Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

POV/Bias Discussion... Again

I have no problem with that information being there, but the problem is that the article is still wildly balanced in favor of incorrect information. Perhaps the way to solve it is to be clearer about the legalities of the removal in the same area and that the view of the "Western hemisphere" is not the view of most Hondurans nor the correct view in terms of the reality of the situation. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsover that supports the view that the majority of Hondurans see it any diferently than the consensus western hemisphere position. The only poll Ive seen showed the reverse to be the case. Are you forgetting over 60% are living below the poverty line which is aprox $1 a day and 36% are severely poor as in unable tp pay for food etc. These are mainly the rural poor which the army and police have repressed from protesting.Cathar11 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the poverty line has to do with the legality of Zelaya's removal. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with how the majority of Hondurans think.Cathar11 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is proof that the feelings are different from inside Honduras. Just stream through the commentaries on the newssources available online to Hondurans and also the OAS conducted a recent poll to determine how people felt about the option that Micheletti offered of both resigning and a third party taking office. The OAS conceded that a large majority(way more than half) want this option. That is revelatory that the feelings toward Zelaya are not as kind as the rest of the world.Summermoondancer (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The divide between rich and poor is central to this conflict. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of the foundation of the dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be part of the overall conflict, but it's not relevant to the legal issues involved, which is the biggest problem facing this article currently. Nor is it relevant to the Republican delegation or the position of world leaders, which is what this conflict section is about. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets talk reality the historical position is that Honduras is ruled by a strong executive. President appoints it, and he is directly elected. Congress is directly elected. The electoral system favours the large parties. Congress appoints the Supreme court. Congress does not have the power to impeach a president. Congress does not have the power to interpret the Constitution according to SC ruling November 2008.

Congress appoints sucessor because Zelaya is permanently absent. Why is he absent because army put him on a plane. Does the SC have a right to depose Z- probably but no case was heard. Military action makes this a coup d'etat.Cathar11 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Congress appointed a successor because Zelaya was legally removed from office per order of the Supreme Court, who do not "probably" have a right, but "definitely" have the right to depose the President. That the government may have gone too far in exiling him is a separate matter, but the reality is still that the situation was not a coup. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduras has had a relatively WEAK Executive since the 1982 constitution, and Congress has been consistently consolidating power in itself via constitutional ammendments. The appointment of the Supreme Court is an example. The 1982 consitution delegated the nomination process to the President, with Congress approving. Congress ammended the constitution to put in place the process that has a commission that nominates 45 candidates, from which Congress then selects seven. One Congressman, writing in La Prensa, said something like "you wisper in their ear, do what I say and I'll support your candidacy" and that's how Supreme Court justices get selected, promises of political favors. The argument between the Supreme Court and Congress over who interprets the constitution is another such example of Congress trying to consolidate its power at the expense of the other two branches of government.

Yes, under the judicial code high government officials are tried by the Supreme Court, and this one had started appropriate procedures against Zelaya under that code. But, because the military exiled Zelaya, the process stopped fairly close the the beginning baby steps of the defined process, and no trial took place, so no, they didn't strip him of office because the due process forms required to do that never took place. They then, after Micheletti was appointed, said the case was remitted back to the lower court because Zelaya was now a private citizen, not a high government official, and attributed to Congress his removal from office. Rsheptak (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court decision here [1] only upheld the lower Contentious Administrative court finding and order. The Supreme Court appointed Tomas Arita to hear charges brought by the AG. This case isn't heard yet. The SC did not remove him from office.Cathar11 (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Coup apologists are essentially jamming in pro-coup/anti-Zelaya arguments all over

Just how much of the coup apologists' side is going to be jammed into this article, throughout it? Why don't we just rename the article: The interim government's answer to the world?
It makes the article harder to read, less clear, more full of trivia -- is this all being justified in the name of presenting both sides? What about Undue weight? The world isn't buying the interim government's story that the coup wasn't a coup. The reliable sources unabashedly refer to the coup as a coup, and while they don't state Zelaya was an angel, they don't report every other sentence that he was the devil, or that the coup was justifed. WTF? In the name of NPOV, the coup apologists are violating NPOV! It looks like everywhere a coup apologist could find a place to insert something that calls into question about whether the coup was a coup, or whether Zelaya was bad -- or whether some mayor or US Senator agrees with the coup apologists -- there's been the insertion. It's crazy! It's too much. Maybe Zelaya was a schmuck and the coup was bitchen, but it doesn't have to be inserted after every other sentence.
The [Detention order] coup [Detention order] article's [Detention order] about [Detention order] the [Detention order] coup. [Detention order] The [Law Library of Congress] military [Law Library of Congress] exiled [Law Library of Congress] the [Law Library of Congress] president. [Law Library of Congress]
It's this kind of partisan struggle that makes Wikipedia into crap.
The articles become not like encyclopedia articles, but more like arguments, with one side putting in something, and then the other side putting in something to soften or contradict it
Back and forth. -- Rico 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Deep breath, stay cool ;-)

Where do you propose we start? Many people are looking and editing this article, so why not start small? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the lede:

This article is about a coup -- but there was a detention order.

The miltary exiled the president -- but he was pushing the cuarta urna.

The coup -- but he was trying to permanitize himself.

No he wasn't.

And on and on.

The article can't get through one whole sentence without the back and forth argument?

"Numerous" Honduran Government bodies declared that the 28 June poll would be illegal. -- Rico 04:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this can be solved structurally, I think. Developing stories tend to have really, really poorly-written ledes... by encyclopedic standards. But this is a wiki, after all, so things tend to pile up on top of each other without much structure (sometimes I think the paragraph breaks are just for show ;-) )

Can you think of a structure for the lede? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I once worked on the lede. after I was done, it flowed. It looked a lot like a justification for the coup, believe it or not, but it was all sourced, it explained the major events, it didn't overly dwell on the trivia, and it wasn't essentially full of back and forth arguments. -- Rico 04:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The detention order belongs. The Library of Congress doesn't belong in the lede any more than any of the WSJ opinion pieces. Congress is full of liars, and its institutions do whatever they politically want.

But are you seeing what I'm seeing about the back and forth?

Read the first few sentences, and see if it doesn't say just what I said. -- Rico 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, least we can do is try :-) and try, and try, and try. That's how it works. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But the article was way better when I left it. -- Rico 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then you're viewing the Wrong Version? :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) seriously: this is a collaborative effort. Things change, and the best you can do is fix them, have them broken, and get them fixed again

I changed the article to another Wrong Version. ;) -- Rico 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to just start again at the top?

Zelaya was leaning left, the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez, the supremes said it was unconstitutional, Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway, the supremes issued a detention order, the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica, the legislature voted in Micheletti, the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid, Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in -- and can we do it without too many details that just serve to further the argument of one side or the other?

Is there something else that was IMPORTANT before this stuff? -- Rico 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ud) Indeed, that is most of the world's view on it. But you have to play devil's advocate to get things done, because you know that version won't gain consensus here. What is the other side to this story, and how do we work it into the lede? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) It's also my view, for the record, but this is advice I'd give to anyone interested in Getting Things Done.

I took something out of the lede that was jammed in there just to say, "see, it wasn't a coup, most of the legislature was from Zelaya's party."
It had been jammed in there so hastily, the editor didn't even bother to capitalize the first word in the sentence.
Next thing I know, a bot points out that the info was lower down in the article too.
Maybe it should be put into the article in a few more places. After all, it bolsters the coup apologists' side.
</sarcasm>
Pleasure to make your acquaintence, btw. -- Rico 04:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine :-D

The reason I asked what you think the other side (as it were) should be in the lede... if you don't play devil's advocate with your lede, the devils themselves will play it for you. Y'know? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other side? Am I on a side? I mean, outside of really not wanting WP:NAME violated, and not wanting the article to be just the result of a back and forth debate between coup apologists and the other side, with the article peppered with coup apology (for no other reason than coup apology), I don't think of myself as being on a side. I'm not exactly Zelaya's bud. Rhepshack and I came to terms. -- Rico 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Three of the coup deniers are really uncivil, but when I went through D'alo'Idontknowwhat's edits, I didn't see *that* much damage. (I missed some.) Last time I went through the lede, SqueakBox watched me like a hawk, but barely changed anything. He was busy putting in some erroneous facts from TeleSUR, about how many people'd been shot, at the time. Somebody's wig is just incivil beyond belief, but doesn't seem to edit the article much -- just argues on this page that it wasn't a coup. -- Rico 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other side? You just described it. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you assume I have sympathy for Zelaya, or that I care if he gets returned to power or not?

I think I could be described as a coup apologist.

I wouldn't call myself anything other than a "coup" apologist, though. -- Rico 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, we're in complete disagreement ideologically, then :-) Didn't even notice!

But did you assume I cared? :-p I'm only talking wiki-editing, here. Doesn't matter who's on whose side ideologically. But there's always an "other side" when building consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like more of the Honduran affluent have Internet connections, and most of the poor don't. The Most Interested Persons, that don't identify their COIs, are overdoing the slanting of the article. It's not about writing an encyclopedia article anymore. It's about making an argument.

Since most of the debate's been about whether we should call the coup a coup, I come off as firmly on your side -- especially because of all the shenanigans the coup deniers are pulling (not to mention the incivility, which appears very lopsided).

I find myself trying to stop the coup deniers from making Wikipedia a joke.

If you were to ask me if I was glad they kicked out Zelaya, you might be surprised at my answer.

You're gonna find this hard to believe, but I really want Wikipedia policies and guidelines followed on the article. -- Rico 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that hard to believe at all! I'm curious why you'd think I thought that? No matter. I want the policies and guidelines followed too, but that involves consensus building... which is what we're doing. Except it's just us two in this thread, for some reason :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) This is the best on-wiki conversation I've had, after years of working at the mediation cabal. It's weird.

I'm not a Most Interested Person, so I doubt I'm exceptionally well-loved by either side, and I don't think that many Wikipedians want Wikipedia's policies and guidelines followed -- (so I assume nobody might believe I do). They just use the rules.

I'm not convinced I'm on a side.

I've read the rules, and I'm very convinced this article should be called the "coup".

We could try a collaboration in a sandbox and then drop it in as the lede, and see what people do.

Sometimes the coup deniers make me want to write, "The coup, that was a coup -- as in 'coup d'etat' -- did I mention it was a coup, as in the military coup that it was (a type of coup)?" -- Rico 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the sad state of affairs, init? Anyway, sandbox sounds good: 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox. Start with an ideal version, work from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I came across the sandbox while working on WP:DEP; per Wikipedia:SUBPAGE#Disallowed_uses I've moved it to Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox. Cheers! (not watchlisting)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "you know that version won't gain consensus here":

Why not? It's pretty balanced.

Anti-Zelaya: Zelaya was leaning left

Anti-Zelaya: the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez

Anti-Zelaya: the supremes said it was unconstitutional

Anti-Zelaya: Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway

Anti-Zelaya: the supremes issued a detention order

Anti-coup: the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica

Both: the legislature voted to accept Zelaya's 'resignation' and voted in Micheletti

Anti-coup: the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid

Simple facts: Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in.

Would anybody argue that any of it wasn't true? -- Rico 05:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming no-one responds... :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better than:

Zelaya was leaning left -- but there's a contra to that!

the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez -- but there's a contra to that!

the supremes said it was unconstitutional -- but there's a contra to that!

Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway -- but there's a contra to that!

the supremes issued a detention order -- but there's a contra to that!

the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica -- but there's a contra to that!

the legislature voted to accept Zelaya's 'resignation' and voted in Micheletti -- but there's a contra to that!

the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid -- but there's a contra to that!

Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in -- but there's a contra to that! -- Rico 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, assuming no-one responds. Now you and I wait: who disagrees? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Rico's structure is basically sound. A few minor adjustments: The "leaning left" could be included as part of the "affluent alarmed", if we could get a decent citation that showed the "alarmed" pov without being too inflammatory. You could defuse the temptation to put in a contra to "unconstitutional" by attributing it to Zelaya in the "I'm doing it anyway", if you could find a good quote where Zelaya alleges political/extralegal motivations from the court - again, scrubbing for just the argument with a minimum of inflammatory rhetoric. And of course you'd have to expand the scare quotes around "resignation", I think in the lede you can just flatly call it a forgery because I don't think even the coup supporters are hanging on to that one now. Homunq (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to simplify this youve got to emphasise the elements what makes this a coup d'etat. This centres around the issuing of a detention aorder for Zelaya for contempt of court. The army instead exiled him. (the joke is the AG sought the arrest order because he inter alia considerered him a flight risk). Resignation Zelaya letter /appointment Micheletti. An aside to give context (The military were on the streets ptotecting key buildings before the issuing of any arrest order or SC hearing on the 28th. It is the job of the police (not army) to enforce court orders. Before being appointed a SC judge José Tomás Arita was a lifelong National Party politican. It doesnt appear to have been the SC's intentention for him to act in the way he did, they intended to wait till the 30th June ie after the Poll). Cathar11 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That last contention about the SC's intention (when they appointed Arita to handle the case 15-0, I assume) is new and interesting to me. Do you have a source? Nonetheless, I don't believe such a fact belongs in the lede - I assume that's what you meant by calling it an "aside". I think that something to indicate that both sides generally agree that the exile was illegal although the pro-coup forces call it justified, would be fitting for the lede. Homunq (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is still the same - it was not a coup. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig has had ample time to understand our policies. Ammunition leads credence. There are better things to discuss, Rico. Homunq's comment directly below mine (and I'm hoping it stays directly below mine) applies to everyone, after all. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig, this is not a discussion forum. Please orient your comments towards improving the article according to Wikipedia standards, including WP:RS. Homunq (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The continued attempts to make this into an article that asserts a coup that does not exist is the problem. The reliable sources are clear on this. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Ok, so the consensus is -- and by "consensus", I mean Rico and I, as far as I know (but I can imagine) -- the consensus is that the lede would benefit from a rewrite. Above was given a speedy description of the events:

“

Zelaya was leaning left, the affluent were alarmed when Zelaya pushed the referendum a la Chavez, the supremes said it was unconstitutional, Zelaya said I'm doin' it anyway, the supremes issued a detention order, the military put the prez on a plane to Costa Rica, the legislature voted in Micheletti, the world said it was a coup, refused to recognize the new gov't, and recalled ambassadors, and cut off aid, Micheletti said Zelaya couldn't go back, so Zelaya snuck back in.

”

The rationale for this version has been given above. This doesn't mention the constitutional aspects, which should naturally include A) the interpretation as given by those who wish to maintain it, and B) the interpretation as given by those who wish to change it. My idea for the structure of the lede right now is (each bullet is a para):

basic basic summary of the contents of the article: the coup, the constitution, and the very minimum of the whos, whats, whens, and wheres. I figure the bare minimum of the "whos" is Zelaya, and Michelletti et al.
Rico's version above, rewritten, which summarizes the whys and hows (and the international "whos").
The aftermath, up to the present, as generally as possible (and The People "whos").

The biggest problem with this is that it doesn't include much on the constitutional aspects. Actually, the bulk of the article isn't about the constitution.
I see only two ways to resolve this: A) add more weight to those who do wish it changed, since as of now it's mostly about those who don't wish it changed, or B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with).

So, there's my disorganized ideas. I gave 2: the organization of the lede (immediate), and the organization of these articles (less immediate). Any thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

When the two concurrent name change requests were added to this page, SqueakBox was leading the charge -- arguing that there were "two sides" and naming this article "coup", "took sides" and was, therefore, not neutral.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was just the interim government that was denying that it was a coup. Reliable sources were aware that the de facto government was denying it was a coup, and publishing that fact -- and then in their next sentence they would refer to the coup as a "coup".

The coup-installed government's political trumpets were expressing the viewpoint that it wasn't a coup (but they weren't reliable sources).

The interim government obviously had cronies.

In the back of my mind, was something Jimbo wrote, that has been paraphrased in NPOV for at least four years: "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."

The policy goes on to state, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

I began to think in terms of numbers.

The world (UN, OAS, RSs) had always said it was a coup.

If half of the population of Honduras held the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup, 0.06% of the world is of the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

SqueakBox had been quoting numbers like "millions and millions," and "thousands and thousands."

As it turned out, this was disingenuous.

The protestors weren't necessarily of the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

Reliable sources reported that the protesters were either pro-Zelaya, anti-Zelaya or anti-Chavez -- and most Hondurans didn't care.

It wasn't about whether or not it was a coup.

The de facto government, its political trumpets, and its cronies weren't more than an extremely small minority.

No reliable source had published that more than an extremely small minority held the viewpoint that the coup was not a coup.

I began to compare the coup denial to "other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial" -- WP:NPOV

An extremely small minority denies the Holocaust, yet we have an article named, "The Holocaust".

I believe there are more people that deny that the Holocaust was a holocaust, than there are that deny that the Honduran coup was a coup.

But there was an even more powerful rebuttal. (Stay tuned for Part 2.) -- Rico 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison of those who disagree with your terminology for the Zelaya ouster to Holocaust deniers is inappropriate and, frankly, ridiculous. The issue with Holocause denial isn't over what to call the murder of millions of people, but that Holocaust deniers deny that the murder took plpace at all. That is in no way comparable to a dispute over what name to give the replacement of a particular head of state, especially when there is no disagreement that the ousting took place. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Xav, not Rico) I definitely agree this article should be forked. I would draw the lines: current article with current name, gutted, as an overview; a "before" article, which would probably be titled "2009 Honduras Constitutional Rewrite Attempt" or something along those lines, and would include all the legal and political back-and-forth that implies; a "Coup" article, which would include both the events for about 1 week total, plus the legal arguments over the degree of illegality of those events; and a "Micheletti regime" article (not calling it "coup aftermath" in an attempt at compromise) which covered the events since (based on the existing article, but needs smoothing and the standards for inclusion are very inconsistent there, some trivia present while some important stuff missing.)

I understand that this would upset the fragile compromise by which this article is not named "coup", but since it is essentially expanding the "coup" section into a sub-article, IMO it actually respects the basic substance of that compromise (WP policies support calling the specific events a coup, but not applying that term to an article which includes a wider context.)

Meanwhile, please, be bold about rewriting the lede. I made some comments above about how I think your schema is essentially sound, with minor adjustments. Certainly it would be hard to make it worse... no, I take that back, it is far from NPOV but it could be worse; but what I'm saying is that I trust you to take the first step, and trust the community to make sure it's an improvement. Homunq (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, and a sidebar! Does Honduras even have a sidebar? (I like sidebars)...

I'll get started on the coup article in our sandbox. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it does have a sidebar. I wrote the first sentence of the lede, although I have a feeling that the more I write this, the more it's acceptable for this article. Everyone is free to contribute. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means rewrite the lead.

Rsheptak (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

discussion of COIMER poll and AG POV

(section break added post-hoc by homunq)

BTW have you read the August 2009 COIMER public opinion survey done in 16 of 18 departments in Honduras in late august. Here's a link to the PDF of the results: http://www.webcitation.org/5kLzRp9Nk. You'll find it interesting.

Esta a favor o esta en contra del golpe de estado del 28 de Junio pasado a Presidente Manuel Zelaya?

52.7% against, 17.4% in favor, 29.9% no response.

Debe seguir en el poder o dejar el poder el actual gobierno de Micheletti?

60.1% favor Micheletti leaving power, 22.2% remain in power, 17.7% no response.

Apoya o no apoya el retorno de Manuel Zelaya Rosales a la Presidencia de la Republica

51.6% support the return, 33.0 % oppose, and 15.4% no response.

Rsheptak (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this opinion poll is it isnt neutral in nature. It may well be corect but the information can't be used within the article. Micheletti has never had much supportCathar11 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you say that? I'm not defending the poll, but I haven't seen a reliable description of problems with it, other than we don't know who commissioned it. I should point out its cited in at least two other related wikipedia articles. Rsheptak (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

he problem I see with this oppinon poll is that it asks loaded questions. Within Honduras to describe events as a coup is partial to Zelaya. Voting intentions are majority LPH 60/40 etc. It reads as being partial. Its not reviewed in the media so Ive nothing to substantiate this. Cathar11 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this poll is somewhat biased - but any statement about that bias (such as my idea that it is minor, only a factor for the minority of respondents who don't have a clear opinion on the coup to begin with) constitutes WP:OR. The most WP:RS source on the poll I can find is from Radio_Taiwan_International -- in Chinese, from a conservative source. NarcoNews is the next. That's a pity, because I believe that, in spite of its minor bias, the poll is a useful source, and (unfortunately) a unique one. 187.143.14.227 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could the AG's failure to be reelected to the supreme court in January 2009 have influenced his behaviour. AG is a demotion from SC judge where he was previously a LPH appointee.

Well, his article is a redlink... :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: public opinion section now includes COIMER poll, as well as the later Greenberg one. Homunq (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup article. -- Rico 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Request feedback on where to include the LLoC analysis, including clearly stating the disagreement between them and the US State Dept (I'd love to cite the State Dept memo too, but alas it has not been released to the public). Trying not to take sides, but the disagreement is an important wrinkle in US foreign policy.Wrath0fb0b (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

With due respect a republican commissioned report is not the official Congress position and LOC does not speak for Congress. The Library of Congress has been requested to ammend this seriously flawed report signed jointly by John Kerry Chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations and Howard Berman Chairman Congress Committee on Foreign Relations in a letter dated the 27th October. I am removing reference to this report unless I hear some justification for it's inclusion.Cathar11 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

First, the LLoC is non-partisan and is standing behind their report despite Kerry's letter. Second, even accepting your assertion that the report is flawed, its existence and conclusions are material facts in the ongoing dispute over the legality of the ouster. To pose the contrary conclusion, why wouldn't an official report of the LoC merit inclusion?74.104.158.127 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia is non-partisan, it should not matter to us who commissioned the report. Readers can decide for themselves whether the conclusions are justified or not. 74.104.158.127 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

McClatchy news: "The chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees are asking the Law Library of Congress to retract a report on the military-backed coup in Honduras that they charge is flawed and "has contributed to the political crisis that still wracks" the country." In case anyone wants to use it for the article, it is yet another source explaining why LLoC is "flawed", but notable, either for this article or a sub-article Moogwrench (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Created sub-articles (IMPORTANT)... proposed opening sentence.

I have created three sub-articles: Fourth ballot box, 2009 Honduran coup d'état, and Micheletti regime. These are essentially at stub-quality at the moment. I propose that first we work on refining these (primarily: adding to each a brief summary of the other two, coming to consensus on the respective ledes, and a good deal of material which should be moved from "coup" to "regime"); then we gut this current article down to three simple summary sections which point at these three as the "main articles". This is, in my opinion, the clear way forward, as the current article is hopelessly unwieldy.

The titles I've chosen for the sub-articles are intended to be the natural terms of reference, as per WP:Title. I am not aiming for controversy, although of course I realize that I will get it with the title of the second article. Please, do not delete the article itself if you simply disagree with the title. Also, I hope that, given that the three articles have no inbound links at the moment, we can avoid edit-warring the titles for the moment at least, while we use the respective ... talk ... pages to come to (what passes for) policy-inspired consensus.

Have at it! Homunq (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Once the three sub-articles are in a decent state, I propose that the lead sentence reference all three. Something like "The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis started with the controversy over president Manuel Zelaya's plans to promote a fourth ballot box on constitutional reform; came to a head with the June 28 ouster of Zelaya, in which he was flown to Costa Rica; and continued to provoke controversy throughout the subsequent regime of his replacement, Roberto Micheletti." Homunq (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I withdraw this suggestion, IMO the navbox I made resolves the need to front the sub-articles in this way. Homunq (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

After a brief look at the three pages, this does seem to me to be a constructive and reasonable approach, in the sense that it more or less divides into:

Fourth ballot box - more or less the lead up to 28th June and the proposed cuarta urna
2009 Honduran coup d'état - the events of 28th June and more or less immediately related to it
Micheletti regime - Micheletti in de facto power, popular opposition, Zelaya's actions, etc.

Probably we also need San José-Tegucigalpa-Guaymuras Accord. Boud (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guaymuras dialogue - Tegucigalpa/San José accord already existed, so I created redirect from San José-Tegucigalpa-Guaymuras Accord to the article. Also numerous other redirect to this main page already exist. Moogwrench (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that people are now off and running with the sub-articles. Given that the material there is likely to be in better shape than the earlier version here, we should start working on drastically cutting down this article to an overall summary. Homunq (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a small amount of trimming, but really a lot of this needs a ground-up rewrite. Homunq (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How about you copy the content in full to another place, like 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox, colaborate with other people there on getting the perfect version, then we can discuss it and ultimate approve it, meanwhile we can compare it to current version, and people won't be afraid of important things getting deleted? Moogwrench (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, conversely, you could do your ground-up rewrite there? Moogwrench (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are tools for watching and comparing changes on the page itself, and there are more eyes on it. A rewrite in a backwater would tend to not get enough attention. Also note that the sub-articles are based on the full text, so edits here are not, by themselves, going to cause information to disappear from articlespace. (Full disclosure: I did remove the "facusse plan" both from here and (mostly) from the sub-article, because it seemed to me non-notable - was mentioned in coverage only on the day it happened, and not well-received by either side).

As for a ground-up rewrite - the sub-articles provide a good place for experimentation on how to summarize. For instance, the "coup" article should have a brief summary of the pre-coup and post-coup events, which could serve as skeletons for the pre-coup and post-coup sections here. Homunq (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, imo, this article should include:

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

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

3. Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum the Supreme Court opined was unconstitutional.

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

5. The removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution. -- Rico 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum the Supreme Court opined was unconstitutional. Rico the Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the referendum. They upheld a lower court injunction onlyCathar11 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the first para so the constitutional bit would appear in first sentence. MOS:BOLDTITLE doesn't recommend bolding for descriptive titles, so got rid of that (besides, it has a bad influence, since it appears we're defining what this should be called to the world). Xavexgoem (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's a bit kludgy; I don't like having that date so close to the beginning for a crisis this large. Any clever suggestions?

{{resolved}} Xavexgoem (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far we've moved from ~155kb (prior to Homunq creating the subs) to ~130kb of info (as of now). I'm afraid of touching the coup mega-section because of the commented warning at the top, but that's certainly enemy #1. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I say, be WP:BOLD. On Wikipedia, a stagnant mess is more of a danger than a misstep. Also, the warning (now largely obselete) refers just to the section title, not the contents.

And others, facing a bold rewrite: please re-add things you think were overzealously trimmed, or re-edit language, but don't just do blanket reverts unless you can get at least one person to agree with you that it's truly irredeembable. Homunq (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, things still need a lot of work, but I'm satisfied that the job is well underway. Please help because I'm quitting for now. Homunq (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a nomination to Articles For Delention of the new "coup" article, I found these templates: Homunq (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

removed from "socioeconomic" first section

I removed the following tag from the first section:

There is understandably little polling on this issue, given that a president was deposed for trying to run a poll on this issue. Even before the coup, no Honduran printing house would even touch the poll (thus the brouhaha about "ballots printed in Venezuela"). The constitution states you can lose your citizenship for advocating a change to the presidential term, and anyone who polls this issue (or even just prints the polling material) could run a risk of being accused of this. So, while answers to this question would definitely be desirable, I think an ugly tag would stay up some time before we could find WP:RS. Homunq (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as everyone's read it ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I redid the public opinion section, which now has some data on this question (though the context is "as a way to resolve the crisis" so approval is likely inflated somewhat). Homunq (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Example of well-written background summary

This article in the Jamaica Times is well-written. While the author does not hide his POV, neither does he hide the facts that run counter to that POV. I suggest we could use it as one helpful model for the background section. Homunq (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move at Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move Moogwrench (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The color of the bikeshed...

Early retrospective, but note to self: don't split article on current event until current event is over.

So, umm... there's these elections happening. Where do I put this? It's important on at least 4 articles I helped create a consensus for. Crap!

And, holy mother of invention! Early optimization is the root of all evil! Xavexgoem (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) bangs head repeatedly against wall

Yeah, you are kinda right... I would suggest 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti, and Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, to begin with... once the whole crisis is over, there will be lots of work to do to clean up certain things and fill out others. And then you ask yourself, when is it over? I guess you can say when either Zelaya is restored OR when (almost) everyone recognizes the results of the elections and the new president has taken power? Moogwrench (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov 29 elections

I think we should mention the elections held on the past day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caoslinger (talk • contribs) 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Comments are welcome at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ALBA

Zelaya started his constitutional assembly plans roughly at the same time when Honduras joined ALBA.

Other leaders of ALBA successfully sought to eliminate their term limits:

Bolivia (Evo Morales) - Term limits modified in February 2009.^[1]
Ecuador (Rafael Correa) - Term limits modified in 2008.
Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) - Term limits modified in November 2009.^[2]
Venezuela (Hugo Chávez) - Term limits modified in February 2009.^[3]

This is important for the article. This is one of the main reasons why his constitutional assembly plans were believed to be about his (or someone else's) re-election in 2013. The other reason was of course that there are only 8 articles which need constitutional assembly before they are modifiable.

Alb28 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Correlation between events does not establish a relationship, causal or otherwise, an important concept in both science and history, and when you state that it does without a reliable source, that is original research. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should explain the months that preceded the "poll". This is a good summary.Alb28 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a WP:RS. Cite it in the text, and make sure when you cite it that you don't put anything that isn't in the source as content attributed to the source. Moogwrench (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that this article is the main umbrella article for the entire crisis. If you wish to put more detailed content, put it in Honduran fourth ballot box referendum, which is essentially the sub article all the pre-coup stuff. Look at Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis/Archive_8#Created_sub-articles_.28IMPORTANT.29..._proposed_opening_sentence. if you have a question about the consensus setup of these articles. One of the reasons we did the split into the 3 sub-articles is because the main article was getting too big, so we don't need to load it up again with a whole bunch of details. Put those in the appropriate subarticle with perhaps (if notable enough) a brief mention in the main article. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Removal of text by new editor

I think that the High level of Poverty and the politicised nature of the Supreme court are relevant to this article and were agreed content in the archive. Can User:Alb28 or anybody explain why they are not relevant or come up with an alternative wording.Cathar11 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in that if they are taken out, they probably should be discussed. I personally think the SC section is especially useful to inform regarding the particular nature of the judiciary in Honduras. Moogwrench (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indiscriminate information

Cathar11 had put put sources that don't mention the crisis at all. Nutritional requirements, etc. which don't mention Zelaya or the crisis are original research. Thanks.Alb28 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are correctly referenced by a WP:RS, then they are NOT WP:original research. However, they may be WP:IINFO. Don't just throw around terms. Moogwrench (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See this archive for an example of the consensus discussions surrounding the inclusion of poverty/SES information. If you want to eliminate information, I suggest restarting discussion and not just unilaterally reverting and threatening editors who have been participating in consensus-building with these articles for the past several months, okay? We should all be here to build a encyclopedia, right? Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Some parts should be compacted

The article has paragraphs such as "He was taken to a police station and held for several hours until lawyers from the National Front for Resistance to the Coup interceded. During the same operation, police reportedly manhandled photographer Julio Umaña of the daily Tiempo and confiscated his camera although he had just shown his press accreditation"

Details about someone's camera, etc. should be moved to the Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Also why almost half the general elections section is quotes from the "Resistance"? Alb28 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, details go to both the appropriate sub-article (where events are organized by topic principally) and the chronology (organized purely by time).

Synthesis? No. Irrelevant? Maybe.

Remember, WP:SYNTH is a subset of original research. The stuff about the judiciary and the socioeconomic background may be off-topic, depending on how you look at it, and you could even try to call it indisciminate information. But it is not original research. Synthesis involves taking two or more sources and developing an argument out of the sum of those parts. The statements in question are individually sourced, and thus cannot be WP:SYNTH.

I believe that you take a statement out of context: "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." This of course refers to the synthesized argument. What it is saying is that you can't use logical syllogisms (analysis) to apply an old argument/analysis that (A = B, B = C, & A = C), and then also say (new application of analysis) that because F = B, F must = C as well, when the argument has never previously been made for or applied to F by an RS.

Just because an source doesn't mention the coup or even Zelaya, doesn't mean that it isn't a source for analysis of the socioeconomic divide of Honduras or the character of the judiciary. Now, you can argue that those subtopics are off-topic or indiscriminate, but you can't argue that the individual statements are WP:SYNTH, because no original research is being done.

This is why, if you will note, Ed Wood's Wig applied the {{relevance}} template to the socioeconomic sub-section, and not the {{synthesis}} template. The basic idea is that the information might be irrelevant, not that it contains original research from various sources. Moogwrench (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

People who are not familiar with honduras probably wouldnt be aware of the extremely high level of poverty in the country. In earlier discussions it was considered a key point in that the majority of people in the country dont benefitfrom their present political representation. This was the driving force behind the grass roots support for a constitutional ammendment. Extreemly Poor /Neutrional levels is how the World Bank describe people who are so poor they are unable to meet daily food requirements. For 60-70% of a population to be described as poor is extreemely high, It is extreemely relevant to political unrestCathar11 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no relevancy to pocvrty. It looks like an attempt to redefine the events in Honduras as a poor against rich thing which reliable sources really don't support. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Also the references to reports about the judiciary (none of which is related to the crisis) looks like an attempt to discredit the judiciary. Alb28 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, people do have to realize that the Honduran Supreme Court has some unique characteristics. Especially WP readers from the US have a notion of a Supreme Court that is substantially different from its Honduran counterpart (things like lifetime appointments, meant to insulate the judiciary from politics in the US, don't exist in Honduras). Why don't you try editing this paragraph instead of deleting it? Just an idea, y'know? Moogwrench (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with the removal of Zelaya, which was based solely in his unconstitutional activities independent of any socioeconomic strife. The placement of the section, if not the entire section itself, provides an irrelevant amount of information about a situation that has nothing to do with the situation at all. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary it provides a context as to why the constutional assembly was needed, which is what caused this whole debacle.Cathar11 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it might have served as a reason for it, but it has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps you should put it in or create an article about the Honduran economic divide if you want to include that information, because it doesn't belong here. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it bears some mention, especially if sourced by sources which also mention the crisis. Especially relevant would be any well-sourced analysis that shows Zelaya used those differences to promote his agenda.

Believe me, when I was down in Honduras there was a deep anti-upper class vein running through zelayista thought. My Honduran uncle would criticize me for going out in a white shirt because he thought I was going to join one of the "perfumados" (rich, perfumed people) in a peace march. So it would be useful if we could lay our hands on that kind of analysis, instead of getting caught up in minutiae.

However, to ignore completely the practical sentiment of disenfranchisement on the part of Honduras' poor (which Zelaya tapped into and harnessed) would be a disservice to the article, I think. How much of a mention it merits is debatable, of course. Moogwrench (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements sourced to articles about the crisis should be summarized in the presidency section, but unrelated sources (nutritional requirements, text about the judiciary, etc.) should be removed.Alb28 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless the section strains the bounds of NPOV- it reads as justification of Zelaya's actions, and in a very editorial manner didmisses their unconstitutional nature. The phrase "a constitution — written in 1982 at the height of that country's brutal repression of leftists" is pure gloss, and non-neutral; moreover all of the quotations in the section come exclusively from the pro-Zelaya side, saying things like "It's a system that has kept the poor down for years." Just because you're quoting somebody else's opinion, that doesn't make it NPOV! Frankly, this section, standing asd it does as an intro to the article reads as a naked attempt to paint Zelaya as "right" and his opponents as the Evil Rich. --Solicitr (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed sources that say nothing about the crisis. The remaining repeats itself and could be compacted.Alb28 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your unilateral deletion was restored as no consensus has been reached.Cathar11 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree that the sources are not directly related to the crisis.Alb28 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

@Cathar11. Wikipedia:DRNC --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original research: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Alb28 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of sources

The impeachment section has this sentence: "Detailed arguments that Zelaya's ouster was illegal have been advanced by numerous experts and scholars of Honduran Constitutional Law." (sourced to three columnists) The problems are that there is no source for "numerous", the columnists don't claim to be present "detailed arguments", and the columnists don't claim to be a "scholars of Honduran Constitutional Law". It should be changed to "A number of people have argued that Congress did not have power to remove Zelaya from office." Alb28 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is disengenous to say the least all sources quoted are experts in constitutional law. There are plenty of other expert references available to show this. 3 is more than sufficent. You are belittling experts 2 of which are former govt ministers to describe them as columnists. All are lawyers and experts on the constitution.Cathar11 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of balance in demo images

We may struggle tirelessly to achieve balance in the description of events, but all this is undone when someone decides to download a clear image of a calm, collected, passably attractive (from a distance) demonstrator from one particular side of the conflict, and at a time when demonstrators from the opposing camp may well have good reason to fear their images appearing in open media. 'If a picture can paint a thousand words' (which I believe it can) we need to be a lot more scrupulous about balance in this article, before it does some damage. --212.100.250.228 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased editing detected

This article, as well as all relating to the Constitutional Succession in Honduras 2009, to Hugo Chavez, to Bolivarian Venezuela, to ALBA countries, to political prisoners in ALBA countries, seem to be edited by minders who consistently and strongly bias the text in favor of the Bolivarian Revolution. Since Wikipedia is a user-edited site it depends on honesty and the ABSENCE of political bias. Yet the group of pages that I have mentioned displays a very clear political bias. I believe that there are paid persons minding this pages from one point of view, and since there are no paid editors balancing that bias, they end up heavily tilted. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has become an integral and important part of the socialist propaganda apparatus, a complement to TeleSur (the international TV channel of Hugo Chavez, run by Chavez's Minister of Information). I don't know what to do about this because it is WAAAY beyond what any one of us as individuals can balance, since we don't have pockets of petrodollars to pay our bills with while we spend day and night trying to undo bias in Wikipedia. Three cases in point: The failure to bring out the Honduran point of view in this article. The bias in the article on the 2012 elections in Venezuela. The slander against Alejandro Peña Esclusa in Italian Wikipedia. What do do? How to save Wikipedia? I don't have the answer.Lindorm (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)