Talk:Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti

Section

The section "Zelaya and Micheletti sign accord" should IMHO be essentially a summary of the appropriate section of San José-Tegucigalpa-Guaymuras Accord, which itself should be a quite solid article, since it starts with Clinton getting the Arias "San Jose" Accord and calling for "dialogue" in order to prevent immediate reversal of the coup, and now the Tegucigalpa-Guaymuras version which will delay reversal of the coup long enough for the elections to take place without the coup having been reversed, i.e. without stopping the human rights violations (arbitrary arrests, beatings of political demonstrators, torture, extrajudicial executions, tear gas fired into human rights organisations' offices, etc.). Boud (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Now, someone needs to fix it. (Do I hear you volunteering :) ?) Homunq (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Micheletti regime

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Micheletti regime's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WP-07-01-09":

• From Human rights in Honduras: "Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure". Washington Post. July 01, 2009. Retrieved July 04, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
• From 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: "Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure". Washington Post. 1 July 2009. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
• From Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état: Washington Post "Honduras Targets Protesters With Emergency Decree: Media in Country Also Feel Pressure". Washington Post. July 01, 2009. Retrieved July 04, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Homunq (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Peters out.......

A good source for material to flesh out the later parts of this article would be the Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article. Help welcome! Homunq (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I get some more time (hahaha), I plan on getting Micheletti regime up to speed. Moogwrench (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 page moved to Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Micheletti regime → Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti — Whatever may be our opinion of the man and how he came to power, "regime" is a loaded term and should be avoided in titles. He is at least acting as President of Honduras, and this is a perfectly neutral way of describing the phenomenon, and also in harmony with the other entries at Category:Presidencies. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How do the two compare in RSs? Moogwrench (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Micheletti regime → Acting Presidency of Roberto Micheletti is more neutral.

Support, because it tends to go with the RSs and common usuage, per WP:TITLE. Here is a result with Michelleti +

De facto president - 98 results on Google news

Interim president - 837 results on Google news

Acting president - 17 returns.

and then the old title:

Micheletti regime - 42 returns. Moogwrench (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support because it is a much clearer name. (It would be even clearer if Honduras were in the title somewhere) 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Requested move - further comments

Good job, the new name is better than my initial name. Homunq (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't see the point in adding Honduras in the title (comment by 76.66...). There's no need to make the title longer than is needed, and with only about 200 UN member states in the world, the number of interim presidents called Roberto Micheletti is probably not going to be much greater than one over any short interval. By the time that happens, nearly all of en.wikipedia's biographically named articles will need to be disambiguated... Boud (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

requested move for Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état

Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move Moogwrench (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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) 21:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

blatant POV

this paragraph is blatant POV

A small clique of Honduras' most wealthy families stand as the major obstacle to Zelaya's restoration to power[Citation needed]. Members of this elite clique have reacted with surprise, since they did not expect that the United States would support President Zelaya. An Associated Press article on 6 August stated, "Elites across Latin America are watching the standoff closely, as they plot their own strategies to combat democratically elected presidents such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who have demonized the wealthy as they push for a more even distribution of income."[17]

to boot, the link leads to a 404. this needs to be removed.--Henrybaker (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. as they say: {{sofixit}} :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided an updated ref for content, but it's up to you Henrybaker if you want to eliminate the content. Moogwrench (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the content is duplicated

Most of the content is same as in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis and Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.

Suggestion:

• Keep key things about the constitutional crisis.
• Leave details to Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.
• A good, balanced overview of the presidency, including economic hardship, media restrictions, foreign policy, etc. Alb28 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Some detail is important, and it is natural to have some overlap in articles that address facets of the same topic, so I disagree with your proposal to reorder/recombine the recently split articles and the chronology (which is a separate beast altogether).

P.S. I am reverting or restoring some of the content of some of your edits, which go against the established consensus, and the RSs (i.e. most of them call the ouster of Zelaya a "coup") Moogwrench (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Some overlap natural. However, we are talking about large overlap.Alb28 (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

POV terms

Zelaya calls it a "coup". The Honduran democratic institutions, including the parliament and the judiciary, and the interim government state that he was constitutionally removed from the post. The encyclopedia must not judge who is right.

More information is available at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Alb28 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right about two sides, however, neither of the two sides decides what Wikipedia calls it.

Per WP:NAME:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names

The majority of English RSs, especially those used in these articles, call the ouster of Zelaya a "coup." Hence, we call it a "coup." It doesn't even matter if that is the "right" word for it.

Again, per WP:NAME:

In discussing the appropriate name of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.

Wikipedia:NAME#Considering_name_changes

I hope that clears up why we use the word "coup" in titles and in the content. "Ouster" is appropriate as well, but "coup" should not be removed. Moogwrench (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view cannot be superseded - POV terms must be removed or attributed

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion; it cannot be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

Alb28 (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so present a neutral point of view in the article. But your naming it one thing because you think that is correct is just as POV as someone naming it another thing because they think that name is correct. How to decide what to name it? WP:NAME policy, which is what I cited above. Unquestionably, like it or not, the majority of RSs in English use "coup" and so we must as well. Oh, and consensus for the name of the article is definitely on the side of "coup," as you can see from archived discussions. Since you have been reverted several times, I would recommend continuing discussion on this topic until the RSs change the terminology they use to describe Zelaya's ouster. Moogwrench (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in all but one particular, Moogwrench. Your use of the word 'ouster' for the coup, forcible removal from office, or whatever, seems to trivialise it. This light-heartedness about a human life and death situation strongly suggests to me a US origin for your POV (I will check in a minute to see if I'm right).--212.100.250.228 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "ouster" is used extensively in the RS, essentially as a synonym for "coup." See: AP, Reuters UK, AFP, etc. I really don't quite understand your speculating about my supposed "light-heartedness" regarding life and death, and assigning that feeling to being from the US. Huh? Moogwrench (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The term is used exclusively by citizens of the United States. It is clearly a patronising and demeaning synonym, reflecting imperialist hubris and the true origins of the coup--212.100.250.228 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Reuters UK is, of course, from the UK, and AFP is French. Moogwrench (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias in demo images

We may struggle tirelessly to achieve balance in the description of events, but all this is undone when someone decides to download a clear image of a calm, collected, passably attractive (from a distance) demonstrator from one particular side of the conflict, and at a time when demonstrators from the opposing camp may well have good reason to fear their images appearing in open media. Also, there is more pictorial reference to anti-Zelaya demonstrators than to their opponents in this article. 'If a picture can paint a thousand words' (which I believe it can) we need to be a lot more scrupulous about pictorial balance in this article, before it does some damage.--212.100.250.228 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)