Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 15 July 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Central America Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Military history B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Additional information: /  No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

A news item involving 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 June 2009.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Important Note: The presence of the words "coup d'état" in the title and/or section titles of this article is a controversial subject, and has generated considerable discussion. Please do not make any changes in this regard without first discussing them here and allowing some time for response. Any change which has been made without warning will be reverted ONE time. Further changes or reversions are, themselves, edit wars, and strongly discouraged.

Coup or a legal act?

Can this event be considered as a military coup as the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered (according to the BBC) the Army to remove the president who refused to cancel his illegal referendum and to reappoint the Army Chief as ordered by the same court. I deem that this is not coup but a constitutional removal from office ordered by the Court and executed by the Army. --80.222.253.214 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article does not say that the Supreme Court ordered the army to do anything at all. All the article says is, "The Honduran Supreme Court said it had ordered the removal of the president." That doesn't necessarily mean the court wanted the army to do anything at all. Ratemonth (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading a translation from freetranslation.com of http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/06/28/Noticias/Fuerzas-Armadas-han-actuado-en-base-a-derecho-dice-la-justicia-hondurena I think that perhaps 80.222.253.214 is right; it does appear the court may have given the military some legal authority to do this, but I am not sure exactly what the court approved. Ratemonth (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Acting President, Roberto Micheletti said that since Zelaya's acts were unconstitutional, the military was defending the Constitution, so I guess it's a legal act and not a coup 200.26.166.6 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the international community was quick to condemn the 'military coup', a was I. But if really the Supreme Court ordered the president's removal and its legal, then there was no coup...then there was a legal removal of the president. I also read some BBC stories about Honduras the last days and it seems that the ousted president wasnt following the Rule of Law. If there is more reliable references about the legal aspect of the sack of the president by the Court, we should replace 'Coup' with 'sacking of the president'. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Did the Supreme Court have the legal power to remove the president? I know the Congress was preparing to impeach Zelaya. In many countries legally removing an elected leader is done by the legislature, not by the courts. Does anyone know what Honduran law says about this? On the referendum article, someone linked to a copy of the Honduran constitution. Unfortunately I don't read Spanish, so I can't go and look for the answer. The link is http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution2.html if anyone wants to try.Ratemonth (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the supreme cout would have had the legal power to remove Zelaya from office then it would not have been nessesary to do it in such "coup styled" way, I mean

1. few hours until a referendum
2. Deport the president (are they not going to judge him)
3. Sorround the presidential recidency with military
4. Do actions againts the ambasadors of other countries.

Well I dont speak Spanish, but there is Google translator... I found in the 'President section' nothing about removal of office. I did found this in the 'Supreme Court section':

ARTICLE 319 .- The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (...omission by me...) 2. Meet the offenses of both officers and senior officials of the Republic, when Congress has declared the formation of a cause;

I dont know if president is a 'senior official of the republic', but I suppose he is, and Congress did plan to impeach Zelaya. And Zelaya was kinda breaking the law by not following the court orders. About the post above me, I also found it all a bit fast. Normally you would expect a trial. But about the ambassador of Venuzuela that was kidnapped and beaten: all that I found about this was a statement of Hugo Chavez, president of Venuzuela. I do not think that we can have Hugo Chavez as a reliable source for anything, IMHO. (And I am a moderate leftist European, if you are interrested in my political views :)80.127.58.65 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no question the congress are saying it is not a coup d'etate and therefore the name should be changed to fit our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not a coup, in Ratemonth's link I found that article 239 of the Constitution says:

"El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán :inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública."

In english, that is

"Any citizen who has served in the Executive Power will not be able to be President or Designated

He whom breaks this or proposes it's reform, as well as anyone who supports them directly or undirectly, will be discharged immediatly from their respective charges, and will be disabled for ten :years for the exercise of any public position" 200.26.166.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

The fact a completely anti-democratic element of their constitution allows them to remove him doesn't change the fact he was removed with military force. Many coup-prone states have introduced laws or articles in their constitutions that essentially authorize coups. A coup doesn't need to be illegal in the country in question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the English text given here has a critical error in the translation of the Spanish. It actually says "... will cease immediately to occupy their respective positions and will remain ineligible for 10 years for the exercise of any public function". Note it does NOT say "will be discharged" or "will be disabled", which would imply more directly that someone (e.g. the army) has the power to remove them. Benwing (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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? 193.134.242.13 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey CIA-spooks, don´t get ridiculous. A coup´s a coup. Even if it´s in your favour. Or do you wanna call it a "velvet revolution"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfingstochse (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a dictionary. There was no change of government, the people supported it, it was legally ratified by the Supreme Court beforehand and Congress afterwards, and it was in response to illegal actions by the President who was deposed. The dictionary definition of a coup d'etat contradicts every single one of those points.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you can't say, "the people" support it, when there is a significant minority against it! More accuracy, pls. Also, pls check the Misplaced Pages article on coup d'etat. I don't see the contradiction you claim. Gray62 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on coup d'etat does a shoddy job of defining the term, it only lists three examples (all of which this action in Honduras does NOT conform to). I was thinking more the Merriam-Webster definition of a coup. Look it up. As for your request to qualify my statement regarding "the people," you're right, there is in fact a minority who want him back. We done now?92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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. 64.241.193.18 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

International consensus has no say on whatever happens inside honduras. Nor has the uno, the oas the who or whoever. This is only an Honduran issue and only Hondurans have a say. Anything else is foreign intervention. Imo what they should do is to sit tight and resist all the pressures on them. At the end of the day they will win.--Agcala (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The international consensus is also that we should reinstate Mel, even though the majority of the Honduran population are in favour of this ousting. Should we allow all the countries mentioned in the "International Reactions" section of this article to run our nation's internal politics. Very good reasoning there. I can tell you're the bright one in your family.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 24.189.191.81 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the CIA also causing the protests in Iran? --75.64.137.16 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. See here, for example: http://wearechangebrisbane.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/iran-falling-to-us-psyops/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.124.210 (talk) 12:58, 7 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)

Legal process

It appears to me that the arrest is a legal process, and the army has only done to enforce an order of law court. The remaining question is, whether the arrest order is constitutional and acceptable under rule of law. This is important. An order of law court should not automatically considered as constitutional, and an arrest with order may be unconstitutional as well if its legal basis is faulty.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the constitutional justifications come from Article 239, which seems to say that trying to change the constitution to permit re-election results in the immediate cessation of office for the offender, and Article 42, which appears to state that citizenship can be revoked for supporting the continued governance or re-election of an executive. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've translated article 239 in a footnote. Note that it is a general prohibition: ANYONE who tries to reform article 239 "will cease carrying out their office" and is ineligible for any public charge for 10 years. If such a person were anyone but the president, then it's clear enough that the president should fire them; but when that person IS the president, there's no indication of how they are supposed to be removed.

IMO, even if this reading is valid and Zelaya is not president, it is still a coup, as there is no constitutional basis for the army to send him into exile. The supreme court justices may have told the army to do it, but if they did then they were not speaking with the authority of the court, as the supreme court had no official session in which they found Zelaya in violation of article 239. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate article 42 for us as well? My Spanish sucks, but I beleive Article 42, section 5 says something to the effect that they can revoke citizenship for supporting the re-election of a president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a native Spanish... here is the translation: Article 42:

ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file

For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) the statement will be made by the Executive Power by a government agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by the competent courts.

That is the translation of Article 42. I will not interpret it. Mercastan (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have in mind that sending someone into exile seems completely out of frame with the process of impeachment. Another thing worth noting is that there's still a LOT of military activity running in the streets, there were people rioting as of a couple of hours ago and a curfew was sound for today and tomorrow by the de facto president. I live in a country that has seen both legal removals and military coups (Argentina), and this is nothing like the former 201.253.68.198 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there is some illegal element on the military actions. However, forcing someone who are no longer rightful President to leave his country cannot be a coup. This is illegal, but it cannot be called a coup. The question is, whether the military action to remove the President backed by law court order, whether the law court order constitutional, and whether the order acceptable under the natural concept of rule of law (that is, it is completely possible the law court has staged a coup because it has made an order violating rule of law, and in that case, I call it a coup assisted by army enforcement).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it is still a coup. First, if it quacks like a duck... Second, the Army is not a police force. Third, does the Supreme Court even have the power to "arrest" the president? Some Latin American countries -- like Argentina, my own -- state that elected country officials cannot be arrested while still holding office. They must be first stripped of their office by an act of Congress, which is something that doesn't happen overnight, and also Congress may not act "after the fact", like it did in this case. For democracy to function, no country official can be arrested overnight and expelled from the country without due trial! Finally, historically most military coups seek legitimacy and claim they have the support of some sector of the people (bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile and Argentina claimed so, for example). Any way you spin it, this is a nasty coup. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a coup. First, it doesn't quack like a duck, see discussions above. It was an authorized action by the supreme court. The reason for exile is to avoid a bloodbath-- also, Honduras apparently doesn't have a well-defined procedure for impeachment, lamentably. Second, the Honduran police force grew out of the army, as I understand it, and the army still today helps the police in law enforcement. It used to be that the army WAS the police force, so it's only natural for it to take on some of the roles that someone coming from a culture where the police have always been separate from the army might expect would be reserved for the police. Also, the Army has the sworn duty to protect the Constitution, above loyalty even to the President. You really need to know what you are talking about before you spout out such assumptions. Third, if the Supreme court does not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for a president, how on earth will a lawbreaking president ever be held to account? The Congress was already considering how to impeach Zelaya. He was already on the way out-- and he continued to provoke the situation by breaking in and stealing the ballots. The military undoubtedly did things a bit hastily and excessively, but having lived there for a decade as I mentioned, I can say that it's probably not the worst of all possible outcomes. Zelaya remaining in power, or returning to power, will only create further turmoil.--24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Almarco, why did you edit a post not signed by you? The point about the Army being the police is wrong. Who are the Policia Nacional if not the national police force? They were formed a few years back when the old police force, the FUSEP (Fuerza de Seguridad Publica) was disolved. There's been a non-military police force in Honduras since the constitution was put in place in 1982. How long ago did you live in Honduras? Rsheptak (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

24.72.222.172 is me, before I could remember my old Misplaced Pages login. I edited it because I discovered that Honduras does indeed have a police force. I lived in Honduras over a decade ago, and it could be they had a police force as far back as then, but they certaintly weren't prominent enough for me to remember them. All I remember is that security and law enforcement seemed to be handled by the military, and people lamented the fact that there wasn't a proper civilian police force handling most of those roles instead. --Almarco (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As an Honduran, I can tell you Argentina's case with los Coloneles and Honduras' case are nothing alike. In cases that involve the protection of the Constitution of Honduras, the army takes responsibility of running everything. This is why the Supreme Court ordered them to remove Zelaya. As for whether the Supreme Court can or cannot arrest him, the constitution does not explain what should be done when it is decided that the President needs to be removed. There is no clause in it that allows for impeachment. Basically, the Supreme Court decided what it thought would be best. Lastly, it can't be a coup when the people support it. If the media tells you it's a duck, it's probably something else. Watch less CNN193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article he wanted to change is an "articulo petreo," IE. set in stone. Even suggesting that it be changed is an act of treason. The article, which prevents any President from being reelected, was written specifically to prevent autocracies like Chavez's current and Zelaya's intended ones. According to Honduran law, treason against the nation-state falls under military jurisdiction, so the police COULDN'T have arrested him. It was the army's responsibility. Personally, I think Zelaya should be on trial for treason, facing the death penalty as a traitor.92.104.255.201 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is just an opinion, the proposed change was fine to me. If Chavez is still in government it is not because he forced himself in but because the Venezuelan population voted for him everytime in a democratic way. I believe the people's got the ultimate power to decide those things and that was what Zelaya was trying to do by conducting a poll on whether there should be a fourth urn. Making the constitution "unchangeble" doesn't seem quite democratic to me neither. Your comments on Zelaya deserving death penalty are really showing who's the facist here. Oh, and try watching independent media, not so much the CNN... The popular support seems to be a lot more on Zelaya's side. Otherwise a curfew wouldn't make any sense to me at all. Neither all the military activity. (edited, I forgot to sign it). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Nowhere in that post was Zelaya accused of being a fascist. And as for the death penalty, that's the standard sentence for a traitor to the state if found guilty. Also, as an Honduran, and a member of Mel's party, I can tell you the number of people who want him back in office are a minority, and even his own party regrets his election. There've been protests all week demanding his resignation after he tried to change the constitution. Article 239 of the constitution and a few other articles (not many) are "articulos petreos" to prevent the abuse of power in just the way Zelaya intended to do so. They have been unchangeable since the constitution was written in 1952, to preserve the spirit of democracy in forbidding one person to hold power for more than his term allows. It wasn't simply "made" unchangeable overnight. The army, ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT, acted to protect the constitution and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Honduran population.92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What,is Chávez too good to hold fraudulent elections every time? Especially when he controls all branches of government,including the electoral office?

190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, hold onto what I said about Chavez just so that you can pretend I didn't say the other half of the message and simply ignore it. Second, who are you to judge whether those elections are fraudulent? Stop getting your news from CNN buddy, Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can "judge" because I've seen it firsthand, second-hand and third-hand, so to speak, not because I've seen it on CNN, "buddy". Not only have I witnessed some of these elections first-hand as an insider; I also worked in a situation room that took electoral complaints and denouncements during one of the most recent elections. Besides that, all powers, including the bulk of the "neutral" Electoral Committee and the Ombudsman, openly support Chávez and do what he wants, for the most part. I have also followed legal developments and the legalistic contrivances that the Supreme Court judges and the National Assembly have used to justify Chávez's actions, even when contradicting previous legislation enacted by itself. If you lived in Venezuela, you would have to be blind not to see that Chávez abuses his power.

If a Constitution doesn't have "unchangeable" guarantees, then any gobierno de turno can adjust it to fit its whims through any form of fraud or power grab. Not only that; guarantees exist to protect minorities from abuse by majorities (ever changing, as well), which is why most Constitutions , including the Venezuelan one, have certain restrictions on Constitutional changes. In addition, if "the people" voted for a Constitution, that in theory implies that they accept it completely, including restrictions on changing it. Was there really any need to overthrow the entire Honduran constitution other than Zelaya's wish to extend his mandate? Also, why have a Constitution at all if the majority are "legitimately" empowered to do anything, even if it means abusing those who disagree with them (and that goes for anybody in the political spectrum)?190.77.117.50 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In Honduras, it looks like even proposing reform of term limits results in the cessation of public office. Chances are that when the Supreme Court drafted whatever order they gave to the military, they rules Zelaya was in violation of that article and as such, no longer president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that because he violated article 42 Zelaya lost his Honduran citizenship, therefore he had to be deported? ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone involved in treasonous acts against the constitution has his or her citizenship revoked and is expelled from the country. I'm assuming that's what will happen to the 150 supporters who threw stones at the army during Zelaya's arrest will face. Quite rightly.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

However, his guilt certainly has to be established in a fair trial? Even in Honduras? So who gave the military the right to directly deport him??? Looks like those who are responsible acted criminally, and maybe even traiterous as wellGray62 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think his deportation was a stupid mistake and he should have stood trial, but as far as I can read in the constitution, there's nothing illegal about it.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand you're not a lawyer? Me, neither. But afaik , it's a general principle in most democatic nations that any infringement of citizen right has to be explicitly allowed by the constitution. So, if the constitution doesn't say it's legal to deport a citizen without giving him a fair trial, then it's illegal! I would be very surprised if that's different in Honduras.Gray62 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, I'm not a lawyer. But the justices presiding in the Honduran Supreme Court are, and it's their mandate to interpret Honduran law. They've made their decision, probably according to Article 42. What else is there I can tell you?92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I accept your "no due trial" arguments and other arguments based on rule of law. I do not accept the arguments based on use of force, because use of force does not necessary means a breach of constitutional order. I must stress that the reasoning (legality) is more important. Some people just want to use to word "coup" to describe an anti-democratic military action, that is plainly wrong to me. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Honduran law empower the military to arrest a president, whether the president's serving as president violates the constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to ask the military to remove a president by force? -- Rico 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and, well, it has power to decide if to impeach him. Plus, he isn't a citizen anymore, he was trying to change the non-reelection article. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a coup

Okay, I think it's now clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion calls this a coup. Every major news service refers to it as a coup. The UN just passed a resolution - by acclamation! - calling it a coup. We can no longer justify euphemisms, or "Most news media and government sources outside Honduras refer to this change in power as a coup d'etat." We need to call it a coup ourselves, per WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

so Argumentum ad Populum is how we decide things here at wikipedia? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to each side but to give them a weight proportional to what reliable sources say. If most major news outlets call it a coup then it must be called a coup. JRSP (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There still has to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, bur rather seemed to be supportive of the coup. Otherwise, people will get the wrong impression of the events. The main purpose of wikipedia is surely to underline the stupidity of the media—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The acting government position must be presented too, but we cannot give equal weight to a minority point of view. JRSP (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not have to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, nor that they "seemed to be supportive" of the coup. In fact, you would have to find a reliable source that stated that. People can get their impression of the events from the events. The main purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to underline the stupidity of the media -- nor are we to include in the article what the media supports or doesn't support, unless that itself is worthy of inclusion.
Besides, the media is still pointing out how overbearing and unaccountable he was being.
That should absolutely be included in the background, as his actions -- combined with a constitution that didn't provide a proceedure for getting rid of a rogue president -- caused the coup. -- Rico 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only place I see this being questioned is here on this talk page. The arguments are irrevelvant, void, and of no effect per WP:OR. All the reliable sources I've read, including the New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. There appear to be Most Interested Persons trying to argue on this talk page that it is not a coup, or that we need consensus regarding which argument is correct. We do not. We need only consensus what the reliable sources state. If it needs to be more clarified, we can do an RfC. -- Rico 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The view of a significant number of Hondurans, however misguided, cannot be considered a minority view when the topic is a Honduras subject, and indeed in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views, one saying it is a coup and the other saying it isn't. Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers but do remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras; to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish easily disprovable by a mountain of sources such as a leading liberal newspaper and a leading conservative newspaper. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "significant number of Hondurans" is, saying it's not a coup. More importantly, are the reliable sources (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post) buying into that? "Significant numbers" of people on either side of an issue, in any country, employ spin.

How many Americans say the USA is waging wars? What countries is the USA at war with? Significant numbers of Zimbabweans denied what the thugs were doing. Significant numbers of people deny the Holocaust, yet Misplaced Pages includes information about the Holocaust, without allowing Most Interested Person arguments dissuade them from describing things as they are.

We don't just need to understand that there's this "minority view" because you say so -- here. Provide the RS.

If, "in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views," then I would support including them in proportion to the prominence of each.

You wrote, "Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers." I cite the two most reliable American newspapers. This is supported by Misplaced Pages policy. A lot of newspapers are either unreliable or too biased (e.g., Huffington Post).

You wrote, "remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras."

I don't know about, "equally reliable" -- where the president can "order all radio and TV stations to broadcast his almost daily speeches" -- but reliable sources within Honduras satisfy WP:RS. It is your fabricated opinion that they must be given "equal weight." Read WP:Undue weight for its exact meaning. It's not about giving "equal weight" to different sources.

You wrote, "to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish."

Perhaps, but I never stated that. Please define "leading ... newspaper." The NY Daily News sells a lot of newspapers, as does the Los Angeles Times. The NY Times and Washington Post are more reliable. Period.

Please be civil. I don't have a nickel in this. I can be convinced of many things.

I have no trouble with the inclusion of the minority view, in proportion to the prominence of it. I'm not just not convinced that calling a coup a coup is POV, just because a relatively tiny minority claims it wasn't. The reliable sources say it was. -- Rico 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

After all, media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post aren't struggling at all. "Coup d'état" is clearly no more sensational than, "Honduran President removed from power by Army after Supreme Court Judge order." The original government is still in place, as far as I'm aware, NO ONE from the opposing political faction has been hurt or killed... and the President most certainly did violate Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution. A Pickle (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras? As important maybe but no way more important.We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia. Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc. Please dont think I was just addressing you. Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant I think my opinion is necessarily right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox wrote, "Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras?"

I never said they were. The NY Times and Washington Post are America's most reliable newspapers. I never compared them to "the main sources in Honduras." Why do you reply to things I haven't written (twice now), as if I'd written them?

SqueakBox wrote, "As important maybe but no way more important."

They may be more reliable. "The authorities in Honduras have been restricting broadcasts by media outlets perceived to be pro-Zelaya." "Media outlets friendly to Zelaya have been shut down, and some reporters are hiding." I'm speaking the language of Misplaced Pages. Again, read WP:DUE. I'm not sure what "important" is supposed to mean.

SqueakBox wrote, "We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia."

I never said we were.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc."

You had written, "sources within Honduras must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras." This is your own fabrication. It is not Misplaced Pages policy. This is the place to contradict such fabrications, when posted here.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant."

You do not know what I know. If you continue to personally attack me and be incivil toward me, I will take it to Wikiquette alerts. -- Rico 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to 2009 Honduran coup d'etat as in most other articles on coups? Unfortunately only an administrator may do this. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should, since coup d'etat is proper English. There is consensus on this page to keep the article at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat so I hope an admin acts quickly on this. --Tocino 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it a military coup. -- Rico 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP policy is to avoid unnecessary adjectives, to not get caught in debate over words like "terrorist". I agree that 2009 Honduran coup d'etat is correct. Homunq (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No that would make the title inherently POV and make reasonable people think wikipedia was pursuing a political agenda. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Coup d'état" is POV. "Restoration of Constitutional order" is POV. "Honduran constitutional crisis" is not.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:DUE. If most reliable sources call this event a coup then Misplaced Pages must call it so too. JRSP (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I disagree. It appears that WP is "taking sides" with regards to this situation. The use of Coup d'état is a POV opinion. The neutral term would be, "Honduran constitutional crisis". It is perfectly fine to make references in the article as to what the various parties are currently referring, but WP should NOT be endorsing a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The 2009 Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras on June 28, 2009 that deposed President Manuel Zelaya, breaking three decades of continuous democratic history in the Central American nation.". This line is most certainly POV.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the "Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras" is a redundant statement that is redundant.
I have a problem with describing a country as "continuous democratic" without a very reliable source. Most countries aren't very democratic, as in when power is vested in the people. The people elected Zelaya, and the Supreme Court ordered him overthrown, despite a lack of law authorizing the Court to do that. He may have been unpopular, but ... -- Rico 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought Misplaced Pages was full of people with higher intellectuality. How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out? I thought the full name of a coup was "military coup d'etat" When did the military act by itself? It was orders from the congress. The president was "kidnapped" in early morning because he passed a law that he maintained hidden stating that on the day of this referendum he could undo the congress. The congress after discovering the law, created more than a month before but revealed until Thursday, acted as fast as they could so that a national crisis would not arise. By changing the name of this article you are putting in jeopardy all of the Honduran people's lives. You are making the international community think we are in chaos and giving in to all of Mel, Ortega and Chavez's lies. I won't respond back so don't leave a comment to this message, please reconsider changing the name back. Chupu (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:"How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out?"

Reliable sources like The New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. Hondureños, the congress, the court and the military may have wanted him out, but according to reliable sources, getting him out was achieved by a military coup. It may interest you to note that the UN "condemned Mr. Zelaya’s removal as a coup." Finally, it is clear to everyone paying attention that EVERYONE didn't want him out. Stick to the facts. -- Rico 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Misplaced Pages rule that lists the New York Times, or such and such paper or diplomatic mouthpiece, as an infallible reliable source? What might shock some, is that this "Honduran presidential ousting of 2009" situation (as I would call it) has been reported by major US media sources in manners that abundantly prove them to have been unreliable, at least for this type of news. The question for Misplaced Pages editors to answer is not, "Do mainstream papers call it a coup?", but instead, "Do reliable sources call it a coup?" If those sources have been proven to have been unreliable by having called it a coup, then what Wiki rule demands imitation of those sources? On the contrary, the Reliable sources page states, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. ... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Misplaced Pages article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Samuel Erau (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it clear that calling it a coup would condemn it within international law. There is no court trial to prosecute it as such. Furthermore, this was done under Hondoras Supreme Court approval, which invalidates it being called a military coup or anything but a court ordered action. BLP overrides WP:V and WP:RS by claiming that a reliable source is only reliable if it cannot be proven to be contradictory or cannot be used as a reliable source on such matters. News articles and other statements are not reliable in determining something as a coup, only international courts are. BLP overrides any other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is here to regurgitate, not create. If the majority of reliable sources refer to this event as a "coup" (and 95 % of them do), then the job of Misplaced Pages is to reflect that reality. Right now the idea that this was not a coup is a Wp:Fringe theory, however should that change in the future, then the article would reflect that evolution. Our personal opinions as editors on the matter are irrelevant. Even if 90 % of the editors here did not view this as a "coup", it would be Wp:OR to override the vast majority of reliable sources on such a diagnosis.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that this does not apply. Even if the majority of newspapers declared that you were an idiot, a page on you could not say such if there was evidence that you were not which proved the sources wrong. WP:BLP - "We must get the article right.". No source can be write about it being a "coup" as such determinations are rightfully held to courts, and no court has ruled on it. This is a legal matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only... WP:BLP is about Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. This is not a biography of living persons, it is an article about, well, either a coup d'etat or a political crisis. How would BLP apply? Anyway, I'd say that if only 95% of the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources say something, then the remaining 5% is a big enough minority view to deserve being fairly represented (although maybe User:Redthoreau never meant to imply otherwise, but merely referred about the article title). Also, the fact that something is a Misplaced Pages:Fringe view doesn't necessarily mean it should not be represented in an article, either. LjL (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, (1) This article is on an event not a "living person". (2) A "coup" is not a term that can only be definitionally established by a legislative body. It is a common term in the English language, and refers to the forceful removal of a nations executive leader (democratic or not, it could also refer to the forceful overthrow of a dictator). (3) Your red herring about a pejorative insult on a living person is also irrelevant here. At the moment nearly all news sources refer to this event (not a living person where you could have a legal issue of defamation or libel) as a "coup", thus we should reflect that reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This definition of "coup" would then make any impeachment process of a president or prime minister a "coup". Or are you saying that impeachment isn't a forceful, "forced-upon-the-president or prime minister" situation? 190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To both - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." A coup is a crime. Anyone listed on the page as being participants in it fall under BLP. You are calling these people criminals. BLP makes it very clear that we are not allowed to do such. We can call it a political crisis, as such as not a crime nor a reference to a crime. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, in any case BLP refers to unsourced or poorly sourced material, "coup" is used by multiple reliable secondary sources. JRSP (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is Ottava, not Ottawa. Your reading is equally invalid from BLP, when it says clearly - "We must get the article right.". That is from our founder. What it means is that in cases of BLP, if it is proven that a source is wrong, it cannot be used as a reliable source within a BLP. Since there is no court case to determine this (as it is a crime in international courts), then any source using the term "coup" is incorrect. Please also see WP:GRAPEVINE which verifies that it doesn't matter how many sources claim something if they are pushing only a rumor or an accusation. Hence why OJ Simpson's biography cannot state that he is a murderer even though many sources state that he is one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Ottava, I would suggest you to go to WP:BLP/N to get more opinions on whether your interpretation of the policy is right or wrong . JRSP (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to go straight to Jimbo and asked him what he meant. However, I have been over this plenty of times on plenty of pages. It is a legal matter and we are not allowing people to declare any living individual as having committed a crime unless there is a court ruling. This action was also ordered by their Court system, which only further requires the need for a World Court ruling before we can proceed to declare such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem?

What is the problem with "Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009"? Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Anything inaccurate? Anything POV? "Coup"s a value judgment. Consensus in itself is not enough to determine whether something is a reality. If most of the world said "the sky is red" it would not make it so unless everyone changed the definition of "red" to mean what "blue" means. The country's own views should also be given weight in the title, not just one side. Otherwise, the title of an article such as North Korea might well be changed to The Dictatorship of North Korea since that is what the majority of the world agrees it is. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to take a stance. It should present the differing viewpoints in the article while striving to keep a neutral title. The content of the article before it was changed to "coup d'état" seemed pretty reasonable to me; all major viewpoints were presented.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesnt allow POV pushers to use wikipedia to promoter their POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop namecalling. -- Rico 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Misplaced Pages is in conflict with itself concerning definitions. According to the Misplaced Pages entry defining a constitutional crisis, "A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government's sovereignty, as in a coup or revolution led by the military or civilian protesters." Unless it can be established that the military is part of the government, the headline is misleading. And please don't delete the quoted sentence from the "constitutional crisis" entry.

From that same article¨"A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. "

This is exactly what happened. Zelaya on one side and the rest of government (Congress, the Courts, the military, the electoral authorities...) on the other. Zelaya in particular broke the law and willfully chose to violate a provision of the constitution, namely proposing to overthrow the Constitution to change term limits (but also ignoring Court orders to stop the declared-illegal referendum). The military, on their side, sent Zelaya to forced exile instead of arresting him to be judged.190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources refer to North Korea as North Korea, not the Dictatorship of North Korea. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to the Honduran coup d'état of 2009 as a coup. "Coup" is the most easily recognized name. As far as I know, no law authorized the Supreme Court to order the military to overthrow the president. -- Rico 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret laws, Rico, but I concur with your first two sentences; we must follow what secondary reliable sources say. And they say it is a coup. JRSP (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The link from Honduras needs changing to the new name.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which law did I interpret? -- Rico 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not you, Rico, I said "we". You said "no law authorized..." My point is that we must not do original research interpreting laws but rely on secondary RS instead. JRSP (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Court approval needed in lead

The term "coup" is POV and fails reliable source regardless if news media use it, per BLP which requires that even normally reliable news sources must be determined if they are using things correctly.

As the article reads: "A detention order, signed on June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges."

This means that the Court was acting against the President and not the Military in a coup. The proper term is Impeachment, especially with the legislature declaring a new president. Regardless, the Court ordering the military to do this is missing from the lead, which is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put that in. Hopefully, some people will see that I'm not so biased.

However, the UN and reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times and the Washington Post) simply refer to it as a "coup" and so, so do we. Whether the anti-Zelaya side can make an argument against it (WP:OR) is irrelevant. It only matters what the reliable sources call it. -- Rico 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't Honduran papers reliable sources? Some, if not most, aren't calling the events a coup.190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The World Court has not yet ruled. The US President has declared people like the leader of North Korea as a terrorist before, but that does not mean that he is one. A court would have to determine such. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:OR and, therefore, irrelevant. -- Rico 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. These are Foundation standards. A person cannot be deemed as committing a crime without a court declaring it so. There is no court declaring it so in any of the links. Therefore, we cannot put it in. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a biology of a living person. -- Rico 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This page deals with the new President, their Supreme Court, their Legislature, their military leaders, and their ex-President. It falls under BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of constitution

I've had to delete the section on alleged violations again diff because (a) the sources almost entirely fail to back up the text (b) it is such a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to accept the coup-plotters' narrative that the poll for a referendum on a generic Constitutional Assembly was an unconstitutional attempt at getting Zelaya re-elected, it's not even funny. Apart from anything else, it was chronologically impossible: the referendum approving the Assembly was take place concurrent with the next Presidential election. A new constitution would take probably a year to draft and approve. And where does the nonsense about the constitution being "unabolishable" come from? Constitutions cannot make themselves unabolishable; it's incompatible with basic legal principles. (Even the unreformableness of parts of the existing constitution is slightly dodgy.) Moreover, the existing constitution says nothing about that, it speaks explicitly of reform. Disembrangler (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Their court system ruled on the matter. That is citable and tells part of the facts of the case. It is disturbing how you phrase such things above. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a very flimsy and amateurish argument to say that his intentions did not include re-election because of "chronology." Many critics were concerned he would come back in a future election, rather than continue in unbroken power. Also, as recent Latin American history shows, when left-leaning leaders (and some right-leaning leaders as well) amend their country's Constitution, they almost always make sure to leave the door open for their re-election. Thus it is far from being a "blatant violation" and "not even funny"... even if Zelaya denied it, critics have ample reason to believe that was his intention. This tendency, repeated over and over again throughout Latin American and even Honduran history, is also why the current Constitution was written as it is, so that such things could never occur. If something is laughable indeed, it is that anyone takes Zelaya's denials at face value, given the context and the region's history. --Almarco (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted you, and I am very tempted to revert you again. The material was well-sourced. In fact, it would be justifiable under NPOV and RS to have three parts: "alleged Zelaya violations", "Zelaya defense", and "alleged post-Zelaya violations". The Zelaya defenses are easy to find RS for, whereas I have searched and failed to find any golpista defenses against the charges that were in that section. I understand that this would be a magnet for accusations of POV, but it would be on solid ground by RS.

I will not revert you again, though. I don't want to get into a two-editor edit war. I will support any other editor who reverts you (the section is in the diff you linked), and I will support you if you add a well-sourced "Zelaya defense" section. I strongly disagree that presenting relevant and widespread accusations here amounts to endorsing them. I myself added the Article 239 accusation against Zelaya, because it has been argued and I had a good source, even though I personally believe that it is ridiculously false, and that there is no true comparison or equivalency between el caudillito Zelaya and the golpistas de mier...coles. Homunq (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think a section like that, explaining what each of the parties accuses the other of violating, is very relevant, it does look, to me, like the one that was removed was very poorly sourced.

I don't see any of the sources claiming that someone accused either Zelaya or the new government of violating articles; they mention said articles, but either without directly implying a violation, or while implying a violation without attributing it to anyone (i.e. opinion pieces).

Specifically, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=15004 says: Añadió que “el ex Presidente Zelaya había caído en un absoluto desconocimiento e irrespeto a la legalidad. No le importó violar la Constitución al tratar de asfixiar económicamente a otros poderes del Estado, no enviando el Presupuesto de la Nación a este Congreso Nacional, que públicamente se propuso la derogación del artículo 239 de la Constitución, bajo el pretexto de emitir una nueva Constitución, cuya propuesta obligaba a destituirlo del cargo”

Am I wrong in reading this as saying that 1) he claims Zelaya violated the constitution 2) he claims Zelaya publicly wanted to remove article 239 - without linking the two?

On the other hand, http://www.asuntoscapitales.com/default.asp?id=3&ids=2&idss=4&ida=4393 merely say: Añaden que esa violación constitucional implica el cese inmediato en el desempeño de su cargo de aquél que la cometa, así sea el mismísimo Presidente de la República. and then Tienen razón. Zelaya habría violado el artículo 239 ("They are right. He'd have violated art. 239").

So isn't this just the reporter's opinion? The reporter claims they're right, and says it's because of an art. 239 violation. Not a source.

LjL (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On your first source: since article 239 clearly states that revoking or modifying article 239 is a violation, the link is implicit. On your second source: yes, it's the reporter's opinion. That's the point here: these sections are to report relevant, sourced, and attributed allegations; they do not and could not pretend to report facts. Homunq (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better to have the references to the Constitution and the specific violations. Olegwiki (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest also putting in the parts of the constitution which refer to potential loss of citizenship (Article 42), as this is part of this controversy as well. Also mention that the concept of the changeability of the president is highlighted in Article 278, which empowers the military to protect this principle (though it doesn't say how). I have all of these listed further on down this talk page. What's wrong with including everything on my list along with your list? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the below not included in the article? At the moment it is mostly chronology.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the article because a number of people have expressed opinions that Honduran constitutional law is irrelevant in a Honduran constitutional crisis. I am not in agreement with that view myself, but it seems to be popular. I've also posted in the "external links" section of the page the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras's documentation regarding the prosecution of Zelaya. My Spanish is only middling, so I've asked people for help deciphering what's in there, so we have a clear reliable source (the Supreme Court itself) on what the coup plotters thought they were doing. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't they be banned?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections, to aid discussion (please discuss above and leave the below clean)

If you want to edit propose an edit, like this, to the below, that's fine.

Alleged violations of the Constitution

By Zelaya's government

Zelaya is accused of violating:

• Article 239, which states that article 239 cannot be modified to allow for presidential re-election, and that any person who proposes doing so "must immediately cease carrying out their office". The violation would come not because of Zelaya openly supporting reforming this article, but because by consulting the people if they wanted to convoke a constituent assembly, he would be proposing abolishing the current Constitution entirely, thus indirectly reforming the article. Some commentators disagree, arguing that a constituent assembly would not merely reform the Constitution, but it would replace it altogether with a new one. There would be thus no violation of the current Constitution.
• Article 374, which states that the Constitution is unabolishable, thus proposing a constitutional assembly is unconstitutional.

By the coup plotters and the de facto government

The de facto government is accused of violating several articles of the Constitution in its ousting of Zelaya and subsequent actions:

• Article 84, which states that the person being arrested must be clearly informed of his rights and the reason for his arrest; the arrested person has the right to communicate with another person of his choosing at the time of his arrest.
• Article 182, which provides for the right of habeas corpus.
• Article 90, which guarantees due process.
• Article 85, which states that person may only be arrested at a place determined in the law.
• Article 88, which holds that any declaration made by the detainee is invalid if not before the presence of a competent judge.
• Article 82, which declares the right of defense "inviolable."
• Article 102, which states that "no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state."
• Article 81, which provides for freedom of movement within the country.
• Article 74, which prohibits the restriction of mass media.

Is there any provision in the Honduras constitution regarding the immunity of the President from prosecution and/or arrest? Olegwiki (talk) 14:10, 7 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 crisis → 2009 Honduran coup d'état — 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis → 2009 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)

Discussion

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, Associated Press, Reuters, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States 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. http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/07/02/when-is-a-coup-not-a-coup/ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages", "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)

• Support "coup d'etat" obvious. 69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:24, 3 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. 70.29.208.69 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. Why would we want to be here then? We might as well be writing on Usenet.

The history rewriters aren't quoting Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages! -- 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 189.132.12.117 (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 Misplaced Pages policy states, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight". 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 Misplaced Pages."--Conor Fallon (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, how nice to get a "welcome new user", when I have been using Misplaced Pages 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: http://www.miamiherald.com/honduras/ 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)

• Support Split The events of June 28th and its aftermath is fair to be said as a coup. However, those events is enough to be split into another article under 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The events that cumulated to this (ongoing controversy on Zelaya's constitutional referendum etc.) can be made into 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran constitutional controversy.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 07:38, 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. -- 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

Allbertos,

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, that have to be reverted by more neutral editors, 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)

Allbertos,

Homunq wrote, "I believe that the name supported by Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion":

This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.

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, 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 Misplaced Pages.
• Then, SqueakBox slapped a Speedy Delete tag on the article, 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 -- 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. 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.)"

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

RFC

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, Washington Post, the Times in Britain, The Associated Press, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal the United Nations, and the Organization of American States 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
  I oppose the compromise. Coup apologists are going through the article and methodically replacing the word "coup" with other words, rewriting history. 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, Misplaced Pages 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. Ray 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 Misplaced Pages 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", Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages explicity recognizes as reliable -- aren't reliable for this.

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

I haven't seen not one Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 thing...you 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)

Opinion

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.

Condensed rambling, duplicative introduction

I condensed the introduction. per the intro to long tag, which I have also removed. The introduction kept repeating the same set of facts over and over. I suspect this was a case of editors wanting to add their own POV to the intro, and the introduction got larger and larger as a result.

Material I moved from the main page, which can be integrigrated back into the later sections

The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president.

The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country.

After a constitutional crisis which set the President against the Supreme Court, Army, and his own party, Zelaya was removed from office in what is widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move. Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament and next in the Presidential line of succession, was sworn in as President by the National Congress.

The plan for a constitutional assembly, along the lines of recent assemblies held by Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, was supported by President Manuel Zelaya, but opposed by much of the Honduran establishment, which argued that Zelaya was merely seeking re-election (the constitution bans both re-election and attempts to reform the relevant articles).

The armed forces of Honduras seized President Manuel Zelaya at his home, holding him at an airbase outside Tegucigalpa before flying him to Costa Rica. During the action, communications and electricity in the city were interrupted for about six hours. Government officials and other politicians suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been detained. Later in the day the Honduran Supreme Court said that it had ordered the removal of the president. The broadcast of at least some news media is currently suppressed in Honduras, with members of the Honduran military reportedly shutting down at least one radio station and halting TV transmission of teleSUR and CNN en Español (which had broadcast news of the Honduras protests), as well as briefly arresting and later releasing teleSur staff. Associated Press reporters have been arrested, and according to the Miami Herald (1 July), "Stations that are broadcasting carry only news friendly to the new government."

The removal from office was widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move.

69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president."

Propaganda, because first there was the military (coup), en after that the so called "acting president", and not the other way around.

The military acted on a Court order.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Legal authority"? See: weasel words.

"Legal authority" are not weasel words.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country."

The same "plotting" propaganda nonsense as used in Indonesia (Suharto) and Chile (Pinochet). Not 'plot' has been proven or presented as evidence.

While you dismiss it as nonsense, the fact is that a Constitutional Assembly would only be necessary if one would want to change parts of the Constitution that are set in stone, such as the provisions on term limits. How exactly do you present or prove a plot, anyway?190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A referendum on a constitution change is the ultimate democratic measure one can take. Proposing a referendum is NOT 'undermining the constitution'. The real problem is that the opposition was afraid of the democratic outcome, so they kidnapped the president, censored the media, etc. Just the facts please.

Proposing an illegal referendum, especially one which wanted to convene a Constitutional Assembly to replace the current Constitution, is undermining the Constitution. While proposing a referendum in and of itself is not necessarily undermining the Constitution and is an excellent way to gauge public opinion if done correctly and transparently, proposing one in order to overthrow the Constitution and change term limits is, again, undermining the Constitution (according to the Honduran Constitution). The balance of power and rule of law exists to prevent abuse, and Zelaya was abusing. Constitutions also exist to preserve constant rights and values to all citizens, so that anyone in the opposition can be protected from the government in place and from potential abuse by a majority. One of those values, in the Honduran Constitution, is one term limit to prevent the same person from holding power for too long, a usual symptom of dictatorial or authoritarian rule. Again, Zelaya was abusing his power; not to mention he was the only one illegally holding the referendum, so it was not in any case subject to third party oversight. Even the OAS was not a third party in the matter.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move"

See: weasel words. What "establishment"? There used to be one, and now it's gone.

The other legally and legitimately constituted institutions of government- the Legislative and Judicial branches, the electoral authorities, the ombudsman and the military- are still there. Zelaya was also legally and legitimately elected but he started moving outside the law and Constitution. That's why he was arrested.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonyes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction was rather slanted, I initially added a NPOV tag before I condensed the intro. Hopefully is is better written now. I didn't add anything myself, I simply condensed what was already written.69.138.243.26 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The question in the ballot had nothing to do with reelection. Stop mentioning it.

The question was: "¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente que apruebe una constitución política?"

"Do you agree to put a fourth voting box in the general elections to decide whether to summon a National Constituent Assembly that approves a political constitution?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.7.97 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The question for us is not whether the referendum question had anything to do with reelection, in truth. According to WP:V, our task is to decide whether WP:RS reliable sources have presented this viewpoint, striving to assure that WP:UNDUE undue weight is not given to fringe theories. My own reading of the various cited sources in the article is that on this particular issue, this may be a minority (of world opinion) position but not a fringe theory. The approriate response would be to cite reliable sources that make yor point. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had violated Article 239 of the Constitution on the basis of promoting this initiative clearly demonstrates that this was not a "fringe" position, but the considered opinion of the chief court of the country where this crisis is taking place. This seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to relegate one of the main institutions of Honduras to the status of a "fringe group". That's manifestly unreasonable, and makes it all the more clear this should remain in the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just searched the entire decision. It doesn't mention Artículo 239, reelección, continuismo or continuidad. Correct me if I'm wrong by citing the pages on which you find any of those terms. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules, you're correct about this, as I pointed out elsewhere on this talk page as well. Please see the new bit at the bottom of the talk page I'm about to add, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't; you misunderstand the basis of that ruling. The court ruled that any attempt to call a constitutional convention automatically was an attempt to ammend article 239, not that Zelaya was trying to modify the article directly to extend his term. To accept the point of view that the referendum was about term limits it to accept the propaganda of the coup leaders and their supporting newspapers. That's how it entered english language sources, from reading the Honduran press. Zelaya made clear statements that he was not seeking re-election. Rsheptak (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it isnt explicitly mentioned in the referendum question many people have for months being sayng that this is Mel perpetuating himself in power, the so-called continuismo. Of course many were worried not merely about this but about Mel's stated intention to change the constitution in many ways, as Chavez already has in Venezuela. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the propaganda. Zelaya never said that, and explicitly said several times it wasn't so, that he was looking forward to retiring. Rsheptak (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus here. The fact that the court ruled against the referendum question merits our mentioning it in this article, regardless of whether what Rsheptak said is true. The court ruled against it, the court's ruling precipitated this crisis...on what grounds would you exclude this information, whether it specifically mentions holding a presidential election or not? Plus, is it unreasonable to include in this article criticism on the ground of Zelaya's sudden discovery that Honduras needed to have this referendum in the last few months of his presidency? How is it that we can claim that Micheletti is leading a coup, despite the fact that the coup leaders claim they will give up power with the next presidential election in November, but could never consider the counterclaim, that Zelaya intended to stay in office despite his claims that this was far from his intention to do so? For me, the only thing that's relevant here is that major parties to this dispute believe this was an attempt by Zelaya to remain in office. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said you shouldn't mention the Supreme Court decision. Its a fact and should be mentioned, and their basing it on article 239 of the constitution in part is worth mentioning as well, but to tie that to the speculation that Zelaya wanted to stay in office is not supported by the legal documents. Its speculation by the coup supporters. I understand you don't think its a coup and you're entitled to an opinion, but the article needs to avoid opinions, be NPOV and that's what I'm advocating. Rsheptak (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court decision doesn't mention Article 239. Please let me know if I missed something. Jules Siegel (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't challenge the "coup" characterization. Just so we're clear on that. Also, I think your contention that only the coup supporters think Zelaya wanted to extend his term of office is utterly naive. If you want to associate me with an opinion, that's the opinion. Note that the Toronto Star thinks so too - it condemned the coup (and they called it a coup in the editorial), but also remarked that Zelaya was utterly divisive for having provoked the coup. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The intent may not be completely explicit. It's not hard to understand why Zelaya would want to make this vote as innocent-looking as possible and deny his true intent. However, see the following references: "Chavez admits that they are fighting for continuismo ", and also "In addition, different sectors, including the governing Liberal Party , are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so. ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") --24.72.222.172 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read both references you cite and do not find the phrases you mention, except for the headline in one of them, which is not supported by the text. Perhaps I missed something. If so, I'll appreciate specific reference to the terms you mention. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first reference is to elheraldo.hn, which does paraphrase Chavez' words. I don't have a more original source, but unless this is a complete fabrication, there is not really any other way to read it. The article at laht.com has the exact quote above, except for my editorial clarification on what "continuismo" means, and that the ruling party is Zelaya's own party. It can be found in paragraphs 8 and 9, I believe, or close thereabouts. I just put in the headline for context. --Almarco (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The question in the ballot may not have directly mentioned re-election, but it is clearly a plausible hidden justification for such a ballot. Furthermore, even if Zelaya doesn't intend to be re-elected, and the question isn't directly about re-election, people won't "stop mentioning it" because it is a legitimate concern that Zelaya's critics have raised, and their fear of his gaining too much power and continuing in office is the main reason that all the institutions in Honduras ejected him (or at least, that they used to justify it). The ballot was judged to be illegal because it could be used to change or remove the unchangeable, permanent clauses of the Constitution. To discuss this whole situation without mentioning that many feel he was trying to get re-elected, is to miss one of the biggest causes of the crisis. --Almarco (talk) 15:46, 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. 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."

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.69.250.186.142 (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 96.234.190.218 (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 83.138.172.76 (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 83.138.172.76 (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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

Continuismo

I've removed the claim

To prevent continuismo and preserve the democratic rule of law, every Latin American country has implemented a strict presidential term limit, though some allow running again after waiting out a term.

since it's false: e.g. Venezuela no longer has a term limit. Maybe there are other counterexamples as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Cuba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "nearly every" then? --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela had a term limit. Chávez used a referendum to put a stop to that. That's what everyone's worried about, that Zelaya is acting like Chávez. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, 'everyone' - as in 'everyone with a stake in the opposition?' ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And others. That was true in Venezuela as well. Some of the most determined opposition to Chávez's referenda came from the left. Of course, I assume that by daring to sing notes from outside of the Chavista songbook, they've read themselves out of the Official Left, but nevertheless, ask them what they think about capitalism and the situation of the Latin American poor, and they're pretty clearly leftist. They just distrust caudillos. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And generalísimos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Them too. Stop making me out to be the bad guy. I hope they bring down Micheletti and company as well. But that doesn't mean that Zelaya's blameless in all of this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making you out to be the bad guy - I'm bringing out your better side. I just wish I knew what you meant by that last bit(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who I'm talking to here, but if you're new (I'm actually pretty new here myself), look around this page at my other comments. I haven't been denying this is a coup, I've only been trying to make the point that Zelaya knowingly violated the Constitution. I'm pretty much in the "a pox on both your houses, and let's have that new Presidential election" camp. :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Cuba. If there are already two counterexamples (out of maybe 20 latin American countries), I wouldn't call it "almost every". And it's absurd to introduce the "almost every" claim with the same reference previously used for "every" - I can't access it, but it can only claim one of the two! So we need a new valid source for the statement, if it's true at all. @Zachary: I know Venezuela did have a term limit until recently, but the claim is made in the present tense. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the statement to "many", which might still be too strong. But the three Latin American countries I "arbitrarily" checked (Brazil, Chile, Bolivia) all have a term limit (though not a limit of one as Honduras), so it seems like a reasonable claim. I'd be happy if someone checks further L.A. countries to reinforce (or contradict) the statement. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church response in Honduras

While the July 4 statement of the Archbishop referenced in the article has received much press, it appears that the Church has spoken with more than one voice and it would be valuable to be able to reflect the diversity of opinion in the article. This is a translation of the July 1 Message of the Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copan, reportedly delivered publicly by Monseñor Luis Alfonso Santos, SDB, in the cathedral of Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras, on Thursday, July 2, 2009. I have not yet been able to find an english reference in a major newspaper. As a blog post, I doubt that this would meet the standards of being a reliable source but perhaps others with better searching skill and/or better comprehension of spanish sources have seen one or can find one. A few excerpts: "As those who are responsible for guiding the Catholic Church in Western Honduras, we repudiate the substance, the form, and the style with which a new Head of the Executive Branch has been imposed on the People. If President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales had committed something illegal he has the right to a just trial just like every Honduran citizen and in general every human being.... The coup d’etat of June 28 has these consequences: protests of the citizenry in the streets and highways, a climate of insecurity and fear in families because of the limitation of constitutional rights .... deputies of the Liberal Party and the National Party responsible for the Coup d’Etat and presently in power that they are not the owners/masters of Honduras and that no one can be above the law. The present deputies ought to remember that they get their salaries from the people whom they are oppressing. If the plebiscite and referendum had been given institutional status , as we the bishops of the Honduran Bishops Conference suggested in our communication of June 19, we would not be in this situation. They preferred to be faithful to the economically strong groups, both national and transnational. We hope that in the next elections the People will give them a vote of punishment.... We regret every violation of the Constitution of the Republic which those who have governed us have been doing up to now. We reject every threat and meddling of foreign nations in the internal affairs of Honduras. We Hondurans want PEACE. No more lies. We want to be told the truth. No more injustice. We want respect for the integrity of the person and respect for human rights. We want to live in freedom. We do not want repression. The call of Jesus is to live in love. Therefore, no more hatred, no more revenge, no more violence, no more spitefulness. ... Let us beg the Lord to grant that we may achieve Peace and prosperity and let us ask our patron, Saint Rose of Lima, to intercede for us." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that one should be careful to equate the Catholic Church alone to be the voice of "the church", let alone the "voice of the people", though such would be a consistent "catholic" POV. Moreover, this entire piece, translation or no, speaks for one priest, no matter how eloquent. Moreover, one could debate the scriptural consistency of the message. It is what I would call a political speech, and is as feckless a Zaleya's own invocation(s) of God in his speeches. I believe that even if quoted in an RS, it is still OR; of value, perhaps to cite what members of the Catholic Church may be hearing, but what of that? Would one accept excerpts of a sermon from a leader of a prominent and respected leader of an evangelical church that expresses a POV? I doubt it, especially if it cuts in favor of the majority view of Hondurans and chastises Zaleya. VaChiliman (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 67.233.105.168 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not monolithic and does not speak with one voice. The Bishop's words have been circulating in emails since the Cardinal spoke on Saturday. There's a brief mention of his disagreement with the Cardinal in a reliable sourc (AKA RS) here Obispo Luis Alfonso Santos se le vuelve a revelar al cardenal. In answer to VaChiliman, both the Cardinal's and the Bishop's speech are political speech, and its not OR to quote them if published in an RS. I would not cite blog posts as RS. Rsheptak (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just getting up to speed on the rules and terminology, and trying to do so in good faith. If the purpose of qouting them is to describe the position of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not speak with one voice, then of what use is such an inclusion? Seems like a sneaky way of introducing a lot of personal opinion, and grandiose rhetoric, while giving undo weight to one part of the Christian Church which has lost influence. My question is this: are we prepared to give voice to other religious and political leaders, given appropriate sources? In what context is political speech being quoted relevent? If an article briefly mentions a disagreement, is that pretext for including poirtions of the speech? Or (most likely) do I just misunderstand the purpose of this discussion point altogether -- to verify that the Catholic Church is split on the issue? If the latter, my apologies. VaChiliman (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for any apologies. I for one remain convinced that we are working to inmprove the article. Further to that, I believe that this El Tiempo article contains some more of the language cited above but I defer to those with better Spanish comprehension. La defensa del golpe le vale críticas al cardenal Rodríguez Maradiaga Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps of relevance to the topic of reliable sources, Worldfocus has referred to the poster of the translation cited above: "Worldfocus contributing blogger John Donaghy is a volunteer with the Catholic diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán who blogs at “Hermano Juancito'", though it is unclear, at least to me, what, if any, editorial relationship exists between them. Political crisis in Honduras deepens and turns deadly. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and archiving

What happened to the steady stream of pictures we were getting? A week ago, everyone was uploading them and putting them on here, but it seems this has stopped. The last pictures are from July 1. The article would benefit from having pictures of yesterday's protest at the airport or a picture of Zelaya's plane circling Tegucigalpa.

Also, when will this talkpage start archiving? It's getting very bloated. --Tocino 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://picasaweb.google.com/freebird5453/HondurasPoliticalCrisis2009?authkey=Gv1sRgCMbI-PHf84G1bg&feat=directlink VaChiliman (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Article 102- no Honduran can be handed over to a foreign State

This has been mentioned by the president, and Archbishop Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, and other commentators, but is not currently part of the body of the article. For example “No one can obligate me to turn around,” the president told Telesur “The Constitution prohibits expelling Hondurans from the country. I am returning with all of my constitutional guarantees.”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/world/americas/06honduras.html?_r=1&ref=world93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. He was deported, rather than imprisoned and held for trial. Maybe he was not given an option. Despite the ignominy and potential "illegality" of the act, Senor Z appears to have made the most of what is arguably a prudent if not humanitarian act. If some portions of the Constitution were broken -- I think that we have acknowledgement from a RS on that cited earlier -- in order to protect the country, as well as the deposed leader, from mob violence and police action on the part of the military, perhaps some unusually cool thinking was involved in what surely was a tense and heated moment. This all makes for good theater, but I don't understand the point. Deporting someone, or exiling them, is not identical to handing someone over to a foreign state, which I would take as extradition -- and, sorry, but the ex-president was indeed obliged to turn around, or be arrested and risk potential what had already been avoided a week earlier. Returning with constitutional guarantees seems a bit hollow coming from a man who allegedly flaunted the constitution in the first place.

My question is what fact is established by inclusion -- that Z thinks he is above the law, yet simultaneously served by it? That has already been established. VaChiliman (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The president, and numerous independent sources, have stated that his removal from Honduras was unconstitutional. Given that the article currently reports the claim that his deposition was constitutional, this Pov should be given adequate representation for balance.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was not "handed over to another state" as he was not sent to the authorities of any third country. He was only sent to the soil of a third country.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The constitution also says he is no longer a citizen right? --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You're referring to article 42 section 5. For that to apply would require a court sentence to mention it, and then a government order published in the official newspaper. Neither occurred. Homunq (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How the Coup Crumbles

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

The NYT published an article (not an editorial) 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."http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE56326420090706?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews "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."http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4423aa24-6a61-11de-ad04-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss93.96.148.42 (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."http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2009/07/06/au-honduras-le-president-dechu-zelaya-est-empeche-d-atterrir-a-tegucigalpa_1215740_3222.html#ens_id=121176193.96.148.42 (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)

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.63.118.86.10 (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)

Requested move

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 deja vu. No new arguments have been presented in this move request which make it different from the previous one. (See #Move discussion, above.) I was not aware of this second move request when I closed the previous one, but, after reading through this discussion here, I find no arguments that weren't present in the first discussion. In the future, please do not file simultaneous move requests on the same page. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran coup d'état → 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis — coup is a POV and crisis is a more neutral term. - Conor Fallon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "POV" because you say it is! I haven't seen one reliable source that states that the viewpoint -- that what happened was not a coup -- is held by more than an extremely small minority.

"2009 Honduran events" would be a more neutral term, but it would be ambiguous and "easily recognizable by English speakers" (just like "constitutional crisis").

A new article called "constitutional crisis" could be created for the events leading up to the coup, describing how the Supreme Court ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional. -- Rico 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, we've already had someone post on here that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has used the word "coup" in quotes, indicating that the CBC considers this a contested point. The CBC's a pretty reliable source (I'm a dual American-Canadian citizen, though, so perhaps I'm partial to the CBC. And of course this sort of thing cuts both ways...when reporting Israel/Palestine news, the CBC refers to Hamas as "insurgents" rather than "terrorists", which I think is outrageous, but that's a discussion for some other page...) Anyway, it seems to me that the fact of the CBC doing this suggests that it's POV because you say it is. Also, we do now have the U.S. government trying as hard as it can not to use the word so it doesn't have to cut off aid to Honduras, and perhaps that ought to count for something.

Your suggestion about creating an article called "constitutional crisis" for the events leading up to the coup, however, I think has merit. It doesn't cover up the constitutional roots of this business, which, as you know, has been my concern about this article the whole time. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• SupportFor all the reasons stated on the talk page above. --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons stated previously in discussion. Please don't delete my polling data a second time.Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is not at all clear that this is a coup, despite it's regular, mainstream characterization as such. Moving the article does not mean that the Misplaced Pages is taking the POV that event was not a coup, but not moving the article does mean that Misplaced Pages is taking the POV that the event was a coup, even if that POV is supported by most of the world leaders that have spoken about the matter and asserted frequently in the press. In the interests of maintaining NPOV, I support the move. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It has been considered a Coup by International organizations, including OAS, U.N, and all Latin American Governments except for Honduras Itself. Zelaya was removed from presidency and sent in exile to Costa Rica. Government officials that opposed Zelaya's Removal where fired from their positions. Isn't this a coup? EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Media and international government consensus says "coup." Most of the currently available facts indicate "coup." Government sources accused of starting "coup" in Honduras say "not coup." Deposed Honduran President says "coup." I think it's pretty neutral to say "coup," when the only people really denying a coup occurred are the people who enacted said coup. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain Since we're all taking this vote again, I'll reiterate my vote indicating that I can accept it being called a coup, but I think it is sufficiently unlike other coups in that the whole thing started as a plausibly real demand for the President to obey the rules set down in the Constitution of Honduras. Since both sides of this squabble, in my view, have their own dirty laundry, I prefer to bypass the question.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NAME is an official English Misplaced Pages policy. It requires,

This page in a nutshell: Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.

That makes "coup", "easily recognizable by English speakers."

Ask Joe Sixpack about the "Honduran constitutional crisis," and Joe Sixpack will draw a blank. "Constitutional crisis? Was there some crisis about their Constitution"?

Ask Joe Sixpack about the "The Honduran coup d'etat" and he might say, "Yeah, I heard about that. Didn't their military overthrow their president?"

All of the news stories I've come across simply call it a "coup". Also, world bodies -- including significantly the United Nations and the Organization of American States -- and all the governments of English-speaking countries call it a "coup". The media has reported on that. "Constitutional crisis" is ambiguous, because it doesn't make it clear that the article's about the coup!

"2009 Honduran events" would be more all-encompassing, and perfectly neutral. It doesn't make it easily recognizable by English speakers that the article's about the coup, though. -- Rico 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, Joe Sixpack doesn't know it's about a constitutional crisis because the media have, in a somewhat slanted fashion, not focused (until now it seems) upon the constitutional roots of this coup. Now that Óscar Arias is going to be mediating between the two, perhaps it will become clearer to Joe Sixpack that there are two sides to this thing, and maybe in the next week or so, if you ask him again, he'll say "Oh, yeah, that constitutional crisis that just got resolved between those two guys in Honduras..." Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The current title is very biased. --75.223.126.134 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment There was a crisis with the constitution, it led to what many are calling a coup. The name should be accurate and not take a particular POV. --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support a name change, either that proposed, or an alternative. VaChiliman (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support it doesnt matter whether it as a coup or not, the only thing that matters is that a significant pov says it sint and the title must be POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, the editors are putting this dispute in the hands of "Joe Sixpack"? Do some of you read what you write? There are many topics, probably including some that relate to the brewing of beer, that Joe Sixpack would not recognize or understand. Anyway, that's at best speculative, and wholly irrelevent.

I will stipulate to Rico's assertion that all RS call it a "coup" if he would acknowledge that many, if not all, now also refer to it as a "crisis", "political crisis", or "constitutional crisis". His many comments that attempt to trivialize the dispute are disingenuous, lack integrity, and I dare say, violate standards of good faith. Several references from the same RSs he likes to lean on have been made here, that directly contradict his assertions. Frankly, its tiresome. I do not agree that English speaking people who frequent Misplaced Pages are incapable of understanding that a crisis exists, and given that most news-aware Americans have been exposed to the term "constitutional crisis" and "political crisis", I don't buy his argument. Perhaps, after a six pack, I'd be open to a different POV.

Words do matter. This political crisis will be resolved with comapratively little bloodshed because words matter, and I am most glad to see a univerally respected regional leader willing to step forward as a mediator. The word "coup", as I've argued more than once, is highly misleading and innapropriate for a name, "coup d'etat" even more so. Not because I say so, but because the facts as we know them, as reported by RS, do not support the definition(s), not one of the many posted here. There are two sides. We know, as reported by RS, that the military was involved at all because civil authority could not be used to either arrest or deport Zaleya. We know, whether outsiders feel it is legitimate or not, that the government followed an process in removing from office an elected president, for alleged political and criminal acts against the democratic state, and followed a constitutional process of succession. That no "coup d'etat" occured is a very important distinction, not only for the government, but for the many Hondurans who do not want their democratic form of government overthrown. If Zaleya has been accused falsely, removed inappropriately, that bears remedy -- hopefully that is dealt with through mediation. It is a Honduran problem. I'd hate to see WP used as a political tool -- which I believe is the current case -- by maintaining the status quo because of the beligerence of one very unreasonable editor.

Last, I don't begin to understand the "four" vs. "two" comments, which either involves tossing out all previous argument and discussion, or is arrived at by applying some mythical weighting system to editor's contributions, as has been simultaneously cited as WP policy on one hand and disavowed by the same editor on his talk page on the other hand.

What is most frustrating is that a number of compromise solutions have been put forth, and the argument repeatedly centers on one side over an extreme, unsupportable, position. This keeps us in a constant state of dispute, and a lengthy discussion -- so long, it seems, some folks don't even bother to follow it anymore.

Put both in the name. 2009 Honduran Political Crisis or "Coup" VaChiliman (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both this voting process (since it's already been done recently and we are just going in circles now) and the proposed name change. There is a consensus in the real world that this is a coup. All nations and international organizations, plus the media, are labeling it as such. Even coup supporters are calling it what it is (evidence = ). The people who pulled off this coup would also probably object to the proposed name change since, in their minds, everything that they did was perfectly legal, and if everything is legal then naturally there would be no "constitutional crisis". The bottom line is that the military woke up a sitting President at o'dark thirty, dragged him out of his home in his pajamas, and flew him to another country against his will. If he committed all of these terrible crimes that they claim occured, then they should've taken him to court instead of throwing him out of the country without going through the democratic processes, i.e. elections. --Tocino 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of what? That ignorance is pervasive? By the way, its a blog source opining about non-objective editorial sources that do not purport to be news sources, let alone serve as RS. Again, and I am really tired of saying this, that those who support a change in the name -- speaking for myself, anyway -- do not appreciate being labeled a "coup supporter", any more than being labeled a "coup denier". Popular misuse of a term does not obligate acquiesence to an incorrect application of the word -- that is a throwback to a point in time when it was commonly accepted that the earth was flat, that some groups of people were intellectually inferior but athletically superior, and as pointed out earlier, that Saddam had WMD -- even though each of those POV still, remarkably, have adherents. A constitutional crisis existed, and exists, and has been documented, precisely because it is in conflict with itself -- whether this is the result of poor construction, or an incredibly brazen chief executive -- or a little bit of both - is TBD. Can we stop with the PJs, by the way? I am sure that Senor Z is man enough to withstand that indignity, as if he were allowed breakfast first and time for his toilet, brushing teeth, and dressing would change circumstances one iota. Just not relevent. Against his will? Most "arrests" are. Forced to leave the country? Thank goodness, better that than bloodshed. All pretext for calling it something that serves a political purpose. There is plenty of room to point out who called it what, why, and when, without sticking "coup" naked in the title. As for the "democratic process" assertion, that is not equivalent to elections alone -- there are many elements, none of which is unilaterally opposing one's constitutionally proscribed powers, ignoring other elected and non-elected branches of the government, co-opting the police to engage in illegal activities, or any number of the charges pending against the ousted president. Due process, on the other hand, was by-passed, and no one sane disputes this. One thing we might agree on, however, is that the inability of this group to reach a compromise, does lead to going in circles. VaChiliman (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not call anyone on this talkpage a coup supporter. The link I provided was intended to show that coup supporters, such as the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and Ciff Kincaid, are using the term "coup" to describe the actions, even though they are in support of them. --Tocino 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Your reference brushed up against a sore spot. I don't know that the WS or the NR are "coup supporters" either, maybe they are, but not because a blog says as much. VaChiliman (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As of now, there are 5 in support and five in oppose

Ahem, first, that comment "auto" be signed. Second, how does the count start all over again? Do we keep calling a new survey each and every time someone doesn't like the outcome? Just curious. Last, does any survey carry any weight or importance? If the process requires consensus, we are clearly not there yet. If it requires compromise, I have seen only a hint of that. If mediation could solve anything, that process appears to be blocked. So, it seems, there is a deadlock. The name stays as is, I gather -- since moving a change without consensus is not possible. All very interesting. "No fue un golpe de Estado" vs. "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" VaChiliman (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support While I personally believe it is a coup, constitutional crisis would be a better name, because this article covers the entire crisis, not just the events on the night of the presidents removal. --131.109.225.16 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support This article covers all the events, it should be at Constitutional Crisis with coup as a section of it that deals with the presidents removal from power. --PatriotGames (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain As I stated in the previous survey, I do not have a strong opinion on the title as long as the article contains a good description of the dispute. This is not meant to say that it is not important whether it is a coup or not, just that the title in Misplaced Pages is not that important and will no doubt change over time as more is learned. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Constitutional crisis is the surface reason for the coup. Deeper reason is Zelaya leftist, raised minimum wage 60%, joined ALBA, etc.: all of which anathema to most of business and political elite who have taken opportunity to get rid of him. The main, dramatic, event is the coup; there should be an article on it by that name. There could also be an article on the constitutional crisis and articles on other related things. --Ong saluri (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to spout off your claims of alterer motives. --Conor Fallon (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Even if this situation meets the technical definition of a coup, and I don't believe it does, the situation is hardly what comes to mind when the word "coup" is used in the title. After all, the Supreme Court of the pre-existing government authorized the president's removal, and the ousted president was succeeded by the pre-existing next-in-line for the presidency from his own political party. In addition, "coup" is a loaded word, and whether the situation meets the definition is at least in dispute. Therefore, to comply with NPOV, the title should be moved. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• SupportFor all the reasons I stated in the previous move discussion above. -- Rsheptak (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Do we really need to do this again? Actually, perhaps the best course of action is to keep an eye on how the U.S. government is characterizing things. As noted earlier on this page, they may backtrack on this in order not to have to cut off aid to Honduras. It's possible that other nations may follow the U.S. lead on this matter, possibly in so doing recognizing that the Honduran situation is more complex than that and less a black-and-white good vs. evil situation. If that happens, then you might have a case that those on the other side of this debate will respect, as sources they will accept as "reliable sources" will become more plentiful. But by posting this now, you're just going over the same tired ground - plus, as I've said before, Micheletti's government has done oodles of things that actually are consistent with the "coup" characterization, so the title may be appropriate. I think we need to focus our efforts on here, instead, to a balanced portrayal of the two sides, which we're still a long way from achieving. We still have Zelaya solely as the aggrieved victim rather than Zelaya as the lawbreaker (at best civilly disobedient, at worst self-interested and knowingly divisive) whose punishment was even more unlawful, which I'm convinced is the real story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to do this. We are just going in circles. --Tocino 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been over this repeatedly. It IS a COUP. Please devote even half the effort into improving Misplaced Pages that has been put into opposing this clear characterization and then the encyclopedia will be much improved!Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, it's easy to turn that around. Why don't you take the effort you've put into opposing the move to a more NPOV title and redirect it elsewhere? For anyone that believes this event was not a coup, this article's title reflects a clear POV. For anyone that believes that this event was a coup—I'm not really sure why it's a problem to move it to 'crisis' or somesuch. It's not as though such a move forces Misplaced Pages into taking a stance on whether it was a coup; it merely changes it to a more neutral (and more accurate, IMO) title. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment is unhelpful. Not only is there clearly no consensus to call it a coupo but our NPOV is a very important na d non-negotiable policy. You and I may think it is a coup but millionsd of Hondurans do not, making the belief that it is not a significant POV. We are only wikipedia editors and therefore it is our personal beliefs that should not count. But at the end of the day saying we shouldn't be wasting time discussing our NPOV policy is notin any way helpful to building an encyclopedia for the 21st Century. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What about those millions of honduras that do believe is a coup but are opresed by the new government and blocked off from international media attention.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... millions? Source? Oh well, the "fringe" has something to say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-ngmoHhjQ VaChiliman (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A coup is certainty a crisis, and crisis would be a better, neutral name for the article. So even if it was a coup, it would fit crisis also, but if it was legal, it would still fit crisis but not coup. As it is in dispute, crisis is a better term.--Conor Fallon (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. This crisis is most certainly a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster a coup is "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics ; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" this does not include Honduras because the Congress and the Supreme Court are the same, and it was majority backed, and entirely constitutional. The media is not an expert on Honduras law, and they get things wrong (see "Dewey Defeats Truman"). --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitutionality is contested esp in the problem of due process, but certainly not "by a small group" as, apparently, the entirety of Honduran politicians wanted Zeleya to go.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly not the entirety population but certainly a significant section of the society, arguably the majority. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The best name would be constitutional crisis, because nobody disputes that it is indeed a crisis, centered around the constitution, In my eyes, both elements violated the Constitution at some level. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the term "coup" is something that is ultimately politicized. Certain elements don't want this clear coup to be considered a coup as the coup d'etat has political consequences that Honduran interests don't want. This crisis is evidently a coup. WP:DUCK, WP:NUTSHELL and the vast majority of international sources including international organizations, nation states and NGOs have called this a "coup". "Coup" IS the NPOV option. Please can we stop going around in circles about this just leave it as "Coup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what neutral means? --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Similar arguments apply to other fringe subjects, for instance, historical revisionism that is considered to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial." -- NPOV (emphasis and first wikilink added) -- Rico 05:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I find your claims of holocaust denial extremely offensive, on my mom's side of the family I have people who died in the holocaust. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I must protest. Instead of laying off linking those who disagree with you to the Holocaust denial fringe, an extreme act of bad faith on your part, not to mention completely offensive and out of bounds. I don't give a cruft about your link to Holocaust denial because it is simply a stupid attempt at legitimizing your bad behavior and a continuation of your several attempts here to marginalize and diminish a legitimate POV shared by many (we can quibble about how they disagree). Historical revisionism is always a concern. It is nothing new. A classic topic to study would be the US Civil War. I'd say this: if you have RS that report this as equivalent to Holocaust denial, let's see it. Grow up. I have no problem with those who respectfully disagree. No problem with humor. No problem with rules, as long as they apply equally. But I ask you, again, to stop denigrating those who see things differently. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have to say, that most, not all, of the argument over the name is the unnecessary (my POV) and misplaced (my POV) emphasis on "coup" being use in the name of the article. Whether a "coup" occured, or something "coup-like", or was strictly a "legal" process that no other country agrees with, nothing is lost by taking a NPOV name ("constitutional crisis", political crisis", whatever). If the intent of the article is to focus on the events of 28 June alone, with some contextual reference to the broader crisis, and there is a second article addressing the crisis, that makes sense. Make this the main article by allowing the name change, create a subarticle on your "coup", and get on with it. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "coup" is NPOV precisely because it is the term used by an overwhelming majority of the media. "Constitutional crisis," a term used by virtually no one to describe the situation, is confusing to those looking for information about the "Honduran coup." Furthermore, "constitutional crisis" is less NPOV than "coup," because it is not only a term used by virtually no media organisations, but it also suggests the primary issue relates to the constitution and not the fact that the president was kicked out of the country by the military. Most media and international political organisations are concentrating on the fact that the president was kicked out of the country and not a perceived ambiguous crisis relating to the country's constitution. Therefore, to have an article title indicating a "constitutional crisis" is both not NPOV and misleading when related to the actual contents of the article and the intent of the majority of those looking for the material. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 09:50, 12 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.

Mediation

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

Please agree to mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2009_Honduran_coup_d'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 Misplaced Pages 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' 84.13.64.64 (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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat?o=100074 :

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

(Dictionary.com's own dictionary.)

or

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

(American Heritage)

or

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 Misplaced Pages'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 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html 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)

Re-reversion

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)

WP: NPOV

"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.190.77.117.50 (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!63.118.86.10 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article? It may be true they are acting illegally but should the title of the article express this POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.150.159 (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 Misplaced Pages. -- MacAddct1984 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"'2009 Honduran political crisis', a much more common title seen on Misplaced Pages." 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. Historically, a blockade is considered an Act of War."

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-08/2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat --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)

Misplaced Pages Policies on controversial names

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming

A Misplaced Pages article must have one definitive name. 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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict for further guidance.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names

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 Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Google

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. --131.109.225.16 (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)

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Five_pillars_of_Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

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! 67.233.105.168 (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. 67.233.105.168 (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 67.233.105.168 (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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: . WhiteHouse.gov has is here too: 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. --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. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070803551.html , 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. http://www.zimbio.com/Aviation/articles/425/Airplane+carrying+drugs+crashes+Honduras 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"? http://picasaweb.google.com/freebird5453/MelFriends#5356270458728823746 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." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world/americas/29honduras.html?_r=1&scp=14&sq=&st=nyt , 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. --131.109.225.16 (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: http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0709/p06s18-woam.html
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hl7NNpjyDZ0eq_Z4MI6ok3fOgDTg
• http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12639
• http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-08-voa2.cfm
• http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-09-voa1.cfm

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. --131.109.225.16 (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. --131.109.225.16 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a coup then why

Why does the wikipedia page about Coup d'etat not correlate at all with the events described here? I quote from the first line of the page:

"A coup d'état, or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces."

Firstly: whether the coup is unconstitutional or not is a matter of debate clearly not yet resolved. And most likely this cannot be resolved, because firstly the president acted unconstitutionally by trying to change the number of terms he could run - the honduran constitution clearly states this to be unconstitutional. Then secondly the high-court acted unconstitutional because the constitution did not provide the means to remove the president before the president was able to go ahead with his (unconstitutional) plans.

Thus, both acted unconstitutionally. And Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view requires it to be depicted as going neither way.

Secondly: The government was not deposed; the president was. The Government does not constitute the president alone

Thirdly: Whether the president was still legitimate or not is again a matter of debate - and as such Misplaced Pages should not lean either way and present a neutral point of view.

Fourthly: In this case the group that deposed him was not small. It included the Military, the Supreme courts and many more parts of the Government.

Fifthly: While the Honduran constitution does not give means to remove the president, it does say that the offending party must immediatly be removed from office. And as obvious, the Supreme court of honduras did just that.

And lastly: I keep seeing the argument that since outside sources nearly all say this is a coup, we should say so too. Why? We are supposed to be NPOV. Outside sources are quick to denounce this as a coup but provide little knowledge of the situation and little support for their own oppinion on the matter. You cannot use a source if the source itself makes unsupported claims.Omegastar (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Aggressively wrestling control from Zelaya was not in any form a constitutional act; it was a coup, and no amount of semantics will hide this unsettling fact." - from the conclusion of the best analysis I've seen (used in the article Caudillismo in Action: Looking Back on Honduras’ Plight). Disembrangler (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No contest there...but even if it is a coup, it's a very different coup than the usual kind, in that there is a plausible argument that the coup supporters (at least some of them) might have acted from a genuine belief in preserving democracy in Honduras. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what certain supporters of the coup may have believed it doesn't change the fact that the legally elected president of Honduras was removed from power without due process by the military at the behest of the not-democratically-elected supreme court. So even if it is a bit of an a-typical coup (a dubious statement) it is still clearly a coup. What surprises me is that we still have to be having this conversation rather than discussing recent developments.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya never admited that he was trying to change the constitution to run for president again, so you and most people are assuming that thats what he wanted. If the referendum would've been conducted that Sunday, why the big deal? the Courts could easily mske it nul. Why would they kick out a president for a referendum. Its much easier if you make it not valid. This is a coup!EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely true. But before we put this onto the article we need a neutral third party to confirm that the constitutional referrendum issue was an obfuscatory tactic to kick out a man who made an unexpected turn to the left in order to ease the suffering of his impoverished people. That may be hard to find. Especially when people are still bogging us down with endless debate over things as obvious as whether this was a coup!Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the media war section?

I thought it was helpful in understanding news coming out of the country. Here's a recent Washington Post piece that contains information that would fit well in that aection but I'm at a loss where to put it now. In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been gone for a while. It was there around 15:00 on 7 July; I haven't pinpointed the exact time of disappearance. There was no discussion of the removal as far as I can find. I just put it back in. I didn't check the references in it; there may well be flaws, but I don't think it should just have been yanked. --Ong saluri (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work I should have done. I've added a couple quotes from the new article, but I'm sure the section could use some reworking. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 'media war' material was removed at the time users shifted the "chronology of events" material over to a new article. I agree the main article could use more information about the current media situation in Honduras. Perhaps some of the material shifted to the new article should be shifted back? --Xaliqen (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass on the advice someone above gave me. Be bold. WP:BOLD Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Last section is clear POV

The last Section ("Theories") is only citing pro Coup-arguments (some are quite wild... especially the Trap-Theory. ). No balancing, no counter-arguments to the theories. An admin should just snip it out until the site hasn't to be protected anymore and users can make a balanced section about it... --84.74.154.87 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the article, they just need to register to Misplaced Pages. --LjL (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree, and have only just stopped myself from editing it out at least twice because I wasn't sure there were others who shared that sentinment. Maybe later today. Rsheptak (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you agree that since there is "no balancing" and "no counter-arguments", the correct course of action is to remove the whole thing, rather than add balancing and counter-arguments? I don't think that's what the policies say... --LjL (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal.Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Counter-balancing should be attempted, that is our responsibility. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The move

Looks like the golpistas finally got their way. User:Aervanath moved the article without a clear consensus. He even moved it by using the first RM, which had been dead for over a week. The second discussion was more relevant and the voting was closer, even though admins aren't supposed to decide by voting, which is what User:Aervanath's explanation implies. --Tocino 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The golpistas? Are you referring to editors here? There was never a consensus to call it golpe as such was a violation of our NPOV policy. Your claim in your edit summary that the international community supports the golpe title is farcical but untrue as this titke does not negate that5 a golpe took place, it merely encompasses both significant POVs. Which is exactly what NPOVdemands. YOu are going to hav to come up with areason as to why NPOVis broken or the tag goes. Your admitting thta the original discussion did have a consensus against coup but should be ignored shows the strength of your argument. I suggest you apologize to anyone you called a golpistas, such a personal attack is blockworthy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not admitted to there being a consensus anywhere. Clearly there is none. And you removing a POV dispute tag, while earlier when you insisted on having one when you didn't get your way, is a golpista-esque, anti-democratic tactic of silencing dissent. --Tocino 19:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath unilaterally declared, "The majority has made the valid argument." There was no consensus for the move.

The claim that the historical revisionism argument was "valid", and those that wanted "coup" left in the title were wrong, was nothing more than Aervanath's opinion!

I don't see where Aervanath explained why the argument to whitewash history was "the" valid argument, and the argument to call a coup a coup was invalid.

Those that wanted the name left, "coup", quoted policy and reliable sources. The argument to revise history was using WP:OR.

When Aervanath wrote, "the use of the word 'coup' is inherently biased," that's just parroting the history whitewash argument. It's just Aervanath's opinion.

Another administrator could have just as easily closed the move discussions and declared the opposite.

Aervanath wrote, "No new arguments have been presented in this move request which make it different from the previous one."

That's not true!

I presented a WP:NAME argument in the second move request that nobody had presented in the first move request.

SqueakBox tried illegitimate moves twice, and was reverted twice, because his moves were illegitimate.

Why is it any different that Aervanath did it?

Can Aervanath's illegitimate move be reversed? -- Rico 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tocino you misrepresent what happened. Yes, I was surprised by User:Aervanath's actions, especially basing them on the first call for votes, but even taking both into account, there is no consensus for or against whether a coup took place; but there is an apparent consensus, between the two calls for votes, to not name the article with "coup" in the title, for a variety of reasons. Both calls for votes had been open long enough to take action. The golpistas most certainly didn't win here. Rsheptak (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who decided that the first move request was "dead", to begin with? I opened it, and I was actually a bit upset when a second one was created with the first still being open, and I did express my concerns about it. They were ignored, but that hardly means anything. --LjL (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Still and all the new title does address the concerns of the many editors who thought the coup title was POV. The current tile does not negate that a coup happened, it satisfies both parties. I have put the coup in bold in the opening and removed the tag. Can we please move on. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not satify both parties. It caves into the golpistas demands, to say that there is some sort of ambiguity as to whether the golpistas actions were legal. There is no "constitutional crisis" according to pro-Zelaya forces and the international community, it was 100% illegal removal of a democratically elected Presidnet, AKA a coupdetat. --Tocino 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity indeed, neither one side nor the other is "right" and it would be out of order for us to even imply it regardless of our personal opinions, which we are not here to bring, we are here to write a neutral article. Your tone smacks of taking one side in this dispute, there are plenty of places to do that from blogs to twitter but in wikipedia writing a balanced article containing all significant POVs is our only goal. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, certainly if there is a "100% illegal removal of a democratically elected President", there there is quite a constitutional crisis...? "A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty." (Constitutional crisis). The events seem to fit the definition perfectly. The article never talks about legality, it doesn't imply a constitutional crisis needs to be "legal" to be called such. Probably because it doesn't. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"A constitutional crisis" is a misinterpretation of the events on this article. First of all "A constitutional crisis" implies that there is some sort of legitimacy to both sides of the so-called crisis. The international community would argue that the golpistas have none. The demonstrators aren't protesting about the constitution. The pro-Zelaya forces are protesting against the forced exile of a democratically elected President, while the anti-Zelaya forces are demonstrating in favor of it. If this were just a simple "constitutional crisis" where "separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty" then Zelaya would still be in Honduras right now, as President, arguing against the Supreme Court and factions in the Congress. As of right now, he is not even part of the de facto Honduran government, so it's impossible to do this. --Tocino 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Legtimacy to both sides of the argument? That is exactly what our POV policy demands. Giving legitimacy to the side we believe in, regardless of which side that is, is not acceptable on wikipedia. Sure the international community has a POV that it has no legitimacy but that is half the argument and certainly not the half we are going to buy into, any more than we will buy into what the Micheletti POV claims, this is the very essence of NPOV and those not willing to accept it need to find another hobby. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tocino, the language used in many of your previous statements is pretty tendentious. I have to remember you the WP:INDCRIT and I'm agree when other editor suggest you apologize to anyone you called a "golpsita", as that also is a violation of WP:CIV, also the article never talks about legality, is about facts. --201.91.211.4 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Tocino was using inflammatory language, but he was not calling any editors golpistas - he was saying that the editors' actions served the ends of the golpistas, which is quite different. It's still not a helpful statement in this context, though it is not so simply wrong. 75.36.130.227 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ps. I support "coup", but am glad for a chance to be bold with my compromise.

How does "constitutional crisis" imply what you said? It doesn't imply it according to the Misplaced Pages article about it. Now, surely a Misplaced Pages article cannot be used as a source, but you're the one making the claim that "constitutional crisis" => illegality. That's not necessarily true in my books, as well as apparently in the books of the several people on this page who accepted that "constitutional crisis" would describe the event, even though some of them have stated it should be called more specifically a "coup", but without claiming that "constitutional crisis" is incorrect, only that it is overly generic. Do you have a source stating that a "constitutional crisis" must necessarily be a legal, never illegal, act? --LjL (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Overly generic is great as long as it includes both POVs, if anyone claims a significant POV is noty included we can reassess. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your basic argument seems to be that we must give the golpistas legitimacy, no matter if what they did was condemned by the international community and the majority of Hondurans. I wonder if you take a similar stance on all the other coup d'état articles. If we apply this standard then 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, etc., all need to renamed. In fact we should just scratch the word coup d'état out of WP, because it always implies POV. --Tocino 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

the majority of Hondurans? That clearly is not so, and I am not arguing for giving the golpistas legitimacy, I am arguing to give our NPOV policy legitimacy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it gives them golpistas legitimacy, and I'm on your side when it comes to the "was it a coup" debate. For me, the "coup" happened, but there continues to be a constitutional or political crisis, of which the "coup" was just the fist part. Rsheptak (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article details events which led to the removal of Zelaya, but anything after his forced exile still falls under the coup IMO, so the coup is more than just the actions of June 28. For instance the military is still out in force, protests are still going, and only just today was the curfew lifted (it will probably return once things heat up again) --Tocino 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Constitutional crisis" is not neutral precisely because it is language implying the primary issue is about the constitution. International and media consensus indicate the primary issue is about the removal of the president in a coup de'etat. There is a large precedent for leaders who instigate a coup to not call their takeover a "coup." Does this mean (for instance) we have to call Hitler's coup a "constitutional crisis?" I don't think so. The majority of the people looking for this article are looking for information about the "Honduran coup," and, therefore, to title the article "constitutional crisis" is naive at best and realistically disingenuous in favoring a pro-coup viewpoint. As a snapshot, Google News turns up about 2,194 news articles on "Honduran coup" and about 4 articles on "Honduran constitutional crisis." This article title is a pariah. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example is the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Should we re-title that article 1964 Brazilian constitutional crisis? To do so would certainly be ridiculous. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, talk about fair comparisons. Searching for "Honduran coup d'état" also turns up 4 results. On the other hand, "Honduran crisis" turns up 939, which is still less than 2,194, but not quite on a completely different scale as 4 would be. --LjL (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup" is an abbreviation for "coup de'etat." "Crisis" is in no way an abbreviation for "constitutional crisis." I would certainly not argue with titling the article "2009 Honduran coup" if that would appease those who have a problem with the full phrase of coup de'etat. My point is that "Honduran coup" and "Honduran coup de'etat" have the same meaning, whereas "Honduran crisis" and "Honduran constitutional crisis" do not have anywhere near the same meaning. One could speak of a "Honduran crisis" related to the price of coffee or a "Honduran crisis" in the decline of tourism, but to speak of a "Honduran constitutional crisis" is something different and is not a phrase in wide use. "Honduran coup" is the standard term and Misplaced Pages should reflect this. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd have no problem calling the article "2009 Honduran crisis". I suspect few others who supported "constitutional crisis" would. I believe the article was actually named that for a while, after one of the many arbitrary moves. Still, it's simply obviously not fair to compare the number of results of "Honduran coup" (without "d'état") against "Honduran constitutional crisis" (which could also be "political crisis", just "crisis" or a number of other things): it's simply statistically wrong, you don't compare the number of hits for a long phrase with that of a couple of words. It makes no sense. --LjL (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the foreign language WP articles, besides Greek and Russian, have the word (or the equivalent of) coup d'état in their titles for what it's worth.

ca:Cop d'estat a Hondures del 2009 de:Militärputsch in Honduras 2009 el:Πολιτική κρίση της Ονδούρας (2009) es:Golpe de Estado en Honduras de 2009 fr:Coup d'État de 2009 au Honduras ko:2009년 온두라스 쿠데타 ka:ჰონდურასის პოლიტიკური კრიზისი (2009) pl:Zamach stanu w Hondurasie (2009) pt:Golpe militar em Honduras em 2009 ru:Политический кризис в Гондурасе (2009) tr:2009 Honduras Darbesi uk:Державний переворот у Гондурасі (2009) zh:2009年宏都拉斯軍事政變

--Tocino 00:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move to 2009 Honduran political crisis. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ya finally got your way, i agree with Tocino. Ya did countless tries of Mediation and Concensus but at the end there was no concensus and ya still did the move. I guess this is how wikipedia works. Theres plenty of people who agree here that the name should be a coup, but a group that believes Constitutional Crisis is less POV changes the name without reaching any concensus with the others. Ya didn't even allow enough people to vote in the process!:(EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it should not have been moved away from crisis in the first place; coup was never the default your argument seems to imply it was. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Washington Post Honduras Confronts Political Crisis
• New York Times Honduran Rivals See U.S. Intervention as Crucial in Resolving Political Crisis
• BBC News CRISIS IN HONDURAS
• Times Crisis deepens in Honduras as return of ousted President is blocked
• Reuters Honduras says told crisis talks to resume Saturday
• Organization of American States AG/RES. 1 (XXXVII-E/09). RESOLUTION ON THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN HONDURAS

--190.12.81.45 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

is that really necessary???^^^EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya per WP:NPOV. And remember that many of these links are OK to WP:RS--200.65.129.1 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats not my point, my point is that you want to put these links to point out that media sources refer to it as a constitutional crisis, I could do the same. I could find 10 sources if i wanted right now, that would call the events "the 2009 honduran coup..." but theres no point on doing that. You are wasting your time pasting up links as if that was going to push the idea that this article should be really be named "2009 honduran constitutional crisis" when it really shouldn'tEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I did the compromise

I changed the "removal and succession" section header to "coup d'état". I also added a wikicomment on the page asking all editors to consider that by changing it they may reignite the move wars. I also added a notice above:

Important Note: The presence of the words "coup d'état" in the title and/or section titles of this article is a controversial subject, and has generated considerable discussion. Please do not make any changes in this regard without first discussing them here and allowing some time for response. Any change which has been made without warning will be reverted ONE time. Further changes or reversions are, themselves, edit wars, and strongly discouraged.

Homunq (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think compromising over this point is very unfortunate. The issue being discussed is a coup d'etat. The fact that the people involved claim constitutionality (actually not true) is secondary to that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The change (compromise) was not at all unfortunate. Numerous RS have discussed this topic and referenced it both as a so-called 'coup d'etat' or 'military coup d'etat' -- which language taken literally and applied to the events is disputed vigorously by more than "just the people involved" (or, variously asserted, a "fringe element", by some on this page) -- and as a 'crisis', a 'political crisis', and a 'constitutional crisis', which is not in dispute; moreover, the events described in the article transcend the mere change of who is head of state. Just as our own Presidents here in the US represent an administration, not an entire government, so too is Zaleya's removal by constitutional means, or a constitutional process, not an 'overthrow' of a government, nor a change in government. No editor is qualified to make such claims about legality/illegality as have been asserted by a beligerent minority. And it is indeed fortunate that NPOV has been restored. VaChiliman (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with our WP:NPOV policy, Simon, we have to include all significant viewpoints and the de facto gov and its supporters are a significant point of view = it is not our job at wikipeida to say they are wrong or right; our duty is to create a neutral article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "crisis" and phrase "constitutional crisis" should also be considered controversial. "Crisis" evokes an ambiguity that "coup" does not, and "constitutional crisis" suggests the primary issue is about the constitution when many would argue that the primary issue is the coup itself. Because of these reasons and the overwhelming popularity in referencing the situation as a "coup" in international media and worldwide governments and political organizations, I would suggest also taking care when using the word "crisis" and especial care when referencing a "constitutional crisis." I believe these phrases are not neutral in the first place, but that particular argument is already well-articulated in the "move" discussions. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

public opinion

Under the circumstances where valuable information does not yet appear to be available in WP:RS, I wish to applaud Rsheptak (talk) for citing to a blog post to help clear up confusion in the poll information reported. As that cited blogger noted: "From a media perspective, La Prensa didn't specifically lie but absolutely committed a sin of omission. They had that 41-46 number against the coup, that number is very relevant (potentially more relevant than the other one), and they should have published both numbers. Not doing so created an image about the poll that wasn't true and spread through many other media. They should correct their articles as should everyone who published using their information." I think the same could be said about VOA and anyone who cited their interview.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the blog commentary is a further example of how poll data can be used and misused to represent any POV desired. In this case, the blog editor wishes to downplay substntial dissatisfaction with Zaleya, and promote an analysis that says Michelleti is in trouble. There is also considerable speculation as to how a large segment of the population can have "no opinion". Speaking only for myself, there is nothing in that poll that surprises me, nor impresses me. I think that it verifies that Zaleya's popularity was at best weak, and given pre-"coup" disatsifaction/disapproval, he may have actually become slightly more "popular" after he got sacked. It is argumentative that he can return to govern, without strongarm measures and serious retribution. It is also argumentative that the caretaker government stands a chance with world power brokers alligned against them. You wonder how 30+ percent can say 'no opinion'? I wonder how it makes a whit of difference, when every non-Honduran knows better than Hondurans do about running a democracy. VaChiliman (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

VaChiliman you seem very good at espousing opinions, and very bad at coming up with WP:RS to support them. The surprising thing about the poll (both questions) is that there was a plurality of Hondurans who oppose the manner in which Zelaya was deposed (is that NPOV enough for you?). That does mean support for Micheletti is weak in Honduras, and I, for one, find that encouraging. Rsheptak (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

La Prensa has proved itself time and time again to be an unreliable source at best and a mouthpiece of lies for the golpistas at worst. We should use it with caution. --Tocino 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a partisan source, not an unreliable source but very useful for expressing the POV of the Micheletti side. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Telesur also should be used with caution. --Caltrano (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But again as representative of a significant POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the reports from El País are good and tend to be reasonably neutral albeit from an international perspective, and certainly offer a different insight from the US news. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I spent 6 years writing news filtering software that exposed me to literally hundreds of news sources on a daily basis. All press sources need to be taken with a grain of salt...they are all capable of getting it wrong, and pushing a point of view. Always ask yourself how they know what they're reporting. Think.

The Honduran press are interesting, because the owners of 3 of the 4 papers supported the golpe, with Jaime Rosenthal (La Prensa and El Heraldo) wholeheartedly in Micheletti's camp. La Tribuna's Carlos Flores Facusse was also a supporter of the golpe if not, as many claim, one of its intellectual authors. La Prensa and El Heraldo continue to be good sources for the message Micheletti wants to put out there. La Tribuna has been more critical of Micheletti in the last week (this is my WP:OR based on reading them closely over several years) but continues to also communicate the Micheletti message. El Tiempo is probably the most independent of the 4 and continues to run both Pro and Anti-golpe commentary on its Op Ed pages. Outside of TeleSUR it was the only Honduran print media that covered the pro-Zelaya protests in any significant way. It gave Zelaya fair reporting while also being critical of him. Rsheptak (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Liberal Rosenthal owns El Tiempo not La Prensa, Telesur is not Honduran print media. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Congreso enseñará al mundo que se respetó la Constitución
2. Cite error: The named reference cp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference LaPrensa-2009-05-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "Compromise Is Sought to Honduras Standoff". The New York Times. 2009-07-01. Retrieved 2009-07-02. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
6. "Honduran military ousts president ahead of vote". The Washington Post. 2009-06-28. Retrieved 2009-06-28. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
7. "Troops oust Honduran president in feared coup". Sydney Morning Herald. 2009-06-29. Retrieved 2009-06-29. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC-2009-06-28 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. "Honduras president detained, sent to Costa Rica, official says". CNN. June 28, 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2009.
10. Cite error: The named reference Reuters-2009-06-29 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Washington Post
12. Miami Herald, 1 July 2009, Honduras new government is censoring journalists
13. Lemos, Charles (2009-07-03). "The Threat of Continuismo". MyDD Direct Democracy. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
14. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/americas/07honduras.html?hpw

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Start-Class Central America articles
• Latin America articles
• B-Class military history articles
• Military history articles needing attention to task force coverage
• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles