Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 2

UnoAmerica
Moved here for discussion: "UnoAmerica (Union of Democratic American Organizations), an international organization, has recognized Micheletti and the new government. " UnoAmerica is not an "international organisation" (usually meaning an association of nation states), it is a collection of Latin American NGOs whose stated objective is countering the Foro de São Paulo. Frankly their endorsement of the coup tells you an awful lot about them, but very little about the coup. In any case, if it merits a mention, then it wouldn't be in this section on country reactions (which by the way is far too long - any chance of spinning this off, and keeping a summary here?). Disembrangler (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * UnoAmerica: agreed, that's the 3rd time I've seen that weed pulled. Spinoff: good idea, done. Homunq (talk)

Lede is getting bloated
We need to cut it down to size. Suggest to start with a nut graf explaining things with an absolute minimum of detail, followed by one short paragraph each on the background to the coup, the coup itself, and the fallout from the coup. Rather than editing it in the article itself I'm going to write it here on talk and we can copy it in when ready. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed replacement lede
(work in progress)

On June 28th, 2009, a military coup d'état ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya from office and led to his replacement by Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament. The coup was the culmination of a political crisis sparked by Zelaya's controversial proposals to alter the country's constitution. Although the Honduran congress has accepted Zelaya's "resignation," and the Supreme Court has defended the military's action as legal, the international community has condemned the coup and demanded Zelaya's reinstatement.

A political crisis had developed in the country after Zelaya attempted to hold a consultative poll, asking Honduras' citizens to approve of a Constitutional National Assembly which would draft a new constitution. This plan was ruled illegal by the country's Supreme Court and other institutions, who cited articles of the country's 1982 constitution which forbid certain types of amendments. Opponents described the planned referendum as a power grab and an attempt by Zelaya to stay in office after his non-renewable four-year term expired, while Zelaya and his supporters cast it as a necessary precursor to social and economic reforms favoring Honduras' poor and working classes.

On June 24th, after the Army's Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Vásquez refused Zelaya's order to distribute referendum ballots, Zelaya dismissed him from office and began organizing loyal officials to conduct polls themselves. Both moves were overruled by the Supreme Court, and the country's Congress began considering ways to remove Zelaya from office, although the country lacks a clear process for presidential impeachment. Early morning on the 28th, as the polls were due to open, the Army intervened. Power and communications were interrupted in the capital, Tegucigalpa, as several hundred armed soldiers invaded the presidential palace, detained Zelaya, and flew him into exile in Costa Rica. Later that day, amid protests and minor street battles, speaker of parliament and next in line of succession Roberto Micheletti was named acting President. Army leaders have since provided a detention order signed on June 26th by a Supreme Court justice, which they say demonstrates that the operation was legal and constitutional.

International reaction has been swift and negative, with the General Assemblies of both the United Nations and the Organization of American States issuing denunciations. Few governments have recognized the new regime, while many have stated that Zelaya remains the legal President and most have demanded his immediate return. Within Honduras, the interim government has suspended some civil liberties and shut down media outlets not supportive of the coup. Politicians and officials suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been reportedly arrested, and the leader of the left-wing Democratic Unification Party has fled to Nicaragua.


 * Looks like good work to me. I support. Homunq (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the edit I just undid left out lots of important detail (as well as some less important). I think given how much the situation is in flux, this rewriting is premature. Also the lede isn't actually that bad at all: the first para is a decent summary, and then the next 3 give more details. It could be trimmed a bit, but this must be done in an WP:NPOV way (the undone short version was a lot more favourable to the coup plotters than the longer version is). Disembrangler (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of making the introduction quite a bit shorter, in principle, but I think care needs to be taken to move everything well-sourced in the current text to relevant sections, rather than just replacing the whole introduction while removing the old text entirely.
 * (Also, keep in mind that Homunq approved the text before the last paragraph was added - it might or might not be an issue, but). LjL (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HMm, I haven't really succeeded in making it shorter. Maybe we should keep only the first paragraph as the lead, and then move the next three into a section called "Summary," and then restate things in more detail in the rest of the article. (Pyramid style, it's called, I think.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the court ordered the military to act, the above selection for a lead is 100% against what all reports say on the matter. Can you at least try to represent the facts instead of putting forth something obviously biased? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court now claims, after the fact, to have ordered the military to act. That is already stated in third sentence of the proposed lede; "the Supreme Court has defended the military's action as legal[.]" If you feel that claim needs to be given more prominence and elaboration, perhaps in the later paragraphs, fine. But the complaint that I haven't tried to be unbiased is vague and unsupported. As is the claim that "all reports on the matter" contradict what I've written. Please offer specific and supported criticisms so we can move forward. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added one sentences specifically citing the detention order. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image creep
What the heck is this? Please, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and while a couple of relevant images in an article is fine, filling up an article with redundant pictures is not. I will revert this shortly and leave only one image from that batch if no response. LjL (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The section violates NPOV and RS. There are protests going on on both sides. The media can't report freely, not if they want to oppose the coup, so the sources aren't reliable. -- Rico  22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To claim Honduran sources are not reliable is simply not acceptable, and should be ignored. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NYT and WP as reliable sources
Reliability of sources is a function of context. The Washington Post and the New York times are known for fact-checking and reliable reporting of events. The question of whether or not what happened in Honduras a few days back is a coup is not one of facts and events but rather a legal question.

Are the Washington Post and the New York Times known for legal scholarship? Are their writers experts on questions of Honduran law? WP:NAME gives us good reason to keep the title of this article what it is, but "NYT calls it a coup, therefore it's a coup" falls flat.

Let me give you a somewhat detached analogy: When e.g. Reviews of Modern Physics and NYT conflict on a question of science or even of usage of scientific terminology, it is usually because the former is right and the latter is wrong.

NYT is not a scholarly source. There isn't yet an equivalent here. Plenty of commentators calling for the question to be addressed, but no law review articles, no real hearings in Honduras, etc. Zero scholarship has been done on this question. Do not conflate sloppy or faddish usage at a major newspaper with scholarship. The coup question is not settled. "Coup" is a convenient usage for now, verging on slang, and nothing more. Bkalafut (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." I believe "high-quality end of the market" used to include The New York Times. I don't know why it doesn't now, since The New York Times is considered the USA's best paper.
 * We don't have "scholarly sources" right now to use to construct a good article, as we would with Reviews of Modern Physics.
 * We're certainly not going to rename the article just because a tiny percentage of the world denies was a coup, whether or not Most Interested Persons want to argue and fight over this here, ad nauseum.
 * Your contention that " 'NYT calls it a coup, therefore it's a coup' falls flat," is just your opinion. You have not quoted Wikipdia policy, and I have seen you distort Wikipedia policy before.
 * The Washington Post calls it a coup. the Associated Press calls it a coup. The United Nations called it a coup. Everybody calls it a coup but the coup supporters. They are a tiny portion of the world, and they have an incentive to be in denial. -- Rico  22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 150.135.51.22 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you have a very confrontational style, Mr "Rico". If this is going to be the tone of the discussion, well, I've seen you assume bad faith before.  I shouldn't have to 'quote' Wikipedia policy if I 'link' it.  I presume that you are able to read Reliable sources without me spoon-feeding it to you.  But here comes the spoon:  "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."  Unless you are going to point me to experts on Honduran law checking AP or New York Times stories on the constitutional crisis, you cannot rightly tell me that these sources are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
 * Bkalafut (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Associated Press:
 * "President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a coup Sunday."
 * "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the Sunday coup."
 * "Insulza ... will meet with leaders of the Supreme Court and Congress — institutions that approved the coup."
 * "Zelaya's supporters staged their largest demonstration since the coup." -- Rico  22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question has been posted to the noticeboard. Let's see what disinterested third parties have to say.  And let's make the discussion a little more civil from this point on.  That means no more weasel rhetoric about things being "just (my) opinion".  If I link Wikipedia policy, mention Wikipedia policy, etc. you should presume that I am basing my view on Wikipedia policy.  Bkalafut (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article move-war
I'm now officially sick and tired of seeing this article bounce back and forward between this and that title. Earlier, I was editing stuff just to find the whole article removed under my nose. Now, someone has used the other article's talk page, so they'll have to be merged. If I'm not much mistaken, some of the moves were made by administrators. In either case, I don't find this particularly professional, and I do find it's become a sort of WP:Edit war. So, how about give it a break? LjL (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy access to popular places for Anti-Zelaya demonstrators
In the Developments sections on July 1, there is a line that says "Pro-Zelaya protesters claim that the authorities are trying to prevent them from converging to protest, while allowing pro-coup demonstrators easy access to popular places for demonstrations".

On that day (July 1) both sides had demonstrations here in La Ceiba, Honduras. The Pro-Zelaya crowd took over the main square of the city, where the park, the church, and city hall are. At the south end of town, a pro-peace [and anti-Zelaya] march started. The march was supposed to go through the main street of the city and pass by city hall, but had to be diverted by the military and police because the pro-Zelaya demonstrators were there, so "allowing pro-coup demonstrators easy access to popular places for demonstrations", is not accurate everywhere in the country. The so called "pro-coup" demonstrators weren't allowed in the main area of town BECAUSE of the pro-Zelaya demonstrators. Oscar (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Without any RS on what happened at your place, this is Original Research (but then, this whole talk page is full of it). Be careful too: when describing one of the demonstrations as "pro-peace" and the other as "crowd", you are getting close to the edge of ranting.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WE dont need RS to prove something is inaccurate and we cannot afford inaccuracies in our coverage, what we would need RS's for is adding info. A cautious approach is always advisable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, SqueakBox, you're wrong. If there are RS on one side only, it doesn't matter if that side is wrong, unless it's also UNDUE. I do encourage you to find RS for this, though; as a simple question of fact, the standard for how reliable they have to be is relatively low - you can stretch the definition of RS a bit for this, since all you're asking is to remove an inaccuracy, not include your info in the article. (signed, homunq, editing from a computer without tildes on the keyboard)


 * Actually, we do need RS in the case Squeakbox is describing. From the very first line in [WP:V]: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was saying. Homunq (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for getting things wrong and we are always better not to include a piece of info than to include it if it may be wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that seems to support what Oking was saying. It says the pro Micheletti marchers had to be diverted to avoid a group of pro Zelaya people and was done so by a large contingent of police and soldiers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, If you disagree so strikingly with Wikipedia's core policies (such as the one mentioned above), why are you editing it? LjL (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about. Claiming I dont agree with wikipedia policies is plain wrong. Who is trying to enforce our NPOV policy in the title and who doesn't care about this policy? You are criticising the wrong person. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking about "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" versus "There is no justification for getting things wrong and we are always better not to include a piece of info than to include it if it may be wrong". LjL (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To claim we can put inaccurate information in the encyclopedia doesn't deserve a response except perhaps it is you who should be looking for a different type of voluntary work if you really believe its fine to knowingly put inaccurate info in wikipedia, I have anyway supplied a source, I suggest you read it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, SqueakBox was 100% correct. Since this page deals with living people, it is the responsibility of the people putting in the sources to prove that the sources are factually correct 100%. Since the above testimony puts them into doubt, they are not reliable sources for this article. These are serious allegations made. The first line in BLP is that we have to get this right. It does not say we have to get this "verifiable". OR can be used to remove content in a BLP. It cannot be used to insert it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP simply does not apply to most of this article, including the title. It prevents us from saying that person X is a murderer or a golpista without solid evidence, it does not prevent us from saying that a murder or a coup occurred, even if the murder is on the Orient Express or the coup installs person X as president. Anyway, with soldiers on video shooting out protestor's bus tires, there can hardly be a doubt that there are prior restraints on protest. Homunq (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would advise anyone with appropriate technology to look at that aforementioned video in stop frame and take note of several anomolies in the footage with respect to the purported location, the origin of the buses, the nationality of the protestors, and the identity of the soldiers. The video, understandably, is of very poor quality, however, it is not verifiable, and as CNN makes it a regular habit of throwing unverifiable "firsthand" accounts, video, etc. out there, I am skeptical. I am willing to accept as likely that incidents like this could occur; I just don't believe this video can be accepted as authentic, rather than produced for propoganda purposes. VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

military lawyer admits crime
I added a ref and quote where the military lawyer admits a crime occured. I think this should be integrated into the lede but I want to let somebody else do it. ---homunq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.12.117 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The full interview (ref already added to article) is nothing short of fascinating, no matter what your point of view on the matter. I recommend everyone editing this page read it if you can speak Spanish. "¿Usted dice que por evitar un derramamiento de sangre desobedecieron esa orden de la Corte Suprema? Correcto." And he says that if Chavez ever comes back to the country, he should fear a sniper for having insulted the army. And he also speaks of some specific promises to the army that Zelaya broke. All in all, absolutely riveting. Homunq (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page move
The name of this talk page doesn't match the name of its article. Can an admin please move this talk page to the appropriate page? ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup" ambiguity isn't just us.
| US Puts Honduras Aid on Hold Following Coup

To quote: "Spokesman Kelly said officials have paused much of the U.S. aid program while the legal review continues.

"The legal review is ongoing," said Ian Kelly. "We're trying to determine if Section 7008 of the Foreign Assistance Act must be applied. In the meantime, we've taken some actions to hit the pause button on assistance programs that we would be legally required to terminate if the events of June 28th are determine to have benn a a military coup.""

But the New York Times says it's a coup! And we all know they're an RS on legal questions. Who needs law reviews and whitepapers when you have the newspaper? Bkalafut (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honduras is largely a USA client state. The coup 'being' a coup is not good for USA interests.  The fact that the USA has even put aid on hold demonstrates the seriousness of the coup.Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The review is not about whether it's a coup; they've been clear about that. It's about whether it's a military coup. Not the same thing. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this, but here is the opinion of a Honduran lawyer and former gov't official that the so-called "coup" was not a coup, but was legal and constitutionally mandated: [http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense] in The Christian Science Monitor. Strikehold (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it isnt just us, many people in Honduras believe it was not a coup and their voice, backed by secondary sources, cannot be ignored in the name of whatever wikipedia policy people can scrape up to support their POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And here's two that anaylze the same situation, and say it was illegal under the Honduran constitution
 * Honduras Summing up some basic points
 * Why Zelaya's actions were legal
 * And from the legitimate current Minister of Culture under Zelaya there's this:
 * Las fuerzas que han detonado el golpe son muy poserosas
 * and to add to the debate, here's the full text of the interview with the military command's lawyer who admits that sending Zelaya out of the country was an illegal act.
 * Cometimos un delito al sacar a Zelaya pero habia que hacerlo
 * Rsheptak (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The latest BBC article in Englsih on the subject merely mentions coup to say it wasnt one and describes Sunday's events as "Zelaya was removed from office on Sunday over constitutional reform". The point is nott hat that nobody is calling it a coup, many people clearly are, but that it is open to discussion as to whether it was a coup or not. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC has called it a coup: Obama calls honduras coup illegal. It is true that they only use the word when discussing other's statements but they could have said things like "Obama calls Honduras ouster 'illegal coup'". They have not retracted that. So your reference to one article where they did not repeat that charge is irrelevant. Homunq (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are judiciary bodies with jurisdiction, so they cannot declare the legality of the action. They fail reliable sources to be used in the matter according to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need a judge to say "its a coup" anymore than we needed one to declare that Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with BLP, so please, enough with the strawman arguments. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your first and only warning - don't dare make such comments again. It is 100% obvious that there are living individuals, and BLP makes it clear that the policy applies to all articles containing information on living individuals. Participating in a coup is an international crime. There is no negotiation on this. BLP is a policy set down in compliance with the WMF. It is a legal policy. It is the supreme policy. We are not allowed to declare people as committing an illegal act without proper judgment. Your declaration that this is a strawman combined with your above misunderstanding of BLP is trolling. Trolling is not tolerated here. This is your only warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ironic? Here we are on an article about events in Honduras, and someone is making dire threats - insisting that we've violated "the supreme policy" - the Wikipedian constitution, one might say - and implying that we'll be removed by force unless we back down. Keep it up, Tarc, and you might get a free flight to Costa Rica out of this. I hope you wear stylish pajamas. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't threaten/intimidate people here. LjL (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, I'm not debating the "coup"ness of this event. I was responding to the lame defense posted in the Cristian Science Monitor by a former Minister of Culture (under Maduro) analyzing why it was legal and supplying counter-analysis.  Its long past the time to debate this, and its amply argued in the various sections above.  To be clear, I think it was a coup, and so you (whom I respect; we both have a long relationship with Honduras) and I disagree on this topic. Lets move on.  Rsheptak (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think in all fairness, we are getting to the point where the new government's message is getting out, and the case that Wikipedia should call it a "coup" in our own words is getting more ambiguous. In the first days everyone said it was a coup - both media and actors on the international stage - and nobody said it wasn't a coup except for the coup plotters themselves. Now most everyone says it was a coup, some demur on calling it a coup without calling it not a coup, and a very few voices deny it was a coup. I'm thinking we should probably avoid calling it a coup outright. Right now we have a bizarre schizophrenic approach where the title says "coup" and the article, especially the lede, is written to bend over backwards justifying and defending the... well, I won't say "the coup," I'll say, "the badly botched arrest of the President under highly irregular and at best ambiguously-legal circmustances followed immediately by his completely outrageous and illegal forced exile." &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added) -- Rico  03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is from The Associated Press, an hour ago:
 * The Associated Press is not a judiciary body with jurisdiction and the above is the promotion of rumors and innuendo in violation of BLP. Your constant promoting of these sources is wearing thin and BLP does apply to talk pages also. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, even though I'm leaning towards agreeing with those who say Wikipedia shouldn't label it as a coup, it would be nice if you could avoid using specious arguments like the above. BLP has no relevance here, for one thing, and even if it did, there are a gajillion reliable sources which can be cited to support the word "coup," so the policy would be satisfied anyway. Furthermore, your insistence that the opinion of "a judiciary body with jurisdiction" is necessary before the word "coup" can be used is nonsensical; by this logic, we couldn't even call Pinochet's ascent to power a "coup," since he died before his trial was completed. Specious claims that BLP forbids negative information, and insanely restrictive interpretations of WP:RS, are both familiar and tiresome arguments, and I wish you would drop them and debate seriously and in good faith. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't respond on policy issues if you haven't bothered to read the policy: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This policy applies 100%. Furthermore, BLP makes it clear that sources can contain rumor or innuendo, which any declaration of a criminal act before a trial is. Furthermore, your horrible logic is contained here representively: "since he died before his trial was completed." Trials always determine what acts are before. Thus, if it was declared by the judicial body that it was a coup, then we can use the term. It does not say that everything before a trial doesn't count, or there would be no point to having a trial. BLP restricts non-factual information. No journalist, politician, or the rest, has the ability to declare it a coup. Only a judiciary body with jurisdiction. That is a fact. We are legally bound to not declare criminality without a judicial ruling. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your repeated, flailing assertions that BLP somehow proves your point are still nonsense. First, this is not biographical material. Describing the military removal of a President under highly irregular circumstances as a "coup," when it has been unanimously described as a "coup" by the United Nations General Assembly, the Organization of Americans States General Assembly, and every major news agency, is not "rumor or innuendo" or "non-factual information." Saying "x is a coup" is not the same as saying "the people who carried out x are criminals." It would be like saying we can't call 9/11 "a terrorist attack," because that implies that the people who carried it out are terrorists, but they haven't been convicted for it. And the Pinochet analogy still stands, too, because your attempt to refute it is incomprehensible. I can keep coming up with these analogies as long as you want; they all follow logically from your contorted ad hoc interpretation of BLP.
 * To reiterate: not only is BLP inapplicable, but even if it were applicable, nothing in the policy would forbid us from calling this a "coup." &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the WP:WELLKNOWN section of BLP states: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Eample 2 is apposite: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added) -- Rico  04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post published this Reuters story an hour ago:

"Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added) -- Rico  04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * July 3, from the Times in Britain:

-- Rico  04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This particular policy quote was saying essentially The Times is more reliable than The Sun, not mmore so than Hn newspapers like La Prensa. As papers like TheSun have not covered this news item I am baffled as to why you have chosen to quote this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to interpret what the policy "essentially" says.
 * La Prensa is unreliable.
 * Thanks to the government's media suppression, since the coup, Honduran news organizations are currently only reliable for statements as to their opinion -- but not for statements of fact.


 * Eleland wrote, "Now most everyone says it was a coup, some demur on calling it a coup without calling it not a coup, and a very few voices deny it was a coup."
 * That was serious, if true. I had to check it out.
 * Had I confirmed it, I probably would have had to have immediately dropped my opposition to renaming the article. I'm way more neutral than many, here, are.
 * Remembering that WP:Reliable sources explicitly names certain reliable news organizations, I reread that part of it to find out which they were.
 * Then I ran Google News searches to see if I could confirm what Eleland wrote, limiting my searches to those three news organizations.
 * Then I sorted by date (and time).
 * What I found -- in all three cases -- is that all three high-quality news organizations, were still simply, unabashedly, referring to the coup as a "coup" -- even though they know the interim government (with the exception of the military's lawyer), and its trumpets, are denying it.
 * After each news organization, I published my finding here.
 * After each news organization, I published my finding here.


 * The arguments being made, here, against calling the coup a "coup", are WP:OR and so they don't persuade me at all. -- Rico  18:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post, the Times, and the rest are not judiciary bodies so they cannot be reliable sources for criminal acts. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed not in this case; in many cases they make excellent secondary sources for criminal cases, eg the conviction of OJ Simpson or Lord Black, but no criminal conviction has taken place and therefore they cannot be used as secondary sources except for criminal allegations, and we have to be very careful of BLP in such cases. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradicting Wikipedia policy based on WP:OR is unpersuasive. Anybody can make an argument. It's OR unless cited and, therefore, irrelevant to Wikipedians. -- Rico  18:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of any Wikipedia policy that states that the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain -- as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press -- "cannot be reliable sources for criminal acts," please reference that policy. I need to know that this is more than just your opinion, in order to accept it.


 * I'm worried that "In my opinion, rain is wet" or "In my opinion, the sky is blue" would run afoul of the "original research" qualification amongst this bunch. Opinions are fine when they're backed up by credible and sourced facts.  But look at what we've had with this article - people dismiss sources as "propaganda" because they're Honduran newspapers (and thus must be in the pocket of the "bad guys", I guess), and claim that using them as sources means you're just saying your opinion...in the meantime, clearly political sources like Counterpunch are used to give "objective" credibility to the view that "no one can doubt that this was a coup".  If we're going to talk about what's "unpersuasive" - Zelaya supporters censoring the text of the constitutional articles that are at the core of this dispute doesn't leave me with a feeling that they have a strong argument where the law is concerned.  My view that this could reasonably be characterized as a coup was formed in spite of this behavior, not because of it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

External link to Constitution
I thought I remembered at some point there being an external link to the Honduran Constitution ( http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/honduras.html ) but if it was there and got renoved I wasn't able to easily discern from the revision history. It seems like it would be a useful link for an encyclopedia to contain but I wanted to ask what anybody else thought in case there had been some issue about removing it. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has been chaos. Stuff has been removed for blatantly POV reasons (on both sides) as well as for good-faith reasons, and the pace has been too fast to keep up. Please, re-add it, be bold. Homunq (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Zelaya's government by American politicians.
There seems to have been some recent opposition to the official American position in favor of Zelaya; Senator Jim DeMint (1, 2) and Connie Mack (1) are the only ones I've found from reliable sources, but La Prensa claims that five politicians have asked Obama to clarify on evidence that the DEA supposedly has confirming Zelaya was exporting narcotics to the United States (1). I'd like to insert a few excerpts from DeMint and Mack's press releases into the "Questions on motives" section; if there's any opposition to this, please let me know. · AndonicO  Engage. 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds as if it belongs in the "international reactions" sub-article, with a one-sentence (maybe two-) summary in the main article. IE, as politicians, their view is not "analysis" but on the other hand it is news in and of itself.Homunq (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Which military units?
The lede says that "military forces" removed Zelaya from office. This is indiscript - and bad history. We need to know which forces exactly were directly engaged in the military coup. Narcosphere, although it is a blog, and therefore not reliable, says that some military units - the fourth and the tenth infantry battalion - are not following orders. In any case there is a need for greater precision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing Continuismo
Per requests above on constitution and to clarify the little known constitutional background, added the following subsection.DLH (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The critical issue underlying the removal of President Zelaya is that of ‘’Continuismo’‘, the propensity of Latin America’s autocratic rulers to perpetuate or continue their power. The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. Former Honduran Minister of Culture and lawyer Octavio Sánchez observed: Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. To prevent Continuismo and preserve the democratic rule of law, every Latin American country has implemented a strict presidential term limit, though some allow running again after waiting out a term. To prevent continuismo, Honduras’ Constitution Article 239 prescribes: "'No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.'", (emphasis added) Sánchez observed: "Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. . . .Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" . . .as in "no impeachment needed". . . .The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.. . .The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.”


 * Thanks, that responds quite well to my criticism. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

== Would some administrator get over to the edit warring noticeboard and do something about 166.204.226.8? ==

I added a notice.

The IP is causing too many editors too much work reverting edits identified as vandalism by at least two editors.

Look at this:


 * 1) 21:08,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:17,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 3) 21:21,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:29,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 5) 21:32,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 6) 21:34,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 7) 21:38,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 8) 21:40,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 9) 21:44,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")

If any other editor has any opinion, feel free to chime in, here

-- Rico  22:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya broke into military base where ballots were kept?
I've seen it reported that when the military refused to comply with order to distribute the ballots, they locked them up on a base.

Then, Zelaya and others came to base, broke the locks where the ballots were kept and took the ballots back to the Presidential residence.

Thereafter, the military came after him and the stolen ballots, detained him and exiled him.

69.250.186.142 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you source breaking the locks? sounds far fetched, remember Zelaya was the Commander in Chief. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writer Freddy Cuevas, Associated Press Writer  – Fri Jun 26, 5:12 pm ET


 * TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – With backing from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, Honduras' leftist president pushed ahead Friday with a referendum on revamping the constitution, risking his rule in a standoff against Congress, the Supreme Court and the military.


 * Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday's referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated. President Manuel Zelaya had led thousands of supporters to recover the material from an air force warehouse before it could be confiscated.

69.250.186.142 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Freddy Cuevas has been pretty pro-coup in his early reporting which seems to be based entirely on the content of Honduran newspapers. However, I note that the included quote doesn't address the question.  It does not say anyone broke the locks.  Rsheptak (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do you one better: Pictures. -A Pickle (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The pictures do show that Zelaya broke into the military base to take the ballots. The ad hominem against an AP reporter who has photographic evidence supporting his report about facts seems to be in and of itself reflective of a NPOV.69.250.186.142 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Outrageously slanted presentation of the dispute
I'm not going to complain too much about calling this a coup, because I think Micheletti and company have overreacted to the legal issue here and have allowed the military to play an unwelcome role in politics in a country which has seen far too much of that. This is my opinion.

However, I think it is unreasonable to attempt to portray what's happening in Honduras, whether we call it a coup or not, as one-sidedly as this language does: "The existing constitution explicitly bars changes to some of its clauses, although this is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly.[15]"  Irrelevant according to whom? There are quite a few people in Honduras who thought it was very relevant. (Incidentally, note that citation 15 here refers the reader to Counterpunch magazine, which is definitely not a NPOV source.) The wording that was originally here was, according to Google's cache for the page:  "Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[12]"  (Note that citation 12 here is the actual Constitution, not a lefty political mag itching to make hay out of this for its own reasons.)

Can we please change this back? If the hard-left position must be reflected here, use the Counterpunch citation to support the factual statement that some involved in this controversy think that Article 239 is beside the point because the Constitution doesn't authorize removing the President by force. (And please note, I actually agree with that point of view. I just think it presenting it this way makes those on the other side of this dispute out to be mad undemocratic demons for daring to think that their President should respect the Constitution as written.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way. I personally have edited that very language ("although this is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly.[15]") at least 3 times, and it has been replaced intact. Homunq (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask the person[s] that keep replacing it to come here and discuss it. Is the source cited a reliable one? Does the source opine that it is irrelevant for the wholesale replacement of the constitution through a constitutional assembly? -- Rico  20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, here are the relevant constitutional sections, as translated by Saulo Londono at the following website ...his politics are to the right of mine, but unless people think that affects his powers of Spanish translation, I'm going to go with this source:

Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)

Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:

5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;

Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)

Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:

3) Be in possesion of a citizen's legal rights;

Article 239: A citizen who has previously held executive power can not be President or designated to the Presidency. Those that break this provision or propose reform of this provision, as well as those that help directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold and exercise the power of his/her post, and will be banned from holding any future public office for a period of ten years.

Article 244: If need be, the lawful duty of the President of the Republic, or of its substitute, will be presented to the President of the National Congress if in session, and if not to the President of the Supreme Court.

Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic.

Article 278: The orders that tie the powers of the President of the Republic to the Armed Forces, through its Chief, shall be followed and exercised.

Title VII, Chapter 1: (constitutional reform)

Article 373: Constitutional reform can only be declared by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with a 2/3s vote of its members. The decree to be voted on will specify the article or articles to be reformed, and it must be concurred by the subsequent session of Congress by a 2/3s vote before it takes effect.

Article 374: It can not be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirements and prohibitions on who can and can not be President.


 * Any objections to this being inserted into the article? Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, this is a selective translation. For just one instance, it does not include the part of article 42 where the mechanism for stripping citizenship (court sentence and then published government order) is specified. Homunq (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At last, someone making a relevant criticism. I'm okay with that.  Do you have a translation of that part?  I'm relying on the Spanish language abilities of others here.  Why not add that to what I have above, and then we can put the whole business in the article... Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you say "for just one instance"...I think we need to know what all the "instances" are. I'll gladly concede that the pro-Zelaya side has their own argument for why this is an illegal coup, according to Honduras's own law.  But it is relevant to know what the actual law is.  Thus far, many editors on here have gone out of their way to cut out any references to actual Honduran law because they seem to have some notion that the law is controlled by the pro-Micheletti side.  In other words, they consistently say "Article such-and-such of the Constitution is 'irrelevant' because of such-and-such", rather than allow people to read the letter of the law and make up their own mind.  I have no problem with the addition of the point you've just raised, which does not support the pro-Micheletti side, because I believe in the principle of letting people evaluate the evidence.  If there are more such points from Honduran law, I encourage you to raise them.  But beware those who want to cut out sections of the article because they have a side in this conflict. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a very valid question, which laws are applicable. I like the idea of including the law, and letting the readers decide. However, which law is relevant would be something a court would determine.
 * I know!
 * What exactly did the Supreme Court say the referendum -- that hadn't yet taken place -- violated? Is the decision online?
 * Has anyone invited the Most Interested Person(s), from the that-law-isn't-relevant side, into this discussion? I'm uncomfortable with leaving them out of it.
 * If Zelaya was legally deposed, we would need a reliable source that actually says that. I see quotes from politicians that claim it was "illegal", but policicians lie.
 * I found the Honduran military's lawyer's admission fascinating!
 * The laws I'd most be interested in seeing in the article are the law that authorizes the:
 * (1) Supreme Court to issue an order to detain the president.
 * (2) Supreme Court to direct the military to detain the president.
 * (3) Military to kick the president out of the country.
 * What kind of a Supreme Court defends itself with PR releases, meets with the OAS, and directs what should be done with referendum materials?
 * Finally, my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional.
 * I haven't seen a Supreme Court ruling that states that Zelaya:
 * (1) Had violated the Constitution by pushing ahead with the unconstitutional referendum. (Was it even a referendum before it was distributed to polling locations?)
 * (2) Was no longer a citizen.
 * (3) Was no longer the president.
 * In the absence of something from a reliable source, what would the worthiness of inclusion be of a section of the Constitution that states that if somebody does X, they lose their citizenship? Putting that into the article seems to argue that Zelaya did X, and so was no longer a citizen, so he couldn't have continued as president. That'd be WP:OR. -- Rico  20:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) and (3) above, they did argue in their original ruling. What Zelaya had already done to promote the referendum violated Article 239, and that same article voids Zelaya's presidency, so that was part of the decision.  However, things went so fast after the initial finding that Zelaya had violated Article 239, and the military lawyer's admission reflects that.  They knew they were enforcing the Supreme Court's findings, but either had no idea what they were empowered to do about that or decided to do what they wanted to anyway in the absence of any specific directives.  In either case, the importance of there being no formal requirements for how to enforce Article 239 looms large.  I suspect you'd be looking a long time for any laws formally empowering the court to direct the military to detain the president, and there appear to be some due process requirements which were not observed for taking away a person's citizenship.  But what interests me about this crisis was that Zelaya had clearly violated Article 239, but anything the Honduran authorities did to enforce the article were bound to come off as being just as illegal as Zelaya's original action.  (2) was not part of the decision, as the constitution does not allow the stripping of citizenship without due process, according to Article 42.  But that may have been reserved for some intended future court case, as Zelaya did meet the criteria for stripping of citizenship in that article as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have an RS that states that the Supreme Court ruled that Article 239 voided Zelaya's presidency? I haven't seen that. That's pretty important to the debate going on at the Honduras article, and the Honduras side box talk page, on who is the president. Is there any information as to of what effect such a ruling has? Does it mean the president's no longer president? I've read that Honduras had no impeachment process. -- Rico  15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Name
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'etat, "A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government" It would not be a coup, because it was constitutional and the president was no longer legitimate in the eyes of the Honduran Constitution, and the government is still in place with the same constitution. Calling it a coup would be like saying impeaching the US President would be a coup. The name should be changed to something more neutral like "2009 Honduran political crisis". --Conor Fallon (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not well-represented in the free press, nor in the world. "Coup" is the most widely recognized name for what happened. -- Rico  --  Rico  22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
 * WP:RS says 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'"
 * Reliable sources like The New York Times, Washington Post, the Times in Britain, The Associated Press, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal all call it a "coup". The United Nations and the Organization of American States both call it a "coup".
 * Coup is POV and so is Impeachment, and per wiki guidelines, it has to be NPOV, so that we need a NPOV name, media tends to sensationalize things.--Conor Fallon (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That "Coup is POV and so is Impeachment," and "media tends to sensationalize things," is your own personal argument. In the absence of a specific referral to a policy or guideline, I can't accept it as anything more than WP:OR. As far as the media goes, here is what Wikipedia:Reliable sources has to say:

-- Rico  23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I have been saying all along; the current name is a blatant POV violation and needs to be changed to something neutral re the dispute asap; otherwise we just say we buy into version of events, that held by Mel and the international community. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Rico  23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For my part, to be NPOV, this community ought to be able to accept that rushing to judgment with incomplete facts -- unless I am missing something, none of the aforementioned RS have done anything substantive to fact check there loose use of the term coup --- is reckless and irresponsible, even if popular; I refer again to the reporting by The Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/honduras/ which is fully sourced and is not OR (my apologies for not making a cleaner link). VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I've been reading through recent posts to the Miami Herald, and one article I've found refers to Hillary Clinton referring to the situation in Honduras as something which "evolved into a coup" . She's also not insisting on Zelaya's return to power, but rather upon Honduras's return to democracy.  This is pretty much what I think, on both counts.  Micheletti could have made this about enforcing the law, as Zelaya did break that law - but he's clearly gone beyond what the law allows to do so.  Bringing back Zelaya, however, would make violating the Constitution okay - whereas having new elections could restore the constitutional order under some other person (who could even share Zelaya's views about social equality...that person simply could not be Zelaya himself.)  Anyway, I wonder if we should report on the page about Clinton's view that these events "evolved into a coup".  Or is the Secretary of State of the U.S. also a "fringe" figure? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm impressed that you're already using acronyms like NPOV, RS and OR. Your contributions history, which only includes edits of this talk page, only goes back two days and you're already familiar with NPOV, RS and OR. And you've already voted in the Votes subsection.
 * I see the Miami Herald calls its series of articles "COUP IN HONDURAS". -- Rico  23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have been using Wikepedia for a very long time; I am new to contributing, at least as a registered user. I am somewhat puzzled by some people's need to confront others personally, an inference I am drawing from the repeated back and forth discussion between a few of you, and now I seem to be drawing personal attention. How flattering. I concede that coup is used copiously. That point has been hammered home. My argument(s) stand on their own merits, or depending on POV, lack thereof. I think its exciting, personally, to be an active participant in discussion. Am trying to learn the rules, though to be honest, they really depend on a cooperative effort, and dare I say "common sense", both of which appear to be sometimes lacking. But its all cool.VaChiliman (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman


 * Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal". -- Rico  23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can show us rs's till you are blue in the face to support your position that some RSs use coup but you cannot prove that all RSs call it a coup even when you discount those who disagree as biased or fringe or whatever. Unless all RSs available support coup, which they clearly do not, using the word coup in the title is POV. This isnt about the coup its about our POV policy and the fact that certain users ignore it. Rico, dont bite the newbies, with your great and superior wikipedia experience you should know that already. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a question for the editors -- are sources like the ABN considered a RS? Is this not a political organization? I see it referenced many times, and I am wondering if this is Wikipedia, or if there has been a coup perpetrated on this article? The day by day synopsis is filthy with anti-government bias.VaChiliman (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a serious question. As a user, I expect not to be led into propoganda, which I can do all on my own, competently, without the help of Wikepedia editors/contributors. Looking at the list of citations, and placing them in context (even unreliable sources can be truthful some of the time), can someone do some much needed housekeeping. As a side note, some of the citations seem more thorough than others -- I have to believe that Wikipedia has standards in this regard, and that conforming to them is at least as important as discounting my "vote".VaChiliman (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN Currently supressed in Honduras? (Media War section)
I have added a "{disputed}" tag to the media section. The first sentence expresses that the some media broadcasts are currently supressed in Honduras, specifically talks about CNN en Espanol and Telesur being currently supressed as well as other media outlets like Diario Tiempo. While I read the original reports that the new authorities shut-down media broadasting in the first hours of the event, is this still true? I can downstream video streams from a cable tv box in Honduras and can see Cnn en espanol for a fact, although this is not encyclopedic does raise to me the question that if the statement should be there and/or is misleading the reader into a situation that is not true. Can't verify TeleSur, since the cable tv stream source which I received didn't have it, even before the politial unrest.

Sources given around these statements refer to the first events and days, but statements are placed as currently happening. Shouldn't it be easy to independently verify if CNN en espanol, Telesur and aspects of diario Tiempo and other are CURRENTLY supressed in Honduras? Wikihonduras (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reworked the first paragraph. Do you still dispute the accuracy of the section? -- Rico  01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I still do. The question in hand is still if CNN en espanol continues to be suppressed or not. I have no issue with the source and statement from the Miami Herald. I know this happened in when the Herald reported. I can tell you that I can watch CNN en espanol directly from a cable tv in Honduras through my Slingbox, but I can't use this as a source. But still it shouldn't be difficult to verify if right now people in Honduras can watch CNN en espanol or Telesur. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could it be reworded as "CNN and Telesur were initially shutdown" ? Now this only if we can independently verify that they are now permitted to broadcast. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many tv cable providers in Honduras and CNN is available in many, some including mine have unquestionably removed telesur though it is available as a stream via internet. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Squeakbox. Maybe it's just my incorrect interpretation, but when you read the section it would seem to imply that Telesur and CNN were and continue to be shut. If one cable company has Telesur, but other doesn't might be more a representation of the personal allegiance of the owners than a executive order to stop broadcasting. My slingbox is connected to cable box of one of the largest if not the largest cable operaton in Honduras and could watch the same the owner of the box could watch, which included CNN. But again I couldn't use that as a proof, but at least gave me the opening for the discussion.
 * Maybe some rewording to avoid readers understand the same way I did? Wikihonduras (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was only CNN en Español, not CNN International or CNN USA that were shut down along with TeleSUR. My sources report that the La Lima cable system did remove both CNN en Español and TeleSUR earlier this week.  Rsheptak (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I was responding to this section earlier Micheletti was talking on CNN en español and the interviewer asked him about people writing to their cnn webpage from Honduras saying that people were complaining that they were unable to get the signal of CNN en español. Micheletti said he was able to recieve the show and denied that the government were suppressing this. Which is perfectly credible, the only people able to do this are the many cable providers and that some are blocking even cnn en español is perfectly credible, just as it isnt credible that nobody in the country is getting cnn en español. CNN even reported people saying that cnn en español only cut out when it was giving pro-Mel coverage and came back again when it was pro-Micheletti which I find a bit unlikely, maybe in a society like China but not in Honduras. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any recent media status updates from reputable news sources? If so, we should use such material to update this section. The sources referenced, however, are currently good solid sources reflecting the reporting at the time those articles were written last week. I think we can all probably agree that the sources there should remain, the language should be re-worked to reflect the current situation, and new up-to-date source should be used as well. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This Wall Street Journal article is the most recent reported material I found regarding the current media situation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124658463338890161.html --64.142.82.29 (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal posted this article several minutes ago, and it also mentions the media situation, albeit briefly: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124676841557395603.html --64.142.82.29 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 166.214.141.133
Meh, I can't be bothered to try reverting these edits fast as lightning in order not to be overridden by an edit conflict and have to do it all over. But clearly, this user is making biased edits disregarding everything that was said on this talk page, so that should be reverted. Wasn't this article semi-protected anyway? --LjL (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This anonymous user has been blocked (according to a notice on the talk page). Perhaps the semi-protection expired? Is there a process for reapplying? Given the two recent anonymous vandalisms, it might be appropriate. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, and I just followed it seconds before you sent that message... --LjL (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection has been restored. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Corrections to text of article.
The Organization of American States suspended Honduras on Saturday (July 4) after the caretaker government refused to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya.[10]
 * I am fairly certain from any number of references that the interim government pre-empted this move by pulling out of the OAS. Additional, I don't understand the use of "caretaker" in this context. Would it be NPOV to refer to the Ford administration as a creataker government succeeding Nixon? Anyway, could this sentence be reworked by the contributor/editor?VaChiliman (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Caretaker government" sounds way POV to me, in a diminishing kind of a way. Is that what the OAS called it? I've seen the term "interim government" used in reliable sources. -- Rico  17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interim is a fine characterization, though I would point out that it's not Micheletti's people who would doubt that "caretaker" applies - it's their position that new elections will be held, so that would mean Micheletti views himself as a caretaker. It's Zelaya's people that might complain about this designation because many of them doubt these elections will actually be held. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Justice documentation on Zelaya action
This source appears to have all the Supreme Court's documentation on its action regarding Zelaya. My Spanish is middling at best, so someone should look at this and confirm what I think I see here.

It seems to me what we do have here is documentation of how the case against Zelaya was first brought, clear identification that the "fourth box" referendum question was the cause of the action and that the court considered it common knowledge that Zelaya meant to use this initiative to extend his power (at least, that's what I thought I read - though an appeal to "common knowledge" isn't really the source of a firm case against someone.)

What we don't have here, it appears to me, is any information on what the court thought should happen next, how the armed forces was supposed to behave, or how Zelaya was to be brought to an actual trial as opposed to these documents being the basis of a summary judgment against him.

As I said, I'm getting this on the basis of my high-school Spanish. Can someone else help me out to see if I have it right? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This one?:"Con fecha 16 de junio de 2009, la Corte de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo, con jurisdicción a nivel nacional, por unanimidad de votos, en nombre del Estado de Honduras resolvió declarar inadmisible la acción de amparo interpuesta por el Abogado Rene Velasquez Diaz, a favor del Presidente Constitucional de la Republica, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, contra actuaciones del Juzgado de Letras de lo Contencioso Administrativo de fechas 27 y 29 de mayo de 2009, actuando en su caracter de representante privado del ciudadano Presidente, en sustitución de la Procuradora General de la Republica, Representante General del Estado, Abogada Rosa America de Galo." -- Rico  17:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get why that extract is important - it says that the appeals court invalidated a lower court ruling, does it not?

Another observation... in the documentation, there also appears to be some considerable space devoted to the Legislature having the right (or the Supreme Electoral Tribunal) to call referenda, as opposed to the Executive having that right. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this say, anyone?

CONSIDERANDO: Que es de público y notorio conocimiento que el ciudadano JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, ha dejado de ostentar la condición de Presidente Constitucional de la República, caracter por el cual fue presentado el presente Requerimiento Fiscal ante este Supremo Tribunal de Justicia, para que se le siguiese el procedimiento establecido en la normativa procesal penal que regula el enjuiciamiento criminal funcionarios del estado.

This is the part of the documentation I'm getting "common knowledge" from. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Press Release Radio Globo Honduras
Cesium 133 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Honduran_crisis&diff=300466351&oldid=300464717 removed] this part of the text saying it is no neutral.

''According to a press release published on the website of Radio Globo Honduras, they suffered intimidation and violations of their freedom of expression because the radio's building was surrounded by military forces, and the employees were only allowed to enter the building to work after negotiation. It was said that at 6 PM on Monday 28 a group of 60 soldiers assaulted the physical installation of the radio station, took the radio off the air and the employees, including Alejandro Villatoro.''

That is not me who is saying that. The press release was possible to see in Radio Globo Honduras until 30 june, now it is not possible to see, they, possibly Radio Globo, removed the two press release that were there. Do you want me to write here the press release for you to see everything? It is in spanish. So, lets see:

"CONTRA LA LIBERTAD DE EXPRESION FUERZAS ARMADAS DE HONDURAS SE TOMAN INSTALACIONES DE RADIO GLOBO

Señores Corte Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos Costa Rica.

Señores

La presente lleva además de el saludo, denunciar lo siguiente:

La Gerencia General de Radio Globo, mi denuncia ante ustedes que, después de las acciones de hecho que se dieron que concluyo con deponer al presidente Manuel Zelaya Rosales, se inicio una campaña de intimidación en contra de los medios de comunicación independientes, entre ellos, esta Casa de Radio que fue objeto de un atentado.

Desde las seis de la mañana cuando nos presentamos a nuestras labores, el edificio principal, ubicado en el Bulevar Morazan estaba militarizado, después de algunas negociaciones nos permitieron el ingreso.

Iniciamos nuestra labor informativa, dentro de los parámetros establecidos por las normas legales y en apego a la libertad de expresión y lo que nuestra conciencia nos indica.

Fueron varios los intentos que hicieron los militares por penetrar hasta el edificio de donde trasmitíamos a Honduras y al mundo lo que realmente sucedía en el país. A las seis de la tarde, un comando militar integrado por unos sesenta elementos del ejercito, tomaron por asalto las instalaciones físicas de la radio, nos sacaron del aire y los compañeros que en ese momento se encontraban en el establecimiento ( Alejandro Villatoro, propietario, los periodistas Lidieth Diaz, Rony Martinez, los operadores Franklin Mejia y Orlando Villatoro) fueron objetos de amenazas a muerte, golpes e intimidaciones. En el caso de Alejandro Villatoro es diputado suplente y no respetaron tal condición.

En el caso particular, de David Ellner Romero existía orden de captura razón por la cual logre escapar lanzándose al vacio desde un tercer piso del edifico que alberga la radio, como producto del golpe (unos 25 metros de altura)tengo fracturo en un hombros, costillas, y otros golpe.

Al operador Franklin Mejia, quien es menor de edad, fue golpeado, y en una actitud discriminativa le gritaban ( negro hijo de....te vamos a matar si no nos dices desde donde estas trasmitiendo y otras ofensas denigrantes a la condición humana).

Señores: El fondo de todo este atentado fue, y es, para acallar a la única emisora en Honduras que trasmitía los sucesos tal como se dieron. En la actualidad, y después de negociaciones con los militares, la radio reabrió sus operaciones pero bajo una serie de condiciones que limitan la libertad de expresión en el país.

Bajo este marco conceptual es que recurrimos a ustedes a interponer la formal denuncia para que dentro de las facultades que ustedes tienen, proceda de inmediato hacer una investigación del caso.

Alejandro Villatoro Gerente Propietario Radio Globo

Teléfonos Radio Globo"

The WSJ bases his news on this press release and omits information that I think is important to stay in the article. I would like to know the opinion of Cesium 133 about the press release.--Ferreiratalk 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

President's plane diverted to El Salvador
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124676841557395603.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

"Honduras' civil aviation director said Mr. Zelaya's plane was being redirected to El Salvador." Jabrwock (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing
Just a heads up here. User:Unmentionables is putting in edits such as "The rest of the world cannot tell Hondurans how to run itself", "Hondurans by and large support the ousting of the President" , "Every Latin American country is socialist and publicly condemned the removal of the president despite the popular support of the decision by the Honduras' own people". The only source he has for all of this is an editoral by the Wall Street Journal. User:Allbertos was making similar edits earlier. Both of these users are brand new (their first edits have both come within the past 6 hours and all of their edits are related to this coup). I suspect sockpuppeting. --Tocino 07:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the latest edit by User:Unmentionables: "and perpetuate his reign as it is similar to the method employed by Hugo Chavez in order to establish his fascist rule over Venezuela, and has since been employed by many other Latin American rulers who wished to do the same and are allies of Hugo Chavez." (link here = ) --Tocino 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you recommend we check and see if they're sock puppets or request full protection of the article? Using an editorial as a source is a clear Wikipedia policy violation, and you may remove it. -- Rico  07:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would recommend we check to see if they're sockpuppets, but I would be against full protection for now. I would request a background check myself, but it's 2:30 AM here and I am ready to go to bed. I just hope that some editors will be watching this article for similar POV edits, so they can be quickly reverted. --Tocino 07:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree with Tocino. If this is full protected now, it would be bad, as it's on going. But, seriously, this guys need to stop putting their opinions and start posting the facts. 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better to block people than full protection. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that view. If those guys become a problem, block them. But so far, the resulting article seems to be surprisingly reasonable, so don't go to the length of restricting editing yet, pls. Gray62 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the WSJ article is easily the best representation of the current situation in Honduras, as an editorial it should indeed be left out. I'm not going to edit the article, but any hispanophones who would like to can use www.elheraldo.hn for sources. It's the most read independent Honduran newspaper.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its also extremely pro-coup as are 3 of the 4 honduran dailys. I like El Tiempo for its independence, but here's the links to all 4 for reference along wiith my comments on each from years of reading them daily:
 * La Prensa for the last year or so rabidly anti Zelaya to the point of outright fabrication of news stories
 * El Heraldo Tegucigalpa based; was a good source for news yesterday but strong pro-coup bias
 * El Tiempo most independent of the Honduran papers
 * La TribunaTegucigalpa based; pretty useless.
 * Rsheptak (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that there are no independent newspapers in Honduras. Tiempo just has pushed the specific agenda of the owner's and its family. Yes Prensa and Heraldo (same owner) share same very pro-coup views. Tiempo has been supporter of Zelaya since Tiempo's owner (Owner's Son) was even part of the Zelaya government. Wikihonduras (talk)


 * Almarco wrote, "The opinions of Hondurans themselves, who by and large are glad to see Zelaya gone and support the new government and do not see it as a coup". "Almarco" is similar to "Allbertos". Do you think? -- Rico  19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point? "Rico" is similar to "Ricacho" don't you think?  I have no clue who or what "Allbertos" is.  It's a rather random association.  If you are trying to say I am posting under multiple accounts, that is false.  But, by the way, the edits from IP 24.72.222.172 are mine, before I could look up my long-forgotten Wikipedia account info. --Almarco (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the clear POV that follows here, what does: "The anti-Zelaya and pro-coup Honduran newspaper La Prensa reported that angry Zelaya supporters attacked La Prensa's main headquarters by throwing stones and other objects at their windows, until police intervened. The paper also alleges that Venezuelan and Nicaraguan secret agents were behind the attack." have to do anything? This clearly has to be cut out. Serves no purpose to the article at all.--Anonymust (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coup government"?
I've never heard of this expression. Is this a common one, or is it just a slag on the current, court-ordered militarily-installed government? It's in the article three times. -- Rico  21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The military didn't install the government. They enforced a Supreme Court order to remove the President that was deemed to be unConstitutional to allow their Legislature to appoint a new President. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it, but I think you're missing my point. I'd think you'd agree with my suggestion, based on your apparent, strongly-held, POV. I'm not here for endless debate over what words you'll let me use. I've heard of federal governments and state governments, but I've never heard of a "coup government." It seems POV to me. It seems to imply the illegitimacy of the coup. -- Rico  22:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't have a POV. Instead of condensing what happened into one word, I put forth the events that are known as to the facts of the case. The court did order it. The court did deem him unconstitutional. The legislature did appoint a new president. The military wasn't involved except in enforcing a court decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "coup government" a word, yes or no? -- Rico  22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that word before or used in an appropraite and academic manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We all have points of view. -- Rico  22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to the definition of POV via WP:POV. My stance is only to ensure that Wikistandards are upheld. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * May I suggest "de facto government" as an alternative to "coup government"? From the wiki entry: "In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the rule of a current one." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the language used by many non-honduran spanish language newspapers, such as the Spanish El Pais. Rsheptak (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also consider "post-coup government", which is the term actually used on the Coup d'etat article. However, "de facto government" sounds good to me, although perhaps making it "current de facto government" might make it clearer to readers. I will change it to "post-coup" for now, as that seems like it cannot be more controversial than the current wording. LjL (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Post-coup government" is definitely better than "coup government", which is ambiguous at best. I'd suggested "de facto government" so as to avoid the ongoing debate about whether a "coup" had occurred, it being conveniently broad enough to encompass both legitimate and illegitimate succession. Arguments about whether the de facto government is also a de jure government could thus be avoided in the terminology itself. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Associated Press calls it a "coup-spawned government." -- Rico  05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * News agencies on television refer to it as an "interim government". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose 'television' - Honduran State TV? The Optimists' Channel? Hispanic military government =  'junta' (?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox over consensus, again
SqueakBox moved the article, in the absence of consensus, while we were still discussing it -- unilaterally declaring that the title was POV, again!

I consider that incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.

BOOM, SqueakBox substituted his/her own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that! Before the article was moved to coup, there was a lot of discussion and then consensus to call it a coup.

Since then we're discussing it, and then bam -- twice! Same user! WTF?

The Move discussion was still going on, and the RfC was still current!

I can't even believe this!

Will somebody move it back, until we've collectively made a decision, please? -- Rico  18:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you mean back to the POV title that many people do not want? Your claim that I defy consensus is a claim, the reality is many people oppose this title and we have been discussing it for days with very little new input., Crisis is a NPOV term that includes all points of view, NPOV demands we cannot exclude a major point of view in the title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This may seem odd, for me to weigh in on this dispute contrary to my own sense of what is "correct" in this case, but procedurely, without knowing who the gatekeepers are here, and not wanting to spend a lot of time recreating the history of this article, I do find myself agreeing with Rico, I think. Since all votes apparently are not equal -- WP policy cited by Rico -- I cannot say who is right regarding the Name dispute -- it looks mixed to me, and depending on time of day, seems to drift, and if, say, the pro "crisis" name group is made up of people like me (what am I worth, anyway, 10%, 3/5?), the majority may fall slightly one way or the other. Consensus seems unlikely. This then distills to a Honduran Standoff (I could not resist), two governments, two POV claiming to prevail, which seems curiously alligned with reality. In dispute, I don't see how the last change could have been made. At this moment, we have a former President (or a current President depending on POV), embarking for a return home, and the airports are closed -- as here, what happens? Does the plane land, or crash? Do the soldiers shoot? Is there bloodshed? I disagree with Rico on the appropriate name, but I also believe in process. And, unlike the Honduran Constitution, I am unaware of any loopholes that justify reverting the title back unilaterally. (As if this were a life and death matter.) VaChiliman (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO! "3/5" I love that! I've got tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. I've been laughing for about ten minutes, now. -- Rico  20:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those that admire your hubris (a group of one?) should also enjoy what is posted on your talk page, right column, under "Beliefs" This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia. I try to be civil, respectful, consistent, transparent, and authentic -- even when I am in disagreement. The discussion over the Name of the article has generally been good, excepting your more demeaning contributions, too many to enumerate. The reference below to the Holocaust is disrespectful and reprehensible on so many levels, you really ought to redact it -- I'd be embarassed to sign my name to it. VaChiliman (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SqueakBox; crisis is a neutral term and a consensus isn't likely to be reached on the use of "coup d'etat", due to the contentious nature of the issue. Honestly, a semantics war is pointless. -Falcon8765 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are "many people" that deny the Holocaust -- but we have an article called, "The Holocaust". Should a more "neutral" name be chosen? Is "Holocaust", "POV", because "many people" claim there was no Holocaust?
 * Can I use the word "Holocaust" here, or does that violate BLP? Some of these Holocaust-perpetrators are still alive. Has the World Court found them guilty? I bet they'd deny perpetrating a "Holocaust".
 * There are two viewpoints. Why are we using this POV name? Shouldn't it be, "1930s - 1940s German Political Crisis," or "1930s - 1940s German Religious Crisis"? -- Rico  21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people have no respect whatsoever for POV. Shame on you. Comparing the events to the holocaust is completely out of order and the person should be blocked, just stop it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the Supreme Court's material on prosecuting Zelaya on the page for this topic as an "external link". Could those of you who speak Spanish please look it over and see what those on the court thought they were doing during this thing, whether we call it a coup or not?  What I understand of this stuff makes it look like this was not a conspiracy of top-hatted elitists who, whilst twirling their handlebar mustaches and cackling evilly, plotted to rob the people of their rights, but an insistence that the president not call a referendum, as expressly forbidden by the constitution of Honduras.  My problem, as I've said numerous times, is not calling it a coup, but one-sidedly portraying Zelaya's side as saintly and democratic, rather than as involving a direct violation of Article 239 of the constitution. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And 17 more laws, at that matter... And, btw, people, while Honduras is a democracy, well, Wikipedia isn't. Just remember that. So, no, I'm not lying, and, no, polls are not binding here. Yeah, check it out WP:DEMOCRACY. Anyway, yes, I think everyone will be at consensus that "crisis" is NPOV, as it doesn't mean it's A) a coup d'etat (which a good group is against) or B) not a coup d'etat (which a good group is against, too). So, "crisis" describes better what this is, at it gives the umbrella for the events before the coup and after. Or, should we crop this article just for the events on that dreaded sunday? Comparing the there-is-no-holocaust or the flat earth theory to consensus over something that's HAPPENING, so we don't have all the facts, it's just... irrespectful? Agree with SqueakBox, this article's current name is just POV. It might be that it will later be NPOV, or that it will later will cease to be correct anywhere, but, meanwhile, "crisis" suits it much better. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus on this page seems to lean more towards crisis, it is you thank keeps changing it against the consensus --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Move warring?
The move log shows a series of moves today, back and forth between 2009 Honduran crisis and 2009 Honduran coup d'état. (User:Mewulwe twice restored the 'coup d'état' title but left no message on Talk). Has there been a consensus on the page title? If the move warring continues, an admin should use protection to stop it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources call it a coup, so we should as well. Just about the only one who does not understand this is squeakbox, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, some RS's say it is a coup and others dont, and NPOV demands we be neutral, many agree with me and you have no evidence all RSs call it a coup. Read the NPOV article and stop attackinjg me (this user has a history of attacking me for no reason). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't attack you, please spare us your typical persecution complex. What it is is that you have a history of pushing your own POV (here, Virgin Killer, Jimmy Wales) and edit warring against broad consensus.  Many more sources use "coup" than anything else.  Reality check. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have evidence that Reliable sources call it a coup, but first let's determine what reliable sources are.

"'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added) "Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added) "Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added)
 * The Washington Post published this Reuters story:
 * July 3, from the Times in Britain:
 * This is from The Associated Press:
 * Reliable sources like The New York Times, Washington Post, the Times in Britain, The Associated Press, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal all call it a "coup".
 * Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal".
 * The United Nations and the Organization of American States both call it a "coup".
 * Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are disproportionally well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not represented in the free press. In the world, it's just a fringe opinion.
 *  Wikipedia:Naming conventions: 


 * "Coup" is the only name "easily recognizable by English speakers." "Crisis" is "ambiguous". -- Rico  23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with several assertions made here. First, that "Coup" is the only name easily recognizable by English speakers. That statement is absurd, and unworthy of argument. Second, that "crisis" is ambiguous. The proposed nuetral alternative is "constitutional crisis", which aptly and accurately encompasses the reality of the situation. One could easily argue, as some here have, that "coup", though popularly used by the majority of RS, is not appropriate here, because 1) it introduces unnecessary bias, and thus 2) prejudices objective analysis of the facts known at this time; moreover, from most accounts, it appears that Hondurans themselves do not view what took place was a "coup". "Coup" may not be ambiguous, just plain wrong. Hondurans with access to social networking sites -- many via cell communication -- are registering their opinion that Honduran democracy is being assaulted by misinformation and failure to get their story (the voice of the people) out http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=97987259231. Regardless of personal opinion, NPOV standards are not being met by keeping "coup" in the name, and the disrespect for what many Hondurans consider to be, and value as, a constitutional process, is dismissed capriciously. No number of insults alters the facts, yet to be determined. Last, that contributors to this discussion who prefer the NPOV "constitutional crisis" over the politically non-nuetral "coup" are somehow in favor of, or proponents of, a "coup", is at best presumptive. If one were to poll the group here, I doubt that very many would favor coup d'etat as a political solution. I, for one, am not pro-"coup". If you want to count me as anti-marxist, fair enough, though its not the issue here, is it? Would it be correct to assume that proponents of using "coup" in the article name have a particular ideology that blinds them? Of course not. It is about what Wikipedia is, and isn't, that is at the core of the dispute. VaChiliman (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME states -- right up in its nutshell box -- "Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers."
 * That's the first sentence in this official English Wikipedia policy.
 * All of the reliable sources -- that I have seen (WP, Times, AP, NYT, Reuters, BBC, WSJ, etc.) -- are simply and regularly calling the coup a "coup".
 * That is what makes "coup", "easily recognizable by English speakers."
 *  Wikipedia:Reliable sources: 


 * We must base the article "on third-party sources" -- "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * Editors arguing that "coup" is POV (and therefore violates NPOV), base their argument on the fact that there are people that reject that what happened was a "coup".
 * They contend that using the word "coup" "takes sides," or is "not neutral." Their argument is pure, because we say it is. OR is nothing on Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia considers the people in Honduras, actors in this event, just like the Honduras Supreme Court.
 * They are not reliable sources.
 * Reliable third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy dismiss the contention that what happened was not a coup, and go right on unabashedly referring to it as "the coup."
 * WP:NAME states -- right up in its nutshell box -- "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous."
 * "Constitutional crisis" is not unambiguously about the coup.
 * "Constitutional crisis" could refer to a lot of things.
 * The 2009 Honduran coup d'état article is about the coup. -- Rico  17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for "respectfully" writing that my "statement is absurd, and unworthy". -- Rico  19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reality is this is disputed and wikipedia shouldn't take sides; you appear to know very little about the article content; as for your making up me stalking QG who never implied such rubbish, well that makes for a bad faith user, doubtless pursuing a grudge since the VK argument. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I "pursue a grudge" over an issue in which you lost, and overwhelmingly at that? :) That makes no sense at all, squeak. Bad faith here is moving an article name against consensus, but now that that's taken care of, maybe some editing can take place. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting a smiley face after a slam doesn't make it less of a slam. Play nice, people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have move protected the article as it has been moved multiple times, a consensus had previously been formed as linked above and this is clearly contentious. This will ensure stability for readers and editors whilst this is debated again. Once that happened and if the consensus has changed someone can request myself or another admin to move it. It should probably remain move protected at that point. I also suggest posting this on Requested_moves to canvas wider opinion if resolution can't be achieved here. Mfield (Oi!) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mfield, please note that the article has already been put on the Requested moves list, and and RFC been asked about it, but meanwhile it has been moved - I think - twice regardless, unfortunately. --LjL (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the RfC as I was posting that. Given the number of times it has been moved, it can stay protected and be moved by an admin if consensus ever changes. There's no reason to leave it open to being moved unliaterally or repeatedly. Mfield (Oi!) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying I don't agree with that, merely pointing it out. --LjL (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unequivocally a (political) crisis, while few objective observers consider it a coup. This should be a no brainer. Having coup in the article title is inherently biased and violated NPOV in several ways. --NEMT (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A coup invariably causes a crisis, yes. Many objective sources refer to it as a coup, as noted in this very section. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And this should absolutely be mentioned in the article and in the opening but not in the title itself. This isnt about whether it is a coup or not, it is about our NPOV policy and the fact that there is a significant verifiable view within Hondurs that this is not a coup, removing the word coup from the title does not mean we are saying it isnt a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "reliable sources" means the most reliable sources. And on that count some preference should be given the MOST INFORMED sources.  In this case that means Honduran sources, as these sources would know the culture, conventions, and background, in addition to the best first hand access.  2) a number of major "1st world" media sources are nonetheless studiously avoiding "coup d'etat".  For example, see this Canadian Broadcasting Corp story where "coup" only appears in a quote ("a leftist Nicaraguan priest ... condemned Zelaya's ouster as a coup d'état.")Bdell555 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NEMT: as everybody knows, it's a crisis happened before the forced ejection of the president which is the center of our current debate. Bdel1555: your first statement is loaded. Our problem is whether the ejection is an exercise of constitutional powers (as in, e.g., 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). Maybe other things in constitutional law would have finer points that needs to take into context "the culture, conventions, and background," the removal of a head of state and head of government is something supposed to be very clear in a country with a written constitution. This is why I said on WP:AN/I that I wouldn't mind keeping "constitutional crisis" if the Honduran constitution, on a literal reading, did give the Honduran supreme court to vacate the seat of the president-- but what I read from here indicated the supreme court jumped to the conclusion.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia editors should avoid trying to become experts in constitutional law when naming an article. A determination on whether an act was constitutional should not have to be made in order to name an article. To say this event was a coup implies it is unconstitutional. The crux of the debate over the 'coup' is whether it was constitutional or not, for Wikipedia to weigh in on one side of this debate would be POV. Given that the debate is about constitutionality, the only way the term coup could be NPOV is if it did not imply a lack constitutionality, am I wrong in assuming it does? --74.44.150.159 (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Socialism Comes to the Honduran Banana Republic
This source is now cited 6 times, more than any other source. It not only seems extremely biased, it is also simply inaccurate in reference to PCM-05-2009 - not only has this decree been published, as seen in the link, but it clearly refers to a "consultation" on June 28th, not a referendum. I am removing the material that references this source as a temporary measure; I myself promise to replace any facts which are not contradicted by other sources. Here's the material:

Honduras' constitutional crisis began on November 11, 2008, when Zelaya announced he was seeking a fourth ballot box to be installed at polling places on November 29, 2009 (alongside presidential, congressional and local elections) on holding a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution and allow him to run for reelection. Then on March 24, 2009, Zelaya issued executive decree PCM-05-2009 for the National Statistical Institute to hold the national referendum by June 28, 2009. Zelaya has refused to publish the full text of PCM-05-2009.

With congressional majority, President of Honduras can amend the constitution without any referendum. However, eight articles can't be amended. These include term limits, system of government that is permitted, and process of presidential succession.

Because president can amend 368 of 375 articles without any constituent assembly, Zelaya's true intention appeared to be extending his rule. Honduran political analyst Juan Ramon Martinez has argued that Zelaya is attempting to discredit democracy, "There appears to be a set of tactics aimed at discrediting institutions... he has repeated on several occasions that democratic institutions are worthless and that democracy has not helped at all".

Zelaya refused to give money to the National Electoral Tribunal and the National Persons Registry, which oversee elections in Honduras. It is believed that the reason was to financially asphyxiate the electoral process.


 * Immediately after I created this section, some of this material was added to the LEDE (!) by User:Allbertos(contributions), who is also the person who added it to the section. This was reverted without my intervention. This user is now at 2rr and counting.


 * Separately, I am going to have to break my own promise, I cannot do a full job evaluating the above. Can somebody else evaluate the non-italic material above. If it is not in accordance with WP policy, put it in italics and if not, put it back in the article. NOT Albertos. Homunq (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On further evaluation, I found a second serious factual error relating to PCM-05-2009. According to the Attorney General's arrest warrant, that PCM was totally replaced and left without validity by PCM-19-2009. So the whole discussion is moot. I'd say that level of factual error makes this particular document pretty much totally unreliable for analysis, since such analysis is based on errors of fact. So I'm not evaluating the above material any further. Homunq (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)