Hello.. I will say upfront that I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia. However, the blatant illegitimacy of this topic as being remotely factual inspired me to contribute. Where do I even begin? Maybe with the description of Hugo Chávez as "the dictatorial president of Venezuela" to the falsehood that the referendum on a constituent assembly was for Zelaya's "own re-election" (not possible since the referendum vote would be in the same election as the presidential election) or that "the Armed Forces at every moment had acted from the utmost respect for civilian authority" (everyone, on all sides, agree that the military directly disobeyed the Supreme Court order when they removed Zelaya from the country and this is well-documented in numerous sources) to the absurd assertion that "Almost all ['political groups' in Honduras] declared on June 28, 2009, that they considered the removal and even the exile of the president to be within bounds of strict respect for both the national constitution". On this last inaccuracy, the article does not even mention the National Resistance Front of Honduras, a broad coalition of campesino groups and constitutional law professors and labor unions and human rights organizations and student groups and pro-Zelaya politicians and feminist groups who denounce the coup as illegal, illegitimate and a dictatorship (in agreement with the position of the entire United Nations, the European Union, the OAS and so on). The Front has remarkably organized protests against the Honduras coup d'etat almost every single day since the coup took place, in all parts of the country. The coup regime's fear of popular resistance is what has prompted their policy of martial law: 24/7 curfews, the official suspension of key constitutional rights regarding freedom of speech and protection from arbitrary detention and more, the closure of TV and radio stations at gunpoint and gross violation of human rights through kidnapping and torture (well-documented by numerous reports from human rights observers). So, I don't know where to begin with correcting this one-sided article in support of an illegal coup d'etat but it certainly needs significant revision to come close to being objective. Ryanvaq (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no way Wikipedia should be taking sides in a dispute where the dust has clearly not yet settled. No country in the world has recognized Micheletti, but Zelaya is also clearly out of power, so for the moment neither is president. Homunq (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war on this, but User:Therequiembellishere has now set it to Micheletti at least 2 times. I favor Disputed. Therequiembellishere, your talk page shows you have been warned about 3RR a few times in the past, so if anybody besides me changes it, please do not revert. (I will not be lobbying anyone; if anybody else changes it, it will be entirely their own decision.) Homunq (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any relatively recent interest in keeping it as disputed or Zelaya. I'm going to change it to Micheletti. If someone has some disagreements with this, revert it (I'm not going to edit war anybody over this). But if it is reverted to disputed, I'd like to hear why over here on the talk page. --Nogburt (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is obviously an edit war over who is president right now. Zelaya was legally elected and claims that he was illegally exiled and is still president. Micheletti and his supporters claim that Zelaya had violated article 239 of the constitution and thus was no longer president, and so Micheletti is the legal successor. I think that this template should not take sides; there should be some way to indicate the dispute.

President Zelaya

• I come at this issue from a completely unbiased perspective, one based on the rule-of-law. In my opinion with regards to any military coup, the article should list the legally elected leader(s) until such time as either (1) an armistice is reached by the opposing parties, or (2) an international consensus and recognition of the prevailing party is rendered (i.e., the United Nations).   bsmithme  02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A Response of Sorts: I think that who the UN recognizes as president or more broadly who is "legitimately" president (by whatever standard), and who is listed as President on Wikipedia are distinct issues. I don't know that if I were made judge over who is or should be president if I would pick Micheletti or not but that is not what I think is at issue. Further, I do not see UN or even individual nation recognition as being a general standard that Wikipedia uses in other contexts (see the Republic_of_China, Western_sahara). --Nogburt (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

President Micheletti

• The government of Honduras is controlled by Micheletti who has been sworn president in congress. If Mel is reinstated as president, Micheletti was president from June 25-[X date]. Although by law Mel can't be president again because it counts as re-election which is illegal by the article #4 and if he does, he loses his status as citizen according to article #42 number 4. Chupu (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have noticed that Wikipedia articles more or less universally side with whoever is able to enforce their claim to being elected in articles on elections. Cases like elections in Zimbabwe, Russia, and Iran (Iranian_presidential_election,_2009) come to mind (a blatant example being Iraqi_presidential_referendum,_2002). If we follow what seems to be our very clear custom/rule in deciding who is or isn't the real office holder Micheletti should be indisputably considered president, if only because the army of Honduras says he is. Zelaya would, following our general practice, be a "pretender". --Nogburt (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Both in the template

• ...

Neither one in the template

• I think that the best way to deal with the issue is to link to the 2009 Honduran political crisis article and include neither name here. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should this deposition be any different than those in Guinea or Mauritania or Fiji or Madagascar. Zelaya is not in command; Zelaya is not the president. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• The world says Zelaya is the president, but Micheletti's sitting in the chair. "Disputed" is a good way to go. Linking to the coup page is good too. I guess we'll know more Thursday, so don't have a cow, y'all. -- Rico 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that whoever other states extend their diplomatic recognition to is probably a relevant indicator as to who wikipedia should extend its "diplomatic recognition" to by calling her or him president. It may not be the only factor in our decision, but I think it's highly relevant. -- Ong saluri (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The presidency should be described as "disputed", linking to the article about the coup/crisis, until the coup/crisis is resolved or one of the presidents has given up.  Sandstein  13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The status quo, "Disputed", is best. Zelaya, though recognised internationally as President, does not exert the powers of the presidency. The identity of the de jure President is indeed disputed, even if there is a de facto incumbent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtSwimTwoBirds (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I just screw up the template? I can't figure out if I did, or what I did! I was just trying to link directly to the article, now that the name's been changed. -- Rico 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious Manuel Zelaya is no longer president, he does not have any power so his term ended on 28 June 2009. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No foreign power has intervened, and it's obvious the situation is not going to change. 76.79.9.129 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One link to the main article 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis is enough. Alb28 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Coup d'etat is useful and should be keptCathar11 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This template seems longer than it needs to be and looks kind of messy to me. I much prefer the style of {{Template:Politics of Mexico}}. Would anyone object to changing this template around so it looks more like that one? -- Irn (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I'm pretty sure I kept all the same information, and just added a couple of links. -- Irn (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)