Talk:2004 Haitian coup d'état

Question: would it be a good idea to add this map to this page? Reason I ask instead of just doing it: it's already on the Haiti page and might be redundant, but it might help others who are interested in this current event but unfamiliar with Haitian geography to find some of these locations.

Just a thought. RadicalBender 17:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to be able to follow the events on the map as they are mentioned in the article. Without a geographic idea of what's happening where, it's hard to get a full understanding of events. Many people, of course, might be interested in just reading about the rebellion without going to the main Haiti article. Everyking 17:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK then. I added the map towards the bottom where it begins to list place names. RadicalBender 18:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

French?

I am assuming that the proper names of the gangs and groups in this story are originally in French. Whenever possible, we need to provide in paranthesis the original French names. Kingturtle 06:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For example, what is the real name of the Cannibal Army? Kingturtle 06:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to the Buteur Metayer article, the Cannibal Army and the Artibonite Resistance Front are the same group. If this can be verified, it should be incorporated into the article.

terrific map to help tell this story

PDF sincerely, Kingturtle 06:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Causes

The paragraph about "causes" of the war is really poor. War is not a natural event like an earthquake; nothing "causes" it. Somebody decides to start it.

Also it's not clear that Aristide's rule is "democratic". It's not even clear WHAT the government of Haiti has been doing. Are legislators or judges elected periodically? Are local official elected? Why is there semi-slavery there? (See restavek.)

Way too many unanswered questions. Please do more research, I'm concerned. --Uncle Ed 21:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suggest a word or phrasing to use in place of "causes", if you don't like that one. Yes, the government of Haiti, to the extent that it still exists, is democratically elected. The article, like the event, is a work in progress. If you think it's lacking some information, add it. Everyking 22:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also: I'm concerned, too. I'm concerned that you mean to rewrite history to favor the rebels and the opposition (as I gather from your denial that Aristide's government is democratic), even though this article has been completely fair and even-handed. Everyking 22:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest speaking of the motivations of the rebels who started the war, rather than the "causes" of the war. Also, I want to know what the phrase "democratically elected" is supposed to mean. (Especially since I vaguely recall that there were irregularities in the election process which to some minds cast doubt upon its legitimacy.) The phrase is clearly not a synonym for "freely elected", because Haiti didn't have freedom of the press, or sufficient security for candidates: it was more like a "referendum" on whether we should keep our dictator or not, as South Korea did a couple of times before it really started to become democratic.

If no one really can answer my question, I'll have to do the research myself, but I'd prefer it if the people who seem to know more than me would just put the correct facts into the article. --Uncle Ed 14:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"An estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens are currently in Haiti. "

A bit ethnocentric, wouldn't you say? What significance does the US population have on this war any more than the population of Japanese or Kazakhstanis or Martians? Not everyone reading Wikipedia is from America and gives a damn only about the slight risk of American casualties in a foreign war.

Because the U.S. is considering sending in the Marines. The U.S. government is involved specifically with the history of Haiti. Kingturtle 22:03, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Morocco?

Is it for sure that Aristide is now in Morocco? All info I find just says that's one of many places he could be, including Dominican Republic, Panama, Taiwan... Garrett Albright 00:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Morocco has said he isn't welcome there. We'll just have to wait and see where he turns up (a matter of hours, I imagine). South Africa and Panama appear to be the strongest possibilities. Everyking 00:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll take Morocco out of the article, then. Bcorr, if you have a source for him being in Morocco, please cite it somewhere and edit it back in.

Aristide controversy

...since May 2000 when defeated political parties refused to recognise the results of parliamentary and local government elections. They claimed the landslide election victory by Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Lavalas Family Party was achieved through fraud and vote-rigging.

Uniting in the Democratic Convergence coalition, the opposition parties then boycotted the presidential election in November 2000 on the grounds that it, too, would be rigged. Aristide, whose first term as President had expired in early 1996 and who, according to Haiti's constitution, could not hold office for consecutive terms, stood more or less unopposed. He was duly returned to the National Palace and begun a second five-year mandate in February 2001. [1]

Above quotes I found on Google make it seem like Aristide was NOT democratically elected, but rather in direct violation of Haiti's constitution. The article should at least mention that there is a controversy over the legitimacy of his presidency. I would suggest that the phrase democratically elected not be used except as properly attributed POV. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the article does mention that: "According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, however, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of Haiti's 2000 legislative elections." It also says that Aristide's supporters BELIEVE that the rebellion was an attempt to overturn his democratic rule. So, isn't that NPOV? This is what makes me wonder about your own motivations here.

Okay, let me clarify: I'm for democracy, freedom and prosperity. To the extent that this conflicts with NPOV, I may need someone to hold me back! So before writing on a topic I feel strongly about I usually let off some steam on the talk page... Thanks, I feel better now :-) --Uncle Ed 19:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, if you want to cite articles, I think this one explains things a bit better: "Two elections took place in 2000. The first elections, in May, saw full participation by a range of political parties, including the Lavalas party of now-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In the May elections of legislators and municipal government authorities, Lavalas won by a landslide. Observers from the Organization of American States did not fault the conduct of the elections. However, in eight cases, the electoral council seated Senators who had won by a plurality of the votes, not by an absolute majority. Because these eight Senators were Lavalas party candidates, the opposition immediately cried fraud.

Knowing they would lose the presidential election in November 2000, the opposition Democratic Convergence refused to participate. They cited the eight contested senatorial elections as "proof" that the presidential vote would be rigged. In November, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected." [2] But I still think it's a moot point, because the article doesn't even say that he was democratic: just says his supporters think that. Everyking 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oy, the conspiracy theories are already batting about. Maxine Waters is claiming she has talked on the phone with Aristide's wife, who said that they were abducted out of their own country at gunpoint and claiming a coalition, including the US, engineered this rebellion. Needless to say, she made no mention of Aristide's legitimacy or lack thereof... Garrett Albright 18:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since democracy and free markets generally produce peace and prosperity, I conclude that it's likely Haiti lacks either democracy or free markets. But this is just theory. A really good article on Haiti's history -- not just the 2004 Haiti Rebellion would address this. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, there we have a fundamental disagreement, Ed. Democracy does not produce peace if there are people attempting to violently undermine democracy -- especially not if those people have backing from abroad. But I have no interest in debating personal ideologies here, except to say that it's generally wise to let your theories develop according to the facts, rather than letting your theories determine what you consider fact.

It seems to me that you are determined to criticize this article, but I don't see what your point in doing so is, unless you just want this to be a POV condemnation of Aristide in favor of some rebels who are known for having some very undemocratic credentials. Couldn't you talk about constructively adding things to the article instead of complaining that it dares to represent both sides? I changed the point about "causes" to "motives" days ago, and that is fine with me, but I would very strongly object to simply labeling Aristide an unconstitutional dictator without regard for a widespread belief and in contravention of the simple facts of this matter. Everyking 20:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we are in violent agreement. You seem to believe, as I do, that Democracy tends to produce peace. You also seem to believe, as I do, that there are people attempting to violently undermine democracy in Haiti. So I presume you would agree that violent opponents of democracy have prevented its emergence, growth and flowering in Haiti.

Anyway, I haven't said we should call Aristide bad and the rebels good. I am only saying we should avoid calling Aristide "democratically elected". He seems to have been declared the winner of a couple of votes, but we need clarification on whether those votes were "democratic". Saddam held an "election" in early 2003 and "won" 100.0% of the vote. No one really considers that vote to have any validity because there was no secret ballot, and men had to sign their names in the presence of a judge. --Uncle Ed 21:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like "won in a flawed election". He had agreed to not stand for election in 2000 in any case. Well before that he began reforming a group similar to the Tonton Macoutes (not sure of English spelling). Definatly not possible to be considered a Democracy when armed thugs go around enforcing political will. Rest assured, the rebels have got their own problems, and their own Swiss bank accounts to fill... Dominick 13:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I would not accept this phrasing in the article, because a great number of people do not believe the election was flawed, and you are taking that for granted. Everyking 14:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right, facts are not in evidence. I think perhaps the violation of the agreement we had, that Aristide would NOT stand in the 2000 election, is what I am referring to. In addition there were irregularities, people not free to go to the polls, ballots being lost, if that isn't flawed tell me what word is better. I think there are 'a great many people' that think SOMETHING was fishy with the 2000 election in Haiti.Dominick 15:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Attempts at democracy in Haiti

Preval's five-year term was beset by almost constant political crises. A deadlocked Parliament, allegations of widespread corruption, and resignations by key government officials impaired political, economic and social reform. On January 11, 1999, the four-year mandates of most local and legislative officials ended, while elections to replace them never occurred. Preval refused to extend their mandates, ushering in a period of rule by decree. On May 21, 2000, elections were finally held. A flawed method of counting votes and other irregularities assured the ruling Fanmi Lavalas Party of a sweeping victory. The Organization of American States pulled out its observers and the international community registered strong protests against the vote-counting methodology.

The opposition refused to accept the results of the May election and in protest, called for a boycott of the Presidential election scheduled for November 26, 2000. Despite numerous negotiation efforts, opposition leaders refused to participate, and the November election went forward with no international support. Jean- Bertrand Aristide was declared the winner. As of April 2001, the opposition does not accept Aristide as President, and the political crisis continues. --US State Department post report on Haiti

Misleading. The opposition boycotted on a pretext in order to discredit Aristide by giving ammunition to those who would point to his 91% of the vote and call him a dictator. They objected to the legislative elections because some (8) senators won with a plurality, but even if the opposition had won all 8 of those seats, it wouldn't have prevented a Lavalas majority. If all the facts are given in a forthright manner, you can word it any way you want. Everyking 22:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good, now we're getting somewhere. Please add to the article the idea that some advocates (and name them, if you can) assert that the opposition's boycott was merely a pretext to discredit Aristide. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I don't much care for the changes you've made. This sentence: "According to supporters of Aristide's government, the rebellion is a coup attempt by former soldiers of the now-disbanded army (which ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994) on behalf of the old elite of Haiti, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and democratic rule." does not require quotes around "populist" and "democratic", because the whole thing is "according to supporters of..." It is merely saying what they think. If in the following sentence -- "According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, however, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of Haiti's 2000 legislative elections." -- I was to add quotes around poor governance and rigging, that would look pretty silly too, don't you think? Everyking 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

image and table

can the image be put in the table so they are the same width? Kingturtle 02:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't say the magic word: please... how rude! --Maio 02:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Please :) Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Assaulters?

I think we can find a better word than assualters. Dissidents, inciters, provocateurs, rebels, revolutionaries? Kingturtle 02:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*shrug* I just copy/paste'd it from Battle of Mogadishu. Anyhow, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of 'assault' in any case. --Maio 02:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

How about just "attackers"? Also, if we wanted to standardize this model to use for other conflicts, words like rebels and inciters and revolutionaries wouldn't always apply. Everyking 02:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it means...and it isn't wrong....but i usually see assaulter used for sexual assaulter. So I thought we could use a different word. Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

this is a community effort

Everyking, this is a note just to remind you that this article is a community effort. Is ouster really that much better a choice of words than expulsion? You don't have to correct every single little detail seconds after they've been changed. Let other people participate. I don't want to feel like any edits I make here are going to be changed seconds later. Kingturtle 02:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got an edit conflict and was impatient to get what I had typed posted, so I just copied and pasted, not figuring that the difference between the two words would matter much. And though I do feel ouster is a better word to use, feel free to change it back if you want. Everyking 02:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Just be more aware that others are working here too, and that we are just as passionate. Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rebellion?

Lots of things are still happening in Haiti, which may or may not be properly covered by this article on the rebellion. Perhaps another article should be set up to deal with the political situation developing in post-Aristide Haiti, and this one should be reserved for the February 5 - 29 military conflict? Everyking 03:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ownership of this article

Everyking, you have made a lot of edits and most of the comments. But you do not own this article. You agreed, when you clicked the "save" button, that others may edit your words mercilessly.

Please be gracious in allowing others to add points of view (POV) that you do not agree with. Each POV must be properly attributed to its advocate, so if Jimmy Carter said the 2000 election was "completely and perfectly fair and a shining example of democracy at work", then:

The article will NOT say that the election was fair and democratic, but
The article will say that Carter called the election fair and democratic

I hope you understand the distinction between #1 and #2 above. The first makes the Wikipedia assert the point as a fact; the second merely reports that Carter asserts the point as a fact. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like for you to explain to me how this contradicts anything I have said or done, Ed. I think your attitude towards me and this article in general is quite counter-productive. Everyking 21:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, feel free to kick my butt! --Uncle Ed 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aristide fled the country on a US military aircraft?

Just removed that text until a valid reference is provided to back up that statement. --Maio 22:14, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Following weeks of violent protests, a U.S. military aircraft carried the displaced Aristide and his American wife, Mildred Trouillot Aristide, to the Central African Republic. [3]

Please put the text back now. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope, it was not a Military aircraft, [4] [5] all military aircraft have to have markings. An unmarked white Lear jet possible would have been a contractor, possible hired by a "three letter' agency. Dominick 16:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aristide was taken to the international airport, after he was made to sign a statement for Chief Justice Alexandre to be interim President, and flown out on a jet aircraft provided by the United States, to an unannounced destination. [6]

So many contradictory sources! How about, "flown out on an aircraft provided by the U.S."? with no mention if it was military or what type of aircraft it was? --Maio 16:34, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Other articles have alluded to that fact. I believe that COlin Powell admitted so much. This is not denied by the US government, and the trip is detailed best if you read this refernce. [7] So flown out in an aircraft provided by the US is the US governments position, and has the advantage of being NPoV AND true. (Thats a joke) Dominick 18:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about including all points of view...."According to the U.S...." "according to Aristide". Tell the reader both sides. Kingturtle 19:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

small r rebellion?

Why the change? Dominick 19:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a proper name. --Wik 19:21, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Conflict concluded?

Maio, I have to dispute your edit asserting that this conflict is ongoing. Skirmishes have continued in some places, apparently, but I think we can say that this conflict basically ended with Aristide's departure. There were skirmishes in parts of the country before February 5, too, but we haven't changed that date. Everyking 21:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with you, but someone removed the reference stating that "there are still many reports of gunfights and executions across haiti; no new government is recognized, old government still exists". IMO the rebellion was over on Sunday, February 29, 2004 at Port-au-Prince, Haiti when Aristide resigned, because afterall that was the purpose of the rebellion, to overthrow Aristide. --Maio 21:22, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)