Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 1

Own research?

Can we make a argument and decide, as important Wikipedia editors, that we either will or won't call it a "coup", based on arguments like, "I call it a ..."? Are there reliable sources (NY Times, Washington Post) that call it a "coup", or have published that it is not a coup? -- Rico 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Coup is a very strong word. It criminalizes the opposing faction. In this case the criminal is the ex-President and not the "coup" conveyers. I suggest avoiding the term coup because of its connotation. Chupu (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point entirely. -- Rico 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the NYT and Washington Post called it a coup. Rsheptak (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources, of the reliability level of the NY Times or Washington Post, that have published that it is not a "coup"? -- Rico 05:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NY Times: Honduran President Is Ousted in Coup -- Rico

Washington Post: "The coup was condemned throughout the Americas." -- Honduran Military Ousts President -- Rico 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post: "Chaos erupts after Honduran Coup" [1] Rsheptak (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the Wall Street Journal?

Honduras Defends Its Democracy - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.147.0 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (it says so at the bottom right), and that is not a reliable source for facts. LjL (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What about from... the New York Times?[2] I'm sorry, but given the extreme level of legal action involved here (not to mention the fact that THE OLD CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EFFECT), I am extremely hard-pressed to see this as a coup.A Pickle (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of Wikipedia policies/guidelines, I disagree with everything you've written here. As Wikipedia editors, we do not avoid strong words just because they're strong. We do not avoid words, based on opinions that they criminalize. If that were true, we'd have to refer to criminals as law-abiding-challenged. We do not determine who the criminal is based on own research or personal opinion. We do not avoid words because they have a connotation. If they're the right words, they are the words we use. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post refer to it as a "coup". -- Rico 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. As soon as I started to read the discussions, it occured to me that most of the discussions were OT. It doesn't matter whether editors believe this was a legal action. This is also not the place to discuss theories even referencing the constitution etc about whether it was a legal action. The only thing that matters for wikipedia is what the reliable sources say. If the vast majority of reliable sources call it a coup, then so should we. If most haved avoided the term, then so should we. If several sources suggest the military may have acted legally, then we should mention this. If not, then we don't. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a relevant Wikipedia policy quote:

The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Holocaust never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

-- Rico 06:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have someone noted that this event is on going, and the majority of the press (like, NY times, who posted that thousands of protestants went to the streets armed with sticks, which is false) is still on the grey? But, objectively, this was, on the grey side of my country's law, not a coup. It was handled as one, though. He shouldn't have been thrown out of the country, specially not by the military. That's a coup's way. They shouldn't, by any means, shut down the media (we are still not receiving CNN, surely because they were fast to condemn the events). They shouldn't, either, call for a curfew. That's about 4 human rights violations right there. They came up with this obviously fake resignation letter. He was being unlawful. And he was out of the Rule of Law. Law dictated his impeachment, because he was a threat to the Constitution. But then, again, matters were awfully managed. And, yes, according to law, it was the Congress that dictates if a President if out of the Rule of Law, and, if there is no President nor Vice-President (the Constitution establishes three Delegates, but this has fallen in disuse, don't know why; now the sole political charge of Vice-President is used) is present to perform as the Head of the Executive, then the President (understand, speaker) of the Congress shall be signed for the rest of the term. The problem is that law doesn't explicitly recite how is the President impeached... So yesterday's events can't be deemed anti constitutional, this would mean against the Constitution. They would be better described as semiconstitutional.

Lastly, the key players on this, whether you call it "coup" or "impeachment", are hardly a pseudoscienc-y minority. (190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

190.53.202.228 wrote, "So yesterday's events can't be deemed anti constitutional, this would mean against the Constitution."
This is just your opinion (WP:OR).
A senior Honduran official did deem it "was not" "within the constitution."
"... a senior Honduran official ... said the country's Congress had appointed a commission Thursday evening to investigate whether the president's referendum was in line with the constitution. The commission reported back Sunday afternoon that the president had violated the constitution, and the Congress voted to remove him. That procedure is "within the constitution," said the senior official -- although the coup that occurred hours earlier was not, he acknowledged." (emphasis added)[3] -- Rico 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm 190.53.202.228. What I meant is not that the events are constitutional. They are not, as was previously stated. The problem is that there is no procedure, in law, to impeachment. It just says it will cease being in the charge immediately. That is, the events were done in favour of the constitution. But, the methods used weren't. If he was doing something illegal, he needed trial. And it isn't my opinion, remember that anti means against. So the coup was inconstitutional, as there are no procedures, but the election of Micheletti was constitutional. Not that he will be a good president. At least he will, for 6 months, be better than Zelaya MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and "reliable" source of viewpoint

I wish to stay away from the discussion of "coup or not". However, I have a deep concern on viewpoint of RicoCorinth over NPOV. Rico is right to say that majority viewpoint and minority viewpoint should not be treated equally. However, he must propose that whether the crisis is a coup is just a matter of viewpoint instead of a matter of fact. If he does not give up the claim that it could be a matter of fact, the extension of NPOV policy is simply manipulation of majority viewpoint.

To write a viewpoint in NPOV style, we cannot say "It is a coup". We have to say "Most USA media (or English using media) says it is a coup" to make it NPOV. I don't think it is true intent of Rico.

To make it a fact of matter, build a consensus. Ask people to say their standpoint (coup or not), the reasons behind their standpoint and ask them tell us what kind of evidence they need to make them think it otherwise. There is always some people who made a belief out of his political interest, or just because they could not master reasoning. That people is willing to give their reasoning, and only this process we can rightful ignore them. Labeling anyone "pseudoscience" merely because of his viewpoint will not work. That is a way only be offensive and bully. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. However, make that "Most international media and heads of state call it a coup by the military". I haven't read about a single head of state yet (uh, legal head of state, excluding micheletti, of course) who doesn't call it a coup. And media here in Germany calls it a coup, too. Aand all other media reports I found. Gray62 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, I only support this compromise because there seems to be no consensus in Honduras to call it that way. Otherwise, imho the intenrational opinion is unambigious enough to justify the usage of that word here. Gray62 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, after checking the definition of coup d'etatin Wikipedia, I'm now against that compromise. We shouldn't support political doublespeak, and propaganda here. This incidents fits the description of a coup, so it should be named as such. Gray62 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a coup. It was the arrest and exile of Zelaya, who had disqualified himself as president according to the Honduran Constitution (due to his bid to overrule the Constitution, going against the law and against a Supreme Court decision that rendered the referendum illegal). In addition, he was usurping public duties by acquiring electoral material and organizing the referendum, which, besides being illegal, is the domain of the electoral authorities, not the president, and this, according to articles 2 and 3, is unconstitutional, and no one owes allegiance to someone who does such a thing in direct contradiction with the Constitution and laws. The people also have the right to rise up against anyone who does this, according to article 2.

If anyone was infiltrating a "small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus", to be used to "displace the government from its control of the remainder”, it was Zelaya with his referendum initiative.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a coup d'état. Both supreme court and congress determined that the president was acting illegally, and thus the military (which should uphold the law per constitution) decided to ignore the pres. and throw him out. There was no "displacement of government". I can understand how heads of state the world over are crying fowl (all of them fearful that their own courts might come to similar conclusions), but wikipedia is not intended for the spread of such propaganda. To maintain NPOV make reference to the fact that world media is calling it a coup, but also mention that the military, supreme court and congress were acting in accordance with the constitution. ie. according to the definition of a coup it was no coup. --A is A (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That in their opinion , the military, supreme court and congress were acting in accordance with the constitution, and in their opinion, it was no coup according to the definition of a coup. LjL (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Developments

Tanks? Does Honduras even have any tanks? Do far all I've seen pics of are armoured cars.©Geni 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical mistake. I was saying they most likely had APCs or IFVs but after looking I'd say they mostly were armored cars. Similar mistakes are made there since they all have turrets of some kind mounted on top.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alvis Saladins from what I've seen.©Geni 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We do have tanks, though. And, remember, it's normal for undeveloped nations to have weaponry. Perhaps it's that bad priority system that made them undeveloped, aye? Haven't seen them on footage from yesterday, if I find, I will post them here. (190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

The pictures I've seen have something I'd call a tank, but it does have wheels (6 of them) and not treads Homunq (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Alvis Saladin armoured car.©Geni 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you simply google it? "The tank squadron is equipped with twelve British-made Scorpion light tanks". I udnerstand they're a bit more powerful than an Aladin. Gray62 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

heh on paper they would be pretty even. The issue was more related to their being any tanks deployed rather than their posesion of them. Article claimed they were deployed but photos only show armoured cars.©Geni 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Many sources are calling this a coup - move article back?

Wikipedia is not supposed to avoid any loaded language that's in dispute. It's supposed to base its language on the commonly-accepted language in the sources. I've seen "coup" and "golpe" in a lot of places. I'd support moving this article to 2009 Honduran coup, but I'm not going to do it myself. I'd like to see both sides argued here. Homunq (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not suggest changing it until it the constitutionality of the act is determined. I have yet to see one source calling this a coup even address the subject of Honduran law surrounding this matter. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. It simply uses the most-commonly-accepted phrase. "Coup" is in the title of the top three hits for Honduras in Google news. Please cite sources calling it anything but a coup. Homunq (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It uses the most commony accepted phrase, unless that phrase jepoardizes the impartial tone of the article. Coup is a very loaded word, and without some source explaining why this is a coup, the term should probably be avoided in the title. The fact that most nations are calling this a coup is already included, as is the dispute that this may have been a constitutional move. Articles that call it a coup but ignore the relevant issues are hardly reliable in determining whether or not this is a coup. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A senior Honduran official addressed the subject of Honduran law surrounding this matter.
"... a senior Honduran official ... said the country's Congress had appointed a commission Thursday evening to investigate whether the president's referendum was in line with the constitution. The commission reported back Sunday afternoon that the president had violated the constitution, and the Congress voted to remove him. That procedure is "within the constitution," said the senior official -- although the coup that occurred hours earlier was not, he acknowledged." (emphasis added)[4] -- Rico 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with coup is that those in Honduras who havedeposed Zelaya are very much denying it is a coup and we must havea neutral title that embraces both major points of view - that it is a coup and that it isnt't - the current tile does this whereas, IMO, coup does not. We should, of course, present the viewpoint thatit is a coup within the article, just not in its title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Keep in mind most military coups deny they are a coup, and claim some form of legitimacy. Name almost any coup in history and you'll notice this ;-) 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a coup, no matter how you try to justify it. There was no legal process under the Honduran constitution; Zelaya was captured by hooded troops who then forceably exiled him without due judicial process. However, I think the title of the article is appropriate...this isn't over yet, so its an ongoing crisis, not just a coup. Rsheptak (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There obviously was some kind of judicial process, because the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him. The contstitution appears to have some absolutely brutal laws regarding people who try to extend executive power past the allowed term. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly two sides to this arguemnt. As wikipedia we should remian neutral between the two. The military have clearly not taken power here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you Squeakbox. Micheletti spent most of thursday night/friday morning closeted with the military command according to Honduran press reports. And I have to disagree with the user above who thinks there was a process. The court issued a press release claiming there was a court order, but has yet to provide the order itself, either in its press release or on its website. Congress spent most of the day trying to find a justifiable reason for impeaching Zelaya, despite the fact the the Honduran constitution lacks any means for impeaching a sitting president. A court order is not a judicial process, only the start of one. Rsheptak (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to it is a coup but I think it is important to think what message is delivered by the word "coup". This is about Wiki consensus, and we must to try build consensus whenever dispute is found. This word, in my view, is not about what is right or what is moral. This word is not even about democracy. This word is about constitutional order. We must decide whether constitutional order is breached and who breach that. The word "constitutional order" is not just Constitution of Honduras, but we have some common sense on rule of law which is applicable globally. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't accommodate every dispute because there's always someone to dispute something especially when dealing with politics. Whether we go by most commonly used term or the simple nature of this action there is no reason why we shouldn't call this a coup d'etat. The fact there is some provision for removing officials if they propose changing term limits doesn't give them legal cover to detain those people and force them into exile. I mean, they even tendered a phony resignation! How is this not a coup?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I say move the article back. Most criminals claim to have not broken the law. At some point, we give undue weight to a minority viewpoint that is such a minority viewpoint, that it's ridiculous to pay it too much never mind. Zanu-PF says things in Zimbabwe, too. It doesn't mean the rest of the world buys into it. Giving weight to minority viewpoints, in the interests of neutrality, is not to be overemphasized to the extent that we're afraid to call a spade a spade -- not when that's what the reliable sources are calling it. The fact that the military is claiming that they weren't guilty of a coup, because the Supreme Court authorized the coup, can still be discussed in the article. -- Rico 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a coup. Just because it may have some popular support doesn't make it any less of one. I haven't seen one media source that hasn't described it as such. --Tocino 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move back to coup. That's what it is.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 07:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point it is much broader than the military booting the Zelaya out of the country. The "coup" is only a part of the events relevant to this article. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the justification that every wrongdoer claims otherwise isn't enough for this discussion. The fact is that the whole thing was coupy. But, I do agree with SqueekBox and 71.110.162.192. This is more than just the impeachment/coup. It certainly includes the unconstitutional proceedings before the impeachment/coup, that is, Zelaya's unlawfulness. So, now, in Honduras, both sides are illegal. Nice :( 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember that many newspapers, goverments and myself included first learned that the military arrested the president. That sounds like a coup. The newspapers/Reuters/Governments condemd it. Only, after the arrest, the Supreme Court said it ordered it. And after that, news came that Congress removed the president officially from office. Now I really wonder if you can say if this is a coup or just a constitutional/political crisis. We will have to wait what the independent media and governments are saying today about it. There may be some hesitation: some western nations strongly condemned the action by the army; it will be awkward to say suddenly that didnt know all the details and then will not condemn it but ask everyone to be peaceful...80.127.58.65 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, survey says: coup. But there is some justification for saying that Zelaya's own illegal actions are part of the crisis but not part of the coup. So, I guess the choices are:

• Honduran coup of 2009 ... doesn't cover the lead-up.
• 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis ... better than "political crisis" because it's more specific, but avoids the more common "coup"
• 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and coup ... wordy.

Homunq (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second and that we merge the constitutional referendum article. Certainly there is a serious current of opinion that says Mel's actions were illegal and therefore he could not continue as President and this view neeeds to be respected in the title as does the view that it is a coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There can be no serious doubt that a coup was conducted. However, keeping under "political crisis" broadens the scope to include events before and after the coup, which I support, and we should merge in the referendum. (By the way, there's no serious argument that "he could not continue as President" legally; even if the referendum was illegal, simply breaking the law does not mean you automatically stop being President.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, any citizen of Honduras, with or without authority, has the right to restore Constitutional order in the case of someone usurping functions not ascribed to them in the Constitution (article 3. Organizing an illegal referendum falls into this. The electoral authorities are the ones who can do it). Also even proposing to change term limits automatically disqualifies the acting president, and prevents him or her from exercising any public function for ten years.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are articles in the Washington Post calling the events a coup, yes, but to be perfectly honest and fair, there are also several objective articles in the WP that attempt to go beyond the superficial headline (let's face it, coup is better understood, and shorter, than "constitutional crisis") and describe in detail the events leading to Zaleya's forced ouster. I would give limited weight to following the logic that if a majority of media refer to something as 'whatever', then that makes it fact, or even meets the most casual definition of NPOV (that says major media is unbiased, which it is not, and also begs the issue of what is reliable over what is not -- there are countless examples of where the NYT, WP, WSJ and others have each failed us miserably). History has constantly demonstrated how a popular point of view has changed as facts emerge, attitudes change, etc. Philosophically, do American, European, or Latin American POVs matter more than Hondurans'? The discussion here is rife with opinion, by the way -- at least be honest and admit that there are many "contributions" where personal politics are in play. The reason "constitutional crisis" works for me is that it is accurate, objective, and nuetral. Coup does not work, because it distills a complex situation and reduces it to a highly charged, emotionally loaded, and simplistic POV, which just happens to serve the interests of one side of the issue (not at all lost on Zaleya, Chavez, and others known to play the media). Moreover, my own personal contacts with Hondurans across the country support a view that Zaleya would not be accepted by the people were he to be reinstated, except through brutal repraisal and suspension of freedoms -- if that's democratic, then I do not understand, nor support, democracy. There is general consensus that the government -- all elements -- are weak, inneffective, fragile, and corrupt. Zaleya is known for his connections to the drug trade, which has weakened him politically unfortunately, drugs, and drug money, spread around, are an effective tool to enslave a people. To pretend otherwise -- that Zaleya is some heroic figure, a man of the people, a legitimate President in the eyes of the electorate -- is both disengenuous, and laughable.VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

There's no doubt it was a coup, but there is a serious argument that he could not continue as president. As the article states, article 239 of the constitution could be argued to say that, although it of course does not suggest he be deported in the morning twilight by masked soldiers as communications are cut and his resignation is forged. Homunq (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we're in agreement. It's reasonable that the Supreme Court could have come up with some legal process to remove him, possibly under article 239, but they clearly didn't. <eleland/talkedits> 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox on the name; Constitutional Crisis seems very fitting, regardless of which side of the issue you come down on. I don't know if we should merge this with the referendum article, however, because while it is background to the events, I don't think the actual crisis started until either Zelaya ignored the courts and distributed the ballots or he was rousted out of bed (depending on what side of the situation you are taking). Also, I think a separate referendum page would be good for discussion on the specifics and constitutionality of the referendum, itself, rather than losing that entire debate in the larger scope of events surrounding the crisis. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so everybody is saying "it is clearly a coup", or "it is not a coup", or "every source I've seen says it's a coup". Will someone kindly produce some reliable sources claiming either one or the other, and backing it up with motivations? It will help more than just making this section longer and longer with unsubstantiated opinions. LjL (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you accept as "reliable sources", especially about something that is clearly argumentative. Following are sources which support a different POV -- any use of the word "coup" cannot be considered neutral in this unresolved political crisis, as it prejudices one side of the argument over the other; objectively, both "sides" feel that they have legitimate positions, and all parties, internal and external, have contributed to the crisis.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html from the Christian Science Monitor, an opinion piece written by Octavio Sanchez, a Honduran who has served as a lawyer, counsel to the President, and a cabinet post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070103210.html from the Washington Post, an opinion piece written by Alvaro Llosa, a syndicated writer and the director of the Independent Institute, and author of "Lessons from the Poor".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/30/politics/washingtonpost/main5125109.shtml from CBS News and the Washington Post, pointing out the political issues involved with the label "coup", and itself using the phrase "military ouster" in its subtext -- which is concise -- there was a military compenent, and there was an ouster -- but hardly complete.

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=315139 is a brief statement from the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee prior to the ouster -- a constitutional crisis orchestrated by the key players appears to fortell a confrontation, and/or capitulation.

http://www.startribune.com/world/49177937.html is an AP article by reporter Freddy Cuevas, enumerating the actions fostering the crisis, and presaging the ouster.

All of which begs the question, how much of this was pre-meditated, a calculated move on Zaleya's part, to rescue his Presidency by 'losing it'. Can't fault a guy for being a successful planner. VaChiliman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC). VaChiliman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Using op ed as sources

"ALBA bloc leaders' main obsession: indefinite rule" is an op ed. -- Rico 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciamento?

A lot of debate seems to be centered on whether or not to call this thing a "coup d'etat." What about calling referring to it as a "pronunciamento?"

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état#The_Pronunciamento

..in that the military did not assume control but rather instated another civil government, or at least head of government. Pr0me7heu2 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really what a "pronunciamiento" is about. A "pronunciamiento" is just an euphemism of coup d'etat used by the coup leaders. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its still the same thing as a Coup d'état.--86.26.110.119 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pls check the Wikipedia article on coup d'etat: "“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État."! See? It isn't restricted to the military taking over. And in the case at hand, there is also the Supreme Court of Honduras involved, and probably Congress leader Micheletti, too. Gray62 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, this was hardly executed by a small, but critical segment of the state apparatus; It looks that the bulk of the federal/national government acted against and displaced the executive branch. I don't even know if pronunciamiento is completely accurate, though I think it is much more fitting, because this doesn't appear to be the civilian government giving sanction to an executed coup, but the civilian government ordering the overthrow of one of its own branches. Considering the breadth of actors involved, I almost wonder if this could be classified as a rebellion. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion seems more fitting to a degree, but yours is the only time I've seen it suggested anywhere.92.104.255.201 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The military did not instate anyone. The National Congress did, in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. -A Pickle (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Any news on human rights abuse or sign of abolish of furture election?

I am not hinting that there is human rights abuse nor abolish of future election, and I do not think information is available within 2 days or anytime soon. However, I wish editors could pay some attention to this area, and there should be a respectable portion in this crisis once information is available. I think there are some international concern in this area instead of who has won the crisis. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What the acting President said moments after his oath, was that he will pass on the baton to the next President on due and already set moment. That means that as soon as the term ends, he's handing it over. I just hope this doesn't escalate to more. Now, I'm pretty sure he won't retain the office. Not because I trust him (IMHO, the guy is a crook); but because the coup/impeachment was already condemned by virtually everyone, even when Manuel Zelaya was out of order. Imagine is he kept the office? It would be like, "Well, I will still be Presid-" --overthrown. 190.53.202.228 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sry, but the November election has already been irrevocally harmed. Cesar Ham, a presidential candidate of a left wing party, has been killed. He most probably wouldn't have had any chance to win, but this sure will influence the results. If the more liberal candidate will lose by a few percentage points, it could very well be that Ham would have made the decisive difference by endorsoing that candidate! Gray62 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sry, ignore my point above! Cesar Ham is alive. I apologize for falling for a news hoax. And now excuse me pls while I remove the egg from my face... :-( Gray62 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find a credible news source stating Ham was alive? I found a source, but don't think its credible. Can you point me to yours? thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Iyou'll find it among the references in the Cesar Ham article. However, ok, I can't determine how credible the source cited in the correction of Narco News is. But regarding the unclear news situation, it would be premature to claim Ham is dead. Let's wait and hope for the best. Gray62 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that and I don't consider it credible. I'm certainly hoping for the best. Rsheptak (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it legal to deport a president without a due process, even in the event of acting unlawfully?

I'm following the whole story, and conceding that President Zelaya was about to act unlawfully, I seriously doubt that deporting was a legal action against an unlawful president, as well as dismissing him without any due process, or impeachment, or whatever, before taking such a dramatic measure.

I think this is a coup, and this article should be renamed subsequently.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're a member of the Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran national Congress, and a registered Honduran voter all in one, then, right? The Supreme Court deemed this action legal, therefore it is legal, seeing as they're the ones that interpret national laws. Just because this action got your panties in a twist doesn't mean everyone has to act the way you want.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Suprme Court is not entitled to make any decision. As you said, it's the one that interpret national law. Can anyone tell which law states that a rogue president must go to exile without a due process? didn't he have the right to defend himself from the accusations?--85.136.199.112 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "national law" and "expelling an overthrown President from the country's borders" are mutually exclusive. Who else is qualified to decide to throw him out? Personally, I do not agree with his expulsion, he should have stood trial for what he did, but nevertheless there isn't a single article in the Honduran constitution that contradicts the Supreme Court's decision. It is also possible that since his party still runs the country, they "pulled strings" to have him spared, even if they were the architects of his overthrow.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also important to denote between the actions of removing Zelaya from office and expelling him from the country. His removal from office may be perfectly legal even if his expulsion from Honduras is not. If this is the case, the illegality of his expulsion would not invalidate his removal from office, and there would be no legal cause to reinstate him. I'm not taking one side or the other, but merely wish to point out the distinction. The crisis may evoke images of past coups based on the fact that he was expelled, but given that his removal from office and his expulsion are two distinct actions, the legality of his expulsion should not be a factor in determining whether this was a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.42.132 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fijian High Court ruled that the 2006 Fiji coup was legal. By your logic, do you think that the 2006 Fiji coup shouldn't be labeled a coup? 128.151.25.31 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference error

This article contains an error in the references, shown by a red message in the list, but I do not know how to fix it. Someone help!--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the error, so it must have been fixed. The red things are only articles yet not done about the source's authors, but the sources are there. Hope I helped, MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this, SOA-pedia?

I've never seen such a blatantly, unabashedly biased hit piece. <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On whose behalf? ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that it was pure pro-coup propaganda. We're fixing it rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IT IS A COUP

I cannot believe we are even having this debate. It's amazing how much Wikipedia is kowtowing to irrational objections. The notion that because the Supreme Court ordered his removal from office it is therefore not a coup is ridiculous. The Supreme Court is part of the coup as is the Congress. Do you really think they unanimously accepted a phony resignation because they had a free and honest debate? Everyone who has ties to Zelaya is being arrested, media and communications cut off, soldiers policing the street, a curvew imposed, and Zelaya himself sent off into exile. This does not smack of a legal removal and is every bit like a coup. The notion that we won't call it that just because one group involved in the coup can give it legal cover is ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite preposterous. I'm waiting to hear someone defend this ridiculous "not a coup" viewpoint. <eleland/talkedits> 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it just so happens that the entire legally-constituted government is out to get Zelaya, not that Zelaya was abusing his power and disavowing court and Congress decisions.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You see, the way you deal with that legally is by actually treating it like a legal matter. The Congress did not reach its decision until after Zelaya had been flown to Costa Rica, the Supreme Court ordered his removal and the military implemented that order without any warning while Zelaya was still asleep in his bed, and then there's that phony resignation the Congress accepted. Oh, did I forget to mention that they detained members of the Cabinet as well at the same time? I'm sorry but if that isn't a coup I don't know what is a coup.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say somewhere above, but rather clumsily due to my non-native speaker status. Thanks for putting it all in a very brief and concise way. Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's not a coup if it's actually legal under the constitution, and it seems to me that one article of it clearly states that anyone seeking to change term limits automatically loses any office they may hold and can't be realected for 10 years afterwards. And who else but the Congress and the Supreme Court can decide what is legal and what is not, there is no higher legal authority then that ? Article title should not have anything about coup in it, although the body can obviously state that's what some sides are calling it.--Helixdq (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a coup d'etat when the definition of Wikipedia's own article is applied! I was willing to accept a compromise because there is no consensus ammong Hondurans, but I have changed my mind. We shouldn't allow political doublespeak here. Gray62 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how it matches that article at all. It talks about a small group of military outsting the government, which is apparently not what happened here at all. Can you even speak of a "coup" organized by the entirety of parlament ? --Helixdq (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-- “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either --military-- or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’État. (from the article "Coup d’État") --

"small" ? how exactly was this an infiltration of a small segement of the state apparatus, it seems to me like everybody but a few loyal ministers threw him out

You can clearly see the article says military force is not a defining feature. Let alone the fact that the military force seems quite undeniable (the president was arrested by the military, sent into exile by the military, and now the military are policing the streets under the imposition of a curfew). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, echoing a previous poster, how exactly was that an infiltration a small segment of the state apparatus?190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on coup d'etat is poor and contradicts itself internally. the only clear definition from that article: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." we SHOULD be arguing about whether the government was displaced, not about when or how. IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DISPLACED IT IS NOT A COUP, according to wikipedia's article on coup d'etat. And in a constitutional republic, the president is NOT the government. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The totallity of the government was deposed. They are already naming a new cabinet. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The totality of the government? so, new legislature, courts, government structure? nope - let's not overstate things. the totality of the government was NOT displaced. that said, wikipedia refers to the turkish military's domestic actions as coups. the situations seem pretty analogous to me. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cielo, did you stop to think that there's gonna be a new cabinet, because oh I dunno, there's a Presidential election coming up in November? The courts are still the same, Congress is the same, nothing's changed.92.104.255.201 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't show your ignorance of how government works. A cabinet is basically the people appointed to specific tasks by the President, and as such, is an extension of the Presidential office. A new President almost always replaces everyone in those posts, forming a new cabinet. This does not "depose" any other branch of government. --24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's say that US Supreme Court and US Congress decide that President Obama is a crook, and they send US Army to send him to exile, and they appoint a new US President. Is this a coup, or just the removal of an unlawful president? Why should it be different to Honduras?--85.136.199.112 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Because... Honduras is not the USA. Do you see the difference? Both countries have vastly different constitutions, you'd realise that if you read them. There is absolutely nothing in the Honduran constitution that suggests Zelaya's overthrow is illegal. In fact, Article 375 supports the actions of the army and the decision of the Supreme Court.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some context here. Article 375 basically states that if anyone tries to overthrow the constitution, any citizen with or without authority "has the duty to collaborate to reestablish it". It does not state that if the president is a clown who's breaking the law, then the military should kidnap and deport him. Homunq (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly say that. It says that the action of anyone acting outside of the Constitution are null and void, and that if anyone assumes functions not attributed to him or her (like conducting an election), then "any citizen, with or without authority, has the duty to collaborate to reestablish" the Constitution. Overthrowing the Constitution is exactly what Zelaya was trying to do in the long run. Conducting an illegal referendum is assuming functions not ascribed to him in the Constitution.190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There were demonstrations all over the country for the past week calling for his removal as President, and under this pressure the Supreme Court decided to send the army to arrest him. Nothing in Article 375 contradicts these actions. The details of his deportation are sketchy. Neither Zelaya nor Micheletti are trustworthy politicians, and each one's stories are likely to be equally bullshit. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing that Zelaya would have wanted to face trial for what he did. It's more likely that he was given the option "stay here and stand trial, or go into exile." Even if this is not the case, Article 42 does mention revocation of citizenship and expulsion from the country for traitors to the state. As to whether to consider him one, that's the Supreme Court's decision, which they clearly already made. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this talk page are qualified to question the legality of an order given by the highest legal authority of a sovereign nation. You can say you don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legal under Honduran law.92.104.255.201 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"There were demonstrations all over the country for the past week calling for his removal as President, and under this pressure the Supreme Court decided to send the army to arrest him."!? Ridiculous. Talk about a banana republic! The Supreme Court does not get to do something illegal "under pressure". And make no mistake: absolutely *all* military coups in history have the support of at least some part of the population. It does not make them legal, either. Even more ridiculous: when an alleged crime has been committed, the court cannot give the choice to "stand trial or go into exile"! It's sad that the coup's supporters tactic is to ridicule their own country in order to save face. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article 42 does mention revoking citizenship. It also gives a two-step legal process (court judgement and government order), neither of which were carried out. Note that the very definition of government order (acuerdo gubermental) requires it to be published officially before it goes into effect, there is no such thing as a secret one.

The Supreme Court clearly has a lot of authority here. If they had had a valid hearing and published a decision that he violated article 239 and he's no longer president, then sure, Micheletti would be the president now. But if they just say "ummm... yeah, we told the army to do that" in a press release with no legal argumentation, then any rational human being has the right to question that. Homunq (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is more that this was an unbureaucratic overthrow, not that it was undemocratic? There wasn't enough red tape? I'm sorry if I'm misreading your comments, but it seems you're saying the only valid decisions by the Supreme Court are made in an official session and nowhere else.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you do know the "red tape" is there for a reason, right? That in law, it is extremely important that the established procedure is followed? Or maybe you consider other things as expendable red tape, for example democratic elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of what I'm saying. You're talking about changing presidents, for heaven's sake. If you start with an attitude of "the ends (removing an unpopular and lawbreaking president) justify the means (military takeover, however brief)" then you lose. Guatemala had a serious crisis involving the president recently - should the military have deported him? If politics is a game without rules, then we're back to the 70s and 80s, and that has a serious body count.

Zelaya is a clown and should have been removed. Legally. A coup is a step back for the whole region. Homunq (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Total body count of Mel's overthrow: zero. I really don't understand your point of view, although I do admit I'm biased as a Honduran. That's why I've refrained from touching the article itself. I'm only on the talk page to point out a few misrepresentations. As for the appointment of Micheletti, what's the problem there? He was, unfortunately but legally, next in line of succession (as the VP had already been sacked).92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Homunq, after rereading your post, I feel I should clarify my views, and ask you to clarify yours. Are we in agreement that Article 239 states that any attempt to change the number of terms a president can serve is illegal? Are we in agreement that Article 375 states that if anyone attempts to violate the constitution (as in Article 239), it is the duty of every Honduran citizen to remove him? Are we in agreement that Article 42 states that anyone found guilty of treasonous acts and/or violation of the constitution can have his or her citizenship revoked and be expelled from the country? If so, then our only clash is in the deportation of Zelaya. He should have stood trial, I would be more satisfied with his removal if he had. But he didn't, and even though my expectations weren't met, I am not dissatisfied with the result. I'm guessing you feel the same about him having to stand trial, but how do you feel about him having been removed? If our only problem is the deportation, there's no need to butt heads over it. Neither one of us is going to get the trial we want. And now I'm stuck with Micheletti.92.104.255.201 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my opinions of the specifics of the case are relevant, and (from a greater distance) I think yours are reasonable. The point is, it is a coup. In my view, it's like an alcoholic (Latin America, or more specifically, the armies of Latin America) who's been dry for 16 years having a drink (coup) again. Even if the first drink is fine, just to have some fun (remove a bad and unpopular president), it is very very dangerous, and if the friends (civil society) don't make it clear that they think it's a bad idea, it WILL happen again. Or another metaphor: when my neighbors were about to beat a thief in front of my house, I stopped them, even though the thief probably deserved it. And I did the same when the cops were about to take another neighborhood thug and kill him, even though to let them would have made me safer (I called the normal cops, who took the thug from the undercover elite cops). Homunq (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought: when you say it's a coup you're implying that one side is taking over control of the government. Both the legislature and the supreme court have just as much power within the government as the president does and he violated the constitution and both the other branches of government by attempting to proceed with the referendum. Not that his arrest and exile was constitutional, but the president clearly wasn't acting within the bounds of the constitution either. Just my two cents on the debate.--Ndunruh (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying "counter-coup". Interesting, but lacks reliable sources. Homunq (talk)

Actually I'd be more cute and say 33% coup, but no, I don't have any sources so I'm just interjecting my thoughts into the debate.--Ndunruh (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In 2008 Zelaya's performance rating was just 25%, clearly unpopular. To put things in perspective though, for a long time George W. Bush's approval rating was just as low, and even lower, furthermore, he committed or authorized many crimes much more heinous than anything Zelaya was trying to do, does that mean the military should have sprayed bullets at, arrested, then deported him to Canada while installing John McCain as President? Many of you really need to look in the mirror. --Surcer (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1) No mention of Honduran Constitution Article 3 which stipulates that citizens are not required to obey any usurping government or anybody that comes to a position of public authority by force, or by means or procedures that disavows the constitution. Public act sanctioned by such authorities are null and void. The people have the right to insurrection in order to reestablish the constitutional order.

2)There is the following statement in the article: "Zelaya's opponents claimed that his intention was to allow his own re-election, which would make it illegal to even propose" --However, this is the question that was going to be asked in the referendum (which would not directly be turned into law, or would directly change the constitution):

“¿Está usted de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna para decidir sobre la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente que apruebe una nueva constitución política?”

Translated: "Do you agree for a Fourth Urn to be installed on the November 2009 general elections in order to decide whether to call or not for a National Constitutional Convention to approve a new Political Constitution?" -- so the question is not: Do you want the current president to be re-elected? Hence the right for the people to vote on having a "fourth urn" was taken away by the Military.

3) Who ordered for the military to take action? Information regarding this is contradictory.As it appears, it was either the Electoral Tribunal (whose members are chosen by the political parties, in comparison to which the leftist party is small, so there is an opposition majority, thus mostly biased against Zelaya) or the Supreme Court, in any case he should have been taken to trial not flown to Costa Rica. An article in Spanish Newspaper el pais considered that putting up the new president was basically to get the "military coup" responsibility off the army's shoulders. That last statement, though, is just an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealitosnocturnos (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. You're only strong point is the first point. But, again, the law about impeachment is highly dubious. Then, the second point falls through the floor when you hear that there is no need for a national assembly unless you want to change a couple of laws, including, oh, surprise, reelection unlawfulness. The third point is easily addressed: the national congress has the right and duty to do that kind of things. The electoral tribunal only does electoral thingies. And, the opposition majority is null when you here that Micheletti is Liberal too, and that the Liberal party had condemned his actions since he started to be unlawful. Just because Patricia Rodas and Padilla Sunseri backed him up, doesn't meant every liberal did. ^^ Remember that usurping means taking the place of. And he ceased being president the day he started to do unlawful and treachery. So, he was usurping the presidency MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tone on your reply. Maybe it's naive to think that Zelaya wouldn't have seeked to get re-elected. However that is not stated in the question he was asking for the referendum. Thus, it is so far a conjecture. Moreover, he didn't stand a trial for his actions. The use of force to remove a president, while blocking TV signals, shutting down services, detaining ambassadors, and later on closing television channels, beating people up, arresting them, etc is very hard to see as "rule of law" and "democracy." You say, and it's well known, and these events as they unfolded would seem to prove it (although I think it's just being used as an excuse for the clumsy procedure that was followed to oust Zelaya), that the process of impeachment is not clear in the constitution. This, for example, would justify calling for a constitutional amendment. Don't you think? So I go back to my previous point. Whether he wanted to get re-elected or not, the whole rationalization behind the military action to remove him, remained to be seen. For example, re-election is allowed in the USA. The people at one point were able to make this decision. It's a sovereign right of the people to decide on this matters. If nobody backed him up, and nobody agreed, why didn't they let him do the poll? once finished, he would have undoubtedly violated the ruling of the Electoral Tribunal, and then a penal process could have been started. In any case, whatever they were looking to do, didn't work because they did it the wrong way, support for Zelaya is growing and even other countries are starting to intervene, as commenter "caoslinger" explains below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.227.61 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem will come later, though. Not being a legal overthrown will hurt Honduras worse than leaving Zelaya on the office. He should had been deemed unlawful, as he was, then impeached, arrested, then trialed, then jailed. Legally. Now we have all the international governments planning a "righteous" overthrown of the would-had-been de jure government. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No quotation possible, if organisation doesn't have a wiki link? WTF?

I just noticed this statement in edit summaries: "Without an article on them for context, we can't cite them here". Excuse me pls, we can't cite an existing organisation, just because there is no Wiki article about it? Since when? Would a more knowledgeable editor pls explain this surprising rule, and maybe show the relevant Wiki policy? Gray62 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That comment was most certainly in error. You can safely ignore it. No, I'm not an editor, but even I know malarky when I see it. Rsheptak (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your prompt answer. Gray62 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my comment, and was not any rule or proposed rule but my own opinion. My point was that UnoAmerica is a generically-named organization, and in order to quote them we need some context of who they are. It's like saying "The Organization of Doctors for Fairness opposes mandatory vaccinations" - with a generic name, there's no way to tell who they actually represent and why. Homunq (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx, Homunq! Hmm, you seem to know all the rules (I noticed you citing policies), so pls be more careful about how you state your edit summaries, to avoid confusion among occasional editors like me ;-)! There also was another user who claimed ALBA couldn't be cited, because there's no Wikipedia article, so I really believed that's a new rule. However, I pointed him to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. As for UnoAmerica, I firstly believed that's a division of the UNO. Now I notice its some kind of political NGO. Hmm, you're right, using such material shouldn't be encouraged. If they make valid points, they sure cite sources that can be used. One other point: This story includes some spanish language sources. Inevitable, as long as the reports are still coming in, imho. But shouldn't they be exchanged for englich language ones as soon as possible (that's a bit selfish demand, I don't speak spanish)? And what about that Norwegian source??? If I would understnad what's in it, I would search for a replacement, but that'slike Chines for me. What to do with this? Gray62 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While there's no specific rule, it is rare we would put comments from an organisation without an article. The reason is because the relevance of comments from an organisation who don't merit a wikipedia article (i.e. are not notable or not independently covered in reliable secondary sources) is highly questionable. Generally speaking we should only include comments of great relevance. We should not include comments from all and sundry since it would get out of hand (there's no need for 1000 comments in the article), and the random comments of some organisation no one has ever heard of are also likely to be of little interest to readers. Of course, it's possible the organisation is notable, and no one has created a wikipedia article yet hence why I emphasised they must be notable/merit an article rather then they must have an article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of events

"Zelaya was seized by soldiers and hustled aboard a plane to Costa Rica early Sunday ..." "Sunday afternoon, Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya's letter of resignation..." (emphasis added)[5] -- Rico 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is? The letter is a forgery, dated saturday, and can be found in PDF form on the net. My personal conclusion is that after Zelaya was forcibly exiled, someone with access to his letterhead (its in the presidential palace, which the military seized) and official seal (again, in the presidential palace seized earlier in the day) forged it as an attempt to confer legitimacy on the previous actions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsheptak (talk • contribs) 10:34, June 29, 2009

My point was that the coup preceded the congressional approval, which was just a vote to accept a sham resignation.

At this point, I'd like to know how the Supreme Court ordered the military to exile the president. Did the justices call some general? Also, where does the Supreme Court get the authorization to order the military to exile a president?

I can't deal with this article any more. I'm going to have to leave it up to the Most Interested Persons. After seeing an IP reinsert the fact that the pres called his successor a no-good, low-down, ornery cus, or something like that, I give up. Oh, I'm sorry, he also pointed out that he'd been elected by the people. Of course, the top of that section already points that out, but -- what the heck -- we can't put that in there often enough. Did he say, "My daddy could beat up your daddy," too? It was bad enough that we have to have that Chavez said he'd attack if the army invaded his embassy, even though they didn't. Ten years from now, is this going to be so amazing that it belongs in an encyclopedia? (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

I've removed the article from my watch list. Boa sorte. -- Rico 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The letter was written and drafted on the 25th because it was the date that the president illegally went inside of the military quarters and raided and stole the material for the referendum. Chupu (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't write or sign it, and BTW, there was nothing illegal about him going to the airbase and getting the material for the referendum. No one was calling that an illegal act, even in the Honduran papers. Rsheptak (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Pushing ahead with an illegal referendum is just that: illegal. Zelaya was disavowing a Court decision. Not only that: Zelaya is not constitutionally qualified to hold elections on his own; that is usurping the funciont of both the military and the electoral bodies. 190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding. Retrieving the referendum materials was not illegal, and no one suggested he "stole" them as Chupa suggested above. I didn't say anything about the legality of the referendum itself. Rsheptak (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieving referendum materials to hold a referendum declared illegal is illegal (and unconstitutional; it's usurping the duties of electoral bodies).190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Arrested"

The army's detention of Zelaya was, at a minimum, irregular in several regards. As such, I believe that the word "arrested" is just as POV as "kidnapped". We should use a neutral word like "detained", except when explicitly reporting claims from either side. (I'm forced to add this section because "arrested" keeps getting added in various places.) Homunq (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Arrested implies legality and legitimacy, kidnapped implies the opposite. "Detained" or "seized" is preferable. On a related matter, NPOV clearly requires that we characterize the coup d'état as a coup d'état, rather than an "intervention by the armed forces" or some similar euphemism. It is universally agreed to be a coup by everyone from Fidel Castro to the Wall Street Journal, so we will call it a coup. <eleland/talkedits> 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, in the above you seem to dispute the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Honduras as well as its National Congress. Tell me, who other than they have authority? They are legitmate and Zelaya was clearly arrested and banished on the order of the Supreme Court, which appears to have the authority to determine when a president is acting against the constitution, and thus when he is to be stripped of citizenship. We cannot use Coup d'etat because it WASN'T THE GOVERNMENT THAT WAS OVERTHROWN. The Honduran constitution has no provision for the exact impeachment proceedings. What is clear is that all the branches of government other than the executive were in agreement that Zelaya was attempting to dismantle the Honduran Constitution through his byzantine "non-binding referendum" tactics. Further, it wasn't as though the military spontaneously deposed him. The military acted on orders from the Supreme Court which were then ratified by the Congress.

Also, Eleland, how would you have preferred they proceed, given that Chavez and his cronies were meddling in the affairs of Honduras? Chavez's ambassador Rodas was essentially a Venezuelan operative working on behalf of Zelaya/Chavez. The Honduran government legally deposed this man Zelaya, and the HONDURAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT OVERTHROWN, but is CLEARLY IN TACT. You are outrageously incorrect, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.206.156 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny how you disregard the Honduran institutions on a matter conecerning their own country. They certainly don't agree with that. Just because others say it's one thing doesn't mean that it is. I doubt many countries who have conedmned the turn of events has even read the Honduran Constitution. The word "coup" is POV.190.77.117.50 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, anybody who adds "court order" (as opposed to something like "supported by the court") had better have a reference for such a supposed court order - either the actual document or a clear statement that such a document exists. Homunq (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons and reasoning

Cut:

It is also alleged that the planned National Assembly would have postponed the end of his term even if he were not re-elected.

Would the person who added this please supply a ref? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the idea from the article on the referendum. The article had a lot of unsourced allegations, I thought that this one was at least relevant as an allegation. For me the issue is not so much whether this allegation is true as the fact that it has been made, so I used it unsourced. I agree it's had enough time to find a source and should go now. Homunq (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple sources which might provide some context

It is hard to write about something like how the Honduran Constitution is being applied here without some background about how the Constitution functions in general. According to Tim Merrill, ed. (1995). "THE CONSTITUTION". Honduras: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help), the constitution has little effect on political realities, at least not in the sense of being a binding legal document which governs what happens. As for the role of the army, according to [6], they are caught in between the two parties in this political battle, including disputes over the construction of a new civilian terminal at Palmerola Air Base, administration of primary elections in November 2008 (the article doesn't expand on that one), and other issues. How any of this could be turned into something WP:NPOV is a bit beyond me, though. A lot of what I read makes it look like people's political opinions strongly color how they see events. Kingdon (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like good material to start a stub on Constitution of Honduras. Homunq (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the Constitution IS binding. Really, what he must have meant is that the country is full of corruption. Ever heard of Chimirri? Or Padilla Sunseri? Or any other politician (almost)? That is exactly the problem, that it has effect on political realities, but just when big shots want it to. For example, Zelaya is calling upon the constitution to "explain" that he is the president. I agree that his impeachment was badly managed, so much that it became a coup. But he isn't, by the constitution, our president anymore. He went to do illegal stuff (like using government money to do a non-government poll, using it for his own agenda), or to fire the commander of the military because he refused to carry an illegal act, and failed to meet with the constitutional duties he was appointed; and so, the constitution gives power to the congress to impeach him, but they butchered that power and made a coup. The facts are the facts. And the constitution is that:

"a binding legal document which governs what happens."

MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Constitution

This quote from the Honduran Constitution was added to lead:

The Honduran Constitution (article 42, section 5) forbids urging the continuation or re-election of the president.

It is not clear are all how this relates to the rest of the paragraph. JRSP (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-zelaya protest photos

I think that 10K people at a protest deserve a photo, too. This is balance, unlike silly equivocating about calling a coup a coup. Unfortunately, this is the best I can find. Anti-Zelaya people here, would you want that photo to represent you? Homunq (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pro-coup, but I say sure, upload it. --Tocino 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Untrue Statement About Twitter

Can we please try to get a citation for the line regarding #honduras being the "primary means of communication for Honduran citizens due to the media blackout"? I live in Honduras, and I can gaurantee that most people here have barely even heard of twitter. The primary means of communication in Honduras is cell phone and --gasp-- person-to-person conversation. Moreover, there hasn't been a "media blackout." Most people here don't really even care that much about the crisis; they're just trying to go about their business. Internet, TV, newspapers are all operating normally, although I would accept that the TV appears to be under-reporting events. 190.4.42.2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a twitter user in said country I fully agree with this, unless its solidly referenced it must go. Telesur is not available on the tv but is on the internet. CNN is available. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So true. I promoted twitter at my UNIVERSITY (where you would expect people at least heard of it) and they just made the wtf expression. Even the teacher. Who looks nerdy. But, probably it meant that twitter was one of the only ways the people could communicate with the exterior. Because, you could massively communicate with anyone that wanted to hear you. It would be impossible to call, for example, news networks or make the news spread by familiars in the exterior as fast. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Material to add to the article

The Honduras Middle-School Teachers Union (Copemh) began a strike on Monday to support the government of ousted President Manuel Zelaya, who was forced into exile by the military on Sunday, the union's president said.Alongside the strike, teachers will hold rallies in Honduras capital Tegucigalpa and place barricades across major roads all over the country, Copemh President Eulogio Chavez told the media. "We are not going to allow Roberto Micheletti to usurp the constitutional president, Manuel Zelaya, who was elected by all Hondurans," Chavez said. "We are demanding his immediate restitution and we will be in the streets until it is achieved." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/30/content_11623249.htm93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the U.N. General Assembly urged member states to recognize only Zelaya's government, and he said the Argentine and Ecuadorean presidents and the U.N. General Assembly and OAS chiefs would accompany him on a trip back to Honduras on Thursday. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55R24E2009063093.96.148.42 (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's been semi-protected. You cannot edit the article unless you create an account and log in. Consider creating an account. -- Rico 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is that not displayed on the page, as it should be? The article is currently very one sided. "The Organization of American States (OAS) has given the interim Honduran government three days to restore ousted President Manuel Zelaya to power". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8127867.stm93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? If the article's very one sided, we could use your help in WP:Undue weight compliance. I added the UN update, but it looks like just the OAS head and the Honduran ambassador to OAS (maybe) will be accompanying him. Since this is an encyclopedia, and not news, I'm not going to put anything about who may or may not accompany him. We can wait and see who does. The teacher strike looks important. You know how strikes in Latin America influence. The "three days" thing is really new. Somebody'll probably put it in. It's night in the Western Hemisphere right now. -- Rico 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Add speculation from opinion piece?

I'm uncomfortable with adding this:

Conservative writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa hypothesized in a June 30, 2009, New York Times editorial that the winner in Honduras was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Llosa remarked that Chávez helped Zeleya "set a trap for the military" and that they "fell for it", in effect "turning an unpopular president who was nearing the end of his term into an international cause célèbre." This fact according to Llosa now allows the "caudillo" Chávez "to claim the moral high ground", and exploit the situation to make himself the "unlikely champion of Jeffersonian democracy in Latin America."[7]

-- Rico 09:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes it uncomfortable, in my opinion, is that in this case Vargas Llosa is awfully wrong. Chavez "to claim the moral high ground"??? "To make himself champion" of what? A president who has broken his own country's Constitution and laws a thousand times, who has maneuvered by all means to remain indefinitely in power, and, in short, who has deliberately suppressed almost all of the rules that define a Democracy??? That's preposterous, even if Vargas Llosa himself wrote it. --AVM (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with adding this opinion piece is that any editor could feel free to balance it with a Granma editorial from Fidel Castro.[8]. I would suggest deleting it. JRSP (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We can wind up with a giant section full of competing opinion pieces. -- Rico 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Media reactions", which would lead one to the reasonable conclusion that the objective is to log the opinions/"reactions" of reliable and credible commentators in the "media". Llosa would fit that description as would The New York Times. Whether Granma does, would be a matter for debate and depend on the context and editor consensus. I see nothing wrong or unorthodox to Wikipedia about having a section on the views of notable commentators on the issue. Just because one through WP:OR doesn't like the ultimate opinion of a particular writer, to me would seem of no consequence to its inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Chupu

I think the images uploaded by Chupu are not Creative Commons as Chupu says. HondurasMarchComparison.jpg, Protestagainstmel.jpg, Nochavezortega.jpg, Cnnlaverdad.jpg, Michepresi.jpg, Nomel.jpg. I will try to find then in the newspaper they were published.--Ferreira^talk 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One I have found: Michepresi.jpg is here and is licensed under {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}.--Ferreira^talk 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why were they removed from the article? Is Wikipedia evil? Leave them until they are found copyrighted which I keep on saying they aren't. Chupu (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do not you say were you got the pictures?--Ferreira^talk 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Democracy Now a reliable source? It What is in the article doesn't look NPOV to me, at all!

This is in the article:

President of the Honduran Peace Committee, Dr. Juan Almendares, speaking 29 June on Democracy Now! said: the military are taking repressive actions against some members of the legitimate government of President Zelaya and also popular leaders. There is effectively a national strike of workers, people, students and intellectuals, and they are organized in a popular resistance-run peace movement against this violation of democracy.[9]

It seems pretty clear to me that there are protestors on both sides. -- Rico 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as an NPOV source; sources are only reliable or unreliable on facts. On this one, I'd say that "effectively a national strike... against this violation of democracy" is in the realm of opinion, not fact. Something like "opponents are promoting a national strike" would be fact. Homunq (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over lede

CieloEstrellado, I and others are involved in an edit war over the first sentence. [10] CieloEstrellado's edits contain no edit summary[11], even after I pointed that out.[12] "democratic" is not sourced. My edit was. CieloEstrellado's last five edits have no edit summaries:

1. 01:43, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 01:51, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Background */")
3. 01:52, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Background */")
4. 15:05, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:24, 1 July 2009 (edit summary: "")

We can't see what CieloEstrellado is doing. -- Rico 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly call that an edit war. If you wanted edit summaries from me you should have put a message in my Talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Grrr.... discussion of referendum is now 100% anti-

This is ridiculous. One thing is to add your side of the story, another thing is to completely remove the actual wording of the referendum. We have to base this in facts, here, and the wording of the referendum is one undebated fact. Homunq (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and that the president was going to do something unconstitutional.

Statements that this empowered the supremes to order the military to exile the president would have to be accompanied by very reliable sources.

If there's a WP:DUE problem, let us know here, and I'll have a look. Please link to the section. -- Rico 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's editorial in the June 27th El Tiempo (still available on line) for why a constitutional convention might be a good idea. Rsheptak (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

POV sections

Questions on motives

It seems like somebody created a section in order to introduce POV stuff. This looks like opinion to me:

Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin America specialist at Pomona College, noted in The Christian Science Monitor that the crisis over use of the referendum has its roots in Honduras's cold war era constitution, which he describes as written by the country's "liberal elites", and thus does not provide for referendums. Salas went on to state that "The referendum is the primary vehicle through which change has occurred in countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and the elites know it. They wanted to nip this thing in the bud."[13]

It's bad enough we're relying on the media. Some media is decidedly less reliable than other media. -- Rico 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, the section is there to make note of the theories and views of those who question the legitimacy of / or oppose (i.e. "opposition") the coup - per Wp:Undue. It contains only Wp:reliable sources, and is only Wp:POV as far as any counter opinion to the coup being a legitimate act at the behest of the majority would be. The observation that "referendums" have been the proverbial "weapon of choice" for Zelaya and his current Latin American allies on the left is indisputable. As for the view of Mr. Salas that the Honduran constitution was written during the cold war by the elites in the country - it would be hard to find any credible sources that would disagree with that assessment. The fact that it was written immediately after the military dictatorships of Juan Alberto Melgar Castro and Policarpo Paz García (both trained at the U.S. School of the Americas and the latter with ties to the infamous Battalion 316 death squads), would lead most observers knowledgeable of the nations history to see nothing POV about the above statement or hypothesis (in the aforementioned section) that follows it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a section specifically designed to introduce theories and opinions into the article. WP:DUE does not require that a separate 'balancing' section be incorporated into the article. The sources (The Christian Science Monitor, National Catholic Reporter, and NPR) aren't very reliable from a Wikipedia perspective. NPR is all about opinion.

I have no problem with presenting both sides. I do have a problem with using this section as an excuse to simply inject opinion into the article, that has not been supported by reliable sources, or that does not satisfy WP:NOT.

You write, "The observation that 'referendums' have been the proverbial 'weapon of choice' for Zelaya and his current Latin American allies on the left is indisputable."

Of course this "observation" is disputable. More importantly, it's opinion. It looks like an op ed. That's not encyclopedic.

You wrote, "As for the view of Mr. Salas that the Honduran constitution was written during the cold war by the elites in the country - it would be hard to find any credible sources that would disagree with that assessment."

I like having that in the article, but it needs to be supported by reliable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed textbooks published by academic presses). Most constitutions are written by "elites". -- Rico 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, of course peer-reviewed journals or books are preferable, however those will not be available on this subject for weeks if not months. With a current ever evolving situation such as this, we are usually left with reliable news sources with large print/media circulations.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, but while information about the coup itself will not be found in peer-reviewed sources, information about the Constitution have no reason not to be - it existed well before the coup, I'm sure. LjL (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong, itself, with "introducing POV stuff", or making a section especially for it (well, perhaps the latter might be less-than-ideal style, if the POVs can be better integrated). Wikipedia is all about describing points of view.

I hope you won't make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that various points of view cannot be described, because, obviously, it says exactly the opposite: as long as facts (i.e. citations from [[WP:RS|reliable sources) are provided to show that the opinions are true, and the opinions are not an extremely limited fringe view - at the end of the day, the opinions can be readily verified - then there is no reason not to include them

LjL (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Off-topic comment about changing others' indentation styles removed by the author, moved to his talk page LjL (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]

I think that the contention is that the section was a WP:COATRACK. Homunq (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you might be right about that, although to me it seemed more like a simple issue of WP:Structure. Of course, it all depends on how "fringe" and "extreme" the views given in the section are. But seriously, we shouldn't give impression that the coup/whateveryoucallit was "Definitely A Bad Thing (TM)", either! Sure, most countries are calling it such, but that's called politics. LjL (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this particular section in question was moved to "reactions", I have attempted to more appropriately name it "questioning of motives" as this seems to encapsulate part of what those commenting within it are attempting to do. To the original "tagger" of the section Rico, what exactly are your specific objections to the section presently, and how do you believe they can be alleviated for the tag to be removed? Are you questioning the factual accuracy, legitimacy of the opinion per Undue, etc?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the subsections should be deleted. Anything that (really) complies with WP:RS and WP:NOT can be incorporated into the article. The media's reaction is that they produced news stories. How they felt about it, or whether they were in a quandry over things is problematic for WP:NOT and WP:OR. -- Rico 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, with all due respect if you find a published op-ed by a notable commentator to be Wp:OR then I would wager that you fundamentally misunderstand what the actually policy is. It is in reference to an editor's original research, not a published writer's research in a reliable source. Moreover, the "medias" reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, is of course relevant to an article on the subject. These are not laymen, or teenagers on a personal blog, those cited are published authors writing in major publications.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau wrote, "you find a published op-ed by a notable commentator to be Wp:OR..."

I never wrote that. You did.

I find a published op-ed by a commentator, notable or not, to be an unreliable source.

I find original thought about how the media felt about the coup, or about whether they were in a quandry over things, problematic for WP:NOT and WP:OR. That's what I wrote.

Redthoreau wrote, "you fundamentally misunderstand what the actually policy is."

Writing about me in a way that reflects on me negatively, violates WP:NPA -- especially when you're mistaken. Please stop. Write about the article, write about what I've actually written, or what I've done if you like. Please don't write about what "[I] fundamentally misunderstand," unless you know it won't reflect on me personally, negatively.

Redthoreau wrote, "It is in reference to an editor's original research, not a published writer's research in a reliable source."

Consider rereading what I actually wrote.

Redthoreau wrote, "Moreover, the 'medias' reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, is of course relevant to an article on the subject."

Point well taken. Question: What are we going to do when the article fills up with reactions to events by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences, now that there are handy-dandy subsections for their "reactions" and theories? How will we determine which are worthy of inclusion, in the face of Most Interested Persons who really, really, really want them in the article?

Also, how relevant are they to the coup? Relative to the importance of the facts about the coup -- itself -- how relevant are the reactions, analyses and opinion pieces? Should we start a content fork for reactions, analyses and opinion pieces by analysts whose job it is to study such geopolitical occurrences -- because this can get pretty big over time?

Understand, also, that while The New York Times and the Washington Post may be reliable sources, op eds published in them are not necessarily the opinions of those newspapers, and therefore do not share the same reputation for reliability as those newspapers.

Redthoreau wrote,"These are not laymen, or teenagers on a personal blog, those cited are published authors writing in major publications."

We already went through that. The Christian Science Monitor, National Catholic Reporter, and NPR aren't the most reliable of sources. I'm a "published author." I've had opinion pieces published "in major publications." I've been on NPR. I could have said anything. -- Rico 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Media analysis

This looks like it's been added to somehow inject opinionated theories into the article. -- Rico 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally out of line. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first source cited is an opinion piece. -- Rico 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, please be more specific on "this". Do you mean the entire section including all subsections? In addition, an "opinion" piece would be warranted if you are logging the reaction i.e. (opinion) of a notable observable on the issue. The majority of all articles are formulated through the secondary use of a reliable sources "opinion".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition. WP:NOT must also be satisfied. Opinion pieces tend not to be reliable sources, and most Wikipedia articles do not cite opinion pieces as supposedly reliable sources. I'm just referring to the two named subsections. -- Rico 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, opinion pieces are reliable sources for someone's opinion, which is what the section is documenting. It is not as if one were using Llosa's editorial for general facts in an article, the New York Times op-ed by him is being used to cite his actual “opinion” on the matter. This seems to be self evident, and thus not in conflict with WP:RS in any way. I would agree that Op-ed’s are usually not satisfactory references for general material in the article, but they are the clearest medium for referencing an individual’s personal views on a particular subject.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The third is to "narconews". It looks like a blog.[14]
The Media reactions section's littered with Fact tags. -- Rico 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, I have removed the material without citations (thus no fact tags remain), and agree with you that NarcoNews should be replaced if possible with a more reliable source or removed. However the rest of the section is ref'd to credible publications in my opinion, do you disagree?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tag the "Media analysis" subsection. My main concern is that we not have sections that invite editors to inject their opinions into the article, and then cite opinion pieces or less-than-reliable sources, just to get the opinions they want into the article. -- Rico 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, if you find any material in the article that appears to be the unreferenced view of an editor than please remove it. Presently, all I see is the cited views of others from reputable news outlets. If you wish to challenge NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, or the National Catholic Reporter and have them discredited as inappropriate Wikipedia sources, then there is an suitable avenue for you to do that. However, I have yet to see you question the accuracy of anything in the section, only these sources legitimacy (which are not your run of the mill blogs by any stretch of the imagination). In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources (which would meet the criteria of being reliable to most on Wikipedia).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

+ I have gone ahead and removed the NarcoNews material. The only sources remaining in this particular section as of now, derive from the New York Times and Washington Post.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

International reaction image

Is it just my PC, or is this image: [15], which is in the International reaction section, a red x and not working? --Tocino 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not working for me either (Internet Explorer 7 for reference). Abby Kelleyite (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Pinochet uncalled for

There is no evidence of any ties to Augusto Pinochet so I reckon the remark is just the opinion of the person who wrote the section. Also the fact that the Army Chief and the Air Force General had attended WHINSEC is not enough an evidence to me of foul play. There are also many officers who have attended the school and are currently backing Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Unless hard evidence is given I prefer to believe they acted on good faith. --Agcala (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agcala, the opinion is of the author cited in the quote, and he does not make "ties" between Pinochet and this coup, but merely points out that Pinochet was once trained at the School of America's as well. Additionally, it is your prerogative to have "good faith" and not be convinced of "foul play", but all of our views as editors on the matter should be irrelevant.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Did they take Military Coups 101? -- Rico 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wp:Sarcasm is always helpful.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The title itself is NPOV

Whether or not the events of the last few days constitute a coup d'etat is a matter of legitimate debate. Is removal of a sitting President a coup d'etat even if approved by/requested by other branches of government due to violations of a constitution? Could Zelaya's defiance of the Supreme Court be considered a sort of coup d'etat. Is this merely defined by what other countries' executives say it is?

Doesn't smell like a coup to me and a great many other yanqui imperialist northerners, including the preponderance of our commentators, and it doesn't seem like a coup to perhaps an overwhelming majority of Hondurans. Europeans (and maybe Barack Obama) are taking it to be a coup because the military was involved. We have a legitimate lack of consensus here, and titling the article "Honduran coup d'etat of 2009" is thus POV. Bkalafut (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The user who moved the article cited a "talk page consensus" that I can't find here. I'm reading the discussion of the move, and it appears hasty at best, with the "consensus" that emerged being a short-term fluctuation not reflected in the 1 July posts. If this is a coup, it is an outlier. A more neutral title is better until the question gets sorted out, presumably by the Hondurans and not by Wikipedia editors. That's something that will take weeks or months. I couldn't move the article back to its old title, so I moved it to "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis". Bkalafut (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be portraying a limited, indeed mistaken, view of consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please don't use such a distorted view to game the system and unilaterally rename the article, again. Consensus is based on good reasons. -- Rico 17:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it isnt a dictatorship either; its governed by rules, which have been ignored in this case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Then why don't you fill me in, rather than linking nonsequiturs. Meaningful consensus is based on good reasons, and the previous unilateral move by Homunq disregarded the good reasons given in this thread re: the BLP guidelines. As for "gaming the system", you really ought to watch how you talk to people and consider when you're being simply insulting. If you think that an article title on Wikipedia is so important to me that I'd "game a system" you're off your rocker. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, this should be moved back to "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis", which is a far more neutral title. It is arguably inappropriate (although not unreasonable) to call this event a "coup d'etat". Zelaya was removed at the behest of the state's courts and legislature. The word coup d'etat has the denotation of an illegal change of government by force. Whether that is the case here is highly debatable. Strikehold (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." - it's a question of "If everybody except the subject itself calls it a duck ..." Calling it anything else would be NPOV and OR. And no, Zelaya was not removed at the behest of the state's courts and legislature: the decision by the legislature was made when Zelaya was already in Costa Rica, in his pijamas. The "decision" by the court was also announced after Zealaya was expelled. Oh, and if the fact that the legislature voted unanimously (after the fact, and when anyone supporting Zelaya had been threatened with the same fate (the threat is even on this page), means the case becomes debatable, we will have to change a lot to our articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Francisco Franco ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if everyone stated that OJ Simpson was a murderer we must label him so? No, that goes against BLP, which is one of our most important policies. A coup is an international crime and unless there is a judgment, we are bound by ethics and policy not to declare it as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between OJ SImpson and Zelaya. OJ had a due process with right to defense, and he was found not guilty. It doesn't seem to me a legal overthrow to get a president out of his bed in the middle of the night and to send him abroad.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not calling the people who committed this coup criminals. Applying BLP rules to events like this (when we know that those who commit X never call it an X) would (aside from introducing OR and NPOV as I said above) be logically impossible, since calling it "a constitutional crisis" would then become a BLP violation against Zelaya and any members of his government who also deserve an article on Wikipedia. I can understand why people who support this coup do not like it being called what it is - they are afraid of sanctions, losing US aid and a credit line with the World Bank but you cannot use Wikipedia to prop up your side of the story. --Paul Pieniezny (talk)

If the army had arrested Zelaya, and detained him for trial, there might be a debate. But they expelled him from the country. Case closed, it's a coup, whatever bits of paper the coup plotters come up with. Disembrangler (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. That is the basis of a legal system. Articles of impeachment should've been brought to President Zelaya. The proper legal body would've set a proper trial and sentenced had he been found guilty. This is textbook coup, regardless of how many crimes everyone is "absolutely" sure he committed. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to all reports, the Court ruled that he was acting unconstitutionally and ordered his removal. That is a trial and follows their constitution for removing individuals. Thus, he was impeached according to their standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times reported that a "detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president."[16] Do you have a reliable source that states that "the Court ... ordered his removal," or that "he was impeached according to their standards"? -- Rico 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source right there says it. What do you think "detention" means? Do you think it means that they are allowed to operate in standard authority? It is a measure placed against someone convicted of an illegal act. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source does not say that "the Court ... ordered his removal," or that "he was impeached according to their standards."
I think "detention" means: 1. the act of detaining. 2. the state of being detained. 3. maintenance of a person in custody or confinement, esp. while awaiting a court decision.[17] It is not necessarily a measure placed against someone convicted of an illegal act. It may be a measure placed against someone accused of an illegal act. You can be detained on the street, and then allowed to go free. -- Rico 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by using coup, we are considering anyone involved a criminal. A coup is a term that can only be decided by a judiciary body, i.e. the World Court. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a biography of a living person. -- Rico 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out before - BLP deals with pages that discuss events in which living people are participating. That covers more than just their individual biography pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya was not removed at the behest of the legislature. The legislature approved the coup, after Zelaya had been removed (by the military). The Supreme Court ordered his detention. -- Rico 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Court ordered his physical removal. The Legislature ordered his removal of power and appointed a replacement. Both were involved in his removal. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." From WP:NAME: "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." Though this issue has been argued to death on this page, I have yet to see any of those who oppose the word "coup" cite reliable sources using other words. The top three results in a Google News search for Honduras all use the word "coup". To be blunt: unless you are arguing based on Wikipedia policies, you are irrelevant to consensus. Homunq (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and moved back to where it was, and where consensus and policy say it should be. Debate may continue with further discussion/evidence, but the burden of evidence is definitely on those who want to avoid calling it a coup, and moves to some awkward alternate title should be avoided unless there is consensus otherwise. Disembrangler (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV - this is a crime. Regardless of how many papers claim an individual committed a crime, only a court can determine it. Thus, only articles describing the World Court's ruling on the matter are acceptable under BLP's determination of reliable sources. The rest fall under rumor or innuendo, which Wikipedia is not to print. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the name reflects extremely widespread usage, and in the body text this is clarified, including the coup plotters' claims that it's all kosher. No WP:BLP problems with that. Disembrangler (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted, even if every article pronounced someone a murderer, WMF makes it clear that we cannot claim them as such in a BLP unless there is a court ruling which would be the only true reliable source. Anything else falls under rumor and innuendo. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not like having a Murderer OJ Simpson article, it's like having a Nicole Simpson#Murder section. The latter is no BLP violation.Homunq (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And NAME overrides BLP. If there were nobody prosecuted for the crime, could we not have an article on the unabomber? This is distinct from using the word "coup" in links to this article from other BLP-covered articles, which would be inappropriate. Homunq (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing overrides BLP. BLP is a legal position put forth by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is our supreme policy and one that has precedence over everything else. Please don't make such ridiculous claims again. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misstated. What I meant to say was that what applies in this argument is NAME, not BLP. This is not an article about the golpistas, it's an article about the coup, and using the widely-recognized name does not constitute a criminal accusation, because "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." Homunq (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is the contrary. A coup would fall under the same thing as a "massacre" or anything else. Such things would need to be declared by the World Court or other body that is set up to determine that. This has been the constant application in many articles. To claim it as a word that is the name of an illegal act would violate our practices, as we are not to prejudice anything nor say anything without a strong verifiable ruling, which in such cases would mean a reference to the judiciary body declaring such. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong - this naming is absolutely in line with WP policy and practice. Further argument here isn't likely to be productive, so either accept that or follow dispute resolution. You could also file an WP:OTRS on behalf of the coup plotters (good luck with that). Disembrangler (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:BLP. You obviously also don't understand that accusing people of committing a crime before a trial has occurred is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, if you're that convinced, follow dispute resolution. You could try WP:BLPN as a start. Disembrangler (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do favor keeping it under "Crisis," not because of NPOV, but just to indicate a broader focus on the events leading up to the coup and the fallout. However, the argument that "coup" is POV is an absurd misunderstanding of what NPOV means. Everyone outside of Honduras acknowledges that it's a coup, to the point where we have analytical articles in the major media saying, "Gee, isn't it amazing how unified everyone is in condemning this coup?" NPOV requires that we call it a coup. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But this is not necessary for including background/aftermath, and if the coup-imposed government does survive, eventually there will be other articles where new information will fit better. And WP:NAME strongly suggests going with the universal "coup". Disembrangler (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We call it a coup because of the reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times and Washington Post) that have had no compunction over calling it a coup. It doesn't matter whether it is, "a matter of legitimate debate." We don't debate here to synthesize our own WP:OR. The reliable sources know that the anti-Zelaya people, and so-called "coup government," have said it wasn't a coup. They dismiss that notion, and still call it a coup.
I don't know if the removal of a sitting president is a coup -- even if approved by or requested by other branches of government, due to violations of a constitution. We do know that the reliable sources call the Supreme Court-ordered coup a coup. You asked, "Is this merely defined by what other countries' executives say it is?" No, but I will point our that the UN called it a coup.
We're not going to rename the article just because a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, no matter how vocal they are here on this talk page. -- Rico 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP may or may not be operative here. NAME might override this. It's in a grey area. Dismissing those who see a dispute as a teensy weensy minority is a weasel tactic, and I presume you know that it is a weasel tactic. Unless you can quantify this, it's irrelevant. NYT and Washington Post have not investigated the legal issues and are thus not reliable sources on whether or not this is a coup. As for the UN remark, it doesn't even merit a response. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that one of the sources we have in the article (don't remember which and I'm a bit in a hurry, sorry, but some major newspaper) says something on the lines that some US government representative, or someone, stated "the coup was illegal". That means it's being called a coup "by default", but calling it such doesn't necessarily imply it's illegal. This may go against the definitions we like, but hey... Given this, I do believe it makes very little sense to dispute the article's title on the ground of WP:BLP's rules on not saying whether someone committed a crime if that isn't known. LjL (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Every reference I've read anywhere (including USA governmental and Cuban governmental sources) says it's a coup. It's clearly considered, by the whole world, to be a coup. Name of article is not a violation of WP:NPOV if it references this event as a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly considered "by the whole world" to be a coup, then why this endless discussion? Governments and "The whole world" are not one and the same.Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See, now we've had discussion about the name. What the Washington Post and the New York Times say is irrelevant as they are not reliable sources re: legal questions. We're in a grey area where WP:NAME and WP:BLP suggest conflicting action. Probably better to go with WP:NAME for now. It's still NPOV but probably more user-friendly. Bkalafut (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The title itself was POV and the person who said we are not a democracy is correct. When a certain name isnt inherent (we have to call Burma/Myanmar either Buma or Myanmar) we must never choose a title that reflects the POV of one party, in this case those who support Zelaya and not Micheletti as Predsident. To those who say everyone thinks it is a coup, if that was true Honduras would be in peace righjt now instead of facing the gravest crisis of its nearly 200 years of independence. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to take the world consensus as the right stance to take in this issue. Terms like 'coup d'etat' have great weight in international politics, and using it implies unconstitutionality, illegality, and wide disapproval within the country itself. Left-wing governments like Venezuela will obviously disagree with the takeover. It is unsurprising that the USA also disagrees with it, Obama probably trying to not look like he is a leader that supports military removals of leaders in South America. The EU and other international bodies like the UN disagree with it because any stance otherwise will look like they do not support supreme state sovereignty. Although I can not support these claims with evidence, the fact is that bias in their responses may possible exist, and therefore using international response as the basis for naming something like this which is a POV is inherently creating bias in the article itself. I think "crisis" would be a much more apt title. BurningZeppelin (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)