Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Legal process

It appears to me that the arrest is a legal process, and the army has only done to enforce an order of law court. The remaining question is, whether the arrest order is constitutional and acceptable under rule of law. This is important. An order of law court should not automatically considered as constitutional, and an arrest with order may be unconstitutional as well if its legal basis is faulty.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the constitutional justifications come from Article 239, which seems to say that trying to change the constitution to permit re-election results in the immediate cessation of office for the offender, and Article 42, which appears to state that citizenship can be revoked for supporting the continued governance or re-election of an executive. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've translated article 239 in a footnote. Note that it is a general prohibition: ANYONE who tries to reform article 239 "will cease carrying out their office" and is ineligible for any public charge for 10 years. If such a person were anyone but the president, then it's clear enough that the president should fire them; but when that person IS the president, there's no indication of how they are supposed to be removed.

IMO, even if this reading is valid and Zelaya is not president, it is still a coup, as there is no constitutional basis for the army to send him into exile. The supreme court justices may have told the army to do it, but if they did then they were not speaking with the authority of the court, as the supreme court had no official session in which they found Zelaya in violation of article 239. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate article 42 for us as well? My Spanish sucks, but I beleive Article 42, section 5 says something to the effect that they can revoke citizenship for supporting the re-election of a president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a native Spanish... here is the translation: Article 42:

ARTICLE 42 .- The quality of citizen is lost:

[...]

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.

[...]

In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1) and 2) the declaration of loss of citizenship will file [...]

For the cases of paragraphs 3) and 6) the statement will be made by the Executive Power by a government agreement, and for the cases of subparagraphs 4) and 5) also by governmental agreement, after the sentence handed down by the competent courts.

That is the translation of Article 42. I will not interpret it. Mercastan (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that then make the action legal? The president would have become a non-citizen (which the court has authority to rule on) and could be escorted out of the country Nickjost (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have in mind that sending someone into exile seems completely out of frame with the process of impeachment. Another thing worth noting is that there's still a LOT of military activity running in the streets, there were people rioting as of a couple of hours ago and a curfew was sound for today and tomorrow by the de facto president. I live in a country that has seen both legal removals and military coups (Argentina), and this is nothing like the former 201.253.68.198 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there is some illegal element on the military actions. However, forcing someone who are no longer rightful President to leave his country cannot be a coup. This is illegal, but it cannot be called a coup. The question is, whether the military action to remove the President backed by law court order, whether the law court order constitutional, and whether the order acceptable under the natural concept of rule of law (that is, it is completely possible the law court has staged a coup because it has made an order violating rule of law, and in that case, I call it a coup assisted by army enforcement).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it is still a coup. First, if it quacks like a duck... Second, the Army is not a police force. Third, does the Supreme Court even have the power to "arrest" the president? Some Latin American countries -- like Argentina, my own -- state that elected country officials cannot be arrested while still holding office. They must be first stripped of their office by an act of Congress, which is something that doesn't happen overnight, and also Congress may not act "after the fact", like it did in this case. For democracy to function, no country official can be arrested overnight and expelled from the country without due trial! Finally, historically most military coups seek legitimacy and claim they have the support of some sector of the people (bloodthirsty dictatorships in Chile and Argentina claimed so, for example). Any way you spin it, this is a nasty coup. 190.191.237.21 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a coup. First, it doesn't quack like a duck, see discussions above. It was an authorized action by the supreme court. The reason for exile is to avoid a bloodbath-- also, Honduras apparently doesn't have a well-defined procedure for impeachment, lamentably. Second, the Honduran police force grew out of the army, as I understand it, and the army still today helps the police in law enforcement. It used to be that the army WAS the police force, so it's only natural for it to take on some of the roles that someone coming from a culture where the police have always been separate from the army might expect would be reserved for the police. Also, the Army has the sworn duty to protect the Constitution, above loyalty even to the President. You really need to know what you are talking about before you spout out such assumptions. Third, if the Supreme court does not have the authority to issue an arrest warrant for a president, how on earth will a lawbreaking president ever be held to account? The Congress was already considering how to impeach Zelaya. He was already on the way out-- and he continued to provoke the situation by breaking in and stealing the ballots. The military undoubtedly did things a bit hastily and excessively, but having lived there for a decade as I mentioned, I can say that it's probably not the worst of all possible outcomes. Zelaya remaining in power, or returning to power, will only create further turmoil.--24.72.222.172 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Almarco, why did you edit a post not signed by you? The point about the Army being the police is wrong. Who are the Policia Nacional if not the national police force? They were formed a few years back when the old police force, the FUSEP (Fuerza de Seguridad Publica) was disolved. There's been a non-military police force in Honduras since the constitution was put in place in 1982. How long ago did you live in Honduras? Rsheptak (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

24.72.222.172 is me, before I could remember my old Wikipedia login. I edited it because I discovered that Honduras does indeed have a police force. I lived in Honduras over a decade ago, and it could be they had a police force as far back as then, but they certaintly weren't prominent enough for me to remember them. All I remember is that security and law enforcement seemed to be handled by the military, and people lamented the fact that there wasn't a proper civilian police force handling most of those roles instead. --Almarco (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As an Honduran, I can tell you Argentina's case with los Coloneles and Honduras' case are nothing alike. In cases that involve the protection of the Constitution of Honduras, the army takes responsibility of running everything. This is why the Supreme Court ordered them to remove Zelaya. As for whether the Supreme Court can or cannot arrest him, the constitution does not explain what should be done when it is decided that the President needs to be removed. There is no clause in it that allows for impeachment. Basically, the Supreme Court decided what it thought would be best. Lastly, it can't be a coup when the people support it. If the media tells you it's a duck, it's probably something else. Watch less CNN193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article he wanted to change is an "articulo petreo," IE. set in stone. Even suggesting that it be changed is an act of treason. The article, which prevents any President from being reelected, was written specifically to prevent autocracies like Chavez's current and Zelaya's intended ones. According to Honduran law, treason against the nation-state falls under military jurisdiction, so the police COULDN'T have arrested him. It was the army's responsibility. Personally, I think Zelaya should be on trial for treason, facing the death penalty as a traitor.92.104.255.201 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is just an opinion, the proposed change was fine to me. If Chavez is still in government it is not because he forced himself in but because the Venezuelan population voted for him everytime in a democratic way. I believe the people's got the ultimate power to decide those things and that was what Zelaya was trying to do by conducting a poll on whether there should be a fourth urn. Making the constitution "unchangeble" doesn't seem quite democratic to me neither. Your comments on Zelaya deserving death penalty are really showing who's the facist here. Oh, and try watching independent media, not so much the CNN... The popular support seems to be a lot more on Zelaya's side. Otherwise a curfew wouldn't make any sense to me at all. Neither all the military activity. (edited, I forgot to sign it). Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Nowhere in that post was Zelaya accused of being a fascist. And as for the death penalty, that's the standard sentence for a traitor to the state if found guilty. Also, as an Honduran, and a member of Mel's party, I can tell you the number of people who want him back in office are a minority, and even his own party regrets his election. There've been protests all week demanding his resignation after he tried to change the constitution. Article 239 of the constitution and a few other articles (not many) are "articulos petreos" to prevent the abuse of power in just the way Zelaya intended to do so. They have been unchangeable since the constitution was written in 1952, to preserve the spirit of democracy in forbidding one person to hold power for more than his term allows. It wasn't simply "made" unchangeable overnight. The army, ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT, acted to protect the constitution and carry out the wishes of the majority of the Honduran population.92.104.255.201 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What,is Chávez too good to hold fraudulent elections every time? Especially when he controls all branches of government,including the electoral office?

190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, hold onto what I said about Chavez just so that you can pretend I didn't say the other half of the message and simply ignore it. Second, who are you to judge whether those elections are fraudulent? Stop getting your news from CNN buddy, Facundo from Argentina 201.253.66.139 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can "judge" because I've seen it firsthand, second-hand and third-hand, so to speak, not because I've seen it on CNN, "buddy". Not only have I witnessed some of these elections first-hand as an insider; I also worked in a situation room that took electoral complaints and denouncements during one of the most recent elections. Besides that, all powers, including the bulk of the "neutral" Electoral Committee and the Ombudsman, openly support Chávez and do what he wants, for the most part. I have also followed legal developments and the legalistic contrivances that the Supreme Court judges and the National Assembly have used to justify Chávez's actions, even when contradicting previous legislation enacted by itself. If you lived in Venezuela, you would have to be blind not to see that Chávez abuses his power.

If a Constitution doesn't have "unchangeable" guarantees, then any gobierno de turno can adjust it to fit its whims through any form of fraud or power grab. Not only that; guarantees exist to protect minorities from abuse by majorities (ever changing, as well), which is why most Constitutions , including the Venezuelan one, have certain restrictions on Constitutional changes. In addition, if "the people" voted for a Constitution, that in theory implies that they accept it completely, including restrictions on changing it. Was there really any need to overthrow the entire Honduran constitution other than Zelaya's wish to extend his mandate? Also, why have a Constitution at all if the majority are "legitimately" empowered to do anything, even if it means abusing those who disagree with them (and that goes for anybody in the political spectrum)?190.77.117.50 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In Honduras, it looks like even proposing reform of term limits results in the cessation of public office. Chances are that when the Supreme Court drafted whatever order they gave to the military, they rules Zelaya was in violation of that article and as such, no longer president. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that because he violated article 42 Zelaya lost his Honduran citizenship, therefore he had to be deported? ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone involved in treasonous acts against the constitution has his or her citizenship revoked and is expelled from the country. I'm assuming that's what will happen to the 150 supporters who threw stones at the army during Zelaya's arrest will face. Quite rightly.92.104.255.201 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

However, his guilt certainly has to be established in a fair trial? Even in Honduras? So who gave the military the right to directly deport him??? Looks like those who are responsible acted criminally, and maybe even traiterous as wellGray62 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think his deportation was a stupid mistake and he should have stood trial, but as far as I can read in the constitution, there's nothing illegal about it.92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand you're not a lawyer? Me, neither. But afaik , it's a general principle in most democatic nations that any infringement of citizen right has to be explicitly allowed by the constitution. So, if the constitution doesn't say it's legal to deport a citizen without giving him a fair trial, then it's illegal! I would be very surprised if that's different in Honduras.Gray62 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the Justices of the Supreme Court of Honduras failed to hold a fair trail? If so, how so? It seems the constitution is pretty clear. He managed to violate two codes that both automatically remove his citizenship and his office. If anything they showed restraint by not removing him immediately but issuing a series of warnings, allowing him to continue all the way up until he fired the head of the military for not following an illegal order. That we in the US aren't cheering such an act out our windows is sad. Honduras may not be a paragon of virtue, but anytime a military head in South America refuses an illegal order that would potentially grant him more power we should be ecstatic. Nickjost (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Educate yourself before you express an opinion. THEY HELD NO TRIAL. They held closed door secret hearings and issued an arrest warrant, no more, no less. There has been no trail on the charges; only charges. Rsheptak (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey, tone down a little please, especially as the edit summary goes... Staying civil can't hurt. --LjL (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be a lot easier to cheer the refusal of the illegal order, if the military hadn't eclipsed the notability of that refusal with an illegal act of its own:

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal[1] (emphasis added)

Associated Press

-- Rico 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, I'm not a lawyer. But the justices presiding in the Honduran Supreme Court are, and it's their mandate to interpret Honduran law. They've made their decision, probably according to Article 42. What else is there I can tell you?92.104.255.201 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I accept your "no due trial" arguments and other arguments based on rule of law. I do not accept the arguments based on use of force, because use of force does not necessary means a breach of constitutional order. I must stress that the reasoning (legality) is more important. Some people just want to use to word "coup" to describe an anti-democratic military action, that is plainly wrong to me. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Honduran law empower the military to arrest a president, whether the president's serving as president violates the constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to ask the military to remove a president by force? -- Rico 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and, well, it has power to decide if to impeach him. Plus, he isn't a citizen anymore, he was trying to change the non-reelection article. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacement/Coup d'état

After much discussion, the main title was changed from "Coup d'état" to "constitutional crisis". Changing from "removal and succession" to "Coup d'état" just shifts from one POV to another. So I corrected this to the hybrid title "Replacement/Coup d'état" to restore NPOV. An alternative section title would be "Removal/Coup d'état & Succession"DLH (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's more a POV fork of a title than anything :-\ Seriously, it says it was part of a compromise, I subscribe to that compromise. And I was among the ones who !voted "crisis". I'm going to revert. --LjL (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it was part of any compromise. It appears to have been unilaterally fixed with the "compromise" language added to prevent its change.PLEASE REVIEW. Only saying "coup d'etat" appears a strong POV to me since the measures are equally described as upholding their constitution and providing constitutional transition of power. It is Zeyala v. Attorney General, Supreme Court, National Congress and Election commission. Those on the interim government side state that the military was given a judicial order to detain Zeyala and did not take over power. A constitutionally specified transition in power occurred. I believe it NPOV to show both sides rather than only Zeyala's side.DLH (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your contention that, "the measures are equally described as upholding their constitution and providing constitutional transition of power." A coup d'état is a replacement, so "Replacement/Coup d'état" is redundant. The reliable sources regularly, simply refer to the coup as a "coup" -- despite knowing that the coup government denies it was a coup. So does the rest of the world.

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.[2]

The New York Times

"Saying 'coup d'etat' " does not appear to be "a strong POV" to me, because all of the reliable sources I've seen have been regularly calling it that.

WP:RS 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

-- Rico 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All the reliable sources you have seen? That, as I hope you realise, is not the same thing as all reliable sources and all reliable sources clearly do not call it a coup due to the strong presence of Honduran reliable sources that do not call it a coup, and believe it isnt a coup. This is a significant POV and therefore should not and must not be negated in the title, that is why so much ewffort was made getting the title changed. I am personally more than happy to see the title changed to Honduras 2009 political crisis but to change it to a title that embodies opne side of the argument is simply unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran sources cannot be realiable, as there have been reliable reports of suppression of free press in Honduras. Thus the Honduran press cannot in these circumstances be considered reliable by any stretch of imagination. --LjL (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all the reliable sources I have seen. For example, the Washington Post published this today from the Associated Press:

Opponents of the coup that ousted Honduras' president began to openly wonder [...] Zelaya's wife [...] remains in Honduras and supports seizing bank accounts or freezing assets of coup leaders. [...] Micheletti sent a team to Washington this week to lobby against sanctions by portraying the coup backers [...]

Associated Press story published in the Washington Post

I haven't seen any "Honduran reliable sources" publish that what happened wasn't a coup. Then again, I don't know of any "Honduran reliable sources" right now, due to the 2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis#Media_war.[3][4] I haven't seen any reliable sources publish that what happened wasn't a coup. -- Rico 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, reports of suppression by some sources of Honduras sources does not give you the right to claim Honduran sources are unreliable, take it to arbcom if you want but what you are saying is incorrect and will not be listened to/acted upon. Its a long time since I have heard something so wrong as this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This has never been an issue of sources, and shouldn't be treated as such. Taking an instance of something and generalize for all, is the essence of POV. This is and will continue to be an issue of contradictory legal opinions. A great majority has one view and call it a coup, and a smaller but VERY significant population has another. Very significant I'd say because it includes the entities which first made the laws which are being disputed and the one which does the interpretation of the law in that country. These entities are the same that existed before Zelaya was removed. I personally as you can see from my posts, don't agree with the the way things were done, but nonetheless I see this as a very difficult case of opinions and therefore believe they should always present both and no characterization should be made which points to one side against the other. Wikihonduras (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe it was a coup and that Mel should be restored to power (as per Arias) but I ma here as a wikipedia editor and my personal views are irrelevant. To say that mainstream Hn sources are unreliable is itself breaking POV given that Honduras is the subject matter. Its really important that all we editors come to this article with NPOV in our minds and not our own opinions re this crisis. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "This has never been an issue of sources, and shouldn't be treated as such."

Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the official English Wikipedia policy on how to name pages, states:

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

This is what I've seen that could be called a "legal opinion":

Honduras' Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya before the coup, ruling his effort to hold a referendum on whether to form a constitutional assembly was illegal. The military decided to send Zelaya into exile instead — a move that military lawyers themselves have called illegal[5] (emphasis added)

Associated Press

"The entities which first made the laws which are being disputed and the one which does the interpretation of the law in that country" -- in the view of Wikipedia, are actors in these events -- and neither is a reliable, independent, third-party source.

All together, they are an extremely small minority.

The entire population of Honduras is only 0.1% of the world's population, and I have seen no reliable source that states that a lot of Hondurans believe there was no coup.

Supporters of the new government vowed to hold the biggest demonstration in the country’s history on Tuesday, to make clear their contention that most of the country is glad Mr. Zelaya is gone.[6] (emphasis added)

The New York Times

-- not to contend that the protestors believed there was no coup.

What I'm getting from reliable sources is that the protests are defined more by support for either Zelaya or Micheletti, or whether people are for or against Chávez.

The spectre of Mr Chávez is frequently invoked at both pro and anti-Zelaya protests in Honduras as it becomes a battleground for the wider regional struggle between supporters of Venezuela’s “Boliviarian revolution” and their ideological adversaries.[7]

The Times in Britain

I'm not getting that most Hondurans even care whether Zelaya or Micheletti is President.

"Neither Micheletti nor Zelaya gives me anything to eat," said street vendor Oscar Quintanilla, who is struggling to raise four children amid constant protests. "I don't care about constitutional referendums, all I care about is the welfare of my family."[8]

Associated Press

“But what do you think about Zelaya?” I insisted. “And what about Roberto Micheletti” — the president of Congress who is now interim president? She replied: “Micheletti, Zelaya, what do I care? Things will continue as usual. Nothing will change. All I want is that they let me live in peace to run my business.”

Roger Marín Neda, Who Cares About Zelaya?, The New York Times, July 6, 2009.

It's not even for sure that this viewpoint should even be in Wikipedia, much less determine that we may not name the article using the name that is most "easily recognizable by English speakers." (WP:NAME)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I haven't seen one reliable source that states that the viewpoint -- that what happened was not a coup -- is anything more than a fringe theory.

Re: "no characterization should be made which points to one side against the other."

This 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

-- Rico 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hondurans may only be 0.1.% of the world population but this is not an article about the world, its an article about Honduras. Following your argument we could allow all kinds of scurrilous info to be treated as fact about particular country's articles merely because those outside the country believe it, eg anti-American sentiment, and ignoring significant POVs within a given country on the basis that the popuklation's views are3 fringe. This is extremism and has no place in wikipedia or its current policies and guidelines. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rico for your input. The proper policy to use is that one you are suggresting in Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names, there your will also see that it says that

Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names

With all the back and forth on this, how can this name not be out of compliance?

06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihonduras (talk • contribs)

I agree that, "The proper policy to use is that one you are suggesting in Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names."

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the official English Wikipedia policy on how to name pages.

However, your quote isn't in the policy -- or any other Wikipedia policy.

Even if it were, "coup" isn't a slag coined by critics. It's:

• What the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.
• What verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject, and:

Article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, [...]
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 policy

-- Rico 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to go straight to the arbcom... I've put a notice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Honduran media. --LjL (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly a good start. For me the idea that no mainstream Hn source is reliable is so provocative that the arbcom would always be a possible outcome especially as mediation has already been rejected. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya's Referendum

One of the things not mentioned in the article, but important, is that the Honduran Constitution can be changed, in fact it has been. There are only three areas in which the Constitution can not be changed. The article which defines the limits of the territory of Honduras, the article which defines the form of government of Honduras (republican democracy) and the article which states that presidents cannot be reelected. It is not a stretch to assume that the only reason that Zelaya wanted a Constitutional Assembly to write a new constitution was to change the article pertaining to presedential reelection. Any other changes did not need a Constitutional Assembly, he could have presented the changes to Congress, in which his party had a majority, the change would have been discussed,probably passed, and then ratified in the next section of congress.EduardoT (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)EduardoT

It might not be a stretch, but it's hardly an automatic assumption, either. It can be thrown into the article if supported by WP:Reliable sources. --LjL (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source quoting Zelaya as saying that was his motivation it's really WP:OR.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I don't think so; why would it be original research if a published reliable source says it? Of course, it must not be an opinion piece, but that's easily avoided if a non-opinion piece just states something objective like "The re-election article is only one of 3 articles that cannot be changed through normal processes, and therefore a likely candidate". That would be fine. --LjL (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - as long as it was not worded stronger than that. But I'd be awfully picky about what constituted a RS for that.Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article in the July 10, 2009 edition of the LA Times in which Miguel A.Estrada,an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher states: "What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government." Surely a jurist who was considered for the US Supreme Court is a good enough source.EduardoT (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)EduardoT

Actually no. US law is not Honduras law. Being considered for the US Supreme Court requires you to be an expert on the laws of the USA. It does not make one an expert into the motivations of the President of Honduras.Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would probably be a reliable source... for the article about the Constitution of Honduras. It's not very relevant to this article, however, unless it makes a direct connection between this and Zelaya's intentions. It wouldn't even be enough to have something saying "the only reason a President may want to change the Constitution is this", something else saying "Zelaya wanted to changed the constitution", and inferring that "Zelaya wanted to change it because of this". That's WP:SYNTH. So, has this Mr. Estrada said anything about Zelaya, in a non-opinion piece? --LjL (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Estrada's logic in that piece has been picked apart by numerous authors. Its essentially the same as other's have offered. Here's one: Revisiting the constitutionality... a response to some comments. Here's a piece by a Honduran constitutional law scholar pointing out that the Supreme Court acted illegally in passing the arrest warrant to the military instead of the proper authority, the Policia Nacional Golpe militar y ruptura de la continuidad constitucional. I believe the bit about the constitution haveing articles that are unchangeable is already in the article, mentioned several times (see the text around the famous article 239 text). As for it being the only reason Zelaya could want to call a constitutional convention, bull hockey. Its speculation, and has no place in the article. Rsheptak (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I analyzed the Estrada article here: Honduras Supreme Court: It Was "Common Knowledge" That Zelaya Was No Longer President. Jules Siegel (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jules...I've been off Wikipedia for a bit, and on returning, I discover that you've written a Huffington Post article on the issue I raised here a few weeks ago. Interesting, and somewhat flattering to think that the point I was making was more important than I even gave myself credit for at the time. Great article, by the way. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What other reasons do you believe Zelaya could have had for wanting to modify the constitution. Just asking, truly interested, do not take it badly.EduardoT (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)EduardoT

I don't know; I don't care; this is not a forum for discussing the topic in general, and not a place to discuss what-if scenarios. I say let's stick to the article and the verifiable facts to put into it. --LjL (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't take it badly. Others have written replies more eloquent than I possibly could, but the basic idea was to try to move Honduras from a representative democracy (where the diputados decide what's good for the people) to give people a chance to have a say directly what they want. Because of the way the Honduran constitution is written, diputados owe loyalty only to the party bosses, and don't really represent the people. To quote Zelaya, from an El Pais interview:

Look, I thought I would make changes from within a neoliberal scheme. But the rich will not give up a penny. The rich will not give up any of their money. They want it all for themselves. So, logically, to make changes you have to incorporate the people.

Go and read these blog entries that translate essays by Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, especially the one entitled "What Advocates Hoped to Change in the Honduran Constitution" all of which were originally published in El Tiempo: http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/search?q=Pastor to get some idea of what was intended. Others besides Rodolfo have written about this as well. Rsheptak (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. Ammending the constitution via the regular National Assembly requires a two-thirds majority. In a constituent assembly things would likely be decided by 50% plus one. That makes change more likely via a constituent assembly. Also, according to Fasquelle's material posted on the blog, the National Assembly is so much in the hands of party bosses that no change could be expected from it. A constituent assembly, elected by a different process, might well be considerably more radical in its composition.
Another thing that might speak to zelaya's possible motivations: Associated Press citing an analyst, Manuel Orozco, says "His campaign for changing the constitution has energized his support base of labor groups, farmers and civil organizations who have long felt marginalized in a country where a wealthy elite controls the media and much of politics." (near bottom of article) Maybe he's trying to whip up some kind of momentum for change. A shiny new constituent assembly might do that; thrashings-about in the hoary old National Assembly not likely to.
Other new leftist Latin American constitutions have been about more than just getting rid of term limits. Eg., Venezuela's put in a lot of stuff about indigenous rights and womens rights, and a major thrust of it was towards trying to create more participative democracy -- citizen's councils, citizens being able to propose laws, etc. Possibly Zelaya had things like this in mind. It would be nice if we could dig up some newspaper articles from the last 4 years where he speaks to this. I've made a minor effort but haven't found much. --Ong saluri (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And that hits one of the major problems with the referendum; much like in the US, a Constituent Assembly cannot be called by a vote of the people. I don't even know if the Honduran Constitution allows for them at all. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Honduran constitutional law scholar Efrain Moncada Silva a constituent asssembly can be called by a vote of the people, but that this was not that vote. Rsheptak (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be Zelaya's Minister of Government and Justice, yes? I have found information online ranging from his belief that it was illegal for the military to carry out the court's order, and therefore everything subsequent to that is invalid to suggestions that he warned Zelaya against the referendum. I have not found anything suggesting he believes a constituent assembly is permitted under their laws. Please provide a cite for your statement. 71.110.162.192 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Account of July 5th Deaths Ridiculously POV

Compare what is in the article

"Protests at the airport turned deadly, as pro-Zelaya demonstrators broke through various cordons and some hurled objects at the soldiers. The Honduran military responded by firing warning shots and tear gas at the protesters. At least two protesters were confirmed dead at the end, with scores left injured."

with what is in the cited BBC report:

"As the plane was flying towards Tegicugalpa, troops in riot gear fired tear gas at thousands of Zelaya supporters, some of whom reportedly hurled stones.

Thousands managed to break through the security cordon."

The hurling of stones is presented as an unconfirmed rumour in the BBC reprt, but fact in your article. There is no mention of 'warning shots' in the BBC report. There is no mention in the BBC report that the military firing on civilians was a response to anything the protestors did, or any kind of chronology of events. And the entire report is in direct conflict with other news sources, which say that the protests were peaceful and the protesters were fired on without provocation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6652940.ece

66.131.197.203 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can say that I have read differing accounts. I wonder if there is any objective reporting under the circumstances. For sure, there is visual evidence of the teargas. Also, hurling of stones, storming of a fence... however, numbers? Based on the claims I've read, I'm skeptical. How one would document what caused what, better have I wide angle view, with multiple locations, and some coroboration from eyewitness that can be trusted. That's a tall order. I have heard that the rounds fired were not military issue -- but I cannotr find any RS either way -- probably nevver will. The sad thing is, potentially violent confrontations are being encouraged, and it is somewhat disingenuous to take disclaimers like "be peaceful" seriously. These groups we see do not appear to be Ghandi-like in their behavior. Nor like the Civil Rights protestors in the US in the 60's. VaChiliman (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, at the very least, VaChiliman, you should rewrite the passage to include as many POV as possible, including the times article. And if you do have visual evidence of the hurling of stones and storming of the fence, then you should cite it, because there is nothing like that in the BBC article. When you say "These groups we see do not appear to be Ghandi-like in their behavior" you should be able to back it up with more than rumour 66.131.197.203 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has corrected the article or provided proper citations to back up what was said in the article, I have modified it to properly reflect conflicting reports on what happened at the airport (as well as providing another source).66.131.197.203 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV article name

"Constitutional crisis" doesn't seem neutral to me. Also, it's 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. That's inherently POV. It takes sides.
What was notable was the coup. -- Rico 22:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Like there hasn't been enough consensus seeking. There is a compromise, and we're all sick and tired of this being brought up again by now. --LjL (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It also may imply that the "crisis" was about:

1. Zelaya's alleged desire to change the Constitution, so that he could run for a second term.
2. That Zelaya's alleged attempt to change the Constitution was unconstitutional.

All of these are pro-coup.

Rico is well aware that I think both 1. and 2. and yet neither support the coup nor disagree that it was a coup. There have also been clear examples of reliable sources indicating that other people think that. I added a Miami Herald source [9] to the Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état page for this topic reflecting the conservative editorial stance taken by the Miami Herald with respect to their attitude towards Zelaya (whom they consider a lawbreaker) and also their opposition to what they truly regard as Micheletti's coup. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguous name deflects attention from what made this notable -- the coup -- to justifying it.
I'm not the only editor that has expressed this.[10] -- Rico 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You certainly aren't, but then a number of other editors have, instead, expressed the idea that "coup" is POV and inappropriate, this has (as you very well known) been discussed at great lengths, and the current consensus was reached (with the intervention of a couple of administrators since we didn't really seem to be able to be civil ourselves).

So unless you have some novel proposal...? --LjL (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been consensus that "constitutional crisis" is not POV. -- Rico 00:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'm pretty darn sure there is consensus that the current compromise is the best we could achieve for now. There are uh, like three or four archived calls for discussion to show that. Do you have anything new? If so, I'm all ears. --LjL (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally Agree with Rico. Calling it a Constitutional crisis is wrong for the reasons that he has already stated and which i'm not going to talk about any longer. I'm tired of this, and please dont leave me messages on my talk page insisting on my participation on this topic, i no longer want to deal with thisEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. "Crisis" is a compromise largely because a highly vocal but actually fairly small group of editors insisted that "coup" is insupportedly POV, and the rest disagreed with varying degrees of intensity but didn't want to spend eternity arguing the point. I still think a split into Coup (28 June+) and Something Else (political conflict background, including Constitutional Assembly plan) would be better, but I don't have the will, time or energy to argue it any further. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ability of some to rewrite history -- which happens to be archived -- regarding previous discussion -- ad nauseum -- and state, unabashedly, that the title is the result of a small, vocal minority asserting undue influence, is laughable, if not completely disingenuous. I, for one, am glad to see that after all this time, the overall integrity of the article has improved, despite a great deal of bullying bluster and repeated nonsense. 71.206.171.40 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)VaChiliman (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is more notable in Honduras: changing the constitution or the military removing a president?

Maybe this way of looking at things might help (though i haven't yet checked the archival discussions, sorry if i'm repeating here).

The Constitution of Honduras was modified at least 22 times after being initially established in 1982. So the concept of modifying the constitution is not something out of the ordinary in Honduran history of the last two and a half decades. So i assume that Hondurans have been arguing heatedly about what changes to make or not make to their constitution nearly every year over this very long period, but this is the first time in the post-1979 era that the military removed a president. Which is more notable in the 1979-2009 history of Honduras? Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

i browsed through the archived discussions. This point seems to me to be new.

• the previous coup d'etat in Honduras was in 1978 by Policarpo Paz García
• the 1982 Constitution was amended at least 22 times, most recently in 2005

Which of the two aspects of the June coup d'etat is more notable in this context? Boud (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this a good point that you are making about relevancy. What some people may point out is that the Honduran consitution is not unlike other constitutions, in which it may be modified in almost all its parts. Actually it's easier to modify the Honduran constitution than the US one, which I believe is part of your point. The main difference which makes the Honduran constitution special, is that within it, it defines some articles as unchangeable. Not only that, it specifies that it is a crime to even suggest to modify them. These articles, are related to the borders, being a democratic republic and the presidential sucesion. Wether having a law that prohibits modifying itself and other laws makes sense is another thing (I personally believe is nonsense), but that's what Honduras has today. In that context none of those specific articles has ever been modified, just as long almost as Honduras had without a Coup until the recent one (my personal view). I believe there was an attempt by President Suazo in 1985 but it was unsucesful. Wikihonduras (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What do international political authorities - say?

Whether this is mainly a coup d'etat or mainly a constitutional crisis is to some degree a question of sociopolitical judgment. The present "International reactions" summary line starts: "All Latin American nations (with the exception of Honduras), as well as the United States, Spain, France, and others, have publicly condemned the forced removal of Zelaya as undemocratic and most have labeled it as a coup d'état." (my emphasis). Unless this summary is factually wrong, then WP:RS would seem to say that the correct title should be "coup d'etat", not "constitutional crisis", it seems to me. Please remember that en.wikipedia is for knowledge about the World - it is not intended to be USA.wikipedia.org - so POVs from media or politicians in one particular country (e.g. USA) should not count as being more "reliable" than those of media or politicians in other countries.

Is the word "most" in the above summary correct or wrong? Boud (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is already present in the 2-11 July (Archive 4) move proposal. Boud (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Coup rhetoric is not only highly POV but also false

I saw a variety of references to the "coup" in Honduras. Nowhere though does anyone negate the fact that the Honduran Constitution ordered Zelaya's arrest under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. Seeing whereas a coup is an extralegal action those who use coup rhetoric have yet to disprove the aforementioned fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum where to "prove" or "disprove" original research. This is where we look at and summarize secondary (not primary) sources. --LjL (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And Article 239 was not cited by the Supreme Court as one of the reasons to detain Zelaya so the poster is misinformed as well. Primary sources can most certainly be used when they're available without conducting original research. Rsheptak (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources should only be used with a lot of care. Though, I don't know about the Supreme Court, but the Congress did use art. 239 as grounds for removal. --LjL (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI Cuarta Urna publicity flyer

For those that have wondered out loud on this page why hold a constitutional convention, if not to extend the presidents term in office, we finally have an answer, in the form of a publicity flyer that was produced to distribute if the poll indicated that the cuarta urna should be implemented in the November elections. The document is on page 154 of a 159 page timeline document released by the Armed Forces on July 18, 2009. The document outlines the kinds of new clauses that might be included in a new constitution. here's a translation, original on page 154 here: Cronologia de los eventos:

Cuarta Urna Peaceful Route to the Citizen's Revolution! A New Constitution

The fourth ballot box is the democratic road to make it legally possible to convene a Constitutional Assembly that could write a new Constitution, to give Honduras a superior democracy, in which the people will not only freely elect their rulers and representatives at all levels of Government, but as well will participate actively in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives and exercise actual control over those who are in power in their name.

Among the momentous topics that should be included in the new Constitution we single out the following:

a) Social Control: establishment of recall referenda, so that the people will have the possibility of denying their confidence in the middle of their term, to those that have been elected and have betrayed them-- and of the Death Crusade! Censure and veto, for mayors, representatives, and the President.

b) Actual freedom of the press, which means equitable access to the media for all the social and political organizations and all the citizens, and that will impede the use of the ownership of the means of communication as an instrument of accumulation of economic and political power.

c) Economic liberty with social responsibility, that will guarantee private property with a social use and the social economy of the market, placing the human being at the center of the economy and rescuing public services for the people.

d) Authentic political liberty that will impede the monopoly of representation on the part of the current party members, who slow the actual participation of the citizens, whether party activists or not, in national politics. Election of representatives by electoral districts and separation of the dates of elections for Presidents, Representatives, and Mayors.

e) Renewal of confidence in those officials who have dignified their office, fulfilling it adequately for the citizens.

f) Popular consultation to guarantee that no ruler could snatch from the People their economic and social takings, because any decisions that menaced these takings only could be legalized by means of a Popular Consultation.

g) Constitutional obligation to aid the progress of Woman as central actor in the development of the country.

h) To grant priority to the individual rights, social, economic, and the rest that will be established, as well as the guarantees of a multicultural and pluri-ethnic society.

i) To incorporate the rights known constitutionally as "third and fourth generation rights" as constitutional rights.

j) To institute the Constitutional Tribunal.

Rsheptak (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It actually says "e) Renewal of confidence in those officials who have dignified their office?" And people are wondering why continuismo motives are suspected? You could drive a Mack truck through that loophole. What is "renewal of confidence" if not renewal of the term of office? What in the current constitution forbids people merely having "confidence" in a public official? If "confidence" in this context doesn't refer to renewing the term of office, to what does it refer? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A recall election, which I've seen elsewhere was among the ideas (don't remember where) is a more obvious interpretation. Since it's an 87mb file, perhaps Rsheptak could provide the full original Spanish of that section. Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why the use of the term "renewal"? A recall election ends a politician's term of office, it doesn't "renew" it. "Renovación" in Spanish is a fairly direct cognate for the English "renewal", so I'd also be hard pressed that everyone would interpret it this way given the Spanish text. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember reading that a recall mechanism for elected officials was desired, but I think that's covered under point A above. Rsheptak (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Which, in my view, makes it all the more suspicious as a separate point. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, you are so off base here. It means renew confidence in elected officials, who are not trusted in Honduras. I invite you over to greg weeks blog Two Weeks Notice and his posting for August 1 where he discusses this very topic and how it dominated discussions among Zelaya's advisors. Confidence in elected officials is important and has major implications for people paying taxes, violence, etc. It means what it says.

Point E reads, in spanish: Renovación de confianza a aquellos funcionarios que hayan dignificado su cargo, cumpliendo adecuadamente con los ciudadanos. Rsheptak (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What am I missing here? The August 1 entry on that blog says nothing about Zelaya having some discussion with his advisors about this topic, or indeed anything about this topic. The entry is about dissatisfaction with government in general, which I'll admit is germane to what we're discussing here, as Honduras's dissatisfaction is pretty high...but nothing on there is an argument against Point E in this list not being a pitch for continuismo.

In the July 21 blog posting at that site, there is some discussion about re-election with recall as being something that other Latin American presidents are hoping can be enacted in their countries (the blog mentions lefty Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and righty Alvaro Uribe in Colombia as those that have expressed interest in such a thing)...but for Zelaya to seek a change to allow re-election of the president with the right of recall would still be a clear violation of Article 239.

It still looks to me like Point E is a purposely vague demand into which only one thing could logically fit - a demand for the right to re-elect presidents in Honduras. If you have some more plausibly-defended theory, I'm still listening, but this doesn't convince me. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya attempt to civilianise United States airbase Soto Cano/Pamerola

This is copied from User_talk:Boud, since it is more relevant here. Boud (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as I mentioned in my edit note, the problem with the sentence is the source; its an opinion piece by Kozloff and opinion pieces are not WP:RS. If you had brought up the fact that Zelaya wanted to convert it to a civilian airport, using another source, I would not object, but as long as you use Kozloff, and his speculations, its not appropriate for this wikipedia article. Rsheptak (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the recent edit by Rsheptak and here is Kozloff's article under discussion. i don't quite see why you call this an "opinion piece". Whether or not the claims made in the article are true or false, the article looks to me mostly constituted of a list of factual type statements, apart from "Needless to say", "Ford and Negropontes condescending attitude" (Hondurans may have perceived the attitude as condescending, but then that should have been attributed). i do see at least one problem in the introductory paragraph: "a move opposed by the former U.S. ambassador" is not supported by what is actually given in detail in the main content. Requiring that conversion of a military air base to a civilian airport be recognised by international airport authorities is something that anyone who wants a long lifespan ought to consider reasonable. Maybe it's true that Negroponte was opposed to the conversion and that this was just a pretext, but the case is not supported well in the article.

In any case, it's true that this should exist in other sources - most likely Spanish language Honduran newspapers? It's hard to believe that an issue like this was not reported on. So anyone interested in this issue, especially if you're spanish-literate, please google around and find a WP:RS. Boud (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, already found you some, and tried to update the article but Wikipedia is failing right and left when I edit right now so be patient, and yes, Kozloff is an opinion piece, not news analysis. Rsheptak (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rsheptak (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Congressional record?

The website of the National Congress of Honduras is http://congreso.gob.hn/ - it has some interesting information, which helped improve the Constitution of Honduras page. However, i could not find anything like a parliamentary record, e.g. as in Hansard in some countries' national legislative bodies, the Congressional Record of the USA, les comptes rendus des debats of the French National Assembly, and similar records of parliamentary/congressional debates in other countries.

Given that Congress seems to have had a very important role during the recent events, and that it's also Congress that proposes/ratifies changes to the Constitution, IMHO the Honduran Congressional record should provide an important source of information for this article. It would probably count as a secondary source, since in principle it should just cite what various deputies (members of Congress) stated, what motions were proposed and by whom, what the resulting votes were, etc. etc.

Can someone find an online version of the Honduran Congressional record? Boud (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it exists. I'm not even sure there is a printed record that's kept. Official decrees are published in the Gaceta de Honduras, which is not available digitally and at times is as much as 2 years behind on publication of laws. Rsheptak (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)