Misplaced Pages

Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:45, 7 December 2009 editRicoCorinth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,566 edits →RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article?: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:32, 14 January 2025 edit undoNealmcb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,075 edits →No Conspiracy Theory: sources needed, cf Honduras's Truth CommissionTag: Reply 
(144 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{split article|to=2009 Honduran coup d'état|from=2009 Honduran constitutional crisis|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2009_Honduran_coup_d'état&action=historysubmit&diff=324504133&oldid=301569456|date=21:07, 7 November 2009}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2012-06-28|oldid1=499684208|date2=2017-06-28|oldid2=787797871|date3=2019-06-28|oldid3=903861737}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 9 November 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = 2009 Honduran coup d'état }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Honduras|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|North-American=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{dablink|see also ]}} {{dablink|see also ]}}
{{WikiProject Politics}}
{{WikiProject Central America}}
{{Split-to
|page = 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
|diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2009_Honduran_coup_d'état&action=historysubmit&diff=324504133&oldid=301569456
|date = 21:07, 7 November 2009
}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 9 November 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = 2009 Honduran coup d'état }}


== No Conspiracy Theory ==
== Splitting out this sub-article ==
People who don't understand constitutional law and how it works are the ones who foment and spread dangerous conspiracy theories. There was NO MILITARY COUP in Honduras, Zelaya was removed lawfully by the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution. The military showed him the door, overstepping their authority. But there was no "military coup", it was constitutionally an appropriate and legal removal for a direct violation of the constitution. Sorry if that bores you. But the fake story of the "coup" is the real conspiracy theory by the simple minded and the constitutionally illiterate. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:The Honduran military did not overstep their authority. In fact the Honduran Constitution charges the Military with the responsibility to remove any person who attempts to gain a second term or raise the possibility of changing the Constitutional requirement that no president may serve a second term. ] (]) 21:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Right now this is very rough. The text needs a lot of trimming - basically, everything past June should move into the ] sub. Also the lede is missing its references. I'll fix some of this, but I need help.
::Can you provide sources to support this view? They should address the apparent findings of the ] that in fact it was a coup. ] (]) 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, this needs short summary sections on the ] and the ]

I of course realize that some will consider this article title a provocation, but at this point there can be little doubt that coup is the consensus term of available reliable sources, and the referendum/coup/post-coup is the natural split for the currently-ridiculously-heavy (157K! I remember when 16K was the limit!) constitutional crisis article. ] (]) 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

== Relevant comment(s?) from the AFD argument ==

...

::I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). ] (]) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...

:The reason this article was a redirect, was because a Name change request was approved. This is an end run around that.
:The Constitutional crisis article '''''WAS''''' the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article.
:The reason that article exists with its name is because rampant nationalist POV warriors didn't want "coup" in the name.
:This is an end run around the name change decision.
:The name was changed because having "coup" in the name was deemed POV, so this is a POV fork.
:It was misnamed due to rampant nationalist POV warriors. The right way to handle it would have been to have put ''another'' name change request on the Constitutional crisis article talk page. -- ] 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::I mostly agree with what you're saying (I also feel very strongly that many edits to the "crisis" article in question were/are POV and pro-coup). Nevertheless, the requested move for the article in question will never be approved (it has already been attempted multiple times). Those with vested interests in that particular page have commanding control of the status quo. Notice, for instance, that the word "coup" in the title was excised in moving the article from "coup" to "crisis". Then, the word "coup" was excised from the first several paragraphs in that article (despite multiple attempts to include it at the beginning of the article, it was always removed shortly thereafter). In accordance with decency and WP policy, it is never appropriate to respond to bias with further bias. However, I believe that an article specifically delineating the events of the Coup d'etat is appropriate considering it is a distinct event within the larger context of the constitutional crisis. Furthermore, the popular lexicon referring to the events in Honduras as the "Honduran coup" lends more weight to the argument that this should be its own article and independent of the "crisis" article. --] (]) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


== Trivial conspiracy theory included in article == == Trivial conspiracy theory included in article ==
Line 46: Line 36:
If U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28" -- and if U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off" -- this is not worthy of inclusion in the so-called "encyclopedia". -- ] If U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28" -- and if U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off" -- this is not worthy of inclusion in the so-called "encyclopedia". -- ]


:"If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!"
== Referring to coup as part of the ] ==
:Do you know how news works? Do you think "Covert CIA operations" would be all over the news? Seriously, this should not be a surprise. It definitely is not a conspiracy theory. ] (]) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

An OR tag was placed on the lede in the part that says the "coup d'état" is part of the overall "]." I feel that it is not ] to refer to the overall crisis as a "constitutional crisis". I didn't know that this was actually in dispute, or I would have provided a source. For example (though more references could be provided for it, if needed), Reuters referred to it as a "constitutional crisis" in their article ledes both and Zelaya's ouster. What's more, I think that it is both appropriate and helpful to direct the reader in the lede to the main article that provides background and overall context to the events of June 28, an article whose name (by current consensus, at least) is ]. Can this tag be removed? Is it necessary to source this wikilink? ] (]) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:Be brave. You have a source. then use it and delete the tag. I've done this for you here. Its not OR if you have a RS.
::I was trying to be solicitous because I didn't want my action to be considered contentious. Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 04:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

:I can run Google news searches for "constitutional crisis" too, and then make some kind of a ] argument that -- since an RS states that there was a "constitutional crisis" before the coup, and another RS that claims that there was a "constitutional crisis" after the coup -- that the coup must be "part of" "the" "constitutional crisis."
:The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides.
:It looks like somebody is trying way too hard to frame Honduran events to mirror a Misplaced Pages construct.
:We should only describe things as they are, not try to make them parallel facetious Misplaced Pages constructs.
:Most RS's have given little coverage of "constitutional" anything, relative to the much larger coverage of the coup -- which was a crisis all by itself, and the one that has received the most ] in RS's.
:It's not necessarily appropriate to direct the reader in the lede to the main article. What might be more appropriate might be to include a wikilink at the first place a constitutional issue comes up, wherever that happens to occur.
:I don't think we should write the lede with an eye to trying to artificially force a wikilink to the other article up top -- and I sure don't think we should make stuff up, just to achieve that.
:Unless you have an RS that specifically states that this subset concept is what is, then it's just ].
:Writing a quality article has nothing to do with trying to get a link to another Misplaced Pages article up top, nor should it.
:We should put a Wikilink wherever it naturally occurs, not force it for no reason.
:Governments violate constitutions all the time. What elevated things to the "crisis" level was the coup.
:Indeed, one could make the argument that the main event was the coup, and that the little constitutional violations and ambiguities were just minor occurrences -- and use the weight in RS coverage of the coup, relative to the wp:weight of RS coverage of constitutional violations and circumstances as your argument. -- ] 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

::With all due respect, I don't understand your statement: "The source doesn't describe the coup as a subset of a/the constitutional crisis. "The" constitutional crisis is not a container in which the coup resides."
::The source states: "Honduran troops surrounded the presidential palace on Sunday after soldiers '''detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya''' at his residence '''in a constitutional crisis''' over his attempt to win re-election."
::I may be parsing it incorrectly, but it seems like the source says that the detention (or coup, if you will) is ''in'' the "constitutional crisis"
::Admittedly, many sources term it "political crisis" instead of "constitutional crisis"--the issue is that the events of June 28 are not the only notable aspect of the crisis, and hence the umbrella "crisis" article to give notable context to the events of June 28. The "crisis" is no longer just the "coup". Perhaps a name change from "constitutional crisis" to "political crisis" is in order? ] (]) 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

:::The source doesn't state that the coup was a subset (or "part of") "the" constitutional crisis. Misinterpreting the words "in a constitutional crisis" -- or just the word "'''''in'''''" -- to infer that the coup was part ''of'' <s>a</s> "the" constitutional crisis, or contained ''within'' this constitutional crisis, is ]. I've seen it described, recently, as a coup, "in a political crisis" ... I wouldn't presume to infer that this means that there was a political crisis and that the coup was "part of" it, or contained ''within'' it. The coup was a crisis. That's all these sources are saying. We've been all through that. The coup was a crisis.
:::Injections of ], just to mirror artificial Misplaced Pages construction, are invalid. The "constitutional crisis" article ''was'' the coup article and we all know it. It was just named "consitutional crisis" to satisfy rampant nationalist POV warriors that didn't want the coup called a "coup".
:::''This'' article was created with the rationale that the 'main' -- (what ] the "umbrella 'crisis'") -- article was getting too big, so we needed a separate article.
:::Now the lede mirrors this artificial Wikipedian construction, but it was only a result of Wikipedians in Honduras, POV wars, ]s, name warring, sock puppetry and an admin with a shocking lack of circumspection -- not to mention an expressed personal conflict with ] policy (used as part of his explanation for his unilateral decision).
:::To play dumb, one must also claim that -- until now -- there was '''''no''''' Misplaced Pages article about the coup. We all know that there was, and that the "constitutional crisis" article was it (misnamed). ''This'' article was created as a subarticle of the constitutional crisis, with full knowledge and delight that this would give us an article about the coup named "coup". The excuse was that the so-called 'main' article was getting too long, and ] policy was conveniently the winner.
:::If you agree with this, then you must also agree that when this article was created, there were ''two'' articles about the coup. (Now the constitional article is being made into a constitutional article). But the rationale that there was this constitutional article, and that there is now this coup article that is a subset of it, '''must not be used as the basis for a lede that -- is not only written just to mirror this strange construction (or worse, just to put a wikilink to the so-called 'main' article at the top) -- but it actually uses ] to accomplish this feat'''.
:::Whether the coup was a "part of" "the" constitutional crisis is a distinct question, and not one we are at liberty to determine ]. Reliable sources are simply reporting that there was a coup, and there were constitutional issue'''s''' involved. They are not stating that the coup was "part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
:::The subset contention must be specifically supported by reliable sources to be valid.
:::I will continue to restore disruptively, summarily deleted dispute tags (vandalism) until (if) this dispute has been resolved. -- ] 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::I know that you don't like the title ] and the wikilink to it in the first sentence. However, the source states that "soldiers '''detained leftist President Manuel Zelaya''' at his residence '''in a constitutional crisis''' over his attempt to win re-election." I think this perfectly supports a sentence that says that the coup was part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Or were you thinking of another constitutional crisis that Honduras has had that year? Do you really want to argue the plain text of the article? ] (]) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Hi I shortened it to constitutional crisis and wikilinked that to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Repitition of 2009 Honduran is poor english. I hope this is ok.] (]) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Sounds good enough to me. ] (]) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Maybe you could try to explain why you think the plain reading of the source is somehow ], Rico? The RS '''publishes''' this information '''after the coup''', but '''says''' that the the detention (coup) is '''in the constitutional crisis'''. I think you might have confused my initial paragraph by thinking that the "after" in my sentence referred to what the source ''said'' instead of the date/time it was published. I think Cathar11's original edit placing the source here and subsequent rewording are fine. Can you please read the source again? Thanks. ] (]) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think this discuusion is going nowhere. I've removed the part of the sentence in dispute. It doesnt add anything to the content. The 2009 Constitutional Cris article is noted as a Main: reference further dwn the article.
::::::Maybe the ''one'' editor that finds this clause objectionable can put out a Reliable sources query to see if it really is ]. One person does not make consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::If you ''really are'' confused, I would suggest you reread what I wrote (assuming you have read it, and honestly think that I am questioning the reliability of the source). I don't care to repeat myself, as that would be non-value added time. -- ] 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{unindent} The Reliable sources board, it appears, has been used at times not only to discuss reliability, but whether a particular source supports a particular contention. That was why I suggested it. Sorry, my error. Perhaps you would like an RfC? You insist that the contention is OR/SYNTH, ignoring that SYNTH depends on at least '''2''' sources. You will note that I had only '''one''' source, and it said that the detention was "in a constitutional crisis." '''Do you ''honestly'' believe that this source was referring to a constitutional crisis other than the one described in ]???''' If ''you'' really ''are'' confused and not just trying to fight a name battle again, you might think about this for a second. You are taking all the arguments over that article's title, which have nothing to do with the content we are discussing, and using them as an objection to realizing that RSs refer to the entirety of the Honduran political dispute as a "crisis" and use "coup" to describe only the events of June 28. Why rehash unrelated past arguments? Why not actually talk about what the source says? ] (]) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:Also, I added another distinct RS that says the same thing, that the coup is part of a "four month old constitutional crisis". ] (]) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the continual reverts of your reversion, I ask you to come back to this discussion table, and reiterate the central question: Do you believe that the "constitutional crisis" sourced individually (not together) in and is really a ''different'' constitutional crisis than the one described in ]? Or do you have alternative wording that you would like to use to express the relationship between the constitutional crisis and the coup that concords with these RSs? P.S. Also, realize that the phrase "the first in Central America in more than two decades" has now been shifted to another part of the lede, and so it is redundant to put it in the first sentence again. ] (]) 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

==Move request==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was '''no consensus to move'''. ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 15:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

----
] → ] — -

Since there was no consensus to delete, we need to talk about moving this to an accurate, neutral title. Thoughts? ] (]) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

:Yeah, you should come up with an alternative name when filing a move request. ("'NewName' is what you want the new name of the page to be.") -- ] 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I '''oppose''' the move. The flag should be placed on the article page and not here.] (]) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

:This ''is'' an accurate, neutral title. More importantly, it is in accord with ], which btw says <s>nothing about accuracy</s> ] "moral or political" accuracy (or "compromise") as a basis for article naming. Nevertheless, Ed Wood's Wig, if you want to make a proposal, you should make a specific one. What do you propose as the new title? ] (]) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

*'''Rename to''' ] as being more accurate ] (]) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'' It's factually and legally correct. It was legally a coup d'etat, and it happened in 2009. So the current title is neutral and factually correct. As Homung pointed out, almost every major newspaper and international organization has called it a coup as well. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Present title passes all ] criteria. It is more recognizable and easy to find (someone researching the subject will more probably use "coup" as a search term). It is also more concise and consistent with other articles as ], ] and ]. The only possible concern would be precision, however precision in an article's title is only required as long as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously; independently on whether a reader believes this was a coup or not, that reader will understand what this article is about. ] (]) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As Homunq stated, regardless of whether or not the title is "right" in a moral or political sense, we have to go with the RSs, the vast majority of which call the actions taken against Zelaya on June 28 a "coup". Descriptive titles have to be careful about neutrality per ], but again, we are not really describing anything beyond the time (2009) and the place (Honduran) both of which are accurate. The common-usage, reliable sources supply the "coup d'état" portion of the title. I do think it is appropriate to discuss the notable opposition to this qualification of the action as a "coup" in the body of the article, but that is, of course, tangential to this rename discussion. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Requested move on Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état==

] ] (]) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

== FYI, Al Jazeera is considered an RS ==

Per the edit summary of diff, there had been some concern, I suppose, over whether or not Al Jazeera is recognized as an RS by English Misplaced Pages. I would refer those with such concerns to the following ], which I found with a cursory search before I placed the citation, that indicates that Al Jazeera is an RS. Thanks! ] (]) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

== RfC: Do the sources support the mention of coup as part of the constitutional crisis in the lede of this article? ==

{{rfctag|pol}}

There has been some disagreement as to whether these sources-- and support the mention of the coup as part of the ] in the lede of ]. Some believe that this mention amounts to a ] mirror of a Misplaced Pages construction (i.e. three subset articles of the crisis article, one of which is the coup). Others believe that the sources show that the coup is one of several events in the constitutional crisis and this relationship should be mentioned. Do the sources support mention of the coup as part of the constitutional crisis? ] (]) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Yes'''.

:A plain reading of source states in its lede that Zelaya was detained (the coup) "'''in a constitutional crisis over his attempt to win re-election'''." (emphasis mine) One can reasonably determine that the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in this sentence coincides with the "constitutional crisis" contemplated in ]. This sentence also links his detention with another fundamental aspect of the constitutional crisis: his plans for a ], the first of the 3 subarticles. I mention the WP construction not to prove a point, merely to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP.

:While source , written four months after the coup, tends to ignore much of the antecedents of the crisis, it does place the coup firmly in that continuum. The first two sentences read: "Al Jazeera's Will Stebbins takes stock of the winners and losers in the wake of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose power-sharing accord which ended '''the four-month Honduran constitutional crisis'''. '''The crisis was precipitated in June when the Honduran military, backed by the Supreme Court, led a coup against Manuel Zelaya''', the president, and ousted him from power." (emphasis mine) It does not state why the military or the Supreme Court led the coup, but it does say that their actions precipitated the crisis.

:When one speaks of ''something'' precipitating an ''event'', it is considered part of that event and it bears mention in the lede of the treatment of said subject. Thus the lede of ] mentions the outbreak of World War I, because the assassination precipitated it. Hence, the constitutional crisis bears mention in the coup article lede for this reason. The source, as a side note, links the coup to actions taken subsequent to the coup in the crisis, namely the events covered in ], the third of 3 subarticles. Again I mention this to show the direction consensus and editing have taken these topics in WP, not to prove a point.

:One can debate the construction of ] construction and its subarticles, as many already have. But it is clear from these sources, and other sources, that the coup is part of something larger--that the events of June 28, commonly referred to as a "coup" in many RSs, belong to a wider "crisis" in Honduran political society. It bears mentioning this in the lede of ], and the sources cited support this. ] (]) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
::I'm somewhat puzzled about the protest - it clearly states that the situation is part of the crisis. ] (]) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:::]. Ed Wood's Wig, you've repeatedly posted that there never ''was'' a coup in Honduras -- ("I 'deny there was a coup' because there wasn't a coup") -- so why have you repeatedly put into the lede that a "'''coup d'état''' ... occurred"? -- ] 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


: This isn't a conspiracy theory. At the very least, it's serious accusations that should be mentioned on the page. Here are some sources about the U.S.'s involvement in the coup (even if you only want to call it "alleged involvement"):
::So then if we read, "Joe tripped his opponent '''in a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct'''," that means there was a shocking display of unsportsmanlike conduct, and that the trip was "part of" it?
: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/23/opinion/oe-weisbrot23
::The coup was a crisis. We've been all through that. These sources aren't saying that the coup was a ""part of" "the" constitutional crisis.
: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
::I've also seen that there was a coup '''in a political crisis''' -- but I wouldn't presume to include in the article that the coup was "part of" "the" political crisis, because all the reporter was saying was that the coup was a crisis. -- ] 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup
: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection
: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/
: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
: ] (]) 19:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


Apparently, people are still alleging that the coup was US backed https://twitter.com/green_uprising/status/1055213937342509057?s=21 ] (]) 22:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
:::In the case of these sources, the "constitutional crisis" mentioned is not a single event or an example of a crisis, but a series of events over a prolonged period of time (Source #2 talks about a variety of actions/events over a period of 4 months, the precipitory event being the coup). So it is not correct to think that they mean a discrete event, as you are suggesting with your example of a one time trip being an example of unsportsmanlike behavior. ] (]) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Here's another example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-role-in-the-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence_us_5766c7ebe4b0092652d7a138
::::My example was just to illustrate the folly of your argument, one that you base on your interpretation of the word "in" to mean "part of." In my example, the word "in" doesn't mean a "part of."
::::You keep ] I am making. -- ] 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Even if the particular allegation of the involvement of U.S. Military in the coup is false, still the allegations that the US was involved in the coup should be addressed in the article, even if to say they're unsubstantiated ] (]) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::Your example, as I point out in my response, is flawed, because you assume the crisis to be a discrete event. From the sources, it is clear that it is an ongoing series of events (4+ months worth). Why are you accusing me of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point with your wikilink? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Reason for Zelaya's Vote ==
I think the addition of "part of what has been described as a constitutional crisis" in the first sentence breaks the flow of the lead so it would better be mentioned later. I would suggest refactoring the lead structure using three paragraphs: 1.- What the article is about ( the events of the coup itself) 2.- Antecedents ( summary of previous events, disagreement about referendum, link to crisis article) 3.- Consequences (like second paragraph in ). ] (]) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


It needs to be mentioned that Zelaya was trying to hold a vote to change the Constitution to allow him more terms in office, not just to rewrite the Constitution. This context is very important since his own party voted to impeach him and the Supreme Court was just following the impeachment vote. That is why Zelaya was not able to regain office even though he was being helped by Hugo Chavez. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Moogwrench] subset construction isn't true. It's made up, and it ''isn't'' in the sources cited. It's ], apparently injected just to mirror the strange Misplaced Pages construction that resulted after the coup article was renamed "constitutional crisis," a "coup" section remained, and then this article was created using the length of the "coup" section as a rationale.


== Move Article? ==
Obviously there were constitutional questions/issues before the coup, and "part of" the coup itself (forcing a democratically elected president into exile at gunpoint).


To keep in line with pretty much every other article involving a coup, this one should be moved to remove the italics from the word coup d'état. I'd do it myself but something about this page in specific doesn't give me the option to. ] (]) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
These should obviously be mentioned.


== Page title violates POV ==
The fact that strange things happens when rampant nationalistic POV warriors get involved doesn't mean that the strange results that arise from them are a basis for OR in the article. -- ] 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


To call the events of 2009 a "coup" reveals a blatent pro-Zelaya bias. Far better to retitle "2009 Constitutional Crisis." ] (]) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
:This is the way it went:<br />1. There's a coup article.<br />2. Editors like Ed Wood's Wig, that denies there ''was'' ever a -- and like Moogwrench, who puts the word "coup" in quotes on ] (suggesting he doesn't accept that it was a coup either) -- fought for a name change. It's renamed "constitutional crisis," but a "coup" section remains.<br />3. The "coup" section gets longer.<br />4. This article is changed from being a redirect, into a second article about the coup.<br />5. People start using this strange outcome to justify calling the coup "part of" "the" constitutional crisis. -- ] 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:::'''<s>Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment, but since there is a blatant falsehood in Rico's comment (saying that I fought for a name change to this article from "coup" to "crisis"), I thought that I would correct the record here.</s> I'll repost my post that you deleted. Please forgive the digression away from the RfC topic.''' After taking my time to reading back through the discussion history of ], I found edit on 11 July 2009 which closed move request on 2 July 2009 and resulted in the original coup article being moved to its present location. As one can tell from , my edit to this article or its talk pages was on 10 October 2009, some 2 months after this name change. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, when the ] was ] for deletion, because some thought the name and or content was POV, I "Keep" because the majority POV and RS supports this (even though minority POV does not), per ] conventions, a point that I on in a for the ]. Finally, it is not amusing but telling that Rico remarks derogatorily on my use of " marks around the word coup on my userpage, yet proceeds to do that very same thing in his point 3 <s>immediately below</s> above. I suppose that he feels he has sufficiently demonstrated his anti-coup bonafides to allow him to use them with impunity, without fear of being accused of COI. As I explain on my userpage, I have doubts about both positions and find valid points among both sides of the coup/not coup debate. ] (]) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) <small>reposted again by</small> ] (]) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


== Supreme Court ==
::::I deleted your post because you inserted it into the middle of one of mine. Nice half-truth. As for "'''Normally, I don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's comment'''", you have a pattern and a practice of inserting your posts into the middle of other people's posts. (See second post, in green.) Your strikeout text exposes your disingenuous nature.
::::Incredibly, after all the ink you've spilled writing about what a newbie you supposedly were, when you decended on the Honduran coup articles and started edit warring with everyone -- using that as your excuse, while revealing that you actually knew all about Misplaced Pages -- now you keep revealing that you know all about what went on before. Newbie? I think not. ], maybe. -- ] 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


It is stated that "the Army followed orders from the Supreme Court." This wording does perhaps not afford the Supreme Court the dignity that it deserves as that nation's supreme legal body. Couldn't the author have said "carried out the judgment of the Supreme Court," or "enforced the Supreme Court's judgment." As worded, the sentence connotes arbitrary or overbearing conduct by the Court and implies irregularity, as if the Court itself were nothing more than a protagonist rather than a neutral arbiter. ] (]) 00:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
::I think that almost the entirety of your two comments is devoted to either 1) recounting a history of the battle over naming of articles (irrelevant to the actual content and sources being discussed in this RfC) or trying to 2) attack editors (using phrases such as "rampant nationalistic POV warriors"), instead of actually addressing the content and the sources in this particular RfC. Please focus on the ''content and sources'' that are being addressed. Thank you. ] (]) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:32, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Material from 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis was split to 2009 Honduran coup d'état on 21:07, 7 November 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 28, 2012, June 28, 2017, and June 28, 2019.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 9 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHonduras High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Honduras, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Honduras on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HondurasWikipedia:WikiProject HondurasTemplate:WikiProject HondurasHonduras
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: North America / Post-Cold War C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

see also Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

No Conspiracy Theory

People who don't understand constitutional law and how it works are the ones who foment and spread dangerous conspiracy theories. There was NO MILITARY COUP in Honduras, Zelaya was removed lawfully by the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution. The military showed him the door, overstepping their authority. But there was no "military coup", it was constitutionally an appropriate and legal removal for a direct violation of the constitution. Sorry if that bores you. But the fake story of the "coup" is the real conspiracy theory by the simple minded and the constitutionally illiterate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.95.25 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Honduran military did not overstep their authority. In fact the Honduran Constitution charges the Military with the responsibility to remove any person who attempts to gain a second term or raise the possibility of changing the Constitutional requirement that no president may serve a second term. 204.13.61.2 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide sources to support this view? They should address the apparent findings of the Honduras's Truth and Reconciliation Commission that in fact it was a coup. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Trivial conspiracy theory included in article

This was in the article:

The Honduran military plane that flew Zelaya to Costa Rica on 28 June stopped to refuel at Soto Cano Air Base, also known as Palmerola, a joint Honduras and United States military airfield where approximately 600 U.S. troops are based as part of Joint Task Force Bravo of the United States Southern Command. Patricia Valle, who served as Zelaya's deputy foreign minister, said that the stop at Palmerola showed U.S. officials at some level were complicit in the 28 June coup: "Zelaya was taken to Palmerola," Valle told The Associated Press. "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya." United States Southern Command spokesman Robert Appin says U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28." He said in an e-mail to the Associated Press that U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off."

This conspiracy theory has not gotten wide coverage in reliable sources.

If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!

If U.S. forces at Soto Cano "were not involved in the flight that carried President Zelaya to Costa Rica on June 28" -- and if U.S. troops "had no knowledge or part in the decisions made for the plane to land, refuel and take off" -- this is not worthy of inclusion in the so-called "encyclopedia". -- Rico

"If "The United States was involved in the coup against Zelaya," it'd have gotten HUGE coverage!"
Do you know how news works? Do you think "Covert CIA operations" would be all over the news? Seriously, this should not be a surprise. It definitely is not a conspiracy theory. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a conspiracy theory. At the very least, it's serious accusations that should be mentioned on the page. Here are some sources about the U.S.'s involvement in the coup (even if you only want to call it "alleged involvement"):
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/23/opinion/oe-weisbrot23
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-needs-to-answer-for-her-actions-in-honduras-and-haiti/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
Elcalebo (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. Cuevas, Freddy (16 August 2009). "US military denies role in Honduras coup flight". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-08-17.

Apparently, people are still alleging that the coup was US backed https://twitter.com/green_uprising/status/1055213937342509057?s=21 Skysong263 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's another example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-role-in-the-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence_us_5766c7ebe4b0092652d7a138

Even if the particular allegation of the involvement of U.S. Military in the coup is false, still the allegations that the US was involved in the coup should be addressed in the article, even if to say they're unsubstantiated Skysong263 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reason for Zelaya's Vote

It needs to be mentioned that Zelaya was trying to hold a vote to change the Constitution to allow him more terms in office, not just to rewrite the Constitution. This context is very important since his own party voted to impeach him and the Supreme Court was just following the impeachment vote. That is why Zelaya was not able to regain office even though he was being helped by Hugo Chavez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.72.76.207 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Move Article?

To keep in line with pretty much every other article involving a coup, this one should be moved to remove the italics from the word coup d'état. I'd do it myself but something about this page in specific doesn't give me the option to. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Page title violates POV

To call the events of 2009 a "coup" reveals a blatent pro-Zelaya bias. Far better to retitle "2009 Constitutional Crisis." 173.53.60.254 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Court

It is stated that "the Army followed orders from the Supreme Court." This wording does perhaps not afford the Supreme Court the dignity that it deserves as that nation's supreme legal body. Couldn't the author have said "carried out the judgment of the Supreme Court," or "enforced the Supreme Court's judgment." As worded, the sentence connotes arbitrary or overbearing conduct by the Court and implies irregularity, as if the Court itself were nothing more than a protagonist rather than a neutral arbiter. 177.239.164.52 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état: Difference between revisions Add topic