Talk:Manuel Zelaya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

'Returning' President

On the disambiguation page for Zelaya, I altered his status from 'deposed' to 'returning'. This edit has been reverted. I think it is accurate to describe Zelaya as the 'returning' president. He has returned 3 times now to Honduras since the coup, and is now located at the heart of his country. It is looking more and more likely that he will soon be reinstated as president, so he is in the process of returning to that office too. Meanwhile any claims about the legality of his ejection from the country are being made to look ridiculous by the way the usurper regime is trampling all over international law by besieging the Brazilian embassy. I'd be interested in hearing other editors opinions on this. Riversider (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC) As an interim compromise, I think the formulation 'returning deposed' president on the Zelaya disambiguation page sums up his current status well. Riversider (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with describing him as the returning President. It is true that he has returned to Honduras, and that certainly increases the chance that he will return to the Presidency, but I have yet to see any indication that will actually occur. In fact, at the moment, he seems to be trapped in the Brazilian embassy. I think that is hardly the description of a returning President. In my opinion, "returning" exudes an air of certainty that is lacking in this case. Also, I am not a Honduran legal scholar, but I think the legality of Zelaya's removal from office is perhaps more legitimate than many heads of state would admit. For instance, see the recently released report from The Law Library of Congress for an argument explaining the legality of the actions of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress.Afwm1985 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'returning' does not imply any air of certainty - it describes a process that is occurring but has not yet been completed. I can be described as 'crossing' the road, but this does not mean I will inevitably succeed in getting across.

The term 'deposed' has an even stronger air of certainty - yet it is certainly not certain that Zelaya will remain deposed for long, hence 'returning deposed' which balances one term against the other and implies that the position is in a state of flux, the final outcome of which is still uncertain. The term may well need to be adjusted as events unfold.Riversider (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

'Returning deposed' was a little bit too subtle and nuanced for people to get their heads around, so we've settled on 'contested' for the moment. Riversider (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "contested" seems to be the best way to describe the situation at this point without confusing people with tons of modifiers.Afwm1985 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress "opinion" is a piece of garbage. Read it. Notice the footnotes. Notice that it uses personal communications from Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, a member of the coup as the basis of its interpretation and support for its novel, and incorrect theory of why its legal. See the numerous blog postings translating comments from Honduran Constitutional law professionals taking it apart and shredding it. Also note that the Congressional Research Service is concerned that you know, its not their study even though Congressperson Shock claims that on his website. Rsheptak (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really Rsheptak so now you are more of a legal expert and have a better legal opinion than the Library of Congress? What are your qualifications that allows you to label it garbage? Btw, they issued a statement to Kerry that they stand by their report. I would like to see exactly what it is in the article that you find not credible and use Honduran law to back yourself up. I want to know who these Honduran Constitutional law professionals are so please point us to them since I have yet to see them and I live in HondurasSummermoondancer (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We all know whats going on

Hugo has taught the working class too well. Everyone knows this is illegal and unconstituional. Democracy in south america has been turned back 50 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya believes that Israel is trying to assassinate him...

This is currently cited in the article. This may or may not constitute a WP:BLP violation given a) The extreme, startling nature of what is being reported and c) The fact that no other reliable sources to my knowledge has confirmed the story. The Squicks (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Zelaya has many more immediate threats to his life than the state of Israel. Sounds like a smear story from an unreliable source. Riversider (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

These sites: [Ynetnews] and [Haaretz] have informations about the hallucinations in the Zelaya's mind.Agre22 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Articles have appeared in the Miami Herald, El Pais, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, all large reputable papers. However, I agree that too much space has been given to this within this article and I have trimmed it back. After all, this is an biography, and shouldn't lean too heavily on current events. Madman (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish statements raise concern on Honduras -- Rico 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider: [1]

Were Giordano (Narco News) not publishing that on a blog, I'd consider it usable. Oh well. 99.149.173.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn´t Romero´s remarks valid as a reinforcement to the anti semitism that is clearly going on. There have been articles also placed in many of the local Honduran papers about all of this and there is a certain letter from Hugo Llorens condemning Romero, one of Zelaya´s biggest media supporters of Radio Globo for his statements about Hitler and the Holocaust. Their positions have clearly taken a antisemitic and delusional turn. I heard the comments myself and became physicially ill just listening to their garbage. Rodas is also making the same allegations in El Heraldo. hn. --summermoondancer October 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summermoondancer (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blog commentary, which is miles away from being a reliable source and is completely unacceptable for a WP:BLP article. The Squicks (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Giordano is an accredited journalist, founded Narco News (which, an aside: was the publication that brought online journalism and blogging under the 1st amendment). Yes, The Field looks like a blog, since it has a heavy comment section. And although he is himself commenting on a variety of things, one of the main points of the article was that the the Miami Herald reporter could not substantiate her quote; this is documented as such within the article. No-one over there really seems to understand how WP works, though (they're fairly ambivalent, actually), so... I dunno. This is frustrating. Your call. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have so far resisted citing Narco News in the article, but its not a blog, it is reporting. Rsheptak (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog by a reporter, which is fundamentally different than a news article from a reporter. The story on the link is nothing more than Al Giordano's opinion. And that opinion that he says directly contradicts what the New York Times and the Anti-Defamation League have reported (they both reported Zeyla's Israeli claims as fact without referring to the Miami Hearld). The Squicks (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, NN has the article in Spanish, and we can use the "blog" (I know, I know, if it looks like a blog and quacks like a blog...) as the translation. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the theory that the Miami Hearld appears to now be a extremist political meme. See www.prisonplanet.com/miami-herald-makes-up-story-on-zelaya-washington-post-and-new-york-times-spread-it.html]. The theory is that (according to them) the Jewish-controlled media created a false story about Zelaya in order to discredit him. The Squicks (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League and Zelaya

The article has nothing about the Anti-Defamation League's opposition to Manuel Zelaya, the former President of Honduras. Manuel Zelaya is [refector].Agre22 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Anti-Jewish statements raise concern on Honduras AP -- Rico 04:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-semitic comments come from David Romero, head of the news division of Radio Globo, and allegedly from Patricia Rodas, not from Manuel Zelaya. Romero has apologized publically several times for his comments. While the ADL states that Rodas's comments are anti-semitic, I don't agree, and again, they are not Manuel Zelaya. Rsheptak (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Um Zelaya made claims too http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1248828.html In fact he made the original claims on Cholusatsur via telephone and I heard them and could not believe how ludicrous it soundedSummermoondancer (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This wonderful event is clearly enough to get one booted from the air in the US but the International community thinks we have violated his rights by booting him here. He should be in prison not on the radio.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) striking out libellous comment on living person.--Cathar11 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You think that Rodas's comments are not anti-semitic? Really? Honestly? You think that for someone to cheer for the Holocaust is a good thing to do and is not anti-semitic? I'm speechless. The Squicks (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya Condemns Radio Host’s Comments on Holocaust (Update1)

Let's not be hasty, here. We only write what's verified, not what "the truth" is. I've seen allegations of "anti-semitic communist" above, among others. We are responsible for our edits within an article about a living person. So, again, there is no haste to prove anything. Just report what there is. K? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove link to crisis article

Somebody keeps removing the link to the constitutional crisis from the opening; there is no sound reason for such a mkove whicvh could be interpreted as vandalsim but I suspect is just POV pushing of the "it was a coup". Ya basta. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never removed the link because I do feel it should be there but I have added ""as a coup d'état" as this explains the known international reaction.--Cathar11 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidency

I believe that in the article Zelaya should be named De Juro president, and not ex-president, as no country has accepted the presidency of the de facto president. Please comment. Maxipuchi (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is deposed and is no longer the President. I noticed that the last claimant to the Ottoman Empire recently died. We would not label him the "de juro" Emperor. Madman (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Claimants to the Ottoman empire have nothing to do with this article. Some claim he is still the elected President of Honduras until Jan 29, this makes him more than a mere Pretender. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He is no longer in control and there are serious arguments to his stealing of the 2005 election. The biggest accuser is himself where he admits that he defrauded the electorate with 10% of the vote(you can find his actual comments by him on You Tube and HRN radio I believe has the interview. Cesar Ham, the current UD presidential candidate and one of his biggest fans, admitted as well that Zelaya stole the election so calling him legitimately elected is a farce. They did say ´well everybody does it´as if that were an excuse, but it takes away from his claims that he was elected. He is the ex president and his fate is in the hands of the Congress as to whether he will be restored and chances are he will not because they have deferred to the opinion of the Supreme court before they discuss it and will not convene until after November 29, 2009 because the Congressmen are campaigning right now and are recessed.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide relevant references for your allegations.

Zelaya is still recognized as the legitimate President of Honduras by every nation in the world. How is he former, except to his Honduran opposition in Honduras?(Finrevs (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

No wholesale deletions, please

Cathar11, this wholesale deletion of entire sections (see this diff) is not acceptable. Please discuss this beforehand. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an AN/I opened about the person who posted these and his attacks on BLP's.Cathar11 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the paragraphs that were added need some work, but they are based on facts and properly referenced, by and large. Under what criteria are you deleting them? Can you quote some Wikipedia guideline. Madman (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cathar11's unfounded deletions are indeed disruptive and he does not seem to end them. Alb28 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy now, Alb28, Cathar has been adding some verbiage and making some good edits.

And thank you, Cathar, for your recent edits. It looks like we've achieved some sort of consensus article. Yay!! Madman (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alb28, I don't know your history, and I don't know your level of knowledge of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is based on consensus. As an editor new to the Honduras articles, and apparently Wikipedia (unless of course, you are an experienced editor with a new account), you must realize that the content of these articles are highly disputed (hence the POV tags people keep trying to remove). Editors that have been working months on the content, trying to thrash out differences and reach consensus, don't appreciate someone who just arrived complaining about how their substantial change of POV edits are being reverted. Your changes are not a product of consensus. The WP:BRD policy of Wikipedia suggests that instead of reverting the revert, one should discuss. This is how consensus is arrived at. Avoid labeling certain editors as disruptive, as this tends to be counterproductive even when you feel it is true, and in the case of Cathar11, I believe it is untrue and uncivil. Moogwrench (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Los Horcones massacre

Zelaya's father was convicted to 20 years in prison for the Los Horcones massacre, which took place in Zelaya family's ranch Los Horcones in 1975. Police found bodies in a dynamited well which was a mile from Zelaya Sr.'s house. Zelaya Sr. provided a .22 Magnum and a chariot for transporting bodies. Zelaya Jr. visited his father often in prison, according to Victor Meza, Zelaya's former interior minister. Zelaya Sr. received an amnesty on September 3, 1980. According to the Guardian, everyone in the town remembers the slayings, but deny rumors that the younger Zelaya was involved in the killings with his father.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8596554 |title=Zelaya hometown provides look at divided Honduras | publisher=Guardian |date=2009-07-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.revistazo.biz/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176:martires-de-los-horcones&catid=19:proyectos&Itemid=19 |title=Mártires de “Los Horcones” |publisher=[[Revistazo]] |date=2009-06-25 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lyLoU2o5 |archivedate=2009-12-12 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.poder360.com/article_detail.php?id_article=2690&pag=2 |title=Crisis in Honduras - What was really behind the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, and is he likely to be reinstated? | publisher=Poder |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lyMjIy49 |archivedate=2009-12-12}}</ref>

Cathar11 claimed that it is "not relevant to article" and removed the citations. I disagree. The fact that his father was convicted for the famous massacre and that he visited his father often in prison (even sleeping on the floor) is very relevant and should be mentioned. Alb28 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's review a little BLP policy, shall we? WP:BLP states:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

WP:BLP

So here's the deal: When we talk about Los Horcones, something that he has never been proven to be involved with or reliably implicated in, we risk doing harm to him. When we talk about the sensational aspects of the case, we approach tabloid-hood, not encyclopedia level discourse.

Were this an article about Zelaya's father, it would be slightly different. But this article is about Zelaya, and this doesn't bear more than a very brief mention, if that. Remember that the presentation of information about a person and the space given to it should take up an amount of space proportional to its importance. Per Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight

This is a small part of the life of his father. It is a practically insignificant part of his, and certainly not related to his notability (his presidency and/or his ouster) Can you understand why an entire section is inappropriate? Remeber that WP:BLP policy requires us to make immediate deletions of material judged to be in violation of this policy, and even provides for this as an exception to the 3-revert rule. If you have questions about this, let me know. Moogwrench (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"So here's the deal: When we talk about Los Horcones, something that he has never been proven to be involved with or reliably implicated in..."

He was not only reliably implicated, he was convicted.

"This is a small part of the life of his father. It is a practically insignificant part of his,..."

One of the most famous massacres in Honduran history (if not the most famous) is so significant that admins should (and may) ban any editor who deletes the event entirely. You can suggest changes, but not delete it. There are more than 50,000 Google hits for Zelaya and Los Horcones in case you want to learn about the event. Alb28 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya's father was convicted, not Mel. This bio is about Mel, not his father. My original points stand, and for your information, I have read all about the event. I happen to think this is important, but in WP we give due treatment to things in proportion to the overall topic. And stop threatening people over a content dispute, it is unseemly. Moogwrench (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of a POV editor pushing a smear on a BLP which is not relevant to the articleCathar11 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

it should be easy to ref that the world does consider there to be a connection between Horcones and Zelaya; and if we can ref this hugely important event in young Zelaya's life we should include it here; to not link to that article would be unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if it is mentioned, it should be relatively brief for WP:DUE reasons (as in, I don't think an entire section on it is merited) and it should not be written in such a way as to imply that Mel Jr. had any involvement in the Los Horcones massacre unless very reliably sourced. Moogwrench (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds sensible. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a very short piece: "Zelaya's father was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the Los Horcones massacre, which took place in Zelaya family's ranch Los Horcones in 1975." Alb28 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have updated it to clarify that he didn't serve that amount of time. I've also updated the Los Horcones article to reflect the fact that it was rough justice against a Roman Catholic-orchestrated peasant land grab. Sleeping on a prison floor by a family visitor is a liberty and arguably a grace, and not a crime. Just thought I should clarify that, also, for the record.--212.100.250.228 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

hello I don't agtree on a lot of things I read on wiki on zelaya topic neither on this discussion: It seems there is a strong efford to delegitimate the Zelaya presidency, to say "after all he was not the real president of Honduras, so the golpe was not a real golpe...." well, I read same things about the Franco raising against Repubblic of Spain, in 1936, and I could find similar assertions everywhere in history. From my point of view the only true thing is that before the Micheletti golpe, Manuel Zelaya was the president of Honduras. All the rest are only words, so to have a fresh start we first had to put back conditions as they were at that moment. is maybe Micheletti another way U.S.A. are exporting democracy around the world?? B.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.23.103.45 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Who was next in line for the presidency?

In the article subject box, it says that Elvin Santos was/is the Vice President; but in the 'Constitutional Crisis' section it states that Michelletti was 'the next in line of succession for the presidency.' This seems a contradiction(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.228 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

elvin santos resigned in 2008, so since there was no vice-president the next in line of succession according to the constituion is the president of the national congress, Micheletti 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As Elvin Santos resigned to fight for the presidency, there was indeed, as you say, effectively no vice-president from that point. Therefore, for the benefit of the uninitiated, would it perhaps be less confusing/misleading to have 'Elvin Santos/Roberto Micheletti' in the 'Vice-president' box, please?--212.100.250.228 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictorial bias re demos

The article currently has one photo showing a satirical anti-Zelaya protest and no pictures of pro-Zelaya demos. 'If a picture can paint a thousand words' (which I believe it can), that's quite a lot of bias to put right.--212.100.250.228 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever you feel is appropriate. Moogwrench (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about parallal situations in the modern history of dictatorships here in Europe, regime change is what is needed to provide media with a photographic level playing field. Having established that previous editors have introduced bias with the picture, I fail to see how introducing pictures of the backs of scared pro-Zelaya demonstrators will effectively redress the balance.--212.100.250.228 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Various things

• Mel Zelaya is no longer president, please put your personal emotions or feelings behind.
• The section "Corruption investigations by the FBI and Honduran prosecutors" has reliable sources, please discuss here before changing anything.
• The Venezuelan ballots were indeed illegal, it also has reliable sources, please put your personal emotions or feelings behind.

thank you 190.53.244.15 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about one side being more emotional than the other. Zelaya (as ALBA) clearly views the Honduran judiciary as an unrepresentative bourgeois institution, rather than what you and others see as 'the law.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.228 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thesection Financial irregularities covers and duplicates everyhing in the section "Corruption investigations by the FBI and Honduran prosecutors". one or other must be deleted.Cathar11 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• MEL He was inaugurated as President of Honduras on January 27, 2006 and deposed in a coup d'état on June 28, 2009. Roberto Micheletti who wasw appointed actingp presidentin his place was not recognized by any country. Whatis wromng with this text. You have consistently removed it. The notable thingabout him is the coup and ousting/removal. This wikilinks to the article with details on that. What do you propose as an alternative.?Cathar11 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• The language you use in relation to the poll is very POV. Please tone it down I accept illegal under Honduran (sic) law.23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 190.53.244.15, I was just wondering why you reverted my reformatting of the headings, and if there was some suggestion you had for me regarding them, instead of just a plain revert with nothing in the edit summary? Just trying to understand it. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember also, per WP:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion, that editorials/opinion pieces can only be used as WP:Reliable sources for the author's own opinion, not for any fact that they might obstensibly contain. Moogwrench (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelaya is still officially recognized as President of Honduras by all of the nations of the world. His term has therefore not ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finrevs (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

his term ended june 28, 2009, he's no longer in office and obviously does not have any power in honduras, it does not control anything, please put your personal feelings aside wikipidians 190.53.244.15 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal feelings? It should be noted that he is still the President according to every nation in the world. His term ends in January. If he is not the officially recognized President by the OAS, United Nations, and every country, then Honduras has no President.(Finrevs (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

honduras does have president, is Roberto Micheletti 190.53.244.15 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No nation on earth, nor the United Nations recognizes Roberto Micheletti as President. Fact.(Finrevs (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

he removed himself from his job as president when he promoted re-election (See article 239 of the Honduran constitution) 190.53.244.15 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. The rest of the world disagrees, which is why the rest of the world considers what occurred on June 28, 2009 to be a coup d'etat.(Finrevs (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

my opinion??? go and read article 239 of the constitution, he's no longer president, the national congress of honduras recently decided that he will not be reinstated 190.53.244.15 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read article 239 of the Honduran constitution. If Zelaya had violated it, then he should have been put on trial. There is no evidence (or you can source it) besides rumors and unverified claims by the people that forced him out of the country. Instead, he was exiled so that the coup would be considered a fait accompli (Finrevs (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Ugh, people. Just keep it to ousted president, and make a note of the dispute in the lede. That way, it's still "former"; claims that he is still de jure president of Honduras will need sourcing, regardless of whatever ones motives are. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, you! Only a Wiki tyrant feels the need to source claims that the victim of a coup remains the de jure president! --212.100.250.228 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't be president if someone else is running the country. Was Abraham Lincoln still the president of the confederacy? Does Argentina still think they own the Falklands? The simple answer is no. It doesn't matter that other countries don't recognize it. What he did was illegal and he was constitutionally ousted. Those are the facts. Actually read the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneforanother (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, he is former President

The article is correct. . . . Agre22 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

It's got an obvious right-wing bias, which is just the type of thing Zelaya stood up to. How many quotes from right-wing commentators as 'reliable sources' does it take for you to admit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.228 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

extreme right wing bias eh? For stating the truth that Zelaya is the former president? Jman279 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiretapping

I beleive part of the crisis also had to do whith this former president trying to give the police green light to wiretap whomever they wished. any thoughts?Alessio.aguirre (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Sources? Rd232 ^talk 11:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

Images associated with this pages could potentially be considered biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.127.40 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Coup?

Using the wording coup gets rid of the npov of this article, calling it aa coup is clearly siding with that point of view. It should be called an ousting, which is a moreneutral tone. Jman279 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, RSs are what guide what Wikipedians call things, not our own POV, or even what we consider to be an NPOV. "Coup" is supported by majority of the RSs, as is "ouster", to describe the events of June 28. Consensus in the past has favored "coup" for article titles. See archives of Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état and 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis for the enormous amount of (virtual) ink spilled on this subject. Moogwrench (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The OAS called it a coup. The UN called it a coup. The current President of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo, called it a coup. The former Secretary of State of the de facto Government, Enrique Ortez Colindres called it a military coup two weeks ago. Call it by what it was, a coup d'etat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.254.194 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. A coup d'etat is the military removal of a civilian leader replacing him with a military junta. This ouster was ordered by the legislator and carried out by the orders of a civilian government as allowed by the Honduran Constitution. The international outcry over this incident was largely based on public fear of similar actions being taken against other left-wing dictators by their subjects.--  Novus  Orator  01:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is too strict an interpretation of what constitutes a coup. A coup is defined, and see the Coup d'état article, loosely as a "sudden deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military." I this case, Zelaya's government was deposed, the recently re-constituted Supreme Court and a small group of military officers were the "small group of the existing state establishment", and the President of the National Congress was the "another body", in this case a civil officer. But since it is reasonably disputed, it should not be stated as fact but may be (and should be) stated as an assertion made by various parties involved in the incident. Int21h (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Manuel Zelaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415180403/http://www.accessmylibrary.com:80/coms2/summary_0286-31773749_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31773749_ITM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531195446/http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0904/090407miami.htm to http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0904/090407miami.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)