Jump to content

Talk:2009 Honduran general election

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

NPOV issue: should we show photos of all six candidates or just two?

[edit]

In this edit Carlos H. Reyes was removed from the info box and in this edit, the explanation "only the two main political parties are shown in this infobox" was given.

Sorry, but i don't understand this. There's no point having photos for the general election, since that would be a huge number of photos. i've corrected from "general" to "presidential" in the infobox - i assume that this was the intention, since we had "type = presidential" and two presidential candidates, not candidates for Congress.

Why should wikipedia favour political party leaders against independents in any presidential election? For example, Iranian presidential election, 2009 has two major and two minor candidates. i can understand that if the election goes to a second round (is it a two-round election?), then we would shift to the two who go to that step, but not before that. Boud (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've put all six official candidates with dummy photos, in the order given by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The two photos of the big party candidates that were previously linked would violate Commons:Fair_use for the Commons in general and even in the English-language wikipedia alone, which can accept fair-use files under certain strict conditions, those two photos constitute unacceptable use: 12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. i have not removed them from en.wikipedia - i'm not an admin :) - i've only removed the links from this particular article. In fact, even when fair-use is tolerated, there has to be a separate copyright declaration for each inclusion in an en.wikipedia article (which is a good motivation to get a free licenced image! - to avoid admin overhead), and this was not done.
Read through the basic info at commons and see the example messages in Spanish that someone eager to contact the six candidates or their support groups or anyone who has photographed them in a way that is reasonably neutral with respect to the different candidates can use to satisfy Commons legal requirements. Also Commons:Commons:Email_templates or Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission may help. Boud (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what about the United States presidential election, 2008, in there there is only the two main candidates but there's another four candidates running for president http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Nationwide_Results, that's the reason i'm changing back to two main candidates Vercetticarl (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honduras is not the United States, and en.wikipedia.org is not USA.wikipedia.org. Please read WP:BIAS. Let's look at some recent presidential elections, before the first round of voting:
The whole meaning of a national election of some sort is that the citizens of the country choose their leaders. If we represent their choice as being more restricted than what it is formally and what it is reliably documented to be in terms of the list of official candidates, then we are introducing a POV against the citizens of that country who vote for the "minor" candidates.
Also, given the particular sociopolitical context of what is expected to be an election in Nov 2009, we lack the knowledge of which candidates would be likely to be most popular. Given that the two dominating political parties in Congress supported Micheletti becoming president, chances are that the half or so of the population who are opposed to the coup d'etat will vote for someone other than the two big political party candidates. For the article to not have all six candidates would be POV. For this reason, i'm adding an NPOV tag, so that others can participate in the discussion. We still have a few months to consense on this before wikipedians are likely to become too animated on this topic for having a construction discussion. Boud (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source code for all six candidates - here is one example of including all six candidates - i'm putting this for convenience, so that when this debate is sorted out, people don't have to redo this from scratch. Boud (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honduras is not France or Iran, and in Honduras there's only one round of election, which is scheduled on November 29, 2009, and only an small minority of honduran people are opposed to what happened on june 28, so the great mayority of honduras are still going to vote for one of the two big political parties, the national and the liberal party Vercetticarl (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have consensus that Honduras is neither USA, France, Iran nor Brazil. Regarding your claim only an small minority of honduran people are opposed to what happened on june 28, please have a look at 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Public_opinion. This gives 46% opposed to the coup, 41% in favour. 46% is not "a small minority". It is a minority, but not a small minority; and it's a relative majority. Boud (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do you live in honduras Boud? i do. everyone thinks that honduras is at war, that human rights are being violated, that nobody can go to work or to school, etc. that's totally false because of the wrong information foreign media are handling, i would like to point one especifically, Telesur, that channel only broadcasts the bad news in honduras and says things that are not true, because that channel is operated by the people of Chavez, the boss of Zelaya, so, of course, he is against the interim government, the great mayority of people are still supporting the two big parties Vercetticarl (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very twisted impression of what "everyone thinks that honduras (sic) is". You know, sometimes things are better seen from outside; also, Telesur is hardly a major source worldwide. --LjL (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vercetticarl, i do not follow how your last comment relates to the subject of whether we should show photos of all six candidates or just two, except for your unsourced claim that "the great mayority of people are still supporting the two big parties". In France and Iran and Brasil (see the links above), there were big majorities in favour of a small number of candidates in each case, but as long as the other presidential candidates had any chance at all in the election (i.e. before the 1st voting round), there were either photos of all the candidates or of none of them. i fail to see how excluding 4 of 6 candidates from a band of photos on the grounds that they are minority candidates is consistent with NPOV, in the sense that being a candidate in a presidential election is necessarily associated with the candidate's POV that s/he would be a good leader to run the country and/or that his/her support group has the best policies for running a country. By the nature of national politics in any country, it's natural to expect many more than just two points of view. Boud (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think we have yet seen any serious reasons for showing only two candidates. Even the majority/minority argument is not very convincing given the present turbulence in Honduras. With the present level of violations of human rights in Honduras, including political party members being assassinated, it's probably difficult to carry out opinion polls where people are not frightened to answer, and who people vote for in an election unlikely to be recognised internationally is probably quite an open question. It's not for wikipedians to crystal ball the results.

Maybe in a week's time, the presence of more editors on this page might lead to reopening the question, but i think that for the moment it's reasonable enough to bring back the six dummy photos and remove the NPOV tag. People can restart the discussion if needed later. Boud (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this source says that CID-Gallup polls showed 74% support for Lobo+Santos in February 2009, dropping to 56% "immediately" after the coup (i.e. end June/very early July). Both candidates lost support between the two polls, and even their combined support, 56%, was barely an absolute majority. Given everything that has happened during the two months since the coup, trying to predict the election results, including the degree of dominance of majority to minority candidates, would pretty likely be wild speculation. Boud (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot hide the coup d'etat/constitutional crisis context

[edit]

In the introduction i have put:

A new President of the Republic to serve a four-year term, replacing current de facto Honduran President Roberto Micheletti, who replaced the elected president Manuel Zelaya, who was removed during the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/coup d'etat. Both Zelaya and Micheletti are ineligible for re-election under the 1982 Constitution).

but in this edit, someone removed it. i have restored it now.

The following are NPOV facts:

  • Honduras is presently undergoing a major socio-political crisis
  • Zelaya was removed in a process that:
    • some major groups/individuals in Honduras and USA see as a constitutional crisis that was mostly resolved by removing Zelaya
    • some other major groups/individuals in Honduras, and nearly every government and newspaper in other countries around the world sees it as a coup d'etat
  • the title 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/coup d'etat for that article would probably satisfy nobody, especially for aesthetical reasons, but can easily be put here after the vertical bar in order to be NPOV
  • the division of POVs between "some major groups/individuals..." and "some other major groups/individuals..." more or less matches POVs as to whether Zelaya or Micheletti should be presently considered as the legally valid President of Honduras
  • en.wikipedia is not the USA.wikipedia.org, nor the middle/upper-class Honduran.wikipedia.org, so we cannot choose the POV of one (minority) group and ignore the POV of the other (huge majority) group

This is why i have restored the two sentences. Boud (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

[edit]

For obvious reasons, we don't want to repeat everything from the constitutional crisis/coup d'etat page here. However, to the degree that reliable sources claim that this context has some effect on the election, we need to include this material. i've started with a main tag to the main article, a single sentence saying that the events occurred, and a sentence with the sourced POV of a regional grouping of two of the biggest countries in the region plus two smaller ones - Mercosur - directly regarding elections. If there are any reliable sources from notable people/organisations who state that they intend to recognise elections under Micheletti, then please add those RS'd POV's. Boud (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious issues

[edit]

Roberto Micheletti is NOT de facto, is Interim, but since you wikipedians do not understand, change it to "Interim de facto", Micheletti is refer to that in his article, not only de facto. Vercetticarl (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "an apple is NOT food, it's fruit". You just don't get it. How about you just drop this topic for a while, as suggested on your talk page? --LjL (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

human rights violations, political assassinations section

[edit]

We don't want to copy/paste the full content of other related articles here, but clearly we have to mention information that is directly related to political parties and in the case of Carlos H. Reyes, his support group(s), which are presumably not formal political parties. When the government has been claimed by various sources (local and international human rights organisations) to have assassinated members of a political party, we can hardly pretend that that's irrelevant background to the election. So i started with that as something that should be most uncontroversial for inclusion to this article.

How far we should go regarding other human rights violations is unclear to me, since it's less obvious that they are individually relevant background to an election, except in the general sense that people will be less willing to organise "politically" if they think they risk being beaten up, assassinated, or "disappeared". Probably the best would be some statement by a notable person or group who say that the elections would not be fair or free or whatever in conditions X, Y, Z which are presently the case. Probably if/when the official campaign starts, there will be statements like this.

Another issue is for the section title - at the present it is "Assassinations of political party members", but that is non-neutral since it excludes the support group(s) for Carlos H. Reyes. There are two difficulties here. Firstly, correcting this would make the section title longer. Secondly, i would guess that Reyes' support groups are less sharply defined than political parties, so deciding who counts as a support group member and whether or not that's in an election-related role is more open to interpretation. Any thoughts? Boud (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

constitutional crisis vs coup d'etat NPOV

[edit]

This edit is contrary to the difficult consensus built at Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis. The only consensus we have regarding "constitutional crisis vs coup d'etat" is that there are varying POVs regarding which aspect is more important, i.e. both POVs need to be present unless it is clear that in a specific context one is more relevant, or unless it is very impractical to include both, as in the title of the article 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis. Please see Talk:2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis.

In certain contexts, it can be clear that one of these aspects is more relevant, in other cases the NPOV choice is to express both aspects.

In the lead/introduction:

  1. "Manuel Zelaya, who was removed during the 2009 Honduran coup d'etat." versus
  2. "...Manuel Zelaya, who was removed during the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis."

It seems clear to me that the coup d'etat aspect is most relevant here. According to nearly all governments in the world, Zelaya is the President of Honduras, which is relevant to the election, and what is directly relevant to the election is the fact that he was physically removed from power. (There exists another (minority) POV according to which Zelaya is no longer President of Honduras; that POV is already expressed earlier in the sentence.) The wider (controversial) context is less directly relevant. So it seems to me that we should choose option 1. here.

However, i think that we could also add the constitutional aspect at the end of this sentence: "...1982 Constitution, over which an an ongoing crisis occurred."

  1. "Preceding the planned November elections, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/coup d'etat occurred." versus
  2. "Preceding the planned November elections, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis occurred. "

It seems to me that depending on one's POV, the two different aspects are important to different social actors, i.e. for some social forces, the constitutional crisis will be resolved by the elections, while for nearly others (200 governments from around the world, human rights organisations, etc.) the coup d'etat which led to suspension of human rights protection, 3500-4000 arbitrary detentions, assassinations of political party members, etc. are relevant to whether the election can be considered free and fair. So IMHO in this case we should choose option 1 here. Boud (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an action of the military is ordered by the Supreme Court, and endorsed by the unanimous parlaiment, and the President's own Vice President and running mate is sworn in in hid place, "coup d'etat" is a silly term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.177.195 (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TODO: provisional boycott; PCM-M-016-2009

[edit]

The provisional boycott of the election declared by opponents to the coup d'etat clearly should be mentioned somewhere in this article.

Also, PCM-M-016-2009 (the Micheletti decree from 22 September to around 6 October) suspending the right to free speech, the right to freedom of assembly, the right to a fair trial, etc has been referred to by much of the Western mainstream media as upsetting Honduran elites because they are worried that the election won't be recognised by the international community.

References for both are easy to find. Boud (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UD + PINU provisional boycott

[edit]

Seems like Martinez may not agree with the provisional boycott considered by his party: http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/resumen/62964 = TODO. Boud (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls

[edit]

Al Giordano and Narco News is NOT a reliable news source In the poll it is linked back to Al Giordano´s blog. A blog is not considered an acceptable link on Wikipedia guys. No matter how much you like him and Gallup disagrees with him and they are a reputable poll. The poll you guys are touting I doubt is a valid poll as I have never heard of them before and I live in Honduras.

CID Gallup an internationally recognized and npov says that 42% show Pepe as winner and 37% Elvin Santos. The poll by Narco News should be out of here as something that is not verifiable. I agree with the other poster here that lives in Honduras. I also live here and some of you have a warped view of what people think here. Not too many people sympathize with Zelaya. http://www.laprensahn.com/Ediciones/2009/10/27/Noticias/Lobo-16-puntos-arriba-a-32-dias-de-comicios The poll I linked in La Prensa(known for neutrality and a national newspaper in Honduras) shows as of Oct 27 Pepe ahead of Santos by 16 points. These are polls that need to be listed not Narco news and Al who has never set foot in Honduras.Summermoondancer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the La Prensa link, though i've given both La Prensa and another link, since the La Prensa article has made the rather absurd choice of saying that Lobo has 16% more than Santos, without saying how much each has in the poll! After that it mentions that 59% "think that Lobo will become president", which is different from how many would vote for Lobo. i cannot see where you get 42% and 37% from. The Casamerica link says 37% and 21%, which is consistent with a 16% difference. According to the standard Peano axioms, 42-37 = 5, which is not 16, so probably you mistyped somewhere.
COIMER & OP is a polling company approved by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The poll is by COIMER&OP, not Narco News - i think you may be confused here. Al Giordano is a well-known journalist. There are two links here: one to the COIMER & OP opinion poll report in Spanish, and another to a description in English including some excerpts and translation of some parts of the report. Al Giordano's opinions are not used in the wikipedia article, only the COIMER&OP opinion poll results are used. So the blog nature of Al Giordano's news report on the poll should not be a problem here. If you believe that Al Giordano has faked the COIMER&OP poll, then please provide a reliable source that makes that claim. Boud (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Narco News is a blog, therefore is NOT a reliable source. Carl vercetti (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reyes' role in the elections

[edit]

In my edit comment from a few minutes ago, "runner-up second candidate" should have read "approximately equal-second candidate" (Santos and Reyes at 14% and 12% put them equal within the uncertainty of the poll). Boud (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tags should be dealt with sooner or later

[edit]

Given that this article is going to be very "current" tomorrow and probably for some time later, now is probably not a good time to clean up the NPOV tags that were posted and not followed up. However, given the lack of specific discussion by the editor who posted them, they should probably be removed after some reasonable delay. i'm not eager to remove them myself, since at the moment i still seem to be the main contributor to the article, so it would be more neutral for someone else to check for NPOV and then remove the tags if they are no longer needed. Boud (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TODO - various

[edit]

Boud (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quotha is a blog. blogs are not reliable sources. Carl vercetti (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox election

[edit]

The infobox election shows only the presidential candidates who are available and since Carlos H. Reyes withdrew from the election, he should NOT be on the infobox, he can be on the presidential election section. Carl vercetti (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia is not an election guide for voters. It is a record of reliably sourced, notable information about the election. Reyes is a highly notable candidate. He was wounded by the security forces under Micheletti and he withdrew as a deliberate political action in claiming that the election is illegitimate. If the Zelaya government had been restored in e.g. September or October, chances are he would now have a good chance of being elected president of Honduras. Boud (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'm just putting a link to your previous account here: User talk:Vercetticarl. Since you have been trying to remove the NPOV/RS consensus term de facto, and that was one of your controversial editing actions in your previous reincarnation, i think that this is relevant for people new to this discussion. Boud (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narco News

[edit]

Al Giordano is a well-known journalist. Blogs can be cited if they are by well-known people, especially journalists. In this case, the information concerns official Decrees, and previous reports on Micheletti de facto government decrees by Al Giordano have been supported by many other sources - e.g. PCM-M-016-2009. Boud (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Giordano's blog, Narco News, should not be used as source in Wikipedia. See WP:RS self-published sources.--Proofknow (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCM-M-030-2009 - state of emergency

[edit]

If someone wishes to hide the information regarding the state of emergency under which the election is being held, then please explain why. It seems to be a highly notable fact. The whole idea of a democratic election is that it is organised by civilians in conditions where they can freely make their decisions. A state of emergency very significantly affects the conditions of making "free" decisions. Boud (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect Boud, do you live in Honduras? the elections are with total conditions of making free decisions Carl vercetti (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you claimed you were a lawyer in Honduras, please show us the online source where the de facto government publishes its decrees, or where La Gaceta publishes its journal. Or you could help La Gaceta create a web page and publish its full, official version. That way we would have direct sources of decrees such as PCM-M-030-2009, which is the subject of this talk point.
Alternatively, if you believe that PCM-M-030-2009 is faked, then please provide a source with that claim. Boud (talk)
i'm just reminding you that wikipedia does NOT allows blogs are reliable sources, and also please use sources that are not with only one side of the crisis, not with Interim President Micheletti and not with former president Zelaya, it seems that the sources you use are totally in favor with former president Zelaya. I recommend you reliable sources (NOT blogs) such as The Wall Street Journal for example 190.53.244.15 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vercetticarl aka Carl vercetti aka 190.53.244.15. The wikipedia uses reliable sources. Blogs are in general not reliable, but in some cases they are. Al Giordano is a well-recognised journalist publishing as part of a news organisation. Please do not avoid the issue of PCM-M-030-2009. You have presented no arguments to suggest that Al Giordano is an unreliable source regarding this decree and in reporting factual types of information like this. Above all, wikipedia guidelines say to use common sense. We are not expected to blindly follow blanket rules without thinking of why these guidelines, not strict rules, have evolved. So let me repeat my point: please show us the online source where the 'de facto' government publishes its decrees, or where La Gaceta publishes its journal. Or you could help La Gaceta create a web page and publish its full, official version. That way we would have direct sources of decrees such as PCM-M-030-2009, which is the subject of this talk point. You cannot just remove a source based on naively applying a general rule. PCM-M-030-2009 is a decree by the Micheletti de facto government of Honduras, and this article concerns the (controversial) general elections in Honduras. The problem with typical blogs does not make this decree disappear.
For the record, here are 190.53.244.14/Vercetticarl's edits where he removes:
  • all reference to the state of emergency decree PCM-M-030-2009,
  • and also removes the NPOV description of the context of the election,
  • and also removes Reyes' entry in the results table, despite Reyes being notable as the only candidate who overtly opposed the coup d'etat by withdrawing from the election. Boud (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are totally in favor of former president Zelaya don't you? i just wanted to remind you that what happened in Honduras was NOT a coup d'etat 190.53.244.15 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preferences for or against president Zelaya are irrelevant for the discussion of PCM-M-030-2009 with respect to work on this wikipedia entry. Your POV that there was no coup d'etat in Honduras is fine as your private opinion, but with regards to wikipedia articles has been dealt with at length previously by many other wikipedians than me. You were indefinitely blocked from editing the wikipedia for reasons that mostly focussed on your failure to abide by the consensus regarding use of the term de facto and coup d'etat related edits. (See User_talk:Vercetticarl for details.) There was no need to raise this topic of your past editing, but you seem to wish to bring it up for discussion again. Personally i think we should stick to the previous consensus regarding that topic, and focus on new issues.
You are avoiding the topic of discussion. Please read the title of this subsection. You are attempting to hide a de facto government decree based on an overly-simplified interpretation of a wikipedia guideline, ignoring the fact that Honduras is a poor country where the official governmental journal is either unwilling or technically not savvy enough to publish itself online and the difficulty in obtaining sources in online sources in poor countries. Boud (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So

[edit]

The left-wing revolution LOSE AGAIN. Holy United States! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.232.169 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

infobox NPOV

[edit]

In this edit, Special:Contributions/190.53.244.15, who seems to be User:Vercetticarl who became User:Carl vercetti, removed most of the candidates from the infobox. (Someone else had earlier removed Reyes, the main anti-coup-d'etat candidate, apart from Cesar Ham.) Some of the relevant arguments for and against are in the discussion above (e.g. this is not the USA.wikipedia.org), another one is that 6 is a small enough number that there is little loss in clarity in an encyclopedia by including all 6 officially confirmed candidates rather than only the two non-withdrawn candidates who got the most votes. The reader of the article will make up his/her mind what to do with that information. Having an infobox with two pro-coup candidates suggests the original research claim that voters had no real choice in the presidential election, i.e. they could only choose either a pro-coup candidate or a pro-coup candidate.

Another point is that the infobox does not have any info on the congressional (parliamentary) and mayoral elections, so "general" there seems to be inaccurate, except in terms of inter-article links. Boud (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only the two main political parties are shown in the infobox election, see for example United States presidential election, 2008, only the democratic and repucblican parties are shown in the infobox the other little parties who participated in the electtion are not shown in th infobox. another example is the recently Uruguayan general election, 2009, in which also are the two main political parties in their infobox, minor parties are not in the infobox. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to the US pres election is a repeat of an argument you have made before. The Uruguayan article is new, but only contributes to the "let's count the precedents of both possibilities" approach, which has some, though limited value. It is not in itself a new argument. Boud (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout Figure

[edit]

At the moment, Total Vote is listed as 1,790,298, total registered voters at about 4.6 million and turnout at about 61%. Not all of these figures can be correct so can someone check which one's wrong? DM Andy (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is deleting my comments about this mathematical mistake on the Honduras 2009 election wikipedia page. Unsigned

Feel free to do the elementary arithmetic yourself, but please make sure the sourcing/referencing is clear. The figures are likely to be frequently updated over the next few weeks - i think i saw somewhere that the official results will be released only in late December. If you cannot correct the errors yourself and just wish to point them out, then please do that here on the Talk: page and not directly on the article page. There are plenty of independent wikipedians who may decide to follow up your comments if you put them here on the Talk: page. Boud (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i see the point. 1.79/4.6 is a lot less than 0.61. At present the table has 4.6 for the electoral census and infers 0.36 turnout, whereas 1.79/4.6 \approx 0.39. We need to see what various sources say. Boud (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if the uncounted urns are more or less randomly selected from the total set of urns, then the turnout can be estimated as 1.79/4.6/0.6631 = 0.58 - which is close enough to 0.61. Boud (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't say that clearly enough: The yucatan source says that only about 0.6631 of the urns (ballot boxes) have been counted so far according to the TSE. So we cannot just divide 1.79 by 4.6. We also need to correct for the uncounted urns. A rough calculation can be made by assuming that the already counted urns constitute a random selection among the full set of urns - this gives 1.79/4.6/0.6631 = 0.58 = 58%. A better calculation requires better knowledge of which urns have been counted, e.g. the geographical/demographic origin of the counted vs uncounted urns. Since we don't have that, we have to cite sources that (in principle) have made correct models to extrapolate to the full set of urns. Only once the total vote is official will it be possible to confirm the internal consistency (or inconsistency) of the official turnout claim. Boud (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute by 75.41.110.200: "wow, did Zelaya write this himself?"

[edit]

In this edit, Special:Contributions/75.41.110.200 posted an NPOV page for the whole article. S/he did not explain what his/her concern was, except "wow, did Zelaya write this himself?"

The answer is that Zelaya may well have internet access from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa and may be editing the English-language Wikipedia, but this is irrelevant unless his edits are disruptive, in the sense that they violate the goals of Wikipedia. Zelaya, the de facto president Micheletti, and the de facto-elected president Lobo are all welcome to edit any wikipedia articles, on the condition that they justify their edits with external reliable sources, that they keep cool heads, that they assume good faith, etc.

Some relevant quotes from Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F may be:

Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

There are also some other NPOV tags that were not followed up by discussion on the talk page. i suggest that the person who added them clearly and exactly explain why those parts of the article do not seem to have a NPOV and make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Boud (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prohibits using blogs are reliable sources, such as Narco News

[edit]

please use reliable sources, for example: the wall street journal 190.53.244.15 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout: NOT AVAILABLE

[edit]

Whether the tornout was 60 percent as the de facto Honduran government wants to make us believe, 49 percent as the Supreme Electoral Court of Honduras has published or under 35 percent as the National Resistance Front claim. In order to keep the article as neutral as possible (which is somewhat impossible) I think we should better say that the tournout is NOT AVAILABLE (N/A). However if only 1.7 million voters out of 4.6 million who are able to voted then LOGICALLY the turnout was at 37 percent. According to the TSE there is still a 34% of the ballots left to be counted thus meaning the number of voters would not raise from 2.5 million and then the final turnout will be at 54 percent. So let's wait for the official results, which I personally don't think they'll ever be given and are reliable anyhow, to publish the final turnout. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TSE list a total of 2,080,959 votes counted, which they say is 90.52% of the votes. This would project as a total of 2.3 million votes (2,298,894 votes)[1]. This would be a participation rate of 47.8 percent, or exactly what the Hagamos Democracia projections said the turnout was which had a 99+% certainty rate and a margin of error of 1%. Unless they change the total on the electoral roll I would expect this to aproximate to the final outcome. AFP were told earlier that the figures have been revised downwards by the TSECathar11 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos H. Reyes

[edit]

His photo is only reliable for his own article, his photo has nothing to do with this article which refers to the elections only. 190.53.225.34 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "His photo is only reliable for his own article". Furthermore, he was a player in the elections, so you can't honestly say "his photo has nothing to do with this article." How about you explain yourself a tad better? Moogwrench (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he has his own article, and the real people who matter in this article are President-elect Porfirio Lobo and runner-up Elvin Santos and none of them have photos, so please stop supporting Carlos H. Reyes, thank you. 190.53.225.34 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By no mean showing a picture of a person implies the support for that user. This is quite silly to say. Photos are meant to describe the events and the people involved, so it fits and, especially, its presence does not imply any point of view. I just point out that user 190.53.225.34 has been temporarily blocked for suspected sockpuppeting and edit warring, so his behavior has been already sanctioned.--Desyman44 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
c'mon Desyman44, Elvin Santos is more important than Carlos H. Reyes and Elvin doesn't have a photo! Theboyinlaw (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the fact he has not a photo is not because he is less important than Reyes, but just because there is no free photo for him on commons. To remove a relevant picture because of the lack of a more important one doesn't seem to me a consistent logic. Does it??--Desyman44 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Response Map

[edit]

The map shows El Salvador in blue. It should either green, red, or grey. I'd change it but I'm not sure how. ReelExterminator (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Honduran general election, 2009. 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) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Honduran_general_election&oldid=1248468874"