Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009

American influence in the Honduran general election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this is not a notable topic. It has been touched upon very recently because of the

Honduran general election, 2009, once the gratuitous Hillary swipes are removed. - MrX 20:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite POV attack page which appears to exist merely as a vehicle for negative criticism towards a person. After delete, suggest redirect to
    Honduran general election, 2009. Sagecandor (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To address this concern, I've removed every personal name from the article, except those of Honduran politicians. BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really necessary? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see this "POVFORK" thing mentioned several times, but it strikes me that a POV fork implies there's another article differing only in presenting the opposite point of view. I don't think anyone has yet set down the opposing point of view in those articles - nobody is denying the U.S. had influence that I know of - and if we had such an article to point at it would be easier to decide how to merge this. We have a lot of messy organizations of multiple articles about many topics, but calling them a "POV fork" doesn't help sort them out. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, despite your claim, this is directly mentioned in
Honduran general election, 2009 ("While some regional nations did not accept the election as valid, others including the United States have supported its legitimacy....Bertha Oliva of COFADEH criticised the United States government for stating that Honduras could hold 'free elections in less than three weeks' when 'Hondurans [were being] subjected to arbitrary arrest, the closure of independent media, police beatings, torture and even killings by security forces'"). It's mentioned even more extensively in several of the five other articles relating to the Honduran election (Honduras–United States relations
has a full cited paragraph on it). If you think that the content should be expanded or changed, then feel free to do that — but don't pretend that this isn't or couldn't be addressed elsewhere, because it is.
Also, it is not very helpful to misrepresent the views of other editors. Neither I nor any other editor "demanded" that readers go to Hillary Clinton political positions page. Rather, we have pointed out that the U.S.'s role in the 2009 Honduran political crisis is covered in multiple articles from multiple perspectives, and we don't need this blatant POVFORK. Neutralitytalk 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What POV is this exactly forking? Just because an article may not show the U.S. in a shimmering golden light, the great white savior of western civilization, does not constitute NPOV if it's sourced and factual and represents a self-contained subject, as this does. Let me guess, you also want to delete
WP:POVFORK means what you think it means. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It's clear that you're coming at this from an ideologically-laden standpoint, so I'm not sure further back-and-forth would be productive at all. But to be very clear: it is a POV fork because (a) it was created, by you, to be a counterpoint to the
Russia article, and (b) because the sources do not reflect that the U.S. meddled in the elections. The sources seem to reflect that the U.S. did accept the coup after the fact, but I haven't see any source that frames the issue as "U.S. influence on the election." You seem to basically be trying to shoehorn in the facts and sources to fit your new article title. Neutralitytalk 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume you have proof of my motivation (i.e. diffs), or is this just a shotgun personal attack to see what you can get to stick? It seems to me you're coming at this from an ideologically laden, pro-America, standpoint. You haven't advanced a rational, policy-based argument, only impugned my motivations without diffs to subject us to some kind-of patriotic, flag-waving exercise to get rid-of articles that don't portray the U.S. as a shining defender of freedom because ... 'murica! (AKA -
WP:IDONTLIKEIT) And, you've rallied your ideological compatriots - and their freshly minted, 3-week old accounts who have all the edit patterns indicative of paid editors - into some kind-of marauding band of Wikilantes that have been tearing through AfDs. BlueSalix (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
None of that was relevant to what I asked (and is mostly a pretty silly personal attack on me). I'll ask again. (1) Do you have significant, reliable sources that frame the issue as "U.S. influence on the election"? Not U.S. support for legitimizing the post-coup government, not U.S. deliberations on the legality of the coup, but "U.S. influence on the election"? (2) Is there any reason whatsoever to think that the content of this article could not be placed in one of the 5-6 other relevant articles? that I've identified above Neutralitytalk 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC
And P.S.: for the record, I do resent your claim that I've "rallied" anybody, much less "compatriots" (who are somehow both "paid" and "ideological"). It's an unambiguous
personal attack, it's wrong, and it poisons discussion. So please don't do it. Neutralitytalk 00:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It's hardly a personal attack on you; what is a personal attack is your un-diffed claim about me that "it's clear that you're coming at this from an ideologically-laden standpoint." BlueSalix (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(A) It is a personal attack to baselessly accuse an editor of having "rallied his paid, ideological compatriots" to an article.
(B) As to the "ideologically laden" statement: I think it's quite reasonable to interpret your comments on this very thread as such (i.e., overwrought references to "McCarthyism" (diff); claims that editors who reasonably disagree with you are somehow complicit in a "patriotic, flag-waving exercise" to portray the U.S. as a "shimmering golden light, the great white savior of western civilization."). My statement that this language is ideologically laden and unhelpful was not meant to be a knock on you, but as a comment that discussions are not productive when we resort to caricatures.
(C) But I want to go back to the merits of the deletion discussion. I asked these questions above, but received no response: (1) Do you have significant, reliable sources that frame the issue as "U.S. influence on the election"? Not U.S. support for legitimizing the post-coup government, not U.S. deliberations on the legality of the coup, but "U.S. influence on the election"? (2) Is there any reason whatsoever to think that the content of this article could not be placed in one of the 5-6 other relevant articles? Neutralitytalk 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 United States election interference by Russia, and there is evidence to back that up, for example this wantonly POV edit. Your above comment attacking Neutrality and obliquely attacking other editors is way out of bounds. - MrX 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
What does that show, exactly? I stand-by that edit (added when the article was called "fake news" not "fake news websites" as it's since been renamed). It was reverted before a source [1] could be added. But, regardless, it has nothing to do with Honduras. BlueSalix (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another month-old account two-week old account flocking to this AfD to !vote "Delete." I'm not a suspicious person, but ... it's like you guys aren't even trying to look legit at the dozens of articles you're purging and massaging right now. Too funny. BlueSalix (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read the article. Don't worry. And, well, I may be new, but I think I know what I'm doing.(Oh, and, what does 'massaging' mean in this context?)--Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — I'll look at this more carefully shortly, but my first impression would be to merge as a subsection into the Controversies section of the
    Honduran general election, 2009 article or have it stand as its own top level section in that article; the title should remain as a redirect to the new section, and all supporting material should be merged in with a significant reduction in composed text. There is no reason for outright deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. That's rad—Sagecandor—to compare a historical page about 2009 with one about the elections a few weeks ago. I accuse you of stirring the pot, sir Sage & sir Salix. As BlueSalix said it's a shame not to have any of the tight prose and good refs from here in this article, which needs its refs properly developed. Where do I get this "ref-fill" gizmo robot vaccuum tube anyway, User:Sagecandor? You just used it at PropOrNot, I saw you. ^^ I see Neutrality's here. again. Hello, User:Neutrality. Someday on the talk page, the title of the page should be discussed. US influence or American influence? But definitely before deciding where the content should go, it should be collected somewhere other than primarily on HRC's political position's page. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is covered in numerous sources. Clearly the only reason why this is pegged for deletion, while
    WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In the latter case, we're talking about troll armies and credible hacking allegations. In the former case, we're are talking about abetting a coup and facilitating a post-coup transition, after decades treating the country and the region as a backyard. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The only reason why this article is tagged is that someone nominated it for deletion. You or any other Wikipedia editor can nominate the other one if you want, and then they will have the same fun as people are having here. But ... this one was more eligible, as it goes, because less had been done with it so far - articles often stay merged simply because nobody has built them big enough to be worth separating. It was also sort of created to make a point, I suspect. And the foreign influence in Honduras was more explicitly multinational via the OAS, making the selection of a single foreign country more questionable than in the U.S. where a joint statement of many intelligence agencies pointed the finger at just one country. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
agree the page needs renaming and could eventually be merged elsewhere. Agree that foreign influence is a better idea, seeing the discussion of the DEA's subsequent role, the Inter-American Development Bank's subsequent role[1] and the US-friendly oligarch Miguel Facussé Barjum's role in the coup. -- SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Frank, Dana (March 9, 2015). "Just Like Old Times in Central America". Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 14, 2016.
Oh oh, looks like the renamed villagers are getting out their forks. sigh. SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful.
WP:NPA comment like this that does not focus on the content discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
personal attack. You've been cautioned about this in the past. Please stop. Neutralitytalk 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm unarmed, Neutrality, I didn't even bring a spoon. SashiRolls (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sashi, you might want to strike that personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I also warned another editor on another article concerning what I think you'll agree can more seriously be considered personal attacks: here
I'll see if I can find you a Dana Frank article that isn't also focused on calling out presidential candidates for their misleading statements. I think there's one in
School of the Americas or of the continued military assistance, which along with US opposition to the OAS' desire to condemn the election are indeed worthy of note. The US did interfere post-coup by continuing their military assistance whereas the US Congress had passed legislation explicitly forbidding it in case of a military coup. SashiRolls (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it appears she only mentions Section 7008 of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2009 in this article, she doesn't specifically mention it in other articles I've checked. By the way, Space4_tl I've decided to improve the article since the text will likely end up somewhere. Could you please be so kind as to list any and all of the "misquoted sources" you found below? Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You write "The US did interfere post-coup by continuing their military assistance." What does this have to "U.S. election influence"? If there is content on U.S. aid, the controversy surrounding it, or any U.S. reaction/role in the coup, then this content belongs at (and in some cases is already at) Honduras–United States relations; 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis; International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, 2009 Honduran coup d'état, etc. Not at this newly created page. Neutralitytalk 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the plane taking the deposed president to Costa Rica did refuel in a US air-force base and the US did break the OAS's will to oppose the election which nobody on the continent really wanted. Curious about this Arcadia foundation that Zelaya blames. Is http://arcadiafoundation.org/?p=3247 an RS on es.wikipedia.org ? ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the allegation that someone started this due to the Dem primary is not a good argument for deletion. The topic was and remains independently notable regardless of US politicking; in fact it's no longer brought up by US politicians at all, which will help editors focus on the topic of US-Honduras relations rather than partisan bickering. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK. Having a standalone page for this gives undue weight to a particular stance. The 'influence' is not even really shown in the text.Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete but merge into
    Honduran general election, 2009 - The article is a little too small to be a stand-alone article. However, the content is too valuable to be removed or deleted. Instead, merge into the other parent article. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
On second thought, Rename to a more accurate title like American reaction to the 2009 Honduras coup. Make the article more neutral. But don't just burn it all.Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow Diamond: We already have International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, in which the U.S. reaction is already mentioned (fairly extensively). Neutralitytalk 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Merge into that article. This current title has to go.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edited) There is a consensus of two for "foreign influence in the Honduran general election, 2009" I think. Also the article has been almost completely rewritten since the POV fork rationales for deletion were given above. It contains a lot more meat and a lot more references that are not primarily concerned with HRC, but with Honduras. Those saying the article was a POV fork will need to reassess their evaluation now, in fairness, and perhaps participate in rendering the text even more NPOV. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean influence, right? "Intervention" is a much stronger term, meaning a much smaller article. Wnt (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do, I'm visiting too many pages and am getting confused. I've taken the liberty of changing it above, because yes, I mean (like you I think) influence not intervention. SashiRolls (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_influence_in_the_Honduran_general_election,_2009&oldid=1068823390"