Jump to content

Talk:Jean-Bertrand Aristide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pazouzou (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 9 July 2016 (→a different view: Worse than that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikileaks and Aristide

Doesn't this section fall under the definition of original research, i.e. using source material in support of claims that, themselves, are not cited? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research. It's factually accurate to say "President X of Country Y said this about Aristide in a 2005 cable revealed by through wikileaks." But The wiki policy is that secondary sources are preferred. I don't think most of this is really appropriate or necessary. We don't need the play-by-play of diplomatic discussions about his return to the country. Flyte35 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a different view

all the educated haitians i*ve spoken to say that a visit to haiti by c. rice just before the so-called coup made them deeply suspicious * ie it was a us backed ouster and not a home grown coup * this article totally lacks the depth deserved by a region with a long history of troubles * 75.147.48.65 (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC) grumpy the alien[reply]

This article is far worse than that. It is clearly written in the interests of the 2004 invader regimes -- principally the U.S. Government.
Pazouzou (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly Unbiased

This is probably one of the most biased articles I've seen on Wikipedia. The authors clearly believe that there is some conspiracy to keep Haiti down. Some of the sources are suspect at best and are little more than opinion pieces which are cited as "documented evidence." While contrary evidence is given lip service and often contains rebuttal evidence within the same section. Haiti has a long, long history of coups, revolts, high crime, major problems. While the rest of the Caribbean enjoys relative stability...why is that? If the US were some evil mastermind, wouldn't you see these things going on in the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, etc? You really only see it in Haiti. Maybe it's not an imaginary cabal of international forces that is affecting Haiti, but bad elements within? Culmo80 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Culmo80[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about presenting 'evidence' it is about giving sourced information. It is not investigation reports, but a kind of user-edited encyclopedia. If you dont like sources find others and add them to article.
This article is not about Haiti as a whole but about Aristide. Sources don't accuse US of affecting Haiti (although some may imply that) or masterminding its problems but of masterminding the forceful ouster of an elected president. Also, in fact there is no "imaginary cabal of international forces" in the article, only one international force.
Speaking of major problems of Haiti, United Nations Civilian Miision in Haiti found found that the human rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power. And Amnesty International reported that, after Aristide's departure in 2004, Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis." So even if foreign power influence isn't a root of internal problems, it is the cause of current situation. 94.41.46.85 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is not Haiti stable as its neighbors? Are you serious? It goes back to the "slave rebellion." France and the rest of the Western could not accept the loss of their "property" (the idea of free black men scared the living daylight out of Thomas Jefferson) and put Haiti under embargo. Haiti was then extorted to pay $90 million to France, which only worsened the situation: owing money while being isolated from the world. Haiti more or less paralleled the Dominican Republic during the first half of the 20th century. Then came Papa Doc and Baby Doc (the latter, ironically, got exile in France). The rest is covered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My, perhaps not unbiased, opinion is that attributing everything, or almost everything, that happens in and to Haiti to outside forces of whatever stripe ignores the fact that the Haitian people are entirely capable of handling their own business. This denial of the Haitian people's own agency is no less racist than many other attitudes some hold toward them. Not a criticism of the article necessarily, I'm just sayin'. 156.98.118.115 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of language definitely needs to be cleaned up.

Aristide is a controversial figure, with strong supporters and detractors, but the tone of some segments, particularly (at least to my eye) regarding more recent events surrounding his return to Haiti, really needs to be cleaned up and presented in a neutral tone (e.g., "Former Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is once again in the cross-hairs of the US government" For all I know that's true, but that's not the tone of an encyclopedia entry). I could do it, but I'd really rather someone more familiar with the subject matter take a sweep through and tackle it. AndrewThespis (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "evidence indicates that the rebel groups against the Aristide were armed abroad by US intelligence operations" per WP:EXCEPTIONAL

The link anchoring this claim was dead, and the only sources I can find making this assertion are repeating claims made by Ira Kurzban, Aristide's lawyer. A single source is not sufficient to justify inclusion of an extraordinary claim. Please see Wikipedia:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated, article needs to have a Neutral Point of View

Much of what the author(s) have said may be true, but the article needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view. Present the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. For example, accusations against the United States should not be in the first paragraph. Allegations of human rights abuses should not be qualified before they are actually presented. Phrases like "But more serious complaints," "Aristide is once again in the cross-hairs of the US government" "...the "little priest" was elected President in 1990 with 67% of the vote in what is generally recognized as the first honest election in Haitian history" - Well written for a book but not neutral. As opposed to "Aristide was elected President in 1990 with 67% of the vote in Haiti's first democratic election." "...he attempted to carry out substantial reforms" instead of "he attempted to carry out reforms such as bringing the military under civilian control..."

Etc., etc. Again this would work well for a book, but not as a neutral article for wikipedia. Thanks for writing it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.241.222 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually- "he attempted to carry out reforms such as bringing the military under civilian control..." is very informative and important. The KINDS of reforms he attempted to carry out are just as important as the fact that he tried to carry them out. Reform simply means to change, so "substantial reforms" could mean right-wing or left-wing changes. Understanding Aristide's policies and political stances is integral to understanding his place in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Hendrix (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claims against the Dominican government

The phrase "the drug-affiliated government in the neighboring Dominican Republic" has been removed from the "1991 coup d'état" section. This is an extremely serious accusation that is made without support. Of course, there may well have been cases of specific people who, at the time, worked at various levels of the Dominican government, and were involved with illicit drugs (same could be said about most governments on earth). But even if that claim was supported by sources (it isn't), it would not make the government, any government, "drug affiliated", whatever that means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgrod (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently ?

The article ends in 2011. So what has the subject been up to since then? SmokeyTheCat 18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good question. Charles Essie (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aristide and voodoo

Aristide at the very least officially recognized voodoo as legitimate religion, and some online sources suggest he practices it himself. That's pretty notable, especially for a former Catholic priest. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Do You Think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl9ZqDhX2c4

I'm watching this documentary which covers Aristide. Do you think this is a good resource for the page? --174.62.105.153 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Bertrand_Aristide&oldid=729051379"