Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-08/2009 Honduran coup d'état

Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état Many feel that coup is a POV, and that a NPOV name would be constitutional crisis.

Who is involved?

 * User:CnrFallon
 * User:VaChiliman
 * User:LjL
 * User:Simonm223
 * User:Jun-Dai
 * User:EdwinCasadoBaez
 * User:Xaliqen
 * User:RicoCorinth
 * User:SqueakBox
 * User:Tocino
 * User:Samuel Curtis
 * User:Homunq

What is the dispute?
Many believe it is a coup, many don't a neutral title would be crisis.


 * WP:NAME is an official English Wikipedia policy. It requires, in pertinent part:


 * 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".


 * Ask Joe Sixpack about the "Honduran constitutional crisis," and Joe Sixpack will draw a blank. "Constitutional crisis? Was there some crisis about their Constitution"?


 * Ask Joe Sixpack about the "The Honduran coup d'etat" and he might say, "Yeah, I heard about that. Didn't their military overthrow their president?"


 * All of the news stories I've come across simply call it a "coup". Also, world bodies -- including, significantly, the United Nations and the Organization of American States -- and all the governments of English-speaking countries call it a "coup". The media has reported on that.


 * "Constitutional crisis" is ambiguous, because it doesn't make it clear that the article's about the coup!


 * "2009 Honduran events" would be perfectly "neutral". It doesn't make it easily recognizable by English speakers that the article's about the coup, though.


 * -- Rico  18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also as Wikipedia policy is NPOV, and it extends to the name, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming
 * A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.[4] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[5] Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.
 * Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
 * Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.
 * Also, find one person that does not agree there is a crisis going on, a coup is defiantly a crisis, a crisis is not necessarily a coup. Due to the non-consensus on coup, it should use the more neutral name. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From USA Today, yesterday (first paragraph): "Both sides in Honduras' leadership crisis on Tuesday signaled willingness to forge a diplomatic solution to the deadlock over the fate of President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted last month in a coup ." -- Rico  23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated. to. death. on the talk page. I will not repeat arguments made at least 10 times already. I will only restate that I proposed a compromise: that those (like me) who believe that "coup" is the proper title might defer insisting on that point if "Coup d'etat" is a title of a first-level subhead in the article. Homunq (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
The name of the article should be 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.

How do you think we can help?
Reach a consensus on the title.

Mediator notes
Hi everyone, my name's GrooveDog (talk) (Review) and I'll be your mediator for this case. It is one of my personal rules that during mediation, we all remain civil and that all parties agree to this form of dispute resolution. Please sign your name with four tildes directly beneath my signature. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, case closed at 04:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC). GrooveDog (talk) (Review)