Talk:Manuel Zelaya/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

What are the facts here, anyway?

It seems to me that if there is any point to Wikipedia claiming to be a source with no "point of view", that people here should be focusing on what the facts on the face of things are, rather than any politicized interpretations of those facts.

Here's what I'm seeing as far as facts are concerned:

1) Zelaya was in fact violating the law by advocating for a constitutional referendum. Section 239 of the Honduran Constitution is quite clear on that. 2) There is an election for the presidency coming up in November of this year. 3) Roberto Micheletti is, as is Manuel Zelaya, a member of the Honduran Liberal Party. 4) Roberto Micheletti is not participating in the upcoming election as a candidate, having been defeated by Elvin Santos for the Liberal Party's nomination. 5) There isn't any reason why an ally of Zelaya's could not run for president pledging to continue his policies. The constitution merely forbids Zelaya from doing so. 6) The Honduran Constitution does not prescribe any specific penalty for violating its Section 239 outside of turfing the person from office. Sending troops in the middle of the night to capture numerous ministers of the government is not authorized by the Constitution. 7) One of the main issues this all raises is why the Honduran Constitution does not have an effective method of impeachment, which is what Zelaya's actions, at worst, seemed to have merited. What should have happened if a President attempted to change the term limit law is not described in the Constitution, and that now appears to have been a serious oversight.

Also, if we're going to get into interpretation, I think we could do it in a more neutral way:

1) Zelaya's participation in the leftist Alianza Boliviariana para los Pueblos de nuestra América (along with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines) seems to be part of this controversy, as Hugo Chavez in particular has weighed in with his opinions against the alleged coup. It seems clear that Chavez and company see the removal of Zelaya as the political right attempting to reverse Zelaya's more leftish policies, rather than a question of law. The disproportionate use of force to remove the president and numerous ministers, furthermore, could be seen as Zelaya's opponents merely using Section 239 as a fig leaf or pretext to remove a president they saw as dangerous to their interests. 2) The political right seem to see this more as a question of law and respect for Section 239 of the Constitution, and they do have a point here, as Zelaya clearly is in violation of that section.

Does anyone have a problem with these characterizations of things? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the articles on this topic should reflect any legal analysis carried out by Wikipedians, as that would be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.87 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

None of this is "legal analysis". The first seven points are established facts. The last two points are conclusions that could pretty easily be drawn from those facts, and it would not be hard to marshal numerous quotes from figures on the left and right to support those conclusions. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a lawyer and can tell you that any statement about how a generally applicable body of law applies to a specific set of facts constitutes legal analysis. That would include #1 and #6 above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.242.249 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. If it were to include legal analysis, one would also ask if the constitution prohibiting the referendum to ask for authorization to decide about the election of a new constitutional assembly is a lawful by itself. It seems to have a deep nesting of democratic decisions to be a bad thing on itself. To prohibit such a thing seems odd... No legal analysis: not #1, not #6 and not this one. 200.152.100.148

(talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what our lawyer here would consider a basic statement of fact, then. Are you denying that the Constitution of Honduras specifically forbids changing the law of Honduras to allow for the President to serve longer than the existing term limit? Is it a fact or isn't it that the Constitution actually says that? I'm more sympathetic to the view of the person who responded afterwards, that it seems strange that a constitution would limit people from changing it...however, there are examples of that in the world as well. The German Basic Law, for example, has entrenched clauses pertaining to human rights that it is illegal to change. If it's illegitimate for Honduras to set something up on a high shelf like that, it should also be illegitimate for Germany to do it. Also, it seems like they probably did this for the same reason. Honduras has had a lot of experience with caudillos, so it wanted something specific in its constitution to circulate power so one person couldn't be dominant. That's similar to Germany wanting to entrench human rights in its constitution because it had a history with leaders with contempt for human rights. Now, granted, it's my opinion that both were justified in doing so, but it's factual rather than opinion-based to state that Honduras's constitutional strategy here is similar to that of Germany. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV????

"Zelaya's attempt to hold a constitutional referendum caused a political crisis and resulted in his ousting." As a result a Socialist uprising supported by Castro and President Obama stokes local unrest. To the asshole that wrote the previous line: get ready to watch your pathetic puppet government collapse under the pressure of popular resistance. El pueblo unido, bitch.

Neatly summarised. I notice that the text that says he caused the coup by his own action has a footnote that refers to an Al-Jezeera article that says he "sought exile". That makes no sense. Can we please remove any reference to his actions leading to his ousting? The actions of the people who ousted him led to his ousting.134.117.107.19 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Any forceful removal of an elected official is by definition the product of actions taken by others. The only discussion point would be if in fact the removal was driven by Zelaya's actions (there could be no other possible outcome), or if Zelaya's actions were just the reason presented for his removal. Maybe fix the sentence by somehow stating at least that is the reason given officially for his removal? Wikihonduras (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Relatively new to WikiPedia, at least in a contributory role, I am nevertheless aware of the difficulty of maintaining and sustaining the NPOV standard in matters of politics and religion. I know this is "not a forum", yet seriously, it appears to be one.

My questions to this group is this: as an individual with close ties to Hondurans across a spectrum of social classes, how can I help? I can tell you, straight off, that citations of "fact" using media sources are less and less reliable. An example may be as simple as this: Stating that Zaleya is recognized as the President of Honduras is clearly supported by numerous sources and accurate, straightforward reporting of events that can be reliably corroborated. Stating that Zalea is the duly elected President, serving out a term, is a fact. Stating that the majority of Hondurans support him, or implying that is true, or saying that he is the President of the people, or worse, saying that his political opponents, many of whom are also duly elected, are not, is clearly non-objective, no matter the source. Perhaps they would be appropriately presented as opinions shared by experts, then appropriately cited? And, in such a case, would it be most appropriate to present any credible conta opinion? Stating that thousands of people have risen in opposition, is not verifiable, and likely hyperbole. Sorry, but I have friends in Tegucigalpa who are anything but wealthy or priveleged -- I do humanitarian work in the barrios and in the countryside as well -- and their eyewitness reports to me via internet do not support such a claim. Zaleya has become increasingly unpopular, as best I can tell, as has Chavez, to the majority of Hondurans. They are frustrated by an ineffective central government, and had high hopes for Zaleya. The facts are that they are poor, but they are not Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Costa Ricans, or Guatamalans, and they do not like, I am told, outsiders -- not just the US -- speaking on their behalf, or judging them. They are a proud and resiliant people, who survive despite the odds against them. Yesterday, Nicaraguans crossed the border to organize protests in Tegucigalpa -- yet trucks for commerce are prohibited to cross. Planeloads of drug money arrive daily from Venezuela, landing on private airstrips. So, there are many sides to this struggle, and I for one, do not see a high road.

For sure, it is fair to say that Zaleya's actions precipiated a constitutional crisis, and that a number of court, legislative, and military actions followed. Use of the term "illegal" strikes me as presumptive, at best. Clearly the systems and institutions in place were not prepared to adequately handle an unfortunate sequence of decisions, actions, and failures among rivals with various interests. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman

Comments

We have 2 months to make this into a decent article worthy of a President of Honduras, SqueakBox 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the election results section on January 27th, (pues, si Dios quiere, como se dice aqui), SqueakBox 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The language used in this article is favorably biased toward the right wing of the political spectrum. For instance, under presidency there is the following - "During Zelaya's rule, increase in violence has given Honduras one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America. His approval ratings have fallen." Besides the poor writing, there is absolutely no mention of why homicide rates have risen; one can hardly believe that he endorses murder. Whomever wrote that was obviously trying to claim that he was responsible, and his falling approval rating is somehow proof for that accusation and that the population of Honduras agrees with said author. There is no mention of positive changes in Honduran society, not that there necessarily must be, however the idea that the only significance of his presidency is an increase in the homicide rate is obviously propaganda and does not belong in a Wikipedia without further information being provided. Wikipedia's political articles are consistently pro-right with many official editors displaying an obvious contempt for any writing that isn't biased right of center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garcho (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

hola jose manuel

hola,,, oye te esoty habalando de colombia.. estoy haciandi un proyecto muy importante sbre ti. nesesito informacon que aya pasado en tu vida temprana. bueno si puedes conmtarme alo solo contactame..... att... una fan tuya

Its getting better but still no pic. I guess we need to wait till he goes to the States where doubtless the gov will take one. For all its talk of equality etc the Venezuelan gov, the only one with actual pics, doesn't allow them for fair use, SqueakBox 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your immature language is biased against Zelaya and against Venezuela, I assume because you have contempt for Chavez. You shouldn't be an editor. What does your opinion about Venezuela's government have to do with anything? No one is interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garcho (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the WP:Civility rules, Squeakbox's comment is over three years old and has nothing to do to recent events. It seems to state the difficulty to obtaining pictures that could be published in Wikipedia, back in '06. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, I am certainly not biased against Zelaya. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your assessment was not wrong though I have updated it to contain more info, I think all current Presidents of sovereign countries should be classed as high. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Info on university degree

I'm not sure if the fact that he did not get a degree or that he only passed 11 classes in x amount of years is relevant to the article, and even if it were, the fact that it's in bold and in all caps seems pretty mean. He may be a bad president, but I still think you should keep the article and its typeface as objective as possible. And for the record I am NOT pro-Mel, I just like articles to be objective. Oscar (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the caps and bold. Educational level is pretty standard though. Any biographic article would include college attended, years attended and if a degree was obtained. You can see Bill Gates. Now, someone could dispute if the "fact" is indeed one, since no reference was posted, where it confirms his college performance. Wikihonduras (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

hi! i was wondering if anyone has thought of make this page a protected page... you know for not let everybody edit it... cause the person has a lot of enemies that make bad editions to the page... like the university degree edit... so if anyone can please... thank you! JcHnd

Lets wait and see if semi protection is necessary. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrest & Deportation

Currently, all articles (except source #9) do not mention exile. Can you post any other url's to articles that mention this exile here in the discussion page? Dbrown1986 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-honduras-coup29-2009jun29,0,2480224.story quotes Costa Rican officials saying he is in their country. Ratemonth (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Corruption charges

The statement that "corruption has increased" during his term of office should definately be cited. Petrelharp (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its been removed. I removed a piece yesterday that had been there a while giving stats re corruption that implied the opposite but that were not appropriate for the article which is about Zelaya and not Honduras. We could certainly mention the issue if we can cite it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why "rough" translation?

There is absolutely nothing "rough" with my translation of the referendum question. Instead of just reverting my contribution, why not "smoothen" my translation or at least state what is "rough" about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.29.109 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Specify 'Political Crisis'

Can the words political crisis in the lede be expanded to 2009 Honduran political crisis? It falsely appears the essential link goes to a generic explanation of what a political crisis is. Methinks it would be better if the existing sentence read: "Zelaya's attempt to hold a constitutional referendum led to the 2009 Honduran political crisis and resulted in his ouster by the Honduran Supreme Court and military on June 28, 2009. He is currently in exile in Costa Rica. Willie Chile (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya

Zelaya's attempt to hold a Un-constitutional and ilegal referendum caused a political crisis and resulted in his ousting by the military on June 28, 2009. He is currently in exile in Costa Rica.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.84.148 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Military Coup

The military coup was totally illegal. The military not only took Manuel Zelaya outside of the country wearing his nightgown; they kidnapped all of Zelaya's ministers, some reporters, and union leaders. They took control of government offices and were posted to protect the biggest private companies from riots. Snipers were also located overlooking the Presidential House, where thousands of people gathered to express their outrage.


Coups are generally not legal. I'm with the military, though... I'm getting tired of these leftist LatinAmerican dictators. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And...we're not a forum. Cheers. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Media control"

Please see "Honduras' President takes on media moguls for access to the people," in NotiCen: Central American & Caribbean Affairs (that's a publication of the University of New Mexico,) 28 June 2007.

Isn't it charming how we somehow forget to mention that the "media control" lasted for exactly three days? And that it was scaled back from two hours to one to half an hour? For a total of two hours overall? And that it was acknowledged as a totally legal measure by all parties, even those who criticized it? Oooooh, it's just like 1984. Terrifying totalitarianism!!! <eleland/talkedits> 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

POV on statement regarding to Honduran Constitution and some of its articles

The following statement was removed from a paragraph referring to the clause in the Honduran Constitution baring changing certain articles:

"...although this is legally irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly."

This statement would be POV. Wether something is relevant or not should not be included as a fact in Wikipedia. The inclusion of a reference would only allow it to include it as the "opinion" of a particular person or entity. Wording such as "xyz believes that this is not relevant" may be used in order to avoid POV itself in the article. Wikihonduras (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it is fact. Constitutions can't legally prevent their replacement, and the Honduran constitution doesn't claim to. Disembrangler (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Netiher can any anti-crime law prevent crimes, that doesn't make them irelevant. It just defines what constitutes a crime and what not. The important argument here is the word "legally". The point being that courts under Honduran law could threat an attempt to change it as an illegal act, just as for example Miscegenation laws made different race unions illegal in the US not too long ago. Cetainly it's a relevant difference as recent events in Honduras show. Wikihonduras (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(a) You're completely missing the point, which is one of constitutional legal principle. Constitutions cannot constrain their replacement, because they are only legally valid insofar as their populations support them. Validity flows to a constitution from its people, this is basic. (b) this is a reliable secondary source. I can add a link to the constitution itself too. Now please stop removing correct and sourced information. Disembrangler (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The point of contention here is not wether or not any law or body of law can be changed. All laws can be changed one way or the other. The argument on the floor is wether an article baring changing 7 specific articles is relevant or not. The relevant difference is that without those articles no court could find an at attempting to change it illegal. Current events show factually how relevant this difference is. Unfortunately President Zelaya didn't go to trial, but he could've legally gone and legally been found guilty of violating articles which you find irelevant. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, he couldn't, because he wasn't trying to reform the constitution. That's the very simple constitutional point the source makes, which I've put in the article. Now the Assembly complicated things by trying to ban the poll with the law banning referenda 6 months before an election (though it's not clear whether this really applied, because the 28 June poll wasn't a legally binding referendum), and there may be other issues. Legality can get complicated, especially when the establishment wants to make it so, and controls the institutions permitting that. But what the constitution says (in terms of banning reform) is not the issue on this precise point legally - only politically, as a figleaf. Disembrangler (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That I do agree. I'll do a small rephrasing to remove what I found POV, Please check and let know here if you are not fine. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The facts

It was not a referendum, it was just a question with no legal value. Here´s the legislation:


Decreto para consultarle al pueblo Cuarta Urna Decreto Ejecutivo PCM 05-2009

El Presidente de la República, En consejo de Ministros: Considerando:

Que en Honduras, como un Estado de derecho, la soberanía corresponde al pueblo del cual emanan todos los poderes del Estado, con la finalidad de asegurarse a sus habitantes del goce de la justicia, la libertad, la cultura y el bienestar económico y social.

CONSIDERANDO: Que la sociedad hondureña ha experimentado cambios sustanciales y significativos en los últimos 27 años, cambios que demandan un nuevo marco constitucional para adecuarlo a la realidad nacional como una legítima aspiración de la sociedad.

CONSIDERANDO: Que es deber del Poder Ejecutivo contribuir al fortalecimiento y consolidación de la democracia; así como atender, en su condición de administrador general del Estado, los asuntos de interés nacional y promover soluciones que garanticen la gobernabilidad democrática, con amplia participación ciudadana.

CONSIDERANDO: Que como una forma de practicar la democracia participativa, es procedente realizar una amplia consulta popular para determinar, de forma legítima, si la sociedad hondureña está de acuerdo con la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, que dicte y apruebe una nueva Constitución Política.

CONSIDERANDO: Que la Constitución vigente no prevé un procedimiento para convocar a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente; por ello, el Poder Ejecutivo, como una formas de practicar la democracia participativa, apela al mecanismo de la consulta popular para determinar si la sociedad hondureña demanda una nueva Constitución.

CONSIDERANDO: Que el Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), de acuerdo a su ley, tienen como primer objetivo, asegurar la producción de estadísticas confiables y oportunas, necesarias para el permanente conocimiento de la realidad nacional, la planificación del desarrollo y la eficiente gestión en la toma de decisiones del sector público, para lo cual puede ejecutar o coordinar la generación de datos.

POR TANTO En aplicación de los artículos de la Constitución de la República, de la ley del INE; de la ley de Administración Pública y del Reglamento de Organización y Funcionamiento y competencia del Poder Ejecutivo.

DECRETA Articulo 1.Realizar de conformidad con la ley, una amplia consulta popular en todo el territorio nacional, para la que la ciudadanía hondureña pueda expresar libremente, su acuerdo o no, con la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, que dicte y apruebe una nueva Constitución Política.

Articulo 2. Esta consulta estará a cargo del Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), como órgano encargado de la producción de estadística confiables y oportunas, necesarias para el permanente conocimiento de la realidad nacional, la planificación nacional y la eficiente gestión en la toma de decisiones en el sector público, para lo cual puede ejecutar y organizar la generación de datos.

La consulta deberá llevarse a cabo, a más tardar, el último domingo del mes de junio del año 2009 y planteara la siguiente pregunta:

¿ESTAUSTED DE ACUERDO QUE EN LAS ELECCIONES GENERALES DE NOVIEMBRE 2009, SE INSTALE UNA CUARTA URNA PARA DECIDIR SOBRE LA CONVOCATORIA A UNA ASAMBLEA NACIONAL CONSTITUYENTE QUE APRUEBE UNA NUEVA CONSTITUCION POLITICA?

Todas las instituciones y órganos del Poder Ejecutivo, están en la obligación de brindar colaboración oportuna y adecuada al INE, para el cumplimiento de esta tarea.

Asimismo, se convoca a la sociedad civil organizada para que participe y vigile la legitimidad y trasparencia de esta consulta popular.

Articulo 3.El resultado positivo de esta consulta popular; servirá de legitimo fundamento para que el Poder Ejecutivo remita al Congreso Nacional, un proyecto de ley especial para colocar la cuarta urna en las elecciones generales de noviembre 2009.

Articulo 4.El presente decreto es de ejecución inmediata y deberá publicarse en el diario oficial La Gaceta.

Dado en Casa Presidencial, en la ciudad de Tegucigalpa, Municipio del Distrito Central, a los 23 días del mes de marzo 2009.

COMUNIQUESE: JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES Presidente Constitucional de la República. Firmas de todos los ministros de Estado

Ley de Participación ciudadana (Decreto No. 3-2006) ARTÍCULO 3.- Los mecanismos de la Participación Ciudadana entre otros son:

1) Plebiscito;

2) Referéndum;

3) Cabildos abiertos municipales;

4) Iniciativa Ciudadana; y,

5) Otros señalados en la Ley.

(…)

ARTÍCULO 5.- La iniciativa ciudadana es un mecanismo de participación mediante el cual el ciudadano podrá presentar las solicitudes e iniciativas siguientes:

1) Solicitar que los titulares de órganos o dependencias públicas de cualquiera de los poderes del Estado, que convoque a la ciudadanía en general, a los vecinos de un Municipio, de un barrio o colonia, a gremios, sectores o grupos sociales organizados, para que emitan opiniones y formulen propuestas de solución a problemas colectivos que les afecten. Los resultados no serán vinculantes pero sí elementos de juicio para el ejercicio de las funciones del convocante.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJCLopes (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

The edit war between User:Ratemonth and User:MiguelJCLopes has to stop now. Please stop reverting each other, and discuss the matter here before further edits to "referendum" vs "public opinion poll". MiguelJCLopes, I must say it's a bit impolite of you to keep doing reverts with any explanation in the handy WP:Edit summary even after being kindly asked to use it properly. LjL (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ljl I'd advice you follow your own recommendation and wait untill the discussion flushes it's way though before you impose your own view. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, 1) I tried to compromise by using "voting", which encompasses both "poll" and "referendum", a compromise which you entirely ignored 2) my last revert merely re-added a "verification failed" tag, which it was extremely rude of you to remove - you don't remove tags like that without any consensus while a discussion is in progress. Please, behave. LjL (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for removing tag. Please see below for further discussion and alternative given Wikihonduras (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Horcones Massacre

I have edited the section on the Horcones massacre which was unclear about the kind of "involvement" attributed to Manuel Zelaya Jr. and his father Manuel Zelaya Sr. respectively. The provided reference does not imply that Zelaya Jr. was directly involved but states that his father Zelaya Sr. was convicted and later granted amnesty. it also mentions that the zelaya family has denied having had any involvement in the massacre whatsoever. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

¿Succeeded by Micheletti? ¿Who says?

Excuse me, but why english wikipedia says Micheletti is the acting president of Honduras if he laks recognition by the community of countries & he was not elected by the people of Honduras? Can I be recognized as "RULER OF THE UNIVERSE" by english wikipedia if someday I wake up in the morning and edit an article in this virtual page? Don't be confused ZELAYA is the current PRESIDENT of Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.80.197 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We must make it clear that the view that Zelaya was succeeded by Micheletti is a highly disputed one; the mainstream view seems to be that he is still President de jure if not de facto. <eleland/talkedits> 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


why would it matter if every single country fails to recognize his presidency? If every country didn't recognize obama as president the USA would just shrug, 'cause they have no power over recognizing a leader of their own country, the people of that country do. Though, i do agree that he shouldn't be considered an absolute president because the people of Hondura did not elect him. Therefore,maybe call him a temporary president (hopefully)until the election or the authoritative power of Hondura (obviously Zelaya has no power in Honduras anymore and is unable to use his presidential power). Overall, the best way to answer this question is to find out if the people of Honduras see him as the president (thus he should be called president) or not (then he should be called the authoritative power of Hondura or something like that). But, that data is nearly impossible to find unless u ask every Honduran what he/she thinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.186.78 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also is Micheletti the next one in line for presidency if anything would happen to Zelaya? In most cases if the president died or is unable to act on his duties as president the next in line would be come president with out the peoples vote. Or, at least thats how it is in the USA (if obama died then the vice president would be president (even though no one voted for him)). Consequently, since Zelaya is unable to return to Honduras, and is unable to continue acting as president its necessary to have someone else take his place (either until a new voted president comes along or Zelaya comes back into power) and if Micheletti is the next in line, and with Zelaya unable to act as president, then calling him president wouldnt necessarily be wrong. July 7, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.186.78 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

referendum vs public opinion poll

  • I´m new around and I apologize for my lack of etiquette.
  • I´m absolutely sure that it was a public opinion poll because I´ve read the legislation. The executive decree PCM 05-2009 clearly states that it is a poll with no legal consequences. A referendum is diferent because it has legal consequences:
  • "Articulo 3.El resultado positivo de esta consulta popular; servirá de legitimo fundamento para que el Poder Ejecutivo remita al Congreso Nacional, un proyecto de ley especial para colocar la cuarta urna en las elecciones generales de noviembre 2009."
  • Ley de Participación ciudadana (Decreto No. 3-2006) defines this kind of poll with no legal consequences:
  • "ARTÍCULO 5.- La iniciativa ciudadana es un mecanismo de participación mediante el cual el ciudadano podrá presentar las solicitudes e iniciativas siguientes:

1) Solicitar que los titulares de órganos o dependencias públicas de cualquiera de los poderes del Estado, que convoque a la ciudadanía en general, a los vecinos de un Municipio, de un barrio o colonia, a gremios, sectores o grupos sociales organizados, para que emitan opiniones y formulen propuestas de solución a problemas colectivos que les afecten. Los resultados no serán vinculantes pero sí elementos de juicio para el ejercicio de las funciones del convocante.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJCLopes (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, except the latter is talking about "iniciativa ciudadana", while the only term I see being used in the decree is "consulta popular" (which doesn't appear there). Anyway, this sort of meddling directly in the laws is research from WP:Primary sources; instead, you should seek WP:Secondary sources (reliable ones) talking about the issue. Meanwhile, I'll try to reword the phrase in article as neutrally as possible. LjL (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, please see the Referendum article; it says: "By nature of their effects, referendums may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory." - So, unless that article is right, it seems that the English (remember, we're not speaking Spanish here!) term "referendum" is perfectly appropriate here, regardless of the issues you brought forward, after all. LjL (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the final version of the decree Article 2 defines it as “Encuesta de Opinión Pública" http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422 A better translation of "encuesta" is in all cases "poll". Wikihonduras (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a reference in English? This is not the Spanish Wikipedia, and honestly I'm sorry but I have my doubts that a better translation is "in all cases" something. That hardly happens with words, especially so with subtle legal ones. It's WP:OR. I'll change it to say "a voting", like I was intending to yesterday - then after having a good look at the Referendum article, I didn't, but it seems like it has to be done. Mind, I'll change it back to "referendum" later if all the reliable sources in English that I can find call it one... LjL (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually sources in English are "prefered" but not "required". verification requires the editor that uses its own translation to include the foreing language source for verification by readers. Feel free to fine a better a translation of "encuesta" than "poll". Wikihonduras (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
President Zelaya himself explained at the Panama press conference that he was trying to conduct only a "poll". Here is the the Miami Herald article that specifies a poll was Zelaya's direct translation from his speech. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1123861.html Wikihonduras (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course in general sources in English are not required. But here we're quibbling about a specific English term, so in this case the only relevant source is in English; it's not a matter that I'm "too lazy" to read Spanish sources, it's simply that Spanish sources generally don't discuss which English term should be used for this.
Are you so very much against "voting", since I think that's neutral between the two that an edit war has been going on about? LjL (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The very source that you gave puts "poll" in "scare quotes", then goes on to explain that even though Zelaya called it a poll, that seems questionable, as the author is
and
To me that seems a reference against calling it a "poll". LjL (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In this case the action itself was defined in the executive decree published in the Honduran official newspaper "La Gazeta". This executive decree was only published in Spanish. In Wikipedia what matter is what can be referenced, all published english translations found specify "encuesta" as "poll or survey". If there are other sources that translate President Zelaya's "encuesta de opinion publica" to "voting" it would bring additional elements to the discussion. Finally the view of the intentions or purpose that Zelaya may have had are of no consecuence to Wikipedia. There are plenty of other outlets to discuss this. What's important here is what is what is the best translation of "encuesta". And then and probably more important is to define what exactly has going to happen in June 28th (a poll), and the possible outcome of the poll (a November Referendum to call a consitutional Assembly). "poll or survey" is the most referenced and better translation of the term. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. While it's true that what matters here is what can be referenced, it absolutely doesn't follow that what we should do is research the correct translation of "encuesta". That is NOT what we should do. What we should do is find WP:reliable sources (in this case, in English), and see whether they use "referendum" or "poll".
The one you gave even goes a step further, explicitly arguing against the word "poll" and in favor of "referendum". You're right, what Zelaya was thinking isn't important; what secondary sources in English call it is.
I'll change back to the entirely neutral "voting" shortly.
LjL (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinion of what is the true intention is meaningless in this case. Literal translations are unbiased. To avoid NPOV issues, the best translation should be used, any other term which doesn't translate literally would break this rule. If it helps to clear the issue, may I recommend instead "what President Zelaya defined as public opinion survey" ? This way we are faithful to the sources, events and translations. Does that work better? Wikihonduras (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinion pieces may be irrelevant (but hey, it was you supplying one, not me...), but what the press consistently uses for a term is not irrelevant. And it seems to me that most sources (I'm looking at sources embedded in other related articles, too) call it a "referendum". Your last proposal for a wording is not entirely ok with me, unless you add something like "but most media termed 'referendum'"; otherwise it merely instigates doubts in the reader (by using weasel "what he called") without explaining why there ought to be any doubts.
Anyway, I'd also like to point out (only point out, far from me to try to do any OR!) that our article about Referendum has a definition that in my opinion well encompasses Zelaya's "opinion poll" as well. LjL (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, I supplied an english article as a source of translation, which is what you asked for at the very beginning (see beginning of discussio work better? Wikihonduras (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinion pieces may be irrelevant (but hey, it was you supplying one, not me...), but what the press consistently uses for a term is not irrelevant. And it seems to me that most sources (I'm looking at sources embedded in other related articles, too) call it a "referendum". Your last proposal for a wording is not entirely ok with me, unless you add something like "but most media termed 'referendum'"; otherwise it merely instigates doubts in the reader (by using weasel "what he called") without explaining why there ought to be any doubts.
Anyway, I'd also like to point out (only point out, far from me to try to do any OR!) that our article about Referendum has a definition that in my opinion well encompasses Zelaya's "opinion poll" as well. LjL (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, I supplied an english article as a source of translation, which is what you asked for at the very beginning (see beginning of discussion). Since there is no literal line by line translation of PCM-020 that I could find, this "opinion" article offers an example of translating "encuesta" to "poll". Even though this was not needed since as editor and per Wiki guidelines, I put forward my own translation. If there is a better translation of "encuesta" again let's reference it. What his real intention was, I don't know and myself and wikipedia don't care. I see several references in the articles that present properly both points of view.. Again, do you object replacing the plain term "poll of public opinion" with the qualified sentence "what President Zelaya called poll of public opinion". There are plenty of references of this, It's accurrate to any translation and doesn't take a position of his intentions or purpose. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had replied to that: yes, I do object, unless you also add "... though most media term as a referendum" or something similar. I explained above the reasons why. And I think you're missing my point about asking for sources: I don't care what Zelaya called it, I care about what sources called it. Zelaya might have called it a chiwawa for all I care, but I'd much rather have in the article what the reliable sources call it, since both Zelaya and the Micheletti government are obviously biased in their own direction. So, I'll agree to mentioning that Zelaya calls it a "poll", only if we also mention that foreign media do not. Otherwise, I stand by "voting" or "non-binding referendum". LjL (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"most" is a Weasel term definitely any editor would have a problem using it. Unfortunately all sources related to an event that never happened can only be considered opinions. The only real fact here is the what actually happened and that is that a executive decree was published calling for a "poll of public opinion". Anything beyond that goes to speculation. Certainly we can mention that media outlet's "view" that this was in fact a referendum. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, you can't really be trying to discredit any' reliable source by definition with a reasoning like that. I strongly oppose that. Wikipedia is based on verifiability from reliable sources, and that's what we should seek. Whether reliable sources are talking about an event that happened or one that was scheduled to happen is entirely irrelevant. THEY CALL IT A REFERENDUM.

For some more references:

These are reasonably reliable sources in English that talk about Sunday's whatever-it-was. They call it a referendum. I think the article should call it a non-binding referendum. That's what an official voting is called in English, which is, I suspect, probably why reliable sources call it so. LjL (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to Wikipedia guidelines, there is a big difference when it talks about events that never happened or to happen in the future. WP:Crystal_Ball specifies that such events "are prima facie unencyclopedic", because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. All references provided are either a lose translations of the event or terms, definitely not literal translations (going back to the origin of the discussion). These sources do belong in these article and please do add them when it comes to explain the different views of President Zelaya's intentions and objectives. The only reference of a fact is the one provided where it defines the executive order calling for a poll. Any direct unqualified used of referendum would fall into WP:NPOV issues. 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Make up your mind - first you put WP:Future event, which is not a guideline at all but merely an essay. Then you changed it to WP:Crystal ball, but the one that says such events "are prima facie unencyclopedic" is the essay, not the guideline; the guideline says nothing like that. The guideline really says nothing at all about our case here. I think i'll stick to just finding reliable sources and see what they call it. LjL (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, the objective was to put both sources. Please avoid presenting you own POV as a fact. Presenting sources of opinions and speculations, are "prima facie unencyclopedic" (it's in the essay and in my opinion accurrate, after all these are the talk pages). If you continue to impose your POV without further input from other editors, will recommend banning you. Please do follow wp:Civility as I have throughout this discussion. The intent of the article is to present properly referenced facts and within guidelines, properly referenced views and opinions. Wikihonduras (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked for my uninvolved opinion on this to clarify where this debate stands in respect of policy. Our guidelines are very clear, Wikipedia's verifiability policy rests on wording articles from what has been reported by reliable sources. The sources that LjL has provided above referring to the action as a referendum are as reliable as sources get. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to future notable events that are being reported by reliable sources, it refers to speculation about unconfirmed future events. Reliable sources may be incorrect in their choice of wording but unless other reliable sources have picked up on and explained this possible mistake, it would be inappropriate for editors to word the article text so as to make an assessment on the matter. It is not the place of wikipedia editors to be interpreting and drawing conclusions from other primary documents as that would be original research and/or synthesis. Great care should be taken with translations. This is en:WP and if some reliable english language sources are referring to it as a poll and others are referring to it as a referendum then a passage should be created that incorporates both terms, keeping it neutral and making sure not to make and judgements as to what the choice of wording might mean. Suggest that both parties here use this page to work towards a passage that includes all the sources and both terms and steers clear of making any unsourced judgements on the choice of words that the sources are using. Mfield (Oi!) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mfield. I believe the current wording and tone is biased and gives considerable to a POV, does make conclusions of intentions of an event that didn't occurred. Bolding and within quotes terms further emphasize this POV. Also currently the paragraph reads literrally "that a referendum was to assess the desire of a referendum". I believe this further confuses the purpose of the June voting and November voting. The facts are 1) The president ordered though and executive order a Poll of Public Opinion (This is a correct and literal translation of the article. This event happened as described and it's properly referenced. 2) The event was stopped by deposing President Zelaya 3) There are plenty references that called the event a referendum.
The proposed fixed to avoid any POV could be "...to hold Poll of Public Opinion,as was officially known, but widely referenced as a Referendum by others..." I believe this would be unbiased and will give proper weight to all views. Wikihonduras (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
That is along the right track. Make sure to put the inline citations alongside each term so as to to clarify who is referring to it as what. So something along the lines of "The president ordered a public opinion poll<ref1><ref2>, widely referred to as a referendum in international media<ref3><ref4><ref5>." Mfield (Oi!) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I would still like to wait for other editors to ponder their opinion here as suggested to Lgl, before any further edits are made. This separation of terms between poll and referendum is not isolated to this article, but to all articles that may touch on this event. Wikihonduras (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The last mentioned wording is ok with me. LjL (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See, compromise and consequent consensus is everyone's friend - it's much easier and less stressful to word something neutrally than it is to continue arguing about it :) Mfield (Oi!) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
All that fuzz and at the end we ended up doing what wikihonduras suggested from the beginning, talk about going the long way to get to the same place...just like this crisis :) Ah well just when the argument was getting good, I guess I'll have to search somewhere else for some good entertainment... 218.186.10.250 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

intro

Someone keeps restoring a huge intro that doesn't even pass the laugh-test on neutrality. I don't care a lot about Zelaya, but we'd be better off with a stubbish intro than an embarrassing one in either direction. In particular, the previous intro contains a bunch of obvious digs at Zelaya that don't even make sense for the lede of an article, like:

A son of wealthy businessman, he finished high school but dropped out of college. He inherited his father's title "Mel". Zelaya was involved in his ranch, logging and timber trade businesses. He was elected President of Honduras on November 27 with one of the slimmest margins in Honduran history and was inaugurated on January 27, 2006. During his presidency, Zelaya began to lose the support of even his own party. In 2009, he was the most disliked of 18 regional leaders, with only a quarter of Hondurans approving his presidency.

That would be like starting off the George W. Bush article with a rant about how he's from a rich family, got into Yale illegitimately, and then became really unpopular after a disputed election that some people claim was stolen. Obviously, our GWB intro is at least a bit better than that. --Delirium (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Laugh test? With a comment like that I dont know whether to take you seriously or not but I suggest you talk here proposing your massive deletion before doing it. This material has been here for months, way before the crisis, and I can see nothing POV about it and I am unsympathetic to Mel. I suggest you reword but do not delete other people's hard work and then expect others to replace what you have deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is that there's nothing to replace; intros of biographies are not for that type of material. Do you see discussion of George W. Bush's businesses in his intro? Of John Kerry's? I don't see a reason to include that paragraph I've quoted above except to try to mount an argument that Zelaya is a rich businessmen who shouldn't be trusted, which isn't really the point of Wikipedia articles. It also hasn't been there for months; it was added in the past 3 days. Picking a random July 1 revision, you can see that the intro used to be much better. --Delirium (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is you are removing large amounts of ref'd material much of which is fine because you cannot be bothered to put the time in to edit, or are you suggesting he didnt finish high school, etc. Deleting material in this way is unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That's incorrect; deleting material can sometimes improve articles. In particular, see Wikipedia:Lead section. I'm not saying that the biography section of the article is incorrect; I'm suggesting that the lead is non-neutral in its selection of what to highlight. --Delirium (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe it; but I aggree with Delirium. I can't imagine anyone reading that intro. I stopped in the middle after my eyes started hurting. Someone needs to make it a manageable length. Delirium, will you do it? I do not have the time to get involved here myself. 172 | Talk 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Article 102

It's not our role to say he's violating the Constitution. It would appropriate to cite notable experts in Honduran law making this argument (as well as those arguing against). The cited "Honduran Episcopal Conference’s Communiqué" is actually fairly ambiguous. It quotes the article and says, "All of us believe we deserve an explanation of the happenings of June 28." It does not explicitly claim a violation. Superm401 - Talk 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement in the lead section, since it passes unqualified judgement on the issue of violation and #Political crisis makes a direct, neutral reference to Art. 102. I also added a ref to an official page (Honduran congress) with the current constitution. Hope that's OK. arielCo (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it clear: he left office

manuel zelaya: his term ended on june 28 2009, Roberto Micheletti succeded Manuel. the world doesn't recognize micheletti's government but that doesn't mean manuel is still in office, he was deposed. therefore honduras assigned a new constitucional president which is micheletti which took office june 28 2009, therefore, manuel zelaya left office that same date. Vercetticarl (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Either talk about this here or on my talk. In any case, I'm getting doing this damn thing again. Go to Talk:Honduras. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And don't create a new section for the same purpose, either. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If you'd actually read Talk:Honduras, as you say you did, you would see my rather vehement defence of your position. My opinion, however, is irrelevant. Consensus ruled for a compromise showing utter NPOV for the two sides. As per our policies. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone delete my edit? I keep on putting DEPOSED underneath his moniker by the picture, only for it to be replaced by DISPUTED. It's not disputed. He's no longer president even if no GOVERNMENT recognizes the LEGITIMACY of Micheletti's presidency, on the ground, he's making the calls. Until Zelaya is back in power, he's NOT the president. It's NOT disputed. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Honduras... Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is the former President of Honduras.Agre22 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)agre22

Los Horcones massacre

I have reinstated the subsection on the Horcones massacre which was removed previously with no explanation given. The incident is well sourced and wikipedia has an article on it - which seems to make it sufficiently notable and verifiable to merit inclusion in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Article 239

I have been trying to add the following:

"Zelaya's ouster was in response to his continous violations to the constitution. One key article, Article 239 states that "Any citizen serving as the head of the Executive Power cannot be President. Anyone who breaks this disposition or proposes its reform, as well as those who support its reform directly or indirectly, will immediately cease his functions and will be banned from any public appointment for ten years.[1]"

LjL keeps reverting it: "(talk | contribs) (32,815 bytes) (Undid revision 303219746 by 75.145.227.214 Remove WP:OR. Find a secondary source that states the whole thing, don't build on a primary one)"

Yet there is absolutely no mention of Article 239 which is of much importance as this article states Zelaya ceased being President automatically and thus you cannot have a Coup on someone that was not president. This article is too important not to mention on the main article.

Yes, that was similar to the argument that some people kept stating in 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. The issue is that it's not up to you to decide what's "important to mention" and what is not. That's up to WP:reliable sources. So, find a reliable source that links Zelaya's actions to art. 239, then add content (faithful to what the source actually says, please). We don't do WP:Original research on here (not to mention we definitely don't synthesize our own conclusions like "he wasn't president, you cannot have a coup on someone who is not president, therefore it wasn't a coup"; find a source that makes that conclusion, and then it's justified; otherwise it's not). --LjL (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, LjL is the Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran Congress, Honduran Media, etc... are those reliable sources? I wan't to do things right and comply with the Wiki's policies so I know you are doing this in good faith, as I am therefore your help will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.227.214 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, of course they aren't reliable sources. They're implicated in what is being internationally called a coup d'état with suppression of press freedom, so they cannot be considered reliable by any extent of imagination. --LjL (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
International support is not a determinant for something being considered WP:RS after all international support changes very quickly. Almost every nation including most media supported Hitler. We all know the rest...Isn't this whole mess a POV the sources that support one pov despited being outnumbered compared to outher sources? I personally don't support the new government, yet I still believe this an opinion issue, not something cut and clear as you wrote here. This is not an example of a few people supporting the earth is flat concept. Besides having a different POV, is there any reason to say that the soures are in fact unreliable, merely because they are outnumbered in their POV? How is the saying the use in criminal law "The witness is a prostitute so she must have bad eye-sight" :) 218.186.10.250 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You've put words in my mouth. I didn't mention anything constituting WP:RS. I said that the fact that this is overwhelmingly considered a coup by international media is a mainstream view; in addition, there are WP:RS which report that freedom of press has been partly suppressed; therefore, Honduran press cannot be considered a WP:RS, since it's not freely reporting. The Supreme Court, Congress etc. would never be considered acceptable secondary sources to begin with; they're primary sources, deeply entangled with the subject, and their opinion can only be reported as such if there's a clear link between their opinion and events.
I'd also like to add that there's an article about the crisis/coup, and this article should not stray too much from describing its subject, which is Zelaya. It should briefly describe the events and link to the main article, as far as the crisis/coup goes.
--LjL (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh forgot. My colleague here asked me to write that under the same argument the Supreme Court of the United States would not be considered a reliable source for the 2000 US Presidential Election conflict. Almost any other opinion was againts their ruling, even many members of congress disagreed (I still do to this day). Yet it is a reliable source for that article. So why is the Honduran Supreme Court so easily discarded as a source again? Sorry just my legal 0.02 cents coming from an Anti-Coup editor :) 218.186.10.250 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The US Supreme Court can only be a source for its own opinion about that, just as the Honduran Supreme Court can only be a source about its own opinion here. Opinion that has to be marked as opinion. Also, will you take my hint to look at what's been done in the (much more relevant to this whole issue) 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article - where art. 239 is mentioned? Really. It can be mentioned, and so can the Supreme Court's opinion, but do it the right way. (And aside from the fact I don't find this all very on-topic for this article). --LjL (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to be rude. I was just giving you my view on your assertion that the Honduran Supreme Court was not by any means a reliable source. Your opinion if it's on or off topic is really irelevant, since I am only writing an answer and commenting specifically to your opinion and only on the talk pages, not on the main article. I am bad at "taking" hints, rather have people write or speak load and clear. 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A source doesn't necessarily have to be considered a WP:Reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It depends on how it's used. I'm not trying to be rude (and I think I am not being), but I don't think I should be overly mellifluous when I see you ignoring the articles and policies that I link you to. I link to them for a reason. --LjL (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled by LjL calling this a coup and discrediting every single government entity from Honduras, the same that were in place before Zelaya was removed from office. What about the Senators and US Congressmen that don't consider it a coup? What about the many newspapers stating their editorial positions in support of the new Government? What about Israel's support for the new Government?

I am just curious as to what leads you to assume such things LjL. Besides, this particular discussion is about article 239 that clearly states that Zelaya ceased being president by default. I am a Honduran and it just baffles me how someone like you that probably has never even visited Hondura nor studied its Laws and history and yet you have such a strong "understanding" of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.43.161 (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:Original research is interesting, but has no place on Wikipedia. Whatever art. 239 says, you need a secondary source to interpret it, neither of us can take up our own interpretation on Wikipedia. Also, I'm not sure what "such things" you're referring to that I would be "assuming".
You might not be aware that Wikipedia is about things that are readily verifiable from reliable sources; things that require having pyshically visited Honduras and the like also have no place here. --LjL (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Ok LjL, I got your secondary source... how about The Wall Street Journal? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html. And http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804541071763577.html.


I will re-add the part you deleted about article 239 and please before you attempt to remove it discuss it here with all the members.

Thank you for your discussion as you let me to research even further and found a recent article on the Journal that explicitly states the following:

"The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras."

Also, here is another article in the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story?track=rss.

Now if you don't consider the WSJ a reliable secondary source then I have no idea what could it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.227.214 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The journal reference is to an opinion piece written by Roberto Micheletti. Opinion pieces would many times have problems being used as reliable references, but one written by Roberto Michelitti shouldn't be used. Wikihonduras (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the one written by Micheletti. Please keep in mind there are 2 other sources before arbitrarily removing it yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.83.223 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly arbitary, the text removed was a literal copy of the text in the Micheletti letter. Also please note that the two remaining references are also opinion pieces (OP ED's) being the second one a reference to the first one. We should allow proper time for discussion about the reliability of these sources for the article 239 reference. Wikihonduras (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Please check here to confirm that the text removed has word by word text coming from the Micheletti letter. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Zelaya&diff=305603068&oldid=305591396

Wikihonduras (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was charged that proposing to ask the electorate whether to hold a constitutional convention -- and having the electorate vote on that question at the same time as they voted for the next president -- constituted a violation of Article 239 of the Honduran constitution. As the new president would be elected before a constitutional convention could be held, an impartial observer would conclude that this could not be a means of continuing Zelaya's term or allowing him immediate re-election. If the Honduran Supreme Court found the president guilty of violating the Constitutional law, they did so without a trial and without the defendant being given a chance to present his side in court. It would be WP:Original research to judge Honduran law as to whether this action was legitimate under the Honduran constitution. According to the NPOV policy, we should not take sides on such issues. State who claims that Zelaya's ouster was in response to violations of the constitution, don't make it a Wikipedia claim that this was the case. Dfoxvog (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest Warrant

Manuel Zelaya has an arrest warrant in Honduras, meaning that if he enters Honduras territory he will be arrested. Zelaya to Meet Military in Spite of Arrest Warrant 190.53.244.15 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow "Radio Cadena Agramonte" says Mel Zelaya has an arrest warrant, let just go ahead and put it on wikipedia. 192.193.160.8 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Btw 190.53.244.15. don't delete my comments. 192.193.160.8 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup d' Etat?

Prove me wrong, but there is no reliable source that says that the deportation of Manuel Zelaya was a Coup d'etat yet. Shouldn't this be changed to Suspension of Presidential functions or something like that, at least until there are more stable events in Honduras? --FixmanPraise me 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is by definition a coup, I don't think we need refs for that word, we need refs for exactly what happened, but do remove the word if you feel that is right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
SqueakBox said: "It is by definition a coup". By whose definition? First of all, the Supreme Court of a country has the final word on the interpretation of that country's domestic Constitution. Judges are generally referred to in the legal literature as "guardians of the Constitution". Secondly, those elected to office under an existing Constitution are required to swear an oath of allegiance which involves non-abuse of powers conferred by that existing Constitution. Thirdly, an elected Executive can become a coup by departing from the limits imposed by the existing Constitution and by demonstrating intent to exceed those limits, thus imposing a de facto "new" Constitution of their own devising in place of the existing Constitution under which they were elected. A perfect example of this is the 11 November 1965 UDI of Ian Smith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Smith who had served as a duly elected Prime Minister of the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia from 13 April 1964 until his UDI. That UDI by a sitting Prime Minister converted Smith and his Executive co-conspirators into traitors to the lawful Constitution. The fact that the Brits did not send in the troops to oust him, does not change this fact. Nor does it alter the fact that they could have sent in troops had they wished to. Therefore, it is clear that an elected and sitting Executive can indeed become an incipient COUP. What bothers me about the most recent news that Zelaya is going back to Honduras but has "pledged" not to hold the referendum, is that he has already voided his own office by PERJURY of his oath of allegiance to the lawfully existing constitution. Perjury is a criminal act; perjury voids the oaths of allegiance and office. Zelaya has already become a leader of a coup; he has very objectively demonstrated criminal intent to exceed the limits of the lawful Constitution. How, in all common sense, can a person who has demonstrated this criminal intent then be invited back into the country to resume a lawful presidency? How can you reinstate a coup leader who has himself blatantly violated the DEMOCRATIC right to be governed in accordance with the lawful constitution, by simply securing his so-called "pledge" not to conduct the illegal acts he originally intended to conduct and which resulted in his own self-discharge from elected office? Since when does a "pledge" restore the presumed pristine character of the oath originally sworn and so clearly violated? Since when can a criminal be invited to govern a nation on condition that he NOW stop being a criminal? This goes beyond illogic, it goes to lunacy. Moreover, the international community has NO BUSINESS whatsoever dictating to the Supreme Court of any nation on that Court's interpretation of the nation's Constitution; let alone presuming to override that Court's constitutional duty to uphold and see to the upholding of that Constitution. There is abundant case law on the obligation of a Court to apprehend and prevent the commission of anti-constitutional acts by sitting legislatures, for once the act had been committed, for example, a UDI, or the purported replacement of the lawful constitution by a new one through a coup, that Court then faces the prospect of a challenge declaring the loss of its own powers to even begin to remedy the unlawful action. The United Nations was formed to deal with international law, not to invade domestic Constitutional law. To permit the United Nations and its member states to invade the domestic Constitutional sphere of a sovereign nation, and to use pressure tactics to overthrow the lawful conclusions of a Supreme Court which alone has a right and duty to interpret that nation's domestic law, is a form of tyranny which seeks to impose de fact rule of the UN over sovereign domestic law and cannot be allowed to be a precedent. The Honduran Supreme Court and every Supreme Court of every sovereign nation should pronounce, proprio motu, that the actions of the international community and of the UN in this case were clear sedition, ultra vires (without jurisdiction), and a criminal assault on the sovereignty of a high court and of a nation.

Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada, www.habeascorpuscanada.com. (70.52.10.163 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

The Supreme Court and Congress ordered his ouster, and the Honduran Constitution states that he cannot remain president if attempting to modify the term limits of the constitution. Everything was by the book, the guy broke the law and the judicial and legislative branches did what they were supposed to do. Therefore, this was not a "coup," but a just action, regardless of how many "international opinions" state that it is. See telegraph.co.uk article.69.231.215.231 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Supreme Court and the Congress constitute a political machine whose interests lie in maintaining the status quo. The status quo may, or may not reflect the interests of the people - we will never know unless there is a referendum. What is clear, is that Zelaya has never indicated that he is attempting to modify the term limits of the constitution. The only thing that he has advocated is a referendum to gauge whether or not people support a referendum on the idea of a constitutional assembly - this is not a violation of the constitution. --Criminoboy (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Your ad-hominem attacks on the Supreme Court and the Congress are meaningless. Regardless of their political intentions, their actions were provided for by the Honduran Constitution. They're also silly, since his own party supported his ouster. The referendum would have been, in fact, illegal, which alone would cast doubt on any results. Opponent of the referendum would have to choose between validating it by participating, or allowing him to claim victory by failing to defeat it. Don't forget that the Congress was also elected by the people. 98.204.183.211 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (Dan Marsh)
The opinion on the Supreme Court and Congress are subjective and irrelevant since they are defined in the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya did admit the intention on modifying the term limits. The fact that is not well understood yet is that a Constitutional Assembly is formed to write a new constitution, therefore abolishing the existing one. The Honduran constitution clearly states that the intention to abolish it is considered treason and the person automatically ceases in his seat.
The Honduran constitution is the law of the land and only allows modification through Congress, and explicitly states that it is illegal for the president to attempt to change it. Therefore Zelaya, in illegally forcing a "referendum", is the usurper. Moreover, since Congress is made up of elected officials, he is trying to disenfranchise the wishes of the voters who elected them. See WSJ69.231.215.231 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The question on the floor is not related to the illegality of the action, since it's clearly specified within the Honduran constitution. The argument is if the illegality itself was properly determined under the Honduran legal system defined within the same constitution. A trial would've settled the issue since it would've followed the legal process for determining culpability and would'be also determined proper punishment (had he been found guilty). Unless the Honduran Congress or any court has within their power the possibility of sentencing without trial, I'd say that the action is textbook "coup" Wikihonduras (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


It is more disturbing that this Wikipedia entry has already listed him as a former president of Honduras. Is it not the case that he, the majority of Hondurans might still regard him as president? Which countries, for example, have come out to recognise the illegal usurper micheletti? I think we are jumping the gun. Andrew Riddles (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The international community recognizes Zelaya as the lawful president of Honduras. This article and all other Wikipedia articles should continue to refer to him as the president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.242.249 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Micheletti has been sworn as President under succession. The President of Honduras is elected based on the Country's constitution, not by the opinion of other countries. The majority of Honduras regard Zelaya as the ex-President. The Honduran Constitution clearly states that who ever intends to abolish commits a treason to the Country and immediately ceases in his seat.
I agree. There is a dispute as to whether Zelaya is still president, so according to NPOV, Wikipedia should use that terminology and not claim that he currently is or is not president. Similarly, Micheletti is acting as president, but whether he is legally the interim president is also disputed. Thus NPOV would have him labeled as either "acting" president or "disputed" (interim) president -- both of which statuses seem indisputable. Labeling Micheletti, as is currently done, as "interim president" is also a violation of NPOV. Dfoxvog (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This entry needs to be modified right away. He was not "arrested" and he was not "sent in exile" to Costa Rica. He was KIDNAPPED and dropped off in Costa Rica without his knowledge at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.47.86 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it a "soft coup". This really is not a typical succesion of power or a typical coup. In Honduras some of us are calling it a "golpe light". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZackX (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I second the use of "soft coup." He was lawfully removed from office according to the Honduran constitution. The unanimous opinion of the Honduran Supreme Court is a FAR more neutral determinant of whether he actually broke the Constitutional provisions than is a poster on a Wikipedia talk page. In other words, in choosing between the legal interpretations of the Honduran Supreme Court and a series of Wikipedians doing their own, uncitable research, we must choose the former. On the other hand, the circumstances surrounding the ouster, as well as the reaction of other countries that are wary to recognize such a swift, military-backed change of power, warrant a mention of the word "coup." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.171.52 (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe many people dispute if specific actions were or are illegal. Or that the punishment should've been for the President to be replaced or deposed. The Honduran Constitution like any other law specifies what constitutes a crime. But there is no court, Supreme or not, which can sentence a citizen without a proper trial (only in the "in absentia" cases, which could not apply here). Let alone send army soldiers, to a private residence, before 6:00 am and fly him to a foreign country. I personally believe he is guilty of many of the things he is accused. And probably he should've been impeached and if found guilty, replaced. But according to the law. Had all these things taken place, every country sans probably ALBA countries and a few other would've accepted the new government. Doesn't matter how bad the crime is, the accused still deserves a fair trial. Even NAZI criminals had Nuremberg. It's specifically the flying him out of the country with no trial which now is making a world of a difference to many. This is just my personal opinion. Wikihonduras (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose "soft coup", it doesn't seem to me like an appropriate term in an encyclopedia. --LjL (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with using "soft coup".--Congolon (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

His term ended on 28 June 2009

It's obvious he is no longer president, he does not have any power so his term ended on 28 June 2009. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No foreign power has intervened, and it's obvious the situation is not going to change. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not obvious at all, remember wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Change of "Military Coup" to "Destitution"

Someone has been changing the heading of the Military Coup section to Destitution. Originally I thought it was just vandalism since the section has nothing to do with poverty, but it has occurred to me that perhaps the editor didn't know what destitution meant. (It means "extreme poverty" for anyone who doesn't know.) Since there is a dispute about whether this incident should be called a coup or not, I have temporarily changed the heading to the more neutral "Removal of Zelaya". Regular editors of this page should, of course, feel free to change it to something more appropriate, but I suggest discussing your changes first on this talk page due to the current dispute. --Sophitessa (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wisest thing to do. Probably the user thought destitution meant the same "destitución" means in Spanish, which is removal of an appointed office or something in that vein MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dismissal" [1]Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If it helps any, the etymology of Spanish destituer goes back to the Latin destituere, and this goes back to a frequentative verb destare (make somebody stand down), from the prefix de- 'downwards' and stare 'stand.' This ancient word took a different route in Spanish than English, for in English there was a connotation of making someone so poor that they cowered (had to stand down), or were reduced to such a state of poverty that they had to beg. The past participle, destitutus, referred to someone who had been reduced to begging and cowering. In Medieval Latin and Old French, destitutus denoted an impoverished individual cast down from those of higher standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.198.247 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! I love false cognates, they can be hilarious sometimes. i.e. Embarassed to 'embarazada' (pregnant) 76.79.9.129 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Crisis

This is my first time on "talk page" but... Under the Subject "Political Crisis" the following is posted without references.

"A first instance court in the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa deemed the poll unconstitutional, despite Zelaya's claims that it was a non-binding opinion poll, and not, as his opponents claimed, a binding referendum about forms of government, presidential periods, re-election, or Honduran territory. The Honduran Constitution forbids reforms to the articles in the Constitution that refer to these aspects, but it says nothing about the formation of a National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate to write a completely new constitution. Zelaya's non-binding opinion poll intended to ask Hondurans what they felt about including a fourth ballot box in the November 2009 elections, this ballot box asking Hondurans if they wanted to form such a National Constituent Assembly. The November referendum would have required a 2/3 majority vote in Congress in order to take place. This was the case Zelaya presented to the court, but his participation in the process was denied."

No citations exist for this paragraph. It should be cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.157.212 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has very few citations compared to Wikipedia standards (and the few non-L.A. sources that we have comes from jingoistic U.S. newspapers). Simply choosing some uncited paragraphs you dislike to remove would not be neutral. You should add some citation tags. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court's slip opinion

In a case of first instance, as appears to be the case here, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled the proposing of a referendum by the president to be unconstitutional.

Is the slip opinion available for review by the general public? If it is, someone should post it here. It appears to be a general rule that referenda are usually introduced in the legislature by an interested constituentcy (such as the measure's proponent), before it is approved in public or private debate, for popular consumption and finally referred to the People for their approval and adoption. But in Honduras it might be a whole lot different. Why did Zelaya think he was authorized by the constitution to bypass regular procedure, and just refer it to the People himself? This whole thing smacks of irregularity, and excess. The kind of excess that appears, as here, to be a direct derogation of the legislative powers by the holder of the executive powers, is surely unconstitutional. 216.99.219.122 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous much? You've already decided. Something that appears to be some of the case files and some of the evidence, and the court rulings are available for download on the internet from numerous websites. Rsheptak (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Which websites carry the opinions of the Honduran Supreme Court? If I am going to download 'em, I would have to find the right website, first. 216.99.198.247 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In Honduras, orders and opinions meant for popular consumption by the public and for the public are apparently called "communicados" (communiques as we would like to say) and there are several such things available at [2] Official Website of the Supreme Court of Honduras. Of course, it's all in Spanish. No surprise there. Having only a minimal command of Spanish, I naturally envy those of you who can actually read those things and understand 'em. It's a civil code country, and as such doesn't truck much with common law decisions as binding precedents. Power comes from the people, is formulated by the state, and delegated to officers and functionaries, all the way down to local department heads. Honduras has all the trappings of a modern state, including a lumbering bureaucracy. I even noticed a judicial branch for dealing with administrative grievances! As for the legitimacy of a decision of state, everything is analyzed in terms of the proper flow of power. That makes understanding those communicados a little more difficult than would otherwise be the case.216.99.198.247 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Better bone up on your Spanish because they aren't available in translation. The only source I found for the prosecutor's case charge was on the Union Civica Democratica website...the judges decision and appeals are in the Zelaya expediente on the Supreme Court's website. None of the communicados will be of interest to you...they aren't legal decisions, only press releases. I might mention that they are switched over to a common law precedent based legal system. What you described is the old code, replaced a few years ago. Rsheptak (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that is very helpful. I had a theory there was something fishy going on. It's just that I want to read the court's opinion (or order) for myself. I am still uncertain about what is going on there. 216.99.198.184 (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Mistake

When naming his wife under the subtitle "Constitution", instead of saying Zelaya's wife, it says Zamora's Wife.Levae (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

follow the bouncing sections

In, out, in out. The 'Chavez declares war' story reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon. One reporter launches into a tirade about the terrible first day in office of the new president, then the even worse second day, etc. The other reporter tries to interrupt him with, "Meanwhile, other, responsible sources were heard to say..." Chavez did not declare war, he said that had his ambassador had been harmed, it would have been an act of war by the interim Honduran government and he would have to "act militarily". So is he going to buzz the president's building with air force training planes, or get the army to play loud music at the border? We do not know, and the writers of the article do not know. What they do know, it seems, is that banging on the war drums still sells, 100 years after William Randolph Hearst published the yellow journalism that lead to the Spanish-American war.
Los Horcones is something that might have happened thirty four years ago, to Zelaya's father, that his father denies and Zelaya himself was specifically cleared of, in a court of law. It is already in another article. It merits a 'See also' link, tops, but I left it in to see what consensus was. Anarchangel (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

it was not a Coup d' Etat

While you two are busy fighting about the non coup I would like to point out a grievous error that neither of you realized and it makes it clear that those editing the page know very little about Honduras. Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales as he was named was not elected on January 27, 2006, he was elected on November 29, 2005 and he was inaugurated on January 27, 2006 just like the US elects in November and inaugurates in January.Summermoondancer (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC) it was not Coup d' Etat beacuase the military only acted because the supreme court tell them to depose zelaya, therefore it was a destitution. i'm changing Coup d' Etat to destitution. Vercetticarl (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you even remotely listened to what other people said, not only on your talk page but even just three sections above this one, you'd know that is a completely incorrect term in this context, as it means "extreme poverty", and not what you think you meant. I've reverted. --LjL (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm changing to deposition which is a better term than coup d' etat because it was not a coup d' etat, it was a deposition Vercetticarl (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So you won't accept "deposed" as a description, but you argue that what happened was a "deposition", is that right? --LjL (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
the removement of zelaya from office for violating the consitition, thus making a crime, was a deposition NOT a coup d' etat Vercetticarl (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that once again you're hardly even listening to what I'm actually saying. --LjL (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
see the bottom of the infobox officeholder of zelaya it says: Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti. Vercetticarl (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


i'm changing coup d' etat to deposition Vercetticarl (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


That would be bad english, so please don't. Rsheptak (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
see the bottom of the infobox officeholder of zelaya it says: Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti. Vercetticarl (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what that has to do with your use of "deposition". Why are you bringing it up here? Rsheptak (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Manuel Zelaya was deposed on 28 June 2009 and the National Congress swore-in Roberto Micheletti., deposed , deposition, that's my point i'm trying to make you understand Vercetticarl (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Look up deposition. And if the mismatch with the infobox bothers you (deposed is less specific than coup, but it's a short handy word which implies a non-legal transfer), then add "coup" to the infobox. In any case, do not ignore WP:consensus. Rd232 talk 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, having just looked at deposition - I've never heard of Deposition (politics). Which means the average reader hasn't either, so it should be avoided as a section title. Rd232 talk 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This time I disagree. It's definition #1 on Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary, and if you type "deposition Honduras" or "deposition Zelaya" on Google, you see a number of reasons. WP:Common name doesn't really apply to section titles, anyway, where it's best to use the most correct term for the situation: this is the article about Zelaya, and Zelaya was deposed, not coup-d'étatted, even though the deposition was due to a coup d'état. --LjL (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's an American English thing (like that abomination against grammar, the "ouster" which clearly should be "ousting", but I digress), in which case it again should be avoided if possible. Rd232 talk 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really, it's also definition #1 on the Oxford English Dictionary. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
i totally agree with LjL, see the first definition of deposition here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deposition it says: The removal of someone from office, which clearly applies to Zelaya. i'm changing again to deposition. Vercetticarl (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You cannot just go ahead and choose the term or version of the story you think its true, that's not what we do here. Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigns of any sorts. The use of the word "deposition" is completely arbitrary, as around the world everyone refers to the current crisis as a Coup. Don't believe me?, a quick check on Googlefight proves this. If you really want to use an euphemism, and one that doens't sound so naive, may I suggest "Crisis" instead of "deposition" (really, anything is better than deposition).--99.192.92.168 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to be deposed by a coup d'etat, so I do not think the words 'deposed' or 'deposition' are actually as contraversial as they appear to be here (apart from their verbal clumsiness). In reply to the heading of this section, there is little doubt in terms of international law, and the opinions of all outside observers, apart from a tiny number of interested parties, that it was an illegal coup. So many sources confirm this that you'd have to weigh them rather than counting them Riversider (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC). The problem is not what international law says. What matters is what Honduran law says since each country is soveriegn. There really are not a tiny amount of interested parties as those calling it a coup de´tat also have intense interest in the return of Zelaya. There is little argument of what Chavez´interest is in this mess. I don´t care if you call it a coup or a deposition however, Honduran papers do not call it a coup they call it a deposed or deposition or ex president. All recognize he is no longer actually in control of the executive branch of the government. However, it is not a coup d´tat because Micheletti is not a member of the military and there are serious arguments by the Library of Congress(yes they stand by their report), the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme court who are both clearly experts in Honduran law and constitution. When every faction of government and most of the population oppose you it is not a ´small group of military members´or ´unconstitutional overthrow where the military takes charge´ A coup d´tat or even a coup indicate that the three branches of government are eliminated as well as the present form of government and constitution. The only person eliminated in the case of Honduras was Zelaya and the Constitution is still perfectly in tact.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Riversider. In my opinion, both terms should be mentioned. Something like 'Zelaya was deposed following a military coup d'etat'. Maxipuchi (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A question for you. Whose laws are we considering when we wonder whether to call it a coup, deposition, or whatever? What are the laws of Honduras? If they are the constitution and laws as passed by the congress, as interpreted by the courts, then this is perfectly legal in Honduras by definition. In that case it wasn't a coup or any negative connotation of deposed, but the government removing an alleged criminal. If not the laws of Honduras, then what other laws? International law? Does it have validity in the internal politics of Honduras? I'm saying this because I think the law would be a good source of guidance for proper terminology.
If Honduras is signed up to the United Nations, and to other international treaties, then it is bound by International Law, which take precedence over it's own internal laws. At the end of the day, legal niceties aside, the military and police repression tactics associated with coups are the same the world over, and if it looks like a coup, acts like a coup and smells like a coup, then it's a coup. The growing pile of corpses of those opposing the 'law abiding' government is the evidence I'd like to cite for this argument. Riversider (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

dude im from honduras it was not a coup they gave the guy one hour to get ready and peacfully took him out of the country so anyone who says its a coup they do not know what they are talking about they did not take him out by force no one forced him out so STOP SAYING ITS A COUP I WILL CHANGE IT AND NO ONE CHANGE IT BACK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.2.188 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Peacefully at the wrong end of a rifle, you mean. We do indeed have to be careful about calling it a coup, or taking one side or another in the arguments but to present them both neutrally. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Manuel Zelaya/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this article needs to be updated in a way that is more than an opposition piece on the president. Keep in mind who the audience is for this information, they might want to know more than what the National Party thinks of the president and his close associates (come on! How would you, people in the PN, talk about your beloved G.W. Bush?)

Last edited at 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ ""Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution"". 2009-07-20. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manuel_Zelaya/Archive_1&oldid=1061070719"