Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état/Archive 1

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

Splitting out this sub-article

Right now this is very rough. The text needs a lot of trimming - basically, everything past June should move into the Micheletti regime sub. Also the lede is missing its references. I'll fix some of this, but I need help.

Also, this needs short summary sections on the fourth ballot box and the micheletti regime

I of course realize that some will consider this article title a provocation, but at this point there can be little doubt that coup is the consensus term of available reliable sources, and the referendum/coup/post-coup is the natural split for the currently-ridiculously-heavy (157K! I remember when 16K was the limit!) constitutional crisis article. Homunq (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant comment(s?) from the AFD argument


I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). Homunq (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


The reason this article was a redirect, was because a Name change request was approved. This is an end run around that.
The Constitutional crisis article WAS the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article.
The reason that article exists with its name is because rampant nationalist POV warriors didn't want "coup" in the name.
This is an end run around the name change decision.
The name was changed because having "coup" in the name was deemed POV, so this is a POV fork.
It was misnamed due to rampant nationalist POV warriors. The right way to handle it would have been to have put another name change request on the Constitutional crisis article talk page. -- Rico 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree with what you're saying (I also feel very strongly that many edits to the "crisis" article in question were/are POV and pro-coup). Nevertheless, the requested move for the article in question will never be approved (it has already been attempted multiple times). Those with vested interests in that particular page have commanding control of the status quo. Notice, for instance, that the word "coup" in the title was excised in moving the article from "coup" to "crisis". Then, the word "coup" was excised from the first several paragraphs in that article (despite multiple attempts to include it at the beginning of the article, it was always removed shortly thereafter). In accordance with decency and WP policy, it is never appropriate to respond to bias with further bias. However, I believe that an article specifically delineating the events of the Coup d'etat is appropriate considering it is a distinct event within the larger context of the constitutional crisis. Furthermore, the popular lexicon referring to the events in Honduras as the "Honduran coup" lends more weight to the argument that this should be its own article and independent of the "crisis" article. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Move request

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 no consensus to move. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran coup d'etat → ? — -

Since there was no consensus to delete, we need to talk about moving this to an accurate, neutral title. Thoughts? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you should come up with an alternative name when filing a move request. ("'NewName' is what you want the new name of the page to be.") -- Rico 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the move. The flag should be placed on the article page and not here.Cathar11 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an accurate, neutral title. More importantly, it is in accord with WP:TITLE, which btw says nothing about accuracy specifically disclaims "moral or political" accuracy (or "compromise") as a basis for article naming. Nevertheless, Ed Wood's Wig, if you want to make a proposal, you should make a specific one. What do you propose as the new title? Homunq (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2009 removal and expulsion of the sitting Honduran president as being more accurate (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose It's factually and legally correct. It was legally a coup d'etat, and it happened in 2009. So the current title is neutral and factually correct. As Homung pointed out, almost every major newspaper and international organization has called it a coup as well. TJ Spyke 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Present title passes all WP:TITLE criteria. It is more recognizable and easy to find (someone researching the subject will more probably use "coup" as a search term). It is also more concise and consistent with other articles as International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état and Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The only possible concern would be precision, however precision in an article's title is only required as long as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously; independently on whether a reader believes this was a coup or not, that reader will understand what this article is about. JRSP (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Homunq stated, regardless of whether or not the title is "right" in a moral or political sense, we have to go with the RSs, the vast majority of which call the actions taken against Zelaya on June 28 a "coup". Descriptive titles have to be careful about neutrality per Wikipedia:NAME#Descriptive_names, but again, we are not really describing anything beyond the time (2009) and the place (Honduran) both of which are accurate. The common-usage, reliable sources supply the "coup d'état" portion of the title. I do think it is appropriate to discuss the notable opposition to this qualification of the action as a "coup" in the body of the article, but that is, of course, tangential to this rename discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talkcontribs) 06:23, 21 November 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.

Requested move on Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état

Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move Moogwrench (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Referring to coup as part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

An OR tag was placed on the lede in the part that says the "coup d'état" is part of the overall "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis." I feel that it is not original research to refer to the overall crisis as a "constitutional crisis". I didn't know that this was actually in dispute, or I would have provided a source. For example (though more references could be provided for it, if needed), Reuters referred to it as a "constitutional crisis" in their article ledes both before and after Zelaya's ouster. What's more, I think that it is both appropriate and helpful to direct the reader in the lede to the main article that provides background and overall context to the events of June 28, an article whose name (by current consensus, at least) is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Can this tag be removed? Is it necessary to source this wikilink? Moogwrench (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Be brave. You have a source. then use it and delete the tag. I've done this for you here. Its not OR if you have a RS.
I was trying to be solicitous because I didn't want my action to be considered contentious. Thank you for the advice. Moogwrench (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I can run Google news searches for "constitutional crisis" too, and then make some kind of a WP:SYNTH argument that -- since an RS states that there was a "constitutional crisis" before the coup, and another RS that claims that there was a "constitutional crisis" after the coup -- that the coup must be "part of" "the" "constitutional crisis."
The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides.
It looks like somebody is trying way too hard to frame Honduran events to mirror a Wikipedia construct.
We should only describe things as they are, not try to make them parallel facetious Wikipedia constructs.
Most RS's have given little coverage of "constitutional" anything, relative to the much larger coverage of the coup -- which was a crisis all by itself, and the one that has received the most weight in RS's.
It's not necessarily appropriate to direct the reader in the lede to the main article. What might be more appropriate might be to include a wikilink at the first place a constitutional issue comes up, wherever that happens to occur.
I don't think we should write the lede with an eye to trying to artificially force a wikilink to the other article up top -- and I sure don't think we should make stuff up, just to achieve that.
Unless you have an RS that specifically states that this subset concept is what is, then it's just WP:SYNTH.
Writing a quality article has nothing to do with trying to get a link to another Wikipedia article up top, nor should it.
We should put a Wikilink wherever it naturally occurs, not force it for no reason.
Governments violate constitutions all the time. What elevated things to the "crisis" level was the coup.
Indeed, one could make the argument that the main event was the coup, and that the little constitutional violations and ambiguities were just minor occurrences -- and use the weight in RS coverage of the coup, relative to the wp:weight of RS coverage of constitutional violations and circumstances as your argument. -- Rico 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't understand your statement: "The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides."
The source states: "Honduran troops surrounded the presidential palace on Sunday after soldiers detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya at his residence in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election."
I may be parsing it incorrectly, but it seems like the source says that the detention (or coup, if you will) is in the "constitutional crisis"
Admittedly, many sources term it "political crisis" instead of "constitutional crisis"--the issue is that the events of June 28 are not the only notable aspect of the crisis, and hence the umbrella "crisis" article to give notable context to the events of June 28. The "crisis" is no longer just the "coup". Perhaps a name change from "constitutional crisis" to "political crisis" is in order? Moogwrench (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The source doesn't state that the coup was a subset (or "part of") "the" constitutional crisis. Misinterpreting the words "in a constitutional crisis" -- or just the word "in" -- to infer that the coup was part of a "the" constitutional crisis, or contained within this constitutional crisis, is a leap of faith. I've seen it described, recently, as a coup, "in a political crisis" ... I wouldn't presume to infer that this means that there was a political crisis and that the coup was "part of" it, or contained within it. The coup was a crisis. That's all these sources are saying. We've been all through that. The coup was a crisis.
Injections of OR, just to mirror artificial Wikipedia construction, are invalid. The "constitutional crisis" article was the coup article and we all know it. It was just named "consitutional crisis" to satisfy rampant nationalist POV warriors that didn't want the coup called a "coup".
This article was created with the rationale that the 'main' -- (what you call the "umbrella 'crisis'") -- article was getting too big, so we needed a separate article.
Now the lede mirrors this artificial Wikipedian construction, but it was only a result of Wikipedians in Honduras, POV wars, COIs, name warring, sock puppetry and an admin with a shocking lack of circumspection -- not to mention an expressed personal conflict with WP:NOT#Dem policy (used as part of his explanation for his unilateral decision).
To play dumb, one must also claim that -- until now -- there was no Wikipedia article about the coup. We all know that there was, and that the "constitutional crisis" article was it (misnamed). This article was created as a subarticle of the constitutional crisis, with full knowledge and delight that this would give us an article about the coup named "coup". The excuse was that the so-called 'main' article was getting too long, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy was conveniently the winner.
If you agree with this, then you must also agree that when this article was created, there were two articles about the coup. (Now the constitional article is being made into a constitutional article). But the rationale that there was this constitutional article, and that there is now this coup article that is a subset of it, must not be used as the basis for a lede that -- is not only written just to mirror this strange construction (or worse, just to put a wikilink to the so-called 'main' article at the top) -- but it actually uses OR to accomplish this feat.
Whether the coup was a "part of" "the" constitutional crisis is a distinct question, and not one we are at liberty to determine on our own. Reliable sources are simply reporting that there was a coup, and there were constitutional issues involved. They are not stating that the coup was "part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
The subset contention must be specifically supported by reliable sources to be valid.
I will continue to restore disruptively, summarily deleted dispute tags (vandalism) until (if) this dispute has been resolved. -- Rico 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that you don't like the title 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and the wikilink to it in the first sentence. However, the source states that "soldiers detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya at his residence in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election." I think this perfectly supports a sentence that says that the coup was part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Or were you thinking of another constitutional crisis that Honduras has had that year? Do you really want to argue the plain text of the article? Moogwrench (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi I shortened it to constitutional crisis and wikilinked that to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Repitition of 2009 Honduran is poor english. I hope this is ok.Cathar11 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good enough to me. Moogwrench (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could try to explain why you think the plain reading of the source is somehow WP:SYNTH, Rico? The RS publishes this information after the coup, but says that the the detention (coup) is in the constitutional crisis. I think you might have confused my initial paragraph by thinking that the "after" in my sentence referred to what the source said instead of the date/time it was published. I think Cathar11's original edit placing the source here and subsequent rewording are fine. Can you please read the source again? Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this discuusion is going nowhere. I've removed the part of the sentence in dispute. It doesnt add anything to the content. The 2009 Constitutional Cris article is noted as a Main: reference further dwn the article.
Maybe the one editor that finds this clause objectionable can put out a Reliable sources query to see if it really is WP:SYNTH. One person does not make consensus. Moogwrench (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If you really are confused, I would suggest you reread what I wrote (assuming you have read it, and honestly think that I am questioning the reliability of the source). I don't care to repeat myself, as that would be non-value added time. -- Rico 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{unindent} The Reliable sources board, it appears, has been used at times not only to discuss reliability, but whether a particular source supports a particular contention. That was why I suggested it. Sorry, my error. Perhaps you would like an RfC? You insist that the contention is OR/SYNTH, ignoring that SYNTH depends on at least 2 sources. You will note that I had only one source, and it said that the detention was "in a constitutional crisis." Do you honestly believe that this source was referring to a constitutional crisis other than the one described in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis??? If you really are confused and not just trying to fight a name battle again, you might think about this for a second. You are taking all the arguments over that article's title, which have nothing to do with the content we are discussing, and using them as an objection to realizing that RSs refer to the entirety of the Honduran political dispute as a "crisis" and use "coup" to describe only the events of June 28. Why rehash unrelated past arguments? Why not actually talk about what the source says? Moogwrench (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I added another distinct RS that says the same thing, that the coup is part of a "four month old constitutional crisis". Moogwrench (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the continual reverts of your reversion, I ask you to come back to this discussion table, and reiterate the central question: Do you believe that the "constitutional crisis" sourced individually (not together) in [1] and [2] is really a different constitutional crisis than the one described in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis? Or do you have alternative wording that you would like to use to express the relationship between the constitutional crisis and the coup that concords with these RSs? P.S. Also, realize that the phrase "the first in Central America in more than two decades" has now been shifted to another part of the lede, and so it is redundant to put it in the first sentence again. Moogwrench (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Al Jazeera is considered an RS

Per the edit summary of this diff, there had been some concern, I suppose, over whether or not Al Jazeera is recognized as an RS by English Wikipedia. I would refer those with such concerns to the following reliable sources noticeboard posting, which I found with a cursory search before I placed the citation, that indicates that Al Jazeera is an RS. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article?

There has been some disagreement as to whether these sources--[3] and [4] support the mention of the coup as part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis in the lede of 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Some believe that this mention amounts to a WP:OR mirror of a Wikipedia construction (i.e. three subset articles of the crisis article, one of which is the coup). Others believe that the sources show that the coup is one of several events in the constitutional crisis and this relationship should be mentioned. Do the sources support mention of the coup as part of the constitutional crisis? Moogwrench (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes.
A plain reading of source #1 states in its lede that Zelaya was detained (the coup) "in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election." (emphasis mine) One can reasonably determine that the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in this sentence coincides with the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. This sentence also links his detention with another fundamental aspect of the constitutional crisis: his plans for a Honduran fourth ballot box referendum, the first of the 3 subarticles. I mention the WP construction not to prove a point, merely to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP.
While source #2, written four months after the coup, tends to ignore much of the antecedents of the crisis, it does place the coup firmly in that continuum. The first two sentences read: "Al Jazeera's Will Stebbins takes stock of the winners and losers in the wake of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose power-sharing accord which ended the four-month Honduran constitutional crisis. The crisis was precipitated in June when the Honduran military, backed by the Supreme Court, led a coup against Manuel Zelaya, the president, and ousted him from power." (emphasis mine) It does not state why the military or the Supreme Court led the coup, but it does say that their actions precipitated the crisis.
When one speaks of something precipitating an event, it is considered part of that event and it bears mention in the lede of the treatment of said subject. Thus the lede of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria mentions the outbreak of World War I, because the assassination precipitated it. Hence, the constitutional crisis bears mention in the coup article lede for this reason. The source, as a side note, links the coup to actions taken subsequent to the coup in the crisis, namely the events covered in Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti, the third of 3 subarticles. Again I mention this to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP, not to prove a point.
One can debate the construction of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis construction and its subarticles, as many already have. But it is clear from these sources, and other sources, that the coup is part of something larger--that the events of June 28, commonly referred to as a "coup" in many RSs, belong to a wider "crisis" in Honduran political society. It bears mentioning this in the lede of 2009 Honduran coup d'état, and the sources cited support this. Moogwrench (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat puzzled about the protest - it clearly states that the situation is part of the crisis. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:GAME. Ed Wood's Wig, you've repeatedly posted that there never was a coup in Honduras -- ("I 'deny there was a coup' because there wasn't a coup"[5]) -- so why have you repeatedly put into the lede that a "coup d'état ... occurred"? -- Rico 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Because, as it stands, I'm following the consensus regarding the lede. The accuracy is still problematic, but one step at a time. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
So then if we read, "Joe tripped his opponent in a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct," that means there was a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct, and that the trip was "part of" it?
The coup was a crisis. We've been all through that. These sources aren't saying that the coup was a ""part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
I've also seen that there was a coup in a political crisis -- but I wouldn't presume to include in the article that the coup was "part of" "the" political crisis, because all the reporter was saying was that the coup was a crisis. -- Rico 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case of these sources, the "constitutional crisis" mentioned is not a single event or an example of a crisis, but a series of events over a prolonged period of time (Source #2 talks about a variety of actions/events over a period of 4 months, the precipitory event being the coup). So it is not correct to think that they mean a discrete event, as you are suggesting with your example of a one time trip being an example of unsportsmanlike behavior. Moogwrench (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
My example was just to illustrate the folly of your argument, one that you base on your interpretation of the word "in" to mean "part of." In my example, the word "in" doesn't mean a "part of."
You keep avoiding the points I am making. -- Rico 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your example, as I point out in my response, is flawed, because you assume the crisis to be a discrete event. From the sources, it is clear that it is an ongoing series of events (4+ months worth). Why are you accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point with your wikilink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talkcontribs) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the addition of "part of what has been described as a constitutional crisis" in the first sentence breaks the flow of the lead so it would better be mentioned later. I would suggest refactoring the lead structure using three paragraphs: 1.- What the article is about ( the events of the coup itself) 2.- Antecedents ( summary of previous events, disagreement about referendum, link to crisis article) 3.- Consequences (like second paragraph in this version). JRSP (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Moogwrench's subset construction isn't true. It's made up, and it isn't in the sources cited. It's OR, apparently injected just to mirror the strange Wikipedia construction that resulted after the coup article was renamed "constitutional crisis," a "coup" section remained, and then this article was created using the length of the "coup" section as a rationale.

Obviously there were constitutional questions/issues before the coup, and "part of" the coup itself (forcing a democratically elected president into exile at gunpoint).

These should obviously be mentioned.

The fact that strange things happens when rampant nationalistic POV warriors get involved doesn't mean that the strange results that arise from them are a basis for OR in the article. -- Rico 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the way it went:
1. There's a coup article.
2. Editors like Ed Wood's Wig, that denies there was ever a coup in Honduras -- and like Moogwrench, who puts the word "coup" in quotes on his user page (suggesting he doesn't accept that it was a coup either) -- fought for a name change. It's renamed "constitutional crisis," but a "coup" section remains.
3. The "coup" section gets longer.
4. This article is changed from being a redirect, into a second article about the coup.
5. People start using this strange outcome to justify calling the coup "part of" "the" constitutional crisis. -- Rico 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment, but since there is a blatant falsehood in Rico's comment (saying that I fought for a name change to this article from "coup" to "crisis"), I thought that I would correct the record here. I'll repost my post that you deleted. Please forgive the digression away from the RfC topic. After taking my time to reading back through the discussion history of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, I found this edit on 11 July 2009 which closed this move request on 2 July 2009 and resulted in the original coup article being moved to its present location. As one can tell from my editing history, my first edit to this article or its talk pages was on 10 October 2009, some 2 months after this name change. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, when the 2009 Honduran coup d'état was nominated for deletion, because some thought the name and or content was POV, I voted "Keep" because the majority POV and RS supports this (even though minority POV does not), per WP:NAME conventions, a point that I elaborated on in a move request for the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Finally, it is not amusing but telling that Rico remarks derogatorily on my use of " marks around the word coup on my userpage, yet proceeds to do that very same thing in his point 3 immediately below above. I suppose that he feels he has sufficiently demonstrated his anti-coup bonafides to allow him to use them with impunity, without fear of being accused of COI. As I explain on my userpage, I have doubts about both positions and find valid points among both sides of the coup/not coup debate. Moogwrench (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reposted again by Moogwrench (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted your post because you inserted it into the middle of one of mine.[6] Nice half-truth. As for "Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment", you have a pattern and a practice of inserting your posts into the middle of other people's posts.[7] (See second post, in green.) Your strikeout text exposes your disingenuous nature.
Incredibly, after all the ink you've spilled writing about what a newbie you supposedly were, when you decended on the Honduran coup articles and started edit warring with everyone -- using your supposed newness as your excuse[8], while revealing that you actually knew all about Wikipedia -- now you keep revealing that you know all about what went on before. Newbie? I think not. WP:CLEANSTART, maybe. -- Rico 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, no one said you had to delete it, and you could have moved it instead below your edit. And yes, I don't normally do that; I didn't say "never." I inserted it directly into your comment because what you said was blatantly untrue and had to be identified as such: You identified me ("Editors ... like Moogwrench ... fought for a name change") with a group of editors who has agitated for a change to the old coup article's name, which as my diffs show is demonstrably false. And what is with the personal attacks (i.e. calling me "disingenuous" and misrepresenting my position on the name of the article? I am not questioning your motives, why are you questioning mine? So far in this RfC you have used the phrases: "rampant nationalistic POV edit warriors", "disingenuous," and you have tried to paint me as a COI editor with the whole " marks bit. AND as someone who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point with your wikilink AND then you also talk about how I wasn't a newbie because we got into an edit war with my first edits on Wikipedia [like that's never happened with a newbie, c'mon on]). I keep asking myself "When is he actually going to discuss content, instead of Moogwrench?" Moogwrench (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
How do you know so much about what happens with newbies? -- Rico 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do assume that I am lying? Is it because you disagree with what I am saying or you can't believe that people are capable of looking back through archives or edit history? It took me almost an hour but I was able to dig up that info. Not everyone who starts editing Wikipedia is completely ignorant about HTML either. I have a degree in CIS and know how to code or program in HTML, Java, and C++. So don't automatically assume that someone who picks up WP with gusto and starts editing is an old user. And as a side note, would it have really made much sense to start edit warring with some of my first edits if I were an experienced user looking for a fresh start? Your argument is self contradictory, and again, I implore you to stop attacking me as a liar and instead focus on the content and the sources of the RfC, and not me, please. Moogwrench (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Umm please don't move my comment again. That's not cool. Moogwrench (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's think about this for a second. I started off as a newbie, I got pwned by other editors, and so I read things in WP:Guidelines, like Wikipedia:NEWBIES, among many other things, that helped me understand Wikipedia and its rules. So being a newbie and reading about things to watch out has kinda helped. Moogwrench (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've caught you lying too many times. You're like the boy that cried "wolf". I can count at least three times when you've quoted me, ptting what I'd supposedly written -- but hadn't -- in quotation marks. You once wrote that I was "angry" when I was laughing at you. If you don't want people to point out your falsehoods, just write the truth -- or make it obvious it's just your opinion. -- Rico 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I have misquoted you sometime in the past, I am sorry. Whatever it is that you are talking about, it probably was a misunderstanding on my part. When are you going to stop with the personal attacks? and actually participating in a Request for Comment? rather than talk about what a big liar I am? Moogwrench (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that almost the entirety of your two comments is devoted to either 1) recounting a history of the battle over naming of articles (irrelevant to the actual content and sources being discussed in this RfC) or trying to 2) attack editors (using phrases such as "rampant nationalistic POV warriors"), instead of actually addressing the content and the sources in this particular RfC. Please focus on the content and sources that are being addressed. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, lets focus on the content and the sources. That means you too Moogwrench. Prodego talk 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion? Stop this section as it's a mess and start over with two separate sections, one discussing each source. If there's agreement about ONE of them, let's at least work off that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, it is a little hard to not defend oneself. I would really appreciate your commments, either one of you, on the topic at hand. I am sorry.

OK here goes my attempt to get discussion back on track:

Rico, one of the points that I gather from your arguments is the idea that the "coup" is a "crisis", not "in the crisis," and that "crisis" essentially refers to the "coup". Sources exist which talk about a growing constitutional crisis before 28 June, but for consistency's sake, let's limit ourselves to post-28 June sources. From these sources it is abundantly clear that what RSs call the "coup" is limited to the ouster of Zelaya, not what followed afterwards in the coming days and months (the crisis). "Coup" and "crisis" are not synonyms in the RSs (even though you feel that use of "crisis" is wholly a POV euphemism for "coup" in WP).

Let's look at source #2, since it was written four months later and perhaps provides a decent, non-recentist, perspective:

Al Jazeera's Will Stebbins takes stock of the winners and losers in the wake of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose power-sharing accord which ended the four-month Honduran constitutional crisis. The crisis was precipitated in June when the Honduran military, backed by' the Supreme Court, led a coup against Manuel Zelaya, the president, and ousted him from power. (emphasis mine)
Al-Jazeera News

Obviously, "coup" and "crisis" are not synonyms, because one thing is precipitating the other. Obviously a lot is going on separate from the coup--four months worth of activity--after the coup.

But perhaps you say, as you did here regarding the definition of what constitutes the coup: "Neither reactions to the coup, nor events caused by the coup, should be excluded. The coup should not be viewed narrowly, based on any arbitrary or capricious definition of what constitutes events of the coup." However, it is not an arbitary or capricious definition to call the events after Zelaya's ouster "after the coup", it is one based on WP:RS. After 28 June, the coup was a fait-accompli, and the RSs refer to this period as "after the coup".

An example from the Independent:

The political crisis in Honduras began four months ago when Mr Zelaya, the democratically elected president, was taken from his bed at gunpoint and flown out of the country by the military. A US-brokered power-sharing deal which should have returned Mr Zelaya to his post, at least until elections on 29 November, collapsed last week after Roberto Micheletti, who seized power after the coup, reneged by forming a caretaker government without him. (emphasis mine)
The UK Independent

Roberto Micheletti took power that same day, and thus the coup can said to have definitely ended as a discrete event in order for him to have "seized power after the coup," according to this source. The crisis, though, has lasted for four months.

So, in conclusion, the coup should be mentioned as part of the constitutional crisis, which is an overarching period encompassing, but not limited by, the coup. Moogwrench (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your characterizations of what I've written are inaccurate, unnecessary and incivil. -- Rico 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Inaccurate is up to you to argue. Unnecessary in what sense? Are you saying that he shouldn't be trying to figure out what he sees you said? Last, what specifically was uncivil? I don't in particular see any language that would concern me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A significant and easily sourced POV is that it is a coup and this should be included in the opening but in such a way that its clearly a POV and not "the truth". Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As nominator, I am going to close this RfC, assuming that consensus has been reached since--and I mention this only as an explanation for my actions, implying nothing else--the editor that was opposed to the articulation of the concept of the coup being a discrete portion of a large crisis has left Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to open it again or has concerns about the content or sources being discussed, please feel free to do so. Thanks, JRSP, for the suggestion regarding formulation of the lede paragraphs. I will try to rework the lede to avoid awkward constructions while still giving appropriate context to events. Moogwrench (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of templates

I would like to remove some of the template overload that we currently have. There isn't, per this AfD discussion and Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#This_is_an_content_fork_-_same_content_as_in_2-3_other_articles this thread, any consensus for merging, so I would like to remove the merge-related templates. I would also like to remove one of the POV templates--keeping title/content one is fine because some feel title and content of this article are biased. It just really clutters up the top of the article and isn't going to lead to anything at this point. Moogwrench (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD didn't really discuss the merge that much, although some did mention it as part of the deletion discussion. We need more input. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Horribly biased

Article is horribly biased in favor of Zelaya, needs cleaned up badly. But this is Wikipedia so no doubt it will remain the same until the end of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one person's opinion. Now where are the facts to back that up?-- (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The facts are horribly biased against the coup's propoganda story. It's rather difficult for a NPOV article to avoid being POV in the circumstances. --Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an content fork - same content as in 2-3 other articles

This is a content fork. The article has essentially the same content as in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Much of the same content is further duplicated in the article Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti.

Proposal: redirect this article to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.

Alb28 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The result of the recent deletion nomination for this article was no consensus, with some editors arguing that this constituted a spinout, not a content fork. At this point, I think it would be wise to treat it as a spinout, leaving excessive detail to the subarticles or the chronology, because the parent article, 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, really was getting too large, and if you have a disagreement about the title or content of either the parent or one of the sub-articles, to address them with a relevant discussion. At this point, though, merging all three together again is unfeasible, primarily for reasons of size and manageability. Moogwrench (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, feel free to move non-essential detail in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis to the appropriate sub-article. Moogwrench (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Though this may repeat some content, when I heard about a Honduran government issue, I searched Honduran coup. This is what came up, where I got all I wanted to know, nice and written and all in one section. This article is very effiecient at convaying the message, and I learned a lot from it. I kindly request you not to do anything to this extremely useful article. -- (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're 100% correct, but you'll get no motion on this in the present time, as folks insist on having to have as many articles detailing the nonexistent coup as possible. Perhaps later once this is relatively old history you might get some traction. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable statements (e.g. nothing about PCM-020 in the source) should be removed.Alb28 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable? I think you are getting your wikiterminology mixed up. The article verifies that they felt Zelaya was not getting due process regarding his removal. If you insist that this is OR, to satisfy you, I will remove "dispute this argument" (just because they don't dispute Morales' particular argument, you feel, by not mentioning the decree portion), while keeping "argue that Zelaya was denied due process", which is most definitely sourced by this source. Moogwrench (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The text might be ok somewhere else in the article (as long as it's presented in the same way as in the source), but it has nothing to do with PCM-020 and therefore should not be presented in the PCM-020 section. Alb28 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The section talks about the legal consequences of the actions of the executive, and so the content is fine. Were the legal consequences a violation of his due process rights according to the constitution... this is definitely on topic. If you feel that uncomfortable about the content being in a section entitled "Executive decrees and their legal consequences" then I would suggest renaming the section. Moogwrench (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about PCM-020. It should be in the legal analysis section if at all.07:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alb28 (talkcontribs)
A source doesn't have to mention the decree by name in order to address concerns about process of enforcing legal consequences for Zelaya's actions, which is what Morales was discussing and what is part of this section's topic. Moogwrench (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Catthar11, if some speech ten years ago, a report about judiciary, etc. is related to the Honduran crisis then you need to find a reliable source that links it to the crisis. Otherwise it's original research. Please read the two first paragraphs more about original research:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Alb28 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text. Alb28 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is on the June 28 coup event. It would be kind of odd to exclude all sources written before the events of June 28 just because they didn't happen to mention an event that hadn't happened yet. This would deprive the article of all background developments before the ouster of Zelaya.
Context/background to an event is part of a topic, thus sources which touch on the background of an event are on topic. Reliable sources have discussed the character of the Honduran judiciary as it relates to the crisis. Most have confirmed an independent judiciary, and so I might suggest you add that for NPOV reasons. So it is not originally research to provide additional detail found in sources written before the event. Whether the particular details are that relevant to the subtopic is open to debate. Moogwrench (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. If it's part of the topic, then you should have no problems finding a reliable source that cites it as a part of the topic. Alb28 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is one example: It is a Reuters Q+A article from July 9, 2009. A key part: "Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial." As I said, it is part of the topic. Moogwrench (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia accepts only cites that are directly related to the topic. You can add the above source, but not something that is not directly related to the topic.Alb28 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The independence of the judiciary is part of the topic. You pointedly said "you need to find a reliable source that links it to the crisis"--the RS mentions the subject of the independence of the judiciary as part of the coup topic, so anything that touches on the independence of the judiciary is on topic. Moogwrench (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictorial bias

Anti-Zelaya demonstrators only are shown, and the military are depicted in a guardianship role which misleads as to the extent of their role in confrontation, collaboration with torture and summary executions.-- (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who owns the news wires? The same multinational corporations who are pushing regionalisation of the world into continental and hemispheric unions under corporate control by virtue of their own control over a concentration of news media. Since when, in true international law which does not violate its own principles, can the highest judiciary - i.e., DOMESTIC Supreme Court - of a sovereign nation ever be declared "incompetent" by A WIRE SERVICE for its own domestic CONSTITUTIONAL duties? You do understand that the Reuters declaration is a HIGHLY UNDEMOCRATIC ATTACK on the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY of Honduras which (i) formed its own Constitution and (ii) does NOT view the removal of Zelaya as as "coup". Perhaps you should look up the definition of democracy, and then look up the Rule of LAW while you are at it. I hope Wikipedia goes bust, you are a force for mass stupidification and chaos in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Independance of Judiciary section as pro-coup propoganda

The claim that independance of the judiciary has something to do with the 'governments' thinking is funny given the supreme court judges launched the coup ultimately. The lack of independence- of themselves. The Supreme Court were concerned of their own lack of independence, so they opted not to give Zelaya even a show trial.

So I deleted the whole section, nothing said there that was anything but propaganda. --Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if anything, a lack of independence on the part of the judiciary from the more "political" branches, executive and legislative (which face direct election from the people), is an argument that their actions were mostly political and not a reflection of justice or proper jurisprudence. Obviously something that reflects poorly on that course of action, either in its formulation or executive, if anything would be anti-coup, not pro-coup.
Regardless, it is sourced and if you feel that it is POV then you can edit it to balance it. I am restoring the text. I also find it amusing that others have deleted this same section because they say it reflects a POV favorable to Zelaya.
On a further related note, it is not entirely clear that the Supreme Court originated the actual action taken to depose/exile Zelaya, as some argue that the military unilaterally made the decision to exile him, and that documentation was later backdated to provide support for the military's error. Moogwrench (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


There was at least one serious misuse of a source in this article. Source 62 has a translation which reads "The US will always be our colonizer." The Spanish reads: "Aquí no vamos a tolerar que nadie venga a gobernarnos” which actually means "Here we will not let anyone come to rule us," a very different sentiment. It appears that people have been misusing sources to let in air their own views on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed now. Rd232 talk 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

On This Day factual error

The factoid yesterday (June 28) about the coup against Zelaya was clearly biased. It called the event an "ouster", not a "coup", unlike the article title; and it stated as fact the anti-Zelaya allegation that his principal intention in beginning a process to modify the constitution was to serve more than one term as president. The former is perhaps excusable, as "ouster" is spin but not inaccurate; but the latter is completely beyond the pail, as there is no direct evidence that he even had that intention at all. I guess it's too late to fix things, but certainly the process broke down in this case; on both counts, the article itself mentions the positions, but very clearly states they are held by a minority. Homunq (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a Coup

Once again, there was no coup d'etat in Honduras. Widespread recognition of a thing as x does not constitute a thing actually being x.

Wikipedia's own coup d'etat page defines a coup as: "the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body". Here are the reasons why the events in Honduras are not a coup:

1) The deposition was constitutional. The military acted on orders from the Supreme Court of Honduras.
2) A government was not deposed. A single officer of that government was relieved of his position. The government, its other officers, its constitution, and all offices and branches remained intact.
3) The government was not replaced with another body. Constitutional presidential succession rules were observed and once again, the vast majority of government office holders remained exactly the same. The ruling party didn't even change.

Other definitions of the words make similar requirements.

Calling it a coup automatically generates bias in the reader towards condemnation of the events, which would be acceptable if the events fit the definition of a coup, but seeing as they do not, it is improper for Wikipedia to label them thus. Wikipedia must maintain its neutrality. Calling the the events in Honduras a coup is akin to calling abortion doctors murderers in a Wikipedia article. It automatically lends credence to one side of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, unless you present some new arguments, you're unlikely to change the result. Homunq (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would I need new arguments? These ones are correct. No one has given any counterargument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are over a year of arguments and counter-arguments from multiple sides. Please see the archives of this discussion page and the archives of the discussion page on the Honduran constitutional crisis article. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
What happened could hardly be regarded as a "coup". I suggest taking a look at this article. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Honduras Truth Commission rules Zelaya removal was coup. Pristino (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The so-called "truth commission" of the OAS is an body outside Honduras whose international agenda is the political and economic merger of the western hemisphere, which requires the completion of illegal steps that Zelaya was attempting to take, contrary to his powers under the Honduran Constitution. To obtain western hemispheric union, Honduras must swept into a regional, i.e., communist-style union similar to the existing UNASUR and to the emerging North American Union. Zelaya was attempting to advance CAFTA-ALBA by i.e., usurping the powers of other Constitutional officers under the Honduran constitution. I wrote to the OAS in 2009 to denounce their abusive statements regarding Honduras. That letter is posted in this sidebar:

Also posted is the August 2009 Report for Congress by the Law Library of Congress which was submitted to President Obama, the man currently participating in a coup on Canada to annex Canada to the USA in a North American Union. My blog was published in July 2009. The Report for Congress and my blog explore the Honduran situation using different constitutional facts, and both arrive at the same conclusion: the removal of Zelaya was a constitutionally lawful event. Therefore, the Report for Congress is a denunciation of the position of the USA's own sitting President.

Naive people with no profound constitutional or deep political knowledge of past and current event should not be writing so-called "encyclopedias" which thus DISINFORM, MISLEAD, and thus serve the agenda of world government which requires the unconstitutional merger of states into unions to which they surrender their sovereign powers, and which are then gradually converted to hemispheric unions under regional hemispheric governments. The OAS is the precursor of western hemispheric union, an informal alliance of nations in the western hemisphere intended to be made "formal" by the overthrow of their respective governments and the dissolution of their national constitutions.

All you people behind the scenes at Wikipedia can do is count up 'votes' for one position or another and then decide, stupidly, to embrace ONE such position in writing your article. If you were clever as well as unbiased, you would (i) structure your article with ALL the pro's and con's of ALL sides or positions; and (ii) most importantly, you would do this while OPENLY ADMITTING that you personally have no legal, no constitutional, and no political knowledge of your own by which to professionally judge between the sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely that it was not a coup. The deposing was done in agreement with the Constitution, and all judicial reviews have concluded the same thing. The article about the Truth Commission report is misleading. In fact, the Executive Summary of the Truth Commission report is grossly misrepresenting the actual conclusions of the report itself. It is a political hack job, in other words. Read the report and you will see that it was not a coup. I'm sure that in due time this article's title will be changed, and until it does, Wikipedia has no credibility and deserves no monetary support. (It's not just this article that is wrong, there are hundreds of gross factual errors all relating to the dictatorship of Chávez.) --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)