Talk:Manuel Zelaya

it was not a Coup d' Etat

While you two are busy fighting about the non coup I would like to point out a grievous error that neither of you realized and it makes it clear that those editing the page know very little about Honduras. Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales as he was named was not elected on January 27, 2006, he was elected on November 29, 2005 and he was inaugurated on January 27, 2006 just like the US elects in November and inaugurates in January.Summermoondancer (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC) it was not Coup d' Etat beacuase the military only acted because the supreme court tell them to depose zelaya, therefore it was a destitution. i'm changing Coup d' Etat to destitution. Vercetticarl (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you even remotely listened to what other people said, not only on your talk page but even just three sections above this one, you'd know that is a completely incorrect term in this context, as it means "extreme poverty", and not what you think you meant. I've reverted. --LjL (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm changing to deposition which is a better term than coup d' etat because it was not a coup d' etat, it was a deposition Vercetticarl (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So you won't accept "deposed" as a description, but you argue that what happened was a "deposition", is that right? --LjL (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the removement of zelaya from office for violating the consitition, thus making a crime, was a deposition NOT a coup d' etat Vercetticarl (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that once again you're hardly even listening to what I'm actually saying. --LjL (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

see the bottom of the infobox officeholder of zelaya it says: Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti. Vercetticarl (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm changing coup d' etat to deposition Vercetticarl (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be bad english, so please don't. Rsheptak (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

see the bottom of the infobox officeholder of zelaya it says: Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti. Vercetticarl (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with your use of "deposition". Why are you bringing it up here? Rsheptak (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti., deposed , deposition, that's my point i'm trying to make you understand Vercetticarl (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Look up deposition. And if the mismatch with the infobox bothers you (deposed is less specific than coup, but it's a short handy word which implies a non-legal transfer), then add "coup" to the infobox. In any case, do not ignore WP:consensus. Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, having just looked at deposition - I've never heard of Deposition (politics). Which means the average reader hasn't either, so it should be avoided as a section title. Rd232 ^talk 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This time I disagree. It's definition #1 on Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary, and if you type "deposition Honduras" or "deposition Zelaya" on Google, you see a number of reasons. WP:Common name doesn't really apply to section titles, anyway, where it's best to use the most correct term for the situation: this is the article about Zelaya, and Zelaya was deposed, not coup-d'étatted, even though the deposition was due to a coup d'état. --LjL (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American English thing (like that abomination against grammar, the "ouster" which clearly should be "ousting", but I digress), in which case it again should be avoided if possible. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's also definition #1 on the Oxford English Dictionary. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

i totally agree with LjL, see the first definition of deposition here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deposition it says: The removal of someone from office, which clearly applies to Zelaya. i'm changing again to deposition. Vercetticarl (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot just go ahead and choose the term or version of the story you think its true, that's not what we do here. Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigns of any sorts. The use of the word "deposition" is completely arbitrary, as around the world everyone refers to the current crisis as a Coup. Don't believe me?, a quick check on Googlefight proves this. If you really want to use an euphemism, and one that doens't sound so naive, may I suggest "Crisis" instead of "deposition" (really, anything is better than deposition).--99.192.92.168 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to be deposed by a coup d'etat, so I do not think the words 'deposed' or 'deposition' are actually as contraversial as they appear to be here (apart from their verbal clumsiness). In reply to the heading of this section, there is little doubt in terms of international law, and the opinions of all outside observers, apart from a tiny number of interested parties, that it was an illegal coup. So many sources confirm this that you'd have to weigh them rather than counting them Riversider (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC). The problem is not what international law says. What matters is what Honduran law says since each country is soveriegn. There really are not a tiny amount of interested parties as those calling it a coup de´tat also have intense interest in the return of Zelaya. There is little argument of what Chavez´interest is in this mess. I don´t care if you call it a coup or a deposition however, Honduran papers do not call it a coup they call it a deposed or deposition or ex president. All recognize he is no longer actually in control of the executive branch of the government. However, it is not a coup d´tat because Micheletti is not a member of the military and there are serious arguments by the Library of Congress(yes they stand by their report), the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme court who are both clearly experts in Honduran law and constitution. When every faction of government and most of the population oppose you it is not a ´small group of military members´or ´unconstitutional overthrow where the military takes charge´ A coup d´tat or even a coup indicate that the three branches of government are eliminated as well as the present form of government and constitution. The only person eliminated in the case of Honduras was Zelaya and the Constitution is still perfectly in tact.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Riversider. In my opinion, both terms should be mentioned. Something like 'Zelaya was deposed following a military coup d'etat'. Maxipuchi (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A question for you. Whose laws are we considering when we wonder whether to call it a coup, deposition, or whatever? What are the laws of Honduras? If they are the constitution and laws as passed by the congress, as interpreted by the courts, then this is perfectly legal in Honduras by definition. In that case it wasn't a coup or any negative connotation of deposed, but the government removing an alleged criminal. If not the laws of Honduras, then what other laws? International law? Does it have validity in the internal politics of Honduras? I'm saying this because I think the law would be a good source of guidance for proper terminology.

If Honduras is signed up to the United Nations, and to other international treaties, then it is bound by International Law, which take precedence over it's own internal laws. At the end of the day, legal niceties aside, the military and police repression tactics associated with coups are the same the world over, and if it looks like a coup, acts like a coup and smells like a coup, then it's a coup. The growing pile of corpses of those opposing the 'law abiding' government is the evidence I'd like to cite for this argument. Riversider (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

dude im from honduras it was not a coup they gave the guy one hour to get ready and peacfully took him out of the country so anyone who says its a coup they do not know what they are talking about they did not take him out by force no one forced him out so STOP SAYING ITS A COUP I WILL CHANGE IT AND NO ONE CHANGE IT BACK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.2.188 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Peacefully at the wrong end of a rifle, you mean. We do indeed have to be careful about calling it a coup, or taking one side or another in the arguments but to present them both neutrally. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

'Returning' President

On the disambiguation page for Zelaya, I altered his status from 'deposed' to 'returning'. This edit has been reverted. I think it is accurate to describe Zelaya as the 'returning' president. He has returned 3 times now to Honduras since the coup, and is now located at the heart of his country. It is looking more and more likely that he will soon be reinstated as president, so he is in the process of returning to that office too. Meanwhile any claims about the legality of his ejection from the country are being made to look ridiculous by the way the usurper regime is trampling all over international law by besieging the Brazilian embassy. I'd be interested in hearing other editors opinions on this. Riversider (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC) As an interim compromise, I think the formulation 'returning deposed' president on the Zelaya disambiguation page sums up his current status well. Riversider (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with describing him as the returning President. It is true that he has returned to Honduras, and that certainly increases the chance that he will return to the Presidency, but I have yet to see any indication that will actually occur. In fact, at the moment, he seems to be trapped in the Brazilian embassy. I think that is hardly the description of a returning President. In my opinion, "returning" exudes an air of certainty that is lacking in this case. Also, I am not a Honduran legal scholar, but I think the legality of Zelaya's removal from office is perhaps more legitimate than many heads of state would admit. For instance, see the recently released report from The Law Library of Congress for an argument explaining the legality of the actions of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress.Afwm1985 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'returning' does not imply any air of certainty - it describes a process that is occurring but has not yet been completed. I can be described as 'crossing' the road, but this does not mean I will inevitably succeed in getting across.

The term 'deposed' has an even stronger air of certainty - yet it is certainly not certain that Zelaya will remain deposed for long, hence 'returning deposed' which balances one term against the other and implies that the position is in a state of flux, the final outcome of which is still uncertain. The term may well need to be adjusted as events unfold.Riversider (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

'Returning deposed' was a little bit too subtle and nuanced for people to get their heads around, so we've settled on 'contested' for the moment. Riversider (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "contested" seems to be the best way to describe the situation at this point without confusing people with tons of modifiers.Afwm1985 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress "opinion" is a piece of garbage. Read it. Notice the footnotes. Notice that it uses personal communications from Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, a member of the coup as the basis of its interpretation and support for its novel, and incorrect theory of why its legal. See the numerous blog postings translating comments from Honduran Constitutional law professionals taking it apart and shredding it. Also note that the Congressional Research Service is concerned that you know, its not their study even though Congressperson Shock claims that on his website. Rsheptak (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really Rsheptak so now you are more of a legal expert and have a better legal opinion than the Library of Congress? What are your qualifications that allows you to label it garbage? Btw, they issued a statement to Kerry that they stand by their report. I would like to see exactly what it is in the article that you find not credible and use Honduran law to back yourself up. I want to know who these Honduran Constitutional law professionals are so please point us to them since I have yet to see them and I live in HondurasSummermoondancer (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya believes that Israel is trying to assassinate him...

This is currently cited in the article. This may or may not constitute a WP:BLP violation given a) The extreme, startling nature of what is being reported and c) The fact that no other reliable sources to my knowledge has confirmed the story. The Squicks (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Zelaya has many more immediate threats to his life than the state of Israel. Sounds like a smear story from an unreliable source. Riversider (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

These sites: [Ynetnews] and [Haaretz] have informations about the hallucinations in the Zelaya's mind.Agre22 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Articles have appeared in the Miami Herald, El Pais, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, all large reputable papers. However, I agree that too much space has been given to this within this article and I have trimmed it back. After all, this is an biography, and shouldn't lean too heavily on current events. Madman (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish statements raise concern on Honduras -- Rico 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider: [1]

Were Giordano (Narco News) not publishing that on a blog, I'd consider it usable. Oh well. 99.149.173.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn´t Romero´s remarks valid as a reinforcement to the anti semitism that is clearly going on. There have been articles also placed in many of the local Honduran papers about all of this and there is a certain letter from Hugo Llorens condemning Romero, one of Zelaya´s biggest media supporters of Radio Globo for his statements about Hitler and the Holocaust. Their positions have clearly taken a antisemitic and delusional turn. I heard the comments myself and became physicially ill just listening to their garbage. Rodas is also making the same allegations in El Heraldo. hn. --summermoondancer October 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summermoondancer (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blog commentary, which is miles away from being a reliable source and is completely unacceptable for a WP:BLP article. The Squicks (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Giordano is an accredited journalist, founded Narco News (which, an aside: was the publication that brought online journalism and blogging under the 1st amendment). Yes, The Field looks like a blog, since it has a heavy comment section. And although he is himself commenting on a variety of things, one of the main points of the article was that the the Miami Herald reporter could not substantiate her quote; this is documented as such within the article. No-one over there really seems to understand how WP works, though (they're fairly ambivalent, actually), so... I dunno. This is frustrating. Your call. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have so far resisted citing Narco News in the article, but its not a blog, it is reporting. Rsheptak (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog by a reporter, which is fundamentally different than a news article from a reporter. The story on the link is nothing more than Al Giordano's opinion. And that opinion that he says directly contradicts what the New York Times and the Anti-Defamation League have reported (they both reported Zeyla's Israeli claims as fact without referring to the Miami Hearld). The Squicks (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, NN has the article in Spanish, and we can use the "blog" (I know, I know, if it looks like a blog and quacks like a blog...) as the translation. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the theory that the Miami Hearld appears to now be a extremist political meme. See [2]. The theory is that (according to them) the Jewish-controlled media created a false story about Zelaya in order to discredit him. The Squicks (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidency

I believe that in the article Zelaya should be named De Juro president, and not ex-president, as no country has accepted the presidency of the de facto president. Please comment. Maxipuchi (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is deposed and is no longer the President. I noticed that the last claimant to the Ottoman Empire recently died. We would not label him the "de juro" Emperor. Madman (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Claimants to the Ottoman empire have nothing to do with this article. Some claim he is still the elected President of Honduras until Jan 29, this makes him more than a mere Pretender. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He is no longer in control and there are serious arguments to his stealing of the 2005 election. The biggest accuser is himself where he admits that he defrauded the electorate with 10% of the vote(you can find his actual comments by him on You Tube and HRN radio I believe has the interview. Cesar Ham, the current UD presidential candidate and one of his biggest fans, admitted as well that Zelaya stole the election so calling him legitimately elected is a farce. They did say ´well everybody does it´as if that were an excuse, but it takes away from his claims that he was elected. He is the ex president and his fate is in the hands of the Congress as to whether he will be restored and chances are he will not because they have deferred to the opinion of the Supreme court before they discuss it and will not convene until after November 29, 2009 because the Congressmen are campaigning right now and are recessed.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League and Zelaya

The article has nothing about the Anti-Defamation League's opposition to Manuel Zelaya, the former President of Honduras. Manuel Zelaya is [refector].Agre22 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Anti-Jewish statements raise concern on Honduras AP -- Rico 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-semitic comments come from David Romero, head of the news division of Radio Globo, and allegedly from Patricia Rodas, not from Manuel Zelaya. Romero has apologized publically several times for his comments. While the ADL states that Rodas's comments are anti-semitic, I don't agree, and again, they are not Manuel Zelaya. Rsheptak (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Um Zelaya made claims too http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1248828.html In fact he made the original claims on Cholusatsur via telephone and I heard them and could not believe how ludicrous it soundedSummermoondancer (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This wonderful event is clearly enough to get one booted from the air in the US but the International community thinks we have violated his rights by booting him here. He should be in prison not on the radio.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) striking out libellous comment on living person.--Cathar11 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You think that Rodas's comments are not anti-semitic? Really? Honestly? You think that for someone to cheer for the Holocaust is a good thing to do and is not anti-semitic? I'm speechless. The Squicks (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya Condemns Radio Host’s Comments on Holocaust (Update1)

Let's not be hasty, here. We only write what's verified, not what "the truth" is. I've seen allegations of "anti-semitic communist" above, among others. We are responsible for our edits within an article about a living person. So, again, there is no haste to prove anything. Just report what there is. K? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove link to crisis article

Somebody keeps removing the link to the constitutional crisis from the opening; there is no sound reason for such a mkove whicvh could be interpreted as vandalsim but I suspect is just POV pushing of the "it was a coup". Ya basta. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never removed the link because I do feel it should be there but I have added ""as a coup d'état" as this explains the known international reaction.--Cathar11 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)