Talk:Honduras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crime in Honduras

I find it odd that Mexico has an article on Crime, yet there is a lack there of for Honduras. I added a little crime blurb in the trivia, but I do think it is important to expand on the subject. Here is an acknowledged source for one to use in creating a section on crime (if desired), http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/democracy/gangs_assessment.pdf . Let me know what you guys think. David -- (13:01) —Preceding ==

unsigned comment added by Wikihonduras (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC) 

Demography

Race is not an issue in Honduras, blacks, whites, mestizo, and many others share the same country without the hatred you can find in other regions of the world. I disagree. Please can you give a source for this claim. Unfortunately my experience is that there is rascism, both towards white foreigners and towards black people, albeit from a small minority, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

Yes--

• File:'''That appears to be a rediculous claim to make.'''

taken as insulting, so it is not recomended to any tourist. Some Hondurans tend to practice racism toward blacks not because they were taught by their friends or family, but because they learned it from the media or tourists. Mestizo racism is null since 95% of the people is mestizo (no point to discriminate against each other) 72.200.29.102valdez007</nowiki>Bold text

To say a mainly mestizo country doesn't have racism is plain naive. black population has been and continues to be discriminated. "Black" jokes are common and can be expressed openly without fear. Honduras don't lynch their black population, but they do apply other kinds of racism. Once asked I heard a parent say that his biggest fear was that her daughter married a "black" person. Mestizo gets discriminated too. The population of palestininan descent calls them "indios" and very seldomly unites with them in marriage, usually under severe criticsm from the rest of the "turcos" community. It would be interesting to see how many (non-us citizen) blacks are enrolled at this moment in the American School and the Escuela Internacional Sampedrana (EIS) 192.193.216.152 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Its true no place of the earth is 100% free of racism, but in comparrison to other places Honduras is racism free or if there is it is very minimal. Now that you mention Escuela Internacional Sampedrana (EIS) and the Americana School, they are not racist. I tell you this because I graduated from EIS and there were some blacks enrolled. They were not discriminated and they were admitted and enrolled without any prejudices. So the fact of you saying these instituitions are racists is a bogus fact. When it comes to the turks in the country, they have always discriminated the nationals and still tend to do that. Some of them however have started to act more national and have left racism against the nationals. Still, some hondurans have a hard time forgetting about injustices and there can still be found some antagonism. Still, like I said all this racism fight is very minimal in comparrison to other places.Valdez007 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is no racism in Honduras then I find it fairly puzzling that this article didn't mention any of the indigenous groups of Honduras before I wrote them in. And it is also quite puzzling in the light of the fact that Honduran indigenous peoples are so marginalized and that they find it necessary to organise just i order to secure their fundamental human rights and land rights. Honduras is not a country known for its appreciation of ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. Just because there is not racism between blacks and whites that doesn't mean that there is no racism. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I read an interesting article a few months ago (I'll try to post a link later) where people in the US were polled asking them basically if they were racist (Large majority said NO) Second question was if they felt others were racist or they have been subject to racism (A large majority said YES) The contradicting results showed that racism is not seen as such by the people who commit it and can be expressed in many ways. Recommend to see the Crash (2004 film), it makes an interesting about other forms of racism, beside the "usual" ones, showing that people who swore were not racist, they in fact were. Is there any racism in Honduras? No doubt there is. Is it higher or lower when compared to other countries? I don't know the answer of that. But at least in comparison to the US, do we all think that if Senator Clinton would have expressed "she hated blacks" or that "she hated native americans" she would still be in office? Wikihonduras 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend the statement made by our congressman. I saw the news when he made the statement and I was disgusted at his statement. Eventhough we don't know if we are racists, the issue revolving on racism in Honduras can be throughly debated. As a Honduran national the view of racism toward the indigenous people can be debated in two main views. Any honduran teacher, some hondurans, even me, would argue that indigenous groups are not discriminated but ignored. Likewise any foreingers might say it is not ignorance of them, but hondurans are discriminating them. Any one could argue any of these points for so long and still come up with no answer to the question "Is there racism in Honduras?" What I'm trying to say is that racism is not actively expressed in the country, although I am not affirming there is no racism.Valdez007 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New map?

We had an edit war over whether it should be Kelisi or Cantus' maps that should be here. Look at them both and bring your vote here. --SqueakBox 01:50, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Map of Honduras

Map of Honduras showing departments

United Provinces of Central America

I don't understand why the date of indpendence in all Central American countries is 15 september, 1821. In reality, all Central America became part of the Mexican Empire, and it wasn't until this empire was dissolved in 1822-1823 that Central America decided to become an independent country, called United Provinces of Central America. In fact, Chiapas, originally part of Central America, decided to remain as a Mexican state by referendum. --J.Alonso 03:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason is because that is the date of independence from Europe and Spain. From that point on they were Latin Americans ruling Latin Americans, SqueakBox 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Then wouldn't the idependence of Panama be the same as the one from Colombia? After all Panama was a province of Colombia, freed from the Spaniards and ruled by "latins" . The importance of September 15 is that adhesion to the Mexican empire was voluntary, so when Iturbide fell, Central America chose to separate from Mexico Wikihonduras Feb 18 2007

Sensible Chiapas! No question Sep 15 is celebratede as the day Honduras gained independence from Spain, SqueakBox 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote "The reason is because that is the date of independence from Europe and Spain. From that point on they were Latin Americans ruling Latin Americans, SqueakBox 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)". That being quoted I now add that Panama was freed not by Panamanians alone, but also by the efforts of the United States trying to construct the Canal through Panama. Centraamericans although they became part of Mexico the true liberating date from slavery and oppression was when they became independent from Spain and not from a weak Mexico.Valdez007

History

The history section of this article seems to jump around from topic to topic and it does not seem to flow very well. --Jorobeq 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed.

anyone know where the sentence about the xukpi kingdom comes from? I've been working on the archaeology in Honduras for 26 years and never heard this. I'd like to see a source, please. Also, this section is full of sentence fragments.

The History of Honduras is documented basically in books found in the libraries of Honduras. There is VERY little digital information of Honduran history, besides the one found in Encarta. The only way to fill in the history of Honduras is to find a honduran history book, read it, and post its important and relevant information. I myself being Honduran can barely remember anything of the history for it's too much to rememberValdez007 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are no good web pages or other digital sources other than primary sources, for the history of Honduras. Even in book form, most of the written history concentrates on the period from 1821 to the present, with very few works covering the colonial period in any kind of detail. I like the Documentos Para la Historia de Honduras: Selección y Notas de Roberto Sosa series (3 volumes to date, published by Imagen y Palabra in Tegucigalpa). Rsheptak 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I studied the History of Honduras from a book called "Evolucion Historica de Honduras" which does detail informationa about precolombian Honduras, or in other words, about Honduras before Columbus came. Unfortunately I'm not in the country and don't have the book on hand at the moment, but will gladly post as soon as I get the book back.Valdez007 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that book when/if you can post the reference. Its not one I know. Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's book, Biografia de San Pedro, also has a section on the prehistory of Honduras. I've been working on a draft for a wikipedia article on the prehistory, but its low priority right now. Maybe over the summer. Look at issues of Yaxkin, the Instituto Hondureño de Antropologia e Historia's journal, if you want some insight into the prehistory, especially if you're interested in places other than Copan. Rsheptak 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about the Yaxtin publications. Indeed, they are the most complete source for Honduran history. They were published around the 1950s-60s. I did use them in a school project, yet their current usage is forbiden outside the library of the museum. The only way to extract informaion from those publications is to go to the museum of Antropologia e Historia in San Pedro Sula and get photocopies of them. Other than that, I can't really suggest any other good source.Valdez007 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yaxkin is still published today by the Insitute and full of articles on the History and Archaeology of Honduras. Check out the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia website at http://www.ihah.hn. The Museo in SPS sometimes has copies for sale in its gift shop in addition to having copies in its library. Before the Museo, Fransen's grocery store, and a couple of the tourist shops in SPS used to sell it as well. It was the book you referenced, the "Evolucion Historica de Honduras" that I don't know and would love more information about. Thanks. Rsheptak 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem on quoting the book. Though I didn't know the Yaxtin magazines were back on publication. That is very good news for the countries education. I'll try to get the "Evolucion Historica" book to me ASAP to draft the history, to help people I will create a discussion to the newly added section when its added of coarse.Valdez007 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dog fighting

I have heard that Dog fighting is legal in Honduras, can someone here confirm or deny this and if you have some webpages that support your statement I would be obliged. I will use in them to update the Dog fighting article. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dog fights are illegal in Honduras. Only cock fights are legal, and those are being debated on being considered illegal. I'm Honduran national, best source of information for your inquiry.Valdez007 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did the name come from?

I have always wanted to know the origin on the countries name, Honduras.

Hondo means deep in Spanish and apparently Columbus described the waters off Trujillo as being "muy hondo", ie they were deep waters. I was just thinking about the name the other day and what a beautiful name it is, and of course pronounced very differently in Spanish where the H is silent. Ras Billy I 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The name "Honduras" is attributed to the Christopher Columbus expressing his thanks to God for having survived a storm of the coast of that country, he said "Gracias a Dios que hemos salido de estas 'honduras'" [depths or abyss]. So the name of the area where the Rio Coco comes to the ocean is now "Gracias a Dios" and the name of the country is "Honduras."

Do we have a reliable source for the above information? It really seems like it should be mentioned in the History section, or possibly even parenthetically in the introduction. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The original name, in the colonial period, of the territory that today is Honduras was "honduras y higueras" Higueras comes from the name of a tree known as Higueras or Jicara which has a gourd-like fruit (used to make maracas, food bowls, carved, etc) that was quite common in the country. I've certainly heard the quote attributed to Columbus (attributed because the originals of all his ships logs are lost, and all the records we have are from other people who say they are sumarizing what was in his logs) as the origin.

The articles references Honduras as previously known as "Spanish Honduras". I haven't been able to find references to this name. Can this reference be posted? Wikihonduras Feb 17 2007

Try Googling, eg[1], it was called Spanish Honduras in English when Belize was called British Honduras in order to distingiuish the 2 countries. For example [2] and [3], also see Belize, SqueakBox 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although British Honduras references were found in Charts, Publications and other, all what google shows when searching Spanish Honduras is a link to this 19th century obscure novel which makes use of "Spanish Honduras" in its title and some small article written in "aboututila.com" which references some archaeological findings. I went through those articles, but I think that the links provided fail to show an instance where Honduras was ever known as Spanish Honduras . Are there any Maps or Chart from the era, or more serious publications that made use of the term? Wikihonduras

I dont agree, I have shown other references and not just the book, though that is one source. What you appear not to understand is it was Spanish Honduras in English until Belize was independent because Belize was called British Honduras, and I believe I have sourced this satisfactorily given this is wikipedia in English, SqueakBox 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See British Honduras which is an article in itself I will now link in the opening, SqueakBox 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SqueakBox. I think it has greatly enhanced the article. Only modification I would like to suggest is in the Honduras page is to remove the qualifier "until recently it was know as Spanish Honduras". While researching this, only references to Honduras as Spanish honduras was in books of the 19th and very early 20th century. For example in collection search of the Library of Congress only one volume out of 100MM+ has in its title the term "Spanish Honduras". Didn't find much recently. Wikihonduras 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, SqueakBox 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Wikihonduras, I do see Spanish Honduras all the time in 19th century sources such as E.G. Squire, newspapers, magazines, and through the Library of Congress, you only searched book titles. Remember Google will only teach you about modern usage, not historical usage. As far as I can tell, the usage arose because of the british colonly across the gulf of Honduras, the land today we call Belize, that was known throughout the 19th and most of the 20th C. as British Honduras (Belize only in 1973). In English, Spanish Honduras was used primarily to disambiguate it from British Honduras, especially in the context of travel. I have seen it most recently (in the last 5 years) in wood catalogs (eg, Spanish Honduran Mahogany) and Cigars. I would hope that the one title you found was "A Lady's Ride across Spanish Honduras"(1884) by Maria Soltera, re-issued by the University of Florida Press in 1964! "Spanish Honduras" was current in the archaeological literature into the 1930's at least.

Never-the-less, I did revise the sentence.Rsheptak 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know personal experience isnt important here but as a child in the sixties and early seventies it was definitely still known as Spanish Honduras (as there were 2 Honduras's) in the UK and that is what I grew up knowing it as, SqueakBox 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No,personal experience is relevant when it comes to usage questions. See the discussion about what to call Hondurans (eg. "hondureño" versus "hondurenian") below. There may be a "correct" usage, but it doesn't mean every practitioner is orthodox in their usage. Rsheptak 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone

Somebody reverted the correct information that Hondiras is currently in the time zone UTC-5. Honduras is right now at UTC-5, please dont insert incorrect information into this article without checking first as such inaccuracies weaken the wikipedia. Ras Billy I 05:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Honduras and we've never used DST oficially. No country in Central America does (except maybe Panamá). It is true that we've used DST in recent years, but only by a special decree from the government. The purpose of this was to study the possibility that we could benefit from DST—even if was only a little bit— given the crisis caused by the rise in oil prices at the time (2004-2006). This year, after some controversy, the measure was not implemented.

~~ LeAd DiAg 08:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

History - Soccer War

"El Salvador met Honduras for a 3-round football elimination match as a preliminary to the World Cup. Honduras won in the game taking place in San Salvador. It lasted approximately 100 hours and led to an arms race between the two countries." This is unclear and incorrect. According to other sources including Wikipedia's own article on "Soccer War", El Salvador won the game in El Salvador 3-0 and went on to win the third game in Mexico City. Also, instead of saying "It lasted...", the sentence should read "The war lasted...". This sounds better since it doesn't make it seem like the soccer game lasted 100 hours.

Its callaed Football, both in Honduras and every other country with a strong footballing tradition. Soccer is a US term because fro them football is what everyone else callas American football. there is no reason to call this game soccer in the article, SqueakBox 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The war was caused by several factors. The main reason that meant the lastdrop was the game. I'll explain this short. Salvadorans went to work to Honduras because the country was becoming very prosperous. Hondurans became angry and started expelling Salvadorans from the country, which did not make the Slavadorans very happy. This continued for some time. When the World Cup came the tensions between both countries was high. Honduran governement got hold of some information from El Salvador that made clear Salvadoran intentions. Salvadorans wished to expand their territory to the Caribbean and make San Pedro Sula their new capital. The football game was just an excuse. The game played at Tegucigalpa was won by Honduras 3-0 and the following game played in San Salvador was lost by Honduras 3-0. It is said that their was an angry mob in the stadium whether the Honduran team lost or won, so that made Honduras lose on purpose. This is said by both countries oldest people yet there are no true records. When Salvadorans couldn't win the game they decided best to take over Honduras, hence the war started. As expected Salvadorans advance to the Atlantic coast and toward San Pedro Sula, yet the war only lasted 100 hours and the troops from El Salvador retreated before conquering any new territories. I am a Honduran national and this is the best way to explain in short terms the war.Valdez007 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you know about Football War which isnt a bad article and pretty much confirms what you say. Part of the problem is that El Salvador doesnt have a lot of space for its 7 million odd inhabitants, SqueakBox 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gap in history

Between Spanish independence in 1838 and the Soccer War of 1969, there's nothing noted. For some reason, they decided to name a school after Franklin Roosevelt. What did Honduras do in World War II? Xaxafrad 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

None of Latin America got involved in WWII as far as I am aware. Honduras had a hard man dictator in place Tiburcio Carías Andino who was an ally of the US, SqueakBox 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they formally declared war against germany (couldve been WWI) but i dunno if they actually DID anything Jorobeq 05:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Having gone through the honduran high school system, its important to note that this gap is evident in all their schools and text books. In any history course you would get started with the Mayans, go through the discovery and early colonization, skip two and half centuries, then go to the independence part, the get to about the 1860's, then jump to the "banana companies" stay there for a few decades and then jump to the 60's, the 1960's. Good history books about anything else are almost non-existent or at least not taught. While in college in the US, someone knowing that I went to school in Honduras, asked me if I could help him write a paper abouth the Honduras- Nicaragua war of the early 1900's. I wasn't even aware there was such a war. Nor it was mentioned in 3 history books I used in high-school. Wikihonduras 14 February 2007

The History of Honduras is documented basically in books found in the libraries of Honduras. There is VERY little digital information of Honduran history, besides the one found in Encarta. The only way to fill in the history of Honduras is to find a honduran history book, read it, and post its important and relevant information. I myself being Honduran can barely remember anything of the history for it's too much to remember.Valdez007 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Central America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Central America whose scope would include Honduras. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Battalion 316

There needs to be some mention of the government-backed death squad Battalion 316Notmyrealname 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well add it and source what you add, that would be great, SqueakBox 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Cities Section

I would like to discuss a complete rewrite of this section. As it stands as of March 4, 2007 is a just a combination of a list of the names of some cities and some personal opinions about some city attributes. The core of a section pertaining major cities cannot be just the detail of football stadiums and the list of some private billingual schools in San Pedro Sula. Wikihonduras 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen. This section is so weird. I've often thought about deleting it. There's quite a lot of material available on cities through the articles of the individual departments so I think we don't actually need a "Main Cities" section, just a cross reference.Rsheptak 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, was just being polite. My therapist insist that I should work on this attribute, personally I think politeness is underated. Maybe just a list ranked by population, each with a link to their respective article? But deleting it would work too. Wikihonduras 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow we must place ourself in the place of others who wish to learn about the country and its cities. Although there is nonimportant information we could insert a chart with the name of the cities (most visited by tourists and importance to the country) and a small detailed sentence about what defines each city on a nuetral basis. 137.30.238.220 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)valdez007

I don't see the need, but if you're going to do it, make it a table in the demographics section, with links to the city pages, as was done in the "Mexico" article. There doen't need to be a top level heading called "Main Cities".Rsheptak 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The population table by city and the paragraph immediately following not only I think are redundant, but also contradict each other. The table has Tegucigalpa at 1.5MM while the paragraph just below has it at ~900M. The table has San Pedro Sula at 1.1MM and Puerto Cortes at 201M. The paragraph has the whole Cortes de

British & Spanish Honduras

I have lived all my life in Honduras, and in no textbook I have used, whether it be printed locally, in Central America or in the United States, has had the distinction of Spanish Honduras and British Honduras. That being cleared I have deleted that part from the article. If you have proof of textbooks printed in Honduras that denote that difference between Belize, please make a statement here and then proceed to repost that information.Valdez007 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What is printed in Honduras is beside the point. This is an international and not a Honduran encyclopedia and this subject has been dealt with at length above. Please read that discussion and it would help to also read Wikipedia:Attribution, SqueakBox 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now restored this with references. This is abn encyclopedia in English and the fact that this country was known as Spanish Honduras to differentiate it from British Honduras and this unquestionably was how it was known at least in the UK until Belize became independent in 73, SqueakBox 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The country and the world has known Honduras as Honduras and not as Spanish Honduras. That solves the international encyclopedia problem. There are no maps, whether in textbooks printed in that era (1970s-80s) that differ Belize and Honduras as British and Spanish Honduras. The term British Honduras derives from the manner the British used to differ. However, just because the British used the term it doesn't mean it should be taken internationally since not only the British made maps.Valdez007 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But its not just British usage....Most of the English speaking world used (note the past tense here) "British" and "Spanish" Honduras to distinguish the two before the early 1970s. Not all the time, and not consistently, but the fact that it was used is indisputable. Examples from book titles of the period: "A Lady's Ride across Spanish Honduras(1884)", "Archaeological Investigations in the Bay Islands, Spanish Honduras (1935)", "The golden Caribbean; a winter visit to the republics of Colombia, Costa Rica, Spanish Honduras, Belize and the Spanish Main via Boston and New Orleans (1900)". We're not saying its a contemporary usage, but both Squeakbox and I heard it used in our lifetimes in two different English speaking countries, so it was used. Rsheptak 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was still in common usage in my childhood and it has been referenced so it should stay and so I restored it. i dont see what byour problem with this. It wouldnt be appropriate in the Spanish wikipedia but it is in the English. We are here to inform and this does, SqueakBox 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have proven your point because you have known the name in a certain time span. However we should take into consideration that some countries that didn't speak English but used English written maps did not use the terms Spanish and British Honduras. Yet, I see the reason why to mention the previuos terms, since this part of Wiki is for English purposes only.Valdez007 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Emigration in New Orleans

It would be nice to know the origin of why so many Hondurans live in New Orleans, making it the only city with a Hondurans as a Latin American majority. I know the information first hand, but would like to first hear opinions on whether to publish it or not.Valdez007 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

hmmmmm.......a lot of the latinos in mississippi are also from honduras. 24.116.54.170 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Originally, New Orleans was popular because there used to be direct boat service from Puerto Cortes and Tela to New Orleans. Do a search on "Great White Fleet". In addition to carrying bananas, it took passengers and cargo. Hondurans connected with the banana companies settled there. While the fleet still exists, New Orleans is no longer a port of call. Now its Freeport, Tx, Gulfport, MS., Miami, Fl., and Willmington, De.. Same with airline service. TAN-SASHA flew the New Orleans to San Pedro Sula route until they were shut down for buying uncertified replacement parts. Post Katrina I assume its because of the opportunities in construction and because of families already located there pre-Katrina. Why not write something? Rsheptak 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For us folk here on the North Coast New Orleans is what faces us on the other side of the sea. And there are unquestionably lots of Hondurans in New Orleans (or were) and Mississippi; fascinating that they are the majority. Strikes me this should be put in New Orleans and this article, SqueakBox 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll write draft and publish it in Wikipedia when I think it meets Wikipedia standards. I'll also try to put the same info in the New Orleans article. For the people that tell me about the Great White fleet, that may be true, but the true origin is in the Tela Railroad Company that operated in the country.72.200.29.102 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TRR shipped its bananas on the Great White Fleet. Both are pieces of the story. Rsheptak 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes made

Hi, i made some changes on the article in hope of making in better. I updated the Demographic information, i removed the Indegenous groups sub section, as it was already mentioned before in the Demographic section. I made a new page, Honduran diaspora. I removed the information about there being 1.4 million Hondurans in the U.S. because in the same section in again mentioned "According to the U.S. Census Bureau (figures taken at the 2005 census) 460,000 Hondurans live there", so it contradicted itself. If any of you have any problems with the changed i made please inform me, thank you. LaNicoya 07:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the indigenous groups section. They simply deserve recognition as indigenous groups and not simply a treatment together with various immigrant groups and a general overview of the Honduran population.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I simply removed the sub-heading, do you think the population of the Indigenous groups should be added? LaNicoya 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be good if the information is well sourced.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Honduras

After seeing the creation of the Wikiproject:El Salvador, I thought it might be a good idea to create one for honduras. Jorobeq 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin cultures

Hello everyone! You may want to go to Latin cultures an participate in the article and discussion. There are a lot of disputed statements... The Ogre 12:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Honduras not a Secular State

While reading the article Secular_state noticed that Honduras (along with Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua) are NOT considered Secular States. The rest of Latin America was included in the list, so was Spain. Made me think first if this was even correct and second, why would that be? Specially considering that countries to which Honduras has strong cultural, historical ties and to which Honduras' legal system resembles (Spain, Mexico, etc) would be categorized as Secular and not Honduras. I understand the power of the church in Honduras, but is this power greater than in Mexico, Brasil, Spain, Costa Rica, etc? I checked a link to the Constiution of Honduras [4] And the word religion is only mentioned twice, when it talks about voting rights. What exactly makes Honduras (Again if this is correct) to be classified as non-secular one? Wikihonduras 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it and Guatemala are both secular states, SqueakBox 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, SqueakBox. Even if God himself declared Honduras "secular", we'd still want a published source. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a source we can say neither secular nor religious, SqueakBox 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After going through the Honduran Constitution (although with very little legal background) I'd say the same. But wanted to post here first, to check some opinions before adding it into the Secular_state article. Wikihonduras 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikihonduras, can you cite specific information in the Constitution that suggests Honduras is officially secular? Come to think of it, there seem to be many missing sources for the list of states in Secular state. It also has a misleading statement, "as of 2006", which implies the list comes from a single source compiled in 2006, which if it was, isn't cited. Meanwhile, it's odd that an article about a nation that's 97% Roman Catholic (according to my 2004 CIA World Factbook) doesn't include a word about religion, one way or another. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides the Honduran Constitution text as a whole? (Link posted above) I would argue that there is no source or part of its constitution that supports a counter position, that the official policy of Honduras is as a religious-based state. According to Wikipedia's definition of secularism as "Secular State is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give unfair preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions..." Since the 1982 Consitution is what currently defines the form of government, I'd say that I see no evidence that Honduras is not a secular state.

The fact that a majority of its population is of one relgion or the other is irrevelant, or how much religion is part of our daily lives, as long as the official postion of the government is to permit freedom of religion as stated above, the state should be considered secular. Most of the countries in the world have a majority of its population belonging to one religion or other, nonetheless they are very secular and are constantly struggling to keep it that way...India is a prime example and Turkey specially with recent events. Please see Republic_Protests.

As for other points related to the Secular_state article, I'd think is better to argue them there, you may have some valid points. Wikihonduras 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick check produced this - [5] which states that " There is no state religion. However, the Government consults with the Roman Catholic Church on key issues of mutual concern, such as education and foreign debt relief." Lots of other good stuff here. Not sure if it qualifies as a WP:RS. Notmyrealname 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very secular to me, the consultation bit is irelevant as all goves tewnd to consult with religious leaders, SqueakBox 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a source we can neither claim religious nor secular and nor must we, SqueakBox 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the Secular_state article explicitely lists Honduras and Guatemala as not-secular, or the be precise..explicitely excludes from the Secular List. While checking the article other countries like USA, Denmark, the UK have defended a position one way or the other citing the Constitution. I think that a reference to the Honduras Constitution should be enough. If it isn't then for the meantime in Wikipedia, Honduras would default to be defined as a religious state unlike the rest of latin america, USA, Canada, Japan, etc and like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Wikihonduras 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this "There is no state religion" [6]Notmyrealname 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User Wikihonduras is correct. Honduras is a constitutionaly secular state. It became one with the 1880 constitution. Prior to 1880 it had been officially a Roman Catholic state (see http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm). Article 77 of the 1982 consitution, as ammended through 2005 states "e garantiza el libre ejercicio de todas las religiones y cultos sin preeminencia alguna, siempre que no contravengan las leyes y el orden público." (see http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html). This is exactly the same sort of evidence that is "cited" in the Secular_state article. I suggest Wikihonduras add it to the list of secular states along with a link to article 77 of the constitution and be done with this silly argument. Rsheptak 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With Rsheptak's specific citation (instead of just a link to the whole Constitution), we may have some concrete evidence (although English Wikipedia needs it translated to English for reasonable verification). Wikihonduras's statement that Secular state "explicitely [sic] lists Honduras and Guatemala as not-secular" is incorrect, even with the subsequent qualification, because the article clearly states the the list is "incomplete". In other words, there may be secular states not contained in the list. Perhaps the information here (once translated) can be used to make the situation clearer both here and in that other article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually sources in foreign languages are "prefered" but not "required". verification requires the editor that uses its own translation to include the foreing language source for verification by readers. Wikihonduras 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffq, I believe you are misreading verification. The policy states that if we are quoting the constitution IN THE ARTICLE, we are required to provide a translation into english. The Secular state page uses references, not quotation, so this does not apply. Even when there is a translation provided, it is required to also give reference to the information in the original language, since translations may be in error or nuanced in a particular way. I don't know why you are requiring a translation into english of the relevant section of the constitution. Are you acting as some sort of gatekeeper for this article? In any event, the same requirement was not placed on the other countries in the list, so why is Honduras different? There is no scholarly impediment here. Why is this discussion here instead of on the Secular state page? Rsheptak 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Rsheptak, I am hardly a gatekeeper for any article. My original comments were merely part of my "drive-by editing", in which I raise some points I hope regular editors will address. Honduras is not one of my major article focuses. Second, I don't know how you are coming by your narrow interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability (which is the policy I linked to above, and is what I assume you meant to as well, even though your link is actually to the disambiguation article Verification). To quote WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged…

Verification is necessary for any non-obvious factual material, not just quotations. Spanish text is by defintion non-obvious in en:WP, just as English text is in es:WP. Non-Spanish-speaking editors (likely the vast majority of en:WP editors) have no reliable source for claims that the Constitution includes a provision that qualifies Honduras as a secular state. Third, I totally agree that a reliable original-language source should always be cited. I also believe we should have a reliable source for any translation of the text that would allow editors to verify any statements, but quite a few Wikipedians don't share my concern about sourcing the necessary translations. In any case, we need some English statement — a link to a reliable translation of the relevant Constitution clause, a quoted, translated passage from the Constitution in a citation footnote, or even just an English description of the clause (or link to a reliable source for such). Fourth, all of this is true for the all the countries listed in Secular state, not just for Honduras. The only reason one might argue that what is currently there is acceptable would be if there was a reliable source for the list, as I wondered above, but there isn't (last time I checked). Finally, as this was a "drive-by" edit, I didn't expand it to raise these issues at Talk:Secular state because I'd hoped to stimulate concern among regular editors to spread the issue. I hadn't expected to become involved in arguments about basic sourcing policy. I apologize if I angered you. If I have time, I'll raise these points at the other article, as no one here seems to want to raise the larger issue over there yet. (I see that Wikihonduras has addressed the specific issue of Honduras there, although I haven't reviewed the source. Spot-checking the countries' sources, I see a Pandora's Box of issues related to the need for original-language material as well as English translations which I'm not prepared to investigate at the moment.) My hope for this article is that someone will add some mention of the religious aspects of Honduras — both its formal secular system and its popular faiths — with proper Spanish and English sourcing for that information. At the very least, it would address an important topic here as well as help inform readers of the other article looking for more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffq, as I understand it, you believe WP:RS and WP:V to establish that all articles that exist in the english version of Wikipedia must be based on knowledge written and verifiable in the english language. Yet there is no explicit statement that sources must be in english in either policy. The crux of your reading seems to rest on your interpretion of "non-obvious facts" as requiring english-only sourcing. If that is the intent of WP:V and WP:RS then I would have expected them both to explicitly require the sources to be in english. I don't believe that is the intent, but if that is the intent, then they should be updated to make that explicit. Rsheptak 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am going to reply to all your question on whether Honduras is or not a Secular state. Honduras IS a Secular state. I am a Honduran national and have lived in the countyr my whole life. I am of a different religious denomination than the demoniant, which is Roman Catholic. The government is not tied to the church in any way. Also in any consults the government has with the church, those consults are done with all different denominations present to promote fairness. The constitution of Honduras also states that the government is not bound to any religious organization and is seperate. Questions? please askValdez007 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ranking by GDP per Capita

I see that recently the text which referes to Honduras and its ranking in the Americas by GDP per Capita was changed. I checked the sources and found two: - The IMF, which ranks Haiti as the poorest, then Bolivia and Then Honduras. - The CIA, Which ranks Haiti as the poorest, then Honduras and then Nicaragua.

Since the article was originally referencing the CIA source, I'd like to remove what currently is in the article.."Honduras is third poorest, after Haiti and Nicaragua" which doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources listed and use the CIA one.

please see List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Wikihonduras 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the last edit i reverted? The anon IP changed it to third but it originally stated Honduras as second poorest in the Western Hemisphere which uses the CIA source.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

edits by anonymous editor to population demographics

The population figures you provide do not match the reference. If you have a new reference, then change the figures. If you don't have a new reference, don't change the figures.Kww (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you bring them here and they are reliable we can incorporate them through the series of articles. we just have to make sure we don't get this kind of information wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I cant read this "/hɒnˈdʊərəs/;" which says how to pronounce Honduras in English but |I do know that we Brits pronounce it differently from the Americans, they say like dur and we say dyur, its a classic difference in the way we pronounce our us. Of course Spanish speakers also pronounce it differently because the H is silent (and the u like an American u, indeed this is what makes American more similar to Spanish than British English is). Can this one be fixed. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads like I think you mean by "dyur". Americans say it both ways.Kww (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this trivial photo necessary?

The one with this caption: "In Honduras electricity comes in to households through overhead cables. Other cables carry telephone, cable television and broadband internet." True of most countries. No significance whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.146.65 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is true of most countries then please source your claim. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable Hondurans Arturo Torres "Pacharaca" Bonilla

Through the life of the Honduras article different people (mostly living) have been added as part of the "Notable Hondurans" section. Recently the name of a Football player from the 70's and 80's known as "Pacharaca" Bonilla was added.

Wikipedia through their WP:Notability guideline establishes guidelines for defining people who are notable. What makes this football player any different than many others which have played football in Honduras? Definitely the fact the person's name is cited on a few sources or that the person has an article does not meet the criteria.

The purpose of including a list of "notables" within a country or institution is to achieve a linkage between a known character and the not well known fact of their procedence (Silvia Poll from Costa Rica comes to mind. I doubt that reader will see the name of Pacharaca Bonilla and say "I didn't know he was from Honduras." If allowed, then we'll have an endless list of people being added. What stops anyone in adding names like "Pilin" Bran, "Perro" Gonzales, "Cuca" Bueso, "Mozambique" Alvarez ?

Should this person be included in the list among other like Cardenal Rodriguez, David Suazo and Salvador Moncada?

Wikihonduras (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Notability guideline for Athletes say that an individual athlete is notable if they: "have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis". It seems to me that Bonilla was a proffesional athlete competing in a proffesional league (unless the national honduran league is not proffesional). In that case he is notable enough to include. When and if the list of notable hondurans become exceedingly long it may be preferable to move it out of the article and into a list format, or to apply stricter criteria, but that doesn't seem to be the case yet.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Notability defines the article itself and should Wikipedia allow the article to remain. The notability of that article is not at discussion here, nor it should be. The real question or issue is if every person which has an article should be included in the list of "notable honduras". If this true then all presidents of Honduras should be included in the list. Most politicians with articles could also be added. Even the wife of the President of Honduras has an article. Certainly that should not be the intent of such list. That is, it should not be a list of every person born in the country, which has an article in wikipedia. I do agree with you in one point, such names should be added in a different article, maybe "notable football players?" Just not in this article. Wikihonduras (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

honduras is 122100 km2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.5.107 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tourism/Ecotourism in Honduras

Every time I try to put this in any search engine it always brings me to vacation and traveling websites. I need the facts, not the traveling information. Could someone find a good link for Tourism/Ecotourism in countries? Stuff about the percent of GDP it is and how many people relatively go...? Factual info please.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.41.18 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I need lots of info... this

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.148.124 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hondurans

The term "Honduranian" does not exist. The correct term is Honduran. Dianahdez 6 July 2006

Not true. This term is used extensively by Honduranian people. To claim as you do is a cultural imposition. El Rojo 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I have never heard ANY Honduran say the word Honduranian in English or in Spanish. I'm Honduran, believe me, no one says that. Jorobeq 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe me in Honduras people do say it. I have heard the term too often to be confused on this one. Accordingh to info in your user page I have spent considerably more time in Honduras than your good self, maybe it is a North coast thing but it is a real term really used. El Rojo 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the time I have spent there, I have been surrounded by people who were born and raised in San Pedro Sula.Jorobeq 01:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google search shows it to be an unusual but definitely existent term. The people who I have heard use it all obviously speak English and do so because they have spent considerable time in the US but are equally clearly Hondurans. Curious, its clearly a translation of the word Hondureňo. All the Google searches that use the word come form the North Coast, making me think it is particular to this coastal region and perhaps hasn't really spread as far as San Pedro. El Rojo 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Very possibleJorobeq 02:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "Hondurenian" is used extensively by the Honduran people themselves. Its certainly not in my 27 years experience in the country in and around San Pedro Sula. I've only ever heard the term from north americans. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I'm saying its rare. Rsheptak 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely doubt that a person from Honduras would call himself or herself anything but "hondureño". I have heard AMericans called people from Honduras "hondurian" "honduranian" or "honduran". The fact the any of these words is often used doesn't make it correct, just makes a widely used incorrect term. Ask any body that speaks spanish, how do you call someone from Jamaica? In english, it will be very difficult the get an answer different than "Jamaican". Don't be surprised to hear answers like "Jamaicano", "Jamaiqueño", "Jamaiquino" and even "Jamaiquense". Again the fact that any of this terms could be used very often, doesn't make them correct. User:WikiHonduras 14 February 2007

Honduranian is a term used by English speaking Hondurans on the north coast, SqueakBox 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Hondurinian" does not exist. The only denominations known are "Catracho", which is complimentary and not derrogative and Honduran.Valdez007 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, outside of Honduras we refer to people from honduras as hondurenos(with a tilde on the n) and hondurans refer to themselves as catrachos, but not all hondurans say that

Having worked for the last 20 years with American citizens in this country, and being a native Honduran I can say that the term "Honduranian" is an inaccurate one, and many hondurans have used it only because their bosses use it, that's probably why you've heard hondurans use it. I know several native hondurans who speak incorrectly because they have learned to speak that way from constantly hearing americans who incorrectly use the English language; and if you try to correct them (americans and hondurans alike), they refuse your correction, because in their minds, that's the correct way to speak. That is the case with this term "Hoduranian". So is the case, for example, with the term "Limp". Too many americans use that word to refer to the national currency "Lempira". To them it is easier to say "Limp" than it is to say "Lempira". And then several hondurans use it to make life easier for everyone, not because the term is correct.User:Likantropo 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Politics

According to new Honduras' canciller, President Obama is an ignorant Pickaninny [7]

---

This seems very un-objectively written - I think less judgemental language should be used.

Unfortunately, Honduran politics are plagued with over-marketed political campaigns, unclear political positions, lack of measurable goals, and a lack of understanding from a majority of the population on the importance of democracy and the election process. In 2004, Honduran democracy made a quantum leap towards a more democractic society when separate ballots were used for mayors, congress, and president. Many more candidates were registered for 2005's election, and people had more chances to elect their local government. Even though many resources were invested providing an improved democratic process, we've seen this effort vanished when politicians scratched the names of already elected individuals to nominate their own who were not freely elected.

---

I just added a section NPOV template because of the above, and then saw that it was already mentioned on this talk page. I'm not qualified, but I hope someone will help fix this soon. -brbigam

---

More un-objectively written text, "The United States president, Barack Obama, has shown his true colors by denouncing the coup and has said that the U.S. only recognize president Zelaya as the legal president of Honduras, the position currently being held by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro"

Referring to true "true colors" is never objective wording. Comparing to "Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro" is pointless, unless a military coups is the legal way of removing a president from office. I have not polled all nations, but I would guess there aren't a lot of president praising the overthrow of a fellow president by a military coups.

---

Raúl Castro is the President of Cuba by the way.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.6.217 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Zelaya's arrest was seemingly within the requirements of the Hondruan Constitution, which disqualifies from power anyone, even a president, who engages in abuse of power by, among other things, ignoring decisions of the Supreme Court, which declared the referendum he was pushing illegal.

And if it's about presidents praising overthrows, you should remember that both Castro and Chávez launched coups of their own, the latter against a "democratically-elected president". They can praise, even launch their own coups but condemn the arrest of the Honduran president (which they define as a "coup"), even when it is within the Constitution?

Nevertheless, it is true a phrase like "true colors" is often not NPOV.

190.77.117.50 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

In response with the previous comment the arrest of President Zelaya is not within the requirement of the Honduran Constitution. If you take the time to actually read the constitution. The Supreme Court has no authority to remove from power a elected president from his seat. This has already been reviewed by the U.S. State Department and is the reason that the U.S. Administration has stated its continued recognition of President Zelaya, as the legitimate President of the República de Honduras. Furthermore this is also the reason why the international community including the Organization of American States, is formally considering the current situation a coup d'État. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.55.25 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

References

The article is missing references. Also, the history section should be summary style, no need to detail how long runaways there were.Luis Napoles (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

President detained

Zelaya has apparently been detained by the military in the crisis over the term limit referendum. Expect changes will have to be made as the situation becomes clear. Rmhermen (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenemos que tocar el tema de la posicion del presidente Zelaya

Señores, antes de seguir borrando o cambiando la pagina de honduras... hay que discutir la posicion del presidente ya que el presidente de facto no es reconocido por la comunidad internacional. Discutan sobre el tema para llegar a un conclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrogomez88 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No es reconocido por la comunidad internacional pero sí por las instituciones hondureñas. Micheleti es el actual presidente según esas instituciones.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are We All On The Wrong Track?

In this discussion, please remember the main Wikipedia flaw; it appears that if someone, somewhere wrote down something that got published, it becomes fact. This must be viewed as flying in the face of common sense. All the dancing around the issue of substantiation for titles and such is actually a wasted effort, IMHO. But let us get down to the real issue.

There can be little doubt that the action taken by the use of force without so much as an open referendum on the issues puts the basic comments of the US and Venezualen presidents right on point.

With that said, the real issue here has nothing to do with who is president or who is in power. It has nothing to do with whether or not the legislature was right or wrong to order the military to seize control. The real issue is that the country of Honduras has a serious problem with the constitution. There are some very serious problems with the wording, terminology and/or intent of the document. This is evident by the fact that there could even be such a confusion about what is right or wrong that could lead to such an event as recently occured.

I am no expert on Zelaya, but I do know that he had pressed the US to legalize drug use, so as to eliminate the criminal element and the high cost of deaths in a fruitless war that will never, ever be won. Because of that obvious display of intelligence, I am seriously wondering if maybe he had the good sense to institute the vote to determine if the people were willing to improve a flawed constitution. He may have been on the right track. After all, the election process was to decide if they should consider any changes, not to actually make any.

In any case, there exists the flawed constitution that lies at the foundation of all the problems, and that should be the target subject of the article with regard to current events. Let us simply state that such and such occurred, and that it clearly appears to be based upon confusion over the intent and meaning of the constitution. While there are always political and special interests at work, a proper constitution would protect against this sort of action.

The purpose of the article is to state the truth and the obvious, and to do so in a neutral voice. In this case, it seems proper to point out the obvious flaw that led to a violent action as a point of fact. Thank you. - KitchM (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "flawed" about the constitution? You keep using that word as if it's generally undertood that the Honduran Constitution is in error.

From what I've gleaned from a variety of articles, Zelaya wanted a non-binding resolution on rewriting the constitution because the "flaw" he thought it had was that he wouldn't be able to run for another term as president.

Term limits doesn't make a constitution "flawed."

Can you explain what you mean by that? Simplemines (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What you consider a "flaw" in Wikipedia is atually what made it a huge success. Remember that Wikipedia got started as sidekick to Nupedia which was an expert opinion public encyclopedia project. Needles is to say that Nupedia is long time gone. The main point is not to estate the "truth" since that is sometimes a very debatable conclusion. Wikipedia doesn't say that because something is published somewhere else, it means it's a fact. It only says "it's a fact that it's published or referenced" allowing the opportunity to compare and re-inforce a point. At the end is the reader who given all possible views determines his or her "truth".

It's the Honduran constitution flawed? It doesn't matter for wikipedia and shouldn't be discussed here. Original research which is something that wikipedia opposes, it's better done in other type of media outlets, not in this encyclopedia. Wikihonduras (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this page protected? The coverage of the constitutional crisis seems pretty sparse, and could use some revision. Binarybits (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection has no any sense. Maybe they should only protect the Politics section, not the rest.Mazarin07 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to figure this out too and am pretty sure the debate over the president (See Section: Micheletti is not "acting President") is the cause. This is a hot news event and hopefully in the near future we can revert to semi-protected status. -- Bdentremont (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange Link

Why does Roberto Micheletti link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_deTat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. At the very least, it should link to 2009 Honduran political crisis, although it would be proper to link Micheletti to his own page, Roberto Micheletti.--Ferrariguy90 (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That was apparently the last edit before the article was blocked for use of only administrators. I have changed both the President and Vice President title to "Disputed" and linked that to the Honduran coup d'état of 2009 article. Micheletti was added on by an IP who may not know that Micheletti's government hasn't been recognized by any government in the world. No one knows how this situation is going to turn out so putting on "Disputed" seems like the best option at least for now.--Jersey Devil (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the governmental factions responsible for President Zelaya's ouster have acted in a truly troglodytic manner; can it really be the case that the Honduran Constitution requires that a "problematic" President be awakened in the middle of the night, taken from his place of residence while still in his nightshirt and sent into immediate exile without recourse to legal counsel, without being allowed to defend himself in his own country's juridical or parliamentary courts? As I recall, President Nixon, who, facing similar accusations of unconstitional acts, underwent impeachment proceedings and was permitted the option of resigning with a modicum of decorum, was not arrested in the dead of night by Marines and forced to board a plane into exile by fiat and secret decree. In short, the ouster of President Zelayas is an affront to the belief in the applicable universality of standards of social and institutional civility, transparency, and facticity, the "constitutionality" of the facile, rapacious, and brutal extirpation of a democratically elected president is what is in question, not President Zelayas's right to return and resume his mandate as freely elected leader of Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marenach (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone remove the current event template

{{editprotected}} There's no point in warning our readers about rapid change on a protected article. :) --Conti|✉ 09:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Presidency in Question?

To have the Presidency of Honduras in question is unbelievable. The Honduran Presidency may be in question to most foreigners, but if anyone bothers to actually read news coming straight out of Honduras and not from the mouth of Hugo Chavez, the Honduran Constitution makes it very clear who the President is. Roberto Micheletti. Zelaya was removed from power by the military following through on an order, not a coup, from the Honduran Supreme Court, at which when Zelaya was removed, the constitution succession laws stated that Micheletti was to replace him. Micheletti was not placed in power by the Honduran military. According to the Honduran Constitution, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran Congress (including Zelaya's OWN PARTY), and many citizens of Honduras, Zelaya is no longer President and Micheletti is. To keep it as "disputed" or "unresolved" presents a very clear bias against Honduran rule of law. He broke the law, he was removed from power, the Constitution was followed, and now Micheletti is president. Why even bother try, the Hondurans themselves have made it very VERY clear that Zelaya will NOT be placed back in the Presidency, unless by use of force. Accept what has happened, Zelaya will never be president again.--Farmer88 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated to death in other locations. Look at the talk page for the "2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis" for much of the discussion. I won't reprise it here. I will say, however, that no on is listening to Chavez, and that he isn't a factor in the debate. Go read it. Rsheptak (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing specific quotes with regards to crisis

I do not understand what makes it so important to specifically quote Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez with regards to the political crisis in Honduras. Before removing these quotes I will rather add information with regards to other countries view of what is happening in Honduras at the moment. I am for removing specific quotes of any political world leaders since they are not relevant to the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.112.100 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Just realized the page can't be edited and wasn't even signed in. Anyways, the section which has just two specific quotes from two specific political leaders is silly. Here is information that should be added to that section with regards to other political world leaders if we wish to include it.

Reaction from Spain, France. http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=991799&lang=eng_news Spain, France recalling ambassador from Honduras. Reaction Germany http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Infoservice/Presse/Meldungen/2009/090629-Honduras.html Translation, the German Foreign Minister is against the current situation. The rest of European Union countries http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/02/eu-ambassadors-honduras236.html This article pretty much encompasses the european point of view. Here is Canada http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+join+call+reinstate+Honduran+president/1747435/story.html

Anyways, I can go and find other points of view with regards to the current situation as expressed through world political leaders but my question remains. Why do we have specific quotes from two world leaders in this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaussianCopula (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

President Manuel Zelaya did not attempt to hold a referendum (or plebiscite)

It was an encuesta, which is best translated as survey. This is a really important point, as it is not merely non-binding, but actually has no legal validity of any kind. Calling it a referendum or a plebiscite is just a trick to make the Supreme Court's decision sound plausible. Referendums and plebiscites are legal initiatives that are carried out by electoral bodies using the ballot and voting processes. Zelaya's survey was merely an opinion study carried out by the National Institute of Statistics to measure public support for a proposed constitutional convention. Suppressing the survey would seem to indicate that the powers-that-be were afraid of the results it might generate. I don't see any other reason. The proposal for a constitutional convention would have been carried as a special item in the November election, which would seem to eliminate any possibility that Zelaya could use it to promote his own reelection or term extension. Under the terms of Article 239 of the present constitution, it's not clear how the subject of presidential election or term extension could even be brought up in a constitutional convention, as Article 239, which would remain in force during the convention, forbids proposing it. Jules Siegel (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Zelya "referendum"

"President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding referendum (or plebiscite)" In the interest of historical documentation there should be mention of the type of and content of the so called "referendum" It is the principal cause of the current dispute and to not mention a single word about its content is beyond biased. Here is a brief description " The referendum at the center of the storm asks voters to place a measure on November's ballot that would allow the formation of a constitutional assembly that could modify the nation's charter to allow the president to run for another term. Zelaya, whose four-year term ends in January 2010, cannot run for re-election."

67.83.62.88 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To be precise the executive decree was to hold a poll or survey. The exact term used in Article 2 of the decree is "encuesta de opinion publica". The purpose of the poll that was taking place in June, was to to asses the desire to hold a referendum in the november election to call for a constitutional assembly. Please see text in spanish of the decree. http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422. Wikihonduras (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's rather deceptive to use such a loaded and inaccurate description of the survey and to continue to call it a referendum. The exact term used in Article 2 of the decree is "encuesta de opinion pública." http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=13422 Encuesta is a standard Spanish term for survey. It's not an official legal proposition with voting by ballot. Proposition 8 was a referendum. The polls about Proposition 8 were opinion surveys.

The full and verbatim text of the survey reads:

"¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de noviembre del 2008 se instale una Cuarta Urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente? SI____ No____"

Translation: "Do you agree that a fourth ballot box be installed in the general elections of November 2009 to decide on convoking a National Constituent Assembly to enact a constitution? YES ___ No ___"

Jules Siegel (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to do WP:Original research by "translating" terms from Spanish or reading Constitutions at home. Please, see what English-speaking WP:reliable sources say about it. I have a list of some that call it a referendum, want? --LjL (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. It doesn't matter what "English-speaking" say about this. I'm a professional translator of Spanish. My translation is not "original research." It's based on established authorities. You can read the translation of encuesta here. I hardly think that referring to the actual decree is original research. Jules Siegel (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not original research, you say? Well, let's see. I typed "referendo" into your professional-looking dictionary. Of course, the first translation is "referendum", but... there is also "consulta popular" - wasn't that one of the terms used by Spanish sources?! Let's try clicking on it. Wow, the first thing I notice is that the first-listed synonym is "encuesta"! So, can "referendo" and "encuesta" actually mean the same thing (as "referendum")?!

But aside from all this, the simple fact that you add to qualify yourself as a "professional translator" should give you a hint that you're not basing your claims on actual verifiability. On Wikipedia, we don't care who you are.

Finally, saying that "it doesn't matter what English-speaking [sources] say about this" is patent nonsense, sorry. On Wikipedia, we base things on WP:Reliable sources, English ones being preferred. They entirely matter.

LjL (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Word Magic is a popular bilingual dictionary that frequently offers various synonyms or extended meanings of Spanish and English words and concepts. I sent you there because it's a quick way of verifying the various meanings of Spanish and English words. We are, however, discussing legal terms. Both referendum and plebiscite have very precise legal definitions. A consulta popular is more commonly used as an opinion gathering method that can take place in various ways, including public meetings. It can be a referendum or a plebiscite only if it satisfies legal requirements such as being carried out by a legally constituted electoral body, using verifiable voting instruments such as ballots.

Neither English speaking persons nor bilingual dictionaries are verifiable sources in the same sense as the generally accepted final authority on the Spanish language, Real Academia Española, which defines encuestaas:

1. f. Averiguación o pesquisa. (Verification or investigation)

2. f. Conjunto de preguntas tipificadas dirigidas a una muestra representativa, para averiguar estados de opinión o diversas cuestiones de hecho. (Set of categorized questions directed at a representative sample, to ascertain states of opinion or various questions of fact)

If, on the other had, you search for referendo, you will be redirected to referéndum, which it defines in the sense being used here as:

1. m. Procedimiento jurídico por el que se someten al voto popular leyes o actos administrativos cuya ratificación por el pueblo se propone. (Legal procedure by means of which laws or administrative acts whose ratification by the people is proposed are submitted to voting.)

I'm not only a professional translator, but also an internationally recognized author and journalist whose works have appeared in English and Spanish in many highly respected publications. Some of my works are cited as sources in Wikipedia articles. I got involved with this topic on Wikipedia because I am writing an article about it for a major publication with millions of readers. It might interest you to know that it started as a result of a discussion with Jimmy Wales. When I'm finished, it may very well be used as a source in the Honduras article.

I'm sure that you are a very intelligent concerned individual, but I see you indulging in what I consider to be rather imprecise interpretations of terms whose definitions are not subject to the kind of interpretation you are offering. Thanks for your observations, however, which gave me the opportunity to provide the correct, academically accepted translations of the terms under discussion. Jules Siegel (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I never really meant to use link-hopping inside Word Magic to prove my point - on the contrary, I merely did that to show that pointing me to a translation dictionary about this is useless, as it's hardly just a matter of word-A-means-B.

I believe I dealt with that in my response, but please go on ignoring anything I actually say in favor of how you wish to interpret it.

Anyway, I've already had this whole discussion on the Manuel Zelaya talk page, and I don't really feel like having it again... Please, refer there for my reasoning where I explain that, in my opinion (and Wikipedia policy's opinion), what matters is what English WP:Reliable sources call it, not really what Zelaya's government called it.

What matters is the dictionary definition of the terms, not what ignorant non-Spanish speakers think about it. A Reliable Source can be utterly and totally wrong about something. Would you suggest that the Spanish dictionary be changed to suit an incorrect definition used by a source that may be reliable in many matters, but happens to be unreliable when it comes to the Spanish language?

Oh, sorry, I completely forgot that what non-Spanish speaking reliable sources (reliable, but ignorant) say doesn't matter at all. Where did I have my head. Duh. --LjL (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
--[From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll]

If you do write a article about this on a reliable source, then that might become a reliable source that we can use, rather than just "someone's original research".

So you say. Unfortunately, that's just your opinion. Citing the Real Academia Española is not original research. I'm not making up definitions based on my own opinions. I am citing an unimpeachable authority.

Meanwhile, though, I believe my reasoning is correct.

Of course you would, but that doesn't make it actually is correct. I can translate elefante as octopus, but that doesn't make it correct. I supplied the exact meaning of the terms from the generally accepted ultimate authority on the Spanish language and you're still arguing with me about reliable sources. There is no more reliable source for the Spanish language than Real Academia Española. I can also show you the equivalent definitions in authoritative English legal dictionaries.

Jules Siegel, I went through the same disussion a few nights back. You can read it if you want. At the end it was agreed under consensus to say "Poll of Public Opinion, generally known as Referendum by the Media". Since there were references on both sides calling it one way or the other, plus as you mentioned also the correct translation of encuesta is poll or survey, it was prudent to use this dual arrangement to avoid any POV. Wikihonduras (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2009

So why are you continuing to argue with me? Jules Siegel (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

President

Hey is odd that the President information just say "Unresolved". Its very easy:
de facto: Roberto Micheletti de jure: Manuel Zelaya Google de facto and de jure honduras president and many media in Spanish use those terms. I would do it myself but the page is protected so I listen for comments on this and hopefully someone with enough privileges would change it. --ometzit<col> (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believed that is prudent to keep it "unresolved" the "de facto" term would be considered POV by many here. They will argue that "de jure" should apply to the new government, since both the Supreme Court and the National Assembly approved the new president. Obviously a big population here will also argue the opposite, stating that any action from the Assembly or Congress, derived from an illegal action would therefore be also illegal. This is the dispute on hand, unlike other "abrupt changes in government" where the break was very evident, this political crisis has brought in additional elements. I'd recommend to keep it unresolved, since otherwise would be considered POV. Wikihonduras (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA activities in Honduras

Why does the article not link to, or include material from CIA activities in Honduras. The contraversial line "Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement, notorious for kidnappings and bombings" is supported by a dubious source - http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/exgi_0001_0001_0/exgi_0001_0001_0_00044.html%7Ctitle=Cinchoneros Popular Liberation Movement . There is much information at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZIcZjlj1hLEC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=honduras+cia&source=bl&ots=T8h9JskBTS&sig=9SJGwhvrgP6Ru3gDPzV-iCJGfAQ&hl=en&ei=F5lQSqqvKNC2jAeGwuy8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This article being taken over by CIA disinformation section

The CIA takes wikipedia very seriously.

During events like these the covert CIA wikipedia team, which includes a few wik administrators move in to give the article a CIA point of view after which the article is locked protected. - This has happened to other articles like - Gaza siege - Lebanon - Iran – Unlock this article and let thousands of wiki editors write the truth here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.185.48 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 or continuity. The reelection issue is moot.

You can read their orders here.

In my first reading, I find that the justices assert that only the electoral authorities have the right to undertake "consultas populares," that the constitution can only be amended by the processes described in it, and that some of its provisions are set in stone and cannot be amended. They accuse Zelaya of usurpation of powers and treason. They order the armed forces to detain him and bring him before a competent judicial authority. They do not order him removed from office (unless I missed something) and they do not order him deported. The orders are sealed and the operation is to be carried out secretly to avoid his escape.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, but according to Alberto Valiente Thoresen, Honduran public officials are explicitly authorized by law to carry out public opinion research necessary to fulfill their functions.

He writes that Zelaya "invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006."

Despite the convoluted arguments in its orders, it appears that the Supreme Court made new law to justify ordering Zelaya's arrest. Nowhere does it accuse him of violating Article 239 -- again, unless I missed something. The entire decision is based on preventing the people of Honduras from being given an official medium to express their opinions about holding a referendum to amend or replace their constitution.

The issue of reelection is over.

Jules Siegel (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Micheletti is not "acting President"

I don't think it's appropriate to list Micheletti as "acting President" when he is not currently being recognized by the OAS and was installed by a military coup that is kidnapping foreign ambassadors and generally breaking the law. I think we should at least list the leadership as being in dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikat381 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Honduran courts, Congress and other branches of government do recognize him. After all, it was the Supreme court who gave the military the order to arrest Zelaya.190.77.117.50 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

--It is the constitution of Honduras that determines its leader, not military force and the pronouncements of officials and opposition parties. That is why the world recognizes Zelaya as the constitutional president of Honduras and is condemning the coup as illegal and illegitimate: (see here http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55R20H20090628 and here http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R2AY20090628). I realize now that I did not go far enough simply to ask that we list the office of President as being in dispute -- what we should in fact be doing is continuing to list José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the president of Honduras.Ikat381 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I think the listing of Micheletti is debatable. To list him is to accept the legitimacy of the political process, and this should be discussed. So, I would change it back to Manuel Zelaya Rosales. Rsheptak (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Zelaya was ousted by the Supreme Court, the National Congress, his ruling Liberal Party, the opposition National Party and the military. A successor has been sworn in with the consent of all of the above and the constitution is still in effect. Zelaya is not the president any longer. Mauritania, Fiji, Guinea and Madagascar had coups and the transition was easier here than it is here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In a process whose legality is unjustifiable even by the Honduran constitution. Forceably exiling the President is not a legal process. The fact that no world government is recognizing Micheletti as president should be a clue. You're an editor, so act like one and let the discussion happen before editing the change again so quickly. Damn. I was only gone an hour for lunch and you already demanded I have responded to you and have changed things back. That's not the way an editor should act. Give the discussion time. Rsheptak (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who would like to say that Mir-Hossein Mousavi is the President of Iran? Anyone think that Aung San Suu Kyi is the Prime Minister of Burma? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere: It doesn't matter! Zelaya is the only legal president, he's the only recognized president by other nations, such as the US. I can't believe I was warned and accused of vandalism for not recognizing a completely illegal action against a legitimate President. That's not cool.

We are not the United States! We give the facts as they are, and the fact is Zelaya is not in control anymore than Mousavi, Suu Kyi, Abdallahi, Qarase, Somparé, Ravalomanana or Thaksin are! Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Its about both legitimacy and control. While I think the other cases you cite are not comparable, in Mousavi's case, its because he's not seen as legitimate, not that he doesn't have control. Rsheptak (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the Mousavi case fails. I wasn't completely sure of his inclusion as I typed, but fine. What makes Zelaya different from the others? And I wasn't typing to you when I asked for a defence. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not but he will. You're comparing to incomparable cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.75 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One, sign our posts with four tildes. Two, that's some crystal ball you've got there. And three, explain to me how their depositions are any different and how they have any more power than Zelaya. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is my crystal ball cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-h/honduras.html I'm sorry for not signing. 208.54.4.75 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So an outdated source (direct link here) which, as a primary source, wouldn't be used anyway is how you "know" (which, if you'd read the link, is also not allowed) Zelaya has control over Honduran affairs. And you haven't been able to answer both questions. That's good to know. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The legality of the ousting isn't the issue. It's who is now the president. The recognition of the international community (or lack of it) does mean someone is or isn't in charge. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a different way of looking at it. I can't agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think maybe the most sensible solution would be to either leave the field blank untill the issue is completely resolved or put in both with a description of the status of both for example (exiled) for zelaya and (de facto) for micheletti. Anything else seems to me that it would be to take sides in an ongoing political conflict - something that I don't think is wikipedia's purpose. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Most pages are placing them both as de facto and de jure. I believe that this practice should be followed, as it could be also be considered that Zelaya is now the leader of a government in exile.Frapoz (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is what this page said until and edit war developed. I'm fine with dual listing or even leaving it black with an asterisk and footnote. Rsheptak (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can't be left blank until the issue ends. It's likely to go on until the presidential election this November. The "de facto"/"de jure" approach could work but, IMO, we shouldn't say Zelaya leads a government in exile. He's the only one exiled and we haven't even heard of his VP. Is he actually leading an exiled government (like Tibet) or is he just contesting the presidency? Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't heard from his VP because it was Elvin Santos, who had to resign to become the Liberal Party Candidate for President in November, and who supports Micheletti. As for the government in exile, here's what TELESUR reported today:

Entretanto, la vicecanciller de Honduras, Beatriz del Valle anunció a teleSUR que los ministros del legítimo gobierno de Manuel Zelaya han formado un "gobierno de resistencia" que nunca reconocerá al presidente de facto Roberto Micheletti. "Un gobierno de resistencia (...) no vamos a reconocer a ningún otro jefe que no sea el presidente constitucional (...) (Hay que) resistir pacíficamente y esperar el retorno seguro de nuestro Presidente". Militares arremeten contra el pueblo de Honduras Rsheptak (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Zelaya is the legal president of Honduras. Being "in control" is not "being president." Also we're going to need to define what it means to be "in control." The world's refusal to acknowledge Micheletti as president does indeed bear on this discussion, not because we can use it to predict the future, but because it tells us that there are significant barriers to Micheletti's ability to carry out the political duties that he claims to have taken over. At this point the coup has done nothing but kick out Zelaya, break a bunch of laws, and make a bunch of sweeping claims to legitimacy. That does not qualify them as the political leaders of Honduras. I think Maunus' claims are an improvement, but I still feel it would be more accurate to stop calling Micheletti the president altogether. Ikat381 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There ought to be something more accurate than "president" to describe Micheletti's power status in Honduras. Ikat381 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Although with "de facto/de jure" we're also saying Zelaya is still legally the president, which the government's institutions seem to disagree with regardless of our, the populace's and the international community's opinion. And that is something that would require a resolution to this crisis. It would take an independent, legal body to look at this and really find out if this was legal so saying that it is or it isn't is a moot point (and he's been sworn-in as president so we can't use anything else). I'd rather Mannus's edits be ad interim because right now, it's much the same as leaving it blank. However, I do like your tendering the possibility of Micheletti being the president at home while Zelaya remains the president at large. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The links I posted above include statements from international government authorities that recognize Zelaya as the legal president, so I don't think we have to wait for the resolution that you are describing. Here they are again for your convenience:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55R20H20090628 http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R2AY20090628 Ikat381 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is back to the international community argument. I know how this is sounding but I'd rather not repeat myself so please just read the above conversation. Also government spokespeople are neither legal nor independent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read it and I've already addressed the points that dealt specifically with Honduras. I chose not to get into the details you raised about coups in other nations because I felt it would be best to stick to the facts pertaining to this coup. Ikat381 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This incident hasn't created a new precedent. With variation, this has happened before and the previous coups are relevant. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually as I read further about this coup, I'm finding that the most appropriate term being used to describe Micheletti is "Coup President." Ikat381 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that will be the terminology used. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

President is a tittle. They have an election and the winner becomes the president. Maybe that's the terminology you're talking about. Like someone already said being in control doesn't mean being the president. You can be a dictator and still be in power, right?69.104.216.185 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No... I'm saying "Coup President" will not be used. We were referring to the legality of their holding the title, not disputing the title itself which anyone can call themselves, so long as other people respond in turn. Which they have. The government, in fact. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Using some of your own examples Therequiembellishere, a quick googling led me to an article in The Nation referring to Surayud Chulanont in Thailand as "the coup's Prime Minister," (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/thrupakew) and I found an IRIN document on the UNHCR website that identified Moulaye Ould Mohamed Laghdhaf as Mauritania's "post-coup prime minister." (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,IRIN,,MRT,48fd88ad26,0.html). On the other hand though I don't want to get too bogged down about the terminology on this page because I think the decision to list the political leadership as "Unresolved" with a link to the page about the crisis is probably the most academically responsible thing to do -- maybe this whole "coup president" thing would be more useful on the discussion page for Micheletti himself. Ikat381 (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between an adjective and a noun, you know... Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh FFS...Ikat381 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What? They aren't saying he's styled as the "Post-Coup Prime Minister", they didn't want to say "after the coup, XXXX has been appointed as the new prime minister". It's nothing but English. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembe you know in a couple of weeks the wiki page is going back to Zelaya as president. Then what? According to wikipedia's records (your edits) will show that Micheletti was president. Are you saying that you want to write your own version of the history saying Micheletti was president for several days? Who gave him the tittle? Weren't you talking about not defining the tittle? So what are we defining then? How are you, in behalf of wikipedia, going to explain that he was president?69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone tell me where they found their crystal balls? I'd like to tell the future too! Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm I'd say.69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then read the articles. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine leave it whatever way makes you happy! Despite all you've heard here from other sources you still insist, go head! Jesus Christ, this is supposed to be a community's work, not one guy's stubborn opinion. Do whatever you want, hope you're happy now, real mature.69.104.216.185 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere is right that gratuitous predictions about the future cannot be used as arguments for what we are going to write here. The fact is that we don't know who is president in a week - and that is what the article states now.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to have seen a source that flat out says you or I are correct. Back to the point: I suppose something along the lines of de facto/de jure or something similar to the Palestinian National Authority page will be used. Can we find out what exactly to do? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd reccomend waiting a few days and see how the honduran courts and the international community handle the matter. When we know more we take a decision.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should this discussion be the one we link to on the other, relevant pages? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The infobox here aside, as soon as I have time, I'm going to model Zelaya and Micheletti's infoboxes off the Palestinian presidents and prime ministers. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I just noticed the VP mentions. I was referring to "Vice President Commissioner Arístides Mejía". Rsheptak, do you know anything? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Aristides Mejia Carranza is Zelaya's Vice President Commissioner, a new cabinet level position created in 2008 after Elvin Santos resigned as Vice President to run for president in this election. I've heard nothing about him since the coup, but since its a cabinet position, I doubt he holds the position under Micheletti. Rsheptak (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Micheletti back as president? Didn't we agree to wait? Seems a little weird that someone would protect the pageright after an IP editor inserts a controversial edit against consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As per the above conseunsus, please change from:

|leader_name1 = [[Coup d'état|Roberto Micheletti]] |leader_title2 = [[Vice President of Honduras|Vice President]] |leader_name2 = [[Coup d'état|Unresolved]]

to

|leader_name1 = [[2009 Honduran political crisis|Unresolved]] |leader_title2 = [[Vice President of Honduras|Vice President]] |leader_name2 = [[2009 Honduran political crisis|Unresolved]]

Ikat381 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to our discussion, here's a link to Human Rights Watch naming Zelaya as the constitutional president: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/honduras-military-coup-blow-democracy and here's UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon naming Zelaya as constitutional president: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31297&Cr=honduras&Cr1=. And I want to stress again the huge obstacles to Micheletti carrying out any political duties (the world and the population of Honduras oppose it). So if it were up to me, I would list Zelaya as president, but I'm willing to accept the "President = Unresolved" consensus since it is a huge improvement over listing Micheletti.Ikat381 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unresolved" has not held consensus, we're still getting to that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think 'unresolved' or 'disputed' etc. is appropriate. I don't think international recognition alone is a good standard to apply. For over 20 years, despite all the facts on the ground, the United States and other Western powers refused to recognize the People's Republic of China as the government of mainland China and instead recognized the The Republic of China (the nationalists in Taiwan) as the only government of China. Is it correct to say that during those decades, the leadership of the ROC was the only leadership of China? Some Taiwanese might think so, but no serious academic would state that. And if international recognition is the standard, how will we resolve cases where international powers have not reached a consensus? The case in Honduras is not a simple case of a military coup. There is no evidence that the military appointed Micheletti, but rather that he was chosen by Congress, and that Zelaya's removal was ordered by the Supreme Court. Is that legal? I don't know... I'm not a scholar of Honduran constitutional law, and I bet most contributors to Wikipedia here are not either. Nevertheless, the branches of government of Honduras seems to agree that Zelaya is not the president and that Micheletti is. Since internal politics and international politics seem to differ, and there is no good universal standard to rely on for Wikipedia, I think listing is simply as under dispute, with further discussion about who recognizes whom is appropriate. Prothonotar (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We simply cannot leave it blank for seven months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said to leave it blank for seven months, or even one month. I believe that as long as there is contention between international and domestic sources of who is the rightful president, putting it as 'disputed' and leading the reader to read the details in the article is sufficient. If the situation is the same seven months from now, then it is the same. What is clear is that there is no definitive answer as to who is the rightful president, either among Wikipedia contributors here, or between the current Honduras government (which is, after all, more than just the position of president) and the international community. If there is no definitive answer, then labeling one of these men as the definitive president in Wikipedia is misleading. Prothonotar (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing is sure though, the current link for Micheletti and the 'Unresolved' VP is inappropriate. They link to the Coup d'état article, and should at least link to the article specific to the Honduran crisis. I support Ikat381's requested change completely. Prothonotar (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is likely to be dispute until the election in November, whose winner won't take office until January -- seven months. If you'd read this section in its entirety you'd know that listing one or the other as president is no longer an option, so I don't know what you're getting at. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my position was pretty clear, but I'll repeat it: I support Ikat381's requested change, which would have neither individual listed as president in the infobox, instead listing "Unresolved" with a link to details about the ongoing political crisis. If the crisis continues on until the next president takes office in January, then so be it. This is not 'leaving it blank' as you say, but succinctly indicating the situation (that the current legitimate president is, as far as we can tell, unresolved) and providing the resources for the reader to come to their own conclusions. As is hopefully now apparent from these comments, I agree with you that listing one or the other as president is not an option at this time. I'm not sure where our opinions differ now. The page currently does list one of them as president, and Ikat381 has requested that be changed. I, for one, support his request. 207.171.180.101 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the same thing as leaving it blank. It tells us nothing but a link to another article when we can just do something like this. And I personally don't want that on the page possibly for the next seven months and I won't let up on it. No one is saying list one or the other, as I've already mentioned. The page is in an unacceptable form, as per the above consensus, but we're unable to change it because of the protection. I repeat, we all want this changed. Now, again and hopefully once and for all, can we find a consensus as to how??? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. After reading the huge discussion above, it seems there is consensus that the appropriate entry, for now, is "unresolved". There seems to be only one opposer to this proposal. Please do continue to discuss and if consensus changes, place the request again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just going to offer my 2 cents on this issue. Let's look at it. Ousted President Zelaya is gone, so he's not President. The military did overthrow Zelaya, but the order came from the Sumpreme Court, and Congress. Pro-Zelaya or Anti-Zelaya, Zelaya is gone, and I can't see him coming back unless he's reinstated. Now let's look at the new appointed President, Roberto Micheletti. By all aspects, he is the appointed President, who has been reconginzed by the Sumpreme Court, and the Congress. Yes, he's not reconginzed by the majority of the world, but he is the President. Just my 2 cents. America69 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept "unresolved". Regardless of either side involved, their assertions, or our opinions, the situation is developing, and uncertain. I do not like the idea of Wikipedia trying to be an up to the moment site. I know there is a desire to inform as quickly as possible, but Wikipedia is not a news site. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere is right, a few years ago Bush/Cheney was the effective executive of the US. It didn't matter that Moveon.org thought he stole the election, that Babs Streisand complained about it, or that delusional mental patients all over the world claim they are the real president. Benedict XVI is the Roman Catholic Pope, it doesn't matter that some guy in Kansas a few years ago said he was the real pope. Even if every country in the world decided they hated them as long as they hold effective control over their respective country/congregation in the way their title implies they are the leader no matter how much you don't like it. Jarwulf (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)