Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état

No Conspiracy Theory
People who don't understand constitutional law and how it works are the ones who foment and spread dangerous conspiracy theories. There was NO MILITARY COUP in Honduras, Zelaya was removed lawfully by the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution. The military showed him the door, overstepping their authority. But there was no "military coup", it was constitutionally an appropriate and legal removal for a direct violation of the constitution. Sorry if that bores you. But the fake story of the "coup" is the real conspiracy theory by the simple minded and the constitutionally illiterate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.95.25 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The Honduran military did not overstep their authority. In fact the Honduran Constitution charges the Military with the responsibility to remove any person who attempts to gain a second term or raise the possibility of changing the Constitutional requirement that no president may serve a second term. 204.13.61.2 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Trivial conspiracy theory included in article
This was in the article:

"The Honduran military plane that flew Zelaya to Costa Rica on 28 June stopped to refuel at Soto Cano Air Base, also known as Palmerola, a joint Honduras and United States military airfield where approximately 600 U.S. troops are based as part of Joint Task Force Bravo of the United States Southern Command. Patricia Valle, who served as Zelaya's deputy foreign minister, said that the stop at Palmerola showed U.S. officials at some level were complicit in the 28 June coup: 'Zelaya was taken to Palmerola,' Valle told The Associated Press. 'The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya.' United States Southern Command spokesman Robert Appin says U.S. forces at Soto Cano 'were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28.' He said in an e-mail to the Associated Press that U.S. troops 'had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off.'"

This conspiracy theory has not gotten wide coverage in reliable sources.

If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!

If U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28" -- and if U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off" -- this is not worthy of inclusion in the so-called "encyclopedia". -- Rico


 * "If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!"
 * Do you know how news works? Do you think "Covert CIA operations" would be all over the news? Seriously, this should not be a surprise. It definitely is not a conspiracy theory. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't a conspiracy theory. At the very least, it's serious accusations that should be mentioned on the page. Here are some sources about the U.S.'s involvement in the coup (even if you only want to call it "alleged involvement"):
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/23/opinion/oe-weisbrot23
 * http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
 * http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup
 * http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/
 * http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
 * Elcalebo (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, people are still alleging that the coup was US backed https://twitter.com/green_uprising/status/1055213937342509057?s=21 Skysong263 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's another example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-role-in-the-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence_us_5766c7ebe4b0092652d7a138

Even if the particular allegation of the involvement of U.S. Military in the coup is false, still the allegations that the US was involved in the coup should be addressed in the article, even if to say they're unsubstantiated Skysong263 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reason for Zelaya's Vote
It needs to be mentioned that Zelaya was trying to hold a vote to change the Constitution to allow him more terms in office, not just to rewrite the Constitution. This context is very important since his own party voted to impeach him and the Supreme Court was just following the impeachment vote. That is why Zelaya was not able to regain office even though he was being helped by Hugo Chavez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.72.76.207 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Move Article?
To keep in line with pretty much every other article involving a coup, this one should be moved to remove the italics from the word coup d'état. I'd do it myself but something about this page in specific doesn't give me the option to. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Page title violates POV
To call the events of 2009 a "coup" reveals a blatent pro-Zelaya bias. Far better to retitle "2009 Constitutional Crisis." 173.53.60.254 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court
It is stated that "the Army followed orders from the Supreme Court." This wording does perhaps not afford the Supreme Court the dignity that it deserves as that nation's supreme legal body. Couldn't the author have said "carried out the judgment of the Supreme Court," or "enforced the Supreme Court's judgment." As worded, the sentence connotes arbitrary or overbearing conduct by the Court and implies irregularity, as if the Court itself were nothing more than a protagonist rather than a neutral arbiter. 177.239.164.52 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)