Talk:Jean-Bertrand Aristide

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)

• 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)

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.

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)

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)