Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Zelaya broke into military base where ballots were kept? AP source

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • • 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)

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)

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)

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)[2] -- 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)[3] -- 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" can be considered nuetral 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).

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" [4], "Hondurans by and large support the ousting of the President" [5], "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" [6]. 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 = [7]) --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) 14:08, 2 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)

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)

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)[8] -- 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 [9], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[10]
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"[11] -- 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)

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."[12] "Media outlets friendly to Zelaya have been shut down, and some reporters are hiding."[13] 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."[14] 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."[15]

-- 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.[16]. 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)

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.[17]

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. [18] CieloEstrellado's edits contain no edit summary[19], even after I pointed that out.[20] "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)

• News agencies on television refer to it as an "interim government". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 2 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."[21]

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.[22]
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: [23], 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)

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.

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)

• 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."[24] 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.[25] 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)

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)

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)