Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 5

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

What happened to the media war section?

I thought it was helpful in understanding news coming out of the country. Here's a recent Washington Post piece that contains information that would fit well in that aection but I'm at a loss where to put it now. In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been gone for a while. It was there around 15:00 on 7 July; I haven't pinpointed the exact time of disappearance. There was no discussion of the removal as far as I can find. I just put it back in. I didn't check the references in it; there may well be flaws, but I don't think it should just have been yanked. --Ong saluri (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the work I should have done. I've added a couple quotes from the new article, but I'm sure the section could use some reworking. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the 'media war' material was removed at the time users shifted the "chronology of events" material over to a new article. I agree the main article could use more information about the current media situation in Honduras. Perhaps some of the material shifted to the new article should be shifted back? --Xaliqen (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll pass on the advice someone above gave me. Be bold. WP:BOLD Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was deja vu. No new arguments have been presented in this move request which make it different from the previous one. (See #Move discussion, above.) I was not aware of this second move request when I closed the previous one, but, after reading through this discussion here, I find no arguments that weren't present in the first discussion. In the future, please do not file simultaneous move requests on the same page. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


2009 Honduran coup d'état → 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis — coup is a POV and crisis is a more neutral term. - Conor Fallon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "POV" because you say it is! I haven't seen one reliable source that states that the viewpoint -- that what happened was not a coup -- is held by more than an extremely small minority.
"2009 Honduran events" would be a more neutral term, but it would be ambiguous and "easily recognizable by English speakers" (just like "constitutional crisis").
A new article called "constitutional crisis" could be created for the events leading up to the coup, describing how the Supreme Court ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional. -- Rico 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Rico, we've already had someone post on here that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has used the word "coup" in quotes, indicating that the CBC considers this a contested point. The CBC's a pretty reliable source (I'm a dual American-Canadian citizen, though, so perhaps I'm partial to the CBC. And of course this sort of thing cuts both ways...when reporting Israel/Palestine news, the CBC refers to Hamas as "insurgents" rather than "terrorists", which I think is outrageous, but that's a discussion for some other page...) Anyway, it seems to me that the fact of the CBC doing this suggests that it's POV because you say it is. Also, we do now have the U.S. government trying as hard as it can not to use the word so it doesn't have to cut off aid to Honduras, and perhaps that ought to count for something.
Your suggestion about creating an article called "constitutional crisis" for the events leading up to the coup, however, I think has merit. It doesn't cover up the constitutional roots of this business, which, as you know, has been my concern about this article the whole time. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • SupportFor all the reasons stated on the talk page above. --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons stated previously in discussion. Please don't delete my polling data a second time.Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It is not at all clear that this is a coup, despite it's regular, mainstream characterization as such. Moving the article does not mean that the Wikipedia is taking the POV that event was not a coup, but not moving the article does mean that Wikipedia is taking the POV that the event was a coup, even if that POV is supported by most of the world leaders that have spoken about the matter and asserted frequently in the press. In the interests of maintaining NPOV, I support the move. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been considered a Coup by International organizations, including OAS, U.N, and all Latin American Governments except for Honduras Itself. Zelaya was removed from presidency and sent in exile to Costa Rica. Government officials that opposed Zelaya's Removal where fired from their positions. Isn't this a coup? EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Media and international government consensus says "coup." Most of the currently available facts indicate "coup." Government sources accused of starting "coup" in Honduras say "not coup." Deposed Honduran President says "coup." I think it's pretty neutral to say "coup," when the only people really denying a coup occurred are the people who enacted said coup. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain Since we're all taking this vote again, I'll reiterate my vote indicating that I can accept it being called a coup, but I think it is sufficiently unlike other coups in that the whole thing started as a plausibly real demand for the President to obey the rules set down in the Constitution of Honduras. Since both sides of this squabble, in my view, have their own dirty laundry, I prefer to bypass the question.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NAME is an official English Wikipedia policy. It requires,
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 makes "coup", "easily recognizable by English speakers."

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 more all-encompassing, and perfectly neutral. It doesn't make it easily recognizable by English speakers that the article's about the coup, though. -- Rico 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, Joe Sixpack doesn't know it's about a constitutional crisis because the media have, in a somewhat slanted fashion, not focused (until now it seems) upon the constitutional roots of this coup. Now that Óscar Arias is going to be mediating between the two, perhaps it will become clearer to Joe Sixpack that there are two sides to this thing, and maybe in the next week or so, if you ask him again, he'll say "Oh, yeah, that constitutional crisis that just got resolved between those two guys in Honduras..." Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The current title is very biased. --75.223.126.134 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a crisis with the constitution, it led to what many are calling a coup. The name should be accurate and not take a particular POV. --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a name change, either that proposed, or an alternative. VaChiliman (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support it doesnt matter whether it as a coup or not, the only thing that matters is that a significant pov says it sint and the title must be POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, the editors are putting this dispute in the hands of "Joe Sixpack"? Do some of you read what you write? There are many topics, probably including some that relate to the brewing of beer, that Joe Sixpack would not recognize or understand. Anyway, that's at best speculative, and wholly irrelevent.
I will stipulate to Rico's assertion that all RS call it a "coup" if he would acknowledge that many, if not all, now also refer to it as a "crisis", "political crisis", or "constitutional crisis". His many comments that attempt to trivialize the dispute are disingenuous, lack integrity, and I dare say, violate standards of good faith. Several references from the same RSs he likes to lean on have been made here, that directly contradict his assertions. Frankly, its tiresome. I do not agree that English speaking people who frequent Wikipedia are incapable of understanding that a crisis exists, and given that most news-aware Americans have been exposed to the term "constitutional crisis" and "political crisis", I don't buy his argument. Perhaps, after a six pack, I'd be open to a different POV.
Words do matter. This political crisis will be resolved with comapratively little bloodshed because words matter, and I am most glad to see a univerally respected regional leader willing to step forward as a mediator. The word "coup", as I've argued more than once, is highly misleading and innapropriate for a name, "coup d'etat" even more so. Not because I say so, but because the facts as we know them, as reported by RS, do not support the definition(s), not one of the many posted here. There are two sides. We know, as reported by RS, that the military was involved at all because civil authority could not be used to either arrest or deport Zaleya. We know, whether outsiders feel it is legitimate or not, that the government followed an [imperfect] process in removing from office an elected president, for alleged political and criminal acts against the democratic state, and followed a constitutional process of succession. That no "coup d'etat" occured is a very important distinction, not only for the government, but for the many Hondurans who do not want their democratic form of government overthrown. If Zaleya has been accused falsely, removed inappropriately, that bears remedy -- hopefully that is dealt with through mediation. It is a Honduran problem. I'd hate to see WP used as a political tool -- which I believe is the current case -- by maintaining the status quo because of the beligerence of one very unreasonable editor.
Last, I don't begin to understand the "four" vs. "two" comments, which either involves tossing out all previous argument and discussion, or is arrived at by applying some mythical weighting system to editor's contributions, as has been simultaneously cited as WP policy on one hand and disavowed by the same editor on his talk page on the other hand.
What is most frustrating is that a number of compromise solutions have been put forth, and the argument repeatedly centers on one side over an extreme, unsupportable, position. This keeps us in a constant state of dispute, and a lengthy discussion -- so long, it seems, some folks don't even bother to follow it anymore.
Put both in the name. 2009 Honduran Political Crisis or "Coup" VaChiliman (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose both this voting process (since it's already been done recently and we are just going in circles now) and the proposed name change. There is a consensus in the real world that this is a coup. All nations and international organizations, plus the media, are labeling it as such. Even coup supporters are calling it what it is (evidence = [1]). The people who pulled off this coup would also probably object to the proposed name change since, in their minds, everything that they did was perfectly legal, and if everything is legal then naturally there would be no "constitutional crisis". The bottom line is that the military woke up a sitting President at o'dark thirty, dragged him out of his home in his pajamas, and flew him to another country against his will. If he committed all of these terrible crimes that they claim occured, then they should've taken him to court instead of throwing him out of the country without going through the democratic processes, i.e. elections. --Tocino 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of what? That ignorance is pervasive? By the way, its a blog source opining about non-objective editorial sources that do not purport to be news sources, let alone serve as RS. Again, and I am really tired of saying this, that those who support a change in the name -- speaking for myself, anyway -- do not appreciate being labeled a "coup supporter", any more than being labeled a "coup denier". Popular misuse of a term does not obligate acquiesence to an incorrect application of the word -- that is a throwback to a point in time when it was commonly accepted that the earth was flat, that some groups of people were intellectually inferior but athletically superior, and as pointed out earlier, that Saddam had WMD -- even though each of those POV still, remarkably, have adherents. A constitutional crisis existed, and exists, and has been documented, precisely because it is in conflict with itself -- whether this is the result of poor construction, or an incredibly brazen chief executive -- or a little bit of both - is TBD. Can we stop with the PJs, by the way? I am sure that Senor Z is man enough to withstand that indignity, as if he were allowed breakfast first and time for his toilet, brushing teeth, and dressing would change circumstances one iota. Just not relevent. Against his will? Most "arrests" are. Forced to leave the country? Thank goodness, better that than bloodshed. All pretext for calling it something that serves a political purpose. There is plenty of room to point out who called it what, why, and when, without sticking "coup" naked in the title. As for the "democratic process" assertion, that is not equivalent to elections alone -- there are many elements, none of which is unilaterally opposing one's constitutionally proscribed powers, ignoring other elected and non-elected branches of the government, co-opting the police to engage in illegal activities, or any number of the charges pending against the ousted president. Due process, on the other hand, was by-passed, and no one sane disputes this. One thing we might agree on, however, is that the inability of this group to reach a compromise, does lead to going in circles. VaChiliman (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not call anyone on this talkpage a coup supporter. The link I provided was intended to show that coup supporters, such as the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and Ciff Kincaid, are using the term "coup" to describe the actions, even though they are in support of them. --Tocino 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. Your reference brushed up against a sore spot. I don't know that the WS or the NR are "coup supporters" either, maybe they are, but not because a blog says as much. VaChiliman (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As of now, there are 5 in support and five in oppose

Ahem, first, that comment "auto" be signed. Second, how does the count start all over again? Do we keep calling a new survey each and every time someone doesn't like the outcome? Just curious. Last, does any survey carry any weight or importance? If the process requires consensus, we are clearly not there yet. If it requires compromise, I have seen only a hint of that. If mediation could solve anything, that process appears to be blocked. So, it seems, there is a deadlock. The name stays as is, I gather -- since moving a change without consensus is not possible. All very interesting. "No fue un golpe de Estado" vs. "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" VaChiliman (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support While I personally believe it is a coup, constitutional crisis would be a better name, because this article covers the entire crisis, not just the events on the night of the presidents removal. --131.109.225.16 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This article covers all the events, it should be at Constitutional Crisis with coup as a section of it that deals with the presidents removal from power. --PatriotGames (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain As I stated in the previous survey, I do not have a strong opinion on the title as long as the article contains a good description of the dispute. This is not meant to say that it is not important whether it is a coup or not, just that the title in Wikipedia is not that important and will no doubt change over time as more is learned. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Constitutional crisis is the surface reason for the coup. Deeper reason is Zelaya leftist, raised minimum wage 60%, joined ALBA, etc.: all of which anathema to most of business and political elite who have taken opportunity to get rid of him. The main, dramatic, event is the coup; there should be an article on it by that name. There could also be an article on the constitutional crisis and articles on other related things. --Ong saluri (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to spout off your claims of alterer motives. --Conor Fallon (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Even if this situation meets the technical definition of a coup, and I don't believe it does, the situation is hardly what comes to mind when the word "coup" is used in the title. After all, the Supreme Court of the pre-existing government authorized the president's removal, and the ousted president was succeeded by the pre-existing next-in-line for the presidency from his own political party. In addition, "coup" is a loaded word, and whether the situation meets the definition is at least in dispute. Therefore, to comply with NPOV, the title should be moved. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportFor all the reasons I stated in the previous move discussion above. -- Rsheptak (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Do we really need to do this again? Actually, perhaps the best course of action is to keep an eye on how the U.S. government is characterizing things. As noted earlier on this page, they may backtrack on this in order not to have to cut off aid to Honduras. It's possible that other nations may follow the U.S. lead on this matter, possibly in so doing recognizing that the Honduran situation is more complex than that and less a black-and-white good vs. evil situation. If that happens, then you might have a case that those on the other side of this debate will respect, as sources they will accept as "reliable sources" will become more plentiful. But by posting this now, you're just going over the same tired ground - plus, as I've said before, Micheletti's government has done oodles of things that actually are consistent with the "coup" characterization, so the title may be appropriate. I think we need to focus our efforts on here, instead, to a balanced portrayal of the two sides, which we're still a long way from achieving. We still have Zelaya solely as the aggrieved victim rather than Zelaya as the lawbreaker (at best civilly disobedient, at worst self-interested and knowingly divisive) whose punishment was even more unlawful, which I'm convinced is the real story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't need to do this. We are just going in circles. --Tocino 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We have been over this repeatedly. It IS a COUP. Please devote even half the effort into improving Wikipedia that has been put into opposing this clear characterization and then the encyclopedia will be much improved!Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Simonm223, it's easy to turn that around. Why don't you take the effort you've put into opposing the move to a more NPOV title and redirect it elsewhere? For anyone that believes this event was not a coup, this article's title reflects a clear POV. For anyone that believes that this event was a coup—I'm not really sure why it's a problem to move it to 'crisis' or somesuch. It's not as though such a move forces Wikipedia into taking a stance on whether it was a coup; it merely changes it to a more neutral (and more accurate, IMO) title. Jun-Dai (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This comment is unhelpful. Not only is there clearly no consensus to call it a coupo but our NPOV is a very important na d non-negotiable policy. You and I may think it is a coup but millionsd of Hondurans do not, making the belief that it is not a significant POV. We are only wikipedia editors and therefore it is our personal beliefs that should not count. But at the end of the day saying we shouldn't be wasting time discussing our NPOV policy is notin any way helpful to building an encyclopedia for the 21st Century. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What about those millions of honduras that do believe is a coup but are opresed by the new government and blocked off from international media attention.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... millions? Source? Oh well, the "fringe" has something to say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-ngmoHhjQ VaChiliman (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A coup is certainty a crisis, and crisis would be a better, neutral name for the article. So even if it was a coup, it would fit crisis also, but if it was legal, it would still fit crisis but not coup. As it is in dispute, crisis is a better term.--Conor Fallon (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. This crisis is most certainly a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster a coup is "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics ; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" this does not include Honduras because the Congress and the Supreme Court are the same, and it was majority backed, and entirely constitutional. The media is not an expert on Honduras law, and they get things wrong (see "Dewey Defeats Truman"). --Conor Fallon (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitutionality is contested esp in the problem of due process, but certainly not "by a small group" as, apparently, the entirety of Honduran politicians wanted Zeleya to go.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well clearly not the entirety population but certainly a significant section of the society, arguably the majority. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The best name would be constitutional crisis, because nobody disputes that it is indeed a crisis, centered around the constitution, In my eyes, both elements violated the Constitution at some level. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Removal of the term "coup" is something that is ultimately politicized. Certain elements don't want this clear coup to be considered a coup as the coup d'etat has political consequences that Honduran interests don't want. This crisis is evidently a coup. WP:DUCK, WP:NUTSHELL and the vast majority of international sources including international organizations, nation states and NGOs have called this a "coup". "Coup" IS the NPOV option. Please can we stop going around in circles about this just leave it as "Coup"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what neutral means? --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Similar arguments apply to other fringe subjects, for instance, historical revisionism that is considered to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial." -- NPOV (emphasis and first wikilink added) -- Rico 05:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I find your claims of holocaust denial extremely offensive, on my mom's side of the family I have people who died in the holocaust. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I must protest. Instead of laying off linking those who disagree with you to the Holocaust denial fringe, an extreme act of bad faith on your part, not to mention completely offensive and out of bounds. I don't give a cruft about your link to Holocaust denial because it is simply a stupid attempt at legitimizing your bad behavior and a continuation of your several attempts here to marginalize and diminish a legitimate POV shared by many (we can quibble about how they disagree). Historical revisionism is always a concern. It is nothing new. A classic topic to study would be the US Civil War. I'd say this: if you have RS that report this as equivalent to Holocaust denial, let's see it. Grow up. I have no problem with those who respectfully disagree. No problem with humor. No problem with rules, as long as they apply equally. But I ask you, again, to stop denigrating those who see things differently. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I also have to say, that most, not all, of the argument over the name is the unnecessary (my POV) and misplaced (my POV) emphasis on "coup" being use in the name of the article. Whether a "coup" occured, or something "coup-like", or was strictly a "legal" process that no other country agrees with, nothing is lost by taking a NPOV name ("constitutional crisis", political crisis", whatever). If the intent of the article is to focus on the events of 28 June alone, with some contextual reference to the broader crisis, and there is a second article addressing the crisis, that makes sense. Make this the main article by allowing the name change, create a subarticle on your "coup", and get on with it. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) VaChiliman (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "coup" is NPOV precisely because it is the term used by an overwhelming majority of the media. "Constitutional crisis," a term used by virtually no one to describe the situation, is confusing to those looking for information about the "Honduran coup." Furthermore, "constitutional crisis" is less NPOV than "coup," because it is not only a term used by virtually no media organisations, but it also suggests the primary issue relates to the constitution and not the fact that the president was kicked out of the country by the military. Most media and international political organisations are concentrating on the fact that the president was kicked out of the country and not a perceived ambiguous crisis relating to the country's constitution. Therefore, to have an article title indicating a "constitutional crisis" is both not NPOV and misleading when related to the actual contents of the article and the intent of the majority of those looking for the material. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last section is clear POV

The last Section ("Theories") is only citing pro Coup-arguments (some are quite wild... especially the Trap-Theory. [blp vio removed]). No balancing, no counter-arguments to the theories. An admin should just snip it out until the site hasn't to be protected anymore and users can make a balanced section about it... --84.74.154.87 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the article, they just need to register to Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree, and have only just stopped myself from editing it out at least twice because I wasn't sure there were others who shared that sentinment. Maybe later today. Rsheptak (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you agree that since there is "no balancing" and "no counter-arguments", the correct course of action is to remove the whole thing, rather than add balancing and counter-arguments? I don't think that's what the policies say... --LjL (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I support the removal.Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Counter-balancing should be attempted, that is our responsibility. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of constitution

I've had to delete the section on alleged violations again diff because (a) the sources almost entirely fail to back up the text (b) it is such a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to accept the coup-plotters' narrative that the poll for a referendum on a generic Constitutional Assembly was an unconstitutional attempt at getting Zelaya re-elected, it's not even funny. Apart from anything else, it was chronologically impossible: the referendum approving the Assembly was take place concurrent with the next Presidential election. A new constitution would take probably a year to draft and approve. And where does the nonsense about the constitution being "unabolishable" come from? Constitutions cannot make themselves unabolishable; it's incompatible with basic legal principles. (Even the unreformableness of parts of the existing constitution is slightly dodgy.) Moreover, the existing constitution says nothing about that, it speaks explicitly of reform. Disembrangler (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Their court system ruled on the matter. That is citable and tells part of the facts of the case. It is disturbing how you phrase such things above. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a very flimsy and amateurish argument to say that his intentions did not include re-election because of "chronology." Many critics were concerned he would come back in a future election, rather than continue in unbroken power. Also, as recent Latin American history shows, when left-leaning leaders (and some right-leaning leaders as well) amend their country's Constitution, they almost always make sure to leave the door open for their re-election. Thus it is far from being a "blatant violation" and "not even funny"... even if Zelaya denied it, critics have ample reason to believe that was his intention. This tendency, repeated over and over again throughout Latin American and even Honduran history, is also why the current Constitution was written as it is, so that such things could never occur. If something is laughable indeed, it is that anyone takes Zelaya's denials at face value, given the context and the region's history. --Almarco (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, in the days leading up to June 28, suspicion increased that after a favorable outcome of the poll, Zelaya planned to triumphantly dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court and immediately form this Constituent Assembly, which would have been able to keep him in power continuously. This suspicion was based on more ambiguous wording about the "poll" in a new order by Zelaya, dated in March but quietly published in the legal gazette of the country just days before June 28. [2] [3] [4] The new wording called the poll a "Public Opinion Poll for Convoking a National Constitutional Assembly" and called it an official government activity to be supported by all organs of government. Actual order by Zelaya (linked to from http://www.ucdhonduras.com). Zelaya also had recently said "You have declared war on me. Now face the consequences" [5]. These kinds of threats naturally would raise suspicions. --Almarco (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Suspicion is the root of the problem with this whole event, and why the international community rejects the legality of it. You can't act against someone in a legal system without evidence, and there is none here. Honduras acted on information that was "publico y notorio" (read the supreme court document, this is their evidence) but completely unfounded by either public statements by Zelaya or by his actions, or those of any of his representatives. Rsheptak (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The Honduran institutions' reading of their own constitution and of the situation is that there was sufficient reason to suspect his intention to be re-elected, and sufficient basis for his removal. They are the ones with jurisdiction here, not the "international community." The referendum itself, and many of Zelaya's aggressive actions in promoting it, was also decreed to be illegal, so there are multiple violations on which he can be charged, even beyond "intent." --Almarco (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the nature of the suspicion, that he would have dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, hesitation on the part of these bodies to be "100% sure" would be very risky. So rather than wait until it was confirmed, after which it would be too late, they moved against him based on the already multiple violations that he had committed. --Almarco (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted you, and I am very tempted to revert you again. The material was well-sourced. In fact, it would be justifiable under NPOV and RS to have three parts: "alleged Zelaya violations", "Zelaya defense", and "alleged post-Zelaya violations". The Zelaya defenses are easy to find RS for, whereas I have searched and failed to find any golpista defenses against the charges that were in that section. I understand that this would be a magnet for accusations of POV, but it would be on solid ground by RS.

I will not revert you again, though. I don't want to get into a two-editor edit war. I will support any other editor who reverts you (the section is in the diff you linked), and I will support you if you add a well-sourced "Zelaya defense" section. I strongly disagree that presenting relevant and widespread accusations here amounts to endorsing them. I myself added the Article 239 accusation against Zelaya, because it has been argued and I had a good source, even though I personally believe that it is ridiculously false, and that there is no true comparison or equivalency between el caudillito Zelaya and the golpistas de mier...coles. Homunq (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think a section like that, explaining what each of the parties accuses the other of violating, is very relevant, it does look, to me, like the one that was removed was very poorly sourced.
I don't see any of the sources claiming that someone accused either Zelaya or the new government of violating articles; they mention said articles, but either without directly implying a violation, or while implying a violation without attributing it to anyone (i.e. opinion pieces).
Specifically, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=15004 says: Añadió que “el ex Presidente Zelaya había caído en un absoluto desconocimiento e irrespeto a la legalidad. No le importó violar la Constitución al tratar de asfixiar económicamente a otros poderes del Estado, no enviando el Presupuesto de la Nación a este Congreso Nacional, que públicamente se propuso la derogación del artículo 239 de la Constitución, bajo el pretexto de emitir una nueva Constitución, cuya propuesta obligaba a destituirlo del cargo”
Am I wrong in reading this as saying that 1) he claims Zelaya violated the constitution 2) he claims Zelaya publicly wanted to remove article 239 - without linking the two?
On the other hand, http://www.asuntoscapitales.com/default.asp?id=3&ids=2&idss=4&ida=4393 merely say: Añaden que esa violación constitucional implica el cese inmediato en el desempeño de su cargo de aquél que la cometa, así sea el mismísimo Presidente de la República. and then Tienen razón. Zelaya habría violado el artículo 239 ("They are right. He'd have violated art. 239").
So isn't this just the reporter's opinion? The reporter claims they're right, and says it's because of an art. 239 violation. Not a source.
LjL (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
On your first source: since article 239 clearly states that revoking or modifying article 239 is a violation, the link is implicit. On your second source: yes, it's the reporter's opinion. That's the point here: these sections are to report relevant, sourced, and attributed allegations; they do not and could not pretend to report facts. Homunq (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better to have the references to the Constitution and the specific violations. Olegwiki (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest also putting in the parts of the constitution which refer to potential loss of citizenship (Article 42), as this is part of this controversy as well. Also mention that the concept of the changeability of the president is highlighted in Article 278, which empowers the military to protect this principle (though it doesn't say how). I have all of these listed further on down this talk page. What's wrong with including everything on my list along with your list? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the below not included in the article? At the moment it is mostly chronology.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the article because a number of people have expressed opinions that Honduran constitutional law is irrelevant in a Honduran constitutional crisis. I am not in agreement with that view myself, but it seems to be popular. I've also posted in the "external links" section of the page the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras's documentation regarding the prosecution of Zelaya. My Spanish is only middling, so I've asked people for help deciphering what's in there, so we have a clear reliable source (the Supreme Court itself) on what the coup plotters thought they were doing. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't they be banned?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections, to aid discussion (please discuss above and leave the below clean)

If you want to edit propose an edit, like this, to the below, that's fine.

Alleged violations of the Constitution

By Zelaya's government

Zelaya is accused of violating:

  • Article 239, which states that article 239 cannot be modified to allow for presidential re-election, and that any person who proposes doing so "must immediately cease carrying out their office".[1] The violation would come not because of Zelaya openly supporting reforming this article, but because by consulting the people if they wanted to convoke a constituent assembly, he would be proposing abolishing the current Constitution entirely, thus indirectly reforming the article. Some commentators disagree, arguing that a constituent assembly would not merely reform the Constitution, but it would replace it altogether with a new one. There would be thus no violation of the current Constitution.[2]
  • Article 374, which states that the Constitution is unabolishable, thus proposing a constitutional assembly is unconstitutional.[3]

By the coup plotters and the de facto government

The de facto government is accused of violating several articles of the Constitution in its ousting of Zelaya and subsequent actions:[4]

  • Article 84, which states that the person being arrested must be clearly informed of his rights and the reason for his arrest; the arrested person has the right to communicate with another person of his choosing at the time of his arrest.
  • Article 182, which provides for the right of habeas corpus.
  • Article 90, which guarantees due process.
  • Article 85, which states that person may only be arrested at a place determined in the law.
  • Article 88, which holds that any declaration made by the detainee is invalid if not before the presence of a competent judge.
  • Article 82, which declares the right of defense "inviolable."
  • Article 102, which states that "no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over by the authorities to a foreign state."
  • Article 81, which provides for freedom of movement within the country.
  • Article 74, which prohibits the restriction of mass media.

Is there any provision in the Honduras constitution regarding the immunity of the President from prosecution and/or arrest? Olegwiki (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The move

Looks like the golpistas finally got their way. User:Aervanath moved the article without a clear consensus. He even moved it by using the first RM, which had been dead for over a week. The second discussion was more relevant and the voting was closer, even though admins aren't supposed to decide by voting, which is what User:Aervanath's explanation implies. --Tocino 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The golpistas? Are you referring to editors here? There was never a consensus to call it golpe as such was a violation of our NPOV policy. Your claim in your edit summary that the international community supports the golpe title is farcical but untrue as this titke does not negate that5 a golpe took place, it merely encompasses both significant POVs. Which is exactly what NPOVdemands. YOu are going to hav to come up with areason as to why NPOVis broken or the tag goes. Your admitting thta the original discussion did have a consensus against coup but should be ignored shows the strength of your argument. I suggest you apologize to anyone you called a golpistas, such a personal attack is blockworthy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not admitted to there being a consensus anywhere. Clearly there is none. And you removing a POV dispute tag, while earlier when you insisted on having one when you didn't get your way, is a golpista-esque, anti-democratic tactic of silencing dissent. --Tocino 19:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Aervanath moved the article, based on the first move request, unaware that there was a second move request -- unilaterally declaring, "The majority has made the valid argument."
Aervanath's referral to "the majority" was repugnant to WP:Vote. ("Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions [...] working towards consensus.") The discussion in the move requests establishes that there was no consensus for the move.
Aervanath didn't substantiate his or her claim that the historical revision argument was "the" "valid" one. It amounted to nothing more than Aervanath's opinion!
Aervanath didn't even write that the argument to call a coup, a "coup", was wrong.
Those that wanted the name left, "coup", quoted policy and reliable sources. The argument to whitewash history was using WP:OR.
When Aervanath wrote, "the use of the word 'coup' is inherently biased," that's just parroting the historical revision argument. It was just Aervanath's opinion.
Another administrator could have just as easily closed the move discussions and declared the opposite.
The only indication that Aervanath read anything of the opposition argument was when he dismissively wrote, "'coup' [...] may be commonly used."
While closing the second move request, Aervanath wrote, "No new arguments have been presented in this move request which make it different from the previous one."
That's not true!
I presented a WP:NAME argument in the second move request that nobody had presented in the first move request.
Aervanath continued, "after reading through this discussion here, I find no arguments that weren't present in the first discussion."
It doesn't look like Aervanath read the opposition argument very carefully, if at all, so how important is Aervanath's opinion?
SqueakBox tried illegitimate moves twice, and was reverted twice, because his moves were illegitimate.
Why is it any different that Aervanath did it?
Can Aervanath's illegitimate move be reversed?
Can it be protested? -- Rico 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Tocino you misrepresent what happened. Yes, I was surprised by User:Aervanath's actions, especially basing them on the first call for votes, but even taking both into account, there is no consensus for or against whether a coup took place; but there is an apparent consensus, between the two calls for votes, to not name the article with "coup" in the title, for a variety of reasons. Both calls for votes had been open long enough to take action. The golpistas most certainly didn't win here. Rsheptak (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Who decided that the first move request was "dead", to begin with? I opened it, and I was actually a bit upset when a second one was created with the first still being open, and I did express my concerns about it. They were ignored, but that hardly means anything. --LjL (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Still and all the new title does address the concerns of the many editors who thought the coup title was POV. The current tile does not negate that a coup happened, it satisfies both parties. I have put the coup in bold in the opening and removed the tag. Can we please move on. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not satify both parties. It caves into the golpistas demands, to say that there is some sort of ambiguity as to whether the golpistas actions were legal. There is no "constitutional crisis" according to pro-Zelaya forces and the international community, it was 100% illegal removal of a democratically elected Presidnet, AKA a coupdetat. --Tocino 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ambiguity indeed, neither one side nor the other is "right" and it would be out of order for us to even imply it regardless of our personal opinions, which we are not here to bring, we are here to write a neutral article. Your tone smacks of taking one side in this dispute, there are plenty of places to do that from blogs to twitter but in wikipedia writing a balanced article containing all significant POVs is our only goal. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, certainly if there is a "100% illegal removal of a democratically elected President", there there is quite a constitutional crisis...? "A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty." (Constitutional crisis). The events seem to fit the definition perfectly. The article never talks about legality, it doesn't imply a constitutional crisis needs to be "legal" to be called such. Probably because it doesn't. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"A constitutional crisis" is a misinterpretation of the events on this article. First of all "A constitutional crisis" implies that there is some sort of legitimacy to both sides of the so-called crisis. The international community would argue that the golpistas have none. The demonstrators aren't protesting about the constitution. The pro-Zelaya forces are protesting against the forced exile of a democratically elected President, while the anti-Zelaya forces are demonstrating in favor of it. If this were just a simple "constitutional crisis" where "separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty" then Zelaya would still be in Honduras right now, as President, arguing against the Supreme Court and factions in the Congress. As of right now, he is not even part of the de facto Honduran government, so it's impossible to do this. --Tocino 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Legtimacy to both sides of the argument? That is exactly what our POV policy demands. Giving legitimacy to the side we believe in, regardless of which side that is, is not acceptable on wikipedia. Sure the international community has a POV that it has no legitimacy but that is half the argument and certainly not the half we are going to buy into, any more than we will buy into what the Micheletti POV claims, this is the very essence of NPOV and those not willing to accept it need to find another hobby. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Tocino, the language used in many of your previous statements is pretty tendentious. I have to remember you the WP:INDCRIT and I'm agree when other editor suggest you apologize to anyone you called a "golpsita", as that also is a violation of WP:CIV, also the article never talks about legality, is about facts. --201.91.211.4 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Tocino was using inflammatory language, but he was not calling any editors golpistas - he was saying that the editors' actions served the ends of the golpistas, which is quite different. It's still not a helpful statement in this context, though it is not so simply wrong. 75.36.130.227 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ps. I support "coup", but am glad for a chance to be bold with my compromise.
How does "constitutional crisis" imply what you said? It doesn't imply it according to the Wikipedia article about it. Now, surely a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source, but you're the one making the claim that "constitutional crisis" => illegality. That's not necessarily true in my books, as well as apparently in the books of the several people on this page who accepted that "constitutional crisis" would describe the event, even though some of them have stated it should be called more specifically a "coup", but without claiming that "constitutional crisis" is incorrect, only that it is overly generic. Do you have a source stating that a "constitutional crisis" must necessarily be a legal, never illegal, act? --LjL (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Overly generic is great as long as it includes both POVs, if anyone claims a significant POV is noty included we can reassess. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Your basic argument seems to be that we must give the golpistas legitimacy, no matter if what they did was condemned by the international community and the majority of Hondurans. I wonder if you take a similar stance on all the other coup d'état articles. If we apply this standard then 2008 Guinean coup d'état, 2008 Mauritanian coup d'état, 2006 Fijian coup d'état, 2006 Thai coup d'état, 2005 Mauritanian coup d'état, etc., all need to renamed. In fact we should just scratch the word coup d'état out of WP, because it always implies POV. --Tocino 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
the majority of Hondurans? That clearly is not so, and I am not arguing for giving the golpistas legitimacy, I am arguing to give our NPOV policy legitimacy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it gives them golpistas legitimacy, and I'm on your side when it comes to the "was it a coup" debate. For me, the "coup" happened, but there continues to be a constitutional or political crisis, of which the "coup" was just the fist part. Rsheptak (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This article details events which led to the removal of Zelaya, but anything after his forced exile still falls under the coup IMO, so the coup is more than just the actions of June 28. For instance the military is still out in force, protests are still going, and only just today was the curfew lifted (it will probably return once things heat up again) --Tocino 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Constitutional crisis" is not neutral precisely because it is language implying the primary issue is about the constitution. International and media consensus indicate the primary issue is about the removal of the president in a coup de'etat. There is a large precedent for leaders who instigate a coup to not call their takeover a "coup." Does this mean (for instance) we have to call Hitler's coup a "constitutional crisis?" I don't think so. The majority of the people looking for this article are looking for information about the "Honduran coup," and, therefore, to title the article "constitutional crisis" is naive at best and realistically disingenuous in favoring a pro-coup viewpoint. As a snapshot, Google News turns up about 2,194 news articles on "Honduran coup" and about 4 articles on "Honduran constitutional crisis." This article title is a pariah. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better example is the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Should we re-title that article 1964 Brazilian constitutional crisis? To do so would certainly be ridiculous. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Meh, talk about fair comparisons. Searching for "Honduran coup d'état" also turns up 4 results. On the other hand, "Honduran crisis" turns up 939, which is still less than 2,194, but not quite on a completely different scale as 4 would be. --LjL (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Coup" is an abbreviation for "coup de'etat." "Crisis" is in no way an abbreviation for "constitutional crisis." I would certainly not argue with titling the article "2009 Honduran coup" if that would appease those who have a problem with the full phrase of coup de'etat. My point is that "Honduran coup" and "Honduran coup de'etat" have the same meaning, whereas "Honduran crisis" and "Honduran constitutional crisis" do not have anywhere near the same meaning. One could speak of a "Honduran crisis" related to the price of coffee or a "Honduran crisis" in the decline of tourism, but to speak of a "Honduran constitutional crisis" is something different and is not a phrase in wide use. "Honduran coup" is the standard term and Wikipedia should reflect this. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'd have no problem calling the article "2009 Honduran crisis". I suspect few others who supported "constitutional crisis" would. I believe the article was actually named that for a while, after one of the many arbitrary moves. Still, it's simply obviously not fair to compare the number of results of "Honduran coup" (without "d'état") against "Honduran constitutional crisis" (which could also be "political crisis", just "crisis" or a number of other things): it's simply statistically wrong, you don't compare the number of hits for a long phrase with that of a couple of words. It makes no sense. --LjL (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the foreign language WP articles, besides Greek and Russian, have the word (or the equivalent of) coup d'état in their titles for what it's worth.

ca:Cop d'estat a Hondures del 2009 de:Militärputsch in Honduras 2009 el:Πολιτική κρίση της Ονδούρας (2009) es:Golpe de Estado en Honduras de 2009 fr:Coup d'État de 2009 au Honduras ko:2009년 온두라스 쿠데타 ka:ჰონდურასის პოლიტიკური კრიზისი (2009) pl:Zamach stanu w Hondurasie (2009) pt:Golpe militar em Honduras em 2009 ru:Политический кризис в Гондурасе (2009) tr:2009 Honduras Darbesi uk:Державний переворот у Гондурасі (2009) zh:2009年宏都拉斯軍事政變

--Tocino 00:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move to 2009 Honduran political crisis. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
ya finally got your way, i agree with Tocino. Ya did countless tries of Mediation and Concensus but at the end there was no concensus and ya still did the move. I guess this is how wikipedia works. Theres plenty of people who agree here that the name should be a coup, but a group that believes Constitutional Crisis is less POV changes the name without reaching any concensus with the others. Ya didn't even allow enough people to vote in the process!:(EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well it should not have been moved away from crisis in the first place; coup was never the default your argument seems to imply it was. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

--190.12.81.45 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

is that really necessary???^^^EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ya per WP:NPOV. And remember that many of these links are OK to WP:RS--200.65.129.1 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats not my point, my point is that you want to put these links to point out that media sources refer to it as a constitutional crisis, I could do the same. I could find 10 sources if i wanted right now, that would call the events "the 2009 honduran coup..." but theres no point on doing that. You are wasting your time pasting up links as if that was going to push the idea that this article should be really be named "2009 honduran constitutional crisis" when it really shouldn'tEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, then we agree that, because there are reliable sources calling it a "coup d'état" and reliable sources calling it a "constitutional crisis", we should use a title that fits both definitions. Honestly, I thought "constitutional crisis" itself would be it, but if it's not, then as I already said I see no problem with "crisis" alone, and "crisis" certainly does emcompass both "coup d'état" and "constitutional crisis". I'm glad we're making some real progress here. --LjL (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a coup then why

Why does the wikipedia page about Coup d'etat not correlate at all with the events described here? I quote from the first line of the page:

"A coup d'état, or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fail to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces."

Firstly: whether the coup is unconstitutional or not is a matter of debate clearly not yet resolved. And most likely this cannot be resolved, because firstly the president acted unconstitutionally by trying to change the number of terms he could run - the honduran constitution clearly states this to be unconstitutional. Then secondly the high-court acted unconstitutional because the constitution did not provide the means to remove the president before the president was able to go ahead with his (unconstitutional) plans.

Thus, both acted unconstitutionally. And Wikipedia's Neutral point of view requires it to be depicted as going neither way.

Secondly: The government was not deposed; the president was. The Government does not constitute the president alone

Thirdly: Whether the president was still legitimate or not is again a matter of debate - and as such Wikipedia should not lean either way and present a neutral point of view.

Fourthly: In this case the group that deposed him was not small. It included the Military, the Supreme courts and many more parts of the Government.

Fifthly: While the Honduran constitution does not give means to remove the president, it does say that the offending party must immediatly be removed from office. And as obvious, the Supreme court of honduras did just that.

And lastly: I keep seeing the argument that since outside sources nearly all say this is a coup, we should say so too. Why? We are supposed to be NPOV. Outside sources are quick to denounce this as a coup but provide little knowledge of the situation and little support for their own oppinion on the matter. You cannot use a source if the source itself makes unsupported claims.Omegastar (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Aggressively wrestling control from Zelaya was not in any form a constitutional act; it was a coup, and no amount of semantics will hide this unsettling fact." - from the conclusion of the best analysis I've seen (used in the article Caudillismo in Action: Looking Back on Honduras’ Plight). Disembrangler (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No contest there...but even if it is a coup, it's a very different coup than the usual kind, in that there is a plausible argument that the coup supporters (at least some of them) might have acted from a genuine belief in preserving democracy in Honduras. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what certain supporters of the coup may have believed it doesn't change the fact that the legally elected president of Honduras was removed from power without due process by the military at the behest of the not-democratically-elected supreme court. So even if it is a bit of an a-typical coup (a dubious statement) it is still clearly a coup. What surprises me is that we still have to be having this conversation rather than discussing recent developments.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Zelaya never admited that he was trying to change the constitution to run for president again, so you and most people are assuming that thats what he wanted. If the referendum would've been conducted that Sunday, why the big deal? the Courts could easily mske it nul. Why would they kick out a president for a referendum. Its much easier if you make it not valid. This is a coup!EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is entirely true. But before we put this onto the article we need a neutral third party to confirm that the constitutional referrendum issue was an obfuscatory tactic to kick out a man who made an unexpected turn to the left in order to ease the suffering of his impoverished people. That may be hard to find. Especially when people are still bogging us down with endless debate over things as obvious as whether this was a coup!Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find what you're looking for here, in Leticia Salomon's writing on a friend's blog Anatomy of the coup.
<breathy> Wow! Thank you for posting this. -- Rico 07:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh...no. The referendum _itself_ was illegal. His support of this gave grounds for the Court to intervene. I feel I'm living in an upside down where this is a debate at all. It was not a coup. The man violated the law and was punished for it. I will also note that while his removal was done by the "undemocratically elected" courts (what a way to set up a straw man!) deciding on a matter of law (what are they for if not that?) the democratically elected Congress created a successor and did not challenge the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjost (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I did the compromise

I changed the "removal and succession" section header to "coup d'état". I also added a wikicomment on the page asking all editors to consider that by changing it they may reignite the move wars. I also added a notice above:

Homunq (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think compromising over this point is very unfortunate. The issue being discussed is a coup d'etat. The fact that the people involved claim constitutionality (actually not true) is secondary to that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The change (compromise) was not at all unfortunate. Numerous RS have discussed this topic and referenced it both as a so-called 'coup d'etat' or 'military coup d'etat' -- which language taken literally and applied to the events is disputed vigorously by more than "just the people involved" (or, variously asserted, a "fringe element", by some on this page) -- and as a 'crisis', a 'political crisis', and a 'constitutional crisis', which is not in dispute; moreover, the events described in the article transcend the mere change of who is head of state. Just as our own Presidents here in the US represent an administration, not an entire government, so too is Zaleya's removal by constitutional means, or a constitutional process, not an 'overthrow' of a government, nor a change in government. No editor is qualified to make such claims about legality/illegality as have been asserted by a beligerent minority. And it is indeed fortunate that NPOV has been restored. VaChiliman (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if the government consists of the President and the President alone, who holds ultimate authority and is answerable to no-one, then there was a complete overthrow and it was clearly a coup. There are presidents today who seem to hold this view. --Almarco (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with our WP:NPOV policy, Simon, we have to include all significant viewpoints and the de facto gov and its supporters are a significant point of view = it is not our job at wikipeida to say they are wrong or right; our duty is to create a neutral article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "crisis" and phrase "constitutional crisis" should also be considered controversial. "Crisis" evokes an ambiguity that "coup" does not, and "constitutional crisis" suggests the primary issue is about the constitution when many would argue that the primary issue is the coup itself. Because of these reasons and the overwhelming popularity in referencing the situation as a "coup" in international media and worldwide governments and political organizations, I would suggest also taking care when using the word "crisis" and especial care when referencing a "constitutional crisis." I believe these phrases are not neutral in the first place, but that particular argument is already well-articulated in the "move" discussions. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The removal of Zelaya did not happen in isolation. Though most of the world may have woken up to the fact on June 28, and thus feel that it was a "sudden overthrow" or "coup" that came out of nowhere, this crisis has a long and troubled history and has been brewing for months, maybe years. There have been several times already when both sides seemed to threaten to throw the others out as they wrangled over whether and how to write a new Constitution. It makes much more sense to view the whole picture as the constitutional crisis that it was, is and continues to be. --Almarco (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

public opinion

Under the circumstances where valuable information does not yet appear to be available in WP:RS, I wish to applaud Rsheptak (talk) for citing to a blog post to help clear up confusion in the poll information reported. As that cited blogger noted: "From a media perspective, La Prensa didn't specifically lie but absolutely committed a sin of omission. They had that 41-46 number against the coup, that number is very relevant (potentially more relevant than the other one), and they should have published both numbers. Not doing so created an image about the poll that wasn't true and spread through many other media. They should correct their articles as should everyone who published using their information." I think the same could be said about VOA and anyone who cited their interview.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the blog commentary is a further example of how poll data can be used and misused to represent any POV desired. In this case, the blog editor wishes to downplay substntial dissatisfaction with Zaleya, and promote an analysis that says Michelleti is in trouble. There is also considerable speculation as to how a large segment of the population can have "no opinion". Speaking only for myself, there is nothing in that poll that surprises me, nor impresses me. I think that it verifies that Zaleya's popularity was at best weak, and given pre-"coup" disatsifaction/disapproval, he may have actually become slightly more "popular" after he got sacked. It is argumentative that he can return to govern, without strongarm measures and serious retribution. It is also argumentative that the caretaker government stands a chance with world power brokers alligned against them. You wonder how 30+ percent can say 'no opinion'? I wonder how it makes a whit of difference, when every non-Honduran knows better than Hondurans do about running a democracy. VaChiliman (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
VaChiliman you seem very good at espousing opinions, and very bad at coming up with WP:RS to support them. The surprising thing about the poll (both questions) is that there was a plurality of Hondurans who oppose the manner in which Zelaya was deposed (is that NPOV enough for you?). That does mean support for Micheletti is weak in Honduras, and I, for one, find that encouraging. Rsheptak (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deposed is fine (thank you). I explained how the Blog was POV, and how polls can be used/misused to support a variety of facts(?). I think that the first point is common sense, the second point is common knowlwedge -- what WP:RS do you desire to support either argument? (can RS support argument?) Yes, I express a counter POV whenever a POV is expressed here, and unlike some here who are good at asserting POV as "fact", I do not. Yes, this page is not supposed to be a battle of opinion; I can agree that two wrongs don't make a right. Then again, I don't edit out other folk's contributions. I have suggested several sources before they were introduced into the article by an editor -- those contributions are documented here. I've attacked nobody for their POV; I have taken exception to the not so subtle inclusion of POV in the article at times. I have consistently argued for a NPOV title; I have also proposed any number of alternatives and compromises, consistent with the spirit of WP.
Yes, Michelletti's leadership position is weak. External forces are at work against the interim government, sure to weaken his position futher. Again, I am not pro-Michelletti, pro-coup, or anti-democratic process. If I were polled (and I am not a Honduran) I would oppose how Zaleya was removed, and applaud his removal -- thus it appears that, from the poll, my own "opinion" mirrors the 'plurality'. All of which means very little.
The results of the poll do not surprise me, in part because I am active in doing medical mission in Honduras and have been doing that a decade now. I have spent time in the rural villages of Cortés, Intibucá, and Francisco Morazán, and have worked hand in hand alongside the people. I have spent time in Teguc and in San Pedro and worked alongisde the gangs. I do not claim to have superior knowledge, but I do think I have had a close, firsthand view of a generally impoverished people who do not trust their government (with good reason), do not trust the Catholic Church (with good reason), and especially fear outside inluences from El delincuente (Chavez). VaChiliman (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Make sure, Rsheptak, to check the poll wording that you yourself discovered. A plurality does not oppose the "way he was deposed" but the way he was "removed ... from the country." His "destitution" from office and removal from the country are two separately debatable legal occurrences; the latter is the one that the army admits was illegal. These two issues was why there were two questions that everyone was cherry-picking from. As the saying goes, there's "lies, da*n lies and statistics." --Almarco (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, did you see the new poll numbers today? I added the favorability/unfavorability ratings of Micheletti and Zelaya to the article. Very interesting results.
I have it on good authority that Zelaya was taking Chavez's money more than he was ideologically converting to be a Chavista. He was a center-right politician when elected and today he's more of a populist than Chavista. His country needed money, and George Bush cut aid to Honduras, so he turned to Chavez and ALBA because he could get money there. Rsheptak (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you share with us this authority? As someone who lived in the countryside in Honduras for 10 years, and who is hearing from friends both from the city and the countryside in Honduras, I am interested. These of course are not citable authorities on anything but their own observations, their opinions and those of people around them, but it gives me a good feel for what is going on. --Almarco (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe after all this is over, but until then, naming anyone in Honduras would be irresponsible. Rsheptak (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I have my own connections/sources that would be irresponsible to allude to. If what you say has any truthiness, then the current dance between Zaleya and Chavez would seem to be unwise, if Zaleya cares at all about his country. Moreover, his alleged indifference towards the source of money (linked by some sources to drugs) and his inability (unwillingness) as President to check criminal activity, make him very unpopular with people I work with and serve. The crisis means that my group cannot work, which profoundly saddens me. The inability of these men -- Zaleya and Michelletti -- to mediate a solution, saddens me. I think it speaks to their cowardice, not heroism. When this turns to Civil War, which appears to be the next chapter of the crisis, I will hold both these men personally responsible, regardless of what RS say, or how it gets "spun" here. VaChiliman (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

La Prensa has proved itself time and time again to be an unreliable source at best and a mouthpiece of lies for the golpistas at worst. We should use it with caution. --Tocino 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a partisan source, not an unreliable source but very useful for expressing the POV of the Micheletti side. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly appreciate that it has an anti-Zelaya point of view. But though I have heard the claims of fabrication and lies here twice (I think), I haven't seen any proof. Care to share, so we can treat this source accordingly? If there's no good proof, we should treat it as any other source with a potential point of view. --Almarco (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Look at their coverage alleging the international banks have not frozen their accounts, their allegation the Telesur reporters were not deported versus what the reporters say, their selective misquoting of the US State department statements on Honduras to make them seem as if they are supporting Micheletti as just some examples of the lies they've promulgated. Look at how the stories are written; they were, in the days leading up to the coup, simply polemic with no actual facts, just opinions presented as news. This was my favorite newspaper when I came to honduras 3 decades ago; it used to be a much better paper and it makes me sad to see what its descended into in the name of politics. Rsheptak (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Telesur also should be used with caution. --Caltrano (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But again as representative of a significant POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I find the reports from El País are good and tend to be reasonably neutral albeit from an international perspective, and certainly offer a different insight from the US news. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I spent 6 years writing news filtering software that exposed me to literally hundreds of news sources on a daily basis. All press sources need to be taken with a grain of salt...they are all capable of getting it wrong, and pushing a point of view. Always ask yourself how they know what they're reporting. Think.
The Honduran press are interesting, because the owners of 3 of the 4 papers supported the golpe, with Jaime Rosenthal (La Prensa and El Heraldo) wholeheartedly in Micheletti's camp. La Tribuna's Carlos Flores Facusse was also a supporter of the golpe if not, as many claim, one of its intellectual authors. La Prensa and El Heraldo continue to be good sources for the message Micheletti wants to put out there. La Tribuna has been more critical of Micheletti in the last week (this is my WP:OR based on reading them closely over several years) but continues to also communicate the Micheletti message. El Tiempo is probably the most independent of the 4 and continues to run both Pro and Anti-golpe commentary on its Op Ed pages. Outside of TeleSUR it was the only Honduran print media that covered the pro-Zelaya protests in any significant way. It gave Zelaya fair reporting while also being critical of him. Rsheptak (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought Liberal Rosenthal owns El Tiempo not La Prensa, Telesur is not Honduran print media. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, Leticia Salomon says Jorge Canahuati owns La Prensa and El Heraldo in her excellent essay posted here Leticia Salomon's Anatomy of a Coup. Rsheptak (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
What is certain is that El Tiempo and La Tribuna are owned by one set of people/person and La Prensa/El Heralddo by another, ET and LP being SPS and LT and EH Teguc based. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Added this sub section with the following to summarize people being paid to demonstrate for Zeyala:

Farmers were being paid L 250/day to demonstrate for Zeyala while motorcyclists were paid L300 per day plus gas and L300 per rider, while taxis were paid L 3,000 to bring people. [5]

Here is another source confirming this:

I do not know if I have ever told you or not, however, during his 3½ years in office, Zelaya has polarized the country into 2 parts – “the rich and powerful” and the “poor”. The poor are the ones that support him, in that he buys their support with government money to attend his events against the rest of the country. The demonstration of yesterday in which Honduras received it’s 1st casualty was supported by money diverted from the National Treasury with L 300.00 per day being paid to motorcyclists plus filling their gas tanks plus L 300.00 per day for passengers on the bikes. ( L 600.00 per day per motorcycle.) Taxis were paid L 3,000.00 to bring people to the demonstrations. These people were paid L 250.00 per day for their participation. Millions of Lempiras have been diverted from the national treasury to buy participation for the demonstrations to polarize the population.”[6]

Another possible summary statement is:

Reportedly demonstrators for Zelaya were being paid 1000 lempiras (USD 53) to attend a demonstration and 1500 lempiras (USD80) after the demonstration while some rural demonstrators were given a machete and new bandana.[7] Demonstrators then spent their payments in a local store.

Here are some other references mentioning demonstrators being paid:

http://www.ww4report.com/node/7557

http://adelantefoundation.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/whats-going-on-an-insiders-account-of-the-recent-events-in-honduras-by-sophia-anderson/

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36682

http://ourlatinamerica.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduran-exiles-mixed-towards-zelaya.html

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6232

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_America/Honduras_Joining_ALBA.html

If someone can find a better English news article, that would help, especially one mentioning farmers being given machetees and bandanas. DLH (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fairly desperate propaganda to me. The allegations have been around for weeks, yet no Western media have picked them up. Too boring a story? Endless unproductive negotiations sells more papers? Rd232 talk 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I come from Chicago. This would be SOP there. Of course, it would never be documented by a suitable RS, I suppose. Besides, demonstrators have their expenses. Since a Hondurans physician gets paid less than this per day, it seems that if it were true, these folks are being well paid. Good for them. VaChiliman (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There has also been speculation concerning trans-national infiltration. I suppose that could be dismissed as desparate propoganda also. One wonders, just how does one get bona fide news supported by RS from such a mess? I hate to think that the Post and the Times are the best we got. Or CNN. VaChiliman (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
DLH found a La Prensa article that mentions pro-zelaya protesters being paid, and put it in the article, but I moved it to the Chronology article where it fit better. It probably is propaganda, but at this point, its a source.
I firmly believe the rumors about infiltrations of nicaraguans, venezuelans, etc. are all bull, but they are leading to a series of persecutions and deportations of some honduran residents of these extractions, and hassles by immigration and the military of people of these nationalities currently in Honduras on business, or attending school. Nicaragua made public declarations to the OAS that Micheletti was going to claim this, long before he actually did.
As for bona fide news, look to the BBC (in english and Spanish). So far its had the best (defined as accurate, NPOV) english language coverage of any media I've found. Rsheptak (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya had already certified the referendum results

http://www.europapress.cat/internacional/noticia-decomisan-varios-ordenadores-casa-presidencial-resultados-consulta-queria-hacer-zelaya-20090717221327.html

apparently theres a spanish language newspaper that is reporting that the honduran government, after zelaya had been deposed, searched his presidential office and found on Zelaya's computer the certified results of the unconstitutional referendum which was to have been held on July 28th. So apparently he had already decided what the results of the vote were to be. Is there an english language translation available? Can someone who speaks better spanish than me translate this into english for inclusion in this article. --Henrybaker (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, sounds like propaganda. Not that it couldn't be true, but it's just the sort of thing the coup-plotters would start coming up with, as they get increasingly desperate with the intl community response. Rd232 talk 06:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
By the by, where does this guy fit in? Robert Carmona-Borjas. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Allegedly, as a supporter of the coup government. The left has speculated that the right wing anti-castro cubans are prepared to finance Micheletti until January, and that's how he intends to survive international sanctions. Its all speculation, though. There are no hard facts to support it, so far. Rsheptak (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I find the "left"/"right" talk interesting. I sometimes wonder if I have been visiting Mars all these years. The people I have worked with, and served, have largely (I'd say 99+ percent) been neither. They seem universally poorly nourished, and resource-challenged. I'd add that they have remarkable resiliency, and unbelievable hospitality. Of course, that I bring needed medicine may color my view. We have talked pretty openly about politics and leaders, and quite honestly, the reflection I see is they trust no politicians, no police, and no military. That says to me that when we attempt to glean "facts" from RS here, it is really slim pickings. We are regurgitating what a few seriously invested people would have us report back. VaChiliman (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We neeed to be very careful before mentioning people like Carmona-Borjas and Negroponte in this article. While there are plenty of poorly nourished people certainly in the in cities there are plenty of people who are well nourished and certainly interested in politics. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline only please

This article remains a mess. Having competing POV doesn't make it NPOV. The article should stick with simply being a timeline of events. They can't just start at Jun 28, it obviously must start earlier.

In fact a good test for POV is, if you can't put the sentence into a timeline it is probably POV.69.250.186.142 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Presenting multiple WP:POVs (while giving them due weight) is the very definition of NPOV. --LjL (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The poster could only be refering to the Chronology section, which is a mess. Anyone who read the whole article would know that it covers events from November 2008 through to today. Rsheptak (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal process

It appears to me that the arrest is a legal process, and the army has only done to enforce an order of law court. The remaining question is, whether the arrest order is constitutional and acceptable under rule of law. This is important. An order of law court should not automatically considered as constitutional, and an arrest with order may be unconstitutional as well if its legal basis is faulty.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the constitutional justifications come from Article 239, which seems to say that trying to change the constitution to permit re-election results in the immediate cessation of office for the offender, and Article 42, which appears to state that citizenship can be revoked for supporting the continued governance or re-election of an executive. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've translated article 239 in a footnote. Note that it is a general prohibition: ANYONE who tries to reform article 239 "will cease carrying out their office" and is ineligible for any public charge for 10 years. If such a person were anyone but the president, then it's clear enough that the president should fire them; but when that person IS the president, there's no indication of how they are supposed to be removed.
IMO, even if this reading is valid and Zelaya is not president, it is still a coup, as there is no constitutional basis for the army to send him into exile. The supreme court justices may have told the army to do it, but if they did then they were not speaking with the authority of the court, as the supreme court had no official session in which they found Zelaya in violation of article 239. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you translate article 42 for us as well? My Spanish sucks, but I beleive Article 42, section 5 says something to the effect that they can revoke citizenship for supporting the re-election of a president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a native Spanish... here is the translation: Article 42:
ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:
[...]
5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.
[...]
In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file [...]
For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) the statement will be made by the Executive Power by a government agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by the competent courts.
That is the translation of Article 42. I will not interpret it. Mercastan (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that then make the action legal? The president would have become a non-citizen (which the court has authority to rule on) and could be escorted out of the country Nickjost (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have in mind that sending someone into exile seems completely out of frame with the process of impeachment. Another thing worth noting is that there's still a LOT of military activity running in the streets, there were people rioting as of a couple of hours ago and a curfew was sound for today and tomorrow by the de facto president. I live in a country that has seen both legal removals and military coups (Argentina), and this is nothing like the former 201.253.68.198 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there is some illegal element on the military actions. However, forcing someone who are no longer rightful President to leave his country cannot be a coup. This is illegal, but it cannot be called a coup. The question is, whether the military action to remove the President backed by law court order, whether the law court order constitutional, and whether the order acceptable under the natural concept of rule of law (that is, it is completely possible the law court has staged a coup because it has made an order violating rule of law, and in that case, I call it a coup assisted by army enforcement).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it is still a coup. First, if it quacks like a duck... Second, the Army is not a police force. Third, does the Supreme Court even have the power to "arrest" the president? Some Latin American countries -- like Argentina, my own -- state that elected country officials cannot be arrested while still holding office. They must be first stripped of their office by an act of Congress, which is something that doesn't happen overnight, and also Congress may not act "after the fact", like it did in this case. For democracy to function, no country official can be arrested overnight and expelled from the country without due trial! Finally, historically most military coups seek legitimacy and claim they have the support of some sector of the people (bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile and Argentina claimed so, for example). Any way you spin it, this is a nasty coup. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not a coup. First, it doesn't quack like a duck, see discussions above. It was an authorized action by the supreme court. The reason for exile is to avoid a bloodbath-- also, Honduras apparently doesn't have a well-defined procedure for impeachment, lamentably. Second, the Honduran police force grew out of the army, as I understand it, and the army still today helps the police in law enforcement. It used to be that the army WAS the police force, so it's only natural for it to take on some of the roles that someone coming from a culture where the police have always been separate from the army might expect would be reserved for the police. Also, the Army has the sworn duty to protect the Constitution, above loyalty even to the President. You really need to know what you are talking about before you spout out such assumptions. Third, if the Supreme court does not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for a president, how on earth will a lawbreaking president ever be held to account? The Congress was already considering how to impeach Zelaya. He was already on the way out-- and he continued to provoke the situation by breaking in and stealing the ballots. The military undoubtedly did things a bit hastily and excessively, but having lived there for a decade as I mentioned, I can say that it's probably not the worst of all possible outcomes. Zelaya remaining in power, or returning to power, will only create further turmoil.--24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Almarco, why did you edit a post not signed by you? The point about the Army being the police is wrong. Who are the Policia Nacional if not the national police force? They were formed a few years back when the old police force, the FUSEP (Fuerza de Seguridad Publica) was disolved. There's been a non-military police force in Honduras since the constitution was put in place in 1982. How long ago did you live in Honduras? Rsheptak (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
24.72.222.172 is me, before I could remember my old Wikipedia login. I edited it because I discovered that Honduras does indeed have a police force. I lived in Honduras over a decade ago, and it could be they had a police force as far back as then, but they certaintly weren't prominent enough for me to remember them. All I remember is that security and law enforcement seemed to be handled by the military, and people lamented the fact that there wasn't a proper civilian police force handling most of those roles instead. --Almarco (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
As an Honduran, I can tell you Argentina's case with los Coloneles and Honduras' case are nothing alike. In cases that involve the protection of the Constitution of Honduras, the army takes responsibility of running everything. This is why the Supreme Court ordered them to remove Zelaya. As for whether the Supreme Court can or cannot arrest him, the constitution does not explain what should be done when it is decided that the President needs to be removed. There is no clause in it that allows for impeachment. Basically, the Supreme Court decided what it thought would be best. Lastly, it can't be a coup when the people support it. If the media tells you it's a duck, it's probably something else. Watch less CNN193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the article he wanted to change is an "articulo petreo," IE. set in stone. Even suggesting that it be changed is an act of treason. The article, which prevents any President from being reelected, was written specifically to prevent autocracies like Chavez's current and Zelaya's intended ones. According to Honduran law, treason against the nation-state falls under military jurisdiction, so the police COULDN'T have arrested him. It was the army's responsibility. Personally, I think Zelaya should be on trial for treason, facing the death penalty as a traitor.92.104.255.201 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Even though this is just an opinion, the proposed change was fine to me. If Chavez is still in government it is not because he forced himself in but because the Venezuelan population voted for him everytime in a democratic way. I believe the people's got the ultimate power to decide those things and that was what Zelaya was trying to do by conducting a poll on whether there should be a fourth urn. Making the constitution "unchangeble" doesn't seem quite democratic to me neither. Your comments on Zelaya deserving death penalty are really showing who's the facist here. Oh, and try watching independent media, not so much the CNN... The popular support seems to be a lot more on Zelaya's side. Otherwise a curfew wouldn't make any sense to me at all. Neither all the military activity. (edited, I forgot to sign it). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You're an idiot. Nowhere in that post was Zelaya accused of being a fascist. And as for the death penalty, that's the standard sentence for a traitor to the state if found guilty. Also, as an Honduran, and a member of Mel's party, I can tell you the number of people who want him back in office are a minority, and even his own party regrets his election. There've been protests all week demanding his resignation after he tried to change the constitution. Article 239 of the constitution and a few other articles (not many) are "articulos petreos" to prevent the abuse of power in just the way Zelaya intended to do so. They have been unchangeable since the constitution was written in 1952, to preserve the spirit of democracy in forbidding one person to hold power for more than his term allows. It wasn't simply "made" unchangeable overnight. The army, ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT, acted to protect the constitution and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Honduran population.92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What,is Chávez too good to hold fraudulent elections every time? Especially when he controls all branches of government,including the electoral office?

190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, hold onto what I said about Chavez just so that you can pretend I didn't say the other half of the message and simply ignore it. Second, who are you to judge whether those elections are fraudulent? Stop getting your news from CNN buddy, Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I can "judge" because I've seen it firsthand, second-hand and third-hand, so to speak, not because I've seen it on CNN, "buddy". Not only have I witnessed some of these elections first-hand as an insider; I also worked in a situation room that took electoral complaints and denouncements during one of the most recent elections. Besides that, all powers, including the bulk of the "neutral" Electoral Committee and the Ombudsman, openly support Chávez and do what he wants, for the most part. I have also followed legal developments and the legalistic contrivances that the Supreme Court judges and the National Assembly have used to justify Chávez's actions, even when contradicting previous legislation enacted by itself. If you lived in Venezuela, you would have to be blind not to see that Chávez abuses his power.
If a Constitution doesn't have "unchangeable" guarantees, then any gobierno de turno can adjust it to fit its whims through any form of fraud or power grab. Not only that; guarantees exist to protect minorities from abuse by majorities (ever changing, as well), which is why most Constitutions , including the Venezuelan one, have certain restrictions on Constitutional changes. In addition, if "the people" voted for a Constitution, that in theory implies that they accept it completely, including restrictions on changing it. Was there really any need to overthrow the entire Honduran constitution other than Zelaya's wish to extend his mandate? Also, why have a Constitution at all if the majority are "legitimately" empowered to do anything, even if it means abusing those who disagree with them (and that goes for anybody in the political spectrum)?190.77.117.50 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In Honduras, it looks like even proposing reform of term limits results in the cessation of public office. Chances are that when the Supreme Court drafted whatever order they gave to the military, they rules Zelaya was in violation of that article and as such, no longer president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that because he violated article 42 Zelaya lost his Honduran citizenship, therefore he had to be deported? ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone involved in treasonous acts against the constitution has his or her citizenship revoked and is expelled from the country. I'm assuming that's what will happen to the 150 supporters who threw stones at the army during Zelaya's arrest will face. Quite rightly.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
However, his guilt certainly has to be established in a fair trial? Even in Honduras? So who gave the military the right to directly deport him??? Looks like those who are responsible acted criminally, and maybe even traiterous as wellGray62 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think his deportation was a stupid mistake and he should have stood trial, but as far as I can read in the constitution, there's nothing illegal about it.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand you're not a lawyer? Me, neither. But afaik , it's a general principle in most democatic nations that any infringement of citizen right has to be explicitly allowed by the constitution. So, if the constitution doesn't say it's legal to deport a citizen without giving him a fair trial, then it's illegal! I would be very surprised if that's different in Honduras.Gray62 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying the Justices of the Supreme Court of Honduras failed to hold a fair trail? If so, how so? It seems the constitution is pretty clear. He managed to violate two codes that both automatically remove his citizenship and his office. If anything they showed restraint by not removing him immediately but issuing a series of warnings, allowing him to continue all the way up until he fired the head of the military for not following an illegal order. That we in the US aren't cheering such an act out our windows is sad. Honduras may not be a paragon of virtue, but anytime a military head in South America refuses an illegal order that would potentially grant him more power we should be ecstatic. Nickjost (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Educate yourself before you express an opinion. THEY HELD NO TRIAL. They held closed door secret hearings and issued an arrest warrant, no more, no less. There has been no trail on the charges; only charges. Rsheptak (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, hey, tone down a little please, especially as the edit summary goes... Staying civil can't hurt. --LjL (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It'd be a lot easier to cheer the refusal of the illegal order, if the military hadn't eclipsed the notability of that refusal with an illegal act of its own:

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal[6] (emphasis added)

Associated Press

-- Rico 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course you're right, I'm not a lawyer. But the justices presiding in the Honduran Supreme Court are, and it's their mandate to interpret Honduran law. They've made their decision, probably according to Article 42. What else is there I can tell you?92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I accept your "no due trial" arguments and other arguments based on rule of law. I do not accept the arguments based on use of force, because use of force does not necessary means a breach of constitutional order. I must stress that the reasoning (legality) is more important. Some people just want to use to word "coup" to describe an anti-democratic military action, that is plainly wrong to me. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Does Honduran law empower the military to arrest a president, whether the president's serving as president violates the constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to ask the military to remove a president by force? -- Rico 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and, well, it has power to decide if to impeach him. Plus, he isn't a citizen anymore, he was trying to change the non-reelection article. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Account of July 5th Deaths Ridiculously POV

Compare what is in the article

"Protests at the airport turned deadly, as pro-Zelaya demonstrators broke through various cordons and some hurled objects at the soldiers. The Honduran military responded by firing warning shots and tear gas at the protesters. At least two protesters were confirmed dead at the end, with scores left injured."

with what is in the cited BBC report:

"As the plane was flying towards Tegicugalpa, troops in riot gear fired tear gas at thousands of Zelaya supporters, some of whom reportedly hurled stones.

Thousands managed to break through the security cordon."

The hurling of stones is presented as an unconfirmed rumour in the BBC reprt, but fact in your article. There is no mention of 'warning shots' in the BBC report. There is no mention in the BBC report that the military firing on civilians was a response to anything the protestors did, or any kind of chronology of events. And the entire report is in direct conflict with other news sources, which say that the protests were peaceful and the protesters were fired on without provocation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6652940.ece 

66.131.197.203 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I can say that I have read differing accounts. I wonder if there is any objective reporting under the circumstances. For sure, there is visual evidence of the teargas. Also, hurling of stones, storming of a fence... however, numbers? Based on the claims I've read, I'm skeptical. How one would document what caused what, better have I wide angle view, with multiple locations, and some coroboration from eyewitness that can be trusted. That's a tall order. I have heard that the rounds fired were not military issue -- but I cannotr find any RS either way -- probably nevver will. The sad thing is, potentially violent confrontations are being encouraged, and it is somewhat disingenuous to take disclaimers like "be peaceful" seriously. These groups we see do not appear to be Ghandi-like in their behavior. Nor like the Civil Rights protestors in the US in the 60's. VaChiliman (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Then, at the very least, VaChiliman, you should rewrite the passage to include as many POV as possible, including the times article. And if you do have visual evidence of the hurling of stones and storming of the fence, then you should cite it, because there is nothing like that in the BBC article. When you say "These groups we see do not appear to be Ghandi-like in their behavior" you should be able to back it up with more than rumour 66.131.197.203 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Since no one has corrected the article or provided proper citations to back up what was said in the article, I have modified it to properly reflect conflicting reports on what happened at the airport (as well as providing another source).66.131.197.203 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacement/Coup d'état

After much discussion, the main title was changed from "Coup d'état" to "constitutional crisis". Changing from "removal and succession" to "Coup d'état" just shifts from one POV to another. So I corrected this to the hybrid title "Replacement/Coup d'état" to restore NPOV. An alternative section title would be "Removal/Coup d'état & Succession"DLH (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's more a POV fork of a title than anything :-\ Seriously, it says it was part of a compromise, I subscribe to that compromise. And I was among the ones who !voted "crisis". I'm going to revert. --LjL (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it was part of any compromise. It appears to have been unilaterally fixed with the "compromise" language added to prevent its change.PLEASE REVIEW. Only saying "coup d'etat" appears a strong POV to me since the measures are equally described as upholding their constitution and providing constitutional transition of power. It is Zeyala v. Attorney General, Supreme Court, National Congress and Election commission. Those on the interim government side state that the military was given a judicial order to detain Zeyala and did not take over power. A constitutionally specified transition in power occurred. I believe it NPOV to show both sides rather than only Zeyala's side.DLH (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for your contention that, "the measures are equally described as upholding their constitution and providing constitutional transition of power." A coup d'état is a replacement, so "Replacement/Coup d'état" is redundant. The reliable sources regularly, simply refer to the coup as a "coup" -- despite knowing that the coup government denies it was a coup. So does the rest of the world.

The de facto government of Honduras says Mr. Zelaya was legally removed based on a warrant for his arrest. But nations around the world, whether through the United Nations General Assembly or the Organization of American States, have denounced his ouster as an illegal coup.[7]

The New York Times

"Saying 'coup d'etat' " does not appear to be "a strong POV" to me, because all of the reliable sources I've seen have been regularly calling it that.
WP:RS 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.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations

-- Rico 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
All the reliable sources you have seen? That, as I hope you realise, is not the same thing as all reliable sources and all reliable sources clearly do not call it a coup due to the strong presence of Honduran reliable sources that do not call it a coup, and believe it isnt a coup. This is a significant POV and therefore should not and must not be negated in the title, that is why so much ewffort was made getting the title changed. I am personally more than happy to see the title changed to Honduras 2009 political crisis but to change it to a title that embodies opne side of the argument is simply unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Honduran sources cannot be realiable, as there have been reliable reports of suppression of free press in Honduras. Thus the Honduran press cannot in these circumstances be considered reliable by any stretch of imagination. --LjL (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all the reliable sources I have seen. For example, the Washington Post published this today from the Associated Press:

Opponents of the coup that ousted Honduras' president began to openly wonder [...] Zelaya's wife [...] remains in Honduras and supports seizing bank accounts or freezing assets of coup leaders. [...] Micheletti sent a team to Washington this week to lobby against sanctions by portraying the coup backers [...]

Associated Press story published in the Washington Post

I haven't seen any "Honduran reliable sources" publish that what happened wasn't a coup. Then again, I don't know of any "Honduran reliable sources" right now, due to the 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Media_war.[8][9] I haven't seen any reliable sources publish that what happened wasn't a coup. -- Rico 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, reports of suppression by some sources of Honduras sources does not give you the right to claim Honduran sources are unreliable, take it to arbcom if you want but what you are saying is incorrect and will not be listened to/acted upon. Its a long time since I have heard something so wrong as this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This has never been an issue of sources, and shouldn't be treated as such. Taking an instance of something and generalize for all, is the essence of POV. This is and will continue to be an issue of contradictory legal opinions. A great majority has one view and call it a coup, and a smaller but VERY significant population has another. Very significant I'd say because it includes the entities which first made the laws which are being disputed and the one which does the interpretation of the law in that country. These entities are the same that existed before Zelaya was removed. I personally as you can see from my posts, don't agree with the the way things were done, but nonetheless I see this as a very difficult case of opinions and therefore believe they should always present both and no characterization should be made which points to one side against the other. Wikihonduras (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe it was a coup and that Mel should be restored to power (as per Arias) but I ma here as a wikipedia editor and my personal views are irrelevant. To say that mainstream Hn sources are unreliable is itself breaking POV given that Honduras is the subject matter. Its really important that all we editors come to this article with NPOV in our minds and not our own opinions re this crisis. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: "This has never been an issue of sources, and shouldn't be treated as such."
Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the official English Wikipedia policy on how to name pages, states:

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Wikipedia:NAME#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name

This is what I've seen that could be called a "legal opinion":

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal[10] (emphasis added)

Associated Press

"The entities which first made the laws which are being disputed and the one which does the interpretation of the law in that country" -- in the view of Wikipedia, are actors in these events -- and neither is a reliable, independent, third-party source.
All together, they are an extremely small minority.
The entire population of Honduras is only 0.1% of the world's population, and I have seen no reliable source that states that a lot of Hondurans believe there was no coup.

Supporters of the new government vowed to hold the biggest demonstration in the country’s history on Tuesday, to make clear their contention that most of the country is glad Mr. Zelaya is gone.[11] (emphasis added)

The New York Times

-- not to contend that the protestors believed there was no coup.
What I'm getting from reliable sources is that the protests are defined more by support for either Zelaya or Micheletti, or whether people are for or against Chávez.

The spectre of Mr Chávez is frequently invoked at both pro and anti-Zelaya protests in Honduras as it becomes a battleground for the wider regional struggle between supporters of Venezuela’s “Boliviarian revolution” and their ideological adversaries.[12]

The Times in Britain

I'm not getting that most Hondurans even care whether Zelaya or Micheletti is President.

"Neither Micheletti nor Zelaya gives me anything to eat," said street vendor Oscar Quintanilla, who is struggling to raise four children amid constant protests. "I don't care about constitutional referendums, all I care about is the welfare of my family."[13]

Associated Press

“But what do you think about Zelaya?” I insisted. “And what about Roberto Micheletti” — the president of Congress who is now interim president? She replied: “Micheletti, Zelaya, what do I care? Things will continue as usual. Nothing will change. All I want is that they let me live in peace to run my business.”

Roger Marín Neda, Who Cares About Zelaya?, The New York Times, July 6, 2009.

It's not even for sure that this viewpoint should even be in Wikipedia, much less determine that we may not name the article using the name that is most "easily recognizable by English speakers." (WP:NAME)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I haven't seen one reliable source that states that the viewpoint -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory.
Re: "no characterization should be made which points to one side against the other."
This not only ignores the fact that the people, that are denying that the coup was a coup, are an extremely small minority -- but it also ignores Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which states:

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

-- Rico 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hondurans may only be 0.1.% of the world population but this is not an article about the world, its an article about Honduras. Following your argument we could allow all kinds of scurrilous info to be treated as fact about particular country's articles merely because those outside the country believe it, eg anti-American sentiment, and ignoring significant POVs within a given country on the basis that the popuklation's views are3 fringe. This is extremism and has no place in wikipedia or its current policies and guidelines. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rico for your input. The proper policy to use is that one you are suggresting in Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names, there your will also see that it says that

Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

With all the back and forth on this, how can this name not be out of compliance?

06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihonduras (talk • contribs)

I agree that, "The proper policy to use is that one you are suggesting in Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names."
Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the official English Wikipedia policy on how to name pages.
However, your quote isn't in the policy -- or any other Wikipedia policy.
Even if it were, "coup" isn't a slag coined by critics. It's:
  • What the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.
  • What verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject, and:

Article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, [...]
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Wikipedia:NAME#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name policy

-- Rico 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to go straight to the arbcom... I've put a notice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Honduran media. --LjL (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That is certainly a good start. For me the idea that no mainstream Hn source is reliable is so provocative that the arbcom would always be a possible outcome especially as mediation has already been rejected. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Congreso enseñará al mundo que se respetó la Constitución
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference cp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference LaPrensa-2009-05-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ [14]
  5. ^ "Protests in favor of Zelaya are financed". La Prensa. 2009-07-05.
  6. ^ "Honduran coup a strange bird, even for Central America". 2009-07-09. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Tom Hopkins publisher= ignored (help)
  7. ^ "ZELAYA DEMOSTRATORS ARE PAID!!!!!!". iReport.com. 2009-07-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis/Archive_5&oldid=1142397761"