Jump to content

Talk:Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

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

Top

[edit]

How about the events of the days and weeks leading up to the coup? (Or, to be neutral, to the removal of the president?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Coup" is plenty neutral. Only an extremely small minority deny that the coup was a coup. You can refer to The Holocaust, too, even though an extremely small minority deny the Holocaust. -- Rico 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could stop using the Holocaust trope here. The other day, I was having a debate over baseball statistics on another site, and a person disagreed with my version of baseball history and accused me of being (get this) the baseball equivalent of a Holocaust denier. It's really starting to seem to me that people whip that out whenever they want an opponent to be silenced, not because they have a serious point about the domination of a debate by an unrepresentative minority. Rico, could you practice saying the following: "I disagree with you, and so do most other people." This is what you're really arguing. Phrasing it like you do makes it seem like those you're arguing with are also in league with mass murderers, which is extremely insulting and completely without anything approaching a basis in fact. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust analogy is particularly ridiculous and inappropriate here, since Holocaust deniers deny that the slaughter actually occurred. No one is denying that Zelaya was ousted, only whether the circumstances underlying the ousting meet the definition of a coup. Rlendog (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT POV-title

[edit]

See 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, thanks! --Caltrano (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the title is POV or is not POV? It appears POV to me.DLH (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Constitutional crisis" seems POV to me (not to mention ambiguous). The focus on the "Constitution" seems to imply one or two things:
(1) That the "crisis" was about Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum the Supreme Court opined was unconstitutional.
(2) That the "crisis" was about the lack of a clear cut constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, therefore implying that the coup was justified.
Either way, it seems to divert attention from the coup, to justification for it.
What was notable was the coup. -- Rico 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran crisis chronology

[edit]

After extensive discussion at 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis the title was changed from "coup d'etat" to "constitutional crisis". In keeping with that consensus, I recommend changing this title to: 1) 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis chronology OR 2) 2009 Honduran crisis chronology The former directly associates with the main article. The latter is shorter and NPOV avoids taking sides with whether it is constitutional, political or an illegal coup d' etat. DLH (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposal. This article is about the events of the coup d'état.
Calling the coup chronology a "crisis chronology" is ambiguous and, so, would violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy.
That policy states, in pertinent part:
The policy goes on to state:

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

Wikipedia:NAME#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations

The Washington Post, the Times, and the Associated Press, are all regularly referring to the coup, simply, as a "coup".
The Washington Post included this, in yesterday's paper, from the Associated Press:

HAVANA -- Fidel Castro blames the coup in Honduras on the U.S. Embassy in that Central American country ...

Castro blames Bush appointees for Honduran coup, The Associated Press (published in the Washington Post)

The Times' headlines look like this:
Mainstream news organizations know what the extremely small minority is saying:

The de facto government of Honduras says Mr. Zelaya was legally removed based on a warrant for his arrest. But nations around the world, whether through the United Nations General Assembly or the Organization of American States, have denounced his ouster as an illegal coup.[1]

The New York Times

Choosing a name that, "avoids taking sides" -- not only ignores the fact that the people, that are denying that the coup was a coup, are an extremely small minority -- but it also ignores Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which states:

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

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

There was no "consensus" before the name change, and the move request discussions make that clear. -- Rico 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this move. --Almarco (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this move. -- Rico 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently focuses on the events of the coup (28 June) and after. A chronology of the wider constitutional crisis (from when Zelaya started planning a constitutional assembly, and the establishment in various ways resisted that, up to the 28 June coup) would be a useful article, but this isn't it. Renaming the article purely to reflect the fringe view that the events of 28 June didn't constitute a coup is not WP:NPOV. (At least at the main article, there's some justification for "Crisis" because it has the background to the events of 28 June.) Rd232 talk 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

[edit]

There was no page move request. The title change was only proposed.[2] SqueakBox's undiscussed ninja move was invalid. Can we get another administrator to change it back?
SqueakBox never seems to need consensus before unilaterally changing article names. He always seems to know it's controversial, but does it anyway. -- Rico 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus is not needed to WP:BOLD boldly defend our NPOV policy in fact there was a consensus to change the other name and this name must fit the other name as its a sub-article; quite apart from our NPOV policy and its clear demands for neutrality the articles must not have contradictory names and I was not even aware there had been a separate debate here on the name change; I certianly would not make a proposal here first because the name of the 2 articles needs to be the same and this is the sub-article; if you want the name changed you need to do so at the primary article for both articles; otherwise this article would become a prime target to be merged back into its parent article as a POV fork; which wikipedi does not allow; try focusing on edits not editors would be helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider your edit incredibly aggressive, a violation of WP:OWN, an abuse of an admin's tools, and a violation of the spirit of community editing -- and the dictum that we're all equal, that is so important to Wikipedia.
Your edit substituted your own POV for consensus. I can't even believe that!
We're discussing it, and then bam -- you again! WTF?
Are you really so important that you don't have to come here to discuss a controversial move first, or was this just a rouge edit? It looks just like pulling a fast one to me!
Your ability to move articles really needs to be taken away from you, because you don't use it responsibly.
You know it's not a fact that the name was POV.
There's a big difference between being bold and imposing your will over consensus.
Just claiming you're being bold, because you claim the name's POV, is just gaming the system. You know it's debateable that it's POV, because we've been debating it! -- Rico 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg your pardon, aggressive? an admin? My own POV is that it is a coup so please dont accuse me of bringing my POV here; and who was I allegedlty being aggressive towards? I will say again, concentrate on the edits, dont make attacks on editors and do respond to the points I made; such as that it isnt me who is important (why would you think so, its our NPOV policy that is important and which clearly demands we take all serious streams of thought inot consideration; as an experienced not admin but editor I do know what I am doing here when I talk about neutrality POV forks and your ascertaininjg bad motives to me is unhelpfu. If you are so angry I suggest you take a break. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You knew the move you had in mind would cause upset and be considered controversial. Why didn't you propose the move first, like you were supposed to have, by leaving a note here on the talk page to give your reasons?
You might have also established a system for labelling the page itself, with a move proposal template, to make everybody aware of your intentions.
This was a drastic and unexpected change. We were discussing it, and there was clearly no consensus for the move. -- Rico 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page shows that there was clearly no consensus for this move, and still isn't. To expand on my remark above - if someone wants to create Chronology of events of the 2008/9 Honduran constitutional crisis, that might be useful. But this article is about the events of the 28 June coup and its aftermath. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had no idea the move "would cause upset and be considered controversial". Now stop assuming bad faith, I wont tell you again as this is the third time. You cannot call the sub article by a different name from the main article, it makes it appear like a POV fork, and this needed doing urgently, not wasting valuable time with templaters and week long discussions as wikipedia cannot have POV forks. And we do have a WP:BOLD policy precisely for this kind of case. I am more than happy to see a name that does notmention constitution and only used this because this sub-article has to have the same name as the article of which it is a sub article; I suggest we ove both to political crisis, I also think the article should be a timeline for the whole crisis, which has been going on for months. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disruptive#Refusal to 'get the point'

[edit]
  • Homunq wrote, 14:38, 3 July 2009, "I consider SqueakBox to have committed multiple violations (moving AGAINST general consensus and marking for speedy delete."
  • Paul Pieniezny wrote, 08:02, 3 July 2009, "I've seen that trick being performed elsewhere, in my opinion the person who uses that trick should be stopped from renaming articles from some time, because [SqueakBox] obviously does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS."
  • Tarc wrote you, 22:05, 5 July 2009, "Bad faith here is moving an article name against consensus."
  • Tarc also wrote you, 21:39, 5 July 2009, "you have a history of pushing your own POV (here, Virgin Killer, Jimmy Wales) and edit warring against broad consensus".
Will you be threatening them, too?
You make your refusal to 'get the point' obvious, when you write, "I had no idea the move 'would cause upset and be considered controversial.' " You caused upset the last three times you did this -- and you were reverted, all three times.
You've classified all four of your invalid, controversial, upsetting moves-sans-consensus, as "minor edits."
You've used this, "this needed doing urgently," too many times as a pseudo-justification to bypass consensus policy. It looks like a strategy to me. -- Rico 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV trumps all your points, there is never justification for using wikipedia to push your POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SquakBox, NPOV doesnt trump all his points. You are failing to understand that consensus needs to be reached no matter what. Wikipedia is about consensus, not about doing everything you want. You cant just edit randomly and change article names. You have done it multiple times.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be your opinion that the name violates NPOV, but there is no consensus that it does. Your opinion that the article violates NPOV doesn't override consensus.
I have seen two things:
(1) The coup-spawned government denies that the coup was a coup. That doesn't establish that their point of view is that the coup was not a coup, only that they (conveniently) deny it.
(2) I've seen opinion pieces written by a couple of people, one published in the Wall Street Journal, and one in the Christian Science Monitor. I've seen a couple of Honduran military officers interviewed, and I believe they denied that it was a coup.
(3) A few U.S. Senators (conservatives) argue that Zelaya's ouster was not a coup, but Senators are such liars...
I haven't even ever seen any evidence that, in the point of view of more than an extremely small minority, it wasn't a coup.
I understand that thousands of people have protested against Zelaya, but this does not establish that they were of the point of view that the coup wasn't a coup!
Should we not follow WP:Naming conventions, because SqueakBox claims "thousands and thousands," or "millions of Hondurans," are of the viewpoint that the coup wasn't a coup -- even though we do not have it from a reliable source that more than an extremely small number of people profess to be of that viewpoint?
That would violate NPOV, because the viewpoint of an extremely small minority of the world's population doesn't even belong in Wikipedia at all -- so how could it determine what we may not name an article? -- Rico 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rico, that goes past what you normally say on here. Reliable sources have indeed indicated that Micheletti's position is fairly popular within Honduras, possibly as popular as Zelaya's position. Protestors are in the streets for both sides, not just Zelaya's. Granted, Micheletti's own stubbornness and illogic has lost him some supporters, but it's clear that within Honduras he has them, and they are not a handful of elitists in the halls of power, but a segment of the populace out in the streets as well. I suspect that's the reason Zelaya is negotiating rather than finishing his walk to Tegucigalpa. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "minority" refers to sources, not people out in the streets. JRSP (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name AGAIN, even as we were discussing a *different* name change

[edit]

SqueakBox proposed calling the Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, a "political" crisis[3] -- one minute before moving the article[4] -- as usual (for him) with no consensus -- this time with zero consensus.
Were we supposed to discuss SqueakBox's proposal between 8:57 and 8:58, or did he post his proposal a minute beforehand thinking that we couldn't claim his (WP:OWN) move hadn't been discussed?
For the fourth time, SqueakBox has taken it upon himself to move an article, even as a discussion was going on about whether to do a different move, and even though there was no consensus for the move!
Suddenly moving an article, in the middle of a discussion on whether to move the article, in the absence of consensus to move the article -- four times[5][6][7][8] -- is presumptuous beyond belief!
It looks like gaming the system to me, and that's disruptive.
SqueakBox unilaterally declares that the title is POV, or unilaterally declares that the title establishes that the article is a content fork, and then -- without consensus behind SqueakBox's opinions -- he unilaterally moves the article. -- Rico 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no consensus reached, then page should be revirted. His is no special, or editor above the wiki policies, he has done name change twice already without concensus. Name should be: chronology of events 2009 honduran coup d'etatEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to move it back, but I couldn't. I think maybe an administrator will have to do it.
SqueakBox destroyed his own argument that, in his opinion: "You cannot call the sub article by a different name from the main article, it makes it appear like a POV fork".
He just named the article by a different name. -- Rico 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to realize that the compromise about 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis was not about agreeing that "there wasn't a coup d'état", but 1) about "constitutional crisis" being a more generic term* that could be used while also pointing out inside the article (and in "sub"-articles, of course) that the events have generally been called a coup 2) about "constitutional crisis" having the advantage of encompassing related events that may not strictly be part of the coup.
(*: yes, I know not everybody agrees even with that)
--LjL (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved because coup is POV and there is a non-fringe POV that it is not a coup, you may not like that but POV is written for neutrality and to stop people pushing their POV as the only one. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were the case, 1) I don't think you entirely get the WP:NAME rules 2) make up your mind about the article being a POV fork or the title being POV, because if (as seems apparent) the actual issue is the latter, then by attempting to remove/redirect the article entirely you are actively disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --LjL (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox has been blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.[9]
We need to have him stopped, because he's showing no sign that he's going to stop voluntarily. He's done these invalid, controversial, upsetting moves five times now[10][11][12][13][14], and been reverted every time!
Before his first three moves, editors had been discussing a move proposal on the talk page, and in every one of those cases, there'd been no consensus. The last two moves, to "political crisis," hadn't even been discussed at all! He's getting worse, and accelerating, even as more and more editors complain about his disruptive behavior. -- Rico 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to original name, since there was no consensus for a move. Rd232 talk 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And redirected as wikipedia has no sp[ace for POV forks. An afd will happen immediately if this is contested but the material can be merged back intio the original rticle. IMO this whole POV pushing incident should go to arbcom, who can judge the behaviour of certain editors. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material was spun off originally because it was getting to long (subarticle). Some kind of sanction may indeed be required, because the repeated moves against/prior to consensus and now a frivolous AFD are starting to look like disruptive behaviour. Rd232 talk 09:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is

[edit]

Moved from the article:

A source within the de facto government said it was unlikely they would change their mind and let Zelaya return.

Cite: "Honduran coup leaders open to talk but not on Zelaya". Reuters. 2009-07-29. Retrieved 2009-07-29.

The news story title is not the same as the title of the source the hyperlink points to, which is entitled "Honduran leader softens tone in fight over Zelaya". Is the source cited the link, or the news story named? -- Rico 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've never looked at how Reuters does news, have you. The link now points to a completely different story, with a datestamp of today, not yesterday, so no, its no the same story. This is because Reuters has recycled the story ID to keep it in the worldNews section. Reuters is infuriating this way, but there's nothing to be done about it. They don't delete the old story, but they do move it. Rather than just delete the sentence, you could have looked for the article on the Reuters site, as I did, and update the URL. I will add this back into the article. Rsheptak (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is putting sentences, with sentences where the source is cited -- rather than in an immediately preceding paragraph -- a requirement?

[edit]

Rsheptak wrote me, on my talk page, "I agree that not every sentence needs a source, but if the source has already been cited, then put that sentence with the sentence where the source is cited instead of set off by itself so that there's no confusion. By being set off as a separate paragraph, its not clear its associated with any source." -- Rico 05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this point, but...
What it does, is dictate that the sentences must be lumped together and juxtaposed within the same paragraphs, just to keep other editors from deleting content that has been attributed to a reliable source.
That makes the articles worse, and harder to read, due to the large paragraphs.
People on the World Wide Web are like drunk children. They have a really short attention span.
They lose their concentration really fast if they get bogged down wading through big paragraphs.
Note that the professional writers, of the sources we're citing, use smaller paragraphs.
I've been doing the same thing as them, emulating their style.
There are disruptive rogues all over Wikipedia. They'll delete good content -- whether it's been attributed to a reliable source, or not. They'll opine it's POV, or not neutral, or violated WP:DUE -- or any number of murky explanations that cannot be proven either way.
We recently saw WP:NAME violated, using the argument that an extremely small minority viewpoint existed, and therefore an article "took sides" (with the world and all the reliable sources I've ever seen). What it really was, was just a bunch of Most Interested Persons pushing an extremely small minority viewpoint, that may not even belong on Wikipedia at all, much less be one that should be forcing a WP:NAME violation.
Do we really want to try to construct articles to try to foil rogues -- that are everywhere -- and try to lump everything together just to keep them from deleting good content?
The contention that sentences have to be put with sentences where the source is cited, is an opinion, at best. -- Rico 05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused by the premise of this thread (which then goes off in a WP:SOAPy direction I vaguely agree with but won't respond to). If a source needs to be cited in multiple places, we have tools for that WP:CITE. Rd232 talk 09:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rico, Its not attributed unless it can be unambiguously associated with a source. Wikipedia has mechanisms for that. if I'm editing an article and see a sentence is sitting on its own, as the one in contention was, and it doesn't have a reference, I'm not going to look around to see if its mentioned in some reference somewhere in the article, I'm going to tag or delete it. Association, or multiple citation, is the only guarantee of associating the sentence with a source. You're asking me to take your word for it that the sentence is based on something referenced in the article, and I'm doing that in this case, but your reader shouldn't have to guess what source its associated with. Rsheptak (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the editor of Aug 13 please fix your source. I put broken citation for a reason ...your link is broken. Please do not accuse me of pov pushing again, because fixing your broken source is a requirement and it is not povpushing it is the rule. If you revert it without fixing the link then I will complain about you creating an editing war and refusing to provide sources.Summermoondancer (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a broken link, please don't delete information, especially link information, until a little time is given to get another source for the information or find the original source at another location. Tag the info, but leave it please, unless a lot of time has passed. Per WP:Deadlink: "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." Moogwrench (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body counts?

[edit]

Does it count as WP:OR to add up confirmed deaths since the coup, by categories (killed or mortally wounded in protests, and non-protest murders various groups - politicians, activist leaders, press)? Obviously, some unknown portion of the latter categories will be non-coup-related murders... I'd love to include the yearly murder risk for average Honduran adults for comparison, but I suspect that would be considered OR.

If it's not OR, these would be important numbers to calculate, and good candidates for inclusion in the main article. 189.132.34.47 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of numbers are done for many military conflicts documented in en.wikipedia - IMHO simple arithmetic should not count as OR if it's reasonably uncontroversial. We would have to be careful to cite the categories based on the sources, but IMHO this is an excellent suggestion.
However, check out the ref in List of countries by intentional homicide rate - i haven't checked it. Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Venezuela are pretty near the top of the ranking. This data presumably doesn't separate "politically motivated" (death squads) from organised crime and individual (random) murders.
The "62 murders in 28 days" quote in this kovalik article sounds like it's for Tegucigalpa only, without saying if it's for Tegucigalpa "proper" (31 murders expected per 28 days) or the wider metropolitan area (46 murders expected per 28 days). With Poisson errors, this makes the jump in murders very significant or significant respectively. The estimates in brackets are for the 2006 estimate of 45.2/100000 people/year from List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Boud (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: my statement in the previous paragraph on what is "significant" counts as OR, even though it's quite elementary, since it's beyond plain arithmetic. Just cumulating the numbers should not be OR, IMHO. Boud (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just extrapolate from nationwide murder rates to the rate in the capital city. I know that in Guatemala, the urban rate is higher than the rural rate, though both are generally high in comparison to other countries. You'd have to find a comparison period - it wouldn't be too hard, but it would take some (original) research. Homunq (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reimposed curfew in capital

[edit]

Currently listed as being imposed on both August 10 and 11 with citation to same AFP article. I added the entry on the 11th which was my reading of the article but missed seeing the item on the 10th. Can someone with access to more local info sort out which day the curfew was reimposed? Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate or Unbalanced

[edit]

Ed Wood's Wig added an UNBALANCED tag to this article, implying that some part of it was either inaccurate or unbalanced, and pointed to the non-existant discussion on the talk page. RlendogRlendog agreed with him. I'd like to suggest there is no supporting discussion on this page, and that we need to have that discussion before tagging it. This section is for those who feel there are inaccurate or unbalanced points made in the article to articulate and discuss them. Rsheptak (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inaccurate or Unbalanced Point 1
  • Inaccurate or Unbalanced Point 2
  • Inaccurate or Unbalanced Point 3
    • The issue (as I see it) is the use of the term "coup d'état" to describe the action. That has been discussed here and on related pages, and there is clearly ongoing dispute as to whether use of the term is neutral or balanced. Although I agree with the "unbalanced" tag on that basis, I am personally content with the "NPOV" tag that is already there. However, the tag was originally removed on the basis that Ed Wood's Wig was required to discuss the tag before adding it, and that is not the case, especially since the crix of the issue is already a hot topic for discussion on this and related pages. And so, as described in my edit summary, I restored it on that basis. As this is now the subject of discussion, and as I personally am content with the already present NPOV tag, I have no intention of restoring the "unbalanced" tag pending the outcome of this discussion. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

There is an RfC in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup article. -- Rico 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TimesOnline Source for October 30 information

[edit]

There are several problems with this source that a cursory reading revealed:

  • It contains spelling error(s), including that of Pres. Zelaya's name, suggesting a lack of care and reliability
  • It says that Pres. Zelaya has left the Brazilian Embassy, "quits refuge," again suggesting a certain lack of reliability
  • It does not give the date for the accord, so it cannot be used to source the accord to this date in the chronology
  • It seems to be biased by including 3 quotes, all of which are from Zelaya or pro-Zelaya actors

Additionally, and not related to its credibility issues, more to the quality of it as a source

  • It does not clarify the role of the Congress in the accord
  • It does not explain most of the accord (reconciliation government, verification commission, etc.), and and hence can only be used to give a partial explanation of it.

It would be good to do a rewrite of this paragraph, giving more detail as to the entire accord, using a better source, IMHO.

Moogwrench (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news article is from the published edition of the Times (London)a reliable source. The headline is misleading (a sloppy sub editor). There is total consensus in Europe about the illegality of the coup so the article is not biased but merely reflecting a consensus viewpoint. It chronicles reaction to the news and includes important details of police repression.Cathar11 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moogwrench wrote, "Additionally, and not related to its credibility issues, more to the quality of it as a source..." Wikipedia explicitly recognizes The Times in Great Britain as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example The New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as The Associated Press." WP:RS reflects consensus among a large number of Wikipedians.
Moogwrench wrote, "It contains spelling error(s), including that of Pres. Zelaya's name, suggesting a lack of care and reliability." The article spells Zelaya's name, Z-e-l-a-y-a. No misspelling have been introduced into the article.
Moogwrench wrote, "it says that Pres. Zelaya has left the Brazilian Embassy." It does not say that.
Moogwrench wrote, "It does not give the date for the accord, so it cannot be used to source the accord to this date in the chronology." It is not used to source the deal to this date. We already know the date of the deal from other sources.
Moogwrench wrote, "It seems to be biased by including 3 quotes, all of which are from Zelaya or pro-Zelaya actors."
The only quote taken from the article was that Zelaya expressed his "satisfaction and optimism" at the deal.
Moogwrench wrote, "It does not clarify the role of the Congress in the accord." The article states, "The Honduran Congress is expected to vote on the deal within the next few days."
Moogwrench wrote, "It does not explain most of the accord (reconciliation government, verification commission, etc.), and and hence can only be used to give a partial explanation of it." The article is not being used to explain most of the deal, and and can be used to give a partial explanation of it.
Moogwrench wrote, "It would be good to do a rewrite of this paragraph, giving more detail as to the entire accord." Just please don't get into another edit war -- with Kamayoq, Cathar11 and I now. Your tendentious attempts to win all the time, and slant the article towards coup apology, have really been quite disruptive. -- Rico 15:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While The Times is generally good, you'll notice this article is not (doesn't even mention date of accord) and it gives incorrect information (Zeleya [sic] has most decidedly not left the embassy). Also, I never mentioned the coup's illegality. The bias I refer to is that "Michelletti capitulated", yet where is analysis that Zelaya made substantive concessions, such as the vote from the National Congress. This article entirely frames the accord in terms of a Zelaya victory, instead of a brokered compromise between parties. Once again, you make it personal, calling me "tendentious", "disruptive," and "coup apologist." Why make it personal? The work on the article is sloppy (in your words). This calls into question its reliability. The burden is on the placer of the citation for removal of a vC tag, as I believe you mentioned the other day. Also, if you notice, I didn't revert Cathar11 even though I think the article is a sloppy bit of work, as you put it. So who is being uncivil and wanting to win all them time, eh? It seems like the rules change when one agrees with the content cited, even if the source is poor? Moogwrench (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the article? The Headline (President Zeleya of Honduras quits refuge as coup plotters cave in)is obviously written by a sub editor and bears no relation to any information in the article. That does not take away from the content of the article or the journalistic integrity of Hannah Strange who wrote it. The article is not sloppy and recaps details of the coup and events since. Nowhere within the article does it say or sugest that Zeleya quits refuge. Obviously the sub editor trained on the Sun another Murdoch publication which has no credibility. The agreement is similar to San Jose accord. Micheletti's intransigence meant it took US pressure for him to accept it. 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did, and among other issues, no where could I glean the fact as to when the accord was made, something you would think is critical in a source for an article that deals with a chronology. This is what led the original poster of this edit to err when he/she placed it on October 31, assuming that the date of the article was the date of the events in question. There are other issues, which I have already discussed, but I'd rather not fight about this. Consensus on this page is obviously whatever you and Rico want, so I will bow to it. Moogwrench (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In deference to your views I have shortened the paragraph taken from the Times and removed the capitulation of Micheletti to US pressure partCathar11 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad, because that's exactly what happened.
The stumbling block was always that Micheletti refused to let Zelaya return.
The US went in, said it will not recognize the election results, and that was that. -- Rico 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it will really be interested to see if the fix is in vis-a-vis Pepe Lobo and Thomas Shannon, or if this is just a face-saving measure by the U.S., or if it is another delay tactic by the coup government. I guess time will tell. Moogwrench (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Congressional leaders have ... said they won't stand in the way of an agreement that would end Honduras' diplomatic isolation and legitimize the presidential elections."[15] President Zelaya's return was referred to Congress, knowing this.
If I couldn't simply convince you that The Times in Great Britain was a reliable source, because Wikipedia explicitly recognizes it as a reliable source, then I don't expect I will ever be able to convince you of anything, because you do not want to be convinced, because you are here to debate, as part of a game to fight to slant the article, not to build consensus. -- Rico 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez give a rest, will ya? WP:SOURCES says "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." I happened to note several sloppy mistakes in this article, including the title's spelling and factual error, as well as a complete lack of dating for the described events (kind of important in a source for a chronology article, don't ya think?), and now all you want to do is accuse me of fighting, bad faith, povpushing, gaming the system, being biased/tendentious, etc. INSTEAD of addressing what I say about the source/content. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Moogwrench (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." So, in this context, how would The Times in Great Britain be inappropriate? I would think that would have more to do with using biased Honduran media as sources for a coup constitutional crisis political crisis defense of democracy in Honduras. -- Rico 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that particular article was poorly written/edited. That article is the source, not some monolithic The Times. As I said, using an article with no dating (among other errors) seems unreliable for a chronological treatment of a subject. Especially, I might add, when so many other good sources are available. Moogwrench (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was move page. Consensus at this time indicates a consensus to move as proposed. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état → Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis — Relisted. @harej 09:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the early discussions (in July 2009) regarding the title and POV issues, but I would appreciate your evaluation of the following:

Since the result of the recent Request for deletion of 2009 Honduran coup d'état was "no consensus" and it appears that 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis will remain the umbrella article of Fourth ballot box, 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, and Micheletti regime, I propose that this chronology, which has grown to encompass events from timeframes covered by the above articles (up to eight months before the coup, and the machinations, negotiations, and significant notable events subsequent to June 28) be renamed to reflect this.

I understand that this article was originally designed to discuss (as its lede still suggests) the events of June 28 and the immediate aftermath. The current chronology in the article, however, goes beyond the material in 2009 Honduran coup d'état and encompasses a lot of material from Fourth ballot box and Micheletti regime. I might also note that, anticipating criticism from some regarding WP:NAME conventions, that the vast majority of RSs use the word "crisis" rather than "coup" to refer to the entire situation (previous to the coup, events of June 28, and throughout the last few months), and retain "coup" to describe only the events of June 28. I suggest the above name as an analogue to the umbrella article. Moogwrench (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The WP:RS is coup d'état. To describe otherwise is a denial of the coup and its aftermath.Cathar11 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is denying that there was a coup with this rename, merely that the article as presently constituted goes beyond the coup, with pre- and post-coup information. I suggest either the rename or a trimming of the chronology. Also, as I said, the entirety of this last year's crisis, rather than just June 28 coup, is usually referred to as a "crisis" in RSs. You can compare the news results for the two: coup and crisis Moogwrench (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Present title passes all WP:TITLE criteriaCathar11 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it does not describe the contents of the article. Much of the article is not "events of the 2009 Honduran coup" because they happened well after that coup. Homunq (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither reactions to the coup, nor events caused by the coup, should be excluded. The coup should not be viewed narrowly, based on any arbitrary or capricious definition of what constitutes events of the coup. -- Rico 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources contend that the coup was a crisis. We've been all through that.
Was the coup planned before the morning of June 28th? Narrowly defining that as "pre-coup information" would just be the OR of the definer. -- Rico 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, reliable sources state that the coup is part of a crisis. All reliable sources state that the coup proper started on June 28. So, saying pre-coup is not OR, it is just an accurate description. Some people seem to oppose mentioning the word "crisis" on philosophical grounds, even when appropriate, because they seem to think even mentioning the word somehow legitimizes the coup. Moogwrench (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do not state that the coup is "part" of a crisis. They simply state that the coup was a crisis. -- Rico 16:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that you are arguing this. They state "in" a crisis. "In" means "a part of". Why is it that you can't abide any other word other than coup to describe the totality of the situation, not just one of its parts? Moogwrench (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and trim. Most of the material refers to events after June 28 or immediately preceding it, the material dealing with the coup itself clearly overweights the material dealing with the more general constitutional crisis. Some sections (Nov 11, 2008 to May 27, 2009) can be removed and their material used as an introduction to the chronology. JRSP (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. To me, you can't consider everything after the coup to be part of the coup; if so, we'd have Chile under Pinochet as part of 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I consider the coup proper to be complete (though not of course settled) by July. Homunq (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this deals with more than the day that the Prez was ousted, and it would match the naming of the main article, for which this article claims to be a chronology of, and not of the subsidiary article which is name "coup". 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have been a consistent voice against removing the word "coup", and in fact I originated the current incarnation of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article. In this case, however, I agree with the logic - the article as it stands covers significantly more than the coup (in fact, it is in many ways better than the relatively-pathetic Micheletti regime article for that subject matter) and so should have a name that goes further. (Also, pre-emptively, I'd oppose splitting this article into three timeline subarticles, it's good the way it is.) Homunq (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize my point above: "coup" is absolutely the correct word for an event which spanned a day. A chronology of events of an event would in most cases, including this one, be too short to merit a separate article. This article naturally goes beyond the coup and so should its title.Homunq (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I agree with EWW's conclusion in this case does not make their logic valid. Wikipedia is not concerned with finding a name that is "correct" in any higher sense. And it does not strive to eliminate POV (which is usually code for choosing one standpoint) but rather to find a neutral POV which covers all the varying POVs to be found in RSs. Homunq (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME also states, "This naming conventions page sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to name articles. It is supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them. Most detailed naming advice appears in guidelines relating to articles in specific topic areas."
The coup was an event.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view states, "Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as 'massacre' can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. ... If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one." -- Rico 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is a lot more than the coup in this article. And so saying that it is the chronology of the coup is imprecise. Like I said above, some people don't like to use the word "crisis" ever, even though that word has dominated RSs describing the ongoing events in Honduras, because they feel that calling anything related to the coup anything but the coup somehow legitimizes the coup. However, the events described in this article clearly go beyond the coup event. Moogwrench (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only some reliable sources in en describe it as a coup and even those that do recognise the significant POV of those who dont consider it a coup; it is now for us to pick ad choose those RSs we like to support whatever we as editors happen to think. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to name without the word coup which is inherently POV given its a dispute in which one side doesnt believe a coup occurred, the so-called constitutional succession. Its vital we keep our own views out of this, esp those of us with very passionate views on the subject, and approach this as dispassionate wikipedia editors; I dont agree with the golpistas but I do recognise that their POV absolutely has a place in this whole set of articles and central to their POV is that there was no coup. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Homunq, and to some extent SqueakBox. Also: I tend to think of a coup as a one-off deal, lasting at most a couple of days. Events leading up to the coup would belong in any coup d'etat timeline, but events afterwards refer to the replacement regime (at least in my world). The title should reflect the broadness of the timeline, and this is far more broad than the coup. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Also: concerns about inability to find via search: obviously, we'd leave a redirect referring to it as a coup.[reply]
  • weak support. In some ways I'd prefer to split the long article at a suitable point to distinguish between the lead-up to the coup and the aftermath, but in other ways it's better to keep it all together, in which case the name should be clear. And the time covered in the article is just too long for "coup". PS How about merging at least the later events into monthly headings. A tiny paragraph for each heading is hard to read. Rd232 talk 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, per all above. I agree with Rd232 that it might be best to split this article somewhere, but I can't see any appropriate place to do so - it's one continuous timeline. In that case, it should be called 'Chronology of the constitutional crisis', as it goes far beyond the initial coup. Robofish (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

[edit]

Comments are welcome at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Material being added from unreliable sources

[edit]

Honduras weekly is a self published online magazine and not a reliable source. Other info fro bblogs have also been added. Oppinon pieces are not RS. If RS cant be located they will be removedCathar11 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RS primer

[edit]
I concur 100%, per WP:RS. Hondurasnews.com is a self-published ezine with no editorial oversight. Honduras Weekly is a blog-style self-published magazine which accepts contributions with little-to-no editorial oversight. Its "About" page, under a section entitled "Editorial Policy", states:

The editorial vision of Honduras Weekly is to promote a thoughtful, civil, intelligent, and balanced exchange about news, events, and people in Honduras. The idea is to be receptive and respectful of everyone's point of view. Our underlying assumption is that truth is not absolute... that each of us possesses our own truths, based on our own unique backgrounds, experiences, and minds. And that thus we are naturally bound to have our own interpretations of things that happen or that are said. We believe that our differences are to be celebrated, not feared. In the end, we can always agree to disagree. In the interim, we just think it's a good thing to listen to as many human beings as happen to come our way, and encourage a conversation... for the sake of the conversation. (emphasis mine)

"Editorial Policy", Honduras Weekly

This editorial policy uses phrases like "exchange", "everyone's point of view", and "our own interpretations"--all of which clue the reader to the fact that the articles encountered on this website are opinions. Furthermore, it is clear that Honduras Weekly offers no serious editorial oversight to the content of these articles--they believe that it is merely enough to "listen to as many human beings as happen to come our way." This is no WP:RS.
WP:RS states under Questionable sources:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources

WP:RS states under Self-published sources (online and paper):

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

WP:RS states under Statements of opinion:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion

For this reason, Hondurasnews.com (self-published ezine with no known editorial staff) and the contributions to Hondurasweekly.com (opinion articles without editorial oversight [double whammy]) are not RS, and should be tagged and/or deleted along with content cited. Moogwrench (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving from Bloomberg.com

[edit]

I will be deleting any links to archives of Bloomberg.com, which should not exist.

Under Item B.3 of their terms of service, in a section entitled Linking and Framing Terms and Conditions, they state:

Further, you may not archive, cache, or mirror any Bloomberg.com Web page or portions of a Web page.

Bloomberg.com's Terms of Service Agreement

Primary Sources

[edit]

Quoting from primary sources such as court records are origanal research and against wp:rs.Cathar11 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Prensa article

[edit]

This is an in-depth news article in the largest newspaper of Honduras, not an "editorial". Alb28 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why it says Marilyn Méndez. Redacción La Prensa: (Editorial La Prensa) and expresses her personal opinions throughout. Its an editorial piece.Cathar11 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it is the largest newspaper in Honduras and the article provides a good chronology of the events. I add attribution to the newspaper. Alb28 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the NY Times is the "largest" newspaper in the US, but you can't use the op-ed's of David Brooks or Thomas Friedman for statements of fact, just their opinion. I hadn't noticed this before. We will need to source all statements that use Marilyn Mendez's opinion piece for their source or they may be deleted. I would recommend going back through past editions of La Prensa or El Heraldo. But you are right, you cannot use "Marilyn Mendez said Zelaya did X" for attribution. It just isn't going to work because an editorial is not considered to be a reliable source for any facts. Moogwrench (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this is an in-depth article analyzing news over a longer period of time. Cathar11 claimed that it's an opinion because it has "Redacción La Prensa", but a lot articles by La Prensa have the editor's name and the text Redacción La Prensa, see today's article about an accident ("Napoleón Alvarado. Redacción La Prensa"). The newspaper has separate sections for columns and opinions. Alb28 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

[edit]

I'll be copy editing this article over the next week or so. I've placed a {{GOCEinuse}} at the top of the article. Please do not remove it. BejinhanTalk 06:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 97 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 40 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronology_of_the_2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis&oldid=1206685015"