Talk:Honduras

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. chicken Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

Politics

According to new Honduras' canciller, President Obama is an ignorant Pickaninny [1]

---

This seems very un-objectively written - I think less judgemental language should be used.

Unfortunately, Honduran politics are plagued with over-marketed political campaigns, unclear political positions, lack of measurable goals, and a lack of understanding from a majority of the population on the importance of democracy and the election process. In 2004, Honduran democracy made a quantum leap towards a more democractic society when separate ballots were used for mayors, congress, and president. Many more candidates were registered for 2005's election, and people had more chances to elect their local government. Even though many resources were invested providing an improved democratic process, we've seen this effort vanished when politicians scratched the names of already elected individuals to nominate their own who were not freely elected.

---

I just added a section NPOV template because of the above, and then saw that it was already mentioned on this talk page. I'm not qualified, but I hope someone will help fix this soon. -brbigam

---

More un-objectively written text, "The United States president, Barack Obama, has shown his true colors by denouncing the coup and has said that the U.S. only recognize president Zelaya as the legal president of Honduras, the position currently being held by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro"

Referring to true "true colors" is never objective wording. Comparing to "Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro" is pointless, unless a military coups is the legal way of removing a president from office. I have not polled all nations, but I would guess there aren't a lot of president praising the overthrow of a fellow president by a military coups.

---

Raúl Castro is the President of Cuba by the way.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.6.217 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Zelaya's arrest was seemingly within the requirements of the Hondruan Constitution, which disqualifies from power anyone, even a president, who engages in abuse of power by, among other things, ignoring decisions of the Supreme Court, which declared the referendum he was pushing illegal.

And if it's about presidents praising overthrows, you should remember that both Castro and Chávez launched coups of their own, the latter against a "democratically-elected president". They can praise, even launch their own coups but condemn the arrest of the Honduran president (which they define as a "coup"), even when it is within the Constitution?

Nevertheless, it is true a phrase like "true colors" is often not NPOV.

190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

In response with the previous comment the arrest of President Zelaya is not within the requirement of the Honduran Constitution. If you take the time to actually read the constitution. The Supreme Court has no authority to remove from power a elected president from his seat. This has already been reviewed by the U.S. State Department and is the reason that the U.S. Administration has stated its continued recognition of President Zelaya, as the legitimate President of the República de Honduras. Furthermore this is also the reason why the international community including the Organization of American States, is formally considering the current situation a coup d'État. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.55.25 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tourism/Ecotourism in Honduras

      Every time I try to put this in any search engine it always 

brings me to vacation and traveling websites. I need the facts, not the traveling information. Could someone find a good link for Tourism/Ecotourism in countries? Stuff about the percent of GDP it is and how many people relatively go...? Factual info please. I need lots of info... this

Hondurans

The term "Honduranian" does not exist. The correct term is Honduran. Dianahdez 6 July 2006

Not true. This term is used extensively by Honduranian people. To claim as you do is a cultural imposition. El Rojo 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I have never heard ANY Honduran say the word Honduranian in English or in Spanish. I'm Honduran, believe me, no one says that. Jorobeq 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe me in Honduras people do say it. I have heard the term too often to be confused on this one. Accordingh to info in your user page I have spent considerably more time in Honduras than your good self, maybe it is a North coast thing but it is a real term really used. El Rojo 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the time I have spent there, I have been surrounded by people who were born and raised in San Pedro Sula.Jorobeq 01:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google search shows it to be an unusual but definitely existent term. The people who I have heard use it all obviously speak English and do so because they have spent considerable time in the US but are equally clearly Hondurans. Curious, its clearly a translation of the word Hondureňo. All the Google searches that use the word come form the North Coast, making me think it is particular to this coastal region and perhaps hasn't really spread as far as San Pedro. El Rojo 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Very possibleJorobeq 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "Hondurenian" is used extensively by the Honduran people themselves. Its certainly not in my 27 years experience in the country in and around San Pedro Sula. I've only ever heard the term from north americans. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I'm saying its rare. Rsheptak 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely doubt that a person from Honduras would call himself or herself anything but "hondureño". I have heard AMericans called people from Honduras "hondurian" "honduranian" or "honduran". The fact the any of these words is often used doesn't make it correct, just makes a widely used incorrect term. Ask any body that speaks spanish, how do you call someone from Jamaica? In english, it will be very difficult the get an answer different than "Jamaican". Don't be surprised to hear answers like "Jamaicano", "Jamaiqueño", "Jamaiquino" and even "Jamaiquense". Again the fact that any of this terms could be used very often, doesn't make them correct. User:WikiHonduras 14 February 2007

Honduranian is a term used by English speaking Hondurans on the north coast, SqueakBox 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Hondurinian" does not exist. The only denominations known are "Catracho", which is complimentary and not derrogative and Honduran.Valdez007 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, outside of Honduras we refer to people from honduras as hondurenos(with a tilde on the n) and hondurans refer to themselves as catrachos, but not all hondurans say that

Having worked for the last 20 years with American citizens in this country, and being a native Honduran I can say that the term "Honduranian" is an inaccurate one, and many hondurans have used it only because their bosses use it, that's probably why you've heard hondurans use it. I know several native hondurans who speak incorrectly because they have learned to speak that way from constantly hearing americans who incorrectly use the English language; and if you try to correct them (americans and hondurans alike), they refuse your correction, because in their minds, that's the correct way to speak. That is the case with this term "Hoduranian". So is the case, for example, with the term "Limp". Too many americans use that word to refer to the national currency "Lempira". To them it is easier to say "Limp" than it is to say "Lempira". And then several hondurans use it to make life easier for everyone, not because the term is correct.User:Likantropo 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

References

The article is missing references. Also, the history section should be summary style, no need to detail how long runaways there were.Luis Napoles (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

President detained

Zelaya has apparently been detained by the military in the crisis over the term limit referendum. Expect changes will have to be made as the situation becomes clear. Rmhermen (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenemos que tocar el tema de la posicion del presidente Zelaya

Señores, antes de seguir borrando o cambiando la pagina de honduras... hay que discutir la posicion del presidente ya que el presidente de facto no es reconocido por la comunidad internacional. Discutan sobre el tema para llegar a un conclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrogomez88 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No es reconocido por la comunidad internacional pero sí por las instituciones hondureñas. Micheleti es el actual presidente según esas instituciones.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Micheletti is not "acting President"

I don't think it's appropriate to list Micheletti as "acting President" when he is not currently being recognized by the OAS and was installed by a military coup that is kidnapping foreign ambassadors and generally breaking the law. I think we should at least list the leadership as being in dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikat381 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC) The Honduran courts, Congress and other branches of government do recognize him. After all, it was the Supreme court who gave the military the order to arrest Zelaya.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC) --It is the constitution of Honduras that determines its leader, not military force and the pronouncements of officials and opposition parties. That is why the world recognizes Zelaya as the constitutional president of Honduras and is condemning the coup as illegal and illegitimate: (see here http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55R20H20090628 and here http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R2AY20090628). I realize now that I did not go far enough simply to ask that we list the office of President as being in dispute -- what we should in fact be doing is continuing to list José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the president of Honduras.Ikat381 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I think the listing of Micheletti is debatable. To list him is to accept the legitimacy of the political process, and this should be discussed. So, I would change it back to Manuel Zelaya Rosales. Rsheptak (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya was ousted by the Supreme Court, the National Congress, his ruling Liberal Party, the opposition National Party and the military. A successor has been sworn in with the consent of all of the above and the constitution is still in effect. Zelaya is not the president any longer. Mauritania, Fiji, Guinea and Madagascar had coups and the transition was easier here than it is here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In a process whose legality is unjustifiable even by the Honduran constitution. Forceably exiling the President is not a legal process. The fact that no world government is recognizing Micheletti as president should be a clue. You're an editor, so act like one and let the discussion happen before editing the change again so quickly. Damn. I was only gone an hour for lunch and you already demanded I have responded to you and have changed things back. That's not the way an editor should act. Give the discussion time. Rsheptak (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who would like to say that Mir-Hossein Mousavi is the President of Iran? Anyone think that Aung San Suu Kyi is the Prime Minister of Burma? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere: It doesn't matter! Zelaya is the only legal president, he's the only recognized president by other nations, such as the US. I can't believe I was warned and accused of vandalism for not recognizing a completely illegal action against a legitimate President. That's not cool.

We are not the United States! We give the facts as they are, and the fact is Zelaya is not in control anymore than Mousavi, Suu Kyi, Abdallahi, Qarase, Somparé, Ravalomanana or Thaksin are! Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its about both legitimacy and control. While I think the other cases you cite are not comparable, in Mousavi's case, its because he's not seen as legitimate, not that he doesn't have control. Rsheptak (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the Mousavi case fails. I wasn't completely sure of his inclusion as I typed, but fine. What makes Zelaya different from the others? And I wasn't typing to you when I asked for a defence. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not but he will. You're comparing to incomparable cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.75 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One, sign our posts with four tildes. Two, that's some crystal ball you've got there. And three, explain to me how their depositions are any different and how they have any more power than Zelaya. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is my crystal ball cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-h/honduras.html I'm sorry for not signing. 208.54.4.75 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So an outdated source (direct link here) which, as a primary source, wouldn't be used anyway is how you "know" (which, if you'd read the link, is also not allowed) Zelaya has control over Honduran affairs. And you haven't been able to answer both questions. That's good to know. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The legality of the ousting isn't the issue. It's who is now the president. The recognition of the international community (or lack of it) does mean someone is or isn't in charge. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a different way of looking at it. I can't agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think maybe the most sensible solution would be to either leave the field blank untill the issue is completely resolved or put in both with a description of the status of both for example (exiled) for zelaya and (de facto) for micheletti. Anything else seems to me that it would be to take sides in an ongoing political conflict - something that I don't think is wikipedia's purpose. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Most pages are placing them both as de facto and de jure. I believe that this practice should be followed, as it could be also be considered that Zelaya is now the leader of a government in exile.Frapoz (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is what this page said until and edit war developed. I'm fine with dual listing or even leaving it black with an asterisk and footnote. Rsheptak (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can't be left blank until the issue ends. It's likely to go on until the presidential election this November. The "de facto"/"de jure" approach could work but, IMO, we shouldn't say Zelaya leads a government in exile. He's the only one exiled and we haven't even heard of his VP. Is he actually leading an exiled government (like Tibet) or is he just contesting the presidency? Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't heard from his VP because it was Elvin Santos, who had to resign to become the Liberal Party Candidate for President in November, and who supports Micheletti. As for the government in exile, here's what TELESUR reported today:

Entretanto, la vicecanciller de Honduras, Beatriz del Valle anunció a teleSUR que los ministros del legítimo gobierno de Manuel Zelaya han formado un "gobierno de resistencia" que nunca reconocerá al presidente de facto Roberto Micheletti. "Un gobierno de resistencia (...) no vamos a reconocer a ningún otro jefe que no sea el presidente constitucional (...) (Hay que) resistir pacíficamente y esperar el retorno seguro de nuestro Presidente". Militares arremeten contra el pueblo de Honduras Rsheptak (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Zelaya is the legal president of Honduras. Being "in control" is not "being president." Also we're going to need to define what it means to be "in control." The world's refusal to acknowledge Micheletti as president does indeed bear on this discussion, not because we can use it to predict the future, but because it tells us that there are significant barriers to Micheletti's ability to carry out the political duties that he claims to have taken over. At this point the coup has done nothing but kick out Zelaya, break a bunch of laws, and make a bunch of sweeping claims to legitimacy. That does not qualify them as the political leaders of Honduras. I think Maunus' claims are an improvement, but I still feel it would be more accurate to stop calling Micheletti the president altogether. Ikat381 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There ought to be something more accurate than "president" to describe Micheletti's power status in Honduras. Ikat381 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Although with "de facto/de jure" we're also saying Zelaya is still legally the president, which the government's institutions seem to disagree with regardless of our, the populace's and the international community's opinion. And that is something that would require a resolution to this crisis. It would take an independent, legal body to look at this and really find out if this was legal so saying that it is or it isn't is a moot point (and he's been sworn-in as president so we can't use anything else). I'd rather Mannus's edits be ad interim because right now, it's much the same as leaving it blank. However, I do like your tendering the possibility of Micheletti being the president at home while Zelaya remains the president at large. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The links I posted above include statements from international government authorities that recognize Zelaya as the legal president, so I don't think we have to wait for the resolution that you are describing. Here they are again for your convenience:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55R20H20090628 http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R2AY20090628 Ikat381 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is back to the international community argument. I know how this is sounding but I'd rather not repeat myself so please just read the above conversation. Also government spokespeople are neither legal nor independent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read it and I've already addressed the points that dealt specifically with Honduras. I chose not to get into the details you raised about coups in other nations because I felt it would be best to stick to the facts pertaining to this coup. Ikat381 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This incident hasn't created a new precedent. With variation, this has happened before and the previous coups are relevant. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually as I read further about this coup, I'm finding that the most appropriate term being used to describe Micheletti is "Coup President." Ikat381 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that will be the terminology used. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

President is a tittle. They have an election and the winner becomes the president. Maybe that's the terminology you're talking about. Like someone already said being in control doesn't mean being the president. You can be a dictator and still be in power, right?69.104.216.185 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No... I'm saying "Coup President" will not be used. We were referring to the legality of their holding the title, not disputing the title itself which anyone can call themselves, so long as other people respond in turn. Which they have. The government, in fact. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Using some of your own examples Therequiembellishere, a quick googling led me to an article in The Nation referring to Surayud Chulanont in Thailand as "the coup's Prime Minister," (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/thrupakew) and I found an IRIN document on the UNHCR website that identified Moulaye Ould Mohamed Laghdhaf as Mauritania's "post-coup prime minister." (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRIN,,MRT,48fd88ad26,0.html). On the other hand though I don't want to get too bogged down about the terminology on this page because I think the decision to list the political leadership as "Unresolved" with a link to the page about the crisis is probably the most academically responsible thing to do -- maybe this whole "coup president" thing would be more useful on the discussion page for Micheletti himself. Ikat381 (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between an adjective and a noun, you know... Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh FFS...Ikat381 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What? They aren't saying he's styled as the "Post-Coup Prime Minister", they didn't want to say "after the coup, XXXX has been appointed as the new prime minister". It's nothing but English. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembe you know in a couple of weeks the wiki page is going back to Zelaya as president. Then what? According to wikipedia's records (your edits) will show that Micheletti was president. Are you saying that you want to write your own version of the history saying Micheletti was president for several days? Who gave him the tittle? Weren't you talking about not defining the tittle? So what are we defining then? How are you, in behalf of wikipedia, going to explain that he was president?69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone tell me where they found their crystal balls? I'd like to tell the future too! Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm I'd say.69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then read the articles. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine leave it whatever way makes you happy! Despite all you've heard here from other sources you still insist, go head! Jesus Christ, this is supposed to be a community's work, not one guy's stubborn opinion. Do whatever you want, hope you're happy now, real mature.69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere is right that gratuitous predictions about the future cannot be used as arguments for what we are going to write here. The fact is that we don't know who is president in a week - and that is what the article states now.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to have seen a source that flat out says you or I are correct. Back to the point: I suppose something along the lines of de facto/de jure or something similar to the Palestinian National Authority page will be used. Can we find out what exactly to do? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd reccomend waiting a few days and see how the honduran courts and the international community handle the matter. When we know more we take a decision.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should this discussion be the one we link to on the other, relevant pages? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The infobox here aside, as soon as I have time, I'm going to model Zelaya and Micheletti's infoboxes off the Palestinian presidents and prime ministers. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I just noticed the VP mentions. I was referring to "Vice President Commissioner Arístides Mejía". Rsheptak, do you know anything? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Aristides Mejia Carranza is Zelaya's Vice President Commissioner, a new cabinet level position created in 2008 after Elvin Santos resigned as Vice President to run for president in this election. I've heard nothing about him since the coup, but since its a cabinet position, I doubt he holds the position under Micheletti. Rsheptak (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Micheletti back as president? Didn't we agree to wait? Seems a little weird that someone would protect the pageright after an IP editor inserts a controversial edit against consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As per the above conseunsus, please change from:

|leader_name1 = [[Coup d'état|Roberto Micheletti]] |leader_title2 = [[Vice President of Honduras|Vice President]] |leader_name2 = [[Coup d'état|Unresolved]]

to

|leader_name1 = [[2009 Honduran political crisis|Unresolved]] |leader_title2 = [[Vice President of Honduras|Vice President]] |leader_name2 = [[2009 Honduran political crisis|Unresolved]]

Ikat381 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to our discussion, here's a link to Human Rights Watch naming Zelaya as the constitutional president: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/honduras-military-coup-blow-democracy and here's UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon naming Zelaya as constitutional president: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31297&Cr=honduras&Cr1=. And I want to stress again the huge obstacles to Micheletti carrying out any political duties (the world and the population of Honduras oppose it). So if it were up to me, I would list Zelaya as president, but I'm willing to accept the "President = Unresolved" consensus since it is a huge improvement over listing Micheletti.Ikat381 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unresolved" has not held consensus, we're still getting to that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think 'unresolved' or 'disputed' etc. is appropriate. I don't think international recognition alone is a good standard to apply. For over 20 years, despite all the facts on the ground, the United States and other Western powers refused to recognize the People's Republic of China as the government of mainland China and instead recognized the The Republic of China (the nationalists in Taiwan) as the only government of China. Is it correct to say that during those decades, the leadership of the ROC was the only leadership of China? Some Taiwanese might think so, but no serious academic would state that. And if international recognition is the standard, how will we resolve cases where international powers have not reached a consensus? The case in Honduras is not a simple case of a military coup. There is no evidence that the military appointed Micheletti, but rather that he was chosen by Congress, and that Zelaya's removal was ordered by the Supreme Court. Is that legal? I don't know... I'm not a scholar of Honduran constitutional law, and I bet most contributors to Wikipedia here are not either. Nevertheless, the branches of government of Honduras seems to agree that Zelaya is not the president and that Micheletti is. Since internal politics and international politics seem to differ, and there is no good universal standard to rely on for Wikipedia, I think listing is simply as under dispute, with further discussion about who recognizes whom is appropriate. Prothonotar (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We simply cannot leave it blank for seven months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said to leave it blank for seven months, or even one month. I believe that as long as there is contention between international and domestic sources of who is the rightful president, putting it as 'disputed' and leading the reader to read the details in the article is sufficient. If the situation is the same seven months from now, then it is the same. What is clear is that there is no definitive answer as to who is the rightful president, either among Wikipedia contributors here, or between the current Honduras government (which is, after all, more than just the position of president) and the international community. If there is no definitive answer, then labeling one of these men as the definitive president in Wikipedia is misleading. Prothonotar (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing is sure though, the current link for Micheletti and the 'Unresolved' VP is inappropriate. They link to the Coup d'état article, and should at least link to the article specific to the Honduran crisis. I support Ikat381's requested change completely. Prothonotar (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is likely to be dispute until the election in November, whose winner won't take office until January -- seven months. If you'd read this section in its entirety you'd know that listing one or the other as president is no longer an option, so I don't know what you're getting at. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my position was pretty clear, but I'll repeat it: I support Ikat381's requested change, which would have neither individual listed as president in the infobox, instead listing "Unresolved" with a link to details about the ongoing political crisis. If the crisis continues on until the next president takes office in January, then so be it. This is not 'leaving it blank' as you say, but succinctly indicating the situation (that the current legitimate president is, as far as we can tell, unresolved) and providing the resources for the reader to come to their own conclusions. As is hopefully now apparent from these comments, I agree with you that listing one or the other as president is not an option at this time. I'm not sure where our opinions differ now. The page currently does list one of them as president, and Ikat381 has requested that be changed. I, for one, support his request. 207.171.180.101 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the same thing as leaving it blank. It tells us nothing but a link to another article when we can just do something like this. And I personally don't want that on the page possibly for the next seven months and I won't let up on it. No one is saying list one or the other, as I've already mentioned. The page is in an unacceptable form, as per the above consensus, but we're unable to change it because of the protection. I repeat, we all want this changed. Now, again and hopefully once and for all, can we find a consensus as to how??? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. After reading the huge discussion above, it seems there is consensus that the appropriate entry, for now, is "unresolved". There seems to be only one opposer to this proposal. Please do continue to discuss and if consensus changes, place the request again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just going to offer my 2 cents on this issue. Let's look at it. Ousted President Zelaya is gone, so he's not President. The military did overthrow Zelaya, but the order came from the Sumpreme Court, and Congress. Pro-Zelaya or Anti-Zelaya, Zelaya is gone, and I can't see him coming back unless he's reinstated. Now let's look at the new appointed President, Roberto Micheletti. By all aspects, he is the appointed President, who has been reconginzed by the Sumpreme Court, and the Congress. Yes, he's not reconginzed by the majority of the world, but he is the President. Just my 2 cents. America69 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept "unresolved". Regardless of either side involved, their assertions, or our opinions, the situation is developing, and uncertain. I do not like the idea of Wikipedia trying to be an up to the moment site. I know there is a desire to inform as quickly as possible, but Wikipedia is not a news site. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere is right, a few years ago Bush/Cheney was the effective executive of the US. It didn't matter that Moveon.org thought he stole the election, that Babs Streisand complained about it, or that delusional mental patients all over the world claim they are the real president. Benedict XVI is the Roman Catholic Pope, it doesn't matter that some guy in Kansas a few years ago said he was the real pope. Even if every country in the world decided they hated them as long as they hold effective control over their respective country/congregation in the way their title implies they are the leader no matter how much you don't like it. Jarwulf (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are We All On The Wrong Track?

In this discussion, please remember the main Wikipedia flaw; it appears that if someone, somewhere wrote down something that got published, it becomes fact. This must be viewed as flying in the face of common sense. All the dancing around the issue of substantiation for titles and such is actually a wasted effort, IMHO. But let us get down to the real issue.

There can be little doubt that the action taken by the use of force without so much as an open referendum on the issues puts the basic comments of the US and Venezualen presidents right on point.

With that said, the real issue here has nothing to do with who is president or who is in power. It has nothing to do with whether or not the legislature was right or wrong to order the military to seize control. The real issue is that the country of Honduras has a serious problem with the constitution. There are some very serious problems with the wording, terminology and/or intent of the document. This is evident by the fact that there could even be such a confusion about what is right or wrong that could lead to such an event as recently occured.

I am no expert on Zelaya, but I do know that he had pressed the US to legalize drug use, so as to eliminate the criminal element and the high cost of deaths in a fruitless war that will never, ever be won. Because of that obvious display of intelligence, I am seriously wondering if maybe he had the good sense to institute the vote to determine if the people were willing to improve a flawed constitution. He may have been on the right track. After all, the election process was to decide if they should consider any changes, not to actually make any.

In any case, there exists the flawed constitution that lies at the foundation of all the problems, and that should be the target subject of the article with regard to current events. Let us simply state that such and such occurred, and that it clearly appears to be based upon confusion over the intent and meaning of the constitution. While there are always political and special interests at work, a proper constitution would protect against this sort of action.

The purpose of the article is to state the truth and the obvious, and to do so in a neutral voice. In this case, it seems proper to point out the obvious flaw that led to a violent action as a point of fact. Thank you. - KitchM (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "flawed" about the constitution? You keep using that word as if it's generally undertood that the Honduran Constitution is in error.

From what I've gleaned from a variety of articles, Zelaya wanted a non-binding resolution on rewriting the constitution because the "flaw" he thought it had was that he wouldn't be able to run for another term as president.

Term limits doesn't make a constitution "flawed."

Can you explain what you mean by that? Simplemines (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What you consider a "flaw" in Wikipedia is atually what made it a huge success. Remember that Wikipedia got started as sidekick to Nupedia which was an expert opinion public encyclopedia project. Needles is to say that Nupedia is long time gone. The main point is not to estate the "truth" since that is sometimes a very debatable conclusion. Wikipedia doesn't say that because something is published somewhere else, it means it's a fact. It only says "it's a fact that it's published or referenced" allowing the opportunity to compare and re-inforce a point. At the end is the reader who given all possible views determines his or her "truth".

It's the Honduran constitution flawed? It doesn't matter for wikipedia and shouldn't be discussed here. Original research which is something that wikipedia opposes, it's better done in other type of media outlets, not in this encyclopedia. Wikihonduras (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this page protected? The coverage of the constitutional crisis seems pretty sparse, and could use some revision. Binarybits (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection has no any sense. Maybe they should only protect the Politics section, not the rest.Mazarin07 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to figure this out too and am pretty sure the debate over the president (See Section: Micheletti is not "acting President") is the cause. This is a hot news event and hopefully in the near future we can revert to semi-protected status. -- Bdentremont (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

removed POV rant

I removed a POV rant from the talkpage in my previous edit but forgot to mention that in my edit summary. Hope no one minds.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely do mind. I don't agree with the person whose post you deleted, but that doesn't mean I think they should be censored. Talk pages can get heated at times, but it is not in line with the vision of Wikipedia to censor someone's viewpoint on a talk page. I would urge you to please be more careful when it comes to censorship in the future. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the sidebar where this article lists various officeholders, if you click the name of the president listed there, the link takes you to the article for coup d'etat. Intentional? Humourous? Vandalism?

Strange Link

Why does Roberto Micheletti link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_deTat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. At the very least, it should link to 2009 Honduran political crisis, although it would be proper to link Micheletti to his own page, Roberto Micheletti.--Ferrariguy90 (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That was apparently the last edit before the article was blocked for use of only administrators. I have changed both the President and Vice President title to "Disputed" and linked that to the Honduran coup d'état of 2009 article. Micheletti was added on by an IP who may not know that Micheletti's government hasn't been recognized by any government in the world. No one knows how this situation is going to turn out so putting on "Disputed" seems like the best option at least for now.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the governmental factions responsible for President Zelaya's ouster have acted in a truly troglodytic manner; can it really be the case that the Honduran Constitution requires that a "problematic" President be awakened in the middle of the night, taken from his place of residence while still in his nightshirt and sent into immediate exile without recourse to legal counsel, without being allowed to defend himself in his own country's juridical or parliamentary courts? As I recall, President Nixon, who, facing similar accusations of unconstitional acts, underwent impeachment proceedings and was permitted the option of resigning with a modicum of decorum, was not arrested in the dead of night by Marines and forced to board a plane into exile by fiat and secret decree. In short, the ouster of President Zelayas is an affront to the belief in the applicable universality of standards of social and institutional civility, transparency, and facticity, the "constitutionality" of the facile, rapacious, and brutal extirpation of a democratically elected president is what is in question, not President Zelayas's right to return and resume his mandate as freely elected leader of Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marenach (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone remove the current event template

{{editprotected}} There's no point in warning our readers about rapid change on a protected article. :) --Conti|✉ 09:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Presidency in Question?

To have the Presidency of Honduras in question is unbelievable. The Honduran Presidency may be in question to most foreigners, but if anyone bothers to actually read news coming straight out of Honduras and not from the mouth of Hugo Chavez, the Honduran Constitution makes it very clear who the President is. Roberto Micheletti. Zelaya was removed from power by the military following through on an order, not a coup, from the Honduran Supreme Court, at which when Zelaya was removed, the constitution succession laws stated that Micheletti was to replace him. Micheletti was not placed in power by the Honduran military. According to the Honduran Constitution, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran Congress (including Zelaya's OWN PARTY), and many citizens of Honduras, Zelaya is no longer President and Micheletti is. To keep it as "disputed" or "unresolved" presents a very clear bias against Honduran rule of law. He broke the law, he was removed from power, the Constitution was followed, and now Micheletti is president. Why even bother try, the Hondurans themselves have made it very VERY clear that Zelaya will NOT be placed back in the Presidency, unless by use of force. Accept what has happened, Zelaya will never be president again.--Farmer88 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated to death in other locations. Look at the talk page for the "2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis" for much of the discussion. I won't reprise it here. I will say, however, that no on is listening to Chavez, and that he isn't a factor in the debate. Go read it. Rsheptak (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing specific quotes with regards to crisis

I do not understand what makes it so important to specifically quote Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez with regards to the political crisis in Honduras. Before removing these quotes I will rather add information with regards to other countries view of what is happening in Honduras at the moment. I am for removing specific quotes of any political world leaders since they are not relevant to the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.112.100 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Just realized the page can't be edited and wasn't even signed in. Anyways, the section which has just two specific quotes from two specific political leaders is silly. Here is information that should be added to that section with regards to other political world leaders if we wish to include it.

Reaction from Spain, France. http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=991799&lang=eng_news Spain, France recalling ambassador from Honduras. Reaction Germany http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Infoservice/Presse/Meldungen/2009/090629-Honduras.html Translation, the German Foreign Minister is against the current situation. The rest of European Union countries http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/02/eu-ambassadors-honduras236.html This article pretty much encompasses the european point of view. Here is Canada http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+join+call+reinstate+Honduran+president/1747435/story.html

Anyways, I can go and find other points of view with regards to the current situation as expressed through world political leaders but my question remains. Why do we have specific quotes from two world leaders in this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaussianCopula (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

President Manuel Zelaya did not attempt to hold a referendum (or plebiscite)

It was an encuesta, which is best translated as survey. This is a really important point, as it is not merely non-binding, but actually has no legal validity of any kind. Calling it a referendum or a plebiscite is just a trick to make the Supreme Court's decision sound plausible. Referendums and plebiscites are legal initiatives that are carried out by electoral bodies using the ballot and voting processes. Zelaya's survey was merely an opinion study carried out by the National Institute of Statistics to measure public support for a proposed constitutional convention. Suppressing the survey would seem to indicate that the powers-that-be were afraid of the results it might generate. I don't see any other reason. The proposal for a constitutional convention would have been carried as a special item in the November election, which would seem to eliminate any possibility that Zelaya could use it to promote his own reelection or term extension. Under the terms of Article 239 of the present constitution, it's not clear how the subject of presidential election or term extension could even be brought up in a constitutional convention, as Article 239, which would remain in force during the convention, forbids proposing it. Jules Siegel (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelya "referendum"

"President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding referendum (or plebiscite)" In the interest of historical documentation there should be mention of the type of and content of the so called "referendum" It is the principal cause of the current dispute and to not mention a single word about its content is beyond biased. Here is a brief description " The referendum at the center of the storm asks voters to place a measure on November's ballot that would allow the formation of a constitutional assembly that could modify the nation's charter to allow the president to run for another term. Zelaya, whose four-year term ends in January 2010, cannot run for re-election."

67.83.62.88 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To be precise the executive decree was to hold a poll or survey. The exact term used in Article 2 of the decree is "encuesta de opinion publica". The purpose of the poll that was taking place in June, was to to asses the desire to hold a referendum in the november election to call for a constitutional assembly. Please see text in spanish of the decree. http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422. Wikihonduras (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's rather deceptive to use such a loaded and inaccurate description of the survey and to continue to call it a referendum. The exact term used in Article 2 of the decree is "encuesta de opinion pública." http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422 Encuesta is a standard Spanish term for survey. It's not an official legal proposition with voting by ballot. Proposition 8 was a referendum. The polls about Proposition 8 were opinion surveys.

The full and verbatim text of the survey reads:

"¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre del 2008 se instale una Cuarta Urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente? SI____ No____"

Translation: "Do you agree that a fourth ballot box be installed in the general elections of November 2009 to decide on convoking a National Constituent Assembly to enact a constitution? YES ___ No ___"

Jules Siegel (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to do WP:Original research by "translating" terms from Spanish or reading Constitutions at home. Please, see what English-speaking WP:reliable sources say about it. I have a list of some that call it a referendum, want? --LjL (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. It doesn't matter what "English-speaking" say about this. I'm a professional translator of Spanish. My translation is not "original research." It's based on established authorities. You can read the translation of encuesta here. I hardly think that referring to the actual decree is original research. Jules Siegel (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not original research, you say? Well, let's see. I typed "referendo" into your professional-looking dictionary. Of course, the first translation is "referendum", but... there is also "consulta popular" - wasn't that one of the terms used by Spanish sources?! Let's try clicking on it. Wow, the first thing I notice is that the first-listed synonym is "encuesta"! So, can "referendo" and "encuesta" actually mean the same thing (as "referendum")?!

But aside from all this, the simple fact that you add to qualify yourself as a "professional translator" should give you a hint that you're not basing your claims on actual verifiability. On Wikipedia, we don't care who you are.

Finally, saying that "it doesn't matter what English-speaking [sources] say about this" is patent nonsense, sorry. On Wikipedia, we base things on WP:Reliable sources, English ones being preferred. They entirely matter.

LjL (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Word Magic is a popular bilingual dictionary that frequently offers various synonyms or extended meanings of Spanish and English words and concepts. I sent you there because it's a quick way of verifying the various meanings of Spanish and English words. We are, however, discussing legal terms. Both referendum and plebiscite have very precise legal definitions. A consulta popular is more commonly used as an opinion gathering method that can take place in various ways, including public meetings. It can be a referendum or a plebiscite only if it satisfies legal requirements such as being carried out by a legally constituted electoral body, using verifiable voting instruments such as ballots.

Neither English speaking persons nor bilingual dictionaries are verifiable sources in the same sense as the generally accepted final authority on the Spanish language, Real Academia Española, which defines encuestaas:

1. f. Averiguación o pesquisa. (Verification or investigation)

2. f. Conjunto de preguntas tipificadas dirigidas a una muestra representativa, para averiguar estados de opinión o diversas cuestiones de hecho. (Set of categorized questions directed at a representative sample, to ascertain states of opinion or various questions of fact)

If, on the other had, you search for referendo, you will be redirected to referéndum, which it defines in the sense being used here as:

1. m. Procedimiento jurídico por el que se someten al voto popular leyes o actos administrativos cuya ratificación por el pueblo se propone. (Legal procedure by means of which laws or administrative acts whose ratification by the people is proposed are submitted to voting.)

I'm not only a professional translator, but also an internationally recognized author and journalist whose works have appeared in English and Spanish in many highly respected publications. Some of my works are cited as sources in Wikipedia articles. I got involved with this topic on Wikipedia because I am writing an article about it for a major publication with millions of readers. It might interest you to know that it started as a result of a discussion with Jimmy Wales. When I'm finished, it may very well be used as a source in the Honduras article.

I'm sure that you are a very intelligent concerned individual, but I see you indulging in what I consider to be rather imprecise interpretations of terms whose definitions are not subject to the kind of interpretation you are offering. Thanks for your observations, however, which gave me the opportunity to provide the correct, academically accepted translations of the terms under discussion. Jules Siegel (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I never really meant to use link-hopping inside Word Magic to prove my point - on the contrary, I merely did that to show that pointing me to a translation dictionary about this is useless, as it's hardly just a matter of word-A-means-B.

I believe I dealt with that in my response, but please go on ignoring anything I actually say in favor of how you wish to interpret it.

Anyway, I've already had this whole discussion on the Manuel Zelaya talk page, and I don't really feel like having it again... Please, refer there for my reasoning where I explain that, in my opinion (and Wikipedia policy's opinion), what matters is what English WP:Reliable sources call it, not really what Zelaya's government called it.

What matters is the dictionary definition of the terms, not what ignorant non-Spanish speakers think about it. A Reliable Source can be utterly and totally wrong about something. Would you suggest that the Spanish dictionary be changed to suit an incorrect definition used by a source that may be reliable in many matters, but happens to be unreliable when it comes to the Spanish language?

Oh, sorry, I completely forgot that what non-Spanish speaking reliable sources (reliable, but ignorant) say doesn't matter at all. Where did I have my head. Duh. --LjL (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
--[From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll]

If you do write a article about this on a reliable source, then that might become a reliable source that we can use, rather than just "someone's original research".

So you say. Unfortunately, that's just your opinion. Citing the Real Academia Española is not original research. I'm not making up definitions based on my own opinions. I am citing an unimpeachable authority.

Meanwhile, though, I believe my reasoning is correct.

Of course you would, but that doesn't make it actually is correct. I can translate elefante as octopus, but that doesn't make it correct. I supplied the exact meaning of the terms from the generally accepted ultimate authority on the Spanish language and you're still arguing with me about reliable sources. There is no more reliable source for the Spanish language than Real Academia Española. I can also show you the equivalent definitions in authoritative English legal dictionaries.

Jules Siegel, I went through the same disussion a few nights back. You can read it if you want. At the end it was agreed under consensus to say "Poll of Public Opinion, generally known as Referendum by the Media". Since there were references on both sides calling it one way or the other, plus as you mentioned also the correct translation of encuesta is poll or survey, it was prudent to use this dual arrangement to avoid any POV. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2009

So why are you continuing to argue with me? Jules Siegel (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

President

Hey is odd that the President information just say "Unresolved". Its very easy:
de facto: Roberto Micheletti de jure: Manuel Zelaya Google de facto and de jure honduras president and many media in Spanish use those terms. I would do it myself but the page is protected so I listen for comments on this and hopefully someone with enough privileges would change it. --ometzit<col> (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believed that is prudent to keep it "unresolved" the "de facto" term would be considered POV by many here. They will argue that "de jure" should apply to the new government, since both the Supreme Court and the National Assembly approved the new president. Obviously a big population here will also argue the opposite, stating that any action from the Assembly or Congress, derived from an illegal action would therefore be also illegal. This is the dispute on hand, unlike other "abrupt changes in government" where the break was very evident, this political crisis has brought in additional elements. I'd recommend to keep it unresolved, since otherwise would be considered POV. Wikihonduras (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA activities in Honduras

Why does the article not link to, or include material from CIA activities in Honduras. The contraversial line "Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement, notorious for kidnappings and bombings" is supported by a dubious source - http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/exgi_0001_0001_0/exgi_0001_0001_0_00044.html%7Ctitle=Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement . There is much information at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZIcZjlj1hLEC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=honduras+cia&source=bl&ots=T8h9JskBTS&sig=9SJGwhvrgP6Ru3gDPzV-iCJGfAQ&hl=en&ei=F5lQSqqvKNC2jAeGwuy8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This article being taken over by CIA disinformation section

The CIA takes wikipedia very seriously.

During events like these the covert CIA wikipedia team, which includes a few wik administrators move in to give the article a CIA point of view after which the article is locked protected. - This has happened to other articles like - Gaza siege - Lebanon - Iran – Unlock this article and let thousands of wiki editors write the truth here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.185.48 (talk) 21:43, 5 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) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

the "coup d'état" of Manuel Zelaya (Urgent)

{{editprotected}} Under the History section of the article it states that:

"In 2009, a constitutional crisis culminated in a coup d'état and the forced transfer of power from the president to the head of Congress.[14] Countries all over the world condemned the action and refused to recognize the new government."

Is is incorrect. While the Army did remove Zelaya from office, it was under order of congress in a attempt to uphold the constitution. This makes a coup (in its literal meaning) impossible. From the opening line of the wikipedia article on what a coup d'etat is:

"A coup d'état, or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government,"

Therefore, I purpose that all mentions that what occurred shine away from using the term coup (not just here but throughout the article in references to the current issue) at the very least until which time that all facts come to light, replacing it with a phrase such as "removed from office". In this example the text would read:

"In 2009, a constitutional crisis culminated in the presidents removal from office and the subsequent transfer of power from the president to the head of Congress."

Side Note: I would also like to take issue with the the phrase "Countries all over the world condemned the action and refused to recognize the new government." believing it in need minor changes for NPOV issues (minor, if not unimportant, in comparison with the first urgent request) --BookishOwl (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a coup, plain and simple. The facts are all there to support that a coup occurred. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. World media and international political consensus agree that a coup occurred. The government that illegally took-over Honduras is one of the lone voices saying this wasn't a coup. I would sooner trust a wolf with my grandmother. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

the U.S. Container Security Initiative.

As soon as the edit freeze is lifted I'm going to delete the paragraph on the U.S. Container Security Initiative unless someone can justify leaving it in. Rtdrury (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran political crisis

This section has a giant paragraph devoted to the US president's statement and otherwise very sparse on direct information of context/events in Honduras and from Hondurans. When the edit freeze is lifted, I'm deleting the paragraph and adding some relevant information from the main coup article. Rtdrury (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the paragraph is already about the right length for a see-the-main-article paragraph without the information about what US people said. Just removing those and leaving the rest will do fine. --LjL (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Encuesta"

Aren't there marketing experts available in Honduras to provide a "survey" about any topic the government would have needed to know? Most probably there are. So, this "Encuesta" proposed by Zelaya was not really intended to survey the people of Honduras but to impose later on the results as if it was an referendum.

Those who has follwed the Honduran case would tell you that Zelaya used "organized" mob groups to force his entry into the warehouse where the ballots were keeped by the judiciary, and took it in an act of force.

His intentions were not innocent, and the authorities had to make quick decisions before he attempted to use his mob-teams again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.223.48 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part, showing a complete lack of knowledge of Honduras. The INE, the Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas, is charged, in the constitution, with aiding the president in conducting opinion surveys. That's why the INE was in charge of the non binding poll. Rsheptak (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the History?

Who is censoring the history of Honduras? The current page jumps from independence to 1969. There are some historical "facts" that are appropriate, as untasteful to the US and CIA as they might be. Shouldn't this page discuss the coups, the "banana war", the US troop incursions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelintom (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't being censored, its just that no one has undertaken the task of writing them. Go ahead and start. Rsheptak (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To adjust names

Adjust name with the second one

• Callejas Romero
• Rafael Leonardo Callejas Romero (Presidency 27/01/1990 - 27/01/1994) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caceo (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Chávez did not threaten with military intervention

The article about Honduras says that Chávez threatened with military intervention. This is not true. On the contrary: "Desmintió informaciones de medios privados según las cuales tropas venezolanas y nicaragüenses estarían preparándose para invadir Honduras. "Nunca haríamos tal cosa", afirmó el Presidente Chávez." Official government source: http://www.vtv.gov.ve/noticias-internacionales/20136 --Patrick Hens (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that one. I just googled: "chavez threatens intervention honduras" and got plenty of hits, from Reuters http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40653020090628 to the Belfast Telegraph http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-threatens-to-invade-as-honduran-army-stages-coup-14369366.html and the list goes on. Wikihonduras (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Crisis section and use of the term "coup"

The fact that a coup took place is currently excised from the political crisis section of the article. Clearly this issue needs to be resolved in order to present a more neutral viewpoint. To not even mention the word "coup" is outrageous. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)