Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/Archive 3

Miami Herald article about Zelaya's referendum

Is the Miami Herald a credible source? If so, what do people think of this? This is an article which describes Zelaya as "pushing ahead" with a "divisive vote" (on the referendum), despite the opposition of the presidential candidate in the November elections from his own party, Elvin Santos, who stated that the referendum would lack credibility because the people who would count the votes would be members of Zelaya's government rather than an independent electoral tribunal. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Zelaya's "democratic" credentials. To my knowledge, Santos is not involved with the Micheletti government. Would his opinion count for something? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald has a clear bias, as many sources we might draw on here, but it is still considered an RS on the facts. What you appear to be asking here is if it is an RS or even in itself notable for its opinions; the answers are: no (there's no such thing as an RS for opinions) and: IMO not in itself, though IMO it represents well the opinion of conservative Estadounidenses, whose general opinions on this matter are IMO notable but not overly so (meriting 1-3 sentences total in the article.) Homunq (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Homunq...I'd settle for 1-3 sentences.  :) What about the comments of Santos, though. I would think those should count for plenty more sentences than that, though? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, this article isn't an opinion article. It's documenting that Zelaya's actions are dividing his own Liberal Party (a factual assertion, since he, Santos and Micheletti are all from the same party). Micheletti's actions might be equally divisive, but as far as I know, Santos is not associated with the coup, and it appears to me that he's representing a different Honduran viewpoint, which is critical of Zelaya's actions. I'm wondering if I have that right as well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just listening to Santos on CNN-Spanish and IMHO he's even more of a fool than your average politician. Or not, but he was at least saying wildly foolish and contradictory things to try to avoid taking any sides on the coup, which is basically impossible to do. Anyway, as to your question... I'd say that the division in the party is well-documented. And I'd further say that Santos represents little beyond his own political ambitions. But that's, as I said, just MHO. Homunq (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not taking sides in this coup demonstrates judgment, not foolishness. Both sides are wrong. But that's an opinion...though it is factual that both sides broke the law.  :) I just thought it was interesting that, as a non-participant on either side in the coup, he referred to the executive's control over this referendum as a sign that it wouldn't mean anything. This was a point the Supreme Court was emphatic about in that documentation - it's the legislative branch and the electoral tribunal, "and not the Executive Power" ("y no el Poder Ejecutivo") that is to have control over whether an electoral question is put to the people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, also it's prudent. Remember this whole crisis is over (among some other options) when elections are held and a new president is elected. Both candidates Santos and Lobo need to be neutral to ensure that when time comes full recognition of their new government is achieved and full legitimacy is perceived. Taking any side could achieve lack of international recognition (if sided with the current government) or lack of internal support (if sided with previous government). Wikihonduras (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, I certainly hope there will be an end to this crisis. If this page is any indication, it may go on for years. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just writing to note that the particular article cited is actually an Associated Press piece, rather than a Miami Herald piece. This does not mean that editorial bias might not exist in the paper's choosing to use it or not use it, but I think the distinction is valuable in sorting out biases. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 or continuity. The reelection issue is moot.

You can read their orders here.

In my first reading, I find that the justices assert that only the electoral authorities have the right to undertake "consultas populares," that the constitution can only be amended by the processes described in it, and that some of its provisions are set in stone and cannot be amended. They accuse Zelaya of usurpation of powers and treason. They order the armed forces to detain him and bring him before a competent judicial authority. They do not order him removed from office (unless I missed something) and they do not order him deported. The orders are sealed and the operation is to be carried out secretly to avoid his escape.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, but according to Alberto Valiente Thoresen, Honduran public officials are explicitly authorized by law to carry out public opinion research necessary to fulfill their functions.

He writes that Zelaya "invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006."

Despite the convoluted arguments in its orders, it appears that the Supreme Court made new law to justify ordering Zelaya's arrest. Nowhere does it accuse him of violating Article 239 -- again, unless I missed something. The entire decision is based on preventing the people of Honduras from being given an official medium to express their opinions about holding a referendum to amend or replace their constitution.

The issue of reelection is over.

Jules Siegel (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules...thanks, I've been trying to get someone to do a translation job on that for me for a bit now. What does the following mean, though? This is also from that material.

CONSIDERANDO: Que es de público y notorio conocimiento que el ciudadano JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, ha dejado de ostentar la condición de Presidente Constitucional de la República, caracter por el cual fue presentado el presente Requerimiento Fiscal ante este Supremo Tribunal de Justicia, para que se le siguiese el procedimiento establecido en la normativa procesal penal que regula el enjuiciamiento criminal funcionarios del estado.

This is very dense legal language, so my translation would have to be verified by a Spanish-speaking lawyer, but the closest I can get is:

CONSIDERING: That it is public and obvious knowledge that Citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES has stopped holding the position of Constitutional President of the Republic, because of which situation the Prosecutor's Request at hand was submitted to this Supreme Court of Justice, in order for the procedure established in the penal legal rules regulating the criminal prosecution of state functionaries be followed.

It seems to mean that it is common knowledge he is no longer president, and thus it might implicitly allude to Article 239. If that's as far as they were willing to go, they must have not had much confidence that it could be legally demonstrated that he had violated Article 239.

Requerimiento Fiscal is a specific legal term that does not translate very well into English, as a requerimento is more like a summons or subpoena than a request. In this case it appears to be the Attorney General's petition for an arrest order, which was granted. I am using the translation of the term provided in a [1] document concerning the El Salvador legal system submitted to the Organization of American States Secretariat for Legal Affairs. I'd have to do more research to find the exact equivalent in the United States legal system. Jules Siegel (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I may conditionally support the other side of the naming dispute if they invoke Art. 239 (Constitutional but inadequate process), but they plainly didn't, this is totally unconstitutional, Hondurans joins the ranks of Thais in court manipulation, and this is a coup.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why I'm trying to get a decent translation of the Spanish I've quoted above...if I'm reading it right (and perhaps I'm not), it's suggesting that it was publically and notoriously known that Zelaya is doing this because he wants to remain president. And please, do you really think he was doing this because, in the last six months of his four-year term, he suddenly discovered concern for popular democracy? It is suspicious. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's actually a good side issue...does anyone have Zelaya on record saying why he wanted to know if people wanted a new constitution if it wasn't about extending his time in office? What was it supposed to be about, and why couldn't he achieve that by getting his friends to run for President and Congress? I'd love to see how plausible the answers to that would be... Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He has commented on this issue a lot, saying that the present constitution keeps the poor in their misery and the oligarchs in power etc; it should be very easy to verify this. For instance here he says "que según Zelaya es necesaria para "democratizar más el país." ie that the constitution needs to change to democratize the country. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not very specific, though. And I understand enough Spanish to get that this article says that even if he doesn't say it, a reason he wants the new constitution is that he can remain president. ("...según Zelaya es necesaria para “democratizar” más el país. Sin embargo, el verdadero interés de Zelaya en la reforma, es que se permita la reelección presidencial, aunque él no lo admite abiertamente.") Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That second bit is the journalist opining. That was the first I could find but there are plenty of others. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote above is pretty opaque - my Spanish is good but IANAL and I'm not sure what it means. Here's my best-guess:

Considering: That it is notorious and public knowledge that the citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, has ceased showing the dignity of a Constitutional President of the Republic, for which reason the present Legal Complaint was presented to this Supreme Tribunal of Justice, so that the established procedure for criminal judgement of state functionaries, in the criminal justice norms, might be followed.

The italics are where the legal jargon overcomes me. In particular, the first italics might be something more like "show himself in condition to carry out the job of" ... but in my reading, "ostentar" is saying that he is visibly not doing the job, not that he has been in any way removed from the position.

Anyway, all of this is OR, sadly. Homunq (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, most Hondurans wouldn't understand it either,lawyers in any language study the language of law and then sell their services to non-lawyers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another random question of law: is it normal that only one judge would sign the arrest warrant? I mean, sure, for a normal arrest warrant, all it takes is a judge, but for the president... I'm changing the wording "the supreme court issued" to "a supreme court judge issued" until this is cleared up, though without prejudice - if any source shows any evidence (as opposed to a claim without visible basis) that the court as a whole considered the issue, I'd be OK with being reverted. Homunq (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On rereading the warrant, it says that the judge who signed was "unanimously named 'natural judge' by the full supreme court". So they clearly do have the full authority of the court behind that signature, though it is NOT clear that they have the full agreement of the court behind that signature. Homunq (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it clear why the judge was "unanimously named 'natural judge' by the full supreme court"? There is a degree of agreement implied by the unanimous appointment of an executor by a group. Do they state their motivations?--74.44.150.159 (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To Zachary Klaas, from Spain, the translation you were asking for:

CONSIDERING: That is public and notorious that the citizen JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, has stopped being in charge of Contitutional President of the Republic, being so why the present Prosecutor Requirement was presented before this Supreme Court of Justice, in order to follow the established procedure in the criminal procedural law which regulates the criminal judgement in the case of civil servants.

I hope it helps.--88.2.216.152 (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who answered this - it appears it didn't mean what I thought it meant, then. I do find it hard to believe that, in this entire document, there isn't one place where the Supreme Court said "Hey, c'mon guys, we all know why Zelaya's doing this." Homunq, if we did find something in this document like what I thought this section was, then it wouldn't be OR, it would be an RS as to the actual intentions of the Supreme Court, which matters in telling this story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, This document isn't the full logic of each decision. This is a timeline document. There are, somewhere out there on the net, texts of some of these decisions (look on the El Heraldo website where I remember seeing at least one of them) but also be suspicious. I've seen the text of offical orders on the websites change in the last week, so documents posted are being manipulated by someone. Rsheptak (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup by undemocratic forces

I come to the article as an outsider to try to work out what is going on, and where the true sympathies of the people lie. My attention is immediately caught by a pivotal reference to a poll by a private company, Mitofsky, alleging clear unpopularity of the deposed president. This rings warning bells, as I know that in my own country a similar private company, Yougov, uses dubious methods, such as selection of respondents (e.g., PC owners only), to furnish results desired by the client but not necessarily truthful or representative of the electorate. Then I scroll down to the key issue: the president wanted a Chávez-style poll to lengthen his term of office, and the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. Whatever the legal niceties of Honduran law, why would it be necessary to oust the president if, as Mitofsky alleges, he has no chance of winning? The combined pincer-movement of the Supreme Court and the market research company therefore looks redolent of a co-ordinated coup attempt by undemocratic, right-wing forces - end of story. The only real answer you can have to what I am saying is that Zelaya was going to go on to fabricate referendum results, a very weak argument, and based on what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I don't know -- a pattern of behavior, maybe? An allegience to Chavez, who last I checked, is not Honduran, and is no freind of democratic processes. Friends can agree to disagree. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of reliable, factual information. The "true sympathies" of where "the people" lie is really not a stated purpose. If it were, would you want to deal with thousands of technology users in Honduras reading this page and responding to it? In my own country, the USA, both major political parties engage in push polling, at national, state, and local levels. The point being, polls, and "votes" like the section above, can be used for information; and, the same tool can be misused to misrepresent the will of the people. CNN and FOX rarely poll the same. Likewise, Wiki technology can be used as reliable information; or, misused to serve propoganda interests. One can always claim to represent "the people". This I will say, yesterday was a key opportunity for the ex-President's support to be shown. There are 7 million Hondurans, and while I've not met all 7 million, I am reasonably certain they are capable of overcoming a fairly small contingent of troops if they overwhelmingly supported Zaleya. I have seen the great lengths that Hondurans will go to express themselves, and defend themselves. The plan to overrun the airport failed, despite considerable efforts of outside interests to play on the emotions of Hondurans. No, if there is a "coup" by undemocratic forces, perhaps it is here on the page in question; it remains to be seen if that "coup" stands. VaChiliman (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...either our original poster in this section is arguing that Zelaya is really popular, because the polling company fixed the numbers, in which case his referendum would be a threat and the fact that he didn't follow legal procedure would be an issue - or that he's really not popular, in which case the claim that the referendum would be a threat is overblown and therefore the fact that he didn't follow legal procedure would be a phony issue. But this poster can't have it both ways. I suspect that the real story is that Zelaya is more popular than this poll lets on, and after doing something like...well...marching into where the ballot boxes are kept to "liberate" them from the current government...might have enough of a bump in popularity to run for president again under the new regime. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We would need to know how the poll was carried out, and the question(s) asked. Doing polling in a country like Honduras is at best difficult. Polling done over the phone using land lines only (which is the technique used by most US polls) would reach only a small, unrepresentative sample of the populace. A cell phone based survey would reach a better sample, and a door to door survey would be best, but also bear in mind that in a country not used to polling, they'd be suspicious of the questioner. Rsheptak (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rsheptak. But as I understand it, your queries do not go far enough, and to meet normal standards of Wikipedia correctness any such 'market research' poll alleging to determine a matter of current affairs fact needs to be properly referenced, with links to where the original data can be publicly viewed. Either market research companies have some hitherto unstated exemption from normal Wiki policy, or else the flip side of this discussion page, along with its locking, forms part of the recent coup attempt(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing Continuismo

This is written in the article section "Preventing Continuismo"

Sánchez observed: "Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. [...] Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" [...] as in "no impeachment needed" [...] The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents.. . .The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo."

That sounds rather strange, given that referendum is mentioned on article 2, paragraph 1 of the Honduran constitution...

193.54.112.22 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes on Honduras' consitution

I think it's important to go into some more detail on which constitutional changes Zelaya proposed in order to fully understand the beginnings of this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.38.50 (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish-speaking version of Wikipedia

Our Spanish-speaking counterparts appear to be much better at balancing the issues than here. It is also possible that something is lost in translation, given my language disability in translating. I do think it is worth noting how another group has handled the natural disputes that arise where there are good faith differences of perception, multiple sources competing for attention, and complex issues. FWIW VaChiliman (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Spanish side has had this article in a tighter lockdown in general, though I'm not sure of the details. Protected status for longer periods. 76.204.79.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link. Its only semi-protected, like our article. They have also move protected it. I have added from there the alternative name of political crisis, we could certainly take material from there and translate it for our article as happens for many articles about things/people in the Spanish speaking world. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit from the Wall Street Journal, just before the coup

From the Wall Street Journal, quoting Zelaya:

"No one is going to stop Sunday's referendum," he told a cheering crowd. He called on the army to obey his orders. "If an army rebels against a president, then we are back to the era of the cavemen, back to the darkest chapters in Honduran history."

This isn't the Zelaya-in-his-pajamas-surprised-by-all-the-fuss we've been shown up until now on this page, is it? He actually dared the army to overthrow him? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, everyone in Honduras (including me) expected the coup to happen in the wednesday night/thursday morning timeframe when Micheletti was in consultation with the Military and congress. When it didn't, there was much public sentiment of relief that it had been avoided, including by the US ambassador, Llorens. Therefore it was a surprise when it did happen on Sunday. I have no doubt Zelaya WAS surprised. Rsheptak (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would take it so much as a dare as his apparently misplaced confidence that the army would not act without U.S. support. As the Washington Post noted: "U.S. diplomats had been trying to broker a compromise and were speaking to both sides hours before the coup. For decades, Washington has trained the Honduran military, and senior U.S. officials say they did not think that the Honduran military would carry out a coup." U.S. Misread Scale of Honduran Rift. Your point that Zelaya was not surprised about the tensions would certainly seem to be supported, although I do not agree that that viewpoint is all "we've been shown up until now on this page" as there are many entries on this talk page and in the article referencing the building crisis. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it does demonstrate brinksmanship, and a clear awareness that he was taking on the institutions of the Honduran state directly rather than being surprised that there was a conflict here. In other words, he acted deliberately to confront the state institutions - it was just that he expected them to back down instead of fight back. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourses that state crisis

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3742190,00.html "UN chief urges OAS to take lead role in Honduras crisis " http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-honduras-obama30-2009jun30,0,756706.story "U.S. treads carefully with Honduras crisis" It mentions both coup and crisis, but crisis is more neutral, and coup is more often refered to in quotes in the article. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ros_Lehtinen_honduras/2009/07/05/232084.html" Coup is referred to only once, and that was a quote from a person. "http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100002325/barack-fidel-che-obama-the-bolivarian-revolutions-useful-idiot-reverses-the-monroe-doctrine/" It says the planned referendum was the coup, and the military was a counter coup. http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4991 Does not agree it is a coup.

Many sources refer to it as a crisis, and crisis is more neutral. Crisis should be used. --Conor Fallon (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can run an Internet search for the words "Honduras" and "crisis", and find pages that refer to the coup as a "crisis". Who's denying that the coup caused a crisis?

voices.kansascity.com is the Kansas City Star Editorial Page. The author of this opinion piece spelled embarrassed, "embarraseed".

The Kansas City Star, published, "The United States has criticized the coup."[2]

I think you'd be more persuasive if you used the Washington Post, or New York Times, in the United States -- or the BBC or the Times in Britain.

I don't know what "newsmax" is, but the "person" it quoted was President Barack Obama. He said, on behalf of the United States, "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections."

The first sentence in the Los Angeles Times article states, "After failing to stave off a military coup in Honduras, the Obama administration moved gingerly Monday". [emphasis added]

The columnist in the blog you cite opines, "the army’s intervention against him [...] was a counter-coup." -- Rico 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources refer to it alternately as coup and crisis, crisis would be a neutral title. --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Star-Tribune article on Zelaya

This article, which VaChiliman posted earlier on this page, has some lovely bits about Zelaya in it. By the way, like the Miami Herald article, it is also from the Associated Press. Check this out:

"Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek."

That's pretty strange, isn't it? SqueakBox was saying earlier that the President talks about why they need a new Constitution all the time, so how did this AP reporter get the idea that, when he does so, he never actually refers to anything concrete that needs to be changed? Fits the MO of someone who just wants to be President longer, doesn't it?

Also, since we're RS mining here, let's also note the following, from the same article:

"Government supporters began distributing ballots at 15,000 voting stations across the country, defying a Supreme Court ruling declaring Sunday's referendum illegal and ordering all election material confiscated."

So the Supreme Court did consider both that the referendum was illegal and that those distributing election materials were not allowed to do so, because those materials were officially ordered to be confiscated. Just in case anyone had the view that neither of these things were true (Rsheptak said earlier on this page: "No I'm not kidding. Retrieving the referendum materials was not illegal..." In order for that to be true, then you'd have to come up with a whole new meaning for "confiscated".) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

E.g.: 'Confiscated by the people, for the people, and on behalf of the people'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Confiscated as in "Hey, don't take those, it's illegal."  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup or Impeachment, final act

Comments regarding the lack of due process in this event are in error or at best splitting hairs in favor of an unconstitutional power grab. Zelaya's pushing for a referendum over the last two years drew pronouncements from all quarters of the Honduran government, including the courts, Congress, and the attorney general confirming that his actions were illegal because they jeopardized the Honduran Constitution. Moreover it is impossible to state that some small cadre of individuals overthrew Zelaya--the consensus of media reporting has been that the entire government, including Zelaya's own party, as well as an overwhelming majority of the citizenry, supported the ouster of the man.Hierofalcon (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This can be called a coup. Although no government was overthrown, just the unlawful President and his followers. It does LOOKS like a coup, only being the reason (they didn't want to seize the position, if they wanted to, they wouldn't had done it at this moment) different from a coup. The military acted and the next in line for being the president took the charge. It wasn't coupy in that fact, they didn't gave the power to the ones that formulated the events, but to the ones that lawfully deserved the post. But as to why it could be called a coup: Reasons)

• 1)Public rights were forbidden (free movement, with the curfew; liberty of speech; etc, etc)
• 2)He was kicked out of the country, and with no legal process
• 3)It was not the police who arrested, but the military

BUT! We can't rename the article Reasons)

• 1)The crisis is not just the coup
• 2)The president WAS being unlawful, and he was actually threatening the Constitution

And finally, the reasons of the coup was

• 1)The police would back-up Zelaya
• 2)There was fear for Venezuelan retaliation, which, anyway, wasn't well avoided
• 3)It WASN'T fascist, actually, it was pretty much a measure that would had been taken anyway. The problem was the timing. According to Constitution, Zelaya was being unlawful. He was continuist, and although this is normal in many countries, perhaps because the reelections can be held without corruption (like US. There can be reelections there, because it would be highly unlikely your presidents to change that much the electoral votes. In Honduras, this would actually be the norm. Here the corruption can be tasted in the wind), in our country, were corruption is daily, reelections would be really, REALLY antidemocratic.
• 4)This wasn't because they lost any election. Honduras elections are going to be held. The acting president isn't continuist, and if he just tries to be, he is going to face the opposition of every Hondurian, military or not.

The errors where: There should had been a lawful process to kick Zelaya. Without it, we lost the favour of EVERYONE in the world that doesn't live in Honduras. That means we are open to the invasion of nondemocratic countries that have close ties with Zelaya (understand Venezuela). BUT! With the help of every other country. So, democratic people (USA, Mexico, France, etc) will be fighting a democratic war against people that wanted to maintain democracy, and will reinstitute a anti-democratic leader.

Final statement: The problem is that it is easy to recognize armed assaults on the Rule of Law. But, when this Rule of Law is attacked without arms? When it's attacked with corruption, with helding of budget, corruption at the ballots (I know first hand, just, if I said something, they would kill me), and continuism? Why doesn't anybody recognize that, although the FORM of the coup was completely wrong, the REASON of the coup was completely right? Why would they support a unlawful president? I'm actually a humble person. My father and mother bust their asses of daily so I can go to college (I can't go to public college, because Zelaya's government messed so highly that the public college has been in strike for almost a year), the only "rich" people I know first hand are what you call "low-middle class". And I'm pretty leftist. >>>MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"And I'm pretty leftist" You seem like a run-of-the-mill social fascist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How is Zelaya anti-democratic? He wanted a referendum about whether to extend term limits. Seems pretty democratic to me. What seems undemocratic is forcing a President to step down after only one term. --Tocino 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is written in black & white in the constitution of Honduras, Presidents can serve one term only. Been that way since '52. He wanted the public to vote on allowing him to call a referendum, but he never specified his intention on the ballot, which was to extend his term limit. It was an underhanded attempt to trick the population of Honduras in to willingly voting in a second-hand Chavez knock-off.92.104.255.201 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tocino, democracy cannot be held with lies, can it? He even stated that the problems with economy where to Constitution, or at least he said "fixing" it would fix the economy. But, if you read the Hondurian Constitution, it says that only certain articles are set in stone. Non of which relate to the economy, just to the way the game is played. Think of it as the core of the law. It IS democratic, or at least it advocates democracy. Remember, democracy is not just doing whatever the hell you want. It's also trying to secure everyone's right to have a voice and a vote. If you lived in Honduras, you'd know that politics here are overpowered. Fixing the elections is just common, but it's just discussed amongst the people, almost hushed. Know why? You'd die if you demonstrate the politics are fixing elections. So, they made this constitution, with the will of the people, that made abusing the power of holding an office to hold the office again VERY difficult. Hondurian democracy is a young democracy. Our country is still insecure, still uneducated, still undeveloped, still immature. Perhaps in some decades, the citizens would be mature enough to have reelections. But, today is not that day. This is not readily seen by an outsider, because many of the atrocities here don't get to the international light. Press is incredibly biased... but someday... 190.53.202.228 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single reference from the Zelaya camp confirming he wanted to change term limits. All the term limit talk seems to be coming from his opponents who want to characterize him as another Hugo Chavez (as if that was a bad thing - I like Chavez :D ). What I have seen from that side is comments about revising the constitution with regards to land and resource use. Considering that land use reform is THE hot button topic in Latin America at the moment this seems like something that could be very well verifiable. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a place for political grandstanding and as such should try to be neutral. The truth is that basically every major state in the world and every state (major or minor) in the region has said they see this as an illegal coup. As such the neutral stance is to treat this event as the vast majority of people characterize it, as a coup. Also, even if Zelaya was intending to put something about term limits on the non-binding referrendum he wanted to call there is significant legitimacy issues over a ruling made by the supreme court (I am assuming they are not elected) out of session to remove an elected official.Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How about from Chavez himself? See [3] "Chavez admits that they are fighting for continuismo [Zelaya continuing in power]". There is lots of other evidence as well. It should be obvious to everyone that his long-term goal was to continue in power, even to those who think his removal was wrong. --24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing to read statements such as "...Wikipedia is not a place for political grandstanding and as such should try to be neutral" while simultaneously voicing overt pro-socialist views. In any case, the preceding paragraph's absurdities clearly show that, in addition to his biased POV, User:Simonm223 hasn't done his homework, as his ignorance about Honduras shows. --AVM (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If land reform and use is all he wanted to change, he could have just tried to reform the Constitution, which is in any case easier than calling for a Constitutional Assembly. Why overthrow the Constitution if all he wanted to change was land reform? The only unchangeable articles are those outlining the political system and those outlining restrictions on reelection. If he wanted a new Constitution (illegal under the current Constitution, in any case), it was because he wanted to change these articles.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than making personal attacks AVM would like to cite a reference from a reliable third party that Zelaya ever mentioned changing term limits. I said I had seen no such evidence. Speculation that he would not want to do a refferendum about ammending the constitution without this being his motive notwithstanding 190.77.117.50 I am saying no such statement has been made that I am aware of. Neither of you have tried to elucidate me to where his statements about term limits can be referenced.Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"In addition, different sectors, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so." [emphasis added] [4] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") --24.72.222.172 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A few issues: 1) Non-neutral source. 2) Potentially unreliable source. 3) Paraphrased non-referenced quote, when did he say this. 4) Not what I asked. I asked has he ever said that the referrendum had anything to do with term limits. If this is the best you can find I guess the answer is no. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1) What about the LatinAmericanHeraldTribune is non-neutral? Give your reasoning. 2) Same thing. 3) I don't have a direct source other than those mentioned above, but will look further. What kind of source would satisfy you? 4) Assuming you reject the sources above, remember that Zelaya has a strong motive for denying that the referendum has anything to do with term limits, because it's unconstitutional to say so directly. But his actions speak louder than his words. If it is so horrible to even mention that he might be seeking re-election simply because he himself has never said it directly, then fine, it can always be attributed to his critics, who point out a similar pattern unfolding as what has happened with Chavez in Venezuela. Is it just a coincidence that Chavez and Zelaya are very friendly, that Chavez is backing up Zelaya in this fight and even threatening to invade, that the referendum ballots were printed in Venezuela, that Zelaya was flying back in a plane provided by Venezuela, and on and on? No, it would be irresponsible to pretend like there is not a strong likelihood that continuismo is Zelaya's intention. At least don't object to mentions of critics saying this is his intent, because that is widely verifiable. --Almarco (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to including information stating that his opponents have claimed he was pursuing continuismo. I object to wikipedia saying that was his objective as we have no confirmation of that.Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We need better data on the referendum

Can people find references from both sides talking not about the legality of the referendum, but simply about its intent? I understand that the wording was simply "do you want to have a vote about having a commission to change the constitution", but there must have been discussion of why that was a good idea or why it was a bad idea. What has been said about who would have chosen the members of the commission, or what the agenda would have been? Editorials surmising the answer are not what we need; we need quotes from politicians or, even better, material published by parties to the debate (political or academic actors). Homunq (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least we now have in a reference the "acuerdo gubermental" promulgating the referendum. I'd love to see a legal analysis of that text, even if it were just OR and here on Talk. Homunq (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, many people in Honduras, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], "are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so." [emphasis added] [5] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") Chavez himself has also admitted that the fight is about continuismo . --Almarco (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chavez also said that George Bush was Satan and I don't think that was technically true either. I like Chavez, I think the Bolivarian Revolution is the best thing to happen in Latin American politics since the rejection of the FTAA at Quebec City, but the guy says lots of stuff. What matters is what Zelaya said. And on this there is silence.Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sections they do cite in that Supreme Court material

Okay, continuing to try to make my case for why people think Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution is involved. The materials from the Supreme Court repeatedly reference Articles 373 and 374. Here's the text of that.

CAPITULO I DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCION

ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

(emphases mine)

Note that in Article 374, the question of it being illegal to make changes, in any case, to the presidential term, is specifically referenced. Now, maybe this is horribly OR of me, but if the materials specifically say that this article was violated, and if the materials also say that the President specifically was involved in its violation, then that means Article 239's provisions kick in, and the President must immediately lose office.

Also, note that in Article 373, it says that the reform of the constitution can only be undertaken via the Congress. The only leg Zelaya and his folks have to stand on here is that they weren't really trying to reform the constitution, they were just having a vote on what they might want to do if they were allowed to reform the constitution. But that's just being slippery.

Okay, rant completed now. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The only specific mechanism in the decree is to a proposed constitutional convention, that would be the subject of a question to be voted on in the November election. How the constitutional convention would be convoked is not mentioned. Presumably, the results of referendum would put pressure on Congress to convoke the convention. Since the exact language of the proposed referendum is nowhere specified, it seems premature to speculate that the constitutional reform would somehow be carried out illegally. I've made a searchable version of the court orders and I will have to examine what it specifically says about Articles 373 and 374. I look into that as soon as I get a chance. Jules Siegel (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reference I could find is on page 71, in a section defining treason as a function of usurpation of powers:

Asimismo el articulo 5 párrafo séptimo: "No serán objetos de Referéndum o Plesbiscito los proyectos orientados a reformar los artículos 374 de la Constitución"; En relación con el articulo 373 en la que dice "La reforma de la Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros ... "; De igual. manera el articulo 374: "No podrá reformarse en ningún caso el articulo 373, 374, los artículos constituciones que se refieren a la forma de Gobierno, al territorio nacional, al periodo presidencial, a la prohibición de ser nuevamente Presidente de la República .... "; En relación al articulo 375: que dice: " Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia, ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere derogada o modificada ' por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distinto del que ella misma dispone .... "

At the same time, article 5 paragraph seven: “Plans oriented toward reforming article 374 of the Constitution shall not be objects of Referendum or Plebiscites. With respect to article 373, in which it is said, “Reform of the Constitution can be decreed by the National Congress in ordinary sessions, with two thirds of its total members. In the same way article 374: “In no case can Article 373, 374, the constitutional articles that refer to the form of Government, national territory, the presidential term, the prohibition of being President of the Republic again, be reformed. …” With respect to Article 375: which says: “This Constitution does not lose its force, nor forsake its compliance because of act of force or when derogated or modified by any measure or procedure different from what it itself disposes…”

I don't see how this specifically accuses Zelaya of seeking reelection, nor does it explicitly accuse him of planning to try to reform the articles that are "set in stone." If the proposed referendum were written to exclude these articles from reform, it would seem to comply with the current constitution. To me, the court is clearly reaching here by accusing him of treason for acts that have neither been proposed nor can be shown to have been contemplated.Jules Siegel (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules, just to make sure you understand me - I'm not defending Micheletti. The court did reach, in a lot of areas. I've already said on here that there are so many due process issues (such as many you've already brought up) that I'm okay with people calling this a coup. This is not what I'm arguing about. For me, the point is made by pointing out that the court did specifically accuse him, acting in his capacity as the President, with organizing this referendum, which they state specifically as contrary to Article 374. The real talking point is whether it's logically possible for a President who violated Article 374 to remain in office under the precepts of Article 239. I don't see how it can, if the court is right that he was acting in his capacity as President (he did, according to the court, which is the reliable source about what the Honduran legal system thinks, because it is the highest court in that legal system.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are not defending Michiletti. The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant at the request of the attorney general based on what they consider evidence they cite in their decision. They may have accused him of having violated Article 374, but did not rule on whether he had done so, as far as I can tell. They left that for a competent judicial authority to determine after specifically ordering the Army to detain Zelaya and bring him before one. Since the Army did not follow the court's orders, the issue of whether or not he actually violated the article remains unresolved, as no judicial determination was ever made. Therefore your question is entirely hypothetical. Jules Siegel (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that's Jules again talking? You know, I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said there. I think that's exactly what happened. That's where the due process problems started, and why I'm okay with calling this a coup. I just have a problem with people going from that to anointing Zelaya a friend to democratic peoples everywhere. It seems to me that the people issuing the arrest orders - some of them - might actually have done so from a concern for Honduran democracy, not because they hate same. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just added the signature. I don't think there was much concern for democracy. To the contrary, the aim was to suffocate any attempt to broaden democracy in Honduras. They were afraid that Zelaya (a classic populist demagogue, I gather) was being tutored in how to do that by Chávez. Despite what you read about Hugo Chávez, there's no doubt that he broadened the base of democracy in Venezuela. I don't want to get into a discussion of that here, but generally speaking, I've found that most of the claims about Chávez suppressing the opposition media are overstated, for example. Interestingly enough, in the days immediately following the coup against Chávez, the new regime carried out exactly the same actions being reported today from Honduras. It was the El Salvador civil war in miniature until the rule of law was restored.

You can judge the Honduran junta's dedication to democracy by their current actions. These kinds of leaders like to talk about democracy when they have their hands out for more easy credits. When it affects their privileges, however, they call it mob rule. Despite that, I think Chávez was wrong to encourage Zelaya to rupture the status quo, if that is in fact what he did. It's not like he was able to provide him with the effective support required to carry out such an ambitious program. To me, it was what the Chinese under Mao used to call adventurism. Honduras is now on the brink of civil war. No matter who wins, the ruling class will still come out on top, just as it did in El Salvador. I think that incremental change would have been more effective. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate forum for that discussion, however. Jules Siegel (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying above, but you're implying a monolithic group here. This is why I very deliberately said "some of them" in my comment above. The government's actions, taken on the whole, do show a general lack of ulitmate concern with democracy, agreed. But I'm not sure that everyone involved in the effort to prosecute Zelaya is particularly happy with how the government as a whole ended up acting. I wonder (it's not easy to get any estimations of these things from where I sit here in Connecticut) how many Hondurans there are who approved of the prosecution of Zelaya in principle but immediately washed their hands of Micheletti the minute these massive due process issues began (finding Zelaya guilty before bringing him to trial, calling him a non-citizen and deporting him on that basis, etc.) Anyway, I do think this is an appropriate forum, as there is some issue, I think, as to how both Zelaya and Micheletti should be portrayed in this article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see-- are there evidence that Zelaya etc wanted to bypass the congress on constitutional amendments like what Hugo Chavez did? Zelaya may be using the poll to pressurize the Congress, but it's not binding. Hence, it's a direct violation of Art 239, not through 374. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence exists that Zelaya intended to bypass congress on constitutional amendments? Please see my discussion of this above. The actual language of the referendum question had not yet been written. It could easily have been written to avoid any of the possible constitutional infringements that have been raised. There's no evidence at all that he violated Article 239, which refers only to the issue of reelection. If he had violated it, surely the court would have mentioned that explicitly, just as they mentioned Article 374. Jules Siegel (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gov strongly deny it was a coup

The de facto gov denies it was a coup (in Spanish) and as this is a significant POV it is yet further evidence we should change the POV title. Remember, whether you agree or disagree with what the gov are saying, they are saying it, it is their POV and thus needs to be included in a balanced way which is impossible with the current title. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, normally discussions stay up for a week, but as this is a current event, it should be changed immediately. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree with your logic. According to your argument the Taiwan article should list it as a province of China because the Chinese Government says it is. No, Coup D'Etat is the most appropriate term based on global consensus.Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Taiwan example is a really bad one. The "global consensus", if international recognition is the way we gauge such things, is that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China which happens to have its own de facto political regime. It's obvious a lot of people disagree with that characterization, and it's not really a consensus view, but if the stated view of the leadership of the world's nations is the proper guide, Taiwan is a province of the PRC. If you're really making this comparison, it actually undercuts the point of view of those contending that the coup should be characterized as a coup (because the world's nations have so characterized it.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I deliberately chose a counter-example that was weaker than the situation with the Honduras Coup to emphasize my point.Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you chose an example which weakens your point about Honduras. If the internationally-endorsed view is that Taiwan is part of the PRC (the same view that the PRC has), but you believe that Taiwan is not part of the PRC, then you are defying the international consensus, and, by your argument about Honduras, this means your view is a "fringe" view. Of course, this view is not a fringe view, but if that were our only standard, it would have to be conceded as one. I submit the same is true of Honduras. The perception of the world's governments that it is a coup, taken by itself, does not make it one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now that I've read your private message to me on this topic, I'm now wondering if this is what you were trying to say. Apologies if it wasn't. I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying... Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Different scenarios, I disagree with your logic. The congress and supreme court are the same as before, it is a new president, not a new government. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And, it is about the Island itself, not about politics or anything. --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how either is relevant to my statement. Address your logic.Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure crisis is the most appropriate term based on global consensus, although coup d'etat happens to be another very common term for the situation. I would not call it a consensus, though. 216.254.82.47 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Taiwan relates to the island itself, the ecology, history and such, there are other articles that deal with the politics and disputes. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't signed in when I wrote the above). I think the fact that Honduras has very little backing up its notion that the move was not a coup (in the English language, anyhow) makes the article's title in line with the mainstream POV. Clearly this is not a cut-and-dry textbook example of a coup, but it resembles a coup closely enough that the majority of the mainstream media and world leaders have had no trouble calling it such, and only Honduras seems to be interested in challenging that. Consequently, I certainly think it's forgivable for Wikipedia to favor this approach as it is so mainstream (I personally would not). Nevertheless, I would not confuse mainstream opinion with consensus or correctness—after all, world leaders and mainstream publications have a collective interest in this as well. Jun-Dai (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(jumping in to respond to myself again). Not enough time has passed to really know the consensus, and Wikipedia doesn't favor correctness when such is easily interpreted as POV. Lacking consensus and unwilling to weigh in on correctness, it does make sense to use the mainstream position. That said, I don't really see the problem with not using "coup d'etat"—it's not really POV to simply title it 'crisis', is it? That's certainly the less contentious title (is anyone arguing that it was a coup but not a crisis?). Jun-Dai (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, all coups are crisis but not all crisis are coups. --Conor Fallon (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And this crisis is clearly a coup.Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Honduras govt is obviously not going to call it a coup because they have a new de facto president and that president has fired a significant amount of government officials who agreed that it was a coup63.118.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

how was this a coup?

the congress of Honduras acted in full accordance with the Honduran constitution, and prevented a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya (THAT would have been a coup). Seriously, how the heck is this a coup? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

when did a non-binding referendum become "a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya"? Can you provide sources that provide the evidence for your claim of "a violent, illegal takeover by Zelaya"? And can you provide evidence of the "congress of Honduras" acting in accordance with the constitution in his being exiled by the military? Mulp (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Violent, illegal takeover?oh my....Zelaya was in pijamas when he was forced out of the country. How could that be a violent takeover?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly many people believe it was a coup and so we must include this POV in the text as our WP:NPOV policy demands. The title is another matter, and is currently in violation of our NPOV policy and has been tagged as such. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a coup

Okay, I think it's now clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion calls this a coup. Every major news service refers to it as a coup. The UN just passed a resolution - by acclamation! - calling it a coup. We can no longer justify euphemisms, or "Most news media and government sources outside Honduras refer to this change in power as a coup d'etat." We need to call it a coup ourselves, per WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

so Argumentum ad Populum is how we decide things here at wikipedia? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to each side but to give them a weight proportional to what reliable sources say. If most major news outlets call it a coup then it must be called a coup. JRSP (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There still has to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, bur rather seemed to be supportive of the coup. Otherwise, people will get the wrong impression of the events. The main purpose of wikipedia is surely to underline the stupidity of the media—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The acting government position must be presented too, but we cannot give equal weight to a minority point of view. JRSP (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not have to be a sentence that says that initial mainstream media reports did not call a coup, nor that they "seemed to be supportive" of the coup. In fact, you would have to find a reliable source that stated that. People can get their impression of the events from the events. The main purpose of Wikipedia is not to underline the stupidity of the media -- nor are we to include in the article what the media supports or doesn't support, unless that itself is worthy of inclusion.
Besides, the media is still pointing out how overbearing and unaccountable he was being.[6]
That should absolutely be included in the background, as his actions -- combined with a constitution that didn't provide a proceedure for getting rid of a rogue president -- caused the coup. -- Rico 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only place I see this being questioned is here on this talk page. The arguments are irrevelvant, void, and of no effect per WP:OR. All the reliable sources I've read, including the New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. There appear to be Most Interested Persons trying to argue on this talk page that it is not a coup, or that we need consensus regarding which argument is correct. We do not. We need only consensus what the reliable sources state. If it needs to be more clarified, we can do an RfC. -- Rico 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The view of a significant number of Hondurans, however misguided, cannot be considered a minority view when the topic is a Honduras subject, and indeed in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views, one saying it is a coup and the other saying it isn't. Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers but do remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras; to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish easily disprovable by a mountain of sources such as a leading liberal newspaper and a leading conservative newspaper. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the "significant number of Hondurans" is, saying it's not a coup. More importantly, are the reliable sources (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post) buying into that? "Significant numbers" of people on either side of an issue, in any country, employ spin.

How many Americans say the USA is waging wars? What countries is the USA at war with? Significant numbers of Zimbabweans denied what the thugs were doing. Significant numbers of people deny the Holocaust, yet Wikipedia includes information about the Holocaust, without allowing Most Interested Person arguments dissuade them from describing things as they are.

We don't just need to understand that there's this "minority view" because you say so -- here. Provide the RS.

If, "in reliable sources there are clearly 2 significant views," then I would support including them in proportion to the prominence of each.

You wrote, "Rico, when you say the rs's you have read you cite some American newspapers." I cite the two most reliable American newspapers. This is supported by Wikipedia policy. A lot of newspapers are either unreliable or too biased (e.g., Huffington Post).

You wrote, "remember sources within Honduras are equally reliable and must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras."

I don't know about, "equally reliable" -- where the president can "order all radio and TV stations to broadcast his almost daily speeches"[7] -- but reliable sources within Honduras satisfy WP:RS. It is your fabricated opinion that they must be given "equal weight." Read WP:Undue weight for its exact meaning. It's not about giving "equal weight" to different sources.

You wrote, "to state only people here think it isnt a coup is opinionated rubbish."

Perhaps, but I never stated that. Please define "leading ... newspaper." The NY Daily News sells a lot of newspapers, as does the Los Angeles Times. The NY Times and Washington Post are more reliable. Period.

Please be civil. I don't have a nickel in this. I can be convinced of many things.

I have no trouble with the inclusion of the minority view, in proportion to the prominence of it. I'm not just not convinced that calling a coup a coup is POV, just because a relatively tiny minority claims it wasn't. The reliable sources say it was. -- Rico 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

After all, media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post aren't struggling at all. "Coup d'état" is clearly no more sensational than, "Honduran President removed from power by Army after Supreme Court Judge order." The original government is still in place, as far as I'm aware, NO ONE from the opposing political faction has been hurt or killed... and the President most certainly did violate Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution. A Pickle (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras? As important maybe but no way more important.We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia. Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc. Please dont think I was just addressing you. Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant I think my opinion is necessarily right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox wrote, "Why are the NYT etc more important than the main sources in Honduras?"

I never said they were. The NY Times and Washington Post are America's most reliable newspapers. I never compared them to "the main sources in Honduras." Why do you reply to things I haven't written (twice now), as if I'd written them?

SqueakBox wrote, "As important maybe but no way more important."

They may be more reliable. "The authorities in Honduras have been restricting broadcasts by media outlets perceived to be pro-Zelaya."[8] "Media outlets friendly to Zelaya have been shut down, and some reporters are hiding."[9] I'm speaking the language of Wikipedia. Again, read WP:DUE. I'm not sure what "important" is supposed to mean.

SqueakBox wrote, "We are not and never will be a US encyclopedia."

I never said we were.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your accusations of fabrication are tedious to say the least of it and have no place here, these are the kind of opinions that should be reserved for blogs etc."

You had written, "sources within Honduras [...] must be given equal weight to sources outside Honduras." This is your own fabrication. It is not Wikipedia policy. This is the place to contradict such fabrications, when posted here.

SqueakBox wrote, "Your claims of tiny seem very ignorant given it is likely a majority of peole in the country about which this article is about, a country about which you appear to know precisely nothing. I think it is a coup but I ma not so arrogant."

You do not know what I know. If you continue to personally attack me and be incivil toward me, I will take it to Wikiquette alerts. -- Rico 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to 2009 Honduran coup d'etat as in most other articles on coups? Unfortunately only an administrator may do this. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should, since coup d'etat is proper English. There is consensus on this page to keep the article at 2009 Honduran coup d'etat so I hope an admin acts quickly on this. --Tocino 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it a military coup. -- Rico 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP policy is to avoid unnecessary adjectives, to not get caught in debate over words like "terrorist". I agree that 2009 Honduran coup d'etat is correct. Homunq (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No that would make the title inherently POV and make reasonable people think wikipedia was pursuing a political agenda. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Coup d'état" is POV. "Restoration of Constitutional order" is POV. "Honduran constitutional crisis" is not.190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:DUE. If most reliable sources call this event a coup then Wikipedia must call it so too. JRSP (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I disagree. It appears that WP is "taking sides" with regards to this situation. The use of Coup d'état is a POV opinion. The neutral term would be, "Honduran constitutional crisis". It is perfectly fine to make references in the article as to what the various parties are currently referring, but WP should NOT be endorsing a political point of view. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The 2009 Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras on June 28, 2009 that deposed President Manuel Zelaya, breaking three decades of continuous democratic history in the Central American nation.". This line is most certainly POV.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the "Honduran coup d'etat was a coup d'état in Honduras" is a redundant statement that is redundant.
I have a problem with describing a country as "continuous[ly] democratic" without a very reliable source. Most countries aren't very democratic, as in when power is vested in the people. The people elected Zelaya, and the Supreme Court ordered him overthrown, despite a lack of law authorizing the Court to do that. He may have been unpopular, but ... -- Rico 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought Wikipedia was full of people with higher intellectuality. How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out? I thought the full name of a coup was "military coup d'etat" When did the military act by itself? It was orders from the congress. The president was "kidnapped" in early morning because he passed a law that he maintained hidden stating that on the day of this referendum he could undo the congress. The congress after discovering the law, created more than a month before but revealed until Thursday, acted as fast as they could so that a national crisis would not arise. By changing the name of this article you are putting in jeopardy all of the Honduran people's lives. You are making the international community think we are in chaos and giving in to all of Mel, Ortega and Chavez's lies. I won't respond back so don't leave a comment to this message, please reconsider changing the name back. Chupu (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:"How can something be called a coup if EVERYONE in Honduras, the people, the congress, the court and the military wanted him out?"

Reliable sources like The New York Times and Washington Post call it a coup. Hondureños, the congress, the court and the military may have wanted him out, but according to reliable sources, getting him out was achieved by a military coup. It may interest you to note that the UN "condemned Mr. Zelaya’s removal as a coup."[10] Finally, it is clear to everyone paying attention that EVERYONE didn't want him out. Stick to the facts. -- Rico 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia rule that lists the New York Times, or such and such paper or diplomatic mouthpiece, as an infallible reliable source? What might shock some, is that this "Honduran presidential ousting of 2009" situation (as I would call it) has been reported by major US media sources in manners that abundantly prove them to have been unreliable, at least for this type of news. The question for Wikipedia editors to answer is not, "Do mainstream papers call it a coup?", but instead, "Do reliable sources call it a coup?" If those sources have been proven to have been unreliable by having called it a coup, then what Wiki rule demands imitation of those sources? On the contrary, the Reliable sources page states, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. ... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Samuel Erau (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it clear that calling it a coup would condemn it within international law. There is no court trial to prosecute it as such. Furthermore, this was done under Hondoras Supreme Court approval, which invalidates it being called a military coup or anything but a court ordered action. BLP overrides WP:V and WP:RS by claiming that a reliable source is only reliable if it cannot be proven to be contradictory or cannot be used as a reliable source on such matters. News articles and other statements are not reliable in determining something as a coup, only international courts are. BLP overrides any other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to regurgitate, not create. If the majority of reliable sources refer to this event as a "coup" (and 95 % of them do), then the job of Wikipedia is to reflect that reality. Right now the idea that this was not a coup is a Wp:Fringe theory, however should that change in the future, then the article would reflect that evolution. Our personal opinions as editors on the matter are irrelevant. Even if 90 % of the editors here did not view this as a "coup", it would be Wp:OR to override the vast majority of reliable sources on such a diagnosis.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that this does not apply. Even if the majority of newspapers declared that you were an idiot, a page on you could not say such if there was evidence that you were not which proved the sources wrong. WP:BLP - "We must get the article right.[1]". No source can be write about it being a "coup" as such determinations are rightfully held to courts, and no court has ruled on it. This is a legal matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only... WP:BLP is about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is not a biography of living persons, it is an article about, well, either a coup d'etat or a political crisis. How would BLP apply? Anyway, I'd say that if only 95% of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources say something, then the remaining 5% is a big enough minority view to deserve being fairly represented (although maybe User:Redthoreau never meant to imply otherwise, but merely referred about the article title). Also, the fact that something is a Wikipedia:Fringe view doesn't necessarily mean it should not be represented in an article, either. LjL (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, (1) This article is on an event not a "living person". (2) A "coup" is not a term that can only be definitionally established by a legislative body. It is a common term in the English language, and refers to the forceful removal of a nations executive leader (democratic or not, it could also refer to the forceful overthrow of a dictator). (3) Your red herring about a pejorative insult on a living person is also irrelevant here. At the moment nearly all news sources refer to this event (not a living person where you could have a legal issue of defamation or libel) as a "coup", thus we should reflect that reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This definition of "coup" would then make any impeachment process of a president or prime minister a "coup". Or are you saying that impeachment isn't a forceful, "forced-upon-the-president or prime minister" situation? 190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To both - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." A coup is a crime. Anyone listed on the page as being participants in it fall under BLP. You are calling these people criminals. BLP makes it very clear that we are not allowed to do such. We can call it a political crisis, as such as not a crime nor a reference to a crime. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa, in any case BLP refers to unsourced or poorly sourced material, "coup" is used by multiple reliable secondary sources. JRSP (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is Ottava, not Ottawa. Your reading is equally invalid from BLP, when it says clearly - "We must get the article right.[1]". That is from our founder. What it means is that in cases of BLP, if it is proven that a source is wrong, it cannot be used as a reliable source within a BLP. Since there is no court case to determine this (as it is a crime in international courts), then any source using the term "coup" is incorrect. Please also see WP:GRAPEVINE which verifies that it doesn't matter how many sources claim something if they are pushing only a rumor or an accusation. Hence why OJ Simpson's biography cannot state that he is a murderer even though many sources state that he is one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Ottava, I would suggest you to go to WP:BLP/N to get more opinions on whether your interpretation of the policy is right or wrong . JRSP (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to go straight to Jimbo and asked him what he meant. However, I have been over this plenty of times on plenty of pages. It is a legal matter and we are not allowing people to declare any living individual as having committed a crime unless there is a court ruling. This action was also ordered by their Court system, which only further requires the need for a World Court ruling before we can proceed to declare such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem?

What is the problem with "Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009"? Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Anything inaccurate? Anything POV? "Coup"s a value judgment. Consensus in itself is not enough to determine whether something is a reality. If most of the world said "the sky is red" it would not make it so unless everyone changed the definition of "red" to mean what "blue" means. The country's own views should also be given weight in the title, not just one side. Otherwise, the title of an article such as North Korea might well be changed to The Dictatorship of North Korea since that is what the majority of the world agrees it is. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stance. It should present the differing viewpoints in the article while striving to keep a neutral title. The content of the article before it was changed to "coup d'état" seemed pretty reasonable to me; all major viewpoints were presented.190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

190.77.117.50 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesnt allow POV pushers to use wikipedia to promoter their POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop namecalling. -- Rico 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is in conflict with itself concerning definitions. According to the Wikipedia entry defining a constitutional crisis, "A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government's sovereignty, as in a coup or revolution led by the military or civilian protesters." Unless it can be established that the military is part of the government, the headline is misleading. And please don't delete the quoted sentence from the "constitutional crisis" entry.

From that same article¨"A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. "

This is exactly what happened. Zelaya on one side and the rest of government (Congress, the Courts, the military, the electoral authorities...) on the other. Zelaya in particular broke the law and willfully chose to violate a provision of the constitution, namely proposing to overthrow the Constitution to change term limits (but also ignoring Court orders to stop the declared-illegal referendum). The military, on their side, sent Zelaya to forced exile instead of arresting him to be judged.190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources refer to North Korea as North Korea, not the Dictatorship of North Korea. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to the Honduran coup d'état of 2009 as a coup. "Coup" is the most easily recognized name. As far as I know, no law authorized the Supreme Court to order the military to overthrow the president. -- Rico 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret laws, Rico, but I concur with your first two sentences; we must follow what secondary reliable sources say. And they say it is a coup. JRSP (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The link from Honduras needs changing to the new name.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which law did I interpret? -- Rico 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not you, Rico, I said "we". You said "no law authorized..." My point is that we must not do original research interpreting laws but rely on secondary RS instead. JRSP (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Court approval needed in lead

The term "coup" is POV and fails reliable source regardless if news media use it, per BLP which requires that even normally reliable news sources must be determined if they are using things correctly.

As the article reads: "A detention order, signed on June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.[19]"

This means that the Court was acting against the President and not the Military in a coup. The proper term is Impeachment, especially with the legislature declaring a new president. Regardless, the Court ordering the military to do this is missing from the lead, which is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I put that in. Hopefully, some people will see that I'm not so biased.

However, the UN and reliable sources (e.g., The New York Times and the Washington Post) simply refer to it as a "coup" and so, so do we. Whether the anti-Zelaya side can make an argument against it (WP:OR) is irrelevant. It only matters what the reliable sources call it. -- Rico 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't Honduran papers reliable sources? Some, if not most, aren't calling the events a coup.190.77.117.50 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The World Court has not yet ruled. The US President has declared people like the leader of North Korea as a terrorist before, but that does not mean that he is one. A court would have to determine such. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:OR and, therefore, irrelevant. -- Rico 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. These are Foundation standards. A person cannot be deemed as committing a crime without a court declaring it so. There is no court declaring it so in any of the links. Therefore, we cannot put it in. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a biology of a living person. -- Rico 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This page deals with the new President, their Supreme Court, their Legislature, their military leaders, and their ex-President. It falls under BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Condensed rambling, duplicative introduction

I condensed the introduction.[11] per the intro to long tag, which I have also removed. The introduction kept repeating the same set of facts over and over. I suspect this was a case of editors wanting to add their own POV to the intro, and the introduction got larger and larger as a result.

Material I moved from the main page, which can be integrigrated back into the later sections

The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president.

The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country.

After a constitutional crisis which set the President against the Supreme Court, Army, and his own party, Zelaya was removed from office in what is widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move. Roberto Micheletti, the speaker of parliament and next in the Presidential line of succession, was sworn in as President by the National Congress.

The plan for a constitutional assembly, along the lines of recent assemblies held by Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, was supported by President Manuel Zelaya, but opposed by much of the Honduran establishment, which argued that Zelaya was merely seeking re-election (the constitution bans both re-election and attempts to reform the relevant articles).

The armed forces of Honduras seized President Manuel Zelaya at his home, holding him at an airbase outside Tegucigalpa before flying him to Costa Rica. During the action, communications and electricity in the city were interrupted for about six hours. Government officials and other politicians suspected of loyalty to Zelaya have been detained. Later in the day the Honduran Supreme Court said that it had ordered the removal of the president. The broadcast of at least some news media is currently suppressed in Honduras, with members of the Honduran military reportedly shutting down at least one radio station and halting TV transmission of teleSUR and CNN en Español (which had broadcast news of the Honduras protests), as well as briefly arresting and later releasing teleSur staff. Associated Press reporters have been arrested, and according to the Miami Herald (1 July), "Stations that are broadcasting carry only news friendly to the new government."

The removal from office was widely viewed as a military coup, although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move.

69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"The military, within its legal authority, has acted to support the acting president."

Propaganda, because first there was the military (coup), en after that the so called "acting president", and not the other way around.

The military acted on a Court order.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Legal authority"? See: weasel words.

"Legal authority" are not weasel words.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Zelaya had been plotting to undermine the Constitution and extend his tenure were among the driving forces behind his expulsion from the country."

The same "plotting" propaganda nonsense as used in Indonesia (Suharto) and Chile (Pinochet). Not 'plot' has been proven or presented as evidence.

While you dismiss it as nonsense, the fact is that a Constitutional Assembly would only be necessary if one would want to change parts of the Constitution that are set in stone, such as the provisions on term limits. How exactly do you present or prove a plot, anyway?190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A referendum on a constitution change is the ultimate democratic measure one can take. Proposing a referendum is NOT 'undermining the constitution'. The real problem is that the opposition was afraid of the democratic outcome, so they kidnapped the president, censored the media, etc. Just the facts please.

Proposing an illegal referendum, especially one which wanted to convene a Constitutional Assembly to replace the current Constitution, is undermining the Constitution. While proposing a referendum in and of itself is not necessarily undermining the Constitution and is an excellent way to gauge public opinion if done correctly and transparently, proposing one in order to overthrow the Constitution and change term limits is, again, undermining the Constitution (according to the Honduran Constitution). The balance of power and rule of law exists to prevent abuse, and Zelaya was abusing. Constitutions also exist to preserve constant rights and values to all citizens, so that anyone in the opposition can be protected from the government in place and from potential abuse by a majority. One of those values, in the Honduran Constitution, is one term limit to prevent the same person from holding power for too long, a usual symptom of dictatorial or authoritarian rule. Again, Zelaya was abusing his power; not to mention he was the only one illegally holding the referendum, so it was not in any case subject to third party oversight. Even the OAS was not a third party in the matter.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"although the establishment has claimed legal basis for the move"

See: weasel words. What "establishment"? There used to be one, and now it's gone.

The other legally and legitimately constituted institutions of government- the Legislative and Judicial branches, the electoral authorities, the ombudsman and the military- are still there. Zelaya was also legally and legitimately elected but he started moving outside the law and Constitution. That's why he was arrested.190.77.117.50 (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonyes (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction was rather slanted, I initially added a NPOV tag before I condensed the intro. Hopefully is is better written now. I didn't add anything myself, I simply condensed what was already written.69.138.243.26 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The question in the ballot had nothing to do with reelection. Stop mentioning it.

The question was: "¿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 constitución política?"

"Do you agree to put a fourth voting box in the general elections to decide whether to summon a National Constituent Assembly that approves a political constitution?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.7.97 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The question for us is not whether the referendum question had anything to do with reelection, in truth. According to WP:V, our task is to decide whether WP:RS reliable sources have presented this viewpoint, striving to assure that WP:UNDUE undue weight is not given to fringe theories. My own reading of the various cited sources in the article is that on this particular issue, this may be a minority (of world opinion) position but not a fringe theory. The approriate response would be to cite reliable sources that make yor point. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had violated Article 239 of the Constitution on the basis of promoting this initiative clearly demonstrates that this was not a "fringe" position, but the considered opinion of the chief court of the country where this crisis is taking place. This seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to relegate one of the main institutions of Honduras to the status of a "fringe group". That's manifestly unreasonable, and makes it all the more clear this should remain in the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just searched the entire decision. It doesn't mention Artículo 239, reelección, continuismo or continuidad. Correct me if I'm wrong by citing the pages on which you find any of those terms. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jules, you're correct about this, as I pointed out elsewhere on this talk page as well. Please see the new bit at the bottom of the talk page I'm about to add, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't; you misunderstand the basis of that ruling. The court ruled that any attempt to call a constitutional convention automatically was an attempt to ammend article 239, not that Zelaya was trying to modify the article directly to extend his term. To accept the point of view that the referendum was about term limits it to accept the propaganda of the coup leaders and their supporting newspapers. That's how it entered english language sources, from reading the Honduran press. Zelaya made clear statements that he was not seeking re-election. Rsheptak (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Though it isnt explicitly mentioned in the referendum question many people have for months being sayng that this is Mel perpetuating himself in power, the so-called continuismo. Of course many were worried not merely about this but about Mel's stated intention to change the constitution in many ways, as Chavez already has in Venezuela. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the propaganda. Zelaya never said that, and explicitly said several times it wasn't so, that he was looking forward to retiring. Rsheptak (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus here. The fact that the court ruled against the referendum question merits our mentioning it in this article, regardless of whether what Rsheptak said is true. The court ruled against it, the court's ruling precipitated this crisis...on what grounds would you exclude this information, whether it specifically mentions holding a presidential election or not? Plus, is it unreasonable to include in this article criticism on the ground of Zelaya's sudden discovery that Honduras needed to have this referendum in the last few months of his presidency? How is it that we can claim that Micheletti is leading a coup, despite the fact that the coup leaders claim they will give up power with the next presidential election in November, but could never consider the counterclaim, that Zelaya intended to stay in office despite his claims that this was far from his intention to do so? For me, the only thing that's relevant here is that major parties to this dispute believe this was an attempt by Zelaya to remain in office. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said you shouldn't mention the Supreme Court decision. Its a fact and should be mentioned, and their basing it on article 239 of the constitution in part is worth mentioning as well, but to tie that to the speculation that Zelaya wanted to stay in office is not supported by the legal documents. Its speculation by the coup supporters. I understand you don't think its a coup and you're entitled to an opinion, but the article needs to avoid opinions, be NPOV and that's what I'm advocating. Rsheptak (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court decision doesn't mention Article 239. Please let me know if I missed something. Jules Siegel (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't challenge the "coup" characterization. Just so we're clear on that. Also, I think your contention that only the coup supporters think Zelaya wanted to extend his term of office is utterly naive. If you want to associate me with an opinion, that's the opinion. Note that the Toronto Star thinks so too - it condemned the coup (and they called it a coup in the editorial), but also remarked that Zelaya was utterly divisive for having provoked the coup. [12] Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The intent may not be completely explicit. It's not hard to understand why Zelaya would want to make this vote as innocent-looking as possible and deny his true intent. However, see the following references: [13] "Chavez admits that they are fighting for continuismo [Zelaya continuing in power]", and also "In addition, different sectors, including the governing Liberal Party [Zelaya's own party], are saying that Zelaya is seeking the approval to be reelected, something that the current constitution does not allow. Zelaya took office in January 2006 for a period of four years, but he has said that if the public asks him to remain in power after that point, he would do so. [emphasis added] [14] ("Thousands March Against Zelaya’s Plan to Change Constitution") --24.72.222.172 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read both references you cite and do not find the phrases you mention, except for the headline in one of them, which is not supported by the text. Perhaps I missed something. If so, I'll appreciate specific reference to the terms you mention. Jules Siegel (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first reference is to elheraldo.hn, which does paraphrase Chavez' words. I don't have a more original source, but unless this is a complete fabrication, there is not really any other way to read it. The article at laht.com has the exact quote above, except for my editorial clarification on what "continuismo" means, and that the ruling party is Zelaya's own party. It can be found in paragraphs 8 and 9, I believe, or close thereabouts. I just put in the headline for context. --Almarco (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The question in the ballot may not have directly mentioned re-election, but it is clearly a plausible hidden justification for such a ballot. Furthermore, even if Zelaya doesn't intend to be re-elected, and the question isn't directly about re-election, people won't "stop mentioning it" because it is a legitimate concern that Zelaya's critics have raised, and their fear of his gaining too much power and continuing in office is the main reason that all the institutions in Honduras ejected him (or at least, that they used to justify it). The ballot was judged to be illegal because it could be used to change or remove the unchangeable, permanent clauses of the Constitution. To discuss this whole situation without mentioning that many feel he was trying to get re-elected, is to miss one of the biggest causes of the crisis. --Almarco (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuismo

I've removed the claim

To prevent continuismo and preserve the democratic rule of law, every Latin American country has implemented a strict presidential term limit, though some allow running again after waiting out a term.

since it's false: e.g. Venezuela no longer has a term limit. Maybe there are other counterexamples as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Cuba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "nearly every" then? --Conor Fallon (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela had a term limit. Chávez used a referendum to put a stop to that. That's what everyone's worried about, that Zelaya is acting like Chávez. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, 'everyone' - as in 'everyone with a stake in the opposition?' ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And others. That was true in Venezuela as well. Some of the most determined opposition to Chávez's referenda came from the left. Of course, I assume that by daring to sing notes from outside of the Chavista songbook, they've read themselves out of the Official Left, but nevertheless, ask them what they think about capitalism and the situation of the Latin American poor, and they're pretty clearly leftist. They just distrust caudillos. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And generalísimos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Them too. Stop making me out to be the bad guy. I hope they bring down Micheletti and company as well. But that doesn't mean that Zelaya's blameless in all of this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making you out to be the bad guy - I'm bringing out your better side. I just wish I knew what you meant by that last bit(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who I'm talking to here, but if you're new (I'm actually pretty new here myself), look around this page at my other comments. I haven't been denying this is a coup, I've only been trying to make the point that Zelaya knowingly violated the Constitution. I'm pretty much in the "a pox on both your houses, and let's have that new Presidential election" camp. :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Cuba. If there are already two counterexamples (out of maybe 20 latin American countries), I wouldn't call it "almost every". And it's absurd to introduce the "almost every" claim with the same reference previously used for "every" - I can't access it, but it can only claim one of the two! So we need a new valid source for the statement, if it's true at all. @Zachary: I know Venezuela did have a term limit until recently, but the claim is made in the present tense. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the statement to "many", which might still be too strong. But the three Latin American countries I "arbitrarily" checked (Brazil, Chile, Bolivia) all have a term limit (though not a limit of one as Honduras), so it seems like a reasonable claim. I'd be happy if someone checks further L.A. countries to reinforce (or contradict) the statement. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church response in Honduras

While the July 4 statement of the Archbishop referenced in the article has received much press, it appears that the Church has spoken with more than one voice and it would be valuable to be able to reflect the diversity of opinion in the article. This is a translation of the July 1 Message of the Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copan, reportedly delivered publicly by Monseñor Luis Alfonso Santos, SDB, in the cathedral of Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras, on Thursday, July 2, 2009. I have not yet been able to find an english reference in a major newspaper. As a blog post, I doubt that this would meet the standards of being a reliable source but perhaps others with better searching skill and/or better comprehension of spanish sources have seen one or can find one. A few excerpts: "As those who are responsible for guiding the Catholic Church in Western Honduras, we repudiate the substance, the form, and the style with which a new Head of the Executive Branch has been imposed on the People. If President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales had committed something illegal he has the right to a just trial just like every Honduran citizen and in general every human being.... The coup d’etat of June 28 has these consequences: protests of the citizenry in the streets and highways, a climate of insecurity and fear in families because of the limitation of constitutional rights .... [W}e especially repudiate: The violent manner in which Radio Progreso and other means of communication were silenced. Illegal detentions. The exiling of some countrymen/women. The bloody beatings and wounds. As the Catholic Church on pilgrimage in the West of Honduras we want to remind the 124 [congressional] deputies of the Liberal Party and the National Party responsible for the Coup d’Etat and presently in power that they are not the owners/masters of Honduras and that no one can be above the law. The present deputies ought to remember that they get their salaries from the people whom they are oppressing. If the plebiscite and referendum had been given institutional status [regulated], as we the bishops of the Honduran Bishops Conference suggested in our communication of June 19, we would not be in this situation. They [the deputies] preferred to be faithful to the economically strong groups, both national and transnational. We hope that in the next elections the People will give them a vote of punishment.... We regret every violation of the Constitution of the Republic which those who have governed us have been doing up to now. We reject every threat and meddling of foreign nations in the internal affairs of Honduras. We Hondurans want PEACE. No more lies. We want to be told the truth. No more injustice. We want respect for the integrity of the person and respect for human rights. We want to live in freedom. We do not want repression. The call of Jesus is to live in love. Therefore, no more hatred, no more revenge, no more violence, no more spitefulness. ... Let us beg the Lord to grant that we may achieve Peace and prosperity and let us ask our patron, Saint Rose of Lima, to intercede for us." Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that one should be careful to equate the Catholic Church alone to be the voice of "the church", let alone the "voice of the people", though such would be a consistent "catholic" POV. Moreover, this entire piece, translation or no, speaks for one priest, no matter how eloquent. Moreover, one could debate the scriptural consistency of the message. It is what I would call a political speech, and is as feckless a Zaleya's own invocation(s) of God in his speeches. I believe that even if quoted in an RS, it is still OR; of value, perhaps to cite what members of the Catholic Church may be hearing, but what of that? Would one accept excerpts of a sermon from a leader of a prominent and respected leader of an evangelical church that expresses a POV? I doubt it, especially if it cuts in favor of the majority view of Hondurans and chastises Zaleya. VaChiliman (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 67.233.105.168 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not monolithic and does not speak with one voice. The Bishop's words have been circulating in emails since the Cardinal spoke on Saturday. There's a brief mention of his disagreement with the Cardinal in a reliable sourc (AKA RS) here Obispo Luis Alfonso Santos se le vuelve a revelar al cardenal. In answer to VaChiliman, both the Cardinal's and the Bishop's speech are political speech, and its not OR to quote them if published in an RS. I would not cite blog posts as RS. Rsheptak (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just getting up to speed on the rules and terminology, and trying to do so in good faith. If the purpose of qouting them is to describe the position of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not speak with one voice, then of what use is such an inclusion? Seems like a sneaky way of introducing a lot of personal opinion, and grandiose rhetoric, while giving undo weight to one part of the Christian Church which has lost influence. My question is this: are we prepared to give voice to other religious and political leaders, given appropriate sources? In what context is political speech being quoted relevent? If an article briefly mentions a disagreement, is that pretext for including poirtions of the speech? Or (most likely) do I just misunderstand the purpose of this discussion point altogether -- to verify that the Catholic Church is split on the issue? If the latter, my apologies. VaChiliman (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for any apologies. I for one remain convinced that we are working to inmprove the article. Further to that, I believe that this El Tiempo article contains some more of the language cited above but I defer to those with better Spanish comprehension. La defensa del golpe le vale críticas al cardenal Rodríguez Maradiaga Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps of relevance to the topic of reliable sources, Worldfocus has referred to the poster of the translation cited above: "Worldfocus contributing blogger John Donaghy is a volunteer with the Catholic diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán who blogs at “Hermano Juancito'", though it is unclear, at least to me, what, if any, editorial relationship exists between them. Political crisis in Honduras deepens and turns deadly. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and archiving

What happened to the steady stream of pictures we were getting? A week ago, everyone was uploading them and putting them on here, but it seems this has stopped. The last pictures are from July 1. The article would benefit from having pictures of yesterday's protest at the airport or a picture of Zelaya's plane circling Tegucigalpa.

Also, when will this talkpage start archiving? It's getting very bloated. --Tocino 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://picasaweb.google.com/freebird5453/HondurasPoliticalCrisis2009?authkey=Gv1sRgCMbI-PHf84G1bg&feat=directlink VaChiliman (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Article 102- no Honduran can be handed over to a foreign State

This has been mentioned by the president, and Archbishop Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, and other commentators, but is not currently part of the body of the article. For example “No one can obligate me to turn around,” the president told Telesur “The Constitution prohibits expelling Hondurans from the country. I am returning with all of my constitutional guarantees.”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/world/americas/06honduras.html?_r=1&ref=world93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. He was deported, rather than imprisoned and held for trial. Maybe he was not given an option. Despite the ignominy and potential "illegality" of the act, Senor Z appears to have made the most of what is arguably a prudent if not humanitarian act. If some portions of the Constitution were broken -- I think that we have acknowledgement from a RS on that cited earlier -- in order to protect the country, as well as the deposed leader, from mob violence and police action on the part of the military, perhaps some unusually cool thinking was involved in what surely was a tense and heated moment. This all makes for good theater, but I don't understand the point. Deporting someone, or exiling them, is not identical to handing someone over to a foreign state, which I would take as extradition -- and, sorry, but the ex-president was indeed obliged to turn around, or be arrested and risk potential what had already been avoided a week earlier. Returning with constitutional guarantees seems a bit hollow coming from a man who allegedly flaunted the constitution in the first place.

My question is what fact is established by inclusion -- that Z thinks he is above the law, yet simultaneously served by it? That has already been established. VaChiliman (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The president, and numerous independent sources, have stated that his removal from Honduras was unconstitutional. Given that the article currently reports the claim that his deposition was constitutional, this Pov should be given adequate representation for balance.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was not "handed over to another state" as he was not sent to the authorities of any third country. He was only sent to the soil of a third country.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The constitution also says he is no longer a citizen right? --Conor Fallon (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You're referring to article 42 section 5. For that to apply would require a court sentence to mention it, and then a government order published in the official newspaper. Neither occurred. Homunq (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)