Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 7

So which version of the decree is correct?

Elsoc has what the claim to be the decree: http://www.elsoca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=501:honduras-decreto-ejecutivo-del-presidente-manuel-zelaya-para-consultarle-al-pueblo-sobre-la-cuarta-urna&catid=16&Itemid=11 They use the word "consulta popular" translated as referendum.

La Tribuna quotes parts, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422, using the word "encuesta" translated as "opinion poll".

Is any of these trustworthy? The supreme court obviously saw it as a referendum... --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

answered on your talk page. The Elsoc decree is from May, the La Tribuna article refers to a replacement decree published June 25th. BTW, translating consulta popular as referendum is an interpretation, not a translation. Rsheptak (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, so then he first called for a referendum, and then changed it to a poll after the supreme court told him not to do the referendum. In that case the article should reflect this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, he called it a "consulta popular" which some people choose to translate as referendum. It was always intended to be a public opinion poll, from its initial discussion and presentation. It suprised Zelaya when people thought a "consulta popular" meant referendum (with binding as implicit) and forced him to change the language. Rsheptak (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not "some people", but most everyone. But a look at the constitution makes it clear that the constitution talks about "referéndum", "plebiscite", "consulta" and "consultas populares" more or less interchangeably. He can hardly be surprised that in a conflict about teh constitution, the word "consulta populare" is interpreted as meaning what it means in the constitution. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

Ed Wood's Wig feels the contents of this section are disputed. I don't see the dispute in this talk section so I'm opening the discussion here. This section is to discuss the points he, and others, wish to dispute about the background section. Rsheptak (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• A Disputed Point
• Another Disputed Point
• Still Another Disputed point

• The background should discuss only those things relevant to the removal of Zalaya from office. What does Displeasure of the conservative business leaders and conflicts with leftist interests have to do with removing Zalaya from office? The man was removed for violating the constitution.

Sorry, I disagree; this ssection is quite relevant. The business people were the financial backers of the coup, and the history and reason for their disagreements with Zelaya are part of the motiviations for what happened, and actually are the main reason, in my opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Key being in your opinion. The "coup" didn't need financial backers, as it was a Constitutional necessity, so the relevance is somewhat questionable, or at least is being presented in an unbalanced way. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole arguement of the Government of Honduras is missing from this section. The claims that the president was not implementing laws passed by Congress, The claims that he ignored the lawful orders of the Supreme Court are mentioned not mentioned. Insttead we have a leftist attempt at presenting evidence supporting the leftist viewpoint that this was a coup. It is not neutral it is not npov.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the article and add, in an NPOV fashion, the de facto government's arguments and I urge you to do so. Rsheptak (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Previous coups d'etat

Many coups d'etat occurred in Latin America during the twentieth century. In Honduras during the second half of the century, five coups d'etat occurred: in October 1955, October 1963 and December 1972, April 1975 and August 1978. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, two coups d'etat occurred in Latin America before 2009. The first occurred in Venezuela on 11 April 2002 and was reversed in 47 hours. The second occurred in Haiti on 29 February 2004. Claims and counterclaims of United States involvement in the Venezuelan and Haiti coups d'etat remain controversial.

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HONDURAS. What does America in Haiti have to do with this article?

Absolutely nothing, and I would support removing it. Cruft always creeps into articles and needs to be pruned. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we have this paragraph removed then?Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have removed it, but I removed it, and the subsequent paragraph about military and human rights abuses because it was not on-point with the topic of the article. I reviewed both paragraphs and agree with you. gone. Rsheptak (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Role of the military and human rights abuses post-1979 WHAT does this have to do with Zalaya being removed from office?

Goes to attitudes of Military, and their role in previous coup's. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But this wasn't a coup. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all world governments except the de facto government of Honduras disagree with you. Whether or not it was a coup has been beaten to death in the archives. Do you have something new to add to the discussion besides a simple assertion that it wasn't a coup? Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What world governments have to say really isn't the point nor do I think most of their statements are legitimate references. The Honduran Supreme Court says it wasn't a Coup as does the Honduran People and the Library of Congress. At the very least that view...that there is no coup needs to be represented throughout the entire article. Otherwise it is slanted. I posted plenty of references above that it is not a coup but that instead the removal follows the Constitution.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The detailed references overwhelmingly note it's not a coup - the "it's a coup" is solely based on the words of Zelaya and the political machinations of the world stage. We should be focused on accuracy when we have reliable sources advocating both sides - making sure we're accurate while acknowledging that some beleive there was a coup as opposed to working off of the assumption that it was a coup as we do now. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph referenced above is now gone, "coup" has nothing to do with it in any case..it was about the military role in human rights abuses pre-june 28 and not on topic, so I axed it at Da'oud Nkrumah's requesst. Feel free to add the de facto government POV, in an NPOV fashion, to the article. Rsheptak (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revert yourself in the continued edit warring over the tags. you're being highly disruptive by pretending there is not a conflict on this matter. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully no. I believe if you're going to tag the article you need to have first made a good faith effort to identify the nature of the disputed and unbalanced items, which with the exception of the use of the word "coup" you haven't yet done. You act as if one party's opinion makes the whole article disputed and unbalanced. If you can so lightly add the tags, without explaining what it is that's disputed and unbalanced, then there's no mechanism that can be used to evaluate when/if its time to remove the tags and they either remain forever, or some editor removes them and another editor adds them back. I added these discussions to open up the discussion about the appropriateness of the tags to other editors because such tags merit a discussion. Think of this as a process by which you establish both the merit of adding the tags, and a benchmark for evaluating when they are no longer appropriate. Rsheptak (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm forced to believe you're not interested in fixing the problem. By misleading readers and other editors that there are not serious conflicts with this article, you're doing the whole thing a disservice. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup d'etat is the universally used term in global quality newspapers for the ousting and exiling of Zelaya. It is also the description used by most world governments. The conflicts you have result from your personal POV and not reliable sources ar generally accepted belief. Cathar11 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflicts I have result from what actually occurred, not the political machinations of the world leadership or the media who can get it wrong. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We rely on reliable sources. Concerning "the media," Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." An editor's opinion that the media has "gotten it wrong," is irrelevant.

I've written you that before, and you've read it, but you refuse to get the point. You seem to know something about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because you refer to them using shortcuts.[1] I'm beginning to suspect that you are trying to game the system (using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately). WP:Game states, "Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive." -- Rico 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "an editor's opinion," but the opinion of experts as noted in the reliable sources you continue to ignore, for what I can only presume, to keep this inaccurate article as it is. Since you've decided that, instead of demonstrating why these sources are right and the relible sources I'm relying on are wrong, that I'm being "disruptive" and "gaming the system," it tells me that you're incapable of assuming good faith and, in fact, are providing me with evidence to the contrary that you are approaching this as such. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel this section should end with a paragraph or two summarizing the problems Zalaya begin to have with his Congress, business groups, the courts and the military. Da'oud Nkrumah 08:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

All of this is already in the article, so if you want to move things around, I'm fine with looking at your proposed changes either by discussing them, or by you making the edits, and having other editors review them. Rsheptak (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I made edits please review.I started at the top of the article and am working down I reached the Background section. It will take a while to get to the rest so please look over the changes I made to add the regimes view point and clean up language.Da'oud Nkrumah 09:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Some are welcome additions to the article. Many of the edits will require correction to restore the original language. Changing the language used can be POV. Ouster, Coup, De Facto government are terms used by global quality newspapers and most world governments. Some contain too much irrelevant detail and inexplicable removal of text already there. Please sign your comments here with 4~ and not on the edit summary which is meaningless. It saves them being autosigned Cathar11 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and unlike newspapers wikipedia does not exist to inflame opinion. The reason neutral language was inserted was to remove POV. Ouster and removal have the same meaning but to use ouster is giving the point of view that the removal was illegal. de facto government has been left in places but the correct legal term from the honduran authorities is interim. Some newspapers have also used interim. I have tended only really to change terms where it makes the language flow better. I typically keep whats there. Their view point needs representation. We need to represent the facts, facts only please. Also, I do sign my edits but sometime it still gives an autosign. Da'oud Nkrumah 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I am checking the references while I go through this. Many of the references aren't relevant to what is being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup d'etat Section Discussion

Ed Wood's Wig feels that the contents, and the title of this section are Disputed and added a DISPUTED-SECTION tag to this heading. I don't see a discussion of the contents, though I incorporate by reference the discussion of the heading above. Discuss the appropriateness of this tag, and be specific about what facts are being disputed here. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Use of The official line of the Honduran government (Sounds like you are saying they are lying)Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand where in the article you're talking about, yes, the implication is that the de facto government has lied. Even the NYT has said that there are things about the documents supplied then retracted by the de facto government (such as the alleged resignation letter, but also many other documents) that suggests they were constructed post-coup and then backdated. I think that's what the section is trying to say in a nutshell, but I agree, its confusing and its not clear why all these timestamps are being marshalled. The argument could be made and supported more concisely and clearly. Rsheptak (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you are trying to sway opinion. Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

This wording violates NPOV further it doesn't fairly put about the Honduran Government Position, The position of the Supreme Court of Honduras nor the View of the Honduran Population.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not me, I'm just trying to explain it to you. Again, you can edit the article and add the material you think relevant in an NPOV way, and change text you feel is POV, though remember other editors will be looking over your shoulder and make changes as well. Rsheptak (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• available digitally with a timestamp of 2 July in time zone UTC-5 (Doesn't add to article, sloppy)Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I dispute the whole idea of a coup de tat as stated in the How can you say calling it a Coup D'Etat is neutral? section of talk. First you have a whole section of the Congress moving to impeach Zalaya above this section. Then you have the Supreme Court ordering the Military to arrest Zalaya by unanimous vote. Two branches of a government that are wholly legitimate at the time of their actions. You have an arrest warrant and a Constitution authorizing the military to act. You have the same legitimate parts of the government after this ouster by vote picking a successor until regular elections. Again following the constitution of the country in question. With this legal process you can't call this a coup it doesn't meet the definition even the definition here on Wikipedia.

I recommend that Removal of President replace Coup D'etat Da'oud Nkrumah 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As heavily discuussd in the Archives a compromise was arrived at in the naming of the Article which involves the present name and naming of a section within the article Coup d'etat. This consensus is now being reargued. Every government in the world (except Honduras) has described it as a coup. International bodies such as the UN, EU and OAS similirarily. This does not make the article unbalanced but balances the non descript name of the article. Cathar11 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed in the archive and Da'oud Nkrumah doesn't bring anything new to the argument. I'll dredge up some old stuff here. (1) There is no constitutional way in Honduras for Congress to remove a President. It can only disapprove of actions (but not the person). Congress ammended the constitution to remove this capacity from itself. It delegate it to the Supreme Court, which hears charges against high government officials. (2) The Supreme Court did not vote unanimously to have the military arrest Zelaya; Justice Tomas Arita Valle did. Hoever, the order should have been directed at the Police, not the Military. Its the constitutional role of the Police to carry out court instructions, not the military. That was a mistake. (3) The constitutional role of the military does not include removing the president. The constitutional mission of the Military is clearly spelled out in the Honduran constitution, and it does not include anywhere "removing the president by force." I won't address the whole issue of "constitutional succession" which was bogus as well; I'll simply point to the analysis of Honduran Consitutional Law Professor and Zelaya oponent Edmundo Orellana.

So your argument boils down to the NPOVness of the use of "coup" to describe what happened in Honduras. The compromise in removing the word "coup" from the title of this article involved using it as a section title. Do you have new arguments about the use of the term that were not in the previous discussion? Otherwise, I don't thing there's anything to discuss. Rsheptak (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the coup compromise; but we must not use the word coup in the title as a significant POV (the so called 80% in Honduras who believe it was a constitutional succession) rejects coup; as long as a significant section of Honduran people believe this everyone else in the world and all nations may explicitly call it a coup but we still cannot in the title due to our WP:NPOV policy; any claim that a significant stream of Honduran thinking is not a significant POV must be rejected without consideration. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how using an inaccurate section heading as a "compromise" helps with accuracy. Or are we allowed to discard accuracy by way of consensus now? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Squeakbox, are you sure its only 80%? A poster to my blog this morning assured me it was 90%. Seriously though, Ed Wood's Wig, do you have some argument besides the fact that it wasn't a coup because there's ample disagreement on that topic and we've hashed that over and over since June 28. Do read the archived discussions and see if you've got something new to add, please. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps by your reading there is nothing new bought up. I believe the Congressional Research Service is pretty new information and it does show a plausible legal method for the Supreme Court and the Military to remove the President. In short pay attention to the Honduran Constitution section which demands immediate removal and the section where the military polices the Presidents term of office. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help here at all. Its not by the CRS, its by a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. I've read every word of it. Its a poorly researched OPINION that relied on personal communications with Guillermo Perez Cadalso, a coup member, to justify its novel legal theories and ignores the May 7,2003 Supreme Court legal precedent which says Congress CANNOT Interpret the Constitution. You can cite it on Wikipedia as an opinion, but not as a source for facts, any more than I can cite OPED pieces for matters of fact. As for the military role, their single constitutional role in this affair is to guarantee the alternability of the presidency, and they can only act when the proper succession doesn't happen, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. Rsheptak (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats not what Congress says (http://schock.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=146377). Present your evidence that it is not an official study of the CRS or the Library of Congress.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cover page of the document in question? Several websites, including Congressman Schock's have it available for you to download. Look at the cover page. Congressman Schock himself issued a retraction but didn't change his website, its not a CRS study; I have email from the CRS disavowing it. Many news sources have pointed out its not a CRS study. Look at it. Read it. Verify its origins yourself. I did. Rsheptak (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say Congress but it is the Honduran Supreme Court by unanimous vote that ordered the Presidents Arrest and Removal. They are authorized to act in that manner by the Honduran Constitution. Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs Da'oud Nkrumah 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court issued a "detention" warrant for Zelaya; they did not remove him from office -- Congress did that. Download and read the documents about it from the Supreme Court's website, and from Congress's website to understand what they say happened. Read them; they're quite informative. Rsheptak (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We got it wrong in June, it's high time we fix the problem. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense and POV trash. You need to show references that the CRS report is not a legitimate U.S. Government document or I am editing this article by the following Wikipedia guideline:

Major edits Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you downloaded the document from Congressman Schock's website and opened it? The first page says "Law Library of Congress" at the top of the page. Nowhere does it say Congressional Research Service, which, as I learned when they wrote to disown the study, is a completely separate branch of the Library of Congress. Again, I urge you to download and look at it and you'll see I'm right about its origins.Rsheptak (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have and yes the CRS works through the Library of Congress they even offer jobs at the Library of Congress. Place references showing its not an official government document. Because you say its not doesn't mean a thing. Oh here is the document number which starts with CRS for Congressional Research Service, CRS LL File No. 2009-002965. Now, do we all want to discuss serious changes to the article to make it NPOV or shall I edit the article myself pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines.

Da'oud Nkrumah 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough. I did not say it didn't come from the Library of Congress,just that it did not come from the Congressional Research Service. If you downloaded it and looked at it, you would see that it says Directorate of Legal Research LL File No. 2009-002965. If you looked at the Library of Congress organization chart, you would see that the Directorate of Legal Research is part of the Law Library of Congress. Also on the cover is the URL www.loc.gov/law/congress. This is my last post on this topic. Rsheptak (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will start my editing. You have not presented one reference to back up anything you have claimed. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Da'oud Nkrumah your edits are tantamount to vandalism and your;e unilaterally ignoring all discussion that took place on these pages and its archive.Cathar11 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you get vandalism from my edit note when I called your edits of cutting sentences off in the middle, removing obviously referenced material and generally trying to present a pro-zalaya viewpoint vandalism? I even went so far as to leave quotes in the article asking you to cite references disputing my references so they could be integrated. YOU haven't referenced a thing. Oh, I am sorry I am suppose to assume good faith but your actions speak for themselves. Look up and you will see where I was told to add the governments viewpoint and we would review it when I am done. Learn to read and spell. I will continue my editing, I expect to finish in a day. I will consider using your talk page but per the editing guidelines of Wkipedia I am not obligated.

Da'oud Nkrumah 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Da'oud Nkrumah 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Legality

The de facto government, including the National Congress and Supreme Court maintain Zelaya was replaced constitutionally. This view is echoed by a Senior Foreign Law Specialist at the Law Library of Congress, in a report[93] made public on the afternoon of Sept 24, 2009, which argues for instance that "the National Congress [implicitly] made use of its constitutional prerogative to interpret the Constitution and interpreted the word “disapprove” [in article 205, section 20 of the constitution] to include also the removal from office." Such arguments for legality have been rejected by numerous Honduran scholars of Constitutional Law,[94][95][96] who point out that the Supreme Court, in 2003, denied congress's power to interpret the constitution. Both the de facto government and its critics, however, agree that forcibly removing Zelaya was illegal.[16]

I think its important to point out the use of improper references and allegations in this part of the article. The De Facto Government only says the removal of Zalaya from the country was illegal and only a few people in the current government says that. The De facto government does not say removing Zalaya from office was illegal. The reference number 16 though in spanish does not say that.

94 and 95 are opinion pieces from the same newspaper/website. NPOV requires that more of the explanation of constitutional legitimacy from the CRS report are included in this section. Also as a further reference their is a link to a totally non-authoritative site in reference 96. You can keep it but I want the interpretation from this website and its conclusion included as well: http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras Da'oud Nkrumah 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

I disagree, the document you call CRS and I call Law Library of Congress is an opinion, just like the pieces you choose to call invalid. Those you dismiss are by lawyers in Honduras, all of them Constitutional Law professors (and one a Congressman), and I will argue that all of them are valid to discuss in this setting. By bringing in one, you allow the others.

Actually, Micheletti said as recently as yesterday that removing Zelaya from the country was both illegal and a mistake and blamed the military in an interview published in a Brazillian paper and widely quoted in the Spanish language press.

I think rather than trying to summarize arguments here, its better to, via references, point outward to let people read the arguments as proposed by these opinion pieces. I would cite the following:

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/giving-constitutional-research-bad-name.html http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-congressional-research-service.html http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/grade-d-flawed-research-from-law.html http://www.voselsoberano.com/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=856:golpe-de-estado-en-honduras-un-analisis-juridico-por-edmundo-orellana&catid=1:noticias-generales

Rsheptak (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you are saying but I think within the material that is there now there is an attempt to quote part of the so called CRS report and then argue against it with out really giving even a summary of the argument of legality. There has also been several sites like the one I mention above who have pointed out their opinions that the military is constitutionally required to act if a president tries extending his term. I really am only dismissing the reference number 96 because the site doesn't even have a page rank of 1 and that tells me few if anybody cares what that site has to say. I don't argue that the exile was legal, I and the Honduran regime say the arrest and end of his presidency are legal. Anyway, there are several anti removal so can we even that up by adding a few pro-removal (I think forbes has a good piece and maybe the site above) and remove the argument portion ("the National Congress [implicitly] made use of its constitutional prerogative to interpret the Constitution and interpreted the word “disapprove” [in article 205, section 20 of the constitution] to include also the removal from office.") and just summarize positions? Da'oud Nkrumah 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I edit this section slightly? I also need some help on the Constitutional Assembly plans section: I read that Zalaya initially wanted to hold his referendum to extend the term limits of the presidency. After some trouble with the rest of the honduran government he dropped that and just said he wanted to vote for the ballot box thing on the november ballot. Is there any reliable information for this assertion?

Never mind what I just said. Thanks for the edit of the legality section. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

There is no reliable support for the notion that Zelaya changed his referendum plans. The first decree calls for the cuarta urna question, and he never once stated that he wanted to prolong his term in office. Rsheptak (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So there is some evidence you all just don't like it. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Nope, there's no evidence. Rsheptak (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

False, POV references

At least one of the references is false and also misspelt - 'cencorship' - while seeming to support an anti-Zelaya case. Attempts to edit the Reference list are thwarted. => Wikipedia in the hands of golpistas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed yesterdayCathar11 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America

The VOA article reference keeps getting tagged with a verify credibility tag. What is the issue? The VOA, or the specific contents of that article? Please elaborate. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America isn't a reliable source. The existence of other unreliable sources in your article does not make VOA a reliable one. Your suggestion that I tagged the source as a possibly unreliable one -- because of "the specific contents of that article" -- is uncivil. Please stop being uncivil and removing the tag sans resolution of the issue. Thank you. -- Rico 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America is certainly reliable and its reputation over 67 years has been built on honest reporting. Please state some evidence other than your personal opinion that VOA is not reliable. They are a lot more reliable than the Catholic News that's quoted throughout the article. Da'oud Nkrumah 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Neither Voice of America, nor Catholic News, is a reliable source -- and neither should be used anywhere in the article as a reliable source for statements of fact. Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. The number of years Voice of America has existed does not make it a reliable source. "Please state some evidence other than your personal opinion that VOA is [...] reliable." -- Rico 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The VOA is as reliable a source as any of the others we are using in the article, and that's not just my opinion, but lets see what others post here. We use all sources at our own peril. As for the suggestion that you might be objecting to something in the content not being reliable, that's not being uncivil. I've seen NYT articles that had "facts" that I know were false based on first hand conversations with the same informants. I would ask you to air your problem with the VOA before tagging the article. I seem to recall you had a problem with La Prensa being cited previously.... Rsheptak (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The VOA is a WP:RS reliable source, which is not to say that it's point of view is completely unbiased. The same can be said of La Prensa, Telesur, etc. I think we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither VOA, La Prensa, nor Telesur are reliable sources. Your opinion that, "we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters," is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, not include content from unreliable sources "and letting [readers] decide the truth."
Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. -- Rico 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is La Prensa an unreliable source in your opinion? It is a local Honduran newspaper with a very good reputation for reporting honest and accurate news. It is printed in San Pedro Sula. If you can please provide some proof that it is unreliable. La Prensa is no different than Atlanta Journal Constitution is to Atlanta, Georgia.----Summermoondancer October 9, 2009

I don't know of any reliable Honduran media sources right now, due to the media war. See also:

• In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post.
• Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure, Washington Post.
• Honduran army smothers media after coup, Reuters.
• Honduras new government is censoring journalists, The Miami Herald.
• Journalists briefly detained by troops in Honduras, Associated Press

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles".

Most, if not all, of the news media here are unabashedly partisan, Honduran journalists say, with newspapers and broadcast outlets allied with political parties and local power brokers.

In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis: Critics Cite Slanted Local Coverage, Limits on Pro-Zelaya Outlets, Washington Post

-- Rico 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia explicitly recognizes the NYT as a reliable source, a result of consensus. Your irrelevant and unverifiable contentions of your personal experiences don't change that. I have aired my concerns. Your summary removal of the tag was one of your WP:OWN violations. Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. I don't know what the "specific contents of [those articles]" are, and using the RS tag for that purpose would be a misuse of the tag. Voice of America's the USA's propagangizer -- and using it as an source for anything more than for what the opinions of Voice of America are, is an affront to Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Many of us have known about Voice of America since before the average Wikipedian was born. -- Rico 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok That is a ridiculous opinion and Telsur is an actor in events and doesn't qualify as a reference. Well lets remove all references VOA. I am just sick of hearing your non-sense. But we remove VOA all info wheter republished or not that begins in Telsur and La Prensa have to go. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TeleSUR is an actor in events? Really? Prove it. Rsheptak (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Telesur is an actor in the events as they have accompanied Zelya all over the globe including being holed up in the Braziian embassy and they are a propaganda tool of Chavez who is clearly an actor with an ax to grind in the entire situation so yes, they are biased. ----summermoondancer Oct 24,2009

I have opened a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about VOA as a source to attract a wider audience. Rsheptak (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Telesur

Under the Wikipedia wp:verifiability policy: Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[7] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Information from Telesur/Telsur whatever its name, the state run media center of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p07s02-woam.html is being used to provide apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources. to wit Telsur claims to have a letter written 2 days before the removal of Zelaya by Micheletti in which he says essential lets get together Mr. Army chief and overthrow the country. This is not in the Times, not on MSNBC, Not in the BBC, not even in Al Jezeera or CNN.

Furthermore, as the Chávez regime is the regime that sent the ballots to Zelaya it is a participant in events and therefore not a third party source. All referenced information from Telsur should be stricken from the article. Further, many of the alternative sources for this information are simply republishing the Telesur nonsense and there is not a great abundance of them doing that. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only three things I can argue here, so they may appear as strawmen. Worth considering though: 1. Telesur is at the front of this, so they do get primary documents, and 2. The traditional Western press has been amazingly poor at reporting this story as a whole. Lastly, Telesur is being explicitly attributed for its claims.

On the other hand, I don't know its record. Just saying, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for cleaning up the section anyway. I got cut off then I looked and it was all messed up. Then I got axed again. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest you actually read the article on TeleSUR. It's a public company sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela, among others. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(I wrote this in the above section on VOA but it's relevant here too) The VOA is a WP:RS reliable source, which is not to say that it's point of view is completely unbiased. The same can be said of La Prensa, Telesur, etc. I think we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither VOA, La Prensa, nor Telesur are reliable sources. Your opinion that, "we do our readers the best service by including and identifying material from all these sources and letting them decide the truth of matters," is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources, not include content from unreliable sources "and letting [readers] decide the truth."
Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns. -- Rico 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The traditional Western press has been amazingly poor at reporting this story as a whole."

It's nothing new that media coverage of something can be shallow, stupid in an effort to be balanced, and wanting when it comes to identifying the real issues (first Latin American coup in a long time, Zelaya trying to make himself permanent, the USA pretending to do something, when it could have done so much more -- and appointing a committee to determine whether it was a coup, a classic Washington tactic to avoid doing something).

My question is, do you think it would be better to include information from weekly magazines like Time or The Economist.

I've seen Time get pretty biased, but The Economist seems like a reliable source.

Are there any Latin American studies/ Honduran history textbooks out yet, published by university presses? It's been long enough. -- Rico 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Two points. TeleSUR isn't an arm of Hugo Chavez; you've confused it with the Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias. TelesSUR doesn't invent news; they are a WP:RS, but they do have their point of view, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NEWS SOURCE we cite in the article. As Abby Kelleyite says, our discerning readers will be able to form their own opinions about matters. Telesur should not be stripped from the article. That letter was widely distributed as you would see if you googled it. I received a copy of it on the 16th myself in my email. Rsheptak (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p07s02-woam.html States clearly that the network was founded by Chavez. If the letter is so widely circulated you should have no trouble finding a source that doesn't get its information from Telesur. This is not a reference as stated above and if it is not removed I will initiate a dispute. That means an independent source that through its own research verifies this letter. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not confused but perhaps the Cristian Science Monitor oversimplified things. TeleSUR was created by the Venezuelan Council of Ministers in 2005 (so yes, indirectly by Hugo Chavez) and its news agenda is set by its board of advisors, primarily leftist intellectuals from many countries. Its hardly controlled by Hugo Chavez; it is "controlled" by its board of advisors. Either TeleSUR is a WP:RS or its not. I think it is. You think it isn't. I've opened a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a wide range of opinions Rsheptak (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no one other than Micheletti can verify the letter so your insistence that someone else verify it is misplaced. The article makes reference to documents stored in all sorts of repositories such as ScribeD and Libertad Digital, that are not authenticated, and some of them are just translations of documents, not even the originals, so you're not being at all consistant. Rsheptak (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources -- Rico 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the cited quotation complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources; the original spanish text is in a footnote, per the policy. Rsheptak (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be neutral to be reliable as very few newspaper sources are neutral. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources have to be reliable, by definition. -- Rico 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You refer to only part of the policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources begins, "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." -- Rico 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe, "All referenced information from Telsur should be stricken from the article." I believe all (the many) TeleSUR citations should be tagged {{Verify credibility}} while this discussion is going on here and on the WP:RSN. Then, after it is determined that TeleSUR is not a reliable source, the citations should be replaced with dated {{Needs citation}} tags, so that reliable sources can be found (if they exist) to substantiate the statements of fact that rely on TeleSUR.
The original citations can be commented out with commentation code, like this: <!-- [original TeleSUR citation] -->. That will help editors that wish to find reliable sources that substantiate the statements of fact.
After a month or two, if no reliable sources have replaced the TeleSUR citations, then delete the essentually unsourced, not-necessarily-facts from the article.
Given the amount of rogue editing and incivil discussion going on with this article, be prepared to restore summarily deleted dispute tags. I will back up either side on this. I'm neither pro-coup, nor pro-Zelaya. -- Rico 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you say calling it a Coup D'Etat is neutral?

Calling it a Coup D'Etat is exactly the debate here. A Coup D'Etat is the "unconstitutional" removal. So calling it the 2009 Honduran Coup D'Etat would not be neutral at all as the constitution is the basis for debate here. I think everyone is aware of what Article 239 says, and the real debate comes in the interpretation of this part of the constitution. 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis is the best description as it all started with an attempt to change the constitution, and now the argument surrounds the interpretation of article 239. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.242.7 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A wise IP address.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: "Calling it a Coup D'Etat is exactly the debate here ... the real debate comes in the interpretation of this part of the constitution."

129.110.242.7, Wikipedians are not allowed to base article content, article names -- or much of anything else -- on talk page debate on interpretations of anything!

Such editor opinions and debates, no matter how good, are considered "original research" -- and are irrelevant within the confined context of the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

The debate you propose would be a waste of time, and would serve only to muddy the waters.

The only legitimate debate would be which Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply, and what they dictate we do.

Wikipedia has an English Wikipedia policy specifically on how to name articles, and it is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Rico 15:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate policy for calling this act a coup d'etat is WP:SPADE. It was a coup we should name it thus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the article is also so much about the constitution. I think splitting the article into two would help this problem, but I also think a lot of us have approached this article from a rather entrenched mentality, and will confuse a split with a POV fork. We're kind of stuck on technicalities with one article, since this is as much about the coup as the constitution. Maybe we should call it the coupstitutional crisis :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, since in reality it wasn't a coup, we should respect WP:SPADE and rename it as such, right? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"In reality it wasn't a coup," because Ed Wood's Wig says so?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press."

The New York Times published, the day before yesterday, "supporters of the coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya three months ago have for the first time suggested his return as president" and that "There are other signs that the coalition of politicians, businessmen and the military that supported the coup is feeling pressure from the international community."[2]

The Times in Britain published, September 23rd, that "Roberto Micheletti, president of the interim government that took power after a coup on June 28, said that Mr Zelaya must first accept elections to choose a new president on November 29" and "Mr Zelaya made his surprise return to Honduras on Monday, three months after being ousted in a military-backed coup" and that "Mr Lula said that he had spoken to Mr Zelaya by telephone on Monday and urged him not to give the coup plotters any pretext to resort to violence."[3]

The Associated Press published, yesterday, "UN rights council condemns abuses in Honduras coup".

The Washington Post published, today, "The [Obama] administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup'."[4] -- Rico 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifically because the reliable sources that are speaking from authority, as opposed to the partisan governments and uninformed media, are noting correctly that it is not a coup. We even have the US legal group that noted that the situation was entirely legal. So no, it's not because I say so, it's because the reliable sources that are authoritative on the subject of law in Honduras say so. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your "reliable sources" -- the ones that state that, "in reality it wasn't a coup." Otherwise, we only have your word that these sources exist, and state what you say they do, and we cannot take them into consideration.

The high-quality end, mainstream news organizations I quoted are explicitly recognized by Wikipedia as reliable sources.

"The US legal group" sounds like an actor in these events, not a reliable source. -- Rico 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They're all linked above and in the archives. The US legal group as well, who is not an actor in the situation. Keep in mind - I can find reliable sources that say that Barack Obama is both a non-native born Muslim and that he's a reptilian from another planet. That the source exists does not mean that the source is correct. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What planet do you exist on? Every Government in the world is wrong according to you. Your argument isn't based on reality.Cathar11 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My argument is based solely in reality. 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that, "[you] can find reliable sources that say that Barack Obama is both a non-native born Muslim and that he's a reptilian from another planet," suggests that you don't understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I am discussing "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia.

The difference is important because Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy states:

The policy goes on to state:

In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy

I don't know what "the US legal group" is and, despite my request for a citation, you have not provided one.

The burden of providing citations to reliable sources is on you, not me. So far, all that you have established is that Ed Wood's Wig claims there are reliable sources out there that substantiate Ed Wood's Wig's claim that, "in reality it wasn't a coup."

I've already done all I had to do, and I'm not here for a discussion that wastes bandwidth. -- Rico 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link from above [5]. If you'd have spent 10 seconds looking backward at the discussions, you'd find this and many other links that disprove this claim of a coup entirely. I am also discussing WP:RS, and that you don't understand that reliable sources can provide unreliable information tells me that, perhaps, you don't really understand the concepts there and at WP:V. We are not tied down to relying on the New York Times if they are clearly incorrect, as example. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Directorate of Legal Research concluded, in the last paragraph, that the "removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution."[6]

This hardly substantiates your claim that, "the US legal group [...] noted that the situation was entirely legal."[7]

The Directorate of Legal Research is an actor in these events (just as the Honduras Supreme Court is), and neither is a neutral, third-party, reliable source. -- Rico 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum; we are not here to prove anything to anyone. Please take opinions elsewhere. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Our debate needs to focus on our NPOV policy and not on the Honduran constitution. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A debate concerning how to name an article would clearly be incomplete without consideration of Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy's first sentence is, "This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles."

That, Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy is pertinent in a major way -- in a debate about "how to name an article" -- is a truism. It's true, by definition.

Jimbo is quoted in our NPOV policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources..." -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

If a viewpoint does not even belong in Wikipedia, then it can't control how we name an article.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy does that. -- Rico 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions guidelines

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy begins:

This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles. It is supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy

I was wondering. Has anyone looked into this second sentence? Some have led me, and perhaps others, to believe that there is an apparent conflict, or contradiction, between Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and Wikipedia:NPOV.
A resolution may be in these guidelines. -- Rico 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it not being a coup is a significant POV with many reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view

Oh my gosh! Here it is:

Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. Rules to select a name should be applied in the following sequence:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime".

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view

Resolving conflicting points of view
Regardless of which rule applies, there may still be different points of view on how to characterize the event, and some of these points of view may be contrary to the title. These points of view should be discussed in the article. However, the title may contain a word of questionable neutrality, such as "massacre" or "terrorism," if this word is part of the common name.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Resolving_conflicting_points_of_view

Even if "coup" implies a point of view, and even if "coup" is a strong word, and even if "coup" is a word of questionable neutrality, it should still be used! -- Rico 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, used to show why the belief is in error, not in a subject heading providing misleading information. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What. How can you quote NPOV correctly, Rico, and then argue the exact opposite. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion is that this was a Coup de tat. Clearly it was not and the Library of Congress among others says so:

Forgive me if I edit in a mess its unintentional: From Wikipedia the definition of a coup A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically 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.

Now under such a definition you can not call the events in Honduras a Coup. References supporting the lack of a coup are as follows: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html, describing a court order to detain Zalaya http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html, Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs, Honduran Supreme Court on lawful Constitutional Succession http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8217393.stm>, The State department saying the situation in Honduras doesn't meet the legal definition of a coup http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8236996.stm, Congressional Research Service http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf, These are opinion pieces supporting the non-coup view point http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/honduras-zelaya-insulza-opinions-contributors-william-ratliff.html?partner=whiteglove_google http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html and though probably not noteworthy enough this blog article does a good job in pointing out the articles of the Honduran Constitution allowing the court and military to act http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras

Get the propaganda off of Wikipedia. Just because you wish it to be a coup doesn't make it a fact. The fact that there are legal reason, whether subject to debate or not, existing by legitimate bodies of the Honduran government is sufficient to disprove the "unconstitutional deposition" required for this change of government to qualify as a coup under Wikipedia's own definition of coup. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, blogs and the declarations of actors in these events are not reliable sources for statements of fact:

Da'oud Nkrumah	Rico
The opinion is that this was a Coup de tat.	The verifiable fact is that reliable sources refer to the event as a "coup".
Clearly it was not and the Library of Congress among others says so	The Library of Congress, among others, are actors in these events. also, that is not an official LoC publication, simply a publication by an employee within the LoC database. (The distinction is meaningful) Homunq (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Well, the report indicated that it was issued by the Directorate of Legal Research at the Law Library of Congress and only at the end of the report does it indicate who prepared it. Furthermore, this report was commissioned by Congressman Aaron Schock (R., Ill.)So it is not just merely a publication by an employee, but an officially commissioned document.Moogwrench (talk) 13 October 2009
From Wikipedia the definition of a coup A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/, us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is [...] Now under such a definition you can not call the events in Honduras a Coup.	Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
References supporting the lack of a coup are as follows: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html, describing a court order to detain Zalaya http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html, Honduran Supreme Court on unanimous issurance of Arrest Warrant for Zalaya by 15 Supreme Court Justices http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs, Honduran Supreme Court on lawful Constitutional Succession http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8217393.stm>, The State department saying the situation in Honduras doesn't meet the legal definition of a coup http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8236996.stm, Congressional Research Service http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf	The "court order to detain Zalaya" did not order his expulsion from the country, nor does it establish that the reliable sources that regularly refer to the coup as a "coup", aren't. The Honduran Supreme Court, the State department, and the Congressional Research Service are actors in this event, not reliable sources.
These are opinion pieces supporting the non-coup view point http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/honduras-zelaya-insulza-opinions-contributors-william-ratliff.html?partner=whiteglove_google http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html	Per Wikipedia:RS, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact" (emphasis in original)
though probably not noteworthy enough this blog article does a good job in pointing out the articles of the Honduran Constitution allowing the court and military to act http://zerosheep.com/2009/07/01/no-coup-in-honduras	This blog is not a reliable source.
Get the propaganda off of Wikipedia.	I couldn't agree more.
Just because you wish it to be a coup doesn't make it a fact.	An editor's wishes are irrelevant. The reliable sources call it a "coup", knowing that the coup-installed, de facto government, its cronies, and its political trumpets deny it was a coup (for obvious reasons).
The fact that there are legal reason, whether subject to debate or not, existing by legitimate bodies of the Honduran government is sufficient to disprove the "unconstitutional deposition" required for this change of government to qualify as a coup under Wikipedia's own definition of coup.	"legitimate bodies of the Honduran government" are actors in this event, not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

-- Rico 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources also state it is not a coup.
• They can only be cronies if you have already made up your mind that they are guilty
• The Library of Congess is not an actor in the event thus they are a reliable source, Please what did they do load the weapons?
• The sources show there is a legal process within legitimate governmental bodies to remove Zalaya from office.
• The Exile is a separate issue.
• Opinion pieces are quoted throughout the article to justify pro-zalaya material

Da'oud Nkrumah 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anything even happening in Honduras?

so much activity in this article.. warring between factions of Most Interested Persons? Anti-Zelaya side going to try to put it in the article fifty times that some unreliable source bolstered a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority (an NPOV violation)? The only thing I see in reliable sources is that Talks yield signs of hope and that Diplomats urge return of ousted Honduran president. Oooo, wow, not. -- Rico 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, plenty going on, just not talked about in the narrow universe of english-language news reporting. The english language press isn't interested, so there's next to no coverage. El Universal, La Jornada in Mexico? El Pais, or Milenio in Spain? Clarin in Argentina? La Nacion in Costa Rica, El Tiempo in Honduras? All of them will have more news on what is going on than any english language source.

To take your post serious, talks have just adjourned, resuming tuesday. There are some signs of agreement but they're not dealing with the hard stuff yet. Today's reports suggest there's some sort of agreement on a power sharing government, and an agreement not to implement amnesty. Tuesday they take up restitution. Rsheptak (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "they're not dealing with the hard stuff yet."

Let me guess. "The hard stuff" would be whether Zelaya is reinstated as president. Zelaya says that has to happen and the interim government says, "de manera ninguna."

There've been talks for how long now?

Let me guess. Zelaya'll be returned to power 15 days before the elections. (The US said two weeks wasn't enough.) The opposition media will be allowed to resume operations, "real soon now."

Any feedback on the reliability of the Spanish-language media? Anything in their reporting besides that there's nothing substantially new to report -- besides that "talks yield signs of stalling and delay hope," again, and that "diplomats urge the return of the ousted Honduran president," like usual? -- Rico 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was barely touched for ages till that fateful day when Zelaya returned, and interest has renewed in this country's fate. Nice piece in El Pais last week included an interview with Pepe and implied that PNHs own polls suggest far from 90% supporting Micheletti that the majority support neither President; neither viewpoint held in Honduras favouring one President or another is an extreme minority viewpoint and to suggest that presenting both POVs is a POV violation is extremely unhelpful and should be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That, "the majority support neither President" isn't any more new than your incivility.

"Micheletti? Zelaya? Who cares? As long as I can run my IT business."

In how many countries does the majority support the president? -- Rico 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"an agreement not to implement amnesty"? For real?? So when Zelaya is reinstated as partial president -- (with restrictions on making himself permanent?) -- he'll be able to go after the soldiers that exiled him? The interim gov't will be able to go after Zelaya for treason, or for abuse of office? -- Rico 02:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what the AFP reports tonight. I would like to see the courts try Zelaya on the charge of "publically holding up a baby with H1N1" which is one of the eighteen charges Luis Rubi, the public prosecutor filed. Rsheptak (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have it wrong. AP reported, 3 days ago, that "No breakthroughs were announced. [...] Insulza presented a proposal that would [...] offer amnesty to both the coup leaders and the deposed president"
Hmm, maybe there's something to be said for my "narrow universe of english-language news reporting" -- that's comprised of sources that are explicitly recognized by the English Wikipedia as reliable. -- Rico 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you can do is make claims of incivility where they don't exist and then start to attack your fellow volunteers I suggest you go elsewhere or find a new hobby; I mean really what do you expect me to do, abandon my own job and make others unemployed because Honduras has a crisis. We are actually here to write an article; if you can't engage with that please don't contribute. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How ironic that you write, "all [I] can do is make claims of incivility where they don't exist," while simultaneously writing, "I suggest you go elsewhere" and "don't contribute."
I'm glad to see you confess your COI, finally: that you run a business in Honduras (which currently works exclusively for a business in Europe). You employ people, and don't want to make them unemployed. I don't expect you to abandon your own job, just that you be civil.
What would happen to your business if the USA formally classified the coup as a military coup, and had to cut off millions of dollars in monies it sends to Honduras?
"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." -- WP:COI -- Rico 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

lede scrubbed of illegality admissions

We now have two sources in which high-ranking sources inside the coup - Micheletti and Bayardo - admit an illegality in exiling Zelaya. This is clearly relevant to the paragraph in the lede which discusses the coup government's position on the legality of the coup as a whole. (currently footnotes 97 (search "bayardo") and 116 (search "Clarin)) 187.143.6.130 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

POV article name

"Constitutional crisis" doesn't seem neutral to me. Also, it's ambiguous). The focus on the "Constitution" seems to imply one or two things:

1. That the "crisis" was about Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum the Supreme Court opined was unconstitutional.
   
2. That the "crisis" was about the lack of a clear cut constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, therefore implying that the coup was justified.

Either way, it seems to divert attention from the coup, to justification for it. That's inherently POV. It takes sides.
What was notable was the coup. -- Rico 22:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think this article is misnamed. It should be named 2009 Honduran Coup. Civilian Coup, Military coup, Civil-Military coup, it doesn´t matter, it was a coup, not a "constitutional crisis". Fcassia (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, a reference: (BBC) "Obama says Honduras Coup Illegal". Obama says Honduras coup illegal Fcassia (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Like there hasn't been enough consensus seeking. There is a compromise, and we're all sick and tired of this being brought up again by now. --LjL (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It also may imply that the "crisis" was about:

1. Zelaya's alleged desire to change the Constitution, so that he could run for a second term.
2. That Zelaya's alleged attempt to change the Constitution was unconstitutional.

All of these are pro-coup.
The ambiguous name deflects attention from what made this notable -- the coup -- to justifying it.
I'm not the only editor that has expressed this.[8] -- Rico 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You certainly aren't, but then a number of other editors have, instead, expressed the idea that "coup" is POV and inappropriate, this has (as you very well known) been discussed at great lengths, and the current consensus was reached (with the intervention of a couple of administrators since we didn't really seem to be able to be civil ourselves).

So unless you have some novel proposal...? --LjL (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been consensus that "constitutional crisis" is not POV. -- Rico 00:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'm pretty darn sure there is consensus that the current compromise is the best we could achieve for now. There are uh, like three or four archived calls for discussion to show that. Do you have anything new? If so, I'm all ears. --LjL (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally Agree with Rico. Calling it a Constitutional crisis is wrong for the reasons that he has already stated and which i'm not going to talk about any longer. I'm tired of this, and please dont leave me messages on my talk page insisting on my participation on this topic, i no longer want to deal with thisEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. "Crisis" is a compromise largely because a highly vocal but actually fairly small group of editors insisted that "coup" is insupportedly POV, and the rest disagreed with varying degrees of intensity but didn't want to spend eternity arguing the point. I still think a split into Coup (28 June+) and Something Else (political conflict background, including Constitutional Assembly plan) would be better, but I don't have the will, time or energy to argue it any further. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ability of some to rewrite history -- which happens to be archived -- regarding previous discussion -- ad nauseum -- and state, unabashedly, that the title is the result of a small, vocal minority asserting undue influence, is laughable, if not completely disingenuous. I, for one, am glad to see that after all this time, the overall integrity of the article has improved, despite a great deal of bullying bluster and repeated nonsense. VaChiliman (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and found it to lack a NPOV. Use of the phrase "business elite" and "working class" especially in the same sentence (or heading) evidences a clear point of view. Who is a better arbiter of the meaning of the constitution of Honduras? Supreme Court of Honduras, Congress, the country's attorney general, and the supreme electoral tribunal or random editors of this article??? The Honduran Constitution forbids reforms to the articles in the Constitution that refer to reelection of the president. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads: "No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Whatever the motives of the various parties, it would seem more appropriate here to state the facts, then state to position or claims of the opposite sides equally. This article seems to take the side of the supporters of Manuel Zelaya and his supporters.Natwebb (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I Object to the general thrust of the article. The title is wrong if you consider that the Congressional Research Office has found that Zalaya was removed from office legally http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf. But I also feel the article is following leftist biases. It is noteworthy that an indiginous military in Central America protected a democratic government with such action but that action was not an illegal military coup and the article should state that. Facts not propaganda please.Da'oud Nkrumah 03:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

First, its not a Congressional Research Office report even though Congressman Shock called it that; its a report from a Senior Foreign Law Specialist of the Law Library of Congress. Its been disowned by the CRS. Its a poor piece of scholarship and has been ripped apart by legal scholars in Honduras and the US. Second, your supposed "facts" are opinions, not facts. I support your right to express your view that the article is left leaning and biased, but point them out in a talk page item and we'll either agree with you and address them or point out where you are wrong. Like in Honduras, discussion is good, ranting is bad. So, if there are things you dislike about the tone of the article, please start a discussion about them. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost think that there should be a separate section to address this LLoC report, since it does comprise a significant part of the US reaction to the Honduran crisis, accurate and correct or not, as the case may be. According to a WashPo article , CRS referred it to LLoC, so it was not exactly "disowned by the CRS," Rsheptak. Now I am no legal scholar, but some agree with its reasoning, and some obviously do not. Remember that opinion pieces, per Wikipedia policy, can only be used to source the author's opinion, and not facts. And until we see the State Department's Harold Koh's legal reasoning, it is the only official legal analysis emitted by the US government (Directorate of Legal Research, Law Library of Congress) regarding the constitutionality of Zelaya's ouster and subsequent deportation. Moogwrench (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing with the CRS, not me. They're the one's who wrote my wife an email disowning the LLoC Study as "having nothing to do with them" when contacted. You can call that what you want; I call it disowning it. The head of LLOC promised to put up an FAQ about the piece right after the flap; its still not up. Rsheptak (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually when we mean disowning something we tend to mean rejecting something that was once ours (disowning a son, for example), instead of avoiding responsibility for something that never was. CRS never really handled it, so I am not surprised that they said it had "nothing to do with them." They did not, however, reject the LLoC findings, flawed as they may be, which is what it sounded like you were implying by following the "disowning" comment with your criticism of its reasoning. Per WaPo, it was referred to LLoC, so obviously it would be to them you would have to direct any further substantive inquiries. Moogwrench (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is more notable in Honduras: changing the constitution or the military removing a president?

Maybe this way of looking at things might help (though i haven't yet checked the archival discussions, sorry if i'm repeating here).

The Constitution of Honduras was modified at least 22 times after being initially established in 1982. So the concept of modifying the constitution is not something out of the ordinary in Honduran history of the last two and a half decades. So i assume that Hondurans have been arguing heatedly about what changes to make or not make to their constitution nearly every year over this very long period, but this is the first time in the post-1979 era that the military removed a president. Which is more notable in the 1979-2009 history of Honduras? Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

i browsed through the archived discussions. This point seems to me to be new.

• the previous coup d'etat in Honduras was in 1978 by Policarpo Paz García
• the 1982 Constitution was amended at least 22 times, most recently in 2005

Which of the two aspects of the June coup d'etat is more notable in this context? Boud (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this a good point that you are making about relevancy. What some people may point out is that the Honduran consitution is not unlike other constitutions, in which it may be modified in almost all its parts. Actually it's easier to modify the Honduran constitution than the US one, which I believe is part of your point. The main difference which makes the Honduran constitution special, is that within it, it defines some articles as unchangeable. Not only that, it specifies that it is a crime to even suggest to modify them. These articles, are related to the borders, being a democratic republic and the presidential sucesion. Wether having a law that prohibits modifying itself and other laws makes sense is another thing (I personally believe is nonsense), but that's what Honduras has today. In that context none of those specific articles has ever been modified, just as long almost as Honduras had without a Coup until the recent one (my personal view). I believe there was an attempt by President Suazo in 1985 but it was unsucesful. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is abnormal for a constitution to say an official is immediately (which means even a trial not needed) removed even if he try to change the constitution article. However, that means the constitutional order is heavily relying on the clause of presidential office term limit, Honduras democracy cannot live without it, and mostly everything can be done to maintain this constitutional order. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The constitutional scholars in Honduras agree that there still has to be due process in the case of a violation of article 239. The de facto government has been interpreting the constitution largely without reference to case law precedents. Their interpretations of the constitution are quite novel and creative, but not particularly well formed legal arguments. Rsheptak (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide reference for any of these scholars? I haven´t heard that and I live here. None of the Supreme Court who are obviously scholars have said any such thing.--Summermoondancer October 9, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summermoondancer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What do international political authorities - say?

Whether this is mainly a coup d'etat or mainly a constitutional crisis is to some degree a question of sociopolitical judgment. The present "International reactions" summary line starts: "All Latin American nations (with the exception of Honduras), as well as the United States, Spain, France, and others, have publicly condemned the forced removal of Zelaya as undemocratic and most have labeled it as a coup d'état." (my emphasis). Unless this summary is factually wrong, then WP:RS would seem to say that the correct title should be "coup d'etat", not "constitutional crisis", it seems to me. Please remember that en.wikipedia is for knowledge about the World - it is not intended to be USA.wikipedia.org - so POVs from media or politicians in one particular country (e.g. USA) should not count as being more "reliable" than those of media or politicians in other countries.

Is the word "most" in the above summary correct or wrong? Boud (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is already present in the 2-11 July (Archive 4) move proposal. Boud (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And the result of that lengthy discussion "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."--75.36.183.75 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it was more like a compromise with people actively wanting it under "crisis", and it was understood that things may change once time passed and/or an international court officially labelled it as a coup. --LjL (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An international court that did not even bother to check Honduran constitutional law. It's disgusting that the rest of the world is calling this legitimate process a coup when everything was handled by what is stated within Honduran constitutional law. Because of international ignorance, numerous country leaders have made fools of their selves and played right into Chaves's hand. Some "international court" does not make the laws and decisions for what is right and wrong in Honduras; the Honduran government does that. To bit this in retrospect, it'd be just as silly as other countries around the world denouncing and not recognizing the United States government if we did something within constitutional law that the rest of the world did not agree with. Think about that one for a second; people that aren't US citizens are telling us how it should be and if we don't revert the situation then they won't recognize us as a country. If that doesn't sound completely ignorant to you, then I can understand why you're then pushing for a "coup" title in the article. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This place is not a forum. Please focus on verifiable, reliably sourced article content, and not on your original political views. I will remove further comments in the same tone from this talk page. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A Neutral Title

In light of the controversy of neutrally naming this article, I propose using an ambiguous title. Ambiguous because the title will only indicate a crisis, not one of constitutional or coup d'etat type. For example, the Honduras WP article calls what's happening in Honduras a political crisis. Ambiguous in that no mention of the coup or constitution is made but accurate because Honduras is in a political crisis. Would this not satisfy both parties, coup proponents and dissidents? Is this not neutral?

This will allow any denial of the coup to take place in the article not in its name. Superdan006 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehm... this has been discussed to death, please check this talk page's archives. "Political crisis" was used at one point; I doubt it'll satisfy anyone any more than "constitutional crisis" does, as the debate was about "crisis" vs "coup", with the adjective put before "crisis" being disregarded by most.

Also, the current title is exactly an attempt to be "ambiguous" in the sense that a "constitutional crisis" may have a coup d'état as part of it - and in fact, there is a "Coup d'état" section in the article (that was also part of the compromise).

I !voted for "constitutional crisis" at the time, but right now, if anything, I'd change back to "coup" unless international sources have changed their minds. --LjL (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Political crisis" works for me, but "constitutional crisis" doesn't make sense. Other related wikipedia articles refer to it variously as a "political crisis" and as a "coup," but "constitutional crisis" goes against common usage. A constitutional crisis usually involved conflict between branches of government, which we don't see here, to any degree. Also please refrain from making the "discussed to death" argument. Many people have only recently happened upon this page, and their views weren't counted in those past discussions. It's fine for it to be brought up again.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its definitely a constitutional crisis. All of the questions around this, whether it was a coup or not, whether it was a consitutional succession or not, whether the de facto government is legitimate or not, revolve around the consitutionality of actions of various branches of the government, so "Constitutional Crisis" describes it perfectly and precisely where "Political Crisis" waters it down and difuses the focus. Rsheptak (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Next time I will be more thorough before I post. Thanks for your help. Superdan006 (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Title "Constitutional Crisis" is appropriate and neutral. The language used even by those that have characterized the events of June 28th as a Coup have stated it is an interuption to Constitutional Democracy. That is the official language used by the OAS and various governments. The "restoration of constitutional order" is language used by the OAS and US etc. to describe the Arias meetings. The Honduran political establishment for the most part considers the succession constitutionally proper. Whether or not it was an interuption of constitutional norms, or a constitutional succession is at the heart of the ongoing dispute. By adding "crisis" it is implied there is a problem or dispute of a constitutional nature - which is exactly the case. Calling it a Coup takes one side. Calling it the "presidential succession of 2009" would imply bias legitimaizing the change over.DrivelEliminator (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is constitutional in nature, as well as political. But constitutional is a closer description, as all constitutional considerations necessarily include the political, as it is a political document. Int21h (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it seems rather clear that "coup" is debatable. The connotations of the word are inherently negative and at least imply illegality. Since at least the Law Library of Congress has said that the removal was entirely legal except for Zelaya's deportation I think it wise to avoid using a word like "coup" that at least implies that illegality is established. "Removal from office" is purely neutral; whether it was legal or not, whether it was right or not, the man was indisputably removed from office. Molon Labe (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in Wikipedia that "Molon Labe" thinks "it seems rather clear that 'coup' is debatable."

It doesn't matter in Wikipedia that "The connotations of the word are inherently negative and at least imply illegality." Read WP:NAME and the guidelines it incorporates by reference.

It doesn't matter that, "Since at least the Law Library of Congress has said that the removal was entirely legal except for Zelaya's deportation [you] think it wise to avoid using a word like 'coup' that at least implies that illegality is established." The Law Library of Congress isn't a reliable source, and didn't state the coup was "entirely legal" -- it stated that it wasn't. We use the word "coup" because RSs do. The US Congress isn't a reliable source and hasn't declared it not a coup.

We're not going to stop using the word "coup", just because of an extremely small minority viewpoint. -- Rico 01:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Abuses Rampant After Coup - Rights Groups

I don't know how to work this into the article, but it's really big. It can't be put in chronologically, because it's an ongoing thing. Here's another link.
I was afraid this might happen, having lived in a similar military coup-inspired situation in Latin America several decades ago, where people disappeared in the night for saying the wrong thing. The 'president' suspended the congress and I asked, "What good is having a congress, if the president can suspend it?" A concerned schoolmate told me to watch what I said. It was clear from the tone of her voice and body language, that she wasn't kidding. She told me that our history teacher was really brave to have said the things he'd said. Years later, the policia pointed guns at us just for standing at a bus stop.
This is what happens when the military and police get too strong and the government, that was installed by the military, looks the other way from the lawlessness -- and is actually part of the crackdown and repression. -- Rico 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The fork suggestion above - to keep this article, and to move the coup part to a coup article and the Micheletti government parts to a Micheletti government article would... ugh, I'm not going to even bother trying to present a clear idea... this would work great in the latter article. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The UN agrees - there was no coup.

Translated link here. Again - reliable sources about the actual legality of the situation agree there is no coup. Those who believe there was a coup are not relying on proper secondary material and rather on the words of politicians and the media who repeat what they have to say. This article must reflect this reality. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't read babelfish from work. However I don't think hondudiarioh.com counts as a WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not WP RS no actual document quoted just alleged sources from a digital media.Cathar11 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues locating the article on the webpage too. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduran president’s ouster is ‘coup d’état,’ UN Secretariat reaffirms.

14 October 2009 – A recent Honduran media report implying that the United Nations Department of Political Affairs (DPA) does not consider the ouster of President José Manuel Zelaya as a coup d’état is inaccurate, the world body said today...“The Secretary-General urges the parties in Honduras to avoid distractions at this critical moment in the negotiations and remain focused on arriving at a consensual agreement to end the crisis in Honduras through dialogue. He continues to strongly support [the Organization of American States] OAS-led efforts to assist the parties in reaching a solution,” it concluded. un website Cathar11 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that is that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The important part isn't quoted above. The statement goes on to state that the Honduran press reports are "highly misleading" because it represents the report submitted by a consultant as representing the Department of Political Affairs views. "The Department of Political Affairs routinely receives reports and analyses of this type from consultants, academics, and other experts, but its views are strictly in line with that outlined with the General Assembly Resolution" (63/301) of July 1. Rsheptak (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So, again, that's that. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing. Thanks for the update. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US International Reaction and the Republicans

I am a little confused about some undone revisions I have made. A description of US reaction under International Reaction to the Crisis should mention the fact that Republican interference is messing up Obama's attempt to present a unified US reaction. The Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about this. For example: "[Republican] actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction, but my edits have been undone several times, saying Repub reaction is irrelevant. Who is right, them or the WaPo??? Moogwrench (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US internal Politics is irrelevant to this section which contains headline reaction from global and regional bodies. If you want to elaborate your point do it on the main International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup page. Cathar11 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Republicans are actually making Honduran "fact-finding" trips, appearing publicly with the leaders of the coup in Honduras, and are being actively accused of being coup financiers by la resistencia, so I think it is hardly just "US internal Politics" as you say. Perhaps we should re-entitle the section "Reaction by foreign heads of state" instead of "International reaction" if everyone feels so strongly about excluding this information. Moogwrench (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole wide world outside the US. Wikipedia isn'r just american.Cathar11 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Moogwrench (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

edit warring: please stop.

I just full-protected the article for three days. Please reach consensus on what should be done regarding the edit war that was occurring today. Don't edit war again, even if you are "right". For those involved in the edit war, consider this your WP:3RR warning.

Okay, the harshness is over. I won't be watching this page, but myself or another admin will unprotect it sooner if consensus is reached and everyone promises to behave. Thanks! tedder (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to fight with anyone, but I don't see why Rico had to report me just because he felt that my sources were unreliable and didn't feel that I was justified in removing the tags...nevermind that LaPrensa and ElHeraldo had been used with nary a peep from him before in this same article. Hint: why don't you try justifying it in discussion before you keep reverting it, Rico!

Also, please don't defend the silly redundancy of the US calling it a coup d'etat in one two-sentence paragraph, and then in the next one-sentence paragraph repeating the same information. Who is edit warring, eh? Ok, I've said my piece, now I'd like him to defend those edits. Moogwrench (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There were three edit wars, in quick succession.

The first one, the longest, had already begun when I first got to the page Wednesday evening:

(1) This is the precise edit that started it all:[9] It was Moogwrench's first edit that day, and fourth edit ever of the article.[10] It added content to the article that had been deleted.

(2) Simonm223 reverted the edit.[11]

(3) Moogwrench put it back in[12], a WP:BRD violation.

(4) Simonm223 deleted it again.[13]

(5) Moogwrench put it back in.[14]

(6) 89.124.240.53 takes it out, and makes other changes.[15]

(7) Moogwrench reverts that edit, putting it back in, for the fourth time![16]

(8) I create Moogwrench's talk page with a 3RR warning.[17]

(9) I revert Moogwrench's revert.[18] -- Rico 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have explained that I am newer to Wikipedia, so please excuse any errors I made. However, I must say that every edit I did was an attempt to make a substantive edit, not just a simple revert. I either added a source or changed the wording in an attempt to be in line with consensus. If you look back at the edits you will see this; some of the edits in the chain, deal with the LLoC, others with sourcing, others with restoring the Repub reaction to Obama (which had been there for a long time prior to my edits). Also, you can see from discussion and history that I accepted Cathar's suggestion, even thought I disagreed with it, to place what was consensus irrelevant/too-detailed information on Republican reaction in another article.

Rico, on the other hand, did straight reverts several times with redundant descriptions in the Edit summary, treating my substantive edits practically as if they were vandalism. I realize now that I should have discussed certain edits better, per WP:BRD. However, the same goes for Rico. I don't have anything against him, but it would be helpful if he recognized his own part in this. Moogwrench (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The second (briefer) edit war began fifty minutes after the first war ended.

(1) Moogwrench deletes a citation that had been supplied as the source for something in the article, apparently believing the citation was for something else.[19]

In the article, immediately preceding the citation, was: "President Barack Obama and his administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup.'"

In the source cited, was, "The administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup.'"

(2) I restore the citation, indicating that it is a "source that content is attributed to."[20]

(3) Cathar11 reverts my restoration, deleting the citation again, declaring (in error) that Moogwrench is correct -- a WP:BRD violation.[21]

(4) I restore the citation again, quoting the text in the source cited.[22]

No one tried to delete the citation again. -- Rico 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for deleting the citation as i thought it was a legacy from a deleted line. I will read more carefully in future. It was an error on my part. I reread the article again and refrained from editing on that point again. I did sugest reference to Rep Congressmen could be put on the main international page.Cathar11 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion, even though I did not entirely agree with it, Cathar11.

Now, as to whether the source was a legacy. The source was, in part, a legacy from a previous version of that paragraph, because part of the content was deleted (repub reax), and only a portion of the content (Obama's reaction) sourced remained. When the part on Repubs reax got deleted, the source essentially became unnecesary, especially since, while the exact verbiage (read "branding") was not present in the other sources, they did cite Obama's designation (or "branding," if you will) of the action as a coup. However, when Rico insisted, Cathar11 and I desisted and did not revert again to removing source.

However, now the quote from Obama about it being a coup became redundant without the addt'l context of the Repub reax that had been excised, because the previous line said the same thing.

Point being, we do not need one line saying the US calls it a coup, and then the very next sentence saying Obama calls it a coup. It is redundant.

So I proposed several variations that condensed the redundancy, which Rico reverted several times without additional explanation or discussion. I will work with Rico so that we can design verbiage that expresses US reaction as labeling the action a "coup" while not being redundant. Rico, do you have any suggestions for the verbiage? Moogwrench (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, while talking about the edit war and trying to assign blame can be cathartic, Rico, I would actually like to reach consensus on the content, so can you focus your energies on that instead of giving us a play-by-play look at the edit war action, which people can get anyway by reviewing the history? Moogwrench (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw what's going on. Uh, so far, all I'm seeing is discussion about a redundancy and citations. Edit wars usually don't break out from that. Does anyone know what this is really about? (angelic smile) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly a political battle now. There's a large contingent of people who have gained de facto ownership of the article and have slanted it irresponsibly toward a stance that erroneously asserts that Zelaya was removed from office illegally, against all relevant legal evidence that has been quoted numerous times. All the edit wars we're seeing have root in that. This article is beyond repair currently. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I would actually like to stay away from any other issues that distract from the substance of those edits and getting consensus on them. Please address POV issues in another place. Please see below in request for consensus section for my consensus questions. Moogwrench (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for consensus concerning content removed

Destructive edits[23] removed the following (several times)[24]: "President Barack Obama and his administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup.'"

The source cited states, "The administration, along with all other governments in the hemisphere, branded the action a 'coup.'"

I don't think it's minor that the whole Western Hemisphere branded the action a "coup".

The "condensing"[25] was actually a major watering down of certain facts that had been very clearly stated.

The editor's edits were all in one POV direction.

Can we have consensus on this? -- Rico 04:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually if you read the preceding paragraph in previous edit, it states almost the exact same thing, saying that:

"All Latin American nations (with the exception of Honduras), as well as the United States, Spain, France, and others, have publicly condemned the forced removal of Zelaya as undemocratic and most have labeled it as a coup d'état."

You don't need to then follow it with:

"President Barack Obama, along with governments throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, have branded the action a "coup.""

So don't try to confuse the issue, Rico. It is not necessary to state twice in 3 sentences that the US considers the crisis to be a coup. This is called redundancy; it ought to be eliminated in Wikipedia articles. Moogwrench (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, how about actually discussing La Prensa and El Heraldo? Previously, all other citations of these two papers were not considered unreliable sources. All other 4 citations were untagged before I tagged them in response to your tagging my La Prensa and El Heraldo sources. How about actually defending those tags in somewhere else than a Administrator write-up, Rico? I for one believe that as the largest circulating papers in Honduras, they have a degree of reliability that is sufficient for Wikipedia and that we have heretofore recognized. Is there consensus on the removal of the reliable source? tags on these two papers? Moogwrench (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Moogwrench on both the ridiculousness of the {{verify credibility}} tag war and the simplification of the text. While both of these sources have a strong point of view, it would almost remove our ability to write about this event if these sources are disqualified. The english language sources are basically not interested in Honduras, and have consistantly cut corners in their reporting. Their early reporting on this event was little more than translation of the El Heraldo and La Tribuna, branded with an AP or even a NYT byline.

I agree that El Heraldo, La Tribuna, and La Prensa should all be concidered valid sources because they are mainstream media in Honduras and that is the general requirement on Wikipedia. They aren´t fringe sources or online blogs they are our daily news sources and have been for many years. La Tribuna, Heraldo, and Prensa are like you citing Atlanta Journal Constitution and are vital to this discussion and as sources since they are on the ground in Honduras and have first hand knowledge of what is going on. Complaining about who owns these papers is povpushing and not valid in the fact that they are mainstream sources. I asked for the person to prove that Canahuati was involved directly in the coup and he has failed to provide this proof so that tells me it is his pov and not an actual fact especially in light of the fact that Canahuati is neither a member of Congress or the Supreme Court and he was never in the FFAA either.Summermoondancer (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the text simplification, Rico, the point you want to make is made in the simplification if rather less forcefully, and we don't need to have it there twice. I'm sure you both can work out language the both makes the point forcefully and removes redundancy.

At the risk of angering both of you, I'm a little annoyed that your edit war resulted in locking the article, punishing everyone else who contributes to the article because both of you violated the WP:3RR, instead of punishment directed at just the two of you. Please work it out so we can continue to improve this article. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding falsely contrite, I am sorry for my part in the edit war, which I can partly blame on being kind of a n00b to editing Wikipedia on a larger scale, and I for one will bow to whichever consensus emerges on this one. Again, sorry. Moogwrench (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither La Prensa or El Heraldo are independent in regard to Zelaya. To quote something said by Zelaya that is inconsistent and out of line with more reliable media sources doesnt conform with WP RS. Facts are not presented in a credibile way in these papers and they are only reliable for uncontested detail.

US Media such as NYT or Wash Post etc. also have problems as they usually enter counterbalancing points which if solely quoted distort content and intention of the source article. These are RS but not necessarily allways truthful eg coverage of Iraq in 2003 pre war.Cathar11 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these Honduran papers are both controlled by Canahuati, a coup funder. I think any discerning reader can read around the biases present in these, and other sources. I know Zelaya didn't say the quote in question, and yes, it bothers me to see it in print, but such a situation is best dealt with by multiple independent sources (La Prensa and El Heraldo count as the same source) and that anything else here constitutes censorship. I trust our readers, and obviously we have problems agreeing on what constitutes WP:RS. Maybe its because I'm a historical anthropologist, and I know history is made up of multiple, competing, accounts of events, and am comfortable negotiating through all of them on a daily basis.

I will obviously go along with the consensus here, but I can't help but feel that WP:RS applied to published news sources is a losing battle. Rsheptak (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What quote from Zelaya? Please don't assume everyone here on the talk page is intimately familiar with the details of all the edit wars on the page. 187.143.14.227 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The line in the sentence in the article that contains the quote in question reads as follows: "Zelaya was quoted by popular media outlets as saying "[t]he only one who can't be re-elected is the President, but re-election is a topic of the next National Constitutional Assembly."" Moogwrench (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Canahauti a coup founder? that is news to us. When did he become a member of the Supreme court or Congress? Remember Zelaya was removed by a vote of 15-0 in the Supreme Court that ordered his detention and it was backed up by a vote in the Congress of 123-5. Canahauti is no more a founder than any other citizen of Honduras he is simply a wealthy individual and it is like saying that Bill Gates is the founder of the impeachment of Clinton. Bias is what most of us would call it and it has no business here unless you can prove that he directly acted in Congress or the Supreme Court in an illegal fashion and if you can do that you need to bring it forward----summermoondancer Oct 24,2009

I threw in the precursor to the Iraq war as an example of misinformed reporting. I view the 25th June article in the same light. Media reports are an amalgam of PR spin, comment and news. The truth doesnt allways win. Where a statement is out of character with other sources and known viewpoint it should not be included. This is particularily the case with secondary sources such as the Honduran Media. Yes we can read these sources and understand the nuances. They have to be used with caution. Is there ever only one truth?Cathar11 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The video at the bottom of the page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9hDg_nGIU can be considered another source for the quote in question. 'However, a better copy of this video with subtitles spliced into a much longer news segment (at 10:04) that contains a lot of anti-coup commentary posted at The Real News website. http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4259 The Real News Network is an independent, anti-corporate, progressive network--far from being a pro-coup outlet--so I believe they can be accepted as a neutral source and a WP:RS. So, with all deference to you, Rsheptak, I believe we can accept this as a reliable quote from President Zelaya, and that he did in fact say it. Moogwrench (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent}Moogwrench's statements regarding The Real News Network are accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would please like consensus on:

• whether or not El Heraldo and La Prensa credible source tags can be removed (remember, we are not saying these sources are unbiased, just that they are a reliable source for the quote information)
• whether or not the removal of those tags depends on the co-notation of another source to demonstrate the tagged sources' reliability, such as the above suggested The Real News Network video source.
• how we can effectively express the position of the United States and other countries throughout the world on the crisis as a "coup" without redundancy. If no one submits wording I might submit some or what we have currently might work, since the current version doesn't include a redundant sentence.

The idea was that we could reach consensus on these and get the article unblocked sooner. Please discuss these points. Moogwrench (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the last point is another good reason to fork the article along lines suggested above. Yes, yes, I'm trotting out my current hobby horse... but there's so much information to sift through, and I don't know if one article can contain it all both neutrally and consensus-wise. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the apparent consensus from Rsheptak, Cathar11, and the rest, I have implemented the previously proposed changes:

• removed the tags for El Heraldo and La Prensa
• added the Real News Network video source for the quote (see above), and
• supplied the following wording edit for US reaction under International reaction: "US President Barack Obama, along with leaders and officials of governments throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, has condemned the forced ouster of President Zelaya as undemocratic and called the action taken against him a coup d'état." I did not eliminate any of the sources of this information that were there previous to the edit war.

Hopefully these changes are acceptable to everyone? Please discuss them if you wish to revert them. Moogwrench (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)