Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 6

Many typos are found in the July 6th info...i dont have time to correct it but any one that has the time please fix those obvious typos. (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only typos, but timing problems, it was written in future tense. Anyway, I will fix it later. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


This is in major need of mediation. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please agree to mediation here:'état --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion topic on this page has been open less than a day. Despite a 2/2 split on editor opinions on your own poll which you started hours ago you listed in mediation that the majority of posters believe the current title is not appropriately NPOV. I strongly disagree with your request for mediation based both on the fact the request was misleading and due to the fact that you have rushed to this phase after only a token attempt at other steps in discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? A move request was already in progress. Now there's two open for the same page, apparently...? How does this make any sense? --LjL (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was moved within hours of being created and we have been discussing it ever since, I have voted in at least one poll. I would support mediation and, if necessary, arbcom as this is about our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
They are clearly trying to push the name change no matter what "Name of the article, most feel that it should be at something more neutral". This is clearly not true because its 4 against 2 at the moment.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I missed the one above, I did not see it there since the page is so big, I only saw it after I posted mine, I then posted based on first poll. sorry for the confusion. --Conor Fallon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
I think mediation on here would be a good idea...and I'd like to point out that it would be a microcosmic version of the mediation that Óscar Arias is attempting between Zelaya and Micheletti.  :) Good ol' Óscar Arias. I think he should be President of Honduras, on days he needs a vacation from Costa Rica, that is.  :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading Óscar Arias's Wikipedia page and it appears he himself governs because he swept away a constitutional prohibition in Costa Rica on returning to office. Of course, he didn't break the law to do it, but he apparently had a tough time getting the law changed and had to be a bit of an activist to get judges that would hear his case in court. Interesting. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

"In March 2009, Zelaya called for a preliminary poll to be held on 28 June 2009 to guage popular support for the idea of including...."

'Gauge' (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it myself, sorry. I didn't realise I could edit semi-protected pages if I was logged in, so I didn't bother. Jh39 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of coup

There's been a lot of back-and-forth about whether this is truly a coup, and I'm not going to weigh in on whether the military's action was legal or not. However, if we look at several definitions of "coup d'etat" from'%C3%A9tat?o=100074 :

a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

('s own dictionary.)


The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

(American Heritage)


A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power. Coup d'état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government.”

(American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.)

Judging from these definitions, I think it is fair to say that the military's actions could be perfectly legal and still classify as a "coup." However, the term may still be inappropriate since it clearly has a negative conotation, but I'm not expert on Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I hope this provides some kind of better framework for a more educated, level-headed descision.

--Justanothernerd (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where people see all these negative connotations (or why they would matter). You can have a terrible, dictatorial, horrible government that treats its citizens awfully... then a coup happens, the government is overthrown, and a wonderful government is created. Is that "bad"? It's most certainly a coup.
I also said before that sources quoted something like "We believe the coup was not legal" (said by Obama I think, don't remember). That's a sentence that implies that a coup, in and of itself, can be legal. Is it consistent with the "right" definition of coup? I don't know, but working (like some people here seem to do) on the assumption that coup=bad=illegal is questionable. --LjL (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Was Barrack off Teleprompter? Actually, wasn't it Hillary that was doing the hedging? Before we finish the war here, the real dispute/crisis in Honduras may have been mediated. Imagine if we could "cap and trade" all this hot air? VaChiliman (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That pesky RS the NYT has "gone native" again, fooling with the same issue, bandying about phrases like "constitutional crisis" while giving it some standing as a legitimate question VaChiliman (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I have reverted the first paragraph of the lead section to the version of 9:03, 7 July 2009 (which I was partly responsible for.) The differences are this: 1) The version I prefer says the coup started on 28 July, not 26 July. 2) The version I prefer contains the background statement explaining that the principal reason for the coup was dispute over the constitution.

My reasons are this. Regarding point 1, we can find all kinds of preambles and prior manouverings to the main event, but the real action began on 28 June, when the president was seized. It's not a coup until someone is detained. The story became big international news on the 28th. Various bodies -- the electoral authority, the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman -- had pronounced earlier than the 26th against holding the poll, but we're not saying that the event started then. By saying the coup (or whatever you call this event) began with the supreme court's decision on the 26th, I think we unduly emphasize, and legitimise, the role of the court in this. Normally, one would automatically consider a court's action to be "legitimate," but in a case like this, where it is a party on one of two sides in a struggle for control of a country, it is valid to scrutinise it more critically. The nations of the world have mostly condemned the removal of Zelaya; the supreme court ordered the removal; therefore the nations implicitly deprecate that court. The rightness of the court's action is part of the dispute here; it is biased of us to treat it as being automatically legitimate.

Regarding point 2, people will come to this article with no prior knowledge of the event. The purpose of the lead is to quickly explain the main points. One of the main points (the "why" of the 5 W's) is that this event happened because the president wanted to change the constitution and some other people -- I called them "more conservative elements" -- didn't want him to. I think the term is appropriate: they are the conservative side of this dispute; they want to stop the change, keep things the way they are. They also happen to be more politically conservative, in the usual sense of the term, than the president -- who appears to be somewhat of a leftist although I can't read his mind -- so I think calling them "more conservative" fits and is true in this sense also.

Oh, I just noticed another difference. I changed "arrested" to "seized". He certainly was seized. "Arrested" depends on the legitimacy. -- Ong saluri (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


The opening paragraph is from time to time revised to a beligerantly propagandistic opening which omits to mention the supreme court and the constitution - omits to mention that this "coup" was ordered by the supreme court quoting article 239 of the Honduras constitution.

To replace the supreme court and the constitution with "the rich", and "elements of the military" is just a propagandistic lie. You can argue, in the body of the article, that the supreme court acted wrongly, and that the constitution is unjust and unreasonable, but to just rewrite history as a military, rather than court action is just strident lies, and that those who keep doing this are not acting in good faith is shown by their conduct, in labelling their edits uninformatively, and in wiping out the intermediate work of others in gathering facts and constructing careful references. Wiping out the careful and neutral work of others is vandalism. Edit warriors should be careful to preserve the work of others.James A. Donald (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

James, you may have missed the explanations I gave for my changes to the lede. I have moved them to immediately above your comment here. I came to this page yesterday. I am not aware of the details of earlier battles regarding this article. I thought the opening paragraph that I contributed to was clear and fair. Obviously you do not, but I must say that some of the comments you have just made do not apply to me. I did not vandalise, wipe out careful references, etc.
Now, as to resolving this, I think the method that has to be used is to stick as much as possible to reportage of events, and try to avoid statements -- explicit or implicit -- about which side is right or wrong. The legitimacy of the actions of both sides is the very issue here. It is at this moment the subject of international debate. I'll leave it at that for now. --Ong saluri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

I only know that we really don't need to have citations from a primary source in the lede of an article. It's simply out of place. --LjL (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a nugget in here that may allow resolution of the entire "mess", aka dispute. Based on the timeline, could one not do this: Create two articles? One concerning the events of July 28th? Call it a Coup or a Pajama Party, stick to the facts, and have a nice, balanced lead, and cross-reference other articles. You can focus on factual, encyclopedic stuff: categories like International reaction, Media coverage, Church response, whatever... instead of endless propoganda. The other can cover the context, and if this mess is not a constitutional or political crisis -- apart from the singular act of showing Senor Z the door and circumventing due process -- I don't know what is. The timeline for this article is much longer, before and after the 28th, but has a chance of doing the entire effort justice. Just an idea. VaChiliman (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the leading date got changed to the 26th again. I accept the above stated reasons for sticking with the 28th, and revoke any support that may have been implied by my previous edit to make it the 26th, which was inspired by the otherwise fair edit from James A. Donald that made the court order glaringly falsely dated to the 28th. Do what you wish about making clear the military arrest was court ordered. But please don't stretch the meaning of "coup d'etat" further by having it not refer mainly to the force of military involvement, illegal or not, by instead stating that it "began" with a court order. Its meaning has already been stretched enough to near breaking, if not too much and broken, by having it refer to what may arguably, if not probably, have been a good coup.Samuel Erau (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


"Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." VaChiliman (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The title is a disservice to the article, which is otherwise fairly neutral. "Coup" promotes a viewpoint above another in contravention to wikipedia's NPOV policy as described above. Not only that, but the actual article involves more than the military's actions on the day they arrested Zelaya. It is for these reasons that I believe the article should be called "Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009" instead, which is neutral and in any case wider in scope. (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it keeps being blocked by the same people, and they rejected mediation, showing that they have no interest in resolving the dispute, only stalling it. --Conor Fallon (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Calling it a coup is not POV, is just what it is! (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you every read the exact definition of coup, and read the Honduran constitution? AND it is a point of view, because a large number of people don't view it as so, are you saying it is not a crisis? Because if it was a coup, crisis would still be accurate, but if it ere not in fact a coup, crisis would still be accurate, while coup would not. And since Wikipedia must be neutral, it CANNOT have coup in the title. --Conor Fallon (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the word coup in the title is not neutral. The word coup implies the action was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Honduras currently says it was required by the constitution and they are the only body officially designated with interpreting the constitution of Honduras. Is it appropriate to challenge the constitutionality of a Supreme court ruling within the title of a Wikipedia article? It may be true they are acting illegally but should the title of the article express this POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the pro-Zelaya groups feel it is a coup while the anti-Zelaya ones don't, just goes to show it is POV. Why not change the article to something along the lines of "2009 Honduran political crisis", a much more common title seen on Wikipedia. -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"'2009 Honduran political crisis', a much more common title seen on Wikipedia." Not really. Should we move 2008 Guinean coup d'état, 2008 Mauritanian coup d'état, 2006 Fijian coup d'état, 2006 Thai coup d'état, 2005 Mauritanian coup d'état, and so on? I bet all of those coup leaders dispute that their actions should be considered as a coup. --Tocino 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what I have been saying since the start. The comment of those that the people in Honduras who feel this are a fringe group blatantly contradicts the facts and there has been no other argument as to why we should have the current title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Calling it a coup instead of a crisis is slightly POV, because a few people (in the lead, the people who ousted Zelaya) claim it was legal (despite the fact that there is no legal provision for expelling a sitting President from the country). Calling it a crisis instead of a coup is extremely POV, when it is universally described by the international community as a coup. So we go with the lesser problem. Disembrangler (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but calling it a "crisis" is not POV, because whether or not it is a "coup", no one seriously denies that it is a "crisis". I don't see that "international community" should necessarily have the last word over Hoduras itself, given that Honduras is more familiar with its own laws than non-Hondurans. It is easy to apply the term "coup" to a situation where the miltary has some involvement in ousting a president. But this situation is far different from what a coup typically denotes. The word coup typically describes a situation where people outside the legitimate government, often with miltary help, and often military leaders lawlessly take over the government by force or by threat of force. In this case, there are at least 2 aspects that differ from what is normally referred to as a coup:
  • The legitimate Honduras Supreme Court blessed the ousting, so there is at least some lawful basis, and
  • The person who succeeded Zelaya was the person who was constitutionally next in line for the presidency; and a person who, despite their differences, was even a member of the same politcal party as Zelaya
An anology to this situation would be if the US Supreme Court ruled that Obama was ineligible to be president (perhaps because evidence emerged that he was born outside the US) and so Joe Biden replaced him. People would be upset, but it would not be a coup. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to this talk page

Can someone clarify this diff for me? It looks like a lot of content was deleted and very different pargraphs were added instead. Perhaps it's just an undoing of some previous editing mistake? If so, though, it would benefit from an edit summary explaining that... --LjL (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I too would like some information on why the particular following material was deleted from this page, though I'd also like to comment that the vandalism had died down and that particular troubling line has long since been edited by others. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Begin deleted talk page material-- Blockade?

What's up with this?

"While no Honduran had yet died, Archbishop Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez warned “We think that a return to the country at the moment could provoke a bloodbath," reading a message from the country's Bishop's Conference, while Zelaya's main backer Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would suspend key shipments of oil to Honduras.[100] Historically, a blockade is considered an Act of War.[101]"

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a blockade, in the sense of one country's military forces disallowing others to trade with another country. There's lots of countries individually agreeing to cut off Honduras under the current circumstances from trade, but that's called a "trade sanction", not a "blockade". Citation 100 in the above quote ill-advisedly uses the word blockade - that's the only reason for this passage, as far as I can see. Though Chávez has blustered about military intervention in this case, we have no evidence that he's blockading anything, and suspending oil shipments does not constitute a blockade. This should be stricken from the article, in my view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, "while no Honduran has yet died" is stated as fact when there have been reliable reports of deaths as early as 30 June. See, e.g., 2 dead, 60 injured in Honduras anti-coup protests. I'd edit it but the current state of edit war/vandalism isn't worth the effort. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope people feel more comfortable posting facts on here at some point. Maybe after the immediate controversy dies down, it'll be safe for people to soberly report those facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

--End deleted talk page material--

Mediation Cabal

For all that are interested in resolving this dispute: --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again???EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Mediation and Mediation Cabal are different, I am trying to find an end to this dispute.--Conor Fallon (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies on controversial names


A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[4] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[5] Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.
Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.


Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.
For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.
See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.


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. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others.
The term allegation should be avoided in a title unless the article concerns charges in a legal case or accusations of illegality under civil, criminal or international law which have not yet been proven in a court of law.
Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Naming conflict.

Thank you. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I found this relating to positive tone. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline section and creating framework for NPOV

The timeline (aka Developments) should be at the very beginning. I submit the entire article should be presented only as a timeline of events which would go a long way to keep it NPOV. The the readers can decided what this was coupe, political crisis, constitutional crisis, Honduran form of impeachment when the Constitution has no such provisions, like in the US.

But the timeline clearly needs to start before 6/28. In fact, the current article already has some events prior, fo one example:

"On Saturday June 25, the Honduran Attorney General issued an arrest warrant against Zelaya.[33] On June 26, 2009, after an extended secret investigation, the Honduran Supreme Court unanimously issued a sealed order for the capture of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales for “acting against the government, treason, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power,” and detention at his home in the Tres Caminos area of Tegucigalpa.[34]"

And the whole thing about zelaya going with supporters to get the ballots that were locked up per SC order needs to be in there.

Timeline only format. (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additions

June 25

On Saturday June 25, the Honduran Attorney General issued an arrest warrant against Zelaya

June 26

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

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.

Source By FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writer Freddy Cuevas, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 26, 5:12 pm ET (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'Coup' euphemism for premeditated political genocide

The word 'coup,' with its soft, French ending, seems more fitting for a page on fashion or journalism than to describe the bloodthirsty reality of a Latin American golpe, which, for all the latino, legal peregrinations you all can muster, was bound from inception to result in the spilling of human, Honduran blood. Cursed be all who premeditate murder of their fellow citizens, and those who assist them, whether by training or any other form of collaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What other terminology would you propose? "Golpe" means "coup". -- Rico 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does indeed, and sounds more like it, too, and without any unwanted connotations of 'the latest thing to grasp the attention of the beau monde since the President's blow job.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what makes you think that your opinion about the "sound" of a word has any relevance to Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In English, LjL, the phrase 'sounds like' does not necessarily refer to its actual sound, as such.
The word 'coup' sounds really bad to speakers of Portuguese, if it's any consolation to you. -- Rico 04:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Lets see what is more popular on Google,

Honduras political crisis gets 13,400,000 results.
Honduran coup d'etat gets 427,000 results.

That is all. --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras coup gets 11,300,000 results.
Honduran coup gets 16,300,000 results.

Google hits are not reliable sources but please don't try to deliberately mislead people.Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you don't usually use quotation marks to search things like this in Google? It makes very little sense to just search for several unquoted keywords and count the hits, you know. --LjL (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, the arguments are really going downhill. How many printed RS used the word "coup" didn't hold water for me, given space and vocabulary limitations -- I just don't think frequency is relevent. So now here we are doing Google counts? That's just plain dumb. Dumb, and Dumber. VaChiliman (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not like this comment of you was very constructive, for that matter. Anyway, when it comes to an article's title, yes - Google hits are commonly (and effectively enough, when done properly) used to gauge what the WP:Common name for a topic is. Of course, it's hardly the only factor, but it's hardly one that should be neglected, either. --LjL (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The main reason that i dont agree to the title change is because we have already changed the title before and if we do it again we will always have people that wont agree to the title, and to avoid going around in circle, i will oppose to the title change. The Situation in Honduras is not the usual-type coup we have seen in past Latin American events but it doesnt make it any less of a coup. We all have to agree with the fact that President Zelaya was removed from office by using unproper means. Instead of a court case, he was sent to exile. This is not the proper way to depose a president, so it is a Coup, not a Constitutional Crisis, because nothing is wrong with the constitution if the right procedures are taken, it is not a presidential Crisis either because there was nothing wrong with the president, however, it is an overthrown of the Executive order and his cabinet which makes it a coupEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me, the whole reason he was removed was because he violated the constitution, and that the Supreme court of Honduras, the sole body that decides on Honduran constitutionality, ordered him removed, the worst that happened was an illegal deportation, not a coup. -- (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Violating the constitution doesnt mean you have to be sent to exile by the military. Violating the constitution means you get impeached and if found guilty, removed from office. The proper means of removing a president are found in the Honduran constitution, however, they didnt use those proper means, and instead force Zelaya out of the country.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I 100% agree that google hits on random words is meaningless. If I didn't say that pointedly enough before than I apologize. Anyway, yes, agreeing with Edwin the absence of anything resembling due process is an important point.Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Zelaya and Clinton

Could someone please upload this picture of Zelaya and Hillary Clinton onto Commons, so we can put it on this article? The U.S. government is publishing it and all U.S. government pictures are fair use. Direct link to picture here: [1]. has is here too: [2] Thanks. --Tocino 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the value added by this picture? Please explain? Fair use, not a problem. Information value, zero. Must this article continue to develop in a distinctly one-sided, skewed POV? VaChiliman (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that Clinton got Zelaya to agree to mediation talks with the coup leaders, this meeting between the two is a pretty big deal. --Tocino 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you see that in the picture? I can't tell the left from the right. VaChiliman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Clinton may or may not have gotten Zelaya to do anything -- I give her credit for not fouling up a good thing (mediation), and for not caving in on the issue of calling it a "coup" (unlike her boss). VaChiliman (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before the meeting Zelaya had no plans to go negotiate with the coup leaders, immediately after the meeting Zelaya announced that he was going to Costa Rica to negotiate. Clinton obviously had a role in this change of course. And yes, Clinton has called it a coup. [3] --Tocino 02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what would be good for this article would be to have pictures of Zelaya's plane circling above Tegucigalpa Airport and the military using tear gas against protesters at the airport. Those are probably two of the most memorable images of this whole saga. --Tocino 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. You couldn't even publish the photos I have in my posession. Of course, I am not CNN. By the way, the BBC has published a pretty balanced mix, should you be curious how that is done. VaChiliman (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think that Óscar Arias merits a photo op, being the one statesman in this entire crisis. He alone is stepping into the breech and providing necessary leadership to bring about some form of resolution, perhaps leaving things better off than how he found them. , I think, is a POV many people can both understand and respect. He also deftly handles the context, historical and political, that led to the crisis. VaChiliman (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I give up. This is as close as I could get. I found one AP photo of a speck in the gray sky over Teguci, but you really can't tell if it was a plane, or just what empties out when the WC flushes. As for the tear gas, I have seen footage, but no stills. I really don't thin these photo suggestions show much; this medium has its limitations. VaChiliman (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Some photos to add to the scrapbook. Is this "coup cruft"? VaChiliman (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edits (Other than Name)

  • Add a source to the opening sentence. This should not be difficult. VaChiliman (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The following assertions of fact should be verified by RS, that a coup occured: that it happened 28th June (began implies a process, not an event, if we cannot call this the crisis it is, then let's define the event, which ended in a matter of hours); a source showing that the AG issued an arrest warrant, presumably on the 28th(?); a source saying that the Supreme Court ordered the military to carry out said warrant, presumably also on the 28th. Either each of these element was a part of a coup event, that began on the 28th, or they are part of a timeline that includes each of the elements building up to the crisis. VaChiliman (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: "In the first military coup in Central America since the end of the cold war, soldiers stormed the presidential palace in the capital, Tegucigalpa, early in the morning, disarming the presidential guard, waking Mr. Zelaya and putting him on a plane to Costa Rica." -- , New York Times 28 June.  Yours truly, Ong saluri (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
At least that is well written. Can we now lede with a quote? "Enquiring" minds wish to know. "A" for style -- crisp, to the point. VaChiliman (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Provide balance for external links to images and to analysis. There is a second side to be heard, let the reader see the full picture. I'd almost be willing to assume "good faith", had an editor not tipped their hand (more than once). Also, I object to linking to the Huffington Post, which cannot possibly have standing as an RS that seeks to present an NPOV. Otherwise, I'd like to invoke "equal time" from another POV -- aka, the Honduran people (not Venezuelans, not Cubans, not left wing idealogues with time on their hands). In fact, there are pro-Zalea images which are quite authentic and genuine, so why dredge through the dross? VaChiliman (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that the current analysis external links with cites to both The Nation and Democracy Now is somewhat leaning to one particular side of the political spectrum. One could pare it down or add a link to one of the Wall Street Journal or The Economist articles cited in the article or to this recemt Reuters piece Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras. I'm not suggesting parity in number of external links WP:UNDUE, but a bit more balance across the political spectrum. My suggestions should not be construed as agreement or disagreement with the viewpoints of any of these publications. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:38, 9 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. -- (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 of I think that perhaps 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 (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'. (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 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 :) (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" (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC).
The fact a completely anti-democratic element of their constitution allows them to remove him doesn't change the fact he was removed with military force. Many coup-prone states have introduced laws or articles in their constitutions that essentially authorize coups. A coup doesn't need to be illegal in the country in question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the English text given here has a critical error in the translation of the Spanish. It actually says "... will cease immediately to occupy their respective positions and will remain ineligible for 10 years for the exercise of any public function". Note it does NOT say "will be discharged" or "will be disabled", which would imply more directly that someone (e.g. the army) has the power to remove them. Benwing (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
So, merely someone alleging that an executive officer is seeking to change this provision means they are to be immediately removed from office simply because the court decides this is the case without evidence? If someone alleges the current president is guilty of trying to change that provision, then he must be exiled as well? Has anyone presented any evidence that he was changing the term limits set in the constitution, or is it just the claims of his political opponents looking to oust him from office? Mulp (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay but you all guys will agree that someone will have to remove him/her from the Presidency. Specially after being acting as a rogue officer not observing the mandates neither of the Supreme Court nor the Congress. Either it should have to be the police or the military. The guy wouldn't have gone away by himself. He needed some encouragement. --Agcala (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A constitution being anti-democratic or having some anti-democratic clause will not make a constitution action becomes a coup. The word "coup" applies to non-democratic governments as well, even the person who made a coup has raise an democratic election later.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
For one that specifically applies to someone proposing an end to term limits, which is only what his opponents alleged not what actually was being suggested. For another if this was purely a legal action why would they send in military forces to remove him, send him off to Costa Rica, flood the streets with troops, close down media stations, impose a curfew, and arrest everyone loyal to him even if they aren't part of government? Face it, this was a coup d'etat. I find it completely amazing that the absurd objections of a few editors is preventing us from calling a spade a spade.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Except for the part where you're dramatically sensationalizing it, and that's not at all what happened. Troops have been dispatched to protect government buildings, and confront protesters where it has gotten violent. The media had been briefly messed with by troops, but that's largely ended and people are free to report what they want online or to their respective news organization. The curfew ended on June 30th (and had an end date attached to it). And, people loyal to Zelaya have not been entirely arrested, there are pro- and anti-Zelaya protests continuing to go on nationwide (though, thanks to Mitofsky International's poll work in April 2009, we can be relatively certain which side has more protestors). Oh, then there's the whole bit about how the other two branches of the government largely agreed on his need to go, and authorized it, and then instated the next-in-line according to the Constitution. Can you name ONE other coup where that has occurred? Way to be neutral. -A Pickle (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a Talk page, where neutrality is not required. The curfew didn't end on June 30th. It was extended through this friday night when the 4 constitutional sections were suspended earlier this week.

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

Note that Roberto Micheletti is recently sworn as President. While judges have no authority to decide who may succeed Zelaya, the Congress should have that authority under virtue of rule of law. Of course this practice could be questioned because it is non-democratic.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's democratic. It's constitutional. Who would succeed the President if he was found guilty of treason? The vice-president. In honduras, there is no vice-president (well, there was one, although, there should had been three Delegates). So, the next in line is the President of the Congress. He wasn't just randomly picked. And he was, in fact, elected President of the Congress by three elections, the people voted for him to be a candidate for congressman, then to be a congressman, and then the congressman voted for him as president of the congress. So he was next in line by three elections, two direct and one indirect. That's democracy. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's an opinion piece. I keep seeing it called a golpe de estado, which mean coup, in the Spanish media. -- Rico 03:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This action doesn't fit the dictionary definition of a coup d'etat. The army did not take power, the people who ordered (Supreme Court) the removal of the President neither assumed power themselves nor decided who assumes power, and lastly this was not an inside job. I would also like to mention that, unlike some editors on this page have alleged, there is no violence in the street now, and there has not been any since the army moved on the Presidential residence. I am in contact right now with my family members in Honduras (I'm Honduran), and they tell me the streets of the capital are deserted except for army patrols. Manuel Zelaya has been on CNN proclaiming that the Honduran people are rioting in the streets to get him back. This is simply not true. The majority of us are glad he's gone. Is it really a coup d'etat when the people are backing it? (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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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? (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't? From what I've read, there's a majority of people protesting Zelaya. This would seem to coincide with the Mitofsky poll, taken April 2009, that states that 1 in 4 Hondurans supported Zelaya (that would be 25%). Or is 75% a minority where you come from? - A Pickle (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

International consensus seems to make this a pretty straightforward call. (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. (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously. Would you guys mind telling my president to mind his own ****cking business? Or at the very least, tell him to extend Hondurans the same courtesy he extended Iranians? -A Pickle (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there any reason to keep the discussion above? It seems only to be the opinions of various posters. I thought we were supposed to remain neutral here.
      • I would like to see what various international legal theorists have had to say; or if that takes too long, what prominent or famous people have had to say. (I have my own opinion, but I'm hoping you can't guess what it is from my edits and comments: I'm trying hard to stay neutral here.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
        • As long as a significant number of people, and notable people, in Honduras think it was not a coup we cannot say the neutral viewpoint is that it is a coup in the title itself or as an undisputed fact within the article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court clearly authorised the president's arrest and detention. That was probably therefore legal- assuming that the Supreme Court had the power to undertake such a criminal investigation, and assuming that the president didn't have legal immunity. His arrest by soldiers would have been illegal. However he was supposed to be detained under house arrest, not deported. That would probably be kidnapping. Illegal, but not itself a coup. His removal from office is another matter. If the constitution didn't allow for impeachment, it isn't likely to have allowed the removal of the president by the supreme court or congress or the army. His removal from office was probably therefore illegal. Whether that makes this is military coup is less certain. A coup, quite probably. Military coup, not really. The title military coup is contentious, and quite possibly incorrect. I suggest "constitutional crisis" instead.JohnC (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is conflicting itself in its definition of a coup d'etat, which is an "unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment." First of all there is no process of impeachment in the Honduran constitution, so there is technically no constitutional way to remove a criminally active president in Honduras. However, by Wiki's definition, a coup is carried out by a "small group." The Honduran Congress, and it's Courts, who in their legal procedures found the president guilty of illegal activities, are no "small group." This event may be more legitimately be called "an arrest," since constitutionally there is no such thing as impeachment for the people of Honduras right now. The goverment did what they could within their laws to find Zelaya guilty. The military was purely following orders by the Court, not to take the government over themselves. The act of removing him from the country may be deemed illegal, but all other actions seem to follow Honduran laws. The news reports in Honduras tell a lot more of the back-story than the rest of the world gets.

How the Coup Crumbles

Are vaunted RS now backtracking, or hedging, on the C-Word?

The NYT published an article (not an editorial) [1] that treads lightly on the key issue in dispute here -- how to appropriately name, or refer to, this mess. Rico, spare me from bolding very time the c-word appears, and I'll spare you bolding every time "crisis" is used in its place. The following sections speak to the issue:

"The spotlight on Honduras’s political crisis began to shift away from Latin America’s leaders and back onto the United States on Monday, as both sides in the face-off over Honduras’s deposed president turned to Washington now that broader diplomatic efforts have failed." They not only lead with "political crisis", but use "deposed president". Following the lead of an RS, should we now (kneejerk) refer to Zaleya as a "deposed president"?

"A delegation of Honduran lawmakers and backers of the new government arrived here on Monday to make its case, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton planned to meet with Manuel Zelaya, the deposed Honduran president." Hmmm, there's that nasty phrase again, "deposed president".

Perhaps the NYT is joining the fringe? Perhaps we can get WP to remove them from the RS list before all is lost?

"The new battleground could make it hard for the Obama administration to maintain its current strategy on Honduras. After immediately condemning the ouster of the presidentand flatly rejecting allegations that the United States may have had a hand in it, American officials have largely tried to stay behind the scenes." Three paragraphs deep, we have one "political crisis", two "deposed president"s and an "ouster".

Seven paragraphs deep, "As Mr. Zelaya and his detractors converged on Washington Tuesday, no one was expecting the same fireworks. But with diplomats groping for a way out of the crisis, it was becoming clear that leaders on both sides of the divide were calling on the United States to take more of a lead role in the negotiations." Again, a different c-word.

"Coup" first appears in the next paragraph. Not "Coup d'etat", by the way.

Paragraph 10 reads "Although both the president and Secretary Clinton have described President Zelaya’s ouster as a “coup,” the administration has said that it was still deliberating whether the ouster met the legal definition of the term, a decision that would set off an automatic suspension of most American aid. At this point, senior administration officials said most aid to Honduras was “on pause.”" Interesting choice of words, "described", "ouster", and a "coup" in quotes. Why? Read the paragraph. Perhaps the NYT has some modicum of journalistic integrity, and the Obama Administration has some faint awareness that words are important. That's pure conjecture on my part, but it does seem to fit. VaChiliman (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another 2 rs, from the 7th = "The United States Monday condemned violence against protesters in Honduras and called for President Manuel Zelaya's reinstatement as the Central American country faced growing isolation over last week's coup." "A crowd of about 1,500 had gathered at the perimeter fence of the airport to welcome home Manuel Zelaya – the exiled president, removed from power and thrown out of the country in a military coup a week ago." (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
One more -"Une semaine après avoir été renversé par un coup d'Etat, le président du Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, a tenté sans succès de rentrer dans son pays, dimanche 5 juillet." (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw the new heading and thought, Gee, someone finally noticed that the golpistas seem to be coming apart. First there were the reports yesterday about Carlos Flores and other business men backing away from Micheletti (and you can see evidence of that in the way La Tribuna coverage changed in the last couple of days) and today's report in El Tiempo (site currently down) that Pepe Lobo, the Nationalist candidate for President would work to restore Zelaya. Sigh, how naive I was. Just more hot air about whether its a "coup" or not. Rsheptak (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The new heading was a bad attempt at levity, perhaps; the point was that RS are moving away from the simplistic, but inherently important (as cited previously) labeling of what happened a "coup". If this is hot air, it is being matched on two sides, huff by puff. RS are recognizing, perhaps (one can hope) that there are two sides to this story, one of which had not been heard. The label does carry some significance, partly because it makes a difference to the legitmacy (or lack thereof) of the "caretaker government" in terms of international standing, the IMF, aid from the US, etc., partly because it is important to Hondurans, even those who back Zaleya, to know that their government, even at its worst performance, remains more or less intact. That is to say, if Zaleya were the government, then there is no democracy, just a dictatorship, and the rest is a puppet. Sadly, there is a grain of truth in that -- whether a puppet to business interests, a puppet to a regional superpower, or a puppet to a so-called reformer linked to a meglomaniac -- the central government in Honduras has been weak. Anyway, I'd be glad to second your voluntary confession of naivete. VaChiliman (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not naive about it being a coup. It is, but we'll have to disagree on that, and on the legitimacy of Zelaya, who was anything but a puppet. Rsheptak (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup Puts Honduran Diplomats, Friends and Colleagues, on Opposing Sides," NY Times, July 7

Click here. -- Rico 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd been away for a bit, but I do have to comment on this - Rico, I gather you're marshalling this as further evidence of this being a coup, but the article is a fascinating testament to how those who have the opposite opinion are not a tiny minority of sneering rightists bent on destroying popular democracy. I recommend this article unreservedly for those trying to make real sense out of what is going on. Good call bringing our attentions to it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article 239 of the Constitution in the lede

Someone, namely James A. Donald, keeps adding the text of article 239 of the Constitution to the article's lede. Unsurprisingly from my point of view, it gets deleted every time. I thought I was clear in my edit summary when I deleted it, but I guess I should state my point more at length here. There's actually two points:

  1. if you want to state that art. 239 is what "the quarrel is about", or for that matter has anything to do with the issue, you should kindly refer to a WP:Reliable source saying so, as doing otherwise would be WP:Original research. CnrFallon pointed out to me that the reference for that is in some of the article's sources; however, the article currently has many sources, I haven't pinpointed which one contains that, and I do believe a footnote should be provided immediately after the claim, in any case
  2. source or not source, articles of the Constitution are a primary source. They have no place in the leading section of an article. They can be discussed (if reliable secondary sources are provided) later on, and if most reliable sources link them to the events, then they can be mentioned in the lede, but not quoted in the lede. That just doesn't make any sense.

Hope I've explained myself better. --LjL (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have totally lost me. I get the part of providing a RS. I get the part that the wording is inappropriate -- one could say, somewhere, that the constitutional crisis involved article 239, among others (enumerated in this discussion), and there are suitable RS to back that up as one side of the dispute -- you are right to say that a reference should be provided.
Where you lose me is in what belongs in the lead paragraph(s) of the article, and what does not. From the prespective of style, this article is no work of art -- and if that is a laudable goal, it is not wholly necessary. Please check out the fifth pillar, before adding a sixth, while (some) editors take the liberty of ignoring the second.
By the way, the English word for lead is lead, lest you lede(sic) us astray. VaChiliman (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you set English spelling policy; I intended to use the word lede. As for the rest of what you say, I must admit you lost me, too... are you saying that the article is already bad, so we can as well ignore all rules and put cruft that doesn't really belong in the WP:Lede into it? Seriously, I'm not following you. What I can say is that including an article of the Constitution in a conspicuous part of the article such as the introduction, without very conspicuous references to show that the article is strongly related to the topic, is just subtly (weaselly, if I may say so) pushing the POV that the "coup" happened "legally". There is clearly no consensus about that, so pasting that Constitution article into the lede is not something I consider acceptable. --LjL (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't. Your own reference cites it as "Jargon not listed in regular dictionaries."; I suppose if we were playing Scrabble or WordTwist under your house rules, my annoyance would be farfetched. Lede away if you must. Yeehaa! (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I was strictly critiquing the style, which is neither encyclopedic, nor enjoyable prose; though it does link to a considerable amount of fantasy. I was not arguing for cruft either, though I'll see your cruft and raise you one crisis. I actually agree that the lede ought not be leaden, that we not be misled. I suppose setting oneself up as the King -- of anything -- has its pitfalls. (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:James A. Donald has just re-added his block quote into the intro for the third time within the past couple of hours. I cannot revert him again if I want to avoid an edit war. --Tocino 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Boys. Play Nice. Them's the rules. WP:NICE (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
User:James A. Donald's source supports the mention of article 239 and I have edited his prose to be less POV. I won't comment on his footnotes. I still think the way I phrased it is more in sync with the source he cited, which is the text of a communique from the Congresso Nacional, translated. Rsheptak (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's good with me, with the article in a footnote rather than encumbering the introduction, and a decent source to back that up. Just hope people won't try to use that source to state that everything happened "legally" or things like that. Use it for what it says. --LjL (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I also hope that people won't keep re-adding the full text of art. 239 in the body. We have it as a footnote, properly quoted both in Spanish and English as Wikipedia requires; we have that footnote used three times; we really don't need to have the art. itself repeatedly quoted in the body. Yet, as soon as I removed that, it was re-added. Do you intend to quote it every three paragraphs, or some such? I call that WP:UNDUE weight, but. --LjL (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I call it WP:SILLY . Someone, stop being a Ninnyhammer! VaChiliman (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the reason this fight broke out is that relegating Article 239 to a mere footnote is a victory for those attempting to relegate the argument that Article 239 matters to a mere footnote, which, for one side of this debate, it isn't - it's the central contention. I wouldn't be surprised if that edit war breaks out again as new people discover this article and are surprised at the censorship that goes on here. I'm not going to change this myself, as I'm convinced that in time, after Óscar Arias annoys us by getting people to agree on how to settle things in Honduras, people will no longer be moved by the "anyone who mentions Article 239 is a member of a tiny bunch of quasi-Holocaust-deniers" argument and recognize the role this article played in this dispute more fairly. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article 239

Any short summary of the removal of Zelaya that omits article 239 of the Honduran constitution is like reporting on the removal Nixon without mentioning watergate, or WWII without mentioning Poland.

It has to feature fairly prominently in any short summary of events. Any summary version of these events that leaves it out is deceptive propaganda. James A. Donald (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nixon was not removed because of Watergate. Does Poland appear in the lead/lede of WWII? This is argumentative. I like Arias' perspective much better, because it is at least intellectually honest. Article 239 deserves an analysis, as part of a constitutional problem that erupted into a constitutional crisis that led to a military enabled ouster of a sitting president. But its role is more one of pretext, than substance. The problem that I see is that Zaleya tries too hard to emulate Chavez, which scares the stuff out of people (not just the elite); were he more like Arias in style, substance, and soul, there never would have been a "coup" (there, I said it, now I need to gargle). VaChiliman (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, a bit of a diversion here, but...huh? Nixon wasn't removed because of Watergate? On what planet? He was formally charged by the House Judiciary Committee in August 1974 with articles of impeachment directly related to the Watergate break-in, followed immediately by his resignation. I know, it's off topic, but I couldn't let that one pass. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy it. Neither will all the others who have been reverting it, I'm sure. Now you have it as a fairly prominent footnote right in the second paragraph (as well as cited a couple other times in the article); I suggest you take that as an acceptable compromise, because that is its WP:DUE weight. --LjL (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually even citing Art. 239 in a footnote is a breach of WP:OR. We should be reporting who says it was breach of Art. 239 and why, and that's it. In the context of a very substantial analytical discussion of Art. 239, it could be quoted (X says 239 means so-and-so, Y says something else), but that would require an entire section or article. If there's content to merit that, that would be OK. But we absolutely must avoid giving the impression (WP:OR!) that Wikipedia is saying "yeah he broke the law, just read Art. 239!". Disembrangler (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a source for that now. I'd never accept it without one, but it's been provided and it looks acceptable to me. Although this goes for past revisions, I see a quite different text now that I'm really not sure I'm a fan of... :-\ Sigh. --LjL (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Not including Article 239 is blatant POV and cannot be tolerated. -- (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what I cannot tolerate? Sweeping statements. Anyway, the article is there, so concentrate about something else you cannot tolerate. --LjL (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Article 239 accusations are an invention of the opposition, but the communique from congress cited in the article, cites it, so it should be included in the article, even if its contra-factual. They have a strong imagination. Rsheptak (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I really object to that characterization, Rsheptak. It is possible to oppose Micheletti's actions (as I am) and still be convinced (as I am) that Article 239 was manifestly at issue, that the obvious legislative intent behind Article 239 was to prevent precisely what Zelaya was attempting to do, and that Zelaya's vague "our country needs to be more democratic" reasons for wanting to change the constitution suggests pretty clearly that he was only interested in being president again...or else he'd identify at least one specific thing that it's so all-fired important to change in the constitution. It also continues to fascinate me that editors must constantly demonstrate their awareness that Micheletti and his gang are looking out for themselves and their selfish interests, but it never occurs to some people that Zelaya and his gang might well be doing the same. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to object. No one has found a single quotation from Zelaya saying explicitly that he wanted to be elected to a second term, so it remains speculation introduced by the oposition. I wish I could point you to Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's letter to the editor in El Tiempo on why Zelaya might want a constitutional convention to get a better idea of what Zelaya was thinking, but their server melted down a couple days ago, and its no longer online. You could take a look at this blog, which published some exerpts of it: Rodolf Pastor is Zelaya's Minister of Culture. Rsheptak (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting that Article 239 arguments are included in the article, I thought it might be worth sharing this excerpt from Wikipedia:How to break the rules which all sides might want to keep in mind in persuading people like me who are less informed on the particulars and may not have reached a conclusion yet:

The wrong way to kneecap your opposition is to delete his "bogus" claims, sources and all, from the article. Never mind the revert war -- do you want your audience to remain vulnerable to the fallacies he raises? No, if he's raising a point that's been raised before, then you should be able to find rebuttals that people have made to it before. Again, provide your facts and sources. The battle goes not to the swiftest reverter, nor to the most strongly worded edit, but to those who persevere in their research and dig up citable sources for every fact that can be found.

Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that its a bogus claim; its that it was an unsubstantiated, unsourced claim, and I indicated how it was deficient and asked for sources in my reversion comments. The fact that he apparently neither read, nor remedied the deficiencies, but mechanically kept inserting the same unsupported text over and over again was the problem. He finally did support it, and I brought it up to Wikipedia standards for citing a foreign language source. He clearly wasn't reading his talk page or I'd have left him constructive comments there. Rsheptak (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize that my comment came across as a criticism directed at you or any other editor. While I have my own poorly-informed opinions about the truth of matters and some of those may leak into the article or this talk page, my major bias is for inclusion of points of view and refutation as opposed to exclusion (even if formal WP:OR claims are justified in putting the pieces together). I agree they should be sourced as opposed to purely the opinion of editors. I just think it is more rhetorically effective to include and refute arguments than to exclude them. My comment was also directed more at the general argument about including Article 239 arguments and the referendum question rather than any particular editor's reversions. I originally came here to Wikipedia to learn more about the issue and I find it helpful to read the best arguments of all sides and the best responses to those arguments. And, in fact, I have found that just about every cite anyone has added to the article has helped inform me as long as I pay attention to who the sources are. Keep up the good work. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

These sources call it crisis:

In these the only mention of coup is when it is in quotes, or that it is said governments condemned it calling it a coup. -- (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor and Agence France-Presse (the first two sources) are fine as RS sources. The other three (Canada Free Press, an assemblage of right-wing Canadian news sources) and the Voice of America (pretty obviously the information service of the U.S. government, and not one with a reputation for balanced presentation) will probably be rejected as examples on here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
VOA has won awards for ethics in journalism. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
VOA is a propaghanda tool, not a valid news source. I still don't know how the Christian Science Monitor got recognized as a valid source. Agence France-Presse is a valid source. The only news source in Canada with even a token nod to impartiality (outside of possibly in Quebec and a few minor prairie dailies) is the CBC... and I still find the BBC provides better Canada coverage than even the CBC.Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
BBC is funded by the British government, does that make it a propaganda tool also? --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Conor make a good point. -- (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion

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

The result of the move request was that the article should be at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. The majority has made the valid argument that the use of the word "coup" is inherently biased, even though it may be commonly used. Aervanath (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis2009 Honduran coup d'état2009 Honduran constitutional crisis2009 Honduran coup d'état - I suggest this is discussed further and the page not moved until a consensus has actually been reached, which it apparently hasn't. LjL (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

  • I second the proposal to keep it 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The New York Times, Washington Post[4], Associated Press, Reuters[5], the United Nations, and the Organization of American States[6] all call it a "coup". Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR. -- Rico
We are an encyclopedia not a bunch of psychologists and your opinion re people being in denial is completely irrelevant; save it for a blog or twitter, it has no place here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The opinions of Hondurans themselves, who by and large are glad to see Zelaya gone and support the new government and do not see it as a coup, seem to be given very little weight by Rico and others. Having grown up there, I know many people there and their opinions, and the way the country operates, etc. It is very frustrating to Hondurans to see the outside world effectively discuss the situation over their heads and condescendingly attempt to tell Hondurans what to call it, not to mention how to run their own country by their own laws and constitution. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We're neither telling Hondurans what to call it, nor how to run their own country by their own laws and constitution. We're calling it a coup because reliable sources call it a coup. The fact that many Hondurans are glad to see Zelaya gone, doesn't mean it wasn't a coup. You're free to put into the article that many Hondurans do not see it as a coup, as long as you can attribute it to a reliable source. The media in Honduras has not been free since the coup, because they've been prevented from expressing anti-coup viewpoints. The people are being propagandized. In the USA, the politicans in power are experts at molding public opinion. -- Rico 17:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
And where is your source for your OR claim that sources in Honduras are not reliable. This claim of yours should and will be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
These so-called reliable sources can easily become merely echo chambers of each other and of the opinion-leaders they respect. The media in Honduras is NOT being restricted from publishing the truth, that is an allegation by pro-Zelaya forces. I'd like to see so-called reliable sources for your statements a) that the media in Honduras is not free since the coup and have been prevented from expressing anti-coup viewpoints; b) that the people are being propagandized (by the way, since when have people NOT been propagandized, from every side possible); c) that in the USA, politicians in power are experts at molding public opinion (boy, doesn't that just drip with sinister overtones). All of these are your own POV you are trying to inject into the discussion, and they suggest very strongly that you yourself are coming at this from a leftist point of view. I'm sure you don't consider me a reliable source, but I lived in Honduras many years and ordinary people there are telling me what is going on. The truth is not being held up here, though again I'm sure you won't take my word for it. --Almarco (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" per BLP concerns as it is the only title put forth that does not mention a crime that has not yet been proven in a judiciary body with jurisdiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As a casualty of other title wars, I second the call for consensus before moves are performed. That said, I do not have a strong opinion on this. Given that everyone can get here via their preferred terminological re-directs, it's not really that important what the title is now (it'll change in a month or a year anyway) as long as there is a good description of what appears to be a dispute between some not insignificant number of Hondurans and virtually the rest of the world. In fact, the dispute is broader than that, as, e.g. the US State Department is currently involved in legal parsing about whether what the US President has recognized as a "coup" is a "military coup" requiring the automatic suspension of various forms of foreign aid. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" because it better covers the overall situation, which includes, but is not limited to a coup. Remember we're not arguing here whether its a coup or not; that's argued elsewhere. We're only arguing over the name of the article. Keep on topic. Rsheptak (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "coup d'etat" name because anyone searching Wikipedia for an article about the events in Honduras would be very likely to use the word "coup" while searching. They would not be very likely to use "constitutional crisis." Ratemonth (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This argument is irrelevant, as it can be addressed with a simple redirect from "coup" to main article. The issue is not whether to have a page with the title "coup", but whether it should be the article page.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This argument is also irrelevant because the title should describe the thing accurately and neutrally, and not change just for the convenience of searchers. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" not because it is not a coup (too many reliable sources like the Economist and the VoA describe it as a coup) but because this article should be more expansive than a single, time-stamped wire story. Unlike the general media, we should be providing background and description of preceding events, plus ongoing future developments. Is a new article going to be created for dealing with attempts by Zelaya to return? Because if he returns that will create its own constitutional issues (how would overriding the will of both the judiciary and the "almost unanimous" legislature to reinstate him not itself be a coup de facto of sorts?) and those issues are not necessarily the same as the issues concerning the coup. re "anyone searching Wikipedia", "coup" would redirect such that anyone searching for "coup" would find the article anyway. Finally, this is not a choice between "not a coup" vs "coup" whereby both are equally POV. "Constitutional crisis" is less POV than "coup" because "constitutional crisis" does NOT imply that there was no coup.Bdell555 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coup. BLP has no relevance here, that is a silly argument. It appears that reliable sources are describing it as a coup, so we should follow suit. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
These "reliable" sources are mostly outside the country in question. It is frustrating that sources in the country are given so little credence. In fact it is a matter of debate in Honduras itself, but is certainly not settled. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis". In cases of dispute, the clear NPOV position is to take the least loaded term. If this is a coup, then "constitutional crisis" is not an inaccurate term. If it is not a coup, then "coup" definitely is an inaccurate term. There is one article title that takes a definite position as to the nature of the event, and one that does not. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I furthermore note that the current link in the main Honduras page has a link to a page is redirected to a page that is then redirected to this page. Whatever the article title, there should be only one level of redirects.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "coup d'etat" - When Army officers armed with M16’s break into the Presidential palace in the middle of the night in order to kidnap a nation’s President in his pajamas - and then board him onto a plane out of the country ... we call that a “Coup”. Apparently 99 % of the rest of the world does as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "coup d'etat" - We must call this event as secondary independent reliable sources do. Editors' personal opinions, unreliable sources or sources too close to subject don't count. Also move-protect the article for a couple of weeks, unless there is a clear new trend in the way RS call this event. Also, I disagree with the argument that it should be called "constitutional crisis" because it allows a better coverage of the overall situation. Most coups happen within the context of a constitutional crisis, if we accepted this argument we would have to rename most of WP articles about coups. JRSP (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The last argument is invalid because there is little question about most other coups. This one is in serious debate, both inside and outside the country, and is a unique case. --Almarco (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Not all secondary reliable sources call it a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose "coup d'etat", since the government didn't change, it's still in place, and apparently the president was changed via constitutional means. And the new president is even of the same political party as the deposed president. Just because people outside of Honduras claim it's illegal doesn't mean it is. Besides that there was a presidential powergrab going on that initiated this set of events, which was ruled illegal and unconstitutional. (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose coup d'etat as inherently POV. Why some people feel so strongly they need to put POV into title is beyond me but there are many people and reliable secondary sources that say it was not a coup and to walk all over that is not really acceptable; when wikipedia takes sides in a political dispute its always at its weakest. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What are those "reliable secondary sources that say it was not a coup"? -- Rico 05:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose coup d'etat as it takes a POV on an unsettled question of Honduran law. New York Times, Associated Press, etc. are not reliable sources of legal scholarship. Support "constitutional crisis"Bkalafut (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support coup d'etat. Really, everybody is calling this a coup d'etat except the ones who did it. Which is normal, those who commit a coup d'etat never call it a coup d'etat. By the way, I find it rather strange that a) this article was moved to "crisis" by an author who had for some time here been invoking BLP concerns, and when that did not wash, (s)he invoked NPOV as reason for the change b) when I saw it happen, I wanted to change it back immediately, but could not because the article existed already. I've seen that trick being performed elsewhere, in my opinion the person who uses that trick should be stopped from renaming articles from some time, because (s)he obviously does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Except those who perpetrated the act and millions of Hondurans. Or perhaps being a small country their views don't count. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Propose Compromise: The article at "constitutional crisis", but includes a first-level section header called "Coup d'état". This acknowledges the clear international consensus name, but allows the article to have a broader focus. Also it lets us de-escalate this silly fight. Separately from this question, I consider SqueakBox to have committed multiple violations (moving AGAINST general consensus and marking for speedy delete), while Tocino committed one violation (moving during a discussion, which is not at all justified even though I personally agree with the move and also think consensus leans that way. Somewhat like the coup itself - the ends don't justify the means, you can't save the constitution by violating it). Homunq (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The only violation here has been the deliberate POVing of the title; you also wheel warred by reverting me first time so all this talk of multiple violations is so much hot air (or straw as we might say in CA); NPOVing a title is neither a violation of any policy (though failing to have done so would have been a failure to be bold) and as someone else said, wikipedia is not a democracy; we need to enforce policies even when people dont like it. Having said that I support the proposed compromise by Homunq. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify my proposal. I believe that the name supported by Wikipedia policies is "... coup ..." but I would be willing to defer insisting on this point, in order to stop this $#@ discussion, as long as there were a section title called "coup". I believe that in order to protect such section title, we'd need a wikicomment in the page wikitext, and (yet) a(nother) general advisory at the top of this page. Otherwise someone would remove it and we'd be back to fighting over the overall title, instead of actually improving the page. Homunq (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What would keep history writers from changing the section title, making the same arguments here on this talk page that the section title was "POV" -- because they said so -- and deleting the wikicomment and the general advisory?
WP:RS states, "Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources."
History rewriters want us to take out such information based on arguments they make here on this talk page!
WP:OR policy states, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
History rewriters want the word "coup" taken out, based on their own personal arguments that it is not a coup, or based on their own personal arguments that the name is POV.
No matter how long and hard they argue -- (and more than one of these Most Interested Persons are obviously quite motivated) -- the simple fact remains that the reliable sources all call it a "coup" and that's simply why we do. Their arguments are exclusively comprised of WP:OR.
"Coup" is the most recognized name. Wikipedia's Naming conventions policy dictates that "Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous."
If we let the politically motivated wear us down, then we compromise the credibility of Wikipedia. Why would we want to be here then? We might as well be writing on Usenet.
The history rewriters aren't quoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or citing reliable sources, they're just making their own personal arguments.
That doesn't amount to a hill of beans in Wikipedia! -- Rico 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose coup d’état: This is not a coup by any real definition. Even so, using “coup d’état” is POV. “Constitutional crisis” encompasses coup and non-coup viewpoints and is NPOV. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This is absolutely correct; we need a title that encompasses both POVs not one or the other, anything else is unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"This is not a coup by any real definition," because you say so? "Using 'coup d’état' is POV," because you say so? "'Constitutional crisis' encompasses coup and non-coup viewpoints and is NPOV," because you say so? How does "Constitutional crisis" encompass coup? -- Rico 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Its not people here but a large number of people in Honduras, reported in reliable sources, who are saying it is not a coup. Stop trying to distort things. Your claim that it is only people here who claim it is not a coup is frankly ridiculous, and you know it if you have actually been following the story using Spanish sources, and if you havent been following the story don't make such assertions. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis": CNN, BBC, CNBC, FOX and ABC can all call the sky red, but it won't make it so. The same government is still in control (president != government). Until their own courts determine that what happened was illegal we should stick with a neutral title, Coup is loaded. Have an entire section discussing this though. --A is A (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The real issue is not whether a coup occurred or not, its whether we want to take a stand on the issue. We can either pick a not loaded neutral title that encompasses everyone's POV or a loaded title that inherently supports one side in the national dispute - sounds like a no-brainer to me; all this talk of whether a coup occurred or not is irrelevant as those of us who believe a coup did taske place should still support a neutral title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please speak for yourself, SqueakBox. I happen to semi-agree with you here but I do not want to be part of your "us" or let you characterize my views. --- homunq —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support coup d'état every nation and international organization is calling it this, so is the media, I've even seen a few quotes from some of the pro-coup demonstrators calling it a coup, just that it was a "necessary coup". --Tocino 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" - A coup d'etat is by definition an illegal change of government. I don't believe that was the case here, but the opinion that it was is at the least arguable and interpretive. Since it is not our place to interpret laws, "constitutional crisis" is the reasonable option. That title is uncontroversially factual, whether one regards the ousting of Zelaya as legal or illegal. Strikehold (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support 2009 Honduran (first choice) or Honduras coup d'état, not constitutional crisis, which is not the common name and far too nondescriptive a term. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC
    • Comment I would be more than happy to change to something that mentions neither coup nor constitutional crisis, anything neutral is better than coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" as inherently neutral and best serving facts as we know them, or don't know them. I have no problem with the compromise, where coup is legitimately cited as a commonly used and accepted term for the military enabled ouster of Zaleya, though I believe we can be spared much of the drama and hyperbole. The aforementioned complaint that "constitutional crisis" is not descriptive enough makes no sense at all, as if a loaded term that oversimplifies the topic at hand, zeros in on a single act, and perpetuates media bias and self-serving political interests, is somehow NPOV, let alone factual. VaChiliman (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome, new user. I see that your contributions history goes back two days, and that it is comprised exclusively of edits to this page. Official Wikipedia policy states, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight".[7] But welcome. -- Rico 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
CommentFrom your own wikipage Rico: "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia."--Conor Fallon (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Gee, how nice to get a "welcome new user", when I have been using Wikipedia since its inception. True, my registration is new, and my contributions are limited. How ironic, that following the rules inhibits democratic participation, and that the keeper of the rules purports to take a POV that supports people participation. "One man's ceiling is another man's floor", Paul Simon, American Songwriter.VaChiliman (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A futher point would be that one side of this action is being widely reported, the other is not; however, the Miami Herald has been publishing a number of news articles that give some depth, and it would seem balance (finally), to the events: links to several news articles (as opposed to the opinion pieces) that should make the NYT, WP, and others blush. Anyway, calling it a *coup instead of a crisis is clearly a judgment call, and I'd argue, a rush to judgement that favors a POV that is light on facts.VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC).
  • Abstain: Coup d'état describes well some of the clear lack of concern the Micheletti régime has with due process, but, as I've consistently said on here, Zelaya violated the constitution, regardless of how Micheletti overreacted to that fact. I think constitutional crisis is more neutral, but I will not oppose calling it a coup, because Micheletti's notion of enforcing the law is extreme to say the least. I would also reiterate that a lot of this occurred because there is no mechanism in the Honduran constitution for what to actually do when someone violates Article 239. This opened the door for the amazing overreaction we are now witnessing. Again, I think these are factual observations, that Zelaya broke the existing Article 239, and that there was no mechanism for enforcing Article 239 specified in the Constitution or Honduran law generally, and as such these should be represented as facts, not points of view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "constitutional crisis" because it is neutral and accurately describes both the removal of Zelaya and the reasons (conflict/crisis) leading up to it. In effect Zelaya wanted to replace the constitution, a kind of "soft coup" in itself, following the pattern of Chavez (who has admitted that the fight is really about keeping Zelaya in power in direct violation of the existing constitution). The military action is heavy-handed and perhaps excessive, but was authorized by the Supreme Court and Congress and was done to protect the constitution. In a coup, the leader of the coup usually takes the power for himself; here, the initiator of the action was the Supreme Court, and the person stepping in to fill the presidency is the constitutionally next-in-line, not the instigator of the coup. Strongly oppose "coup d'etat" because it is very divisive and subjective. This article was very fact-based and accurate a few days ago, until it was apparently swarmed from the hard left. --Almarco (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Although I personally believe this was texbook Coup, my views are not encyclopedic, definitely not relevant. My vote would be in order to properly set a neutral tone:
Oppose "coup d'etat", Oppose "Constitutional Crisis".
I'd favor the 2009 Political Crisis Wikihonduras (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The history rewriters would still be arguing on this talk page that it was not a coup, and that the name is POV, because they say so. History rewriters would still be going through the article replacing the word "coup" with other words.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] -- Rico 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Certain my vote caused misunderstanding, so I reliterate: Support "Coup" for events including and after June 28 and split events before then into another article. The main dispute here is whether what the military did to Zelaya on the midnight of June 28 is a Coup d'Etat. Courts need to to be impartial-- look at the roles of the judiciary of Thai and Pakistani in their recent problems, and we need not to look at them for NPOV-ness. Unless the constitution gave the Supreme Court literal powers to vacate the seat of the president, this to the eye of any outsider have every feature of a Coup d'Etat. However, the entire controversy about Zelaya and the other branches of the government is per se a constitutional crisis. Hence, I propose splitting the current contents of the article into two articles, one called constitutional crisis and the other coup .--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the Honduras crisis title - Heqwm2 already covered most of my concerns with the title coup d'etat, but not all. I did some additional research and found that both terms are being used to describe the events. One gives a longer scope, the other is more specific about a core event, but possibly also POV. Weighing the pros and cons carefully, I believe that crisis is the optimal name. gidonb (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Honduras 2009 crisis first as NPOV and broadly encompassing. Secondly supportHonduras 2009 constitutional crisis NPOV but long. Oppose coup d'etat as highly POV supporting Zeyala. Honduras' constitution art 239 explicitly declares that the President ceases his function if he seeks to change the constitution. Honduras' Supreme Court ruled on 18 counts that Zelaya violated the constitution, causing immediate constitutional suspension as president. Detention is then for the ex president. Most are unfamiliar with such swift justice. The illegal aspect is expelling a Honduran citizen AFTER he became ex-president. That is not a coup. Redirect from Hondouras 2009 coup d'etat to Honduras 2009 crisis. Recommend "crisis" as simple, short and encompassing.DLH (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "crisis". "Coup" might make it more in line with other similar articles, but it can always be changed laters when waters have cooled and international courts have ruled. But this vote should not be construed to mean anything about what the contents of the article should be, it merely reflects the fact that "crisis" is certainly accurate (although a euphemism according to some), while there's a slight but real possibility that "coup" might not be. --LjL (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Honduran 2009 political crisis or something similar. It is NPOV, unlike "coup d'Etat": while the feeling outside of Honduras seems to be that it's a coup, within Honduras, it seems to be viewed as a legitimate governmental move against a president who took actions disqualifying him from office, so the title should not prejudge which it is. All of the Honduran legislature, judiciary, and military agreed on removing him; that seems more like an act of the existing government than a replacement of the government. Notably, while the military physically removed him, the new head of government is not a military leader, but rather a legislator next in line for succession, so the action is certainly not like a normal military coup. Warren Dew (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Political or Constitutional Crisis It is NPOV and coup does not really describe it, remember, the mainstream media also told us Saddam had WMDs. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter Conor. Don't you get it? They are RS in all matters because WP cited them as general examples, of mainstream news sources, and expert fact checkers. That they've since done a 'whoops, never mind', and professed to be lied to and bear no responsibility for being duped. In all fairness, my sarcasm here notwithstanding, it was propbably not reasonable to expect them to check the facts, but they could have cast doubt and/or asked some questions. Why didn't they, then? Because the liberals lacked the backbone to question the pretext of WMD when bloodlust was in the air, and God forbid mainstream media make liberal politicians look foolish or incompetent. Same here. Nuance is not in anyone's political interest, and "coup" sells papers; anything else would require analysis, and raise doubts in the Obama administration. What is interesting is that Obama and Clinton are walking a tightrope, carefully limiting use of the 'C' word, rebuffing the overt attempts of Zaleya to legitimize his position viz a viz the surviving government by not meeting with him in Washington, and holding the OAS accountable for finding a peaceful resolution. A military coup d'etat in only the most strict of definitions, it is a strange one. No government toppled. I am waiting for the crowds from both sides to start throwing bananas at one another. In fact, I am willing to compromise with something completely NPOV like 2009 Honduras Split Decision.
One thing did occur to me just now, and that is this. What WP guideline, rule, says that the name of the article must eb something vetted by RS? It doesn't. Rico cited the two rules, and both proposals pass muster. To me, that argues for the more neutral and encompassing descriptor. Or, use both (why not)? 2009 Honduras Constitutional Crisis and Coup d'etat. Works for me. If we cannot agree on a name, how can one expect this crisis to be resolved peacefully? Personally, I hold out for both. And look forward to Senor Z and Senor M becoming mere footnotes in history. VaChiliman (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support 'Coup D'Etat' And not just because of WP:DUCK. Vast majority of sources, including vast majority of the nations on earth, are calling this a Coup. For the sake of accuracy we must do likewise.Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary results

After Warren Dew:

  • 16 editors (+ 1 IP) support "2009 Honduran crisis/political crisis/constitutional crisis" and oppose "2009 Honduran coup d'état".
  • 8 editors (+ 1 IP) support "2009 Honduran coup d'état".
  • 1 editor proposes splitting
  • 1 editor abstains
  • 1 editor proposes compromise
Samuel Curtis wrote, "Support 'Coup' for events including and after June 28". Why separate his discussion out into its own category? It seems pretty clear to that Samuel Curtis supports word "coup" for the coup itself.
The 2009 Honduran coup d'état article is about the coup, and it has a background section. A main article could be created for what led up to the coup, the same as was done for the 2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#From_other_countries_or_international_bodies subsection.
As someone who makes POV edits,[20][21] that have to be reverted by more neutral editors[22][23], I'm not sure you're the best person to be summarizing the discussion here. You seem to have done it in a way that violates WP:Vote.
How convenient.
Rico 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Homunq wrote, "I believe that the name supported by Wikipedia policies is "... coup ..." but I would be willing to defer insisting on this point, in order to stop this $#@ discussion, as long as there were a section title called 'coup'." (emphasis added)
There is no section title called "coup".
Therefore, the logical inference is that Homunq has not deferred insisting on the point that, "the name supported by Wikipedia policies is '... coup ...' "
It would seem that Homunq has been put in the wrong category.
How convenient -- fraudulent, but convenient. -- Rico 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
-- Rico 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the group, generally, gets it. How it finds consensus under these circumstances, with no willingness to compromise, and no mediation possibility, is a mystery. VaChiliman (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not related to what appears to be "votes"

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

  • It's a wheel war. SqueakBox moved the article[24], in the absence of consensus, while we were still discussing it -- unilaterally declaring that the title was POV, despite a consensus that it was not.
  • I consider that incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.
  • Then, SqueakBox slapped a Speedy Delete tag on the article,[25] something I consider pretty freakin' sneaky.
  • BOOM, SqueakBox substituted his/her own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that! Before the article was moved to coup, there was a lot of discussion and then consensus to call it a coup. -- Rico 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter. The point is that, whoever started it, it should stop now. Feel free to briefly state that you "second" or "oppose" the proposal to move here. LjL (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It may matter. SqueakBox -- whose block log is a mile long[26] -- wrote me, "Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant." (emphasis added) SqueakBox called me a "troublesome editor" in the edit summary.[27] Something's seriously wrong here. -- Rico 06:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed there is somethign seriously wrong when people feel the ened to use wikipedia to push their POV. Your ref to my rather ancient block log is nothing more than a personal attack; you wont get your way this way. Troublesome seems a correct description. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Our actions are transparent so to accuse me of being a sneaky is a hot air personal attack, please refrain. I was actually removing POV and please do not presume to know what my POV is; making this move means I have a POV in favour of the change of power is a bad faith assumption that I put my POV rather than trying to enforce pOV, and I have clearly failed because others are so impassioned and so convinced they are right that they insist on making even the tile POV, to the detriment of wikipedia. This is a shame. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I never wrote what your POV was -- only that you substituted your own, for consensus. You took it upon yourself to move the article, even as the discussion was going on about whether to do that, and even though there was no consensus for the move!
When you moved the talk page, you wrote, "WP:NPOV clearly forbids having an inherently POV title and siding with one group in the dispute in Honduras is by definition POV.)"[28]
That the title's POV is your POV. I never wrote, or even considered, any other.
You wrote, "making this move means I have a POV in favour of the change of power is a bad faith assumption".
I never made that assumption. You've accused me of "a bad faith assumption" based on assumption I never made! Please stop accusing me of having done things I haven't done.
AGF states, "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part".
Slapping a tag on an article like a Speedy Delete tag, without discussing it here on the talk page -- not even so much as a 'heads up' -- seems pretty darn sneaky to me!
Suddenly moving the article, in the middle of a discussion on whether to move the article -- in the absence of consensus to move the article -- was presumptuous beyond belief!
AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism". -- Rico 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Using a neutral term rather than a deliberatley provocative, one sided tewrm is not POV by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We aren't here to hold people's hands, or to be squishy nice, non-provocative, unoffensive, though. We reflect what reliable sources say, and in this case it is to say that what took place is a coup. There no wiggle room here. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If we reflected what RSs said and if we followed NPOV we would not be arguing here but at a differently named article. The lie that all RSs say coup needs to stop being spread about. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No one said "all"; they have said "most". No strawmen, pls. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Congratulations, good... "move". Not. LjL (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This article has been fixed at 2009 Honduran coup d'état for a long time, and a majority of editors seem to support it (as do the media and nations around the world) staying there. Why should we allow for a few editors to change it without gaining a consensus? They are the ones who should be trying to build support for a RM, not the majority. --Tocino 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Template:Uw-move2, where it says "This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way". It cuts both ways - especially when someone (namely, me) had decided to start a semi-formal request for dispute resolution on a semi-formal page about article moves. LjL (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Was moved in the wee hours of July 2nd, moved back to something similar later that day. That's not a "long time". Bkalafut (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. SqueakBox's ninja move was clearly invalid. SqueakBox shouldn't have gained anything from such behavior. -- Rico 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What you mean like an NPOV article? Charming. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Either support or oppose from me, since it doesn't seem to matter, as people keep moving it back and forth regardless. Way to work on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What the heck is going on? It seems that the move would be from Honduras coup d'etat to Honduran constitutional crisis given the current title, but the box says Honduras coup d'etat to Honduran coup d'etat? Did somebody move this after the box was up, while votes were being cast? Not cool. Bkalafut (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they did. My request to stop the move war while this was being semi-formally discussed here got completely ignored. I've added a note to the "Votes" section saying that people should clearly specify which title they want, since it's unfortunately not clear at all from the move request now. LjL (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And now, it's been moved from "Honduras" to "Honduran", while the talk page has only received a redirect. Can anyone come up with something more confusing? LjL (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


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

Meantime, having reverted me, why not impose your compromise, which I for one am happy with, and do it right now; every minute we fail to change the name we turn our backs on our NPOV policy, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
NO, do not do any moves "right now". There is a move request in progress. Please respect it and stop doing stuff "right now" without the slightest bit of consensus - all of you. LjL (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What are you saying, POV doesn't matter. Parece. Its already been changed since the discussion beganb and should be changed back in order to ensure wikipedia doesn't back Mel. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If you two would let me get a word in edgewise ( :) ), I'm not moving the article because a) I'm not an admin, and b) moving the article before some resolution could be considered a violation, as I consider your move to have been a violation. PS. (not directed at SqueakBox in particular) I count 16 sections on this talk page discussing this @#%$ issue. Homunq (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If my 2nd move was a violation so was your first move, unquestionably. Crisis includes coup while coup excludes Micheletti supporters, so moving and then discussing is the only logical course. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep it 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Reliable sources like The New York Times[29], Washington Post[30], the Times in Britain,[31] The Associated Press[32], Reuters[33], the Wall Street Journal[34] the United Nations[35], and the Organization of American States[36] all call it a "coup".
    Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not well-represented in the free press, nor in the world. I question whether there are RS in Honduras. The press isn't free there, now, at all.[37]
    I oppose the compromise. Coup apologists are going through the article and methodically replacing the word "coup" with other words, rewriting history.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] This will continue if they are placated by the removal of the word "coup" from the name of the article.
    "Coup" is the most widely recognized name for what happened. -- Rico
Rico, your above is like saying a person on trial is in denial that they are guilty. No matter how many people claim an illegal act happened, Wikipedia still has to respect the ethics of not claiming such is true. A coup is an international crime in South America. This has been reported by a lot. There has not yet been a judicial judgment, so please stop acting as if tons of sources would change this. The BLP clause about rumors is important here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In general what I've seen in similar discussions in related articles, is that it has become a "reference competition" as is because one view beats the other with references, it makes it the only view. The only thing I see is that there are plenty of references supporting BOTH sides. Obviously there will be a majority againist the current government, since international opinion was majorily sided with Pres. Zelaya. BUT there is a significant population mostly located within Honduras itself, which support the opposing view. This requires to present both views, and always maintain neutrality, REGARDLESS if a majority of sources support Zelaya. Wikihonduras (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Judicial judgment from who? If we go with the one from the Honduran Supreme Court, we may be guilty of being one-sided.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I just want to say I totally agree with what Disembrangler says above...each point made, though especially the point about Zelaya's actions, which I've taken it upon myself to document, as my contribution to all of this. We do need to ensure we've discussed the legal case against Zelaya, regardless of whether this is considered a "coup" or not. I'm okay with calling it a coup, but Zelaya broke the law and this needs to be part of this story. That the law is somewhat "up for grabs" during a coup or a constitutional crisis I would consider to be an axiom, of course, and Disembrangler is right to remind us of that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to RFC Conventional naming like WP:NAME is only a preference -- the policy itself states that the name must be neutrally worded. Calling the event a coup takes a position, flat-out, on the question of whether it is a coup -- a subject still under dispute. Both WP:NAME and WP:NPOV require a more neutral name. 2009 Honduran political crisis or something of that kind is much preferred. RayTalk 01:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualitative summary

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

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

Keep the word "coup" discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed compromise

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

There is no section title called "coup".

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

Same way as any other compromise on wikipedia, it should be really easy to enforce and besides a section called coup can easily fit our NPOV policy whereas the current name cannot. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically, I think that if enough editors "signed on" to the compromise, we could put an infobox up at the top of talk and a wikicomment next to the section title in the article, and then the editors who agreed to the compromise would be enough to police it. They would not flirt with 3rr, but instead remind those who changed the section title of the compromise, and if the title were insistently changed to not be "coup", they could always rename the article to "coup", as I believe that this is justified under policy. Homunq (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the word "coup" discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rico, I've never seen anyone expend so much bandwidth trying to convince people that he's responding only to fringe theories not worthy of consideration. The consensus is not that these arguments are unpersuasive, otherwise this talk page would be 5 kilobytes long, instead of the sprawling mess it is. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me.
"Consensus" is that the BLP argument is unpersuasive.
I haven't seen not one Wikipedia policy or guideline quote, nor any RS that contains content that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory.
Have you?
I've expended so much bandwidth because I don't like seeing a very small, minority point of view, disproportionately well-represented by politically motivated editors, violate WP:NOT#Dem, by voting and owning an article.
I just went through this in the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person.
Reliable sources dismiss the claim that it wasn't a "coup".
The world calls it a coup, and so do the reliable sources. -- Rico 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rico, I've conceded the word "coup" numerous times on here, and I think you're aware of that. Micheletti's people are guilty of so many due process violations, it's impossible to defend them against charges of committing a "coup", even if I wanted to. I'm more concerned with the tenor of the conversation on here, which it seems to me often is not very respectful. I have tried, as have others on here, to make a case that this is not a Zelaya = democratic voice of the people vs. Micheletti = Snidely Whiplash leading a vast right-wing conspiracy sort of thing. Zelaya's side broke the law, and Micheletti's side, though it also broke the law, does represent a certain number of Hondurans in that it was an attempt to respond to Zelaya's having broken the law. I've pointed out that the current Liberal candidate for President, Elvin Santos, had a problem with Zelaya's actions on legal grounds, and he is not associated with Micheletti's coup plotters. I've also clarified that the documents released by the Supreme Court do accuse Zelaya of directly breaking Article 374, and that, if that charge is true, then it follows that Article 239 kicks in and he would legally lose his Presidency. I think people who make these cases do in fact have a case, and are not spokespersons for a "fringe". Also, please note that I, unlike others on here, have always brought my points up on the talk page first, hoping to get consensus for the case I'm making. I'm not one of the people you're criticizing as continually changing the page without consensus. I think you need to recognize that some of us are trying to be constructive and respond to the points you're making, not peddle the equivalent of Holocaust denial or global warming denial or whatever. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You wrote, "if that charge is true, then it follows that Article 239 kicks in and he would legally lose his Presidency." This is WP:SYN.
The entire population of Honduras is 7,500,000. If half of them say it was not a coup, that makes 3,750,000. Add half again as many for people that are not in Honduras, like expats, and that makes 5,625,000. Take away a third of that number to subtract out people that say it wasn't a coup, because Zelaya broke the law and deserved the military coup, or that the detention order legalized the coup, and we're back to 3,750,000 people. The population of the world is 6,790,062,216. If the point of view of 0.06% of the world is that there was no a coup, and point of view of 99.94% of the world is that it was a coup, is no-coup it a fringe theory?
The population of Iran is 70,495,782. If one-third of the population says that their point of view is, as Ahmadinejad said, that there was no Holocaust, that's 23,498,594. You might say that one-third is too many, but this is just one middle-eastern country. Cut out about half of those people, who profess their point of view just because they don't like Israel, and that leaves 11,749,297. That's a greater number, yet we have a page named "Holocaust". Is that name non-neutral?
There are two sides. Does the name, "Holocaust", take a side? Is it "inherently POV"?
No, because the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority.
That's my opinion, but it's not what I wrote.
I wrote, "I haven't seen not one [...] RS that contains content that states that the contention -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory."
I asked you, "Have you?"
This was supposed to be a subsection on summarizing the "don't use the word 'coup'" arguments, but this thread is drifting. -- Rico 20:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It is drifting a little.  :) And 3,750,000 Hondurans did not take part in organizing the referendum, the Executive Branch officials, on Zelaya's orders, did. But those who actually helped Zelaya, by Article 239, can't be President for 10 years either. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you've said a lot more now than you said when I initially replied to you. Anyway, here's my response to the rest. Rico, have your way on this if you like. You're in the "overwhelming" majority, and it's only a handful of Wikipedia editors who are not part of this "massive" consensus. My worry is that you think that getting your way on this constitutes a victory for truth. When you say "these people are just a fringe", that means you don't have to learn anything from them. My point is that people are saying things here that you're not listening to because you've already made a summary judgment that they're on the fringe. In my case, you continue to set me up as a straw man, despite the fact that I have repeatedly agreed that "coup" is an acceptable word for the article to use. But I don't agree that the other side is an "extremely small minority", and other editors have expressed that same viewpoint, while at the same time not contesting that it was a coup. Several editors have said "yes, it's the minority view, but it's not a fringe view." Does that mean it's these other editors that must be relegated to the fringe as well? Plus, you eliminate from consideration anyone who wrote "this is not a coup" in an op-ed piece. There were a lot of those op-ed pieces, and some of them made the normal RS publications like the New York Times. Was the New York Times giving undue weight to the political equivalent of Holocaust deniers? Or were they merely representing the opinions of people who happen to disagree with you? You also eliminate from consideration those who marched against Zelaya in demonstrations in Honduras. Was that really one or two people out there with cardboard cutouts made to look like there were thousands of them? Seriously, you can't believe that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, one more say reliable sources dismiss that it wasn't a coup. Is that true, or is it that reliable sources fairly uniformly use the word "coup". I haven't seen you argue this before, that a reliable source dismisses that it was a coup. Isn't it possible that those reliable sources merely use the word because most of the international actors use it? What sources dismiss it, and what logic is used to dismiss it? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A majority of people in the country which as the heart of the article thinking a certain way is clearly not fringe; you seem to be forgeting thast this article is about Honduras and what possibly the majority of Hondurans think about a subject concerning Honduras is by definition NOT fringe under any interpretation of the word. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for, "A majority of people in the country," or "what possibly the majority of Hondurans think." Otherwise, this is nothing more than WP:OR -- or, more bluntly, in the minds of Wikipedians, this is nothing. -- Rico 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither one

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^