POV than "coup" because "constitutional crisis" does NOT imply that there was no coup.Bdell555 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Coup. BLP has no relevance here, that is a silly argument. It appears that reliable sources are describing it as a coup, so we should follow suit. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

These "reliable" sources are mostly outside the country in question. It is frustrating that sources in the country are given so little credence. In fact it is a matter of debate in Honduras itself, but is certainly not settled. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis". In cases of dispute, the clear NPOV position is to take the least loaded term. If this is a coup, then "constitutional crisis" is not an inaccurate term. If it is not a coup, then "coup" definitely is an inaccurate term. There is one article title that takes a definite position as to the nature of the event, and one that does not. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I furthermore note that the current link in the main Honduras page has a link to a page is redirected to a page that is then redirected to this page. Whatever the article title, there should be only one level of redirects.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "coup d'etat" - When Army officers armed with M16’s break into the Presidential palace in the middle of the night in order to kidnap a nation’s President in his pajamas - and then board him onto a plane out of the country ... we call that a “Coup”. Apparently 99 % of the rest of the world does as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "coup d'etat" - We must call this event as secondary independent reliable sources do. Editors' personal opinions, unreliable sources or sources too close to subject don't count. Also move-protect the article for a couple of weeks, unless there is a clear new trend in the way RS call this event. Also, I disagree with the argument that it should be called "constitutional crisis" because it allows a better coverage of the overall situation. Most coups happen within the context of a constitutional crisis, if we accepted this argument we would have to rename most of WP articles about coups. JRSP (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The last argument is invalid because there is little question about most other coups. This one is in serious debate, both inside and outside the country, and is a unique case. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "coup d'etat" obvious. 69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not all secondary reliable sources call it a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose "coup d'etat", since the government didn't change, it's still in place, and apparently the president was changed via constitutional means. And the new president is even of the same political party as the deposed president. Just because people outside of Honduras claim it's illegal doesn't mean it is. Besides that there was a presidential powergrab going on that initiated this set of events, which was ruled illegal and unconstitutional. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose coup d'etat as inherently POV. Why some people feel so strongly they need to put POV into title is beyond me but there are many people and reliable secondary sources that say it was not a coup and to walk all over that is not really acceptable; when wikipedia takes sides in a political dispute its always at its weakest. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What are those "reliable secondary sources that say it was not a coup"? -- Rico 05:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose coup d'etat as it takes a POV on an unsettled question of Honduran law. New York Times, Associated Press, etc. are not reliable sources of legal scholarship. Support "constitutional crisis"Bkalafut (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support coup d'etat. Really, everybody is calling this a coup d'etat except the ones who did it. Which is normal, those who commit a coup d'etat never call it a coup d'etat. By the way, I find it rather strange that a) this article was moved to "crisis" by an author who had for some time here been invoking BLP concerns, and when that did not wash, (s)he invoked NPOV as reason for the change b) when I saw it happen, I wanted to change it back immediately, but could not because the article existed already. I've seen that trick being performed elsewhere, in my opinion the person who uses that trick should be stopped from renaming articles from some time, because (s)he obviously does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Except those who perpetrated the act and millions of Hondurans. Or perhaps being a small country their views don't count. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Propose Compromise: The article at "constitutional crisis", but includes a first-level section header called "Coup d'état". This acknowledges the clear international consensus name, but allows the article to have a broader focus. Also it lets us de-escalate this silly fight. Separately from this question, I consider SqueakBox to have committed multiple violations (moving AGAINST general consensus and marking for speedy delete), while Tocino committed one violation (moving during a discussion, which is not at all justified even though I personally agree with the move and also think consensus leans that way. Somewhat like the coup itself - the ends don't justify the means, you can't save the constitution by violating it). Homunq (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The only violation here has been the deliberate POVing of the title; you also wheel warred by reverting me first time so all this talk of multiple violations is so much hot air (or straw as we might say in CA); NPOVing a title is neither a violation of any policy (though failing to have done so would have been a failure to be bold) and as someone else said, wikipedia is not a democracy; we need to enforce policies even when people dont like it. Having said that I support the proposed compromise by Homunq. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my proposal. I believe that the name supported by Wikipedia policies is "... coup ..." but I would be willing to defer insisting on this point, in order to stop this $#@ discussion, as long as there were a section title called "coup". I believe that in order to protect such section title, we'd need a wikicomment in the page wikitext, and (yet) a(nother) general advisory at the top of this page. Otherwise someone would remove it and we'd be back to fighting over the overall title, instead of actually improving the page. Homunq (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What would keep history writers from changing the section title, making the same arguments here on this talk page that the section title was "POV" -- because they said so -- and deleting the wikicomment and the general advisory?

WP:RS states, "Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources."

History rewriters want us to take out such information based on arguments they make here on this talk page!

WP:OR policy states, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

History rewriters want the word "coup" taken out, based on their own personal arguments that it is not a coup, or based on their own personal arguments that the name is POV.

No matter how long and hard they argue -- (and more than one of these Most Interested Persons are obviously quite motivated) -- the simple fact remains that the reliable sources all call it a "coup" and that's simply why we do. Their arguments are exclusively comprised of WP:OR.

"Coup" is the most recognized name. Wikipedia's Naming conventions policy dictates that "Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous."

If we let the politically motivated wear us down, then we compromise the credibility of Wikipedia. Why would we want to be here then? We might as well be writing on Usenet.

The history rewriters aren't quoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or citing reliable sources, they're just making their own personal arguments.

That doesn't amount to a hill of beans in Wikipedia! -- Rico 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose coup d’état: This is not a coup by any real definition. Even so, using “coup d’état” is POV. “Constitutional crisis” encompasses coup and non-coup viewpoints and is NPOV. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct; we need a title that encompasses both POVs not one or the other, anything else is unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is not a coup by any real definition," because you say so? "Using 'coup d’état' is POV," because you say so? "'Constitutional crisis' encompasses coup and non-coup viewpoints and is NPOV," because you say so? How does "Constitutional crisis" encompass coup? -- Rico 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not people here but a large number of people in Honduras, reported in reliable sources, who are saying it is not a coup. Stop trying to distort things. Your claim that it is only people here who claim it is not a coup is frankly ridiculous, and you know it if you have actually been following the story using Spanish sources, and if you havent been following the story don't make such assertions. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis": CNN, BBC, CNBC, FOX and ABC can all call the sky red, but it won't make it so. The same government is still in control (president != government). Until their own courts determine that what happened was illegal we should stick with a neutral title, Coup is loaded. Have an entire section discussing this though. --A is A (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is not whether a coup occurred or not, its whether we want to take a stand on the issue. We can either pick a not loaded neutral title that encompasses everyone's POV or a loaded title that inherently supports one side in the national dispute - sounds like a no-brainer to me; all this talk of whether a coup occurred or not is irrelevant as those of us who believe a coup did taske place should still support a neutral title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself, SqueakBox. I happen to semi-agree with you here but I do not want to be part of your "us" or let you characterize my views. --- homunq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.12.117 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support coup d'état every nation and international organization is calling it this, so is the media, I've even seen a few quotes from some of the pro-coup demonstrators calling it a coup, just that it was a "necessary coup". --Tocino 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" - A coup d'etat is by definition an illegal change of government. I don't believe that was the case here, but the opinion that it was is at the least arguable and interpretive. Since it is not our place to interpret laws, "constitutional crisis" is the reasonable option. That title is uncontroversially factual, whether one regards the ousting of Zelaya as legal or illegal. Strikehold (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support 2009 Honduran (first choice) or Honduras coup d'état, not constitutional crisis, which is not the common name and far too nondescriptive a term. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC
  • Comment I would be more than happy to change to something that mentions neither coup nor constitutional crisis, anything neutral is better than coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" as inherently neutral and best serving facts as we know them, or don't know them. I have no problem with the compromise, where coup is legitimately cited as a commonly used and accepted term for the military enabled ouster of Zaleya, though I believe we can be spared much of the drama and hyperbole. The aforementioned complaint that "constitutional crisis" is not descriptive enough makes no sense at all, as if a loaded term that oversimplifies the topic at hand, zeros in on a single act, and perpetuates media bias and self-serving political interests, is somehow NPOV, let alone factual. VaChiliman (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, new user. I see that your contributions history goes back two days, and that it is comprised exclusively of edits to this page. Official Wikipedia policy states, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight".[34] But welcome. -- Rico 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CommentFrom your own wikipage Rico: "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia."--Conor Fallon (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, how nice to get a "welcome new user", when I have been using Wikipedia since its inception. True, my registration is new, and my contributions are limited. How ironic, that following the rules inhibits democratic participation, and that the keeper of the rules purports to take a POV that supports people participation. "One man's ceiling is another man's floor", Paul Simon, American Songwriter.VaChiliman (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A futher point would be that one side of this action is being widely reported, the other is not; however, the Miami Herald has been publishing a number of news articles that give some depth, and it would seem balance (finally), to the events: http://www.miamiherald.com/honduras/ links to several news articles (as opposed to the opinion pieces) that should make the NYT, WP, and others blush. Anyway, calling it a *coup instead of a crisis is clearly a judgment call, and I'd argue, a rush to judgement that favors a POV that is light on facts.VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

• Abstain: Coup d'état describes well some of the clear lack of concern the Micheletti régime has with due process, but, as I've consistently said on here, Zelaya violated the constitution, regardless of how Micheletti overreacted to that fact. I think constitutional crisis is more neutral, but I will not oppose calling it a coup, because Micheletti's notion of enforcing the law is extreme to say the least. I would also reiterate that a lot of this occurred because there is no mechanism in the Honduran constitution for what to actually do when someone violates Article 239. This opened the door for the amazing overreaction we are now witnessing. Again, I think these are factual observations, that Zelaya broke the existing Article 239, and that there was no mechanism for enforcing Article 239 specified in the Constitution or Honduran law generally, and as such these should be represented as facts, not points of view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "constitutional crisis" because it is neutral and accurately describes both the removal of Zelaya and the reasons (conflict/crisis) leading up to it. In effect Zelaya wanted to replace the constitution, a kind of "soft coup" in itself, following the pattern of Chavez (who has admitted that the fight is really about keeping Zelaya in power in direct violation of the existing constitution). The military action is heavy-handed and perhaps excessive, but was authorized by the Supreme Court and Congress and was done to protect the constitution. In a coup, the leader of the coup usually takes the power for himself; here, the initiator of the action was the Supreme Court, and the person stepping in to fill the presidency is the constitutionally next-in-line, not the instigator of the coup. Strongly oppose "coup d'etat" because it is very divisive and subjective. This article was very fact-based and accurate a few days ago, until it was apparently swarmed from the hard left. --Almarco (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Although I personally believe this was texbook Coup, my views are not encyclopedic, definitely not relevant. My vote would be in order to properly set a neutral tone:

Oppose "coup d'etat", Oppose "Constitutional Crisis".

I'd favor the 2009 Political Crisis Wikihonduras (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Split The events of June 28th and its aftermath is fair to be said as a coup. However, those events is enough to be split into another article under 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The events that cumulated to this (ongoing controversy on Zelaya's constitutional referendum etc.) can be made into 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran constitutional controversy.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The history rewriters would still be arguing on this talk page that it was not a coup, and that the name is POV, because they say so. History rewriters would still be going through the article replacing the word "coup" with other words.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] -- Rico 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Certain my vote caused misunderstanding, so I reliterate: Support "Coup" for events including and after June 28 and split events before then into another article. The main dispute here is whether what the military did to Zelaya on the midnight of June 28 is a Coup d'Etat. Courts need to to be impartial-- look at the roles of the judiciary of Thai and Pakistani in their recent problems, and we need not to look at them for NPOV-ness. Unless the constitution gave the Supreme Court literal powers to vacate the seat of the president, this to the eye of any outsider have every feature of a Coup d'Etat. However, the entire controversy about Zelaya and the other branches of the government is per se a constitutional crisis. Hence, I propose splitting the current contents of the article into two articles, one called constitutional crisis and the other coup .--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the Honduras crisis title - Heqwm2 already covered most of my concerns with the title coup d'etat, but not all. I did some additional research and found that both terms are being used to describe the events. One gives a longer scope, the other is more specific about a core event, but possibly also POV. Weighing the pros and cons carefully, I believe that crisis is the optimal name. gidonb (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Honduras 2009 crisis first as NPOV and broadly encompassing. Secondly supportHonduras 2009 constitutional crisis NPOV but long. Oppose coup d'etat as highly POV supporting Zeyala. Honduras' constitution art 239 explicitly declares that the President ceases his function if he seeks to change the constitution. Honduras' Supreme Court ruled on 18 counts that Zelaya violated the constitution, causing immediate constitutional suspension as president. Detention is then for the ex president. Most are unfamiliar with such swift justice. The illegal aspect is expelling a Honduran citizen AFTER he became ex-president. That is not a coup. Redirect from Hondouras 2009 coup d'etat to Honduras 2009 crisis. Recommend "crisis" as simple, short and encompassing.DLH (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "crisis". "Coup" might make it more in line with other similar articles, but it can always be changed laters when waters have cooled and international courts have ruled. But this vote should not be construed to mean anything about what the contents of the article should be, it merely reflects the fact that "crisis" is certainly accurate (although a euphemism according to some), while there's a slight but real possibility that "coup" might not be. --LjL (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Honduran 2009 political crisis or something similar. It is NPOV, unlike "coup d'Etat": while the feeling outside of Honduras seems to be that it's a coup, within Honduras, it seems to be viewed as a legitimate governmental move against a president who took actions disqualifying him from office, so the title should not prejudge which it is. All of the Honduran legislature, judiciary, and military agreed on removing him; that seems more like an act of the existing government than a replacement of the government. Notably, while the military physically removed him, the new head of government is not a military leader, but rather a legislator next in line for succession, so the action is certainly not like a normal military coup. Warren Dew (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Political or Constitutional Crisis It is NPOV and coup does not really describe it, remember, the mainstream media also told us Saddam had WMDs. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Conor. Don't you get it? They are RS in all matters because WP cited them as general examples, of mainstream news sources, and expert fact checkers. That they've since done a 'whoops, never mind', and professed to be lied to and bear no responsibility for being duped. In all fairness, my sarcasm here notwithstanding, it was propbably not reasonable to expect them to check the facts, but they could have cast doubt and/or asked some questions. Why didn't they, then? Because the liberals lacked the backbone to question the pretext of WMD when bloodlust was in the air, and God forbid mainstream media make liberal politicians look foolish or incompetent. Same here. Nuance is not in anyone's political interest, and "coup" sells papers; anything else would require analysis, and raise doubts in the Obama administration. What is interesting is that Obama and Clinton are walking a tightrope, carefully limiting use of the 'C' word, rebuffing the overt attempts of Zaleya to legitimize his position viz a viz the surviving government by not meeting with him in Washington, and holding the OAS accountable for finding a peaceful resolution. A military coup d'etat in only the most strict of definitions, it is a strange one. No government toppled. I am waiting for the crowds from both sides to start throwing bananas at one another. In fact, I am willing to compromise with something completely NPOV like 2009 Honduras Split Decision.

One thing did occur to me just now, and that is this. What WP guideline, rule, says that the name of the article must eb something vetted by RS? It doesn't. Rico cited the two rules, and both proposals pass muster. To me, that argues for the more neutral and encompassing descriptor. Or, use both (why not)? 2009 Honduras Constitutional Crisis and Coup d'etat. Works for me. If we cannot agree on a name, how can one expect this crisis to be resolved peacefully? Personally, I hold out for both. And look forward to Senor Z and Senor M becoming mere footnotes in history. VaChiliman (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support 'Coup D'Etat' And not just because of WP:DUCK. Vast majority of sources, including vast majority of the nations on earth, are calling this a Coup. For the sake of accuracy we must do likewise.Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary results

After Warren Dew:

• 16 editors (+ 1 IP) support "2009 Honduran crisis/political crisis/constitutional crisis" and oppose "2009 Honduran coup d'état".
• 8 editors (+ 1 IP) support "2009 Honduran coup d'état".
• 1 editor proposes splitting
• 1 editor abstains
• 1 editor proposes compromise

Discussion about preliminary results

Allbertos,

Samuel Curtis wrote, "Support 'Coup' for events including and after June 28". Why separate his discussion out into its own category? It seems pretty clear to that Samuel Curtis supports word "coup" for the coup itself.

The 2009 Honduran coup d'état article is about the coup, and it has a background section. A main article could be created for what led up to the coup, the same as was done for the 2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#From_other_countries_or_international_bodies subsection.

As someone who makes POV edits,[47][48] that have to be reverted by more neutral editors[49][50], I'm not sure you're the best person to be summarizing the discussion here. You seem to have done it in a way that violates WP:Vote.

How convenient.

Rico 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Allbertos,

Homunq wrote, "I believe that the name supported by Wikipedia policies is "... coup ..." but I would be willing to defer insisting on this point, in order to stop this $#@ discussion, as long as there were a section title called 'coup'." (emphasis added)

There is no section title called "coup".

Therefore, the logical inference is that Homunq has not deferred insisting on the point that, "the name supported by Wikipedia policies is '... coup ...' "

It would seem that Homunq has been put in the wrong category.

How convenient -- fraudulent, but convenient. -- Rico 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion":

The lede of WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion also states,

Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. [emphasis added]

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

-- Rico 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not related to what appears to be "votes"

Note: as opposed to the "Discussion" section, this is the section about things that are absolutely not votes.

• It's a wheel war. SqueakBox moved the article[51], in the absence of consensus, while we were still discussing it -- unilaterally declaring that the title was POV, despite a consensus that it was not.
• I consider that incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.
• Then, SqueakBox slapped a Speedy Delete tag on the article,[52] something I consider pretty freakin' sneaky.
• BOOM, SqueakBox substituted his/her own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that! Before the article was moved to coup, there was a lot of discussion and then consensus to call it a coup. -- Rico 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • It doesn't matter. The point is that, whoever started it, it should stop now. Feel free to briefly state that you "second" or "oppose" the proposal to move here. LjL (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It may matter. SqueakBox -- whose block log is a mile long[53] -- wrote me, "Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant." (emphasis added) SqueakBox called me a "troublesome editor" in the edit summary.[54] Something's seriously wrong here. -- Rico 06:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is somethign seriously wrong when people feel the ened to use wikipedia to push their POV. Your ref to my rather ancient block log is nothing more than a personal attack; you wont get your way this way. Troublesome seems a correct description. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Our actions are transparent so to accuse me of being a sneaky is a hot air personal attack, please refrain. I was actually removing POV and please do not presume to know what my POV is; making this move means I have a POV in favour of the change of power is a bad faith assumption that I put my POV rather than trying to enforce pOV, and I have clearly failed because others are so impassioned and so convinced they are right that they insist on making even the tile POV, to the detriment of wikipedia. This is a shame. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I never wrote what your POV was -- only that you substituted your own, for consensus. You took it upon yourself to move the article, even as the discussion was going on about whether to do that, and even though there was no consensus for the move!

When you moved the talk page, you wrote, "WP:NPOV clearly forbids having an inherently POV title and siding with one group in the dispute in Honduras is by definition POV.)"[55]

That the title's POV is your POV. I never wrote, or even considered, any other.

You wrote, "making this move means I have a POV in favour of the change of power is a bad faith assumption".

I never made that assumption. You've accused me of "a bad faith assumption" based on assumption I never made! Please stop accusing me of having done things I haven't done.

AGF states, "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part".

Slapping a tag on an article like a Speedy Delete tag, without discussing it here on the talk page -- not even so much as a 'heads up' -- seems pretty darn sneaky to me!

Suddenly moving the article, in the middle of a discussion on whether to move the article -- in the absence of consensus to move the article -- was presumptuous beyond belief!

AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism". -- Rico 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Using a neutral term rather than a deliberatley provocative, one sided tewrm is not POV by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't here to hold people's hands, or to be squishy nice, non-provocative, unoffensive, though. We reflect what reliable sources say, and in this case it is to say that what took place is a coup. There no wiggle room here. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If we reflected what RSs said and if we followed NPOV we would not be arguing here but at a differently named article. The lie that all RSs say coup needs to stop being spread about. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No one said "all"; they have said "most". No strawmen, pls. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it back. Clearly the previous move was done without even being close to a consensus. This is a coup d'état even coup supporters are saying it is one, just that it was a "necessary" coup. --Tocino 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, good... "move". Not. LjL (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has been fixed at 2009 Honduran coup d'état for a long time, and a majority of editors seem to support it (as do the media and nations around the world) staying there. Why should we allow for a few editors to change it without gaining a consensus? They are the ones who should be trying to build support for a RM, not the majority. --Tocino 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Template:Uw-move2, where it says "This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way". It cuts both ways - especially when someone (namely, me) had decided to start a semi-formal request for dispute resolution on a semi-formal page about article moves. LjL (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Was moved in the wee hours of July 2nd, moved back to something similar later that day. That's not a "long time". Bkalafut (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SqueakBox's ninja move was clearly invalid. SqueakBox shouldn't have gained anything from such behavior. -- Rico 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mean like an NPOV article? Charming. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Either support or oppose from me, since it doesn't seem to matter, as people keep moving it back and forth regardless. Way to work on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? It seems that the move would be from Honduras coup d'etat to Honduran constitutional crisis given the current title, but the box says Honduras coup d'etat to Honduran coup d'etat? Did somebody move this after the box was up, while votes were being cast? Not cool. Bkalafut (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they did. My request to stop the move war while this was being semi-formally discussed here got completely ignored. I've added a note to the "Votes" section saying that people should clearly specify which title they want, since it's unfortunately not clear at all from the move request now. LjL (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And now, it's been moved from "Honduras" to "Honduran", while the talk page has only received a redirect. Can anyone come up with something more confusing? LjL (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I'm creating an RFC partially just to draw attention to this article in general (it's a magnet for POV from both sides - I've seen a number of article edits which really stretch WP:AGF), but the specific issue is what the article name should be. Some claim that it should be called "2009 Honduran coup d'état" because "coup" is the word used by the overwhelming majority of WP:RS worldwide for the events of June 28th. Others claim that it should be at "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis" because (variously) the article covers more than just the coup, or because "coup" constitutes a legal accusation that violates WP:BLP, or because a number of Honduran RS (and Honduran editors) do not consider it a coup. Also, one user (me) has proposed a compromise, by which the "call it 'coup'" group would allow the name "constitutional crisis" as long as "Coup d'état" were one first-level section header inside the article. Obviously, both sides of the question would in any case be given their WP:DUE weight in the article. Homunq (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Meantime, having reverted me, why not impose your compromise, which I for one am happy with, and do it right now; every minute we fail to change the name we turn our backs on our NPOV policy, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NO, do not do any moves "right now". There is a move request in progress. Please respect it and stop doing stuff "right now" without the slightest bit of consensus - all of you. LjL (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying, POV doesn't matter. Parece. Its already been changed since the discussion beganb and should be changed back in order to ensure wikipedia doesn't back Mel. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you two would let me get a word in edgewise ( :) ), I'm not moving the article because a) I'm not an admin, and b) moving the article before some resolution could be considered a violation, as I consider your move to have been a violation. PS. (not directed at SqueakBox in particular) I count 16 sections on this talk page discussing this @#%$ issue. Homunq (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If my 2nd move was a violation so was your first move, unquestionably. Crisis includes coup while coup excludes Micheletti supporters, so moving and then discussing is the only logical course. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Reliable sources like The New York Times[56], Washington Post[57], the Times in Britain,[58] The Associated Press[59], Reuters[60], the Wall Street Journal[61] the United Nations[62], and the Organization of American States[63] all call it a "coup".
  Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not well-represented in the free press, nor in the world. I question whether there are RS in Honduras. The press isn't free there, now, at all.[64]
  I oppose the compromise. Coup apologists are going through the article and methodically replacing the word "coup" with other words, rewriting history.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] This will continue if they are placated by the removal of the word "coup" from the name of the article.
  "Coup" is the most widely recognized name for what happened. -- Rico

Rico, your above is like saying a person on trial is in denial that they are guilty. No matter how many people claim an illegal act happened, Wikipedia still has to respect the ethics of not claiming such is true. A coup is an international crime in South America. This has been reported by a lot. There has not yet been a judicial judgment, so please stop acting as if tons of sources would change this. The BLP clause about rumors is important here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In general what I've seen in similar discussions in related articles, is that it has become a "reference competition" as is because one view beats the other with references, it makes it the only view. The only thing I see is that there are plenty of references supporting BOTH sides. Obviously there will be a majority againist the current government, since international opinion was majorily sided with Pres. Zelaya. BUT there is a significant population mostly located within Honduras itself, which support the opposing view. This requires to present both views, and always maintain neutrality, REGARDLESS if a majority of sources support Zelaya. Wikihonduras (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Judicial judgment from who? If we go with the one from the Honduran Supreme Court, we may be guilty of being one-sided.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First, let's everyone remember that there is no deadline and that this is on event which is very much ongoing. So let's try and reduce the amount of electrons wasted on discussing this when the situation is changing all the time in various ways. Second, even if this event had happened 50 years ago, it would be ludicrous to argue so much about the naming of the article. The situation is quite clear: it is universally condemned, internationally, as a coup. So that's what the name should be (WP:NAME). The fact that the legality of the various actions by Zelaya and others is murky is problematic and is and should be discussed in the article. Third, the point needs making that laws are made and interpreted by people, not robots, and this has also happened here, as part of a power struggle within the state. The very meaning of legality in this situation is up for grabs. Fourth, given that this is a power struggle, in a polarised country, the fact that it was resolved by the military ejecting the President from the country in his pyjamas means it's a coup. It doesn't matter if the National Assembly had previously passed a Presidential Pyjama Ejection Law; it's clearly a coup. It may be a mixture of a judicial coup and a military one, but it clearly is one, and the international community recognises that. We should reflect that in the title, and describe the complexity in the article. PS I should also note that some of the above may be forgetting WP:VOTE. Disembrangler (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say I totally agree with what Disembrangler says above...each point made, though especially the point about Zelaya's actions, which I've taken it upon myself to document, as my contribution to all of this. We do need to ensure we've discussed the legal case against Zelaya, regardless of whether this is considered a "coup" or not. I'm okay with calling it a coup, but Zelaya broke the law and this needs to be part of this story. That the law is somewhat "up for grabs" during a coup or a constitutional crisis I would consider to be an axiom, of course, and Disembrangler is right to remind us of that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualitative summary

Refer to the discussion for detail. -- Rico 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a more valid way to summarize a discussion (even though anyone's summary is obviously subject to the bias of the summarizer). -- Rico 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep the word "coup" discussion

I'm seeing people citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like WP:RS, and WP:NAME.

People are referring to reliable sources, and claiming that -- if reliable sources like the Washington Post, the Times in Britain, and the Associated Press all call it a "coup", Wikipedia should (or "must") call it a coup.

It's also been argued, by more than one poster, that WP:NAME means we have to name it "coup".

At least one comment used OR to establish that what happened was a coup.

One comment (in support of "coup") didn't even bother to make an argument, and just said it was "obvious". -- Rico 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Homunq proposed a compromise, writing, "I believe that the name supported by Wikipedia policies is '... coup ...' but I would be willing to defer insisting on this point [...] as long as there were a section title called 'coup'."

There is no section title called "coup".

Homunq did not explain how the compromise could possibly be enforced. -- Rico 05:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Same way as any other compromise on wikipedia, it should be really easy to enforce and besides a section called coup can easily fit our NPOV policy whereas the current name cannot. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I think that if enough editors "signed on" to the compromise, we could put an infobox up at the top of talk and a wikicomment next to the section title in the article, and then the editors who agreed to the compromise would be enough to police it. They would not flirt with 3rr, but instead remind those who changed the section title of the compromise, and if the title were insistently changed to not be "coup", they could always rename the article to "coup", as I believe that this is justified under policy. Homunq (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the word "coup" discussion

I'm seeing a ton of OR used to support the claim that the name is POV.

It's claimed that the title takes sides, and that this makes it POV. Nothing specific in the NPOV policy is quoted to establish this.

It's been claimed, based on OR, that sources -- that Wikipedia explicity recognizes as reliable -- aren't reliable for this.

SqueakBox has claimed that La Prensa is as reliable, as sources that Wikipedia explicity recognizes as reliable -- again, using OR.

I haven't seen not one Wikipedia policy or guideline quote, nor any RS that contains content that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory. In fact, I haven't seen any RS with content that states that what happened wasn't a coup.

One participant claims that BLP applies, and that we can't call it a coup, because the perpetrators are alive, coups are against the law, and the perpetrators haven't been convicted.

Consensus is that this is an unpersuasive argument. -- Rico 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, I've never seen anyone expend so much bandwidth trying to convince people that he's responding only to fringe theories not worthy of consideration. The consensus is not that these arguments are unpersuasive, otherwise this talk page would be 5 kilobytes long, instead of the sprawling mess it is. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me.

"Consensus" is that the BLP argument is unpersuasive.

I haven't seen not one Wikipedia policy or guideline quote, nor any RS that contains content that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory.

Have you?

I've expended so much bandwidth because I don't like seeing a very small, minority point of view, disproportionately well-represented by politically motivated editors, violate WP:NOT#Dem, by voting and owning an article.

I just went through this in the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person.

Reliable sources dismiss the claim that it wasn't a "coup".

The world calls it a coup, and so do the reliable sources. -- Rico 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, I've conceded the word "coup" numerous times on here, and I think you're aware of that. Micheletti's people are guilty of so many due process violations, it's impossible to defend them against charges of committing a "coup", even if I wanted to. I'm more concerned with the tenor of the conversation on here, which it seems to me often is not very respectful. I have tried, as have others on here, to make a case that this is not a Zelaya = democratic voice of the people vs. Micheletti = Snidely Whiplash leading a vast right-wing conspiracy sort of thing. Zelaya's side broke the law, and Micheletti's side, though it also broke the law, does represent a certain number of Hondurans in that it was an attempt to respond to Zelaya's having broken the law. I've pointed out that the current Liberal candidate for President, Elvin Santos, had a problem with Zelaya's actions on legal grounds, and he is not associated with Micheletti's coup plotters. I've also clarified that the documents released by the Supreme Court do accuse Zelaya of directly breaking Article 374, and that, if that charge is true, then it follows that Article 239 kicks in and he would legally lose his Presidency. I think people who make these cases do in fact have a case, and are not spokespersons for a "fringe". Also, please note that I, unlike others on here, have always brought my points up on the talk page first, hoping to get consensus for the case I'm making. I'm not one of the people you're criticizing as continually changing the page without consensus. I think you need to recognize that some of us are trying to be constructive and respond to the points you're making, not peddle the equivalent of Holocaust denial or global warming denial or whatever. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "if that charge is true, then it follows that Article 239 kicks in and he would legally lose his Presidency." This is WP:SYN.

The entire population of Honduras is 7,500,000. If half of them say it was not a coup, that makes 3,750,000. Add half again as many for people that are not in Honduras, like expats, and that makes 5,625,000. Take away a third of that number to subtract out people that say it wasn't a coup, because Zelaya broke the law and deserved the military coup, or that the detention order legalized the coup, and we're back to 3,750,000 people. The population of the world is 6,790,062,216. If the point of view of 0.06% of the world is that there was no a coup, and point of view of 99.94% of the world is that it was a coup, is no-coup it a fringe theory?

The population of Iran is 70,495,782. If one-third of the population says that their point of view is, as Ahmadinejad said, that there was no Holocaust, that's 23,498,594. You might say that one-third is too many, but this is just one middle-eastern country. Cut out about half of those people, who profess their point of view just because they don't like Israel, and that leaves 11,749,297. That's a greater number, yet we have a page named "Holocaust". Is that name non-neutral?

There are two sides. Does the name, "Holocaust", take a side? Is it "inherently POV"?

No, because the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority.

That's my opinion, but it's not what I wrote.

I wrote, "I haven't seen not one [...] RS that contains content that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory."

I asked you, "Have you?"

This was supposed to be a subsection on summarizing the "don't use the word 'coup'" arguments, but this thread is drifting. -- Rico 20:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is drifting a little.  :) And 3,750,000 Hondurans did not take part in organizing the referendum, the Executive Branch officials, on Zelaya's orders, did. But those who actually helped Zelaya, by Article 239, can't be President for 10 years either. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you've said a lot more now than you said when I initially replied to you. Anyway, here's my response to the rest. Rico, have your way on this if you like. You're in the "overwhelming" majority, and it's only a handful of Wikipedia editors who are not part of this "massive" consensus. My worry is that you think that getting your way on this constitutes a victory for truth. When you say "these people are just a fringe", that means you don't have to learn anything from them. My point is that people are saying things here that you're not listening to because you've already made a summary judgment that they're on the fringe. In my case, you continue to set me up as a straw man, despite the fact that I have repeatedly agreed that "coup" is an acceptable word for the article to use. But I don't agree that the other side is an "extremely small minority", and other editors have expressed that same viewpoint, while at the same time not contesting that it was a coup. Several editors have said "yes, it's the minority view, but it's not a fringe view." Does that mean it's these other editors that must be relegated to the fringe as well? Plus, you eliminate from consideration anyone who wrote "this is not a coup" in an op-ed piece. There were a lot of those op-ed pieces, and some of them made the normal RS publications like the New York Times. Was the New York Times giving undue weight to the political equivalent of Holocaust deniers? Or were they merely representing the opinions of people who happen to disagree with you? You also eliminate from consideration those who marched against Zelaya in demonstrations in Honduras. Was that really one or two people out there with cardboard cutouts made to look like there were thousands of them? Seriously, you can't believe that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing...you say reliable sources dismiss that it wasn't a coup. Is that true, or is it that reliable sources fairly uniformly use the word "coup". I haven't seen you argue this before, that a reliable source dismisses that it was a coup. Isn't it possible that those reliable sources merely use the word because most of the international actors use it? What sources dismiss it, and what logic is used to dismiss it? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

It's been said, again and again, that Zelaya was a lawbreaker and many Hondurans were happy to get rid of him. ("Hondurans themselves... are glad to see Zelaya gone")

I wouldn't even think of disputing this, but the most I can surmize from this is that he was trying to pull a continuismo, and so he deserved to be ousted in a military coup.

Maybe that was best for Honduras, but that doesn't make it not a military coup. (I don't think legitimizing a coup, as an avenue to get rid of a president -- even if he is a would-be dictator -- is good for Honduras. Already freedom of expression has been curtailed. "Este é um pais que vai para frente"?)

It's been pointed out that a detention order, signed by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president.

Claiming that this made the coup legal is at best, WP:SYN, and at worst, simple OR. -- Rico 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A majority of people in the country which as the heart of the article thinking a certain way is clearly not fringe; you seem to be forgeting thast this article is about Honduras and what possibly the majority of Hondurans think about a subject concerning Honduras is by definition NOT fringe under any interpretation of the word. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for, "A majority of people in the country," or "what possibly the majority of Hondurans think." Otherwise, this is nothing more than WP:OR -- or, more bluntly, in the minds of Wikipedians, this is nothing. -- Rico 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither one

One or two users didn't take a position either way. -- Rico 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy access to popular places for Anti-Zelaya demonstrators

In the Developments sections on July 1, there is a line that says "Pro-Zelaya protesters claim that the authorities are trying to prevent them from converging to protest, while allowing pro-coup demonstrators easy access to popular places for demonstrations".

On that day (July 1) both sides had demonstrations here in La Ceiba, Honduras. The Pro-Zelaya crowd took over the main square of the city, where the park, the church, and city hall are. At the south end of town, a pro-peace [and anti-Zelaya] march started. The march was supposed to go through the main street of the city and pass by city hall, but had to be diverted by the military and police because the pro-Zelaya demonstrators were there, so "allowing pro-coup demonstrators easy access to popular places for demonstrations", is not accurate everywhere in the country. The so called "pro-coup" demonstrators weren't allowed in the main area of town BECAUSE of the pro-Zelaya demonstrators. Oscar (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Without any RS on what happened at your place, this is Original Research (but then, this whole talk page is full of it). Be careful too: when describing one of the demonstrations as "pro-peace" and the other as "crowd", you are getting close to the edge of ranting.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WE dont need RS to prove something is inaccurate and we cannot afford inaccuracies in our coverage, what we would need RS's for is adding info. A cautious approach is always advisable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, SqueakBox, you're wrong. If there are RS on one side only, it doesn't matter if that side is wrong, unless it's also UNDUE. I do encourage you to find RS for this, though; as a simple question of fact, the standard for how reliable they have to be is relatively low - you can stretch the definition of RS a bit for this, since all you're asking is to remove an inaccuracy, not include your info in the article. (signed, homunq, editing from a computer without tildes on the keyboard)

Actually, we do need RS in the case Squeakbox is describing. From the very first line in [WP:V]: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was saying. Homunq (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for getting things wrong and we are always better not to include a piece of info than to include it if it may be wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source that seems to support what Oking was saying. It says the pro Micheletti marchers had to be diverted to avoid a group of pro Zelaya people and was done so by a large contingent of police and soldiers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, If you disagree so strikingly with Wikipedia's core policies (such as the one mentioned above), why are you editing it? LjL (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Claiming I dont agree with wikipedia policies is plain wrong. Who is trying to enforce our NPOV policy in the title and who doesn't care about this policy? You are criticising the wrong person. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" versus "There is no justification for getting things wrong and we are always better not to include a piece of info than to include it if it may be wrong". LjL (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim we can put inaccurate information in the encyclopedia doesn't deserve a response except perhaps it is you who should be looking for a different type of voluntary work if you really believe its fine to knowingly put inaccurate info in wikipedia, I have anyway supplied a source, I suggest you read it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, SqueakBox was 100% correct. Since this page deals with living people, it is the responsibility of the people putting in the sources to prove that the sources are factually correct 100%. Since the above testimony puts them into doubt, they are not reliable sources for this article. These are serious allegations made. The first line in BLP is that we have to get this right. It does not say we have to get this "verifiable". OR can be used to remove content in a BLP. It cannot be used to insert it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP simply does not apply to most of this article, including the title. It prevents us from saying that person X is a murderer or a golpista without solid evidence, it does not prevent us from saying that a murder or a coup occurred, even if the murder is on the Orient Express or the coup installs person X as president. Anyway, with soldiers on video shooting out protestor's bus tires, there can hardly be a doubt that there are prior restraints on protest. Homunq (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would advise anyone with appropriate technology to look at that aforementioned video in stop frame and take note of several anomolies in the footage with respect to the purported location, the origin of the buses, the nationality of the protestors, and the identity of the soldiers. The video, understandably, is of very poor quality, however, it is not verifiable, and as CNN makes it a regular habit of throwing unverifiable "firsthand" accounts, video, etc. out there, I am skeptical. I am willing to accept as likely that incidents like this could occur; I just don't believe this video can be accepted as authentic, rather than produced for propoganda purposes. VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Condensed rambling, duplicative introduction

I condensed the introduction.[77] per the intro to long tag, which I have also removed. The introduction kept repeating the same set of facts over and over. I suspect this was a case of editors wanting to add their own POV to the intro, and the introduction got larger and larger as a result.

Material I moved from the main page, which can be integrigrated back into the later sections

The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president.

The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country.

After a constitutional crisis which set the President against the Supreme Court, Army, and his own party, Zelaya was removed from office in what is widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move. Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament and next in the Presidential line of succession, was sworn in as President by the National Congress.

The plan for a constitutional assembly, along the lines of recent assemblies held by Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, was supported by President Manuel Zelaya, but opposed by much of the Honduran establishment, which argued that Zelaya was merely seeking re-election (the constitution bans both re-election and attempts to reform the relevant articles).

The armed forces of Honduras seized President Manuel Zelaya at his home, holding him at an airbase outside Tegucigalpa before flying him to Costa Rica. During the action, communications and electricity in the city were interrupted for about six hours. Government officials and other politicians suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been detained. Later in the day the Honduran Supreme Court said that it had ordered the removal of the president. The broadcast of at least some news media is currently suppressed in Honduras, with members of the Honduran military reportedly shutting down at least one radio station and halting TV transmission of teleSUR and CNN en Español (which had broadcast news of the Honduras protests), as well as briefly arresting and later releasing teleSur staff. Associated Press reporters have been arrested, and according to the Miami Herald (1 July), "Stations that are broadcasting carry only news friendly to the new government."

The removal from office was widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move.

69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president."

Propaganda, because first there was the military (coup), en after that the so called "acting president", and not the other way around.

"Legal authority"? See: weasel words.

"The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country."

The same "plotting" propaganda nonsense as used in Indonesia (Suharto) and Chile (Pinochet). Not 'plot' has been proven or presented as evidence.

A referendum on a constitution change is the ultimate democratic measure one can take. Proposing a referendum is NOT 'undermining the constitution'. The real problem is that the opposition was afraid of the democratic outcome, so they kidnapped the president, censored the media, etc. Just the facts please.

"although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move"

See: weasel words. What "establishment"? There used to be one, and now it's gone.

Sonyes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction was rather slanted, I initially added a NPOV tag before I condensed the intro. Hopefully is is better written now. I didn't add anything myself, I simply condensed what was already written.69.138.243.26 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

military lawyer admits crime

I added a ref and quote where the military lawyer admits a crime occured. I think this should be integrated into the lede but I want to let somebody else do it. ---homunq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.12.117 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The full interview (ref already added to article) is nothing short of fascinating, no matter what your point of view on the matter. I recommend everyone editing this page read it if you can speak Spanish. "¿Usted dice que por evitar un derramamiento de sangre desobedecieron esa orden de la Corte Suprema? Correcto." And he says that if Chavez ever comes back to the country, he should fear a sniper for having insulted the army. And he also speaks of some specific promises to the army that Zelaya broke. All in all, absolutely riveting. Homunq (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page move

The name of this talk page doesn't match the name of its article. Can an admin please move this talk page to the appropriate page? ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup" ambiguity isn't just us.

US Puts Honduras Aid on Hold Following Coup

To quote: "Spokesman Kelly said officials have paused much of the U.S. aid program while the legal review continues.

"The legal review is ongoing," said Ian Kelly. "We're trying to determine if Section 7008 of the Foreign Assistance Act must be applied. In the meantime, we've taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs that we would be legally required to terminate if the events of June 28th are determine to have benn a a military coup.""

But the New York Times says it's a coup! And we all know they're an RS on legal questions. Who needs law reviews and whitepapers when you have the newspaper? Bkalafut (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras is largely a USA client state. The coup 'being' a coup is not good for USA interests. The fact that the USA has even put aid on hold demonstrates the seriousness of the coup.Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The review is not about whether it's a coup; they've been clear about that. It's about whether it's a military coup. Not the same thing. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this, but here is the opinion of a Honduran lawyer and former gov't official that the so-called "coup" was not a coup, but was legal and constitutionally mandated: A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense in The Christian Science Monitor. Strikehold (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isnt just us, many people in Honduras believe it was not a coup and their voice, backed by secondary sources, cannot be ignored in the name of whatever wikipedia policy people can scrape up to support their POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's two that anaylze the same situation, and say it was illegal under the Honduran constitution

• Honduras Summing up some basic points
• Why Zelaya's actions were legal

And from the legitimate current Minister of Culture under Zelaya there's this:

• Las fuerzas que han detonado el golpe son muy poserosas

and to add to the debate, here's the full text of the interview with the military command's lawyer who admits that sending Zelaya out of the country was an illegal act.

• Cometimos un delito al sacar a Zelaya pero habia que hacerlo

Rsheptak (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The latest BBC article in Englsih on the subject merely mentions coup to say it wasnt one and describes Sunday's events as "Zelaya was removed from office on Sunday over constitutional reform". The point is nott hat that nobody is calling it a coup, many people clearly are, but that it is open to discussion as to whether it was a coup or not. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has called it a coup: Obama calls honduras coup illegal. It is true that they only use the word when discussing other's statements but they could have said things like "Obama calls Honduras ouster 'illegal coup'". They have not retracted that. So your reference to one article where they did not repeat that charge is irrelevant. Homunq (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources are judiciary bodies with jurisdiction, so they cannot declare the legality of the action. They fail reliable sources to be used in the matter according to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a judge to say "its a coup" anymore than we needed one to declare that Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with BLP, so please, enough with the strawman arguments. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is your first and only warning - don't dare make such comments again. It is 100% obvious that there are living individuals, and BLP makes it clear that the policy applies to all articles containing information on living individuals. Participating in a coup is an international crime. There is no negotiation on this. BLP is a policy set down in compliance with the WMF. It is a legal policy. It is the supreme policy. We are not allowed to declare people as committing an illegal act without proper judgment. Your declaration that this is a strawman combined with your above misunderstanding of BLP is trolling. Trolling is not tolerated here. This is your only warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? Here we are on an article about events in Honduras, and someone is making dire threats - insisting that we've violated "the supreme policy" - the Wikipedian constitution, one might say - and implying that we'll be removed by force unless we back down. Keep it up, Tarc, and you might get a free flight to Costa Rica out of this. I hope you wear stylish pajamas. <eleland/talkedits> 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't threaten/intimidate people here. LjL (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I'm not debating the "coup"ness of this event. I was responding to the lame defense posted in the Cristian Science Monitor by a former Minister of Culture (under Maduro) analyzing why it was legal and supplying counter-analysis. Its long past the time to debate this, and its amply argued in the various sections above. To be clear, I think it was a coup, and so you (whom I respect; we both have a long relationship with Honduras) and I disagree on this topic. Lets move on. Rsheptak (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think in all fairness, we are getting to the point where the new government's message is getting out, and the case that Wikipedia should call it a "coup" in our own words is getting more ambiguous. In the first days everyone said it was a coup - both media and actors on the international stage - and nobody said it wasn't a coup except for the coup plotters themselves. Now most everyone says it was a coup, some demur on calling it a coup without calling it not a coup, and a very few voices deny it was a coup. I'm thinking we should probably avoid calling it a coup outright. Right now we have a bizarre schizophrenic approach where the title says "coup" and the article, especially the lede, is written to bend over backwards justifying and defending the... well, I won't say "the coup," I'll say, "the badly botched arrest of the President under highly irregular and at best ambiguously-legal circmustances followed immediately by his completely outrageous and illegal forced exile." <eleland/talkedits> 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from The Associated Press, an hour ago:
"Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added) -- Rico 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press is not a judiciary body with jurisdiction and the above is the promotion of rumors and innuendo in violation of BLP. Your constant promoting of these sources is wearing thin and BLP does apply to talk pages also. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, even though I'm leaning towards agreeing with those who say Wikipedia shouldn't label it as a coup, it would be nice if you could avoid using specious arguments like the above. BLP has no relevance here, for one thing, and even if it did, there are a gajillion reliable sources which can be cited to support the word "coup," so the policy would be satisfied anyway. Furthermore, your insistence that the opinion of "a judiciary body with jurisdiction" is necessary before the word "coup" can be used is nonsensical; by this logic, we couldn't even call Pinochet's ascent to power a "coup," since he died before his trial was completed. Specious claims that BLP forbids negative information, and insanely restrictive interpretations of WP:RS, are both familiar and tiresome arguments, and I wish you would drop them and debate seriously and in good faith. <eleland/talkedits> 07:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't respond on policy issues if you haven't bothered to read the policy: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This policy applies 100%. Furthermore, BLP makes it clear that sources can contain rumor or innuendo, which any declaration of a criminal act before a trial is. Furthermore, your horrible logic is contained here representively: "since he died before his trial was completed." Trials always determine what acts are before. Thus, if it was declared by the judicial body that it was a coup, then we can use the term. It does not say that everything before a trial doesn't count, or there would be no point to having a trial. BLP restricts non-factual information. No journalist, politician, or the rest, has the ability to declare it a coup. Only a judiciary body with jurisdiction. That is a fact. We are legally bound to not declare criminality without a judicial ruling. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated, flailing assertions that BLP somehow proves your point are still nonsense. First, this is not biographical material. Describing the military removal of a President under highly irregular circumstances as a "coup," when it has been unanimously described as a "coup" by the United Nations General Assembly, the Organization of Americans States General Assembly, and every major news agency, is not "rumor or innuendo" or "non-factual information." Saying "x is a coup" is not the same as saying "the people who carried out x are criminals." It would be like saying we can't call 9/11 "a terrorist attack," because that implies that the people who carried it out are terrorists, but they haven't been convicted for it. And the Pinochet analogy still stands, too, because your attempt to refute it is incomprehensible. I can keep coming up with these analogies as long as you want; they all follow logically from your contorted ad hoc interpretation of BLP.

To reiterate: not only is BLP inapplicable, but even if it were applicable, nothing in the policy would forbid us from calling this a "coup." <eleland/talkedits> 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As the WP:WELLKNOWN section of BLP states: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Eample 2 is apposite: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post published this Reuters story an hour ago:
"'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added) -- Rico 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 3, from the Times in Britain:
"Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added) -- Rico 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

-- Rico 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This particular policy quote was saying essentially The Times is more reliable than The Sun, not mmore so than Hn newspapers like La Prensa. As papers like TheSun have not covered this news item I am baffled as to why you have chosen to quote this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to interpret what the policy "essentially" says.

La Prensa is unreliable.

Thanks to the government's media suppression, since the coup, Honduran news organizations are currently only reliable for statements as to their opinion -- but not for statements of fact.

Eleland wrote, "Now most everyone says it was a coup, some demur on calling it a coup without calling it not a coup, and a very few voices deny it was a coup."

That was serious, if true. I had to check it out.

Had I confirmed it, I probably would have had to have immediately dropped my opposition to renaming the article. I'm way more neutral than many, here, are.

Remembering that WP:Reliable sources explicitly names certain reliable news organizations, I reread that part of it to find out which they were.

Then I ran Google News searches to see if I could confirm what Eleland wrote, limiting my searches to those three news organizations.

Then I sorted by date (and time).

What I found -- in all three cases -- is that all three high-quality news organizations, were still simply, unabashedly, referring to the coup as a "coup" -- even though they know the interim government (with the exception of the military's lawyer), and its trumpets, are denying it.

After each news organization, I published my finding here.

The arguments being made, here, against calling the coup a "coup", are WP:OR and so they don't persuade me at all. -- Rico 18:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post, the Times, and the rest are not judiciary bodies so they cannot be reliable sources for criminal acts. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed not in this case; in many cases they make excellent secondary sources for criminal cases, eg the conviction of OJ Simpson or Lord Black, but no criminal conviction has taken place and therefore they cannot be used as secondary sources except for criminal allegations, and we have to be very careful of BLP in such cases. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware of any Wikipedia policy that states that the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain -- as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press -- "cannot be reliable sources for criminal acts," please reference that policy. I need to know that this is more than just your opinion, in order to accept it.
Contradicting Wikipedia policy based on WP:OR is unpersuasive. Anybody can make an argument. It's OR unless cited and, therefore, irrelevant to Wikipedians. -- Rico 18:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried that "In my opinion, rain is wet" or "In my opinion, the sky is blue" would run afoul of the "original research" qualification amongst this bunch. Opinions are fine when they're backed up by credible and sourced facts. But look at what we've had with this article - people dismiss sources as "propaganda" because they're Honduran newspapers (and thus must be in the pocket of the "bad guys", I guess), and claim that using them as sources means you're just saying your opinion...in the meantime, clearly political sources like Counterpunch are used to give "objective" credibility to the view that "no one can doubt that this was a coup". If we're going to talk about what's "unpersuasive" - Zelaya supporters censoring the text of the constitutional articles that are at the core of this dispute doesn't leave me with a feeling that they have a strong argument where the law is concerned. My view that this could reasonably be characterized as a coup was formed in spite of this behavior, not because of it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

External link to Constitution

I thought I remembered at some point there being an external link to the Honduran Constitution ( http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/honduras.html ) but if it was there and got renoved I wasn't able to easily discern from the revision history. It seems like it would be a useful link for an encyclopedia to contain but I wanted to ask what anybody else thought in case there had been some issue about removing it. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has been chaos. Stuff has been removed for blatantly POV reasons (on both sides) as well as for good-faith reasons, and the pace has been too fast to keep up. Please, re-add it, be bold. Homunq (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Zelaya's government by American politicians.

There seems to have been some recent opposition to the official American position in favor of Zelaya; Senator Jim DeMint (1, 2) and Connie Mack (1) are the only ones I've found from reliable sources, but La Prensa claims that five politicians have asked Obama to clarify on evidence that the DEA supposedly has confirming Zelaya was exporting narcotics to the United States (1). I'd like to insert a few excerpts from DeMint and Mack's press releases into the "Questions on motives" section; if there's any opposition to this, please let me know. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as if it belongs in the "international reactions" sub-article, with a one-sentence (maybe two-) summary in the main article. IE, as politicians, their view is not "analysis" but on the other hand it is news in and of itself.Homunq (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Which military units?

The lede says that "military forces" removed Zelaya from office. This is indiscript - and bad history. We need to know which forces exactly were directly engaged in the military coup. Narcosphere, although it is a blog, and therefore not reliable, says that some military units - the fourth and the tenth infantry battalion - are not following orders. In any case there is a need for greater precision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Outrageously slanted presentation of the dispute

I'm not going to complain too much about calling this a coup, because I think Micheletti and company have overreacted to the legal issue here and have allowed the military to play an unwelcome role in politics in a country which has seen far too much of that. This is my opinion.

However, I think it is unreasonable to attempt to portray what's happening in Honduras, whether we call it a coup or not, as one-sidedly as this language does: "The existing constitution explicitly bars changes to some of its clauses, although this is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly.[15]" Irrelevant according to whom? There are quite a few people in Honduras who thought it was very relevant. (Incidentally, note that citation 15 here refers the reader to Counterpunch magazine, which is definitely not a NPOV source.) The wording that was originally here was, according to Google's cache for the page: "Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[12]" (Note that citation 12 here is the actual Constitution, not a lefty political mag itching to make hay out of this for its own reasons.)

Can we please change this back? If the hard-left position must be reflected here, use the Counterpunch citation to support the factual statement that some involved in this controversy think that Article 239 is beside the point because the Constitution doesn't authorize removing the President by force. (And please note, I actually agree with that point of view. I just think it presenting it this way makes those on the other side of this dispute out to be mad undemocratic demons for daring to think that their President should respect the Constitution as written.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way. I personally have edited that very language ("although this is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly.[15]") at least 3 times, and it has been replaced intact. Homunq (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask the person[s] that keep replacing it to come here and discuss it. Is the source cited a reliable one? Does the source opine that it is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly? -- Rico 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, here are the relevant constitutional sections, as translated by Saulo Londono at the following website [78]...his politics are to the right of mine, but unless people think that affects his powers of Spanish translation, I'm going to go with this source:

Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)

Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:

5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;

Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)

Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:

3) Be in possesion of a citizen's legal rights;

Article 239: A citizen who has previously held executive power can not be President or designated to the Presidency. Those that break this provision or propose reform of this provision, as well as those that help directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold and exercise the power of his/her post, and will be banned from holding any future public office for a period of ten years.

Article 244: If need be, the lawful duty of the President of the Republic, or of its substitute, will be presented to the President of the National Congress if in session, and if not to the President of the Supreme Court.

Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic.

Article 278: The orders that tie the powers of the President of the Republic to the Armed Forces, through its Chief, shall be followed and exercised.

Title VII, Chapter 1: (constitutional reform)

Article 373: Constitutional reform can only be declared by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with a 2/3s vote of its members. The decree to be voted on will specify the article or articles to be reformed, and it must be concurred by the subsequent session of Congress by a 2/3s vote before it takes effect.

Article 374: It can not be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirements and prohibitions on who can and can not be President.

Any objections to this being inserted into the article? Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, this is a selective translation. For just one instance, it does not include the part of article 42 where the mechanism for stripping citizenship (court sentence and then published government order) is specified. Homunq (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At last, someone making a relevant criticism. I'm okay with that. Do you have a translation of that part? I'm relying on the Spanish language abilities of others here. Why not add that to what I have above, and then we can put the whole business in the article... Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you say "for just one instance"...I think we need to know what all the "instances" are. I'll gladly concede that the pro-Zelaya side has their own argument for why this is an illegal coup, according to Honduras's own law. But it is relevant to know what the actual law is. Thus far, many editors on here have gone out of their way to cut out any references to actual Honduran law because they seem to have some notion that the law is controlled by the pro-Micheletti side. In other words, they consistently say "Article such-and-such of the Constitution is 'irrelevant' because of such-and-such", rather than allow people to read the letter of the law and make up their own mind. I have no problem with the addition of the point you've just raised, which does not support the pro-Micheletti side, because I believe in the principle of letting people evaluate the evidence. If there are more such points from Honduran law, I encourage you to raise them. But beware those who want to cut out sections of the article because they have a side in this conflict. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a very valid question, which laws are applicable. I like the idea of including the law, and letting the readers decide. However, which law is relevant would be something a court would determine.

I know!

What exactly did the Supreme Court say the referendum -- that hadn't yet taken place -- violated? Is the decision online?

Has anyone invited the Most Interested Person(s), from the that-law-isn't-relevant side, into this discussion? I'm uncomfortable with leaving them out of it.

If Zelaya was legally deposed, we would need a reliable source that actually says that. I see quotes from politicians that claim it was "illegal", but policicians lie.

I found the Honduran military's lawyer's admission fascinating!

The laws I'd most be interested in seeing in the article are the law that authorizes the:

(1) Supreme Court to issue an order to detain the president.

(2) Supreme Court to direct the military to detain the president.

(3) Military to kick the president out of the country.

What kind of a Supreme Court defends itself with PR releases, meets with the OAS, and directs what should be done with referendum materials?

Finally, my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional.

I haven't seen a Supreme Court ruling that states that Zelaya:

(1) Had violated the Constitution by pushing ahead with the unconstitutional referendum. (Was it even a referendum before it was distributed to polling locations?)

(2) Was no longer a citizen.

(3) Was no longer the president.

In the absence of something from a reliable source, what would the worthiness of inclusion be of a section of the Constitution that states that if somebody does X, they lose their citizenship? Putting that into the article seems to argue that Zelaya did X, and so was no longer a citizen, so he couldn't have continued as president. That'd be WP:OR. -- Rico 20:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) and (3) above, they did argue in their original ruling. What Zelaya had already done to promote the referendum violated Article 239, and that same article voids Zelaya's presidency, so that was part of the decision. However, things went so fast after the initial finding that Zelaya had violated Article 239, and the military lawyer's admission reflects that. They knew they were enforcing the Supreme Court's findings, but either had no idea what they were empowered to do about that or decided to do what they wanted to anyway in the absence of any specific directives. In either case, the importance of there being no formal requirements for how to enforce Article 239 looms large. I suspect you'd be looking a long time for any laws formally empowering the court to direct the military to detain the president, and there appear to be some due process requirements which were not observed for taking away a person's citizenship. But what interests me about this crisis was that Zelaya had clearly violated Article 239, but anything the Honduran authorities did to enforce the article were bound to come off as being just as illegal as Zelaya's original action. (2) was not part of the decision, as the constitution does not allow the stripping of citizenship without due process, according to Article 42. But that may have been reserved for some intended future court case, as Zelaya did meet the criteria for stripping of citizenship in that article as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that states that the Supreme Court ruled that Article 239 voided Zelaya's presidency? I haven't seen that. That's pretty important to the debate going on at the Honduras article, and the Honduras side box talk page, on who is the president. Is there any information as to of what effect such a ruling has? Does it mean the president's no longer president? I've read that Honduras had no impeachment process. -- Rico 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing Continuismo

Per requests above on constitution and to clarify the little known constitutional background, added the following subsection.DLH (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The critical issue underlying the removal of President Zelaya is that of ‘’Continuismo’‘, the propensity of Latin America’s autocratic rulers to perpetuate or continue their power. The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. Former Honduran Minister of Culture and lawyer Octavio Sánchez observed: Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. To prevent Continuismo and preserve the democratic rule of law, every Latin American country has implemented a strict presidential term limit, though some allow running again after waiting out a term. To prevent continuismo, Honduras’ Constitution Article 239 prescribes:

"No citizen who 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."

,(emphasis added) Sánchez observed: "Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. . . .Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" . . .as in "no impeachment needed". . . .The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.. . .The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.”

Thanks, that responds quite well to my criticism. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The question in the ballot had nothing to do with reelection. Stop mentioning it.

The question was: "¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente que apruebe una constitución política?"

"Do you agree to put a fourth voting box in the general elections to decide whether to summon a National Constituent Assembly that approves a political constitution?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.7.97 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The question for us is not whether the referendum question had anything to do with reelection, in truth. According to WP:V, our task is to decide whether WP:RS reliable sources have presented this viewpoint, striving to assure that WP:UNDUE undue weight is not given to fringe theories. My own reading of the various cited sources in the article is that on this particular issue, this may be a minority (of world opinion) position but not a fringe theory. The approriate response would be to cite reliable sources that make yor point. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had violated Article 239 of the Constitution on the basis of promoting this initiative clearly demonstrates that this was not a "fringe" position, but the considered opinion of the chief court of the country where this crisis is taking place. This seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to relegate one of the main institutions of Honduras to the status of a "fringe group". That's manifestly unreasonable, and makes it all the more clear this should remain in the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just searched the entire decision. It doesn't mention Artículo 239, reelección, continuismo or continuidad. Correct me if I'm wrong by citing the pages on which you find any of those terms. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules, you're correct about this, as I pointed out elsewhere on this talk page as well. Please see the new bit at the bottom of the talk page I'm about to add, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't; you misunderstand the basis of that ruling. The court ruled that any attempt to call a constitutional convention automatically was an attempt to ammend article 239, not that Zelaya was trying to modify the article directly to extend his term. To accept the point of view that the referendum was about term limits it to accept the propaganda of the coup leaders and their supporting newspapers. That's how it entered english language sources, from reading the Honduran press. Zelaya made clear statements that he was not seeking re-election. Rsheptak (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it isnt explicitly mentioned in the referendum question many people have for months being sayng that this is Mel perpetuating himself in power, the so-called continuismo. Of course many were worried not merely about this but about Mel's stated intention to change the constitution in many ways, as Chavez already has in Venezuela. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the propaganda. Zelaya never said that, and explicitly said several times it wasn't so, that he was looking forward to retiring. Rsheptak (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus here. The fact that the court ruled against the referendum question merits our mentioning it in this article, regardless of whether what Rsheptak said is true. The court ruled against it, the court's ruling precipitated this crisis...on what grounds would you exclude this information, whether it specifically mentions holding a presidential election or not? Plus, is it unreasonable to include in this article criticism on the ground of Zelaya's sudden discovery that Honduras needed to have this referendum in the last few months of his presidency? How is it that we can claim that Micheletti is leading a coup, despite the fact that the coup leaders claim they will give up power with the next presidential election in November, but could never consider the counterclaim, that Zelaya intended to stay in office despite his claims that this was far from his intention to do so? For me, the only thing that's relevant here is that major parties to this dispute believe this was an attempt by Zelaya to remain in office. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said you shouldn't mention the Supreme Court decision. Its a fact and should be mentioned, and their basing it on article 239 of the constitution in part is worth mentioning as well, but to tie that to the speculation that Zelaya wanted to stay in office is not supported by the legal documents. Its speculation by the coup supporters. I understand you don't think its a coup and you're entitled to an opinion, but the article needs to avoid opinions, be NPOV and that's what I'm advocating. Rsheptak (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court decision doesn't mention Article 239. Please let me know if I missed something. Jules Siegel (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't challenge the "coup" characterization. Just so we're clear on that. Also, I think your contention that only the coup supporters think Zelaya wanted to extend his term of office is utterly naive. If you want to associate me with an opinion, that's the opinion. Note that the Toronto Star thinks so too - it condemned the coup (and they called it a coup in the editorial), but also remarked that Zelaya was utterly divisive for having provoked the coup. [79] Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The intent may not be completely explicit. It's not hard to understand why Zelaya would want to make this vote as innocent-looking as possible and deny his true intent. However, see the following references: [80] "Chavez admits that they are fighting for continuismo [Zelaya continuing in power]", and also "In addition, different sectors, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so. [emphasis added] [81] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") --24.72.222.172 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read both references you cite and do not find the phrases you mention, except for the headline in one of them, which is not supported by the text. Perhaps I missed something. If so, I'll appreciate specific reference to the terms you mention. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first reference is to elheraldo.hn, which does paraphrase Chavez' words. I don't have a more original source, but unless this is a complete fabrication, there is not really any other way to read it. The article at laht.com has the exact quote above, except for my editorial clarification on what "continuismo" means, and that the ruling party is Zelaya's own party. It can be found in paragraphs 8 and 9, I believe, or close thereabouts. I just put in the headline for context. --Almarco (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blockade?

What's up with this?

"While no Honduran had yet died, Archbishop Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez warned “We think that a return to the country at the moment could provoke a bloodbath," reading a message from the country's Bishop's Conference, while Zelaya's main backer Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would suspend key shipments of oil to Honduras.[100] Historically, a blockade is considered an Act of War.[101]"

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a blockade, in the sense of one country's military forces disallowing others to trade with another country. There's lots of countries individually agreeing to cut off Honduras under the current circumstances from trade, but that's called a "trade sanction", not a "blockade". Citation 100 in the above quote ill-advisedly uses the word blockade - that's the only reason for this passage, as far as I can see. Though Chávez has blustered about military intervention in this case, we have no evidence that he's blockading anything, and suspending oil shipments does not constitute a blockade. This should be stricken from the article, in my view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, "while no Honduran has yet died" is stated as fact when there have been reliable reports of deaths as early as 30 June. See, e.g., 2 dead, 60 injured in Honduras anti-coup protests. I'd edit it but the current state of edit war/vandalism isn't worth the effort. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope people feel more comfortable posting facts on here at some point. Maybe after the immediate controversy dies down, it'll be safe for people to soberly report those facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would some administrator get over to the edit warring noticeboard and do something about 166.204.226.8?

I added a notice.

The IP is causing too many editors too much work reverting edits identified as vandalism by at least two editors.[82][83]

Look at this:

1. 21:08, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:17, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
3. 21:21, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:29, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
5. 21:32, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
6. 21:34, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
7. 21:38, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
8. 21:40, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
9. 21:44, 4 July 2009 (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")

If any other editor has any opinion, feel free to chime in, here

-- Rico 22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'etat, "A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government" It would not be a coup, because it was constitutional and the president was no longer legitimate in the eyes of the Honduran Constitution, and the government is still in place with the same constitution. Calling it a coup would be like saying impeaching the US President would be a coup. The name should be changed to something more neutral like "2009 Honduran political crisis". --Conor Fallon (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.[84][85]

WP:RS says 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'"

Reliable sources like The New York Times[86], Washington Post[87], the Times in Britain,[88] The Associated Press[89], Reuters[90], the Wall Street Journal[91] all call it a "coup". The United Nations[92] and the Organization of American States[93] both call it a "coup".
Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not well-represented in the free press, nor in the world.
"Coup" is the most widely recognized name for what happened. -- Rico -- Rico 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup is POV and so is Impeachment, and per wiki guidelines, it has to be NPOV, so that we need a NPOV name, media tends to sensationalize things.--Conor Fallon (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That "Coup is POV and so is Impeachment," and "media tends to sensationalize things," is your own personal argument. In the absence of a specific referral to a policy or guideline, I can't accept it as anything more than WP:OR. As far as the media goes, here is what Wikipedia:Reliable sources has to say:

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

-- Rico 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying all along; the current name is a blatant POV violation and needs to be changed to something neutral re the dispute asap; otherwise we just say we buy into version of events, that held by Mel and the international community. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.

Edward Luttwak

-- Rico 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For my part, to be NPOV, this community ought to be able to accept that rushing to judgment with incomplete facts -- unless I am missing something, none of the aforementioned RS have done anything substantive to fact check there loose use of the term coup --- is reckless and irresponsible, even if popular; I refer again to the reporting by The Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/honduras/ which is fully sourced and is not OR (my apologies for not making a cleaner link). VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

I've been reading through recent posts to the Miami Herald, and one article I've found refers to Hillary Clinton referring to the situation in Honduras as something which "evolved into a coup" [94]. She's also not insisting on Zelaya's return to power, but rather upon Honduras's return to democracy. This is pretty much what I think, on both counts. Micheletti could have made this about enforcing the law, as Zelaya did break that law - but he's clearly gone beyond what the law allows to do so. Bringing back Zelaya, however, would make violating the Constitution okay - whereas having new elections could restore the constitutional order under some other person (who could even share Zelaya's views about social equality...that person simply could not be Zelaya himself.) Anyway, I wonder if we should report on the page about Clinton's view that these events "evolved into a coup". Or is the Secretary of State of the U.S. also a "fringe" figure? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm impressed that you're already using acronyms like NPOV, RS and OR. Your contributions history, which only includes edits of this talk page, only goes back two days and you're already familiar with NPOV, RS and OR. And you've already voted in the Votes subsection.

I see the Miami Herald calls its series of articles "COUP IN HONDURAS". -- Rico 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have been using Wikepedia for a very long time; I am new to contributing, at least as a registered user. I am somewhat puzzled by some people's need to confront others personally, an inference I am drawing from the repeated back and forth discussion between a few of you, and now I seem to be drawing personal attention. How flattering. I concede that coup is used copiously. That point has been hammered home. My argument(s) stand on their own merits, or depending on POV, lack thereof. I think its exciting, personally, to be an active participant in discussion. Am trying to learn the rules, though to be honest, they really depend on a cooperative effort, and dare I say "common sense", both of which appear to be sometimes lacking. But its all cool.VaChiliman (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman

Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal". -- Rico 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can show us rs's till you are blue in the face to support your position that some RSs use coup but you cannot prove that all RSs call it a coup even when you discount those who disagree as biased or fringe or whatever. Unless all RSs available support coup, which they clearly do not, using the word coup in the title is POV. This isnt about the coup its about our POV policy and the fact that certain users ignore it. Rico, dont bite the newbies, with your great and superior wikipedia experience you should know that already. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a question for the editors -- are sources like the ABN considered a RS? Is this not a political organization? I see it referenced many times, and I am wondering if this is Wikipedia, or if there has been a coup perpetrated on this article? The day by day synopsis is filthy with anti-government bias.VaChiliman (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious question. As a user, I expect not to be led into propoganda, which I can do all on my own, competently, without the help of Wikepedia editors/contributors. Looking at the list of citations, and placing them in context (even unreliable sources can be truthful some of the time), can someone do some much needed housekeeping. As a side note, some of the citations seem more thorough than others -- I have to believe that Wikipedia has standards in this regard, and that conforming to them is at least as important as discounting my "vote".VaChiliman (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN Currently supressed in Honduras? (Media War section)

I have added a "{disputed}" tag to the media section. The first sentence expresses that the some media broadcasts are currently supressed in Honduras, specifically talks about CNN en Espanol and Telesur being currently supressed as well as other media outlets like Diario Tiempo. While I read the original reports that the new authorities shut-down media broadasting in the first hours of the event, is this still true? I can downstream video streams from a cable tv box in Honduras and can see Cnn en espanol for a fact, although this is not encyclopedic does raise to me the question that if the statement should be there and/or is misleading the reader into a situation that is not true. Can't verify TeleSur, since the cable tv stream source which I received didn't have it, even before the politial unrest.

Sources given around these statements refer to the first events and days, but statements are placed as currently happening. Shouldn't it be easy to independently verify if CNN en espanol, Telesur and aspects of diario Tiempo and other are CURRENTLY supressed in Honduras? Wikihonduras (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the first paragraph. Do you still dispute the accuracy of the section? -- Rico 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I still do. The question in hand is still if CNN en espanol continues to be suppressed or not. I have no issue with the source and statement from the Miami Herald. I know this happened in when the Herald reported. I can tell you that I can watch CNN en espanol directly from a cable tv in Honduras through my Slingbox, but I can't use this as a source. But still it shouldn't be difficult to verify if right now people in Honduras can watch CNN en espanol or Telesur. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be reworded as "CNN and Telesur were initially shutdown" ? Now this only if we can independently verify that they are now permitted to broadcast. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many tv cable providers in Honduras and CNN is available in many, some including mine have unquestionably removed telesur though it is available as a stream via internet. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Squeakbox. Maybe it's just my incorrect interpretation, but when you read the section it would seem to imply that Telesur and CNN were and continue to be shut. If one cable company has Telesur, but other doesn't might be more a representation of the personal allegiance of the owners than a executive order to stop broadcasting. My slingbox is connected to cable box of one of the largest if not the largest cable operaton in Honduras and could watch the same the owner of the box could watch, which included CNN. But again I couldn't use that as a proof, but at least gave me the opening for the discussion.

Maybe some rewording to avoid readers understand the same way I did? Wikihonduras (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was only CNN en Español, not CNN International or CNN USA that were shut down along with TeleSUR. My sources report that the La Lima cable system did remove both CNN en Español and TeleSUR earlier this week. Rsheptak (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While I was responding to this section earlier Micheletti was talking on CNN en español and the interviewer asked him about people writing to their cnn webpage from Honduras saying that people were complaining that they were unable to get the signal of CNN en español. Micheletti said he was able to recieve the show and denied that the government were suppressing this. Which is perfectly credible, the only people able to do this are the many cable providers and that some are blocking even cnn en español is perfectly credible, just as it isnt credible that nobody in the country is getting cnn en español. CNN even reported people saying that cnn en español only cut out when it was giving pro-Mel coverage and came back again when it was pro-Micheletti which I find a bit unlikely, maybe in a society like China but not in Honduras. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any recent media status updates from reputable news sources? If so, we should use such material to update this section. The sources referenced, however, are currently good solid sources reflecting the reporting at the time those articles were written last week. I think we can all probably agree that the sources there should remain, the language should be re-worked to reflect the current situation, and new up-to-date source should be used as well. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This Wall Street Journal article is the most recent reported material I found regarding the current media situation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124658463338890161.html --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal posted this article several minutes ago, and it also mentions the media situation, albeit briefly: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124676841557395603.html --64.142.82.29 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 166.214.141.133

Meh, I can't be bothered to try reverting these edits fast as lightning in order not to be overridden by an edit conflict and have to do it all over. But clearly, this user is making biased edits disregarding everything that was said on this talk page, so that should be reverted. Wasn't this article semi-protected anyway? --LjL (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been blocked (according to a notice on the talk page). Perhaps the semi-protection expired? Is there a process for reapplying? Given the two recent anonymous vandalisms, it might be appropriate. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is, and I just followed it seconds before you sent that message... --LjL (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection has been restored. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Corrections to text of article.

The Organization of American States suspended Honduras on Saturday (July 4) after the caretaker government refused to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya.[10]

I am fairly certain from any number of references that the interim government pre-empted this move by pulling out of the OAS. Additional, I don't understand the use of "caretaker" in this context. Would it be NPOV to refer to the Ford administration as a creataker government succeeding Nixon? Anyway, could this sentence be reworked by the contributor/editor?VaChiliman (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Caretaker government" sounds way POV to me, in a diminishing kind of a way. Is that what the OAS called it? I've seen the term "interim government" used in reliable sources. -- Rico 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interim is a fine characterization, though I would point out that it's not Micheletti's people who would doubt that "caretaker" applies - it's their position that new elections will be held, so that would mean Micheletti views himself as a caretaker. It's Zelaya's people that might complain about this designation because many of them doubt these elections will actually be held. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice documentation on Zelaya action

This source [95] appears to have all the Supreme Court's documentation on its action regarding Zelaya. My Spanish is middling at best, so someone should look at this and confirm what I think I see here.

It seems to me what we do have here is documentation of how the case against Zelaya was first brought, clear identification that the "fourth box" referendum question was the cause of the action and that the court considered it common knowledge that Zelaya meant to use this initiative to extend his power (at least, that's what I thought I read - though an appeal to "common knowledge" isn't really the source of a firm case against someone.)

What we don't have here, it appears to me, is any information on what the court thought should happen next, how the armed forces was supposed to behave, or how Zelaya was to be brought to an actual trial as opposed to these documents being the basis of a summary judgment against him.

As I said, I'm getting this on the basis of my high-school Spanish. Can someone else help me out to see if I have it right? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This one?:

Con fecha 16 de junio de 2009, la Corte de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo, con jurisdicción a nivel nacional, por unanimidad de votos, en nombre del Estado de Honduras resolvió declarar inadmisible la acción de amparo interpuesta por el Abogado Rene Velasquez Diaz, a favor del Presidente Constitucional de la Republica, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, contra actuaciones del Juzgado de Letras de lo Contencioso Administrativo de fechas 27 y 29 de mayo de 2009, actuando en su caracter de representante privado del ciudadano Presidente, en sustitución de la Procuradora General de la Republica, Representante General del Estado, Abogada Rosa America de Galo.

-- Rico 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get why that extract is important - it says that the appeals court invalidated a lower court ruling, does it not?

Another observation... in the documentation, there also appears to be some considerable space devoted to the Legislature having the right (or the Supreme Electoral Tribunal) to call referenda, as opposed to the Executive having that right. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this say, anyone?

CONSIDERANDO: Que es de público y notorio

conocimiento que el ciudadano JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, ha dejado de ostentar la condición de Presidente Constitucional de la República, caracter por el cual fue presentado el presente Requerimiento Fiscal ante este Supremo Tribunal de Justicia, para que se le siguiese el procedimiento establecido en la normativa procesal penal que regula el enjuiciamiento

criminal funcionarios del estado.

This is the part of the documentation I'm getting "common knowledge" from. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox over consensus, again

SqueakBox moved the article, in the absence of consensus, while we were still discussing it -- unilaterally declaring that the title was POV, again!
I consider that incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.
BOOM, SqueakBox substituted his/her own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that! Before the article was moved to coup, there was a lot of discussion and then consensus to call it a coup.
Since then we're discussing it, and then bam -- twice! Same user! WTF?
The Move discussion was still going on, and the RfC was still current!
I can't even believe this!
Will somebody move it back, until we've collectively made a decision, please? -- Rico 18:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mean back to the POV title that many people do not want? Your claim that I defy consensus is a claim, the reality is many people oppose this title and we have been discussing it for days with very little new input., Crisis is a NPOV term that includes all points of view, NPOV demands we cannot exclude a major point of view in the title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This may seem odd, for me to weigh in on this dispute contrary to my own sense of what is "correct" in this case, but procedurely, without knowing who the gatekeepers are here, and not wanting to spend a lot of time recreating the history of this article, I do find myself agreeing with Rico, I think. Since all votes apparently are not equal -- WP policy cited by Rico -- I cannot say who is right regarding the Name dispute -- it looks mixed to me, and depending on time of day, seems to drift, and if, say, the pro "crisis" name group is made up of people like me (what am I worth, anyway, 10%, 3/5?), the majority may fall slightly one way or the other. Consensus seems unlikely. This then distills to a Honduran Standoff (I could not resist), two governments, two POV claiming to prevail, which seems curiously alligned with reality. In dispute, I don't see how the last change could have been made. At this moment, we have a former President (or a current President depending on POV), embarking for a return home, and the airports are closed -- as here, what happens? Does the plane land, or crash? Do the soldiers shoot? Is there bloodshed? I disagree with Rico on the appropriate name, but I also believe in process. And, unlike the Honduran Constitution, I am unaware of any loopholes that justify reverting the title back unilaterally. (As if this were a life and death matter.) VaChiliman (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! "3/5" I love that! I've got tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. I've been laughing for about ten minutes, now. -- Rico 20:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Those that admire your hubris (a group of one?) should also enjoy what is posted on your talk page, right column, under "Beliefs" This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia. I try to be civil, respectful, consistent, transparent, and authentic -- even when I am in disagreement. The discussion over the Name of the article has generally been good, excepting your more demeaning contributions, too many to enumerate. The reference below to the Holocaust is disrespectful and reprehensible on so many levels, you really ought to redact it -- I'd be embarassed to sign my name to it. VaChiliman (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox; crisis is a neutral term and a consensus isn't likely to be reached on the use of "coup d'etat", due to the contentious nature of the issue. Honestly, a semantics war is pointless. -Falcon8765 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are "many people" that deny the Holocaust -- but we have an article called, "The Holocaust". Should a more "neutral" name be chosen? Is "Holocaust", "POV", because "many people" claim there was no Holocaust?

Can I use the word "Holocaust" here, or does that violate BLP? Some of these Holocaust-perpetrators are still alive. Has the World Court found them guilty? I bet they'd deny perpetrating a "Holocaust".

There are two viewpoints. Why are we using this POV name? Shouldn't it be, "1930s - 1940s German Political Crisis," or "1930s - 1940s German Religious Crisis"? -- Rico 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people have no respect whatsoever for POV. Shame on you. Comparing the events to the holocaust is completely out of order and the person should be blocked, just stop it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the Supreme Court's material on prosecuting Zelaya on the page for this topic as an "external link". Could those of you who speak Spanish please look it over and see what those on the court thought they were doing during this thing, whether we call it a coup or not? What I understand of this stuff makes it look like this was not a conspiracy of top-hatted elitists who, whilst twirling their handlebar mustaches and cackling evilly, plotted to rob the people of their rights, but an insistence that the president not call a referendum, as expressly forbidden by the constitution of Honduras. My problem, as I've said numerous times, is not calling it a coup, but one-sidedly portraying Zelaya's side as saintly and democratic, rather than as involving a direct violation of Article 239 of the constitution. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And 17 more laws, at that matter... And, btw, people, while Honduras is a democracy, well, Wikipedia isn't. Just remember that. So, no, I'm not lying, and, no, polls are not binding here. Yeah, check it out WP:DEMOCRACY. Anyway, yes, I think everyone will be at consensus that "crisis" is NPOV, as it doesn't mean it's A) a coup d'etat (which a good group is against) or B) not a coup d'etat (which a good group is against, too). So, "crisis" describes better what this is, at it gives the umbrella for the events before the coup and after. Or, should we crop this article just for the events on that dreaded sunday? Comparing the there-is-no-holocaust or the flat earth theory to consensus over something that's HAPPENING, so we don't have all the facts, it's just... irrespectful? Agree with SqueakBox, this article's current name is just POV. It might be that it will later be NPOV, or that it will later will cease to be correct anywhere, but, meanwhile, "crisis" suits it much better. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on this page seems to lean more towards crisis, it is you thank keeps changing it against the consensus --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Press Release Radio Globo Honduras

Cesium 133 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Honduran_crisis&diff=300466351&oldid=300464717 removed] this part of the text saying it is no neutral.

According to a press release published on the website of Radio Globo Honduras, they suffered intimidation and violations of their freedom of expression because the radio's building was surrounded by military forces, and the employees were only allowed to enter the building to work after negotiation. It was said that at 6 PM on Monday 28 a group of 60 soldiers assaulted the physical installation of the radio station, took the radio off the air and the employees, including Alejandro Villatoro.

That is not me who is saying that. The press release was possible to see in Radio Globo Honduras until 30 june, now it is not possible to see, they, possibly Radio Globo, removed the two press release that were there. Do you want me to write here the press release for you to see everything? It is in spanish. So, lets see:

CONTRA LA LIBERTAD DE EXPRESION FUERZAS ARMADAS DE HONDURAS SE TOMAN INSTALACIONES DE RADIO GLOBO

Señores Corte Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos Costa Rica.

Señores

La presente lleva además de el saludo, denunciar lo siguiente:

La Gerencia General de Radio Globo, mi denuncia ante ustedes que, después de las acciones de hecho que se dieron que concluyo con deponer al presidente Manuel Zelaya Rosales, se inicio una campaña de intimidación en contra de los medios de comunicación independientes, entre ellos, esta Casa de Radio que fue objeto de un atentado.

Desde las seis de la mañana cuando nos presentamos a nuestras labores, el edificio principal, ubicado en el Bulevar Morazan estaba militarizado, después de algunas negociaciones nos permitieron el ingreso.

Iniciamos nuestra labor informativa, dentro de los parámetros establecidos por las normas legales y en apego a la libertad de expresión y lo que nuestra conciencia nos indica.

Fueron varios los intentos que hicieron los militares por penetrar hasta el edificio de donde trasmitíamos a Honduras y al mundo lo que realmente sucedía en el país. A las seis de la tarde, un comando militar integrado por unos sesenta elementos del ejercito, tomaron por asalto las instalaciones físicas de la radio, nos sacaron del aire y los compañeros que en ese momento se encontraban en el establecimiento ( Alejandro Villatoro, propietario, los periodistas Lidieth Diaz, Rony Martinez, los operadores Franklin Mejia y Orlando Villatoro) fueron objetos de amenazas a muerte, golpes e intimidaciones. En el caso de Alejandro Villatoro es diputado suplente y no respetaron tal condición.

En el caso particular, de David Ellner Romero existía orden de captura razón por la cual logre escapar lanzándose al vacio desde un tercer piso del edifico que alberga la radio, como producto del golpe (unos 25 metros de altura)tengo fracturo en un hombros, costillas, y otros golpe.

Al operador Franklin Mejia, quien es menor de edad, fue golpeado, y en una actitud discriminativa le gritaban ( negro hijo de....te vamos a matar si no nos dices desde donde estas trasmitiendo y otras ofensas denigrantes a la condición humana).

Señores: El fondo de todo este atentado fue, y es, para acallar a la única emisora en Honduras que trasmitía los sucesos tal como se dieron. En la actualidad, y después de negociaciones con los militares, la radio reabrió sus operaciones pero bajo una serie de condiciones que limitan la libertad de expresión en el país.

Bajo este marco conceptual es que recurrimos a ustedes a interponer la formal denuncia para que dentro de las facultades que ustedes tienen, proceda de inmediato hacer una investigación del caso.

Alejandro Villatoro Gerente Propietario Radio Globo

Teléfonos Radio Globo

The WSJ bases his news on this press release and omits information that I think is important to stay in the article. I would like to know the opinion of Cesium 133 about the press release.--Ferreira^talk 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

President's plane diverted to El Salvador

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124676841557395603.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

"Honduras' civil aviation director said Mr. Zelaya's plane was being redirected to El Salvador." Jabrwock (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Move warring?

See also: Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état § Move discussion

The move log shows a series of moves today, back and forth between 2009 Honduran crisis and 2009 Honduran coup d'état. (User:Mewulwe twice restored the 'coup d'état' title but left no message on Talk). Has there been a consensus on the page title? If the move warring continues, an admin should use protection to stop it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a coup, so we should as well. Just about the only one who does not understand this is squeakbox, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, some RS's say it is a coup and others dont, and NPOV demands we be neutral, many agree with me and you have no evidence all RSs call it a coup. Read the NPOV article and stop attackinjg me (this user has a history of attacking me for no reason). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't attack you, please spare us your typical persecution complex. What it is is that you have a history of pushing your own POV (here, Virgin Killer, Jimmy Wales) and edit warring against broad consensus. Many more sources use "coup" than anything else. Reality check. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have evidence that Reliable sources call it a coup, but first let's determine what reliable sources are.

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

• The Washington Post published this Reuters story:
  "'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added)
• July 3, from the Times in Britain:
  "Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added)
• This is from The Associated Press:
  "Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added)

Reliable sources like The New York Times[96], Washington Post[97], the Times in Britain,[98] The Associated Press[99], Reuters[100], and the Wall Street Journal[101] all call it a "coup".

Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal".

The United Nations[102] and the Organization of American States[103] both call it a "coup".

Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are disproportionally well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not represented in the free press. In the world, it's just a fringe opinion.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

"Coup" is the only name "easily recognizable by English speakers." "Crisis" is "ambiguous". -- Rico 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with several assertions made here. First, that "Coup" is the only name easily recognizable by English speakers. That statement is absurd, and unworthy of argument. Second, that "crisis" is ambiguous. The proposed nuetral alternative is "constitutional crisis", which aptly and accurately encompasses the reality of the situation. One could easily argue, as some here have, that "coup", though popularly used by the majority of RS, is not appropriate here, because 1) it introduces unnecessary bias, and thus 2) prejudices objective analysis of the facts known at this time; moreover, from most accounts, it appears that Hondurans themselves do not view what took place was a "coup". "Coup" may not be ambiguous, just plain wrong. Hondurans with access to social networking sites -- many via cell communication -- are registering their opinion that Honduran democracy is being assaulted by misinformation and failure to get their story (the voice of the people) out http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=97987259231. Regardless of personal opinion, NPOV standards are not being met by keeping "coup" in the name, and the disrespect for what many Hondurans consider to be, and value as, a constitutional process, is dismissed capriciously. No number of insults alters the facts, yet to be determined. Last, that contributors to this discussion who prefer the NPOV "constitutional crisis" over the politically non-nuetral "coup" are somehow in favor of, or proponents of, a "coup", is at best presumptive. If one were to poll the group here, I doubt that very many would favor coup d'etat as a political solution. I, for one, am not pro-"coup". If you want to count me as anti-marxist, fair enough, though its not the issue here, is it? Would it be correct to assume that proponents of using "coup" in the article name have a particular ideology that blinds them? Of course not. It is about what Wikipedia is, and isn't, that is at the core of the dispute. VaChiliman (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME states -- right up in its nutshell box -- "Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers."

That's the first sentence in this official English Wikipedia policy.

All of the reliable sources -- that I have seen (WP, Times, AP, NYT, Reuters, BBC, WSJ, etc.) -- are simply and regularly calling the coup a "coup".

That is what makes "coup", "easily recognizable by English speakers."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

We must base the article "on third-party sources" -- "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Editors arguing that "coup" is POV (and therefore violates NPOV), base their argument on the fact that there are people that reject that what happened was a "coup".

They contend that using the word "coup" "takes sides," or is "not neutral." Their argument is pure, because we say it is. OR is nothing on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia considers the people in Honduras, actors in this event, just like the Honduras Supreme Court.

They are not reliable sources.

Reliable third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy dismiss the contention that what happened was not a coup, and go right on unabashedly referring to it as "the coup."

WP:NAME states -- right up in its nutshell box -- "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous."

"Constitutional crisis" is not unambiguously about the coup.

"Constitutional crisis" could refer to a lot of things.

The 2009 Honduran coup d'état article is about the coup. -- Rico 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for "respectfully" writing that my "statement is absurd, and unworthy". -- Rico 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reality is this is disputed and wikipedia shouldn't take sides; you appear to know very little about the article content; as for your making up me stalking QG who never implied such rubbish, well that makes for a bad faith user, doubtless pursuing a grudge since the VK argument. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I "pursue a grudge" over an issue in which you lost, and overwhelmingly at that? :) That makes no sense at all, squeak. Bad faith here is moving an article name against consensus, but now that that's taken care of, maybe some editing can take place. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting a smiley face after a slam doesn't make it less of a slam. Play nice, people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have move protected the article as it has been moved multiple times, a consensus had previously been formed as linked above and this is clearly contentious. This will ensure stability for readers and editors whilst this is debated again. Once that happened and if the consensus has changed someone can request myself or another admin to move it. It should probably remain move protected at that point. I also suggest posting this on Wikipedia:Requested_moves to canvas wider opinion if resolution can't be achieved here. Mfield (Oi!) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, please note that the article has already been put on the Requested moves list, and and RFC been asked about it, but meanwhile it has been moved - I think - twice regardless, unfortunately. --LjL (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the RfC as I was posting that. Given the number of times it has been moved, it can stay protected and be moved by an admin if consensus ever changes. There's no reason to leave it open to being moved unliaterally or repeatedly. Mfield (Oi!) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying I don't agree with that, merely pointing it out. --LjL (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unequivocally a (political) crisis, while few objective observers consider it a coup. This should be a no brainer. Having coup in the article title is inherently biased and violated NPOV in several ways. --NEMT (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A coup invariably causes a crisis, yes. Many objective sources refer to it as a coup, as noted in this very section. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And this should absolutely be mentioned in the article and in the opening but not in the title itself. This isnt about whether it is a coup or not, it is about our NPOV policy and the fact that there is a significant verifiable view within Hondurs that this is not a coup, removing the word coup from the title does not mean we are saying it isnt a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1) "reliable sources" means the most reliable sources. And on that count some preference should be given the MOST INFORMED sources. In this case that means Honduran sources, as these sources would know the culture, conventions, and background, in addition to the best first hand access. 2) a number of major "1st world" media sources are nonetheless studiously avoiding "coup d'etat". For example, see this Canadian Broadcasting Corp story where "coup" only appears in a quote ("a leftist Nicaraguan priest ... condemned Zelaya's ouster as a coup d'état.")Bdell555 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

NEMT: as everybody knows, it's a crisis happened before the forced ejection of the president which is the center of our current debate. Bdel1555: your first statement is loaded. Our problem is whether the ejection is an exercise of constitutional powers (as in, e.g., 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). Maybe other things in constitutional law would have finer points that needs to take into context "the culture, conventions, and background," the removal of a head of state and head of government is something supposed to be very clear in a country with a written constitution. This is why I said on WP:AN/I that I wouldn't mind keeping "constitutional crisis" if the Honduran constitution, on a literal reading, did give the Honduran supreme court to vacate the seat of the president-- but what I read from here indicated the supreme court jumped to the conclusion.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia editors should avoid trying to become experts in constitutional law when naming an article. A determination on whether an act was constitutional should not have to be made in order to name an article. To say this event was a coup implies it is unconstitutional. The crux of the debate over the 'coup' is whether it was constitutional or not, for Wikipedia to weigh in on one side of this debate would be POV. Given that the debate is about constitutionality, the only way the term coup could be NPOV is if it did not imply a lack constitutionality, am I wrong in assuming it does? --74.44.150.159 (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline section and creating framework for NPOV

The timeline (aka Developments) should be at the very beginning. I submit the entire article should be presented only as a timeline of events which would go a long way to keep it NPOV. The the readers can decided what this was coupe, political crisis, constitutional crisis, Honduran form of impeachment when the Constitution has no such provisions, like in the US.

But the timeline clearly needs to start before 6/28. In fact, the current article already has some events prior, fo one example:

"On Saturday June 25, the Honduran Attorney General issued an arrest warrant against Zelaya.[33] On June 26, 2009, after an extended secret investigation, the Honduran Supreme Court unanimously issued a sealed order for the capture of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales for “acting against the government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power,” and detention at his home in the Tres Caminos area of Tegucigalpa.[34]"

And the whole thing about zelaya going with supporters to get the ballots that were locked up per SC order needs to be in there.

Timeline only format.69.250.186.142 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Socialism Comes to the Honduran Banana Republic

This source is now cited 6 times, more than any other source. It not only seems extremely biased, it is also simply inaccurate in reference to PCM-05-2009 - not only has this decree been published, as seen in the link, but it clearly refers to a "consultation" on June 28th, not a referendum. I am removing the material that references this source as a temporary measure; I myself promise to replace any facts which are not contradicted by other sources. Here's the material:

Honduras' constitutional crisis began on November 11, 2008, when Zelaya announced he was seeking a fourth ballot box to be installed at polling places on November 29, 2009 (alongside presidential, congressional and local elections) on holding a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution and allow him to run for reelection. Then on March 24, 2009, Zelaya issued executive decree PCM-05-2009 for the National Statistical Institute to hold the national referendum by June 28, 2009. Zelaya has refused to publish the full text of PCM-05-2009.

With congressional majority, President of Honduras can amend the constitution without any referendum. However, eight articles can't be amended. These include term limits, system of government that is permitted, and process of presidential succession.

Because president can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, Zelaya's true intention appeared to be extending his rule. Honduran political analyst Juan Ramon Martinez has argued that Zelaya is attempting to discredit democracy, "There appears to be a set of tactics aimed at discrediting institutions... he has repeated on several occasions that democratic institutions are worthless and that democracy has not helped at all".

Zelaya refused to give money to the National Electoral Tribunal and the National Persons Registry, which oversee elections in Honduras. It is believed that the reason was to financially asphyxiate the electoral process.

Immediately after I created this section, some of this material was added to the LEDE (!) by User:Allbertos(contributions), who is also the person who added it to the section. This was reverted without my intervention. This user is now at 2rr and counting.

Separately, I am going to have to break my own promise, I cannot do a full job evaluating the above. Can somebody else evaluate the non-italic material above. If it is not in accordance with WP policy, put it in italics and if not, put it back in the article. NOT Albertos. Homunq (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On further evaluation, I found a second serious factual error relating to PCM-05-2009. According to the Attorney General's arrest warrant, that PCM was totally replaced and left without validity by PCM-19-2009. So the whole discussion is moot. I'd say that level of factual error makes this particular document pretty much totally unreliable for analysis, since such analysis is based on errors of fact. So I'm not evaluating the above material any further. Homunq (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald article about Zelaya's referendum

Is the Miami Herald a credible source? If so, what do people think of this? This is an article which describes Zelaya as "pushing ahead" with a "divisive vote" (on the referendum), despite the opposition of the presidential candidate in the November elections from his own party, Elvin Santos, who stated that the referendum would lack credibility because the people who would count the votes would be members of Zelaya's government rather than an independent electoral tribunal. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Zelaya's "democratic" credentials. To my knowledge, Santos is not involved with the Micheletti government. Would his opinion count for something? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald has a clear bias, as many sources we might draw on here, but it is still considered an RS on the facts. What you appear to be asking here is if it is an RS or even in itself notable for its opinions; the answers are: no (there's no such thing as an RS for opinions) and: IMO not in itself, though IMO it represents well the opinion of conservative Estadounidenses, whose general opinions on this matter are IMO notable but not overly so (meriting 1-3 sentences total in the article.) Homunq (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Homunq...I'd settle for 1-3 sentences.  :) What about the comments of Santos, though. I would think those should count for plenty more sentences than that, though? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, this article isn't an opinion article. It's documenting that Zelaya's actions are dividing his own Liberal Party (a factual assertion, since he, Santos and Micheletti are all from the same party). Micheletti's actions might be equally divisive, but as far as I know, Santos is not associated with the coup, and it appears to me that he's representing a different Honduran viewpoint, which is critical of Zelaya's actions. I'm wondering if I have that right as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just listening to Santos on CNN-Spanish and IMHO he's even more of a fool than your average politician. Or not, but he was at least saying wildly foolish and contradictory things to try to avoid taking any sides on the coup, which is basically impossible to do. Anyway, as to your question... I'd say that the division in the party is well-documented. And I'd further say that Santos represents little beyond his own political ambitions. But that's, as I said, just MHO. Homunq (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not taking sides in this coup demonstrates judgment, not foolishness. Both sides are wrong. But that's an opinion...though it is factual that both sides broke the law.  :) I just thought it was interesting that, as a non-participant on either side in the coup, he referred to the executive's control over this referendum as a sign that it wouldn't mean anything. This was a point the Supreme Court was emphatic about in that documentation - it's the legislative branch and the electoral tribunal, "and not the Executive Power" ("y no el Poder Ejecutivo") that is to have control over whether an electoral question is put to the people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, also it's prudent. Remember this whole crisis is over (among some other options) when elections are held and a new president is elected. Both candidates Santos and Lobo need to be neutral to ensure that when time comes full recognition of their new government is achieved and full legitimacy is perceived. Taking any side could achieve lack of international recognition (if sided with the current government) or lack of internal support (if sided with previous government). Wikihonduras (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, I certainly hope there will be an end to this crisis. If this page is any indication, it may go on for years. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just writing to note that the particular article cited is actually an Associated Press piece, rather than a Miami Herald piece. This does not mean that editorial bias might not exist in the paper's choosing to use it or not use it, but I think the distinction is valuable in sorting out biases. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 or continuity. The reelection issue is moot.

You can read their orders here.

In my first reading, I find that the justices assert that only the electoral authorities have the right to undertake "consultas populares," that the constitution can only be amended by the processes described in it, and that some of its provisions are set in stone and cannot be amended. They accuse Zelaya of usurpation of powers and treason. They order the armed forces to detain him and bring him before a competent judicial authority. They do not order him removed from office (unless I missed something) and they do not order him deported. The orders are sealed and the operation is to be carried out secretly to avoid his escape.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, but according to Alberto Valiente Thoresen, Honduran public officials are explicitly authorized by law to carry out public opinion research necessary to fulfill their functions.

He writes that Zelaya "invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006."

Despite the convoluted arguments in its orders, it appears that the Supreme Court made new law to justify ordering Zelaya's arrest. Nowhere does it accuse him of violating Article 239 -- again, unless I missed something. The entire decision is based on preventing the people of Honduras from being given an official medium to express their opinions about holding a referendum to amend or replace their constitution.

The issue of reelection is over.

Jules Siegel (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules...thanks, I've been trying to get someone to do a translation job on that for me for a bit now. What does the following mean, though? This is also from that material.

CONSIDERANDO: Que es de público y notorio conocimiento que el ciudadano JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, ha dejado de ostentar la condición de Presidente Constitucional de la República, caracter por el cual fue presentado el presente Requerimiento Fiscal ante este Supremo Tribunal de Justicia, para que se le siguiese el procedimiento establecido en la normativa procesal penal que regula el enjuiciamiento criminal funcionarios del estado.

This is very dense legal language, so my translation would have to be verified by a Spanish-speaking lawyer, but the closest I can get is:

CONSIDERING: That it is public and obvious knowledge that Citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES has stopped holding the position of Constitutional President of the Republic, because of which situation the Prosecutor's Request at hand was submitted to this Supreme Court of Justice, in order for the procedure established in the penal legal rules regulating the criminal prosecution of state functionaries be followed.

It seems to mean that it is common knowledge he is no longer president, and thus it might implicitly allude to Article 239. If that's as far as they were willing to go, they must have not had much confidence that it could be legally demonstrated that he had violated Article 239.

Requerimiento Fiscal is a specific legal term that does not translate very well into English, as a requerimento is more like a summons or subpoena than a request. In this case it appears to be the Attorney General's petition for an arrest order, which was granted. I am using the translation of the term provided in a [104] document concerning the El Salvador legal system submitted to the Organization of American States Secretariat for Legal Affairs. I'd have to do more research to find the exact equivalent in the United States legal system. Jules Siegel (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I may conditionally support the other side of the naming dispute if they invoke Art. 239 (Constitutional but inadequate process), but they plainly didn't, this is totally unconstitutional, Hondurans joins the ranks of Thais in court manipulation, and this is a coup.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I'm trying to get a decent translation of the Spanish I've quoted above...if I'm reading it right (and perhaps I'm not), it's suggesting that it was publically and notoriously known that Zelaya is doing this because he wants to remain president. And please, do you really think he was doing this because, in the last six months of his four-year term, he suddenly discovered concern for popular democracy? It is suspicious. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's actually a good side issue...does anyone have Zelaya on record saying why he wanted to know if people wanted a new constitution if it wasn't about extending his time in office? What was it supposed to be about, and why couldn't he achieve that by getting his friends to run for President and Congress? I'd love to see how plausible the answers to that would be... Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He has commented on this issue a lot, saying that the present constitution keeps the poor in their misery and the oligarchs in power etc; it should be very easy to verify this. For instance here he says "que según Zelaya es necesaria para "democratizar más el país." ie that the constitution needs to change to democratize the country. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not very specific, though. And I understand enough Spanish to get that this article says that even if he doesn't say it, a reason he wants the new constitution is that he can remain president. ("...según Zelaya es necesaria para “democratizar” más el país. Sin embargo, el verdadero interés de Zelaya en la reforma, es que se permita la reelección presidencial, aunque él no lo admite abiertamente.") Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That second bit is the journalist opining. That was the first I could find but there are plenty of others. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote above is pretty opaque - my Spanish is good but IANAL and I'm not sure what it means. Here's my best-guess:

Considering: That it is notorious and public knowledge that the citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, has ceased showing the dignity of a Constitutional President of the Republic, for which reason the present Legal Complaint was presented to this Supreme Tribunal of Justice, so that the established procedure for criminal judgement of state functionaries, in the criminal justice norms, might be followed.

The italics are where the legal jargon overcomes me. In particular, the first italics might be something more like "show himself in condition to carry out the job of" ... but in my reading, "ostentar" is saying that he is visibly not doing the job, not that he has been in any way removed from the position.

Anyway, all of this is OR, sadly. Homunq (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, most Hondurans wouldn't understand it either,lawyers in any language study the language of law and then sell their services to non-lawyers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another random question of law: is it normal that only one judge would sign the arrest warrant? I mean, sure, for a normal arrest warrant, all it takes is a judge, but for the president... I'm changing the wording "the supreme court issued" to "a supreme court judge issued" until this is cleared up, though without prejudice - if any source shows any evidence (as opposed to a claim without visible basis) that the court as a whole considered the issue, I'd be OK with being reverted. Homunq (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On rereading the warrant, it says that the judge who signed was "unanimously named 'natural judge' by the full supreme court". So they clearly do have the full authority of the court behind that signature, though it is NOT clear that they have the full agreement of the court behind that signature. Homunq (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it clear why the judge was "unanimously named 'natural judge' by the full supreme court"? There is a degree of agreement implied by the unanimous appointment of an executor by a group. Do they state their motivations?--74.44.150.159 (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Zachary Klaas, from Spain, the translation you were asking for:

CONSIDERING: That is public and notorious that the citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, has stopped being in charge of Contitutional President of the Republic, being so why the present Prosecutor Requirement was presented before this Supreme Court of Justice, in order to follow the established procedure in the criminal procedural law which regulates the criminal judgement in the case of civil servants.

I hope it helps.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who answered this - it appears it didn't mean what I thought it meant, then. I do find it hard to believe that, in this entire document, there isn't one place where the Supreme Court said "Hey, c'mon guys, we all know why Zelaya's doing this." Homunq, if we did find something in this document like what I thought this section was, then it wouldn't be OR, it would be an RS as to the actual intentions of the Supreme Court, which matters in telling this story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, This document isn't the full logic of each decision. This is a timeline document. There are, somewhere out there on the net, texts of some of these decisions (look on the El Heraldo website where I remember seeing at least one of them) but also be suspicious. I've seen the text of offical orders on the websites change in the last week, so documents posted are being manipulated by someone. Rsheptak (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup by undemocratic forces

I come to the article as an outsider to try to work out what is going on, and where the true sympathies of the people lie. My attention is immediately caught by a pivotal reference to a poll by a private company, Mitofsky, alleging clear unpopularity of the deposed president. This rings warning bells, as I know that in my own country a similar private company, Yougov, uses dubious methods, such as selection of respondents (e.g., PC owners only), to furnish results desired by the client but not necessarily truthful or representative of the electorate. Then I scroll down to the key issue: the president wanted a Chávez-style poll to lengthen his term of office, and the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. Whatever the legal niceties of Honduran law, why would it be necessary to oust the president if, as Mitofsky alleges, he has no chance of winning? The combined pincer-movement of the Supreme Court and the market research company therefore looks redolent of a co-ordinated coup attempt by undemocratic, right-wing forces - end of story. The only real answer you can have to what I am saying is that Zelaya was going to go on to fabricate referendum results, a very weak argument, and based on what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I don't know -- a pattern of behavior, maybe? An allegience to Chavez, who last I checked, is not Honduran, and is no freind of democratic processes. Friends can agree to disagree. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of reliable, factual information. The "true sympathies" of where "the people" lie is really not a stated purpose. If it were, would you want to deal with thousands of technology users in Honduras reading this page and responding to it? In my own country, the USA, both major political parties engage in push polling, at national, state, and local levels. The point being, polls, and "votes" like the section above, can be used for information; and, the same tool can be misused to misrepresent the will of the people. CNN and FOX rarely poll the same. Likewise, Wiki technology can be used as reliable information; or, misused to serve propoganda interests. One can always claim to represent "the people". This I will say, yesterday was a key opportunity for the ex-President's support to be shown. There are 7 million Hondurans, and while I've not met all 7 million, I am reasonably certain they are capable of overcoming a fairly small contingent of troops if they overwhelmingly supported Zaleya. I have seen the great lengths that Hondurans will go to express themselves, and defend themselves. The plan to overrun the airport failed, despite considerable efforts of outside interests to play on the emotions of Hondurans. No, if there is a "coup" by undemocratic forces, perhaps it is here on the page in question; it remains to be seen if that "coup" stands. VaChiliman (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...either our original poster in this section is arguing that Zelaya is really popular, because the polling company fixed the numbers, in which case his referendum would be a threat and the fact that he didn't follow legal procedure would be an issue - or that he's really not popular, in which case the claim that the referendum would be a threat is overblown and therefore the fact that he didn't follow legal procedure would be a phony issue. But this poster can't have it both ways. I suspect that the real story is that Zelaya is more popular than this poll lets on, and after doing something like...well...marching into where the ballot boxes are kept to "liberate" them from the current government...might have enough of a bump in popularity to run for president again under the new regime. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We would need to know how the poll was carried out, and the question(s) asked. Doing polling in a country like Honduras is at best difficult. Polling done over the phone using land lines only (which is the technique used by most US polls) would reach only a small, unrepresentative sample of the populace. A cell phone based survey would reach a better sample, and a door to door survey would be best, but also bear in mind that in a country not used to polling, they'd be suspicious of the questioner. Rsheptak (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rsheptak. But as I understand it, your queries do not go far enough, and to meet normal standards of Wikipedia correctness any such 'market research' poll alleging to determine a matter of current affairs fact needs to be properly referenced, with links to where the original data can be publicly viewed. Either market research companies have some hitherto unstated exemption from normal Wiki policy, or else the flip side of this discussion page, along with its locking, forms part of the recent coup attempt(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing Continuismo

This is written in the article section "Preventing Continuismo"

Sánchez observed: "Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. [...] Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" [...] as in "no impeachment needed" [...] The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.. . .The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo."

That sounds rather strange, given that referendum is mentioned on article 2, paragraph 1 of the Honduran constitution...

193.54.112.22 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes on Honduras' consitution

I think it's important to go into some more detail on which constitutional changes Zelaya proposed in order to fully understand the beginnings of this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.38.50 (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sections they do cite in that Supreme Court material

Okay, continuing to try to make my case for why people think Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution is involved. The materials from the Supreme Court repeatedly reference Articles 373 and 374. Here's the text of that.

CAPITULO I DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCION

ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

(emphases mine)

Note that in Article 374, the question of it being illegal to make changes, in any case, to the presidential term, is specifically referenced. Now, maybe this is horribly OR of me, but if the materials specifically say that this article was violated, and if the materials also say that the President specifically was involved in its violation, then that means Article 239's provisions kick in, and the President must immediately lose office.

Also, note that in Article 373, it says that the reform of the constitution can only be undertaken via the Congress. The only leg Zelaya and his folks have to stand on here is that they weren't really trying to reform the constitution, they were just having a vote on what they might want to do if they were allowed to reform the constitution. But that's just being slippery.

Okay, rant completed now. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The only specific mechanism in the decree is to a proposed constitutional convention, that would be the subject of a question to be voted on in the November election. How the constitutional convention would be convoked is not mentioned. Presumably, the results of referendum would put pressure on Congress to convoke the convention. Since the exact language of the proposed referendum is nowhere specified, it seems premature to speculate that the constitutional reform would somehow be carried out illegally. I've made a searchable version of the court orders and I will have to examine what it specifically says about Articles 373 and 374. I look into that as soon as I get a chance. Jules Siegel (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference I could find is on page 71, in a section defining treason as a function of usurpation of powers:

Asimismo el articulo 5 párrafo séptimo: "No serán objetos de Referéndum o Plesbiscito los proyectos orientados a reformar los artículos 374 de la Constitución"; En relación con el articulo 373 en la que dice "La reforma de la Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros ... "; De igual. manera el articulo 374: "No podrá reformarse en ningún caso el articulo 373, 374, los artículos constituciones que se refieren a la forma de Gobierno, al territorio nacional, al periodo presidencial, a la prohibición de ser nuevamente Presidente de la República .... "; En relación al articulo 375: que dice: " Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia, ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere derogada o modificada ' por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distinto del que ella misma dispone .... "

At the same time, article 5 paragraph seven: “Plans oriented toward reforming article 374 of the Constitution shall not be objects of Referendum or Plebiscites. With respect to article 373, in which it is said, “Reform of the Constitution can be decreed by the National Congress in ordinary sessions, with two thirds of its total members. In the same way article 374: “In no case can Article 373, 374, the constitutional articles that refer to the form of Government, national territory, the presidential term, the prohibition of being President of the Republic again, be reformed. …” With respect to Article 375: which says: “This Constitution does not lose its force, nor forsake its compliance because of act of force or when derogated or modified by any measure or procedure different from what it itself disposes…”

I don't see how this specifically accuses Zelaya of seeking reelection, nor does it explicitly accuse him of planning to try to reform the articles that are "set in stone." If the proposed referendum were written to exclude these articles from reform, it would seem to comply with the current constitution. To me, the court is clearly reaching here by accusing him of treason for acts that have neither been proposed nor can be shown to have been contemplated.Jules Siegel (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules, just to make sure you understand me - I'm not defending Micheletti. The court did reach, in a lot of areas. I've already said on here that there are so many due process issues (such as many you've already brought up) that I'm okay with people calling this a coup. This is not what I'm arguing about. For me, the point is made by pointing out that the court did specifically accuse him, acting in his capacity as the President, with organizing this referendum, which they state specifically as contrary to Article 374. The real talking point is whether it's logically possible for a President who violated Article 374 to remain in office under the precepts of Article 239. I don't see how it can, if the court is right that he was acting in his capacity as President (he did, according to the court, which is the reliable source about what the Honduran legal system thinks, because it is the highest court in that legal system.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are not defending Michiletti. The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant at the request of the attorney general based on what they consider evidence they cite in their decision. They may have accused him of having violated Article 374, but did not rule on whether he had done so, as far as I can tell. They left that for a competent judicial authority to determine after specifically ordering the Army to detain Zelaya and bring him before one. Since the Army did not follow the court's orders, the issue of whether or not he actually violated the article remains unresolved, as no judicial determination was ever made. Therefore your question is entirely hypothetical. Jules Siegel (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that's Jules again talking? You know, I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said there. I think that's exactly what happened. That's where the due process problems started, and why I'm okay with calling this a coup. I just have a problem with people going from that to anointing Zelaya a friend to democratic peoples everywhere. It seems to me that the people issuing the arrest orders - some of them - might actually have done so from a concern for Honduran democracy, not because they hate same. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just added the signature. I don't think there was much concern for democracy. To the contrary, the aim was to suffocate any attempt to broaden democracy in Honduras. They were afraid that Zelaya (a classic populist demagogue, I gather) was being tutored in how to do that by Chávez. Despite what you read about Hugo Chávez, there's no doubt that he broadened the base of democracy in Venezuela. I don't want to get into a discussion of that here, but generally speaking, I've found that most of the claims about Chávez suppressing the opposition media are overstated, for example. Interestingly enough, in the days immediately following the coup against Chávez, the new regime carried out exactly the same actions being reported today from Honduras. It was the El Salvador civil war in miniature until the rule of law was restored.

You can judge the Honduran junta's dedication to democracy by their current actions. These kinds of leaders like to talk about democracy when they have their hands out for more easy credits. When it affects their privileges, however, they call it mob rule. Despite that, I think Chávez was wrong to encourage Zelaya to rupture the status quo, if that is in fact what he did. It's not like he was able to provide him with the effective support required to carry out such an ambitious program. To me, it was what the Chinese under Mao used to call adventurism. Honduras is now on the brink of civil war. No matter who wins, the ruling class will still come out on top, just as it did in El Salvador. I think that incremental change would have been more effective. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate forum for that discussion, however. Jules Siegel (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying above, but you're implying a monolithic group here. This is why I very deliberately said "some of them" in my comment above. The government's actions, taken on the whole, do show a general lack of ulitmate concern with democracy, agreed. But I'm not sure that everyone involved in the effort to prosecute Zelaya is particularly happy with how the government as a whole ended up acting. I wonder (it's not easy to get any estimations of these things from where I sit here in Connecticut) how many Hondurans there are who approved of the prosecution of Zelaya in principle but immediately washed their hands of Micheletti the minute these massive due process issues began (finding Zelaya guilty before bringing him to trial, calling him a non-citizen and deporting him on that basis, etc.) Anyway, I do think this is an appropriate forum, as there is some issue, I think, as to how both Zelaya and Micheletti should be portrayed in this article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see-- are there evidence that Zelaya etc wanted to bypass the congress on constitutional amendments like what Hugo Chavez did? Zelaya may be using the poll to pressurize the Congress, but it's not binding. Hence, it's a direct violation of Art 239, not through 374. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence exists that Zelaya intended to bypass congress on constitutional amendments? Please see my discussion of this above. The actual language of the referendum question had not yet been written. It could easily have been written to avoid any of the possible constitutional infringements that have been raised. There's no evidence at all that he violated Article 239, which refers only to the issue of reelection. If he had violated it, surely the court would have mentioned that explicitly, just as they mentioned Article 374. Jules Siegel (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish-speaking version of Wikipedia

Our Spanish-speaking counterparts appear to be much better at balancing the issues than here. It is also possible that something is lost in translation, given my language disability in translating. I do think it is worth noting how another group has handled the natural disputes that arise where there are good faith differences of perception, multiple sources competing for attention, and complex issues. FWIW VaChiliman (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Spanish side has had this article in a tighter lockdown in general, though I'm not sure of the details. Protected status for longer periods. 76.204.79.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link. Its only semi-protected, like our article. They have also move protected it. I have added from there the alternative name of political crisis, we could certainly take material from there and translate it for our article as happens for many articles about things/people in the Spanish speaking world. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit from the Wall Street Journal, just before the coup

From the Wall Street Journal, quoting Zelaya:

"No one is going to stop Sunday's referendum," he told a cheering crowd. He called on the army to obey his orders. "If an army rebels against a president, then we are back to the era of the cavemen, back to the darkest chapters in Honduran history."

This isn't the Zelaya-in-his-pajamas-surprised-by-all-the-fuss we've been shown up until now on this page, is it? He actually dared the army to overthrow him? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, everyone in Honduras (including me) expected the coup to happen in the wednesday night/thursday morning timeframe when Micheletti was in consultation with the Military and congress. When it didn't, there was much public sentiment of relief that it had been avoided, including by the US ambassador, Llorens. Therefore it was a surprise when it did happen on Sunday. I have no doubt Zelaya WAS surprised. Rsheptak (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would take it so much as a dare as his apparently misplaced confidence that the army would not act without U.S. support. As the Washington Post noted: "U.S. diplomats had been trying to broker a compromise and were speaking to both sides hours before the coup. For decades, Washington has trained the Honduran military, and senior U.S. officials say they did not think that the Honduran military would carry out a coup." U.S. Misread Scale of Honduran Rift. Your point that Zelaya was not surprised about the tensions would certainly seem to be supported, although I do not agree that that viewpoint is all "we've been shown up until now on this page" as there are many entries on this talk page and in the article referencing the building crisis. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it does demonstrate brinksmanship, and a clear awareness that he was taking on the institutions of the Honduran state directly rather than being surprised that there was a conflict here. In other words, he acted deliberately to confront the state institutions - it was just that he expected them to back down instead of fight back. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourses that state crisis

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3742190,00.html "UN chief urges OAS to take lead role in Honduras crisis " http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-honduras-obama30-2009jun30,0,756706.story "U.S. treads carefully with Honduras crisis" It mentions both coup and crisis, but crisis is more neutral, and coup is more often refered to in quotes in the article. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ros_Lehtinen_honduras/2009/07/05/232084.html" Coup is referred to only once, and that was a quote from a person. "http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100002325/barack-fidel-che-obama-the-bolivarian-revolutions-useful-idiot-reverses-the-monroe-doctrine/" It says the planned referendum was the coup, and the military was a counter coup. http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4991 Does not agree it is a coup.

Many sources refer to it as a crisis, and crisis is more neutral. Crisis should be used. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can run an Internet search for the words "Honduras" and "crisis", and find pages that refer to the coup as a "crisis". Who's denying that the coup caused a crisis?

voices.kansascity.com is the Kansas City Star Editorial Page. The author of this opinion piece spelled embarrassed, "embarraseed".

The Kansas City Star, published, "The United States has criticized the coup."[105]

I think you'd be more persuasive if you used the Washington Post, or New York Times, in the United States -- or the BBC or the Times in Britain.

I don't know what "newsmax" is, but the "person" it quoted was President Barack Obama. He said, on behalf of the United States, "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections."

The first sentence in the Los Angeles Times article states, "After failing to stave off a military coup in Honduras, the Obama administration moved gingerly Monday". [emphasis added]

The columnist in the blog you cite opines, "the army’s intervention against him [...] was a counter-coup." -- Rico 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources refer to it alternately as coup and crisis, crisis would be a neutral title. --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

'Coup' euphemism for premeditated political genocide

The word 'coup,' with its soft, French ending, seems more fitting for a page on fashion or journalism than to describe the bloodthirsty reality of a Latin American golpe, which, for all the latino, legal peregrinations you all can muster, was bound from inception to result in the spilling of human, Honduran blood. Cursed be all who premeditate murder of their fellow citizens, and those who assist them, whether by training or any other form of collaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What other terminology would you propose? "Golpe" means "coup". -- Rico 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed, and sounds more like it, too, and without any unwanted connotations of 'the latest thing to grasp the attention of the beau monde since the President's blow job.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what makes you think that your opinion about the "sound" of a word has any relevance to Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In English, LjL, the phrase 'sounds like' does not necessarily refer to its actual sound, as such.

Continuismo

I've removed the claim

To prevent continuismo and preserve the democratic rule of law, every Latin American country has implemented a strict presidential term limit, though some allow running again after waiting out a term.

since it's false: e.g. Venezuela no longer has a term limit. Maybe there are other counterexamples as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Cuba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "nearly every" then? --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela had a term limit. Chávez used a referendum to put a stop to that. That's what everyone's worried about, that Zelaya is acting like Chávez. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, 'everyone' - as in 'everyone with a stake in the opposition?' ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And others. That was true in Venezuela as well. Some of the most determined opposition to Chávez's referenda came from the left. Of course, I assume that by daring to sing notes from outside of the Chavista songbook, they've read themselves out of the Official Left, but nevertheless, ask them what they think about capitalism and the situation of the Latin American poor, and they're pretty clearly leftist. They just distrust caudillos. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And generalísimos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Them too. Stop making me out to be the bad guy. I hope they bring down Micheletti and company as well. But that doesn't mean that Zelaya's blameless in all of this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making you out to be the bad guy - I'm bringing out your better side. I just wish I knew what you meant by that last bit(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who I'm talking to here, but if you're new (I'm actually pretty new here myself), look around this page at my other comments. I haven't been denying this is a coup, I've only been trying to make the point that Zelaya knowingly violated the Constitution. I'm pretty much in the "a pox on both your houses, and let's have that new Presidential election" camp. :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Cuba. If there are already two counterexamples (out of maybe 20 latin American countries), I wouldn't call it "almost every". And it's absurd to introduce the "almost every" claim with the same reference previously used for "every" - I can't access it, but it can only claim one of the two! So we need a new valid source for the statement, if it's true at all. @Zachary: I know Venezuela did have a term limit until recently, but the claim is made in the present tense. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Star-Tribune article on Zelaya

This article, which VaChiliman posted earlier on this page, has some lovely bits about Zelaya in it. By the way, like the Miami Herald article, it is also from the Associated Press. Check this out:

"Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek."

That's pretty strange, isn't it? SqueakBox was saying earlier that the President talks about why they need a new Constitution all the time, so how did this AP reporter get the idea that, when he does so, he never actually refers to anything concrete that needs to be changed? Fits the MO of someone who just wants to be President longer, doesn't it?

Also, since we're RS mining here, let's also note the following, from the same article:

"Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday's referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated."

So the Supreme Court did consider both that the referendum was illegal and that those distributing election materials were not allowed to do so, because those materials were officially ordered to be confiscated. Just in case anyone had the view that neither of these things were true (Rsheptak said earlier on this page: "No I'm not kidding. Retrieving the referendum materials was not illegal..." In order for that to be true, then you'd have to come up with a whole new meaning for "confiscated".) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

E.g.: 'Confiscated by the people, for the people, and on behalf of the people'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Confiscated as in "Hey, don't take those, it's illegal."  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church response in Honduras

While the July 4 statement of the Archbishop referenced in the article has received much press, it appears that the Church has spoken with more than one voice and it would be valuable to be able to reflect the diversity of opinion in the article. This is a translation of the July 1 Message of the Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copan, reportedly delivered publicly by Monseñor Luis Alfonso Santos, SDB, in the cathedral of Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras, on Thursday, July 2, 2009. I have not yet been able to find an english reference in a major newspaper. As a blog post, I doubt that this would meet the standards of being a reliable source but perhaps others with better searching skill and/or better comprehension of spanish sources have seen one or can find one. A few excerpts: "As those who are responsible for guiding the Catholic Church in Western Honduras, we repudiate the substance, the form, and the style with which a new Head of the Executive Branch has been imposed on the People. If President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales had committed something illegal he has the right to a just trial just like every Honduran citizen and in general every human being.... The coup d’etat of June 28 has these consequences: protests of the citizenry in the streets and highways, a climate of insecurity and fear in families because of the limitation of constitutional rights .... [W}e especially repudiate: The violent manner in which Radio Progreso and other means of communication were silenced. Illegal detentions. The exiling of some countrymen/women. The bloody beatings and wounds. As the Catholic Church on pilgrimage in the West of Honduras we want to remind the 124 [congressional] deputies of the Liberal Party and the National Party responsible for the Coup d’Etat and presently in power that they are not the owners/masters of Honduras and that no one can be above the law. The present deputies ought to remember that they get their salaries from the people whom they are oppressing. If the plebiscite and referendum had been given institutional status [regulated], as we the bishops of the Honduran Bishops Conference suggested in our communication of June 19, we would not be in this situation. They [the deputies] preferred to be faithful to the economically strong groups, both national and transnational. We hope that in the next elections the People will give them a vote of punishment.... We regret every violation of the Constitution of the Republic which those who have governed us have been doing up to now. We reject every threat and meddling of foreign nations in the internal affairs of Honduras. We Hondurans want PEACE. No more lies. We want to be told the truth. No more injustice. We want respect for the integrity of the person and respect for human rights. We want to live in freedom. We do not want repression. The call of Jesus is to live in love. Therefore, no more hatred, no more revenge, no more violence, no more spitefulness. ... Let us beg the Lord to grant that we may achieve Peace and prosperity and let us ask our patron, Saint Rose of Lima, to intercede for us." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that one should be careful to equate the Catholic Church alone to be the voice of "the church", let alone the "voice of the people", though such would be a consistent "catholic" POV. Moreover, this entire piece, translation or no, speaks for one priest, no matter how eloquent. Moreover, one could debate the scriptural consistency of the message. It is what I would call a political speech, and is as feckless a Zaleya's own invocation(s) of God in his speeches. I believe that even if quoted in an RS, it is still OR; of value, perhaps to cite what members of the Catholic Church may be hearing, but what of that? Would one accept excerpts of a sermon from a leader of a prominent and respected leader of an evangelical church that expresses a POV? I doubt it, especially if it cuts in favor of the majority view of Hondurans and chastises Zaleya. VaChiliman (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 67.233.105.168 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not monolithic and does not speak with one voice. The Bishop's words have been circulating in emails since the Cardinal spoke on Saturday. There's a brief mention of his disagreement with the Cardinal in a reliable sourc (AKA RS) here Obispo Luis Alfonso Santos se le vuelve a revelar al cardenal. In answer to VaChiliman, both the Cardinal's and the Bishop's speech are political speech, and its not OR to quote them if published in an RS. I would not cite blog posts as RS. Rsheptak (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just getting up to speed on the rules and terminology, and trying to do so in good faith. If the purpose of qouting them is to describe the position of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not speak with one voice, then of what use is such an inclusion? Seems like a sneaky way of introducing a lot of personal opinion, and grandiose rhetoric, while giving undo weight to one part of the Christian Church which has lost influence. My question is this: are we prepared to give voice to other religious and political leaders, given appropriate sources? In what context is political speech being quoted relevent? If an article briefly mentions a disagreement, is that pretext for including poirtions of the speech? Or (most likely) do I just misunderstand the purpose of this discussion point altogether -- to verify that the Catholic Church is split on the issue? If the latter, my apologies. VaChiliman (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and archiving

What happened to the steady stream of pictures we were getting? A week ago, everyone was uploading them and putting them on here, but it seems this has stopped. The last pictures are from July 1. The article would benefit from having pictures of yesterday's protest at the airport or a picture of Zelaya's plane circling Tegucigalpa.

Also, when will this talkpage start archiving? It's getting very bloated. --Tocino 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Article 102- no Honduran can be handed over to a foreign State

This has been mentioned by the president, and Archbishop Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, and other commentators, but is not currently part of the body of the article. For example “No one can obligate me to turn around,” the president told Telesur “The Constitution prohibits expelling Hondurans from the country. I am returning with all of my constitutional guarantees.”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/world/americas/06honduras.html?_r=1&ref=world93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. He was deported, rather than imprisoned and held for trial. Maybe he was not given an option. Despite the ignominy and potential "illegality" of the act, Senor Z appears to have made the most of what is arguably a prudent if not humanitarian act. If some portions of the Constitution were broken -- I think that we have acknowledgement from a RS on that cited earlier -- in order to protect the country, as well as the deposed leader, from mob violence and police action on the part of the military, perhaps some unusually cool thinking was involved in what surely was a tense and heated moment. This all makes for good theater, but I don't understand the point. Deporting someone, or exiling them, is not identical to handing someone over to a foreign state, which I would take as extradition -- and, sorry, but the ex-president was indeed obliged to turn around, or be arrested and risk potential what had already been avoided a week earlier. Returning with constitutional guarantees seems a bit hollow coming from a man who allegedly flaunted the constitution in the first place.

My question is what fact is established by inclusion -- that Z thinks he is above the law, yet simultaneously served by it? That has already been established. VaChiliman (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The president, and numerous independent sources, have stated that his removal from Honduras was unconstitutional. Given that the article currently reports the claim that his deposition was constitutional, this Pov should be given adequate representation for balance.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was not "handed over to another state" as he was not sent to the authorities of any third country. He was only sent to the soil of a third country.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The constitution also says he is no longer a citizen right? --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How the Coup Crumbles

Are vaunted RS now backtracking, or hedging, on the C-Word?

The NYT published an article (not an editorial) that treads lightly on the key issue in dispute here -- how to appropriately name, or refer to, this mess. Rico, spare me from bolding very time the c-word appears, and I'll spare you bolding every time "crisis" is used in its place. The following sections speak to the issue:

"The spotlight on Honduras’s political crisis began to shift away from Latin America’s leaders and back onto the United States on Monday, as both sides in the face-off over Honduras’s deposed president turned to Washington now that broader diplomatic efforts have failed." They not only lead with "political crisis", but use "deposed president". Following the lead of an RS, should we now (kneejerk) refer to Zaleya as a "deposed president"?

"A delegation of Honduran lawmakers and backers of the new government arrived here on Monday to make its case, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton planned to meet with Manuel Zelaya, the deposed Honduran president." Hmmm, there's that nasty phrase again, "deposed president".

Perhaps the NYT is joining the fringe? Perhaps we can get WP to remove them from the RS list before all is lost?

"The new battleground could make it hard for the Obama administration to maintain its current strategy on Honduras. After immediately condemning the ouster of the presidentand flatly rejecting allegations that the United States may have had a hand in it, American officials have largely tried to stay behind the scenes." Three paragraphs deep, we have one "political crisis", two "deposed president"s and an "ouster".

Seven paragraphs deep, "As Mr. Zelaya and his detractors converged on Washington Tuesday, no one was expecting the same fireworks. But with diplomats groping for a way out of the crisis, it was becoming clear that leaders on both sides of the divide were calling on the United States to take more of a lead role in the negotiations." Again, a different c-word.

"Coup" first appears in the next paragraph. Not "Coup d'etat", by the way.

Paragraph 10 reads "Although both the president and Secretary Clinton have described President Zelaya’s ouster as a “coup,” the administration has said that it was still deliberating whether the ouster met the legal definition of the term, a decision that would set off an automatic suspension of most American aid. At this point, senior administration officials said most aid to Honduras was “on pause.”" Interesting choice of words, "described", "ouster", and a "coup" in quotes. Why? Read the paragraph. Perhaps the NYT has some modicum of journalistic integrity, and the Obama Administration has some faint awareness that words are important. That's pure conjecture on my part, but it does seem to fit. VaChiliman (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another 2 rs, from the 7th = "The United States Monday condemned violence against protesters in Honduras and called for President Manuel Zelaya's reinstatement as the Central American country faced growing isolation over last week's coup."http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56326420090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews "A crowd of about 1,500 had gathered at the perimeter fence of the airport to welcome home Manuel Zelaya – the exiled president, removed from power and thrown out of the country in a military coup a week ago."http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4423aa24-6a61-11de-ad04-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One more -"Une semaine après avoir été renversé par un coup d'Etat, le président du Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, a tenté sans succès de rentrer dans son pays, dimanche 5 juillet."http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2009/07/06/au-honduras-le-president-dechu-zelaya-est-empeche-d-atterrir-a-tegucigalpa_1215740_3222.html#ens_id=121176193.96.148.42 (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the new heading and thought, Gee, someone finally noticed that the golpistas seem to be coming apart. First there were the reports yesterday about Carlos Flores and other business men backing away from Micheletti (and you can see evidence of that in the way La Tribuna coverage changed in the last couple of days) and today's report in El Tiempo (site currently down) that Pepe Lobo, the Nationalist candidate for President would work to restore Zelaya. Sigh, how naive I was. Just more hot air about whether its a "coup" or not. Rsheptak (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

July 6

Many typos are found in the July 6th info...i dont have time to correct it but any one that has the time please fix those obvious typos.63.118.86.10 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gov strongly deny it was a coup

The de facto gov denies it was a coup (in Spanish) and as this is a significant POV it is yet further evidence we should change the POV title. Remember, whether you agree or disagree with what the gov are saying, they are saying it, it is their POV and thus needs to be included in a balanced way which is impossible with the current title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, normally discussions stay up for a week, but as this is a current event, it should be changed immediately. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree with your logic. According to your argument the Taiwan article should list it as a province of China because the Chinese Government says it is. No, Coup D'Etat is the most appropriate term based on global consensus.Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taiwan example is a really bad one. The "global consensus", if international recognition is the way we gauge such things, is that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China which happens to have its own de facto political regime. It's obvious a lot of people disagree with that characterization, and it's not really a consensus view, but if the stated view of the leadership of the world's nations is the proper guide, Taiwan is a province of the PRC. If you're really making this comparison, it actually undercuts the point of view of those contending that the coup should be characterized as a coup (because the world's nations have so characterized it.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I deliberately chose a counter-example that was weaker than the situation with the Honduras Coup to emphasize my point.Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you chose an example which weakens your point about Honduras. If the internationally-endorsed view is that Taiwan is part of the PRC (the same view that the PRC has), but you believe that Taiwan is not part of the PRC, then you are defying the international consensus, and, by your argument about Honduras, this means your view is a "fringe" view. Of course, this view is not a fringe view, but if that were our only standard, it would have to be conceded as one. I submit the same is true of Honduras. The perception of the world's governments that it is a coup, taken by itself, does not make it one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now that I've read your private message to me on this topic, I'm now wondering if this is what you were trying to say. Apologies if it wasn't. I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying... Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Different scenarios, I disagree with your logic. The congress and supreme court are the same as before, it is a new president, not a new government. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And, it is about the Island itself, not about politics or anything. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how either is relevant to my statement. Address your logic.Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure crisis is the most appropriate term based on global consensus, although coup d'etat happens to be another very common term for the situation. I would not call it a consensus, though. 216.254.82.47 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Taiwan relates to the island itself, the ecology, history and such, there are other articles that deal with the politics and disputes. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't signed in when I wrote the above). I think the fact that Honduras has very little backing up its notion that the move was not a coup (in the English language, anyhow) makes the article's title in line with the mainstream POV. Clearly this is not a cut-and-dry textbook example of a coup, but it resembles a coup closely enough that the majority of the mainstream media and world leaders have had no trouble calling it such, and only Honduras seems to be interested in challenging that. Consequently, I certainly think it's forgivable for Wikipedia to favor this approach as it is so mainstream (I personally would not). Nevertheless, I would not confuse mainstream opinion with consensus or correctness—after all, world leaders and mainstream publications have a collective interest in this as well. Jun-Dai (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(jumping in to respond to myself again). Not enough time has passed to really know the consensus, and Wikipedia doesn't favor correctness when such is easily interpreted as POV. Lacking consensus and unwilling to weigh in on correctness, it does make sense to use the mainstream position. That said, I don't really see the problem with not using "coup d'etat"—it's not really POV to simply title it 'crisis', is it? That's certainly the less contentious title (is anyone arguing that it was a coup but not a crisis?). Jun-Dai (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, all coups are crisis but not all crisis are coups. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And this crisis is clearly a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduras govt is obviously not going to call it a coup because they have a new de facto president and that president has fired a significant amount of government officials who agreed that it was a coup63.118.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2009 Honduran coup d'état → 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis — coup is a POV and crisis is a more neutral term. - Conor Fallon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• SupportFor all the reasons stated on the talk page above. --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons stated previously in discussion. Please don't delete my polling data a second time.Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is not at all clear that this is a coup, despite it's regular, mainstream characterization as such. Moving the article does not mean that the Wikipedia is taking the POV that event was not a coup, but not moving the article does mean that Wikipedia is taking the POV that the event was a coup, even if that POV is supported by most of the world leaders that have spoken about the matter and asserted frequently in the press. In the interests of maintaining NPOV, I support the move. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It has been considered a Coup by International organizations, including OAS, U.N, and all Latin American Governments except for Honduras Itself. Zelaya was removed from presidency and sent in exile to Costa Rica. Government officials that opposed Zelaya's Removal where fired from their positions. Isn't this a coup? EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Media and international government consensus says "coup." Most of the currently available facts indicate "coup." Government sources accused of starting "coup" in Honduras say "not coup." Deposed Honduran President says "coup." I think it's pretty neutral to say "coup," when the only people really denying a coup occurred are the people who enacted said coup. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NAME is an official English Wikipedia policy. It requires,

All of the reliable sources -- that I have seen (WP, Times, AP, NYT, Reuters, BBC, WSJ, etc.) -- are simply and regularly calling the coup a "coup".

That makes "coup", "easily recognizable by English speakers." -- Rico 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Do we really need to do this again? Actually, perhaps the best course of action is to keep an eye on how the U.S. government is characterizing things. As noted earlier on this page, they may backtrack on this in order not to have to cut off aid to Honduras. It's possible that other nations may follow the U.S. lead on this matter, possibly in so doing recognizing that the Honduran situation is more complex than that and less a black-and-white good vs. evil situation. If that happens, then you might have a case that those on the other side of this debate will respect, as sources they will accept as "reliable sources" will become more plentiful. But by posting this now, you're just going over the same tired ground - plus, as I've said before, Micheletti's government has done oodles of things that actually are consistent with the "coup" characterization, so the title may be appropriate. I think we need to focus our efforts on here, instead, to a balanced portrayal of the two sides, which we're still a long way from achieving. We still have Zelaya solely as the aggrieved victim rather than Zelaya as the lawbreaker (at best civilly disobedient, at worst self-interested and knowingly divisive) whose punishment was even more unlawful, which I'm convinced is the real story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to do this. We are just going in circles. --Tocino 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been over this repeatedly. It IS a COUP. Please devote even half the effort into improving Wikipedia that has been put into opposing this clear characterization and then the encyclopedia will be much improved!Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, it's easy to turn that around. Why don't you take the effort you've put into opposing the move to a more NPOV title and redirect it elsewhere? For anyone that believes this event was not a coup, this article's title reflects a clear POV. For anyone that believes that this event was a coup—I'm not really sure why it's a problem to move it to 'crisis' or somesuch. It's not as though such a move forces Wikipedia into taking a stance on whether it was a coup; it merely changes it to a more neutral (and more accurate, IMO) title. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment is unhelpful. Not only is there clearly no consensus to call it a coupo but our NPOV is a very important na d non-negotiable policy. You and I may think it is a coup but millionsd of Hondurans do not, making the belief that it is not a significant POV. We are only wikipedia editors and therefore it is our personal beliefs that should not count. But at the end of the day saying we shouldn't be wasting time discussing our NPOV policy is notin any way helpful to building an encyclopedia for the 21st Century. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What about those millions of honduras that do believe is a coup but are opresed by the new government and blocked off from international media attention.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A coup is certainty a crisis, and crisis would be a better, neutral name for the article. So even if it was a coup, it would fit crisis also, but if it was legal, it would still fit crisis but not coup. As it is in dispute, crisis is a better term.--Conor Fallon (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. This crisis is most certainly a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

how was this a coup?

the congress of Honduras acted in full accordance with the Honduran constitution, and prevented a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya (THAT would have been a coup). Seriously, how the heck is this a coup? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

when did a non-binding referendum become "a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya"? Can you provide sources that provide the evidence for your claim of "a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya"? And can you provide evidence of the "congress of Honduras" acting in accordance with the constitution in his being exiled by the military? Mulp (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Violent, illegal takeover?oh my....Zelaya was in pijamas when he was forced out of the country. How could that be a violent takeover?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly many people believe it was a coup and so we must include this POV in the text as our WP:NPOV policy demands. The title is another matter, and is currently in violation of our NPOV policy and has been tagged as such. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

This is in major need of mediation. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please agree to mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion topic on this page has been open less than a day. Despite a 2/2 split on editor opinions on your own poll which you started hours ago you listed in mediation that the majority of posters believe the current title is not appropriately NPOV. I strongly disagree with your request for mediation based both on the fact the request was misleading and due to the fact that you have rushed to this phase after only a token attempt at other steps in discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? A move request was already in progress. Now there's two open for the same page, apparently...? How does this make any sense? --LjL (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was moved within hours of being created and we have been discussing it ever since, I have voted in at least one poll. I would support mediation and, if necessary, arbcom as this is about our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They are clearly trying to push the name change no matter what "Name of the article, most feel that it should be at something more neutral". This is clearly not true because its 4 against 2 at the moment.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

"In March 2009, Zelaya called for a preliminary poll to be held on 28 June 2009 to guage popular support for the idea of including...."

'Gauge' 84.13.64.64 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)