Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:30, 10 November 2009

2009 Honduran coup d'état

• Articles for deletion/2009 Honduran coup d'état

2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis created due to the naming dispute of whether this is a coup or not; it is not as claimed a sub-article as it is evidently been copied and pasted from the original article (not cut and pasted); a more classic POV fork I have yet to see . Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was, indeed, originally copied and pasted. However, the splitting (made clear in a navbox present on all relevant pages) has enabled the parent article, which was a giant mess at over 156K (around #350 in Special:LongPages), to shrink in just a couple of days to under 118K (not in the top 1000 LongPages), and the shrinking continues. I think the parent should come down under 64K over time; yet without the sub-article, that would be impossible, as all sides would defend the inclusion of "their" facts. I think that this is clear evidence that the split is useful.

Also, I am the initiator of the split, which was discussed on the talk page of the original article and got some informal support and no opposition (I was not the first one to raise it. Xavexgoem said "B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with)... I'm partial to B)"). As the discussion there shows, the motivation for this split is a traditional sub-article rationale, and not, as SqueakBox claims, the naming dispute. I would absolutely support this split even if consensus decided that the sub-article should be named Honduran events on 28 June 2009 or some such non-"coup" name (although I'd currently oppose such a consensus, but not vehemently, and anyway that's a separate issue).

Finally, note that the sub-article and the parent article have now each attracted independent work, which (if this AfD goes through) would have to be merged back into the parent article. The same goes for the other two sub-articles created concurrently (Fourth ballot box and Micheletti regime) which were created by the same means (that is, copy, then edit independently to trim the parent and clean up the child). Homunq (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox has a pattern and a practice of insincere AfD attempts, claiming "POV fork".

His claim that there was a "dispute of whether this is a coup or not," is disingenuous.

The constitutional article didn't not call the coup a "coup". It has always had a section called, "Coup d'état". It just got too long. -- Rico 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Misplaced Pages should have an article about the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, because it has received wide coverage among reliable sources, and -- since it was the first Latin American military coup in such a long time -- the event is encyclopedic. Quite a few other Wikipedias have articles on the subject.

The constitutional article has to do with subjects like:

1. President Zelaya's desire to get the Constitution changed, allegedly so that he could run for a second term.

2. Whether President Zelaya's alleged attempt to change the Constitution really was unconstitutional.

3. President Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court injunction that the referendum was was unconstitutional.

4. The lack of a clear cut constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, therefore making a coup more likely.

5. The removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military, which was is in direct violation of Article 102 of the Constitution of Honduras.

While these constitutional questions/issues may be notable enough to have their own article, the 2009 Honduran coup d'état definitely is.

The Italian Misplaced Pages has an article about both, like the English Wikipdia had, but the English article got too long and was quickly getting longer. -- Rico 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a fork, but it isn't a POV fork. This is primarily for article brevity and weight. The details of the coup, as such, had far too much weight for a much larger matter (i.e., the constitutional crisis). We also split the articles into the prior-to-the-event, the-event, and after-the-event, due to the depth this subject requires. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/delete it was never a coup d'etat, since it was a legal removal of the sitting president, the title is a POV stance 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you also vote "move" (to something without "coup" in the name) if that were an option? I ask becaus I think that the existence/value of this page should be decided separately from the question of whether its name is POV. Homunq (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is kept, it would need to be renamed. Otherwise, it should just be part of the constitutional crisis article. Whether there is already enough material in that article, or if some should be merged is my !vote of "merge/delete", since either is acceptable. Keeping is less desirable, since I don't see a clean cut to have an article on the non-coup as a separate topic from the constitutional crisis. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Keep - It is a fork, but it is nescessary for it has enabled the main article be reduced in size and clarified. Denying there was a coup d'etat is POV pushing. It's still work in progress Cathar11 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your comment reflects a complete lack of understanding of NPOV policy; there are 2 POVs, that it is a coup and that it is not a coup; at wikipedia we take sides at our peril; we cannot decide one side has a valid argument and the other does not so claiming it was or wasn't a coup as fact and negating the other POV is the only POV pushing going on here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to restrict the discussion to the article's existence, not its name? Or is that the reason you nominated this for AFD after all? Homunq (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - any concerns over POV name issues can be addressed through either an eventual name change or by explaining controversy in the lede. Moogwrench (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates