Talk:Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Trey Stone: several comments about your recent edits:

1. You removed this paragraph in its entirety:
FRAPH was established by Emannuel "Toto" Constant, who went on the CIA payroll as an informant and spy in early 1992 (according to the Agency, this relation ended in mid-1994, but the following October the American Embassy in Haiti was openly acknowledging that Constant -- now a born-again democrat -- was on its payroll). According to Constant, shortly after Aristide’s ouster, Colonel Patrick Collins, a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), attache who was stationed in Haiti from 1989 to 1992, pressured him to organize a front that could balance the Aristide movement and do intelligence work against it (it is believed that members of FRAPH were working, and perhaps still are, for two social service agencies funded by the Agency for International Development, one of which maintains sensitive files on the movements of the Haitian poor).
The source for this information was given [1]. Please justify this deletion.
2. You changed this:
Allan Nairn revealed US government's role in establishing and funding
to this:
Allan Nairn raised questions about possible links between FRAPH and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and DIA.
If you read his original reports, he did not "raise questions", he asserted it was true.
3. You added this paragraph:
Given the fact that the Clinton administration publicly supported Aristide to the point that he was granted asylum in the U.S. and was restored to the presidency in Haiti in 1994, such alleged links between the DIA and FRAPH are contradictory to administration policy and could be a case of unauthorized actions that went unnoticed by the executive branch. Another possibility could be a lack of credibility from Nairn's research, given the fact that his report relies on Constant as the one primary source.
This is blatant editorializing. Unless you can attribute this POV to someone, with a citatation, I will delete it.

Thanks, -- Viajero 08:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, you deleted a source I cited, saying "Blum however is a nut in the Chomsky mold" [2]. I have a copy of Killing Hope here and the section on Haiti is solidly referenced (as is the book as a whole); he drew heavily on mainstream media reports (NYT, etc). It is clear that you don't agree with the politics of William Blum, but do you have any evidence that his scholarship is shoddy? Given the abundance of citations, it would be pretty easy for someone to discredit him if it was, but to the best of my knowledge no one has. -- Viajero 10:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why it makes sense for the Clinton administration to be backing an organization that was largely responsible for the Haitian refugee problem we had to deal with in Florida. The "editoralizing," as you call it, is there so readers know that the U.S. helped restore Aristide to power.

If we bring up issues of potential Bush-41 administration involvement in paying the founder as an informant, we also should note the Clinton administration's policy, rather than making it sound like both administrations were A-OK with absolutely everything this group did. 64.7.89.54 21:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that Trey Stone (talk · contributions) (failing to hide behind an anon. IP address) is again trying to change articles on the bases of what he thinks makes sense, rather than on the basis of the evidence. See Wikipedia:No original research. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Good article, still needs work

i'm thankful that this article (some months ago I guess) came a long way from just a "U.S. supported FRAPH, period" POV stance, but I think it's too bloated. the problem is that journalists like Nairn have somewhat of an upper hand here because this sort of thing just isn't widely discussed outside of magazines like Z-Mag and The Nation (certainly not anywhere in the MSM, aside from that 60 Minutes deal,) so there's not a whole lot of sources for potential rebuttal. might rework it later... J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)

if we can, we should avoid using sources like Blum's... like Chomsky, his writings contain a lot of factual data, but they're laced with a lot of commentary and conclusions on alleged motives that are mostly backed up through his personal suspicion and loathing of U.S. foreign policy. i don't object to Nairn, because even though he's a partisan he did some investigation on this subject. blum may have done some research but that doesn't change the fact that his writings are halfway between a factual account and a diatribe. a right-wing rant against Che Guevara was removed on that page (though admittedly that is more of a screed than Blum's) because it didn't add much, and i don't think this is a very good contribution to the article either. if anything, we should reference the sources cited in the article, which are more well thought-out. J. Parker Stone 22:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

"antidemocratic forces such as..." We are talking about FRAPH, not any other group. Furthermore, we have already established that they are rapists and butchers, so this is redundant.

"U.S. backing for" -- As the quotes in this article make clear, possible CIA and DIA involvement in the group's inception has been investigated, but this does not equate to unambiguous "support." Just because the CIA doesn't like Marxist-leaning liberation theologians doesn't mean that alleged Clinton pressures on Aristide to move away from socialist policies = "fake" support for Aristide. Blum is a radical political commentator. His opinions should not be elevated to encyclopedic truth. J. Parker Stone 22:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. I don't accept your claim that rape and butchery imply anti-democracy. The phrase "forces such as" is normal English style in this sort of sentence.
    1. point taken.
  2. Your reasoning doesn't support your removal of any reference to U.S. involvement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    1. i don't know what you're talking about, unless i accidentally removed something other than "U.S. support," which presents it as unambiguous when it is not. the U.S. involvement is detailed (probably over-detailed, almost entirely from the Nairn et al. perspective) in this article, and readers can draw their own conclusions. personally i would like a rewrite of the article so it's smoother and not overloaded with long quotes from various sources, but that'll take a while. i might propose some new changes later this week to be discussed with you and whoever else is interested in this article. J. Parker Stone 08:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Trey Stone: Please leave this article alone. Nothing you write above makes sense. You are trying to supress uncomfortable facts because they don't fit into your parochial worldview. William Blum, like Chomsky and McGhee, draw on mainstream media reports for their research, and their conclusions can easily be separated from their opinions. -- Viajero | Talk 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Viajero, most researchers draw on mainstream sources. What sets them apart are the conclusions they draw from such sources. I am not objecting to the Nairn investigation being put into this article. What I am objecting to is support for FRAPH being stated as if it is just that, done, over with. Nairn et al.'s arguments have to be compared to the fact that a) Clinton restored Aristide to power, b) the U.S. and UN funded a civilian police force (1994-96) to replace the military [3], and c) the Bush-41 administration condemned the coup and voted with the OAS to work toward economically isolating the junta. [4]. if Nairn thinks this is all smoke and mirrors that's great, but these facts should not be diminished. J. Parker Stone 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
btw, i apologize if my "parochial worldview" inclines me to believe that the U.S. government is decent enough not to genuinely support a group of mass rapists and butchers. the idea that we have some obsessive need for control in Haiti is ludicrous considering it produces barely anything of value to us. J. Parker Stone 10:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah! The idea that the United States would ever intervene in the affiars of a poor Carribiean nation is absurd! It's never happened! Descendall 09:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
*zzz* J. Parker Stone 09:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a good (and much more balanced than Nairn's) article on this that I'm reading in The Atlantic [5]. Unfortunately, you need a subscription. J. Parker Stone 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The problem here

Viajero wants to make the article entirely about proving that FRAPH operated with the full support of the U.S. I want to make the article an overview of FRAPH -including- a section on its ties to the CIA. I admit that the first section in initial rewrite reads a bit too much like Modern Haitian History, but I felt it was necessary to set up the background to the rise of the military regime.

I'm not saying thirdworldtraveler et al. are completely unreliable sources. I'm saying it's unacceptable to dump them into an article almost verbatim when they have a clear POV. And the long quotes, the majority of them from pro-Aristide sources, are also unnecessary -- Nairn's the guy who first broke this, so I figure he's the prime source we should reference on the CIA-FRAPH thing, again, without ultra-lengthy passages that slant the article. Then we can reiterate the Clinton admin's public support for Aristide, while referencing the NCHR guy on how he believes that there may have been some covert support early on, before the ugly nature of the group ran amok.

it's true that there aren't any hard facts that disprove Nairn's double-play theory, and the U.S. still has some classified FRAPH/FADH docs (actually, i thought i had read in the AM article that they may've been sent back to Aristide when Clinton was leaving in '01...gotta check,) but it is still his personal conclusion based on the observations he made. another explanation could be that the U.S. didn't like Aristide, and the CIA/DIA came in contact with Constant early on for purposes of forming a political organization that could "fill the void," but any semblance of support faded after they started their rampage post-Oct. 1993 (this would fit in with what the NCHR guy said.) this is "original research" because there was never a lengthy discussion in the mainstream media about it, but it seems to me infinitely more plausible to me than Mr. Nairn's Imperial IMF theory. there is also the likely official CIA explanation, which would be that Constant was just an intelligence asset, end.

my point is not to reintroduce the edits i was using when i first saw this article, but to just balance it so that is about FRAPH, not "The CIA paid Toto Constant." J. Parker Stone 10:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Your point is to downplay the role of USG support, not based on the evidence available but based on your beliefs in how the USG works. Constant is quoted in one of the sources we cite:
The FRAPH leader says that soon after Aristide's ouster an officer of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Col. Patrick Collins, pushed him to organize a front that could balance the Aristide movement and do intelligence work against it.
This clearly indicates that FRAPH was basically a creation of the USG, not an organization which "just had some links to the CIA" as you would like think.
Your other comments, as you admit yourself, are original research; it is pure speculation. Nairn's findings are not just a "theory" based on his "personal conclusions". He is an investigative journalist who spoke first-hand to sources like Constant and his report was published in a reputable periodical (The Nation). His findings haven't been refuted by anyone, except you.
As for your "Imperial IMF" sneer, it just reveals how little you know about hemispheric realpolitik. The US regards even dirt-poor countries like Haiti, El Salvador, and Bolivia as being of strategic economic importance, and its policies during the 20th C, an outgrowth of the Monroe Doctrine, go a long way in explaining why the region as a whole looks more like Africa than Eastern Europe or South East Asia in terms of economic development. -- Viajero | Talk 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
For the both of you, and to put the light upon the rather-fractious nature of this issue, I simply suggest that all viewpoints be included unconditionally, and that the only editing that should be done must be for sake of grammer and context, and those exclusively. I agree with you, Mr. Parker, that the article possesses a cumbersome amount of quotes, probably more so than would be considered healthy for the maintenance of this article's integrity. However, I also agree with you, Sir Viajero, that nothing that has been mentioned in this article at any point should be downplayed, however variant in perspective that it may be.
That said, I politely request that you, Mr. Parker-Stone [sic], put the quotes back in their respective places, while I also ask you, Mr. Viajero, to show some literal and grammatical regard to as many press and public statements (concerning this issue, exclusively) as possible, so as, again, to maintain the encyclopedic integrity of this article. Thank You both. --Toussaint 20:21, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

The intro uses quite strong words. Even tough they may be factually accurate, I´d rather see "brutalize and murder" as words quoted from specific stakeholders, not as coming from Wikipedia itself. For this reason, I label the intro as non-POV and kindly ask for some rewording. Cheers Doidimais Brasil 00:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

You've made no case for the intro being PoV (I'm not sure what you mean by "stakeholders" though). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the intro is POV. Some words, such as those pointed out by Doidimais Brazil are simply intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It is much like say "terrorist" does so in certain articles even though we may personally agree with the labeling.--Jersey Devil 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)