This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RicoCorinth (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 7 December 2009 (→RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article?: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:50, 7 December 2009 by RicoCorinth (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article?: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) see also Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis | Politics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Central America Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Error: Target page was not specified with to. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Splitting out this sub-article
Right now this is very rough. The text needs a lot of trimming - basically, everything past June should move into the Micheletti regime sub. Also the lede is missing its references. I'll fix some of this, but I need help.
Also, this needs short summary sections on the fourth ballot box and the micheletti regime
I of course realize that some will consider this article title a provocation, but at this point there can be little doubt that coup is the consensus term of available reliable sources, and the referendum/coup/post-coup is the natural split for the currently-ridiculously-heavy (157K! I remember when 16K was the limit!) constitutional crisis article. Homunq (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Relevant comment(s?) from the AFD argument
...
- I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). Homunq (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
...
- The reason this article was a redirect, was because a Name change request was approved. This is an end run around that.
- The Constitutional crisis article WAS the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article.
- The reason that article exists with its name is because rampant nationalist POV warriors didn't want "coup" in the name.
- This is an end run around the name change decision.
- The name was changed because having "coup" in the name was deemed POV, so this is a POV fork.
- It was misnamed due to rampant nationalist POV warriors. The right way to handle it would have been to have put another name change request on the Constitutional crisis article talk page. -- Rico 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with what you're saying (I also feel very strongly that many edits to the "crisis" article in question were/are POV and pro-coup). Nevertheless, the requested move for the article in question will never be approved (it has already been attempted multiple times). Those with vested interests in that particular page have commanding control of the status quo. Notice, for instance, that the word "coup" in the title was excised in moving the article from "coup" to "crisis". Then, the word "coup" was excised from the first several paragraphs in that article (despite multiple attempts to include it at the beginning of the article, it was always removed shortly thereafter). In accordance with decency and WP policy, it is never appropriate to respond to bias with further bias. However, I believe that an article specifically delineating the events of the Coup d'etat is appropriate considering it is a distinct event within the larger context of the constitutional crisis. Furthermore, the popular lexicon referring to the events in Honduras as the "Honduran coup" lends more weight to the argument that this should be its own article and independent of the "crisis" article. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Trivial conspiracy theory included in article
This was in the article:
The Honduran military plane that flew Zelaya to Costa Rica on 28 June stopped to refuel at Soto Cano Air Base, also known as Palmerola, a joint Honduras and United States military airfield where approximately 600 U.S. troops are based as part of Joint Task Force Bravo of the United States Southern Command. Patricia Valle, who served as Zelaya's deputy foreign minister, said that the stop at Palmerola showed U.S. officials at some level were complicit in the 28 June coup: "Zelaya was taken to Palmerola," Valle told The Associated Press. "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya." United States Southern Command spokesman Robert Appin says U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28." He said in an e-mail to the Associated Press that U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off."
This conspiracy theory has not gotten wide coverage in reliable sources.
If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!
If U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28" -- and if U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off" -- this is not worthy of inclusion in the so-called "encyclopedia". -- Rico
Referring to coup as part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
An OR tag was placed on the lede in the part that says the "coup d'état" is part of the overall "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis." I feel that it is not original research to refer to the overall crisis as a "constitutional crisis". I didn't know that this was actually in dispute, or I would have provided a source. For example (though more references could be provided for it, if needed), Reuters referred to it as a "constitutional crisis" in their article ledes both before and after Zelaya's ouster. What's more, I think that it is both appropriate and helpful to direct the reader in the lede to the main article that provides background and overall context to the events of June 28, an article whose name (by current consensus, at least) is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Can this tag be removed? Is it necessary to source this wikilink? Moogwrench (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Be brave. You have a source. then use it and delete the tag. I've done this for you here. Its not OR if you have a RS.
- I was trying to be solicitous because I didn't want my action to be considered contentious. Thank you for the advice. Moogwrench (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can run Google news searches for "constitutional crisis" too, and then make some kind of a WP:SYNTH argument that -- since an RS states that there was a "constitutional crisis" before the coup, and another RS that claims that there was a "constitutional crisis" after the coup -- that the coup must be "part of" "the" "constitutional crisis."
- The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides.
- It looks like somebody is trying way too hard to frame Honduran events to mirror a Misplaced Pages construct.
- We should only describe things as they are, not try to make them parallel facetious Misplaced Pages constructs.
- Most RS's have given little coverage of "constitutional" anything, relative to the much larger coverage of the coup -- which was a crisis all by itself, and the one that has received the most weight in RS's.
- It's not necessarily appropriate to direct the reader in the lede to the main article. What might be more appropriate might be to include a wikilink at the first place a constitutional issue comes up, wherever that happens to occur.
- I don't think we should write the lede with an eye to trying to artificially force a wikilink to the other article up top -- and I sure don't think we should make stuff up, just to achieve that.
- Unless you have an RS that specifically states that this subset concept is what is, then it's just WP:SYNTH.
- Writing a quality article has nothing to do with trying to get a link to another Misplaced Pages article up top, nor should it.
- We should put a Wikilink wherever it naturally occurs, not force it for no reason.
- Governments violate constitutions all the time. What elevated things to the "crisis" level was the coup.
- Indeed, one could make the argument that the main event was the coup, and that the little constitutional violations and ambiguities were just minor occurrences -- and use the weight in RS coverage of the coup, relative to the wp:weight of RS coverage of constitutional violations and circumstances as your argument. -- Rico 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I don't understand your statement: "The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides."
- The source states: "Honduran troops surrounded the presidential palace on Sunday after soldiers detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya at his residence in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election."
- I may be parsing it incorrectly, but it seems like the source says that the detention (or coup, if you will) is in the "constitutional crisis"
- Admittedly, many sources term it "political crisis" instead of "constitutional crisis"--the issue is that the events of June 28 are not the only notable aspect of the crisis, and hence the umbrella "crisis" article to give notable context to the events of June 28. The "crisis" is no longer just the "coup". Perhaps a name change from "constitutional crisis" to "political crisis" is in order? Moogwrench (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- The source doesn't state that the coup was a subset (or "part of") "the" constitutional crisis. Misinterpreting the words "in a constitutional crisis" -- or just the word "in" -- to infer that the coup was part of
a"the" constitutional crisis, or contained within this constitutional crisis, is a leap of faith. I've seen it described, recently, as a coup, "in a political crisis" ... I wouldn't presume to infer that this means that there was a political crisis and that the coup was "part of" it, or contained within it. The coup was a crisis. That's all these sources are saying. We've been all through that. The coup was a crisis. - Injections of OR, just to mirror artificial Misplaced Pages construction, are invalid. The "constitutional crisis" article was the coup article and we all know it. It was just named "consitutional crisis" to satisfy rampant nationalist POV warriors that didn't want the coup called a "coup".
- This article was created with the rationale that the 'main' -- (what you call the "umbrella 'crisis'") -- article was getting too big, so we needed a separate article.
- Now the lede mirrors this artificial Wikipedian construction, but it was only a result of Wikipedians in Honduras, POV wars, COIs, name warring, sock puppetry and an admin with a shocking lack of circumspection -- not to mention an expressed personal conflict with WP:NOT#Dem policy (used as part of his explanation for his unilateral decision).
- To play dumb, one must also claim that -- until now -- there was no Misplaced Pages article about the coup. We all know that there was, and that the "constitutional crisis" article was it (misnamed). This article was created as a subarticle of the constitutional crisis, with full knowledge and delight that this would give us an article about the coup named "coup". The excuse was that the so-called 'main' article was getting too long, and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions policy was conveniently the winner.
- If you agree with this, then you must also agree that when this article was created, there were two articles about the coup. (Now the constitional article is being made into a constitutional article). But the rationale that there was this constitutional article, and that there is now this coup article that is a subset of it, must not be used as the basis for a lede that -- is not only written just to mirror this strange construction (or worse, just to put a wikilink to the so-called 'main' article at the top) -- but it actually uses OR to accomplish this feat.
- Whether the coup was a "part of" "the" constitutional crisis is a distinct question, and not one we are at liberty to determine on our own. Reliable sources are simply reporting that there was a coup, and there were constitutional issues involved. They are not stating that the coup was "part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
- The subset contention must be specifically supported by reliable sources to be valid.
- I will continue to restore disruptively, summarily deleted dispute tags (vandalism) until (if) this dispute has been resolved. -- Rico 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- The source doesn't state that the coup was a subset (or "part of") "the" constitutional crisis. Misinterpreting the words "in a constitutional crisis" -- or just the word "in" -- to infer that the coup was part of
- I know that you don't like the title 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and the wikilink to it in the first sentence. However, the source states that "soldiers detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya at his residence in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election." I think this perfectly supports a sentence that says that the coup was part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Or were you thinking of another constitutional crisis that Honduras has had that year? Do you really want to argue the plain text of the article? Moogwrench (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi I shortened it to constitutional crisis and wikilinked that to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Repitition of 2009 Honduran is poor english. I hope this is ok.Cathar11 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good enough to me. Moogwrench (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi I shortened it to constitutional crisis and wikilinked that to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Repitition of 2009 Honduran is poor english. I hope this is ok.Cathar11 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know that you don't like the title 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and the wikilink to it in the first sentence. However, the source states that "soldiers detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya at his residence in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election." I think this perfectly supports a sentence that says that the coup was part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Or were you thinking of another constitutional crisis that Honduras has had that year? Do you really want to argue the plain text of the article? Moogwrench (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you could try to explain why you think the plain reading of the source is somehow WP:SYNTH, Rico? The RS publishes this information after the coup, but says that the the detention (coup) is in the constitutional crisis. I think you might have confused my initial paragraph by thinking that the "after" in my sentence referred to what the source said instead of the date/time it was published. I think Cathar11's original edit placing the source here and subsequent rewording are fine. Can you please read the source again? Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think this discuusion is going nowhere. I've removed the part of the sentence in dispute. It doesnt add anything to the content. The 2009 Constitutional Cris article is noted as a Main: reference further dwn the article.
- Maybe the one editor that finds this clause objectionable can put out a Reliable sources query to see if it really is WP:SYNTH. One person does not make consensus. Moogwrench (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think this discuusion is going nowhere. I've removed the part of the sentence in dispute. It doesnt add anything to the content. The 2009 Constitutional Cris article is noted as a Main: reference further dwn the article.
- Maybe you could try to explain why you think the plain reading of the source is somehow WP:SYNTH, Rico? The RS publishes this information after the coup, but says that the the detention (coup) is in the constitutional crisis. I think you might have confused my initial paragraph by thinking that the "after" in my sentence referred to what the source said instead of the date/time it was published. I think Cathar11's original edit placing the source here and subsequent rewording are fine. Can you please read the source again? Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you really are confused, I would suggest you reread what I wrote (assuming you have read it, and honestly think that I am questioning the reliability of the source). I don't care to repeat myself, as that would be non-value added time. -- Rico 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
{unindent} The Reliable sources board, it appears, has been used at times not only to discuss reliability, but whether a particular source supports a particular contention. That was why I suggested it. Sorry, my error. Perhaps you would like an RfC? You insist that the contention is OR/SYNTH, ignoring that SYNTH depends on at least 2 sources. You will note that I had only one source, and it said that the detention was "in a constitutional crisis." Do you honestly believe that this source was referring to a constitutional crisis other than the one described in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis??? If you really are confused and not just trying to fight a name battle again, you might think about this for a second. You are taking all the arguments over that article's title, which have nothing to do with the content we are discussing, and using them as an objection to realizing that RSs refer to the entirety of the Honduran political dispute as a "crisis" and use "coup" to describe only the events of June 28. Why rehash unrelated past arguments? Why not actually talk about what the source says? Moogwrench (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I added another distinct RS that says the same thing, that the coup is part of a "four month old constitutional crisis". Moogwrench (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
After seeing the continual reverts of your reversion, I ask you to come back to this discussion table, and reiterate the central question: Do you believe that the "constitutional crisis" sourced individually (not together) in and is really a different constitutional crisis than the one described in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis? Or do you have alternative wording that you would like to use to express the relationship between the constitutional crisis and the coup that concords with these RSs? P.S. Also, realize that the phrase "the first in Central America in more than two decades" has now been shifted to another part of the lede, and so it is redundant to put it in the first sentence again. Moogwrench (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Move request
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. Arbitrarily0 15:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
2009 Honduran coup d'etat → ? — -
Since there was no consensus to delete, we need to talk about moving this to an accurate, neutral title. Thoughts? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you should come up with an alternative name when filing a move request. ("'NewName' is what you want the new name of the page to be.") -- Rico 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I oppose the move. The flag should be placed on the article page and not here.Cathar11 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is an accurate, neutral title. More importantly, it is in accord with WP:TITLE, which btw says
nothing about accuracyspecifically disclaims "moral or political" accuracy (or "compromise") as a basis for article naming. Nevertheless, Ed Wood's Wig, if you want to make a proposal, you should make a specific one. What do you propose as the new title? Homunq (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rename to 2009 removal and expulsion of the sitting Honduran president as being more accurate 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- 'Oppose It's factually and legally correct. It was legally a coup d'etat, and it happened in 2009. So the current title is neutral and factually correct. As Homung pointed out, almost every major newspaper and international organization has called it a coup as well. TJ Spyke 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Present title passes all WP:TITLE criteria. It is more recognizable and easy to find (someone researching the subject will more probably use "coup" as a search term). It is also more concise and consistent with other articles as International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état and Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. The only possible concern would be precision, however precision in an article's title is only required as long as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously; independently on whether a reader believes this was a coup or not, that reader will understand what this article is about. JRSP (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Homunq stated, regardless of whether or not the title is "right" in a moral or political sense, we have to go with the RSs, the vast majority of which call the actions taken against Zelaya on June 28 a "coup". Descriptive titles have to be careful about neutrality per Misplaced Pages:NAME#Descriptive_names, but again, we are not really describing anything beyond the time (2009) and the place (Honduran) both of which are accurate. The common-usage, reliable sources supply the "coup d'état" portion of the title. I do think it is appropriate to discuss the notable opposition to this qualification of the action as a "coup" in the body of the article, but that is, of course, tangential to this rename discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move on Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état
Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move Moogwrench (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Al Jazeera is considered an RS
Per the edit summary of this diff, there had been some concern, I suppose, over whether or not Al Jazeera is recognized as an RS by English Misplaced Pages. I would refer those with such concerns to the following reliable sources noticeboard posting, which I found with a cursory search before I placed the citation, that indicates that Al Jazeera is an RS. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article?
 |
|
There has been some disagreement as to whether these sources-- and support the mention of the coup as part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis in the lede of 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Some believe that this mention amounts to a WP:OR mirror of a Misplaced Pages construction (i.e. three subset articles of the crisis article, one of which is the coup). Others believe that the sources show that the coup is one of several events in the constitutional crisis and this relationship should be mentioned. Do the sources support mention of the coup as part of the constitutional crisis? Moogwrench (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.
- A plain reading of source #1 states in its lede that Zelaya was detained (the coup) "in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election." (emphasis mine) One can reasonably determine that the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in this sentence coincides with the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. This sentence also links his detention with another fundamental aspect of the constitutional crisis: his plans for a Honduran fourth ballot box referendum, the first of the 3 subarticles. I mention the WP construction not to prove a point, merely to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP.
- While source #2, written four months after the coup, tends to ignore much of the antecedents of the crisis, it does place the coup firmly in that continuum. The first two sentences read: "Al Jazeera's Will Stebbins takes stock of the winners and losers in the wake of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose power-sharing accord which ended the four-month Honduran constitutional crisis. The crisis was precipitated in June when the Honduran military, backed by the Supreme Court, led a coup against Manuel Zelaya, the president, and ousted him from power." (emphasis mine) It does not state why the military or the Supreme Court led the coup, but it does say that their actions precipitated the crisis.
- When one speaks of something precipitating an event, it is considered part of that event and it bears mention in the lede of the treatment of said subject. Thus the lede of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria mentions the outbreak of World War I, because the assassination precipitated it. Hence, the constitutional crisis bears mention in the coup article lede for this reason. The source, as a side note, links the coup to actions taken subsequent to the coup in the crisis, namely the events covered in Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti, the third of 3 subarticles. Again I mention this to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP, not to prove a point.
- One can debate the construction of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis construction and its subarticles, as many already have. But it is clear from these sources, and other sources, that the coup is part of something larger--that the events of June 28, commonly referred to as a "coup" in many RSs, belong to a wider "crisis" in Honduran political society. It bears mentioning this in the lede of 2009 Honduran coup d'état, and the sources cited support this. Moogwrench (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat puzzled about the protest - it clearly states that the situation is part of the crisis. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:GAME. Ed Wood's Wig, you've repeatedly posted that there never was a coup in Honduras -- ("I 'deny there was a coup' because there wasn't a coup") -- so why have you repeatedly put into the lede that a "coup d'état ... occurred"? -- Rico 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- So then if we read, "Joe tripped his opponent in a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct," that means there was a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct, and that the trip was "part of" it?
- The coup was a crisis. We've been all through that. These sources aren't saying that the coup was a ""part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
- I've also seen that there was a coup in a political crisis -- but I wouldn't presume to include in the article that the coup was "part of" "the" political crisis, because all the reporter was saying was that the coup was a crisis. -- Rico 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the case of these sources, the "constitutional crisis" mentioned is not a single event or an example of a crisis, but a series of events over a prolonged period of time (Source #2 talks about a variety of actions/events over a period of 4 months, the precipitory event being the coup). So it is not correct to think that they mean a discrete event, as you are suggesting with your example of a one time trip being an example of unsportsmanlike behavior. Moogwrench (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- My example was just to illustrate the folly of your argument, one that you base on your interpretation of the word "in" to mean "part of." In my example, the word "in" doesn't mean a "part of."
- You keep avoiding the points I am making. -- Rico 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your example, as I point out in my response, is flawed, because you assume the crisis to be a discrete event. From the sources, it is clear that it is an ongoing series of events (4+ months worth). Why are you accusing me of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point with your wikilink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the addition of "part of what has been described as a constitutional crisis" in the first sentence breaks the flow of the lead so it would better be mentioned later. I would suggest refactoring the lead structure using three paragraphs: 1.- What the article is about ( the events of the coup itself) 2.- Antecedents ( summary of previous events, disagreement about referendum, link to crisis article) 3.- Consequences (like second paragraph in this version). JRSP (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Moogwrench's subset construction isn't true. It's made up, and it isn't in the sources cited. It's OR, apparently injected just to mirror the strange Misplaced Pages construction that resulted after the coup article was renamed "constitutional crisis," a "coup" section remained, and then this article was created using the length of the "coup" section as a rationale.
Obviously there were constitutional questions/issues before the coup, and "part of" the coup itself (forcing a democratically elected president into exile at gunpoint).
These should obviously be mentioned.
The fact that strange things happens when rampant nationalistic POV warriors get involved doesn't mean that the strange results that arise from them are a basis for OR in the article. -- Rico 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is the way it went:
1. There's a coup article.
2. Editors like Ed Wood's Wig, that denies there was ever a coup in Honduras -- and like Moogwrench, who puts the word "coup" in quotes on his user page (suggesting he doesn't accept that it was a coup either) -- fought for a name change. It's renamed "constitutional crisis," but a "coup" section remains.
3. The "coup" section gets longer.
4. This article is changed from being a redirect, into a second article about the coup.
5. People start using this strange outcome to justify calling the coup "part of" "the" constitutional crisis. -- Rico 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment, but since there is a blatant falsehood in Rico's comment (saying that I fought for a name change to this article from "coup" to "crisis"), I thought that I would correct the record here.I'll repost my post that you deleted. Please forgive the digression away from the RfC topic. After taking my time to reading back through the discussion history of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, I found this edit on 11 July 2009 which closed this move request on 2 July 2009 and resulted in the original coup article being moved to its present location. As one can tell from my editing history, my first edit to this article or its talk pages was on 10 October 2009, some 2 months after this name change. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, when the 2009 Honduran coup d'état was nominated for deletion, because some thought the name and or content was POV, I voted "Keep" because the majority POV and RS supports this (even though minority POV does not), per WP:NAME conventions, a point that I elaborated on in a move request for the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Finally, it is not amusing but telling that Rico remarks derogatorily on my use of " marks around the word coup on my userpage, yet proceeds to do that very same thing in his point 3immediately belowabove. I suppose that he feels he has sufficiently demonstrated his anti-coup bonafides to allow him to use them with impunity, without fear of being accused of COI. As I explain on my userpage, I have doubts about both positions and find valid points among both sides of the coup/not coup debate. Moogwrench (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reposted again by Moogwrench (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted your post because you inserted it into the middle of one of mine. Nice half-truth. As for "Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment", you have a pattern and a practice of inserting your posts into the middle of other people's posts. (See second post, in green.) Your strikeout text exposes your disingenuous nature.
- Incredibly, after all the ink you've spilled writing about what a newbie you supposedly were, when you decended on the Honduran coup articles and started edit warring with everyone -- using that as your excuse, while revealing that you actually knew all about Misplaced Pages -- now you keep revealing that you know all about what went on before. Newbie? I think not. WP:CLEANSTART, maybe. -- Rico 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that almost the entirety of your two comments is devoted to either 1) recounting a history of the battle over naming of articles (irrelevant to the actual content and sources being discussed in this RfC) or trying to 2) attack editors (using phrases such as "rampant nationalistic POV warriors"), instead of actually addressing the content and the sources in this particular RfC. Please focus on the content and sources that are being addressed. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Cuevas, Freddy (16 August 2009). "US military denies role in Honduras coup flight". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-17.