Talk:Jean-Bertrand Aristide/Archive 1

Archive 1

On Truth

So the Western world can go into Iraq but not protect Jean-Bertrand Aristide ? Smells of Imperialism and neo-colonialism to any thinking caring person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.113.71 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Aristide's kidnapping story is that it is utterly self-serving and makes no sense. By the time of Aristide's resignation, his government had lost control of the the country. Insurgent forces vastly outnumbered his supporters and he had no way of maintaining control. It is difficult to look at the situation in Haiti just prior to his departure and envision any situation that would not have led to Aristide's removal and likely execution at the hands of his opponents.

Aristide claims that he was kidnapped. This implies that the United States wanted to oust his government. In that case, why go through the trouble of "kidnapping" him when simple inaction by the US would likely result in his death within days if not hours? The story is as preposterous as if the last President of South Vietnam had claimed to have been kidnapped when he fled the country just prior to the fall of Saigon.

It seems more likely that when Aristide and his security detail were given the opportunity to save their own skins by fleeing the country they took the offer. Not an unreasonable choice given the circumstances. Immediately after his arrival in the C.A.R. comes the claim that he was "kidnapped." Being kidnapped is obviously less cowardly than getting on a plane to save yourself and your closest supporters. It also places the blame on the United States for why he left Haiti, saves some political credibility, and facilitates a potential return more so than fleeing from an angry mob to save your own neck.

The bottom line is that when one looks objectively at the situation in Haiti just prior to his "kidnapping," is there really any doubt that Aristide would have been dead within a day had the U.S. simply done nothing? So why would the U.S. bother? 216.52.27.139 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) MAK

"A statement by Aristide to California Congresswoman Maxine Waters stated that he did not resign, but was actually abducted by the United States Marines: "I was kidnapped by U.S. Marines and forced to leave Haiti, I did not resign.""

Is this really true? Powell denies the kidnapping. [1] Should it be deleted or altered? --Vikingstad 20:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's true that he claims it. Everyking 21:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It's nicely sourced. It's just right. --ESP 21:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everything in here is correctly sourced, except the "initial reports" made that he resigned. Who made these reports? What were there sources? --DanKeshet

Whoops, thanks for the catch, TUF-KAT. I corrected the erroneous statement that he fled to the Dominican Republic, but forgot to remove the word "neighboring".  :) Rei

I don't think we need the part about Chavez and his condemnation of Bush in this article. It's not really relevant to the life of Aristide. Everyking 20:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It might be appropriate for the article about the revolt, though. DanKeshet 20:40, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I updated the article, removing wikis to NYT and Democracy Now, since the facts are well known and are carried by a number of more objective outlets. The reports of kidnapping seem to have been show false (but not proven false) seeing that his entire Haitian security team got on that plane with him. I imagine the story of Haiti has broken out of this page, and has been given it's own page with the details. I am afraid we will here no longer hear much from Aristide that is not calculated to return him to power. He is no longer a player in Haiti. Dominick 23:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I updated the article, removing wikis to NYT and Democracy Now, since the facts are well known and are carried by a number of more objective outlets."

Exactly what are your "more objective outlets"? DN is, in my experience, more objective than just about any other outlets. Furthermore, the info on DN includes recordings of Aristide himself.

Dagme (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• My mistake! Sorry! Dominick 23:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your edits make the article less accurate and less NPOV. 1) The facts in dispute (e.g. did south africa refuse aristide asylum? did he resign willingly?) used to be attached to sources, thus indicating who believed what. Your edits have removed this. 2) You can believe that Randall Robinson and Maxine waters weren't telling the truth if you want, but the fact that they reported on Democracy now that they had received telephone calls from aristide is both relevant and undisputed. Please do not remove relevant, well-sourced statements. DanKeshet 04:55, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

The story isn't about what the NYT or Democracy Now said, it is about Aristide. In a way Democracy Now and Water's statements re-victimize the Haitian people. If DN is the primary source, then quote the article chapter and verse. There is no dispute that he resigned, does he have remorse? There is no dispute he is in CAR, is he free to leave? He certainly isn't in South Africa, so no Asylum deal has appeared. Using a POV source like DN swung the article more towards some nefarious plot that has less factual basis. Dominick 10:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did you even listen to the sources? DN is a radio program. They had Maxine Waters and Randall Robinson, as well as the South African ambassador to the UN, live on the air. They are the primary sources, not DN. There very much is a dispute over whether Aristide resigned. Signing resignation papers at gunpoint is not a resignation. South Africa says that they were never approached about granting him asylum, so yes, "no asylum deal appeared". That is very different from them refusing him. There is no dispute that he is being held incommunicado in CAR. Aristide, through Waters, Rangel, etc. has said so, and so has the CAR (in the San Diego article linked at the end). I don't think you understand NPOV. NPOV does not mean eliminating sources because you believe they are biased. It means reporting all relevant assertions and stating who is making them. The assertions that Waters and Rangel and Robinson have made, on DN, are very relevant and should be so sourced. DanKeshet 17:18, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Better reference. Posting a link, saysing that source XYZ interviewed someone is different than your inclusion from the last edit. Referring to some source as authoritative isn't worth of inclusion. Part of NPOV means using objective sources, and in the US that means we use mainstream press. Now you can make an arguement that the mainstream press isn't NPOV but thats another flame war. I am glad that the article has been improved with the additions. BTW, if he is incummunicado in CAR, then why is he still making statements? Cheers! Dominick 17:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dominick, first let me apologize; I responded to your comments on the talk page before I read your edits on the article. I disagreed much more strongly with your comments than your edits. Re: mainstream sources, I couldn't disagree with you more, but as you say, this is not the forum for such a discussion. ;) DanKeshet 17:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we both agree events are unfolding. comments are more speculative, but what goes on the page must be NPOV. No apology needed. :-) Dominick 18:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dominik, I think you would know by now that there is no reality, only perceptions of reality. Wherever you are getting your information is presenting it as "truth" and its showing up in your postings. The whole point of Wikipedia is to present multiple truths. The Hatian people have been vicimized, by U.S. almost 200 years of sanctions/embargos, colonization, "reparations" to former French slaveholders. They took Aristid to the CAR because it is colonized by France. He was detained there by French troops. He was unable to seek asylum in South Africa because he did not have access to a land phone line. --ALC 17:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a reality that is real, separate from anyone's perception. Perceptions of that reality are far removed from the objective reality of what happened. That belongs on a different page. I posted the sources. Aristide himself is changing his story every interview, ya think he may benefit from notecards? The Haitian people are victimized by greed from their leaders. I have worked with Haitian people right off the boat, and at the Krome Ave Camp, I am painfully aware of the tragedy of the past, and I am upset at the dashing of the hopes that came when Aristide was first elected. That isn't NPOV, and neither are your statements here. If I am so wrong find a good source to prove it wrong. Dominick 17:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2/21/08; mf - may I suggesst reading Randall Robinson's "An Unbroken Agony," his recently published book on President Aristide. It is an excellent book and it contains more than enough information for those interested and capable of investigating what happened to President Aristide, and the United State's active role in Haiti's past and current economic circumstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.63.78 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CAR exile

Is he really being held incommunicado in the CAR? He seems to be pretty chatty for being forced into silence. I shall discuss it here and see if anyone else agrees. Dominick 17:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I got the CAR quote from this NY times article which says the CAR consul general in johannesburg says he is incommunicado and "under protection". DanKeshet

A south African paper [2] is reporting that they are trying to determine if he is leaving the CAR. Are we referring to his being kept from the press? A CAR spokeman indicates that the CAR is trying to get a clear plan from Mr. Aristide, and it implies he isn't talking. Being allowed to talk and not talking is a different thing indeed. I made these comment in TALK, to minimize page changes. Dominick 17:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2/21/08; mf - may I suggesst reading Randall Robinson's "An Unbroken Agony," his recently published book on President Aristide. It is an excellent book and it contains more than enough information for those interested and capable of investigating what happened to President Aristide, and the United State's active role in Haiti's past and current economic circumstance.

Resignation statement change

The Reuters article re: the resignation statement change is a bit spotty. On DN, the Haitian consul to the UN said that the English was mistranslated to drop the conditional tense which was used in the original creole. The quote used in the Reuters report doesn't disagree with this story if he was read back the statement in English; they just interpreted his quote to mean that it was changed, not that it was mistranslated. DanKeshet 20:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Guy Philippe

The long addition to the article about Guy Philippe should go in his own article, or maybe in 2004 Haiti Rebellion, but not here. Everyking 04:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CARICOM and resignation stories

I am wondering when we ought to break all the resignations and responses into another place? CARICOM isn't exactly as big and influential as OAS. :-) Dominick 04:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've suggested creating a new article dealing with the recent Haitian political situation and international responses to it and involvement in it (as opposed to the military situation, as covered in 2004 Haiti Rebellion, or Aristide biographical information) that could cover all of this stuff in depth, since there seem to be plenty of people willing to write about it. Everyking 04:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, the CARICOM stuff should go into 2004 Haiti Rebellion. This is an ongoing story; there's no telling where it will go from here--might as well keep it all in one article until history tells us how to arrange them. It'll be much easier to do three months from now. The Guy Philipe stuff should go into, well, Guy Philippe? :) DanKeshet 06:51, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Legitimacy of election results

Cut from intro paragraph:

Formerly a Catholic priest, he became the first democratically elected leader of Haiti in 1991, five years after the fall of the Duvalier regime.

I agree:

• that he was formerly a Catholic priest
• that he became the leader of Haiti in 1991
• that 1991 was , five years after the fall of the Duvalier regime.

I dispute that:

• he became the democratically elected leader of Haiti

There's no doubt that the government of Haiti conducted elections in 1990. What many organizations and individual writers dispute is:

• whether the elections were "free and fair"
  • Aristide and his supporters say yes
  • Human Rights Watch and others say no
• whether a candidate who runs essentially unopposed can be considered the legitimate winner of an election
  • Aristide's supporters say that 92% of votes cast speaks for itself
  • Aristide's opponents argue that they boycotted the presidential election because (a) the government had disregarded the results of the legislative election, so (b) they expected the government to pull a similar trick on the presidential election.

I don't think the Wikipedia should take sides, so it should not endorse either side's claim.

I recommend:

• we label the phrase "first democratically elected president" as POV and attribute it to Aristide, his Haitian supporters and any foreign advocates
• we list any major groups or individuals who called into question the legitimacy of Aristide's election.

--Uncle Ed 14:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, you've confused the 1990 elections with the 2000 elections. Nobody, at least nobody that I'm aware of, disputes that he was freely elected in 1990. So I think you should restore all that stuff you removed. Everyking 17:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right about me confusing the 2 different times Aristide was "elected". Feel free to correct my mistakes.

I'm better at neutrality than accuracy, I guess. --Uncle Ed 21:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that in the 1990 election he came in first in a field of more than 30. RichardBond (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Aristide is "the first democratically elected President" when Francois Duvalier was elected President in 1957?Mambala (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)mambala

Because that election was not free and fair. See Haitian presidential election, 1957. Rd232 ^talk 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Elections in 2000

US Senator Jesse Helms said,

The legitimacy of the May 21, 2000, elections has been compromised by organizational flaws, political murders, the involvement of the Haitian National Police in the arrest and intimidation of opposition figures, manipulation of the independent Provisional Electoral Council by the Government of Haiti and the ruling Fanmi Lavalas party, and the publication of fraudulent results. [3]

I've read there were only seven contested seats in the Senate, a fact which the US and others blew out of proportion... And if the Commondreams.org article is correct, what's stopping me from saying that this Senator's statement was contributing to the anti-Aristide propaganda campaign? --Trebor, 11 Oct 2004 7:09PM EST

IMHO, "democraticly elected" is either one of two things: an assertion that the election was free and fair, and that the populace had a significant and safe chance to have voted otherwise; or it's a redundant term. I've always taken it to mean the first. In the case of the election of Aristide it is credibly (if not convincingly) asserted that the election was rigged. We're not talking debates over a few hundred or thousand votes, like the Democrats complain about in Florida, or the Republicans complain about in Washington, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

We're talking about the possibility of one party having a clear majority, and still losing. I'm not knowledgeable to judge the allegation; but I do think "democraticly" is an adjective used to make an assertion which is very controverted.

Majorities aren't a surefire definition of the will of the people. America is an example of a nation where a candidate who has a majority of the popular vote can lose the election, due to the electoral college. As for Aristide, I can't say. I've only known two Haitians, and they both loved him and considered him a man of the people. But that doesn't prove anything. Kasreyn 04:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, something which has unprovable relevance - but polling, violence, and boycotts have been used in the past (by right wing S American gov.s) to give justification for claiming the election was rigged, then staging a coup. The idea being, you create doctored polls to show a very unpopular party as wildly ahead. Because polls are unmoderated, this is perfectly legal. Then, you claim your politicians are being intimidated, and claim the election will be rigged, and pull out. After the election falls in the popular opposition's favour, you claim the election was rigged, then use popular confusion to justify a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

Cut from article:

Aristide quickly made signal improvements in the quality of government.

This is an excellent topic sentence for a paragraph that describes how Aristide improved government. However, the paragraph it heads doesn't talk about any such improvements, let alone clearly recognizable or undisputed ones. Looks like the contributor's own POV. --Uncle Ed 15:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also read/heard that Aristide built schools, literacy programs, a medical school, etc. Maybe this should be included? --Trebor, 11 Oct 2004, 7:11PM EST

Wikipedia mentioned by spammer

I just received a 419 fraud spam, allegedly from Aristide's personal attorney. It linked to this Wikipedia article as confirmation of the historical facts it was exploiting. Wikipedia is famous. :-) Ortonmc 00:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--- Two of the links at the bottom of the page don't work anymore. (anonymous web browser)

Academic Title

The "Dr." was removed from Aristide's name at the article's start, explanation given that it's an academic title. Is that a good reason to remove it? Krupo 03:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

If the editor was using AP style, then yes. AP only uses Dr. for medical titles, not all PhD's and DPhil's. RMWhittaker 01:22, April 7, 2007.

Yahoo News Links

All or almost all of the Yahoo news links given as cites here are dead. You shouldn't link to Yahoo news, because its URLs are only temporary. We're going to need to go through and replace all those links, particularly in the "Departure from Haiti" section. Mr. Billion 08:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

External links hardly neutral

Most external links are clearly partisan and from point of view:

- Democracy Now
- CommonDreams
- The Guardian

Something representing other views should be added.

--- While the former two are unquestionably leftist, The Guardian is a mainstream newspaper with the highest degree of international respect. It may have a slight bias, but its presence as a reference adds credence to the article's claim, not vice versa. Nevertheless, perhaps a few more right-leaning sources are in order, but they tend not to report extensively on events in Haiti, or any other country, for that matter. (call me Bill)

I don't intend to edit the article. I just wanted to point out that Democracy Now originally broke the story of alleged US involvement in the coup and are infact the primary and most comprehensive source for that information. And the information itself is an interview directly with the ousted leader. (STL)

Democracy Now and CommonDreams are advocacy groups pursuing an agenda and have no interest whatever in objectivity. The Guardian is not much better and can hardly be categorized as "mainstream" unless one's conception of "mainstream" is most left leaning 5% of the population. If the Guardian is mainstream, so is the "Limbaugh Letter." It is also difficult to imagine a source for less reliable information that an interview with an ousted leader trying to spin a story to facilitate a return to power. (MAK)

The Guardian has a 14.3% share of "total daily quality press" circulation so hardly fringe (CF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherFraser (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia require neutrality of *sources*? Neutrality of tone is a stylistic choice, it is no guarantor of truthfulness and accuracy, just as a clear editorial line is no prima facie indicator of falsehood. The Guardian and Democracy Now! are editorially on the Left (and are news outlets, not "advocacy groups"), but I challenge anyone to prove they are less accurate or reliable than supposedly neutral sources. Democracy Now! typically features long interviews that allow a subject to speak openly and at length. No, the Limbaugh Letter is nowhere near analogous. But should one automatically reject a Fox News or Washington Times story as a Wikipedia source because of those outlets' right-wing orientation? I would assume, no, they are clearly allowed. Doprendek (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Salesian?

Some Anon added reference to Salseian order.Mikereichold 06:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The anon was probibly correct. Britanica and Encarta list Aristide as a former member of the Salesians of Don Bosco, commonly shortened to the Salesians. One of them could be wrong, but both is unlikely. Gentgeen 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I Dispute Neutrality of Article

I dispute the neutrality of "The economy suffered as political control stalled." It implies a causal connection which isn't there given the abundances of other causes (e.g. removal of aid).

I dispute the neutrality of the sentence: "He maintained close ties not only to the Haitian police force, but also to street gangs such as the "Cannibal Army."" Which is based on an article that only alleges: "allegedly loyal to ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide"

I dispute the neutrality of "Like the dictators he had fought in the past, Aristide, the former shantytown priest, cracked down in response to protest."

I dispute the neutrality of the implied causal connection between: "Aristide... cracked down in response to protest." "Several dozen people were killed or wounded (by chimères)" and "The press was also the victim of violence." by arranging the sentences together, because it implies that the "crack-downs" were violent, and that the violence was ordered by Aristide.

I dispute the presentation of: "The press was also the victim of violence." without qualifying that it is an allegation of "Reporters Without Borders"

I dispute the neutrality of "Reporters Without Borders". They are funded by and connected to the "International Republican Institute" who played a role in undermining Haiti's democracy by arming former death squad leaders. http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

I dispute the neutrality of the use of the characterization "shantytown priest" as implying that he was less of a priest. (Blessed are the poor!)

I dispute the neutrality of saying "His government built parks and facilities for the gangs" without reference, while at the same time omitting "Aristide quickly made signal improvements in the quality of government." for lack of substance.

I dispute the neutrality of the syntatic ambiguity: "In 1996 he married Mildred Trouillot, a U.S. citizen, with whom he had two daughters." which in one ambiguous meaning implies "He currently had two daughters in 1996." which implies he had them out of wedlock, and that "He had at least one in 1995 while still in the priesthood"

Comment: with opposition-owned radio stations reporting turnouts of around 10%, and international observers reporting around 60% turnout, and with the opposition refusing to accept the scheduling of elections it is quite clear who the anti-democratic forces are in Haiti. Aristide has been the focus of a multi-decades smear campaing based on unsubstanciated allegations ever since he beat the World-Banks's pick for president in 1990. The democracy in Haiti was attacked by forces such as the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which funded the arming of former "Terrorists" and "Criminals" responsible for much of the blood in Haiti's recent history.

The wiki reviewers responsible for this article should not be allowed to continue as it's maintainers.

I agree that the article has many instances of unsourced claims and apparent anti-Aristide POV bias. At the moment I lack the time to do any serious research but I'll back you up if you want to do a rewrite with an eye towards improving the article's fairness. Remember of course to cite sources for all claims. The article as it currently is definitely should not be allowed to stand with so many unsourced allegations. -Kasreyn 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the article is very anti-Aristide. When using it as a source for a paper, it was proved unworthy because of its complete bias. I hope that this changes soon. A rewrite is necessary. - W. Andrew Markle 21:44, 15 February 2006 (CST)

A ditto in support of the re-writing of this article, though myself I simply do not have that time. Wikipedia is a beautiful tool in that its multiple-author reality is apparent when you read it. Anti-Aristide viewpoints are more common coming from the American right, but many of the sources come from the European left. This article, much like Haitian politics, makes absolutely no sense. If I can incorporate the Aristide story into a Polical Science course this spring (my Prof is a Priest) I will, then send it to someone who's actually a member so that they may publish it. In the meantime, I must dispute the neutrality of the internet magazine "We Haitians". The article cited plainly refers to Aristide as a "tyrant". The Haitian ex-pats I have met (dozens; especially in Montreal) tend to be pro-Aristide, though a few have also said that he is simply the lesser evil. - Grégoire Baribeau, 16 April 2006

5/25/06: Article has been updated to show both sides. Please consider

9/17/2006: Not sure if I am doing this correctly, if I am not it is out of ignorance, not malice or perfidy. Anyway: I also dispute the sentence in the "departure from Haiti" section that reads: "The United States vice-president Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell both reported that Aristide had resigned willingly." How could either of those men "report" on the willingness of another man? Especially when they were not in the same country as he at the time? Besides, they are hardly unbiased "sources" to testify to Aristide's "willingness." Besides, this statement is not sourced. That sentence should not stand, it should be removed. --Pkondrat 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

9/18/06. If Powell and Cheney did in fact report on Aristide, the article can and should mention it. Your reservations are valid in my opinion, but it is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether something Powell or Cheney said is true or not. Perhaps the verb "report" could be changed to "claim" or "assert". I will do that.--Atavi 10:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aristide a changé

There was a strong discurse on the web about the fact that Aristide had changed (Aristide a changé) after his exile in the USA and his wedding... Strangely most sites seems to have vanished.... My opinion ? Well, I don't know. But I've some kind of feeling that something was inserted in my ass... Ericd 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Haitian refugees

this section i believe is factually inaccurate or at best misleading:

"There was a large-scale exodus of boat people when Aristide was in office.
The United States Coast Guard rescued a total of 41,342 Haitians during 1991
and 1992, more than the number of rescued refugees from the previous 10
years combined. After Aristide fled, the United States denied refugee status to
future boat people."

it jibes with nothing i've read on the matter. the U.S. wasn't 'rescueing' refugees during the Duvalier era but forcing them back and the actual number boat people dropped signifigantly under aristide.

here's a mainstream secondary source: http://www.culturalorientation.net/haiti/hintro.html

"The boat people phenomenon continued after the younger Duvalier's ouster in 1986, with an increasing number of Haitians fleeing as the terror and violence intensified prior to the 1987 elections. With the election of Aristide in 1990, the flow of refugees briefly stemmed; in fact, there was some evidence of voluntary repatriation. However, with the coup that forced Aristide into exile, the terror, and thus the exodus of refugees to the United States, resumed."

this article needs a major rewrite. i cut that part out for now as it was way off.

This might be of use. By the end of the Duvalier dictatorship, approximately 24,000 Haitians had fled to the United States and only 11 were granted asylum. This is information is taken from Noam Chomsky's chapter "The Tragedy of Haiti" in James Ridgeway's (editor) The Haiti Files: Decoding the Crisis (Washington, DC: Essential Books; Azal Editions, 1994). --Ohpkyle 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent changes to the article are unacceptable as they do not cite sources for their claims. This is an encyclopedia with strict standards of verifiability. I am going to try to read up some and educate myself more about Haiti so I can improve the article better, but it might take me some time. If anyone can provide sources for the claims in the article, please add them. Kasreyn 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you take out my changes?

I posted the sources at the bototm of the page which you left. That took a lot of work to research. Arsitide had a tremendous impact on education, health, and other social programs. Haiti is divided into a small french speaking upper class and the majority kreyol speaking masses. He was hated because for the first time a Haitian president spoke in creole and put all the aid towards these people. He had no military, he had no powerful allies. His government was subjected to a U.S. Administraiton embargo, nearly 3 years of rebel raids, and tens of millions of dollars were spent on strengthening the elite political parties. I think if you are going to discuss Aristide you need to also discuss the positive acheivements he had. THen at the bottom of the page you can have the criticism.

IDEA

I SUGGEST you do it like the hugo chavez page.. Have information on his governemnt his life.. the accomplishments.. and then have a criticism area on the bottom. would be nice to have more photos here of Aristide.

ALSO

It should be noted that while only between 50-200 political deaths occured under aristide (half and half between elites and aristide supporters) - under the u.s. installed interim government something like 5,000 - 15,000 deaths occured, primarily of lavalas supporters in the poor slums of haiti.

The changes were removed because they were a copyright violation as well as inappropriate. An encyclopedia is not supposed to simply reprint pages of material from one political party's official literature. For one thing, an encyclopedia is intended to be a synthesis of knowledge, which means sourced claims must be rewritten in new words (though quotes can be used as well). For another, Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view policy, which requires that articles state their claims in neutral language and give fair time to all major viewpoints on an issue. Surely with this in mind you can see why replacing this article with a Lavalas pamphlet is inappropriate. Best wishes, Kasreyn 08:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed further materials taken from the same source and used against Wikipedia's copyright policy. I am sorry but this is an absolutely ironclad policy at Wikipedia. Continuing to insert copyrighted material is a bannable offense. I strongly suggest you refrain from doing so any more. If you need help or advice on how to rewrite and cite material in encyclopedic fashion, I will be more than happy to give it. Kasreyn 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ok=

But you should know that is not a praty's "official literature". It was put out by Haiti Action a group of journalists/activists.

That doesn't really make a difference. We still have to report multiple viewpoints and source our inclusions reliably. Kasreyn 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Reverted to previous version as probable vandalism had occured. Watch out for user: 71.107.74.235. V. Joe 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted out a weasel worded POV statement from the reference footnote section. I forgot to leave a comment on the editing summary. --Eqdoktor 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Aristide Posters

It would seem that someone from the OPL party continues posting false information in regards to OPL on this page.

A source is severely needed to explain Aristide's reliance on street gangs during his 2nd term as president. It would seem that the neutrality of that comment is anti-aristide and unfounded. I think it is worth considering deleting this sentence: "and Aristide became increasingly dependent on street gangs known as "chimeres" to maintain his authoritative rule" This consideration, to delete the statement, is based on the ability to argue "authoritative rule". This sentence makes it seem like the discussion on Aristide's credibility is over. I know that many agree that Aristide was not a dictator and I know many agree that he was a dictator. Let us not make any such statements so... authoritatively. If a source is found, it would be wise to rephrase that sentence to state, "Source argues that Aristide became increasingly dependent on street gangs known as "chimeres" to maintain his authoritative rule." Otherwise, if no argument is made against my case, I have plans to delete that sentence within a few days. Please note, that this discussion will remain even in the event that I delete it. K7studio (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Aristide Posters

Well, Aristide's biography was so biased it was not even funny. There was hardly any mention of the instability during Aristide's rule. Also it was said that Aristide invested massively in Haitian literacy programs without showing whether these reforms was of any help to the people. Did the literacy rate improve? No it did not. I also noticed that some people here are trying to link Cuba with Haiti. On the 'Reforms' of Aristide section it was said that around 500 Cuban doctors tended to the poor. Ok very good but what about the Western doctors who are also in Haiti? These include French and American doctors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.89.189 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Chronology of when he was in office

The infobox and succession boxes claim that Aristide was in office from 1993 to 1994, but other parts of the article don't. These dates need to be confirmed and made consistent throughout the article. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The administrator of this site if he exists is not doing a very good job. He did not take into account what you said which was pretty valid. How about this page gets another administrator, one who is more efficient and balanced.

post coup violence

The mass violence after the coup is well documented by numerous human rights reports. Why has this not be listed well? The few dozen killed in skirmeshes between FL and DC people during Aristide's time in office (or murdered by ex-military) is small in comparison with the thousands killed under the Boniface/Latortue interim government. Even Professor Alex Dupuy, a critic of Arisitde and FL, acknowledges this in his new book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.92.219.241 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced material moved to talk

As per WP:V, please add back such material found to have a source.Ultramarine 12:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Aristide Legacy

Aristide remains a very controversial figure. Under his rule, the Haitian government tried to help the poor by putting in place a massive literacy program and constructed various schools and healthcare centers. The Aristide government refused privatization of state companies but the government remained inefficient. The minimum wage was doubled and the price of rice kept low due to subsidies.The government lost at least half of its budget due to a aid embargo backed by the Bush Administration.

Though these populist measures were hailed by the lower classes, they angered Haitians elites. Aristide was generally unpopular among the middle and upper classes who failed to see any improvements in their lives.

Aristide was targeted in a widespread destabilization campaign throughout his political career, and his supporters maintain that the opposition that toppled him had shady backgrounds of intimidation and violence themselves.

Arisitide's legacy remains controversial. He still retains a large popularity among the poor due in part to his populist measures which brought short-term relief and hope for the future.

Second presidency and second coup d'état

The 2000 and 2005 elections would show that OPL was a paper tiger once it had separated from Fanmi Lavalas. Today the OPL is largely held up by its large financing and support from foreign political parties and government aid agencies, with nearly no voting base.

New elections in May 2000 occurred for almost the entire Assemblée Nationale. Opposition-owned radio stations reported turnout of around 10%, but election officials and international observers reported around 60% turnout. The Fanmi Lavalas won a sweeping victory, but the methods used by the Conseil Electoral Provisoire (CEP) in counting the votes were rejected by opposition parties, which united as the Convergence Democratique (CD) and demanded that the elections be ignored. The dispute centered on the meaning of "absolute majority" as required by the Haitian Constitution. The procedure utilized was to count only the votes for the top four candidates to decide the number which would constitute a majority. The OAS observers delegation objected that a majority of total votes cast was obtained in only a few of the seats contested. The president of the CEP fled the country and a number of members of the CEP also resigned but the remaining members agreed to validate the results.

Aristide won the presidential election in November 2000 with 91.8% of the vote. Most of the opposition parties boycotted this election, claiming that they had no fair chance with Aristide controlling the media and with the judiciary controlled by Aristide allies. After the election, the Organization of American States issued a report that the senatorial election was unfair and that the methodology for counting votes was flawed. Aristide supporters have claimed that the OAS report was engineered by the U.S. solely based on hostility to the president's policies. They also have questioned why the organization waited until after the election results to challenge the methodology, saying it was aware of the vote-counting process beforehand. Many western governments stated that the election process was flawed and thus should be rendered invalid. At this time, the Clinton administration worked with the European Union to block a $440 million loan from the Inter-American Development Bank to Haiti.

On February 7, 2001, Aristide was sworn in for his second term as President of Haiti. That same day, the CD swore in Gérard Gourgue as head of a new provisional government. Gourgue immediately called for the return of the disbanded military. Aristide agreed to reform the CEP and had the eight contested senators step down (they were elected before he was in office). Jean-Marie Chérestal was made the new Prime Minister in March 2001. The economy suffered as political control stalled and foreign destabilization intensified. Aristide made moves to placate the opposition — in June 2001 certain senators holding contested seats resigned — but talks between the FL and the CD repeatedly failed. In mid-December 2001 there was an attack on the National Palace which was portrayed as an attempted coup by the Fanmi Lavalas but was characterized as a staged event by the opposition. Living conditions continued to worsen and inflation soared as political disputes paralyzed the economy. The Haitian Gourde rapidly lost half of its value. Due to the objections of the opposition, elections were not held as scheduled in late 2003, and consequently the terms of most legislators expired in January, forcing Aristide to rule by decree. He promised to organize elections within six months, but the opposition refused to accept anything less than Aristide's resignation.

In 2004, attacks and threats continued against journalists - both members of the opposition and those who supported the government. The climate of terror was sustained by the opposition-supported rebels, former members of the disbanded military. These rebels killed numerous members of Lavalas and government officials between 2001 and 2004. Nearly all of the corporate media in Haiti were controlled by a small, vehemently anti-Fanmi Lavalas elite. Aristide's opponents, heavily financed by foreign entities, continued to accuse him of corruption and of using violence against political opponents. Tens of millions of dollars were spent by "democratization" programs to fund the elite opposition to Aristide. Prior to Aristide was elected (2000 Preval), one of Haiti's most famous journalists, Jean Dominique, was assassinated. A Lavalas Senator Danny Toussaint was alleged to have had a role. While three alleged gunmen were arrested under Aristide (later escaped under Latortue) the case against Toussaint has been tied up in court ever since. Groups such as Reporters Without Borders (state dept funded) attempted to charge Aristide with having a role in the murder. Danny Toussaint, the man charged with the murder of Dominique, joined the opposition to Lavalas in late 2003.

Journalists also report that the US embassy had close contact with the death squad paramilitaries invading Haiti. The rebels had meanwhile executed hundreds and burned down police stations and school buses across Haiti.

2004 rebellion

When asked whether Aristide was guarded in the Central African Republic by French officers, the French Defense Minister answered that Aristide was protected, not imprisoned, and that he would leave when he could; and that France had many officers present in the Central African Republic following the recent events in that country, but that they did not control Aristide's comings and goings.

Both Maxine Waters and United States congressman Charles Rangel who also reported talking to Aristide via cellular telephone, said that Aristide said he had not been handcuffed while being led away, while the Agence France Press reported that the caretaker at Aristide's house claimed that Aristide had been handcuffed and led away at gunpoint. Other reports of Aristide being led away by heavily armed American troops have been made by an Aristide bodyguard and an American film maker. Aristide told CNN that there were unidentified civilian Americans and Haitians who had forced him to resign and board the plane leaving Haiti. The Steele Foundation, which provided presidential protection for Aristide confirmed that their bodyguards accompanied the President on this flight.

After arriving in Jamaica, Aristide gave an interview in which he claimed that: He had met with US ambassador James Foley on February 28, 2004 — the day before the rebels were supposed to attack the capital. Foley agreed that Aristide should go on national television to appeal to the nation to remain calm, as he had done the night before. When he arrived at his residence, it was surrounded by "thousands" of troops, mostly Americans, which made him feel intimidated. The Americans told him they would provide him security as they escorted him to the media; however, instead, they took him straight to a white unmarked aircraft with a US flag on the side. He was then obligated to board, followed by US troops in full gear who changed into civilian clothes once on board. On board were his wife and 19 members of Steele Foundation, a private military company. (The US has neither confirmed nor denied these details, but has insisted that Aristide left willingly.)

Just pointing out a film called The Ghosts of Cite Soleil is a propaganda movie which totally ignores the 2004 coup d'etat and the mass violence carried out by the ex-military and criminal ruling class.

Deterioration of article

This article appears to be worsening greatly with the passage of time. I came here intending to add some new info, but it isn't worth the trouble to do anything new when the old work has been ruined. Look at the difference between the article's condition the last time I edited it, in April, and the way it is now: [4]. This is ridiculous, and unless someone objects soon I am going to revert everything back to that April 2007 revision. Everyking (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was without sources despite making numerous pro-Aristide claims.Ultramarine (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

2/21/08; mf- may I suggesst reading Randall Robinson's "An Unbroken Agony," his recently published book on President Aristide. It is an excellent book and it contains more than enough information for those interested and capable of investigating what happened to President Aristide, and the United State's active role in Haiti's past and current economic circumstance.

8/1/09; Those interested should also read Peter Hallward's "Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.187.152 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Aristide posters are only allowing the most negative quotation they can find, and not allowing quotations on helping the poor, democracy, and social justice into this post. They are engaging in political censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.187.152 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is very incomplete.

This article seems to be all about elections and coups. Why does it say almost nothing about what kinds of policies and actions he pursued and accomplished during the times that he was in power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.15.152 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's very heavy on criticism with almost no mention of his accomplishments. Any volunteers? Remember to find sources and reference your contributions. I also noticed that all the most severe accusations are based on one source that is not on line. Can anyone who has read the book verify that these very serious charges are made in it? Or could someone email one of the authors about it?Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the one I'm talking about. It doesn't sound like an expose about Aristide: Haiti in the balance: why foreign aid has failed and what we can do about it. Terry F. Buss,Adam Gardner.Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of embezzlement and money laundering

You can't accuse a living person of embezzlement and money laundering without impeccable references, such a news article about a finding of guilt by a court of law. This will have to be removed until it is referenced.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gave source of accusation, added Aristide's claim of innocence, added references.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

US/Aristide

Perhaps it could be clarified in the article as to why would US participate in the coup of a man that they themselves made sure came back to power for over a decade. Also, the article would benefit from inclusion of comments from Paul Farmer - the doctor who worked on TB in Haiti. Paul Farmer greatly praises Aristide, for all that he did for Farmer's clinin, without any mention of Aristide's alleged corruption. See for example, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/paul-farmer/who-removed-aristide. --RossF18 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The story is that Aristide was not obedient enough. The U.S. was pressuring him to privatize government owned industries (read this in an interview with Aristide). Plus, he was getting medical assistance from Cuba in the form of Cuban doctors and medical training for Haitians in Cuba. Also, he was put back under Clinton, but taken out under Bush. When I have time, I will try to track down references and add this. If anyone can do it sooner, go for it.114.161.229.100 (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Farmer article seems to lay the blame for all the bad on the U.S., with no credit for the good (Duvalier stepping down, election of Aristide, reinstatement of Aristide). Maybe we can find a more objective source?Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This one is pretty good, but sort of light on recent history: http://www.alternet.org/world/145142/haiti%27s_tragic_history_is_entwined_with_the_story_of_america/?page=3. I'll add it, but let's keep looking.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't figure out how to do this. What I want to point out is that the first coup occurred under George H.W. Bush, and then Aristide was reinstated by Clinton, then he was removed again during George W. Bush's presidency. But we almost need a new section to do that, and I'm not sure what to call it. "Theories to Explain Recent U.S. Interventions"? Also, Aristide's demand that France repay money extorted from Haiti in the 1800's soured his relations with France. I can't find an article that lays all this out that is objective in tone. Any ideas?Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to a section entitled: "Theories to Explain Recent U.S. Interventions," the reasons should be explained in the appropriate section dealing with the overthrows. See my points below as to other points.--RossF18 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ghostofnemo. Paul Farmer's views mirror this article - it's a contradiction. For over a decade Aristide was seen as a great leader - he helped Farmer and was installed back into power at least twice by the US. So, I'd imagine Farmer was all for US at that point putting Aristide back in power. Then, all of a sudden, US is blamed for removing him from power by both Aristide and Farmer - a leader that US supported for over a decade. US says that they didn't overthrow anyone and it sounds like they're saying that they saved Aristide from being killed by the coup (while he says they kidnapped him). Aristide is also accused of embezzling money from Haiti. As far as Aristide's claims about France's occupation of Haiti - all of Europe occupied foreign countries at one time or another and I'm pretty sure someone in all of those countries wants the European countries to return everything that they took. I doubt that anyone is giving these people any stock - unjustly or not, depending on your point of view. The point being that I doubt that Aristide's demand for reparations from France over an occupation that ended 300 years ago was the fact that triggered the souring of relations between Aristide and France and I doubt that it was because of these comments that France is alleged to have participated in the coup. There has to be something more substantial in the reasons for placing the blame on France for participating in the coup than Aristide made a hubbub about a 300 year old alleged extortion. What was it? Nothing is made clear in the article as for why US reversed it's policy toward Aristide (in the face of continued support from Paul Farmer) and as to why France was invovled. As far as Farmer's interview not giving US any credit for good things - well, yeah, he's talking about the most recent coup. If we find earlier interviews with Farmer, it'll say something different - if anything in the article is to be believed (i.e., that US supported Aristide - if US supported Aristide and Farmer supported Aristide, then Farmer would support US's support of Aristide; if US overthrew Aristide and Farmer still supported Aristide, then naturally Farmer would not support US's overthrow of Aristide - that's common sense for why in a recent interview, Farmer wouldn't say anything nice about US - that wouldn't make the interview not worthwhile). A source has to be from a recognized news source or organization. If www.alternet.org is such a news source - than add it. However, Paul Farmer's interview is from an objective source while his interview is his opinion and thus subjective; so the interview will of course will be his point of view and we are not here to pass judgment on statements by recognized leaders in the medical community with over two decades of experience in Haiti. His opinion will of course not be objective - but that alone doesn't prevent it's inclusion. --RossF18 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is very much a "He said/She said" situation. Even less so, since so little evidence has come out supporting the claim. We mention the claims that were in the news, but let's let the wiki reader decide why, unless you can find a credible source for the analysis, in which you could just quote them. --Bertrc (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, almost everything "He Said/She Said." There will always be someone who says something otherwise. Someone has to say it or write it for us to include it, unless we ourselves were witness to events, in which case we wouldn't be able to cotribute to the article since that would be first person violation. The point is that here there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus - at least none is presented in the article. This is fine, but it should be better explained. I wasn't suggesting we make up the "why" something happened. But, there are accounts from people invovled as to why they think this happened and that should be included in more detail. After that, yes, it's up to the readors to choose who to believe. --RossF18 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added two notes, that Aristide was reinstated by U.S. troops at the direction of President Clinton, and that Aristide's lawyers accused the U.S. under George W. Bush of arming anti-Aristide forces.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Bush reference. The cited sources do not have Aristide blaming Bush. It is misleading. --Bertrc (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the Bush Sr. reference back into the 1991 coup section, with four references.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe me when I say I am not necessarily a fan of Bush. However, I am a huge fan of wikipedia, and I want to keep it clean. I don't think your sources meet reliability, verifiablility or NPOV. The Axis of Logic site self-identifies itself as biased against the U.S. government (read about the "Enemy" in their mission statement) The Haiti analysis article is a book review with editorializing and no references or research to back it up. The huffington post has vague theories that, at most, imply the CIA new Constant; additionally the huffington post article implicates both Bush Sr. and Clinton (Note that Constant's escape and protection from extradition occurred during Clinton's tenure) The taipei article is a self identified editorial. --Bertrc (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your position, Bertrc, which I perceive as a neutral position and faithful to WP:V and WP:RS. —mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First Coup

OK, what I've done is find better references which allege the CIA was involved in the coup. Since Bush Sr. was president at the time, it could be assumed he was aware of this, but to be technically correct, I will just let the readers connect the dots.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I had an issue with two of the url's (Project censored is not really WP:RS and "The Nation" page did not even have proper grammar) but IMHO, those are much better cites. However, I recommend finding the original sources for cites. I tracked down the NY Times article. If you read the articles, you should note that none of them claim that the CIA was involved in th coup, itself. Rather, in the 1980's, the CIA was involved in originally setting up and financing people who carried out the coup. I can see mentioning that fact, but the wording should be specific. Heck, we originally set up, trained and financed the people responsible for 9/11 (Back when they were fighting the Russians) but I think saying "The people responsible for 9/11 were funded by the U.S. gov't" would be misleading phrasing. --Bertrc (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the line you deleted: "The military officers who led the coup, as well as Emanuel Constant, the organizer of the FRAPH death squads which killed Aristide supporters after the coup, were reportedly receiving payments from the CIA." This line does not state that the CIA was involved in the coup, although the references do imply that. There were five references to support this line. You deleted four of them, including the Weisbrot articles. I think my edit should be restored, because your stated reason for deleting my edit, without any prior discussion, was that my edit directly accused the CIA of involvement in the coup, which it did not. Also, the Project Censored article was overseen by two Ph.D faculty advisors. The Independent article was not the same article as The Nation article, and I have never heard of grammar being a reason for questioning an article in a longstanding, respected magazine (The Nation). What exactly was this grammatical error?Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No response yet, so I've restored the deleted line and references. The line does not claim that the CIA overthrew Aristide, but that those who did, and those who organized the terror that followed, were on the CIA payroll. If Osama bin Laden had been on the CIA payroll at the time of the 9/11 attack, I think that would be significant, don't you? It would not prove definitively that the CIA was involved in the 9/11 attack, but it would imply that they had some relationship with the perpetrators. As the investigator's slogan goes, "Follow the money".Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, although I do love wikipedia, I do not live, eat and sleep while on-line. You don't have to wait for a response (in fact, since there are only two of us, I recommend editting when you have an idea that might be a compromise of our positions) but if you do want a response, at least give me a day.  :-) Okay, first, I will comment on the sources:

1) With regards to Project Censored: I do not believe a source can be considered [[WP::RS|reliable]] (specifically, unbiased) when their mission statement declares that the U.S. government is in league with the enemy.

2) With regards to the wiesbrot cite: It is quoting an NY Times article ("The officers who led the military coup were, as later reported by the New York Times, on the payroll of the CIA. But the Washington connection did not end there.") I removed the weisbrot link, and added a link directly to the NY Times article. Additionally, the Weisbrot piece is not reporting the news. Rather, it is advocating for action. Notice that he gives a call to arms for more countries to get involved. Again, this is not [[WP::RS|reliable]] (specifically, unbiased).

3) "The Independent" is simply reporting what was in "The Nation". Again, we should only include the original source (However, for point 4) below, you should note that even "The Independent" feels that "The Nation" does not have corroboration for its claims)

4) The piece by the Nation is very biased, unsourced and uncorroborated. If you want, we can raise it in those discussions to get more opinions.

Now, as to the text: My issue with your phrasing is the lack of context around how the CIA got involved. What is your issue with my phrasing? I feel that what you have written is misleading: Saying "the people who staged the coup were being paid by the CIA" is the same as saying the CIA arranged the coup. I honestly thought that my text was a decent compromise. Like your text, my text says that they were being paid by the CIA -- including that they were still receiving money when the coup occurred -- but adds context that this had been set up years before the coup. I do notice that you specifically mention Constant. If that is your issue with my phrasing, I can correct it. RossF18 or mattisse, are you still around? What do you think? Do any other editors have an opinion? --Bertrc (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My line and supporting reference about Congressional investigations into the 1991 coup has been removed for a second time. The comment on the removal claimed the article did not refer to a CIA connection to the coup. But that was not what the removed line said. It said: "Press reports about possible C.I.A. involvement in Haiti sparked Congressional hearings in the United States." The second paragraph of the article says, "Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told The Times that he plans "vigorous oversight" into news reports that the CIA sought to play a role in support of some of the candidates in Haiti's 1987-88 elections and that it financed some of the military leaders ultimately involved in the 1991 coup that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide." On page two of the article is says: "Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) called on the House Intelligence Committee to conduct "a thorough investigation" of U.S. intelligence agencies' involvement in Haiti. He said the recent news reports "raise serious questions about the relationship between U.S. intelligence agencies under the direction of the Reagan and Bush administrations and the military and civilian leaders who overthrew the legitimately elected government of Haiti." I'm going to add "in Haitian politics" to my edit and re-add this line.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your edit [5] phrases it very well. You've improved how the section flows. --Bertrc (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Impartiality of Sources

I'm always around. Per the phrazing of this particular part of the article and the sources, I side with Bertrc in that we should strive to find the best (read "impartial") sources available. The sources discussed hardly seem impartial. That said, sources from CIA itself or Aristide himself, i.e., parties involved, while not impartial, would be also great. But, as it stands, we shouldn't be referencing an encyclopedia article with third-party bi-partisan sources. Note that that this doesn't mean that we shouldn't perhaps include the reaction from known players in the conflict who either support or disprove of the actions of one side or the other. For example, comments from Clinton or Bush themselves are almost guaranteed to be bi-partisan, but they are very relevant and good info to include. So, I guess the refined statement of opinion from me would be that we shouldn't be supporting statements of fact from unknown third-party bi-partisan sources, as would be the case with the sources from "The Nation". If User:Ghost wants to include "the Nation" article by saying something like "some commentators hostile to the US noted that ..." - that would be a different discussion. As it stands, I side with Bertrc points. --RossF18 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think the article in the Nation is trash, even though the mainstream press picked up the story, but that press article is also excluded, because it repeats what appeared in The Nation article, so by circular logic, both are excluded. And Project Censored is censored because, regardless of the quality of their research, you don't like their politics. By "hostile to the U.S." do you mean "not in support of whatever the U.S. does"? If a news article in a European newspaper accused the U.S. of torturing prisoners in secret prisons, would that be excluded from Wikipedia because it is "hostile to the U.S."? And by "hostile to the U.S." do you mean hostile to the U.S. government, or hostile to the U.S. Constitution? Maybe sometimes people who consider themselves "pro-government" are actually "anti-Constitution" - in that case, who is truly hostile to the U.S. and who truly supports it? It's extremely difficult to PROVE the CIA did anything, as you are probably well aware, because this agency goes to great lengths to conceal what it does, even from the American public. And since this all happened in 1991, it is difficult to find news stories still on-line from that far back. I think it will be almost impossible to find a story about U.S. involvement in a coup against a democratically elected president in a "pro-American" news source, since officially that never happens. But I will try to find something.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable? http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/013110d.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this one? http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/haitis-neverending-tragedy-has-american-roots-46757.html This is a business newspaper in Ireland.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another. http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/02/essay-haiti-france-colonial Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ghostofnemo - please, let's not go overboard with accusations. First, no one called the Nation "trash." Not accepting the source as unbiased is not calling it "trash" - so let's not inflame the passions here with baseless accusations. Being picked up by "press" also doesn't mean that something is true or unbiased. There have been widely reported cases of "press" picking up things from Wikipedia that where wrong and then reporting it globally - so just because a newspaper picks something up from some place doesn't mean that it suddenly gains some validity. That applies to all articles. That's why it's important to see the article through to the main source. Second, it's one thing "not to support what U.S. does," it's quite another to have as a mission statement:

The Enemy

We identify "Corporate Global Empire" as our common foe and the enemy of the people. We believe that all current, viable political parties in the U.S. are in service to the empire and do not represent the people. We are not to be identified as "Democrats", "Republicans", "Capitalists", "Communists" or "Socialists", "Progressives" or with any label that can be reduced to a religion, organization or any other "ism". We offer no such target for attack by the enemies of the truth.

It's one thing to be an alternative news source - quite another to blindly reject everything that comes out of U.S. government, no matter if it's valid or not. The fact is that the U.S. Constitution says that U.S. is a republic (representative democracy) and parties do represent the people systemacally - otherwise how would they be elected in the first place. Now, if the website's point is that one's elected, not a single representative represents the people, we'll that's our point in saying that the website is blindly biased against the U.S. government. U.S. government doesn't exist without it's constitution, period. So, please, let's not employ hyberboly in describing what other other editors have said. Quote directly.--RossF18 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the comment made about the article in The Nation: "4) The piece by the Nation is very biased, unsourced and uncorroborated." I don't know, it sounds like he's calling it worthless and unreliable, i.e. trash. It sounds like you are blindly rejecting everything that comes out of sources who you don't agree with politically. Project Censored is saying that the truth is being repressed by those in power. Is that such a wacky belief? I think many journalists would agree that governments lie, cover up their activities, and mislead their constituents. So how about my new references - are their sources politically correct enough for you?Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think calling a sourced biased, unsourced, and uncorroborated is the same as calling it trash. Nothing in the words biased, unsourced, and uncorroborated equals trash. Please let's keep our cool in discussions and calling accusing editors of calling your source trash when in fact that word was never used is not conductive to a productive discussion. Second, your argument that "many journalists would agree that governments lie" is your subjective opinion and unless you can back that up by sources, it's just your opinion and the mission statement of that soruce you keep insisting is impartial. The issue here is the US government, not random "governments." So, let's keep the issue narrow and not blow things out of proportion. If most journalists in fact believed that the US government always lies and misleads their constituents, then most articles by those journalists would reflect that view - whenever they would report any speech by any government official, they would likely make it clear that the government official or elected official is not to be believed. That's not the case. As far as covering up their activities - CIA is a spy organization and it would place the nation in danger if it didn't cover up it's activities. However, that is not the same as to claim that every single government official or at least more than 90 percent of government officials lie and mislead. That's just not the case. The only way that your source would come in if before the sentence you'll put in something like - "an online newspaper that calls US the enemy says this about US." Otherwise, no, the source is not unbiased. When you call someone your enemy and then accuse that entity of being bad - well, it doesn't take a lot to realize that that report is not to be trusted - of course it blames US, US is its enemy.--RossF18 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The other sources Ghostofnemo provided in this subsection above are good, as far as I'm concerned. Note the contrast - the mission statement of the newssource is: "We believe in the neglected but still essential value of reporting the news, of recording and communicating the facts, events and developments of the commercial life of the country. You do not need us to tell you what to think. We keep comment to a minimum; when we do comment, it is labelled as such." What a difference.--RossF18 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So you still think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1580119/20080123/index.jhtml I think the quality of the article is more important than who publishes it. It's the article that has to be judged as partial or impartial, not the publisher. I did delete that reference however, because I found a date error where they confused the 1991 coup and the 2004 coup.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one - Pelosi claims Bush briefers lied to her about waterboarding: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Pelosi_Bush_briefers_lied_to_me.htmlGhostofnemo (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a very systematic list of Presidents Bush's lies and the truth he avoided speaking. http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html Our government, and our Presidents, do lie to us.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo - I've never said that governments never lie. I've never said that politicians never lie. Everyone lies sometimes and some lie more than most. That doesn't equal your apparent conclusion that US government always lies and is the enemy of the people. I have no doubt that there are many instances that you can point to regarding Bush lying and Pelosi lying. But instances of lying do not equal your conclusion that the government is a systematic lie machine. That's a big jump that cases of lying do not warrant. Also, lies by the Bush administration also do not equal a systematic cover-up on everything in the government. It's pretty well known that Bush administration practiced a much more "need to know" operation than anyone thought they would and for that they should justly be blamed. But, the crimes of the Bush administration again do not equal the government as the enemy of the people and any source that claims that is not impartial and any article stemming from that source is not an impartial source. Let's not get side tracked into discussions about US political climate. This is not a blog - keep the discussion to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the US coup. The point remains that a source that claims US is its enemy is not to be relied on without any note in the text itself that highlights this fact. I’d love it if an article was in fact impartial in spite of the news source being biased. But, that’s just not often the case – a news source hires reporters who would write article in line with its core beliefs. It’s naïve to think that an article can be impartial if the goal of the news source that hired the reporter calls the subject of the article its enemy. Why would you pay a reporter to write an impartial article about your enemy? You wouldn’t. A news source pays for reporting in line with its mission statement. Again, if you want to write in the article something like “a source that specifically calls US its enemy says so and so” - you can add that and leave it to your fellow editors to agree or disagree and then abide by what the editors agree on. Wikipedia is not a democracy in terms of voting, i.e., we can't just tally up editors in favor or against an edit and say that whoever has most votes wins. But a compromise and consensus can be reached - that is if you tone done your apparent hatred of all things US government. P.S. Bush knew that there were WMD's because he had a receipt. Little joke. I think if you want to discuss that issue, that's not for this talk page. In any case, since you removed the source (which you yourself say couldn't even keep the coups straight), the point in moot. --RossF18 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I brought up the Bush administration's 935 lies about Iraq before the invasion, etc. is because you expressed the opinion that we should not be overly suspicious about the U.S. government's motives. And as a counterpoint, many people feel the NY Times has a definite pro-U.S. bias, that U.S. foreign policy actions are always done in good faith. This doesn't mean they never publish an objective article though.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FRAPH involvement in 1991 coup

There are issues with the insertions made recently regarding the involvement of FRAPH in the 1991 coup, namely, FRAPH were not formed until 1992/3. I feel that including FRAPH with the events of the 1991 coup, and their links to Constant and the CIA create an unnecessary air of conspiracy in the events which don't seem to have any bearing on the events of the coup. Essentially, the two articles cited suggest ONLY that in the 80s and early 90s the CIA paid the figures who eventually became leaders of FRAPH for intelligence-gatehring activities. Conflating issues seems to be a problem here. It is inaccurate to say that FRAPH were set up in the 80s, they were not, they were set up well after the 1991 coup. The SIN (or NIS) were established in the 1980s, and again, the article makes explicit the role of the CIA "No evidence suggests that the C.I.A backed the coup or intentionally undermined President Aristide. In fact, the agency has acted to help him at times, for example through a program that is now training bodyguards to protect him should he return to Haiti from his exile in the United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalantichrist (talk • contribs) 11:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what The Sunday Business Post of Ireland says: "In December 1990, Jean Bertrand Aristide was elected president with 67 per cent of the vote. The Americans covertly supported a coup against him in 1991. In 1994, US President Bill Clinton engineered the return of Aristide on terms that forced him to adopt the neoliberal programme promulgated by the candidate he defeated in 1990, and which the country had rejected. Aristide was disbarred from standing in the presidential election in 1996, but he won the presidency back in 2000. In 2004, the Americans again engineered his removal, this time arranging for him to be kidnapped and deported to the Central African Republic." Here is the link: http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/haitis-neverending-tragedy-has-american-roots-46757.html So which source is correct? I think both versions need to be given. Regarding FRAPH, here is my suggested edit, which was removed, twice: "Some of the military officers who led the coup, as well as Emmanuel Constant, the organizer of the FRAPH death squads which killed Aristide supporters after the coup, were reportedly receiving payments from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency." I gave five references to support this, and four were deleted. I didn't say FRAPH participated in the coup, but that they participated in the repression after the coup.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that both versions need to be given, but it is important that when supplying information on wiki, we rely on verifiable evidence. The Sunday Business Post article doesn't give any supporting evidence for its assertion that the US or the CIA were involved in the 1991 coup, they just make a very short statement asserting US involvement and leave it at that, expecting it to be taken as fact. I do agree with the inclusion of references to FRAPH's activities after the coup as these are very well documented, but it would be wrong, as you seem to accept, to link the organisation to the coup. It may also be of benefit when outlining FRAPH's activities against Aristide supporters to provide the timeframe of these events so as to ensure that it doesn't seem that there's any implication as to FRAPH's involvement in any immediate post-coup events. I think it would be right to suggest that FRAPH themselves were not involved in violence until some time after the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalantichrist (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You caught me in mid edit. Check in out now. Why is The Sunday Business Post considered a less reliable source than other news sources? I'm not linking FRAPH to the coup, but to the post-coup repression. The CIA was allegedly involved in both by some of the references given.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

lol. My apologies. I think I'm in agreement with the current edit. I had been just about to clarify with regard to NIS/SIN, but you've beaten me to it. It's not that the Sunday Post are less reliable, its just that in that article they made the assertion, but didn't provide any measure of evidence for that assertion. No quote, no referencing, just the statement, and as can be seen from the many different viewpoints available online, the role of the US in the actual coup is by no means clear or certain.

Just added a clause that FRAPH started up in 1993. Forgot to describe the change though. Sorry!Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to mention FRAPH, I think it should be after we are done describing the coup. The FRAPH was not involved in the coup, seeing as it was set up in 1992/93 (I hadn't known that. Yea wikipedia!!) I think we can fit it in as occurring after his departure. Let me know what you think. --Bertrc (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

US/France in 2004 coup

I just made an edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Bertrand_Aristide&action=historysubmit&diff=344342182&oldid=344056770

This may start the US/Aristide discussion again, but, this time, for the 2004 coup. In anticipation of that, let me detail my reasons.

The phrasing said:

"He was Haiti's first democratically elected president. However, shortly thereafter he was overthrown by a bloody military coup. (Pressure from France and the United States forced Aristide out of Haiti in 2004.)"

1) Why are we mentioning the 2004 coup in the section on his first presidency? The claim that the U.S. pressured him to leave is already mentioned in the section on the 2004 coup.

2)The phrasing connects the U.S. to the 2004 coup. However, if you read the source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1202772.stm

you will note that it says "A bloody rebellion, and pressure from the US and France, forced Mr Aristide out of the country in 2004." The BBC article lists U.S. pressure as distinct from the coup.

On a complete aside, please note that the BBC article also highlights:

"Haiti's fortunes did not pick up, with allegations of electoral irregularities, ongoing extra-judicial killings, torture and brutality."

--Bertrc (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the Dodds quote. What's the point of this text? It seems very unencyclodedic: Dodds questioned the administration. Okay, so what were the answers he got? How did Dodds feel about the answers? Just leaving the sentence in there is like leaving a lose end in sewing. --Bertrc (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if you've removed several lines and supporting references that mentioned covert U.S. (CIA) or French involvement in the 2004 rebellion and the terror that followed. I think the removed material was supported by references, and that these accusations are well worth mentioning. I think Senator Dodd's inquiry pointed out the level of concern that existed that the CIA had been involved.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - Dodd's investigation regarded the 1991 coup. I've moved it to the appropriate section. Sorry!Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference supporting the line about Amiot Metayer's killing sparking the rebellion is not functioning properly. Please see if you can fix it so that it is linked to the article you have referenced.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I got the link from the actual 2004 rebellion article. What's wrong with it?

When you click on the reference number, it takes you to the reference section at the bottom of the page. When you click on the reference title, it takes you to a page that lists many articles, but I don't see the one you are referencing.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, I am summarizing the overall rebellion, first. I then (on the very next line) start listing all the accusations against the U.S. I get the feeling that we disagree on how seriously to take Aristide's claim that he was kidnapped. This is understandable. I am trying for a compromise. I am including all his claims. In the initial summary, however, I am including facts that we all probably agree on. I am giving a high level summary, first, then fleshing out the details. --Bertrc (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like a jarring jump out of chronological order to talk about the rebellion, then Aristide leaving the country, and then go back into the period before he leaves, and then cover his departure again. I think his departure is well covered when the story gets to that point.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not thinking of things chronologically, but of how to group information. We summarize the coup, and that summary ends with the fact that . . well the fact that facts are in dispute. We then detail that dispute. BTW, I don't entirely trust my judgement of some sources, so I have thrown it out to the wiki community: [[6]] --Bertrc (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a problem with the Metayer killing reference link. When you click on the title of the reference in the reference section, the page it takes you to is not the referenced story.Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"A total disaster"

The article is a mess --- a total disaster. It has been spammed by numerous anonymous contributors with apparent intent to conceal and distort the truth. It should be labeled "Disputed" and locked pending professional rewriting. Dagme (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If you have referenced material that is at odds with referenced material in the article, you can add it as a counterpoint. But the references should be news or magazine articles, books published by scholars, etc. and not partisan web page material.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of only Aristide, please.

Could someone please change the picture of Aristide to one that does not have him standing with Bill Clinton. I want to list Aristide as an inspirational person on my Facebook info page. But if I do so then this picture of Bill Clinton from this wikipedia article appears on my fb page. Clinton is NOT inspirational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.250.103 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I found what appears to be an official government portrait. Hopefully this will pass with the copyright police. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The image appears to be unacceptable. Does anyone have a copyright free photo of Aristide? Like one you took yourself? If so, please upload it at

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think deletion has been approved yet. From photo page: "Administrators: Ensure the claim of replaceability is sound and not legitimately disputed before deleting this file." and "Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the file please put "Rk" on the file description page. If the decision is to Delete please archive the discussion on the talk page between "Rtd" and "Rb" and delete the file page." Under the photo, on the article page, it also says, "It may be deleted after Sunday, 20 March 2011." Is Off2rio the closing administrator? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it as the claim of clearly unacceptable under wikipedia fair use policy, its been replaced as is the way of this wikipedia, lets see the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What licence was the previous picture under? Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please click on the photo to view the license information. Previous photo was a U.S. govt. photo from Wikimedia Commons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous picture was a commons compatible picture. This picture has a false claim of fair use, its unworthy of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous photo was of Bill Clinton meeting some black guy who was barely identifiable: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide . And why have Clinton in the photo? This photo is far superior. I've improved the rationale for fair use on the photo information page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You can write whatever you want there it won't alter the fact that the picture fails en wikipedia's fair use policy. Also regarding you comment - "it appears to be a widely distributed official government photo of Aristide as president, so the copyright, if any, is likely not owned by private person." - I think from discussions I have seen we don't speculate and opine about copyright, what we don't know we say we don't know. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems VERY LIKELY from the style of the photograph that this is not a news photo, a personal snapshot, or a commercial photo. I could be wrong, but it screams "official portrait of government official". Also, consider the source. It's being used by an academic web site beside images of other Haitian leaders. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Having VERY LIKELY in capitals won't make it a citable fact. You seem to think it is desperate to have a picture or as better picture, its not, and using non free pictures in the infoboxes of living people goes against the goals of the Wikipedia foundation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We can go round and round on this, but the experts are going to decide this apparently, so why bother arguing about it? I have requested that people upload their own photos above, so hopefully someone will do it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not an argument - you are insisting on keeping a non policy compliant picture in the infobox of a BLP, whats to argue about. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"File:Jean-Bertrand-Aristide.jpg" was deleted‎ WP:F7: Violates WP:non-free content criteria #1 - Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask if this deletion was done by an administrator who was overseeing the evaluation of the image. There was a process ongoing which requested that I complete a template and give detailed information about the image, and I was given a deadline of March 29 (I believe). So I'm going to restore the image and let the review process take its course. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't restore it because it's been completely deleted. How can I comply with the administrator's request? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try assisting in the foundations ambition of creating a educational reservoir of commons licensed pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't restore it because I deleted it as a replaceable non-free image — there's nothing you could say that would overcome the fact that this image doesn't pass our non-free content criteria. The decision has been done; unless you want to file a deletion review request, there's nothing more to be done. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an evaluation process of the image going on. An administrator had challenged the photo. I argued why it should be allowed as a fair-use image. Then the administrator replied with a template asking for more information about the image, and they gave me a deadline of March 29th (I think) to provide the requested info. I can re-upload the image easily enough, but that entire process will have to start over from zero. Can't you undue the deletion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is ever going to change that picture from being a non free replaceable picture of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of "due process"? I'm just trying to replace a very cheezy photo with a good one. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think due process was observed. I support disputed pictures from even being in articles until the dispute is resolved. I tweaked the current image a bit in an attempt to improve it, feel free to revert me if you think its worse. Foundation licensing policy is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests. Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I too would rather have an image that shows just him as well, but there's no way around the fact that your preferred image cannot pass our criteria for fair use. Please note that due process says that this image will pass into the public domain in several decades. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By "due process" I mean that the evaluation process was disrupted by the sudden deletion of the image, along with the record of the evaluation process up to that point. Why not let the process play out? If I really had no case, the administrator would have just deleted it himself. There's no way to restore the deleted information? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag March 2011

Why was this article tagged and what needs to be done, in your opinion, to make it more neutral point of view? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Template was added 11 days ago by User:RichardBond, diff - no attempt at discussion or explanation on the talkpage as such I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This profile is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. The material which is with in it could as presented could have come straight from his public relations office. Instead of allowing his detractors objections to be detailed they are dismissed with incomplete information and half truths. In a real democracy the various constituencies vote for politicians with platforms who support them. The politicians continue to support their constituents and platforms no matter who among them obtains the most votes and negotiate to obtain as much of their platform as possible.RichardBond (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please focus your issues on improvement and correction and I will work with you, please specify or attempt to improve and remove your issues with the content so as to speedily remove the advertisement template, which to be honest I disagree that the articel reads like an advert but I will attempt to correct your issues, please stay active on the talkpage so as to correct the issues asap, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not an advert, so I'm removed the template. Before restoring a NPOV tag, specific issues need to be raised, which they haven't yet been. Greenman (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)