Talk:Unión Cívica Democrática

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Honduras

	Honduras portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Honduras, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Honduras on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HondurasWikipedia:WikiProject HondurasTemplate:WikiProject HondurasHonduras articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Edit-war's attempt of resolution

I tried to end the continuous edit war on this page, by making some changes:

adding more precise and neutral information in the introduction (it is made up of several orgs, it took part in demonstrations against the president).
moving to "mission" the disputed part, putting both visions in an as NPOV way as possible (when on such topic there ate ideological disputes, it is a good way to report both versions, specifying one comes from the supporters, one from the detractors)
added information about sponsoring, adequately referenced, + mediatic support from previous edits
removed POV weasel words such as "massive" "large" from demonstrations (or the number of participants is put - which can however be disputed according to the source - otherwise "large" and "massive" are weasel)
removed worldwide from the anti-Chavez initiative, since i did not find any evidence that it was actually worldwide but rather local
added an "event" which partly counterbalances the list, for the rest pro UCD-leaning. The source is POV, I know, but the others are as well, on the opposite side, as it can easily be understood from their supportive tone. Sourchttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uni%C3%B3n_C%C3%ADvica_Democr%C3%A1tica&action=edites have to be both pro and against.
removed unsuitable links such as facebook page or broken link

I specify that I have no link to the facts related to the article, I am not from Honduras and I have no particular position on it, I just thought it could help resolving the dispute and making the article more accurate. Please use talkpage as well before making your edits, so that edit wars can be avoided.--Desyman44 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you are NOT from honduras then please stop contributing to these articles since you don't know what happened exactly in my country, thank you 190.53.225.34 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am not from Honduras has absolutely nothing to do with my right to modify the article. Even better, the fact that I am external to the dispute gives me more neutral point than you have, as involved into the disputed facts. Your modifications are biased, since you try to push the article into a pro-UCD way, which is against Wikipedia policies. In addition, you continuously rollback edits (whatever their nature is) without any discussion, back to your own version, behaving as if the articles were your own. This is not a contructive way of editing wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Furthermore, you keep adding external links which are not suitable, such as a facebook group (see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided) or broken ones. Finally, I kindly invite you to be more respectful toward other users, since everybody here has (hopefully) the intention to improve articles' quality, even if they might have different opinions from yours.--Desyman44 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Its supporters claim the organization defends democracy and the constitution of Honduras", so you are suggesting that is false that they support the constitution?. "June 26, 2009 - Massive demonstration / June 30, 2009 - Large demonstrations. / July 7, 2009 - Large demonstrations / September 28, 2009 - A massive march", they were indeed massive and large demonstrations and marchs. "September 4, 2009 - UCD participated in marches expressing opposition to Hugo Chávez. The demonstrations were part of the worldwide No Más Chávez day", indeed the No Más Chavez rally was worldwide, other countries also participated. 190.53.225.34 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting anything. But wikipedia policies recommend to do so: when a statement is disputed (not everyone agrees UCD supports democracy but only its supporters, while detractors believe it supported a military coup) both versions shall be reported. The statement, as you want to put it, its one-sided and therefore POV. Both points of view have to be reported, especially in such a controversial topic. This doesn't imply any personal opinion by me myself.
Words such as "massive", "large", etc are weasel words: or a more or less precise number is given, otherwise it is unclear and promotional. It is as if you were saying "some people think that..." without specifying who. So if no indication about participation can be given from reliable sources, then "massive" and "large" are non neutral considerations.
No Más Chávez day" is relatively worldwide, however since some countries outside latin america participated, probably you are right on this, so ok, we can keep it described as "worldwide".
However, you keep deleting sourced informations (such as the paragraph concerning the sponsoring). By browsing your contributions story, this seems not the first time you do so. Please note that this is a non constructive way of contributing to wikipedia. It's not about winning and having you opinion prevailing, but on finding consensus with other users who may think differently from you. Wikipedia is, after all, a democratic project. Edit warring is perceived as a "violent" method of imposing your vision.--Desyman44 (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Desyman44 contributions are very accurate. My only suggestion is that honduran newspapers like El Heraldo, La Prensa and La Tribuna are not a neutral source. El Heraldo and La Prensa are owned by Jorge Canahuati, a bussiness man from San Pedro Sula that financed the lobbying in the US congress to support the coup http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300225063 . La Tribuna is owned by a former president, Carlos Flores Facussé, known to be one of the masterminds behind the coup --Viejor (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution

This organization haven´t done any activity in several months, it was created to support the coup, so it´s not necessary anymore. I suggest to put all the text in past tense.