This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 2 April 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 8.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:45, 2 April 2011 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 8.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 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. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help 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 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
 | Important Note: The presence, or absence, 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. The most stable compromise has been to have the words in a first-level section head, but not in the article title, as the article's focus extends further. Any change which has been made without warning will be reverted ONE time. Further changes or reversions are, themselves, edit wars, and strongly discouraged. The ground rule is that ALL changes should be discussed on this talk page. |
Some parts should be compacted
The article has paragraphs such as "He was taken to a police station and held for several hours until lawyers from the National Front for Resistance to the Coup interceded. During the same operation, police reportedly manhandled photographer Julio Umaña of the daily Tiempo and confiscated his camera although he had just shown his press accreditation"
Details about someone's camera, etc. should be moved to the Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Also why almost half the general elections section is quotes from the "Resistance"? Alb28 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, details go to both the appropriate sub-article (where events are organized by topic principally) and the chronology (organized purely by time).
Synthesis? No. Irrelevant? Maybe.
Remember, WP:SYNTH is a subset of original research. The stuff about the judiciary and the socioeconomic background may be off-topic, depending on how you look at it, and you could even try to call it indisciminate information. But it is not original research. Synthesis involves taking two or more sources and developing an argument out of the sum of those parts. The statements in question are individually sourced, and thus cannot be WP:SYNTH.
I believe that you take a statement out of context: "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages by a contributor." This of course refers to the synthesized argument. What it is saying is that you can't use logical syllogisms (analysis) to apply an old argument/analysis that (A = B, B = C, & A = C), and then also say (new application of analysis) that because F = B, F must = C as well, when the argument has never previously been made for or applied to F by an RS.
Just because an source doesn't mention the coup or even Zelaya, doesn't mean that it isn't a source for analysis of the socioeconomic divide of Honduras or the character of the judiciary. Now, you can argue that those subtopics are off-topic or indiscriminate, but you can't argue that the individual statements are WP:SYNTH, because no original research is being done.
This is why, if you will note, Ed Wood's Wig applied the {{relevance}} template to the socioeconomic sub-section, and not the {{synthesis}} template. The basic idea is that the information might be irrelevant, not that it contains original research from various sources. Moogwrench (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- People who are not familiar with honduras probably wouldnt be aware of the extremely high level of poverty in the country. In earlier discussions it was considered a key point in that the majority of people in the country dont benefitfrom their present political representation. This was the driving force behind the grass roots support for a constitutional ammendment. Extreemly Poor /Neutrional levels is how the World Bank describe people who are so poor they are unable to meet daily food requirements. For 60-70% of a population to be described as poor is extreemely high, It is extreemely relevant to political unrestCathar11 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see no relevancy to pocvrty. It looks like an attempt to redefine the events in Honduras as a poor against rich thing which reliable sources really don't support. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are right. Also the references to reports about the judiciary (none of which is related to the crisis) looks like an attempt to discredit the judiciary. Alb28 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, people do have to realize that the Honduran Supreme Court has some unique characteristics. Especially WP readers from the US have a notion of a Supreme Court that is substantially different from its Honduran counterpart (things like lifetime appointments, meant to insulate the judiciary from politics in the US, don't exist in Honduras). Why don't you try editing this paragraph instead of deleting it? Just an idea, y'know? Moogwrench (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are right. Also the references to reports about the judiciary (none of which is related to the crisis) looks like an attempt to discredit the judiciary. Alb28 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it has nothing to do with the removal of Zelaya, which was based solely in his unconstitutional activities independent of any socioeconomic strife. The placement of the section, if not the entire section itself, provides an irrelevant amount of information about a situation that has nothing to do with the situation at all. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary it provides a context as to why the constutional assembly was needed, which is what caused this whole debacle.Cathar11 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it might have served as a reason for it, but it has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps you should put it in or create an article about the Honduran economic divide if you want to include that information, because it doesn't belong here. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it bears some mention, especially if sourced by sources which also mention the crisis. Especially relevant would be any well-sourced analysis that shows Zelaya used those differences to promote his agenda.
- Believe me, when I was down in Honduras there was a deep anti-upper class vein running through zelayista thought. My Honduran uncle would criticize me for going out in a white shirt because he thought I was going to join one of the "perfumados" (rich, perfumed people) in a peace march. So it would be useful if we could lay our hands on that kind of analysis, instead of getting caught up in minutiae.
- However, to ignore completely the practical sentiment of disenfranchisement on the part of Honduras' poor (which Zelaya tapped into and harnessed) would be a disservice to the article, I think. How much of a mention it merits is debatable, of course. Moogwrench (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Statements sourced to articles about the crisis should be summarized in the presidency section, but unrelated sources (nutritional requirements, text about the judiciary, etc.) should be removed.Alb28 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it might have served as a reason for it, but it has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps you should put it in or create an article about the Honduran economic divide if you want to include that information, because it doesn't belong here. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary it provides a context as to why the constutional assembly was needed, which is what caused this whole debacle.Cathar11 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see no relevancy to pocvrty. It looks like an attempt to redefine the events in Honduras as a poor against rich thing which reliable sources really don't support. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nonetheless the section strains the bounds of NPOV- it reads as justification of Zelaya's actions, and in a very editorial manner didmisses their unconstitutional nature. The phrase "a constitution — written in 1982 at the height of that country's brutal repression of leftists" is pure gloss, and non-neutral; moreover all of the quotations in the section come exclusively from the pro-Zelaya side, saying things like "It's a system that has kept the poor down for years." Just because you're quoting somebody else's opinion, that doesn't make it NPOV! Frankly, this section, standing asd it does as an intro to the article reads as a naked attempt to paint Zelaya as "right" and his opponents as the Evil Rich. --Solicitr (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed sources that say nothing about the crisis. The remaining repeats itself and could be compacted.Alb28 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your unilateral deletion was restored as no consensus has been reached.Cathar11 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to agree that the sources are not directly related to the crisis.Alb28 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- @Cathar11. Misplaced Pages:DRNC --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Original research: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Alb28 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of sources
The impeachment section has this sentence: "Detailed arguments that Zelaya's ouster was illegal have been advanced by numerous experts and scholars of Honduran Constitutional Law." (sourced to three columnists) The problems are that there is no source for "numerous", the columnists don't claim to be present "detailed arguments", and the columnists don't claim to be a "scholars of Honduran Constitutional Law". It should be changed to "A number of people have argued that Congress did not have power to remove Zelaya from office." Alb28 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is disengenous to say the least all sources quoted are experts in constitutional law. There are plenty of other expert references available to show this. 3 is more than sufficent. You are belittling experts 2 of which are former govt ministers to describe them as columnists. All are lawyers and experts on the constitution.Cathar11 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Lack of balance in demo images
We may struggle tirelessly to achieve balance in the description of events, but all this is undone when someone decides to download a clear image of a calm, collected, passably attractive (from a distance) demonstrator from one particular side of the conflict, and at a time when demonstrators from the opposing camp may well have good reason to fear their images appearing in open media. 'If a picture can paint a thousand words' (which I believe it can) we need to be a lot more scrupulous about balance in this article, before it does some damage. --212.100.250.228 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Biased editing detected
This article, as well as all relating to the Constitutional Succession in Honduras 2009, to Hugo Chavez, to Bolivarian Venezuela, to ALBA countries, to political prisoners in ALBA countries, seem to be edited by minders who consistently and strongly bias the text in favor of the Bolivarian Revolution. Since Misplaced Pages is a user-edited site it depends on honesty and the ABSENCE of political bias. Yet the group of pages that I have mentioned displays a very clear political bias. I believe that there are paid persons minding this pages from one point of view, and since there are no paid editors balancing that bias, they end up heavily tilted. The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages has become an integral and important part of the socialist propaganda apparatus, a complement to TeleSur (the international TV channel of Hugo Chavez, run by Chavez's Minister of Information). I don't know what to do about this because it is WAAAY beyond what any one of us as individuals can balance, since we don't have pockets of petrodollars to pay our bills with while we spend day and night trying to undo bias in Misplaced Pages. Three cases in point: The failure to bring out the Honduran point of view in this article. The bias in the article on the 2012 elections in Venezuela. The slander against Alejandro Peña Esclusa in Italian Misplaced Pages. What do do? How to save Misplaced Pages? I don't have the answer.Lindorm (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Central America articles
- Latin America articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics 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