Talk:Allan Nairn

Untitled

Trey Stone: several comments about your recent edits.

1. You changed this:

He interviewed US corporate executives there, who endorsed the death squads

To this:

He interviewed U.S. corporate executives there, who endorsed the repressive actions being taken by the country's military government

In the interview supplied as an external reference [1] he says explicitly:

I interviewed U.S. corporate executives there. They endorsed the death squads.

Why didn't he provide a quote? Shouldn't be too much to ask if he's such a superb investigative journalist.

2. You changed this:

In an article published in The Nation in 1994, Nairn broke the story of the US government's role in establishing and funding the Haitian paramilitary death squad, FRAPH (the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti).

to this:

In an article published in The Nation in 1996, Nairn raised questions about possible links between the U.S. CIA, DIA, and the anti-Aristide death squad FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti).

Was changing 1994 to 1996 just an editing error? Also, if you read his original reports, he did not "raise questions", he asserted it was true.

Fine, but that doesn't mean the Clinton admin's support of Aristide shouldn't be mentioned.

3. Then you added this line:

However, his report relies heavily on a single source, and the Clinton administration had publicly come out against the Haitian military regime of General Raoul Cédras, accused of supporting the group. Furthermore, the deposed Jean-Bertrand Aristide was reinstated as President of Haiti through U.S. military intervention in 1994.

This is blatant editorializing. Unless you can attribute this POV to someone, with a citatation, I will delete it.

The tone is a little much, but like I said before, the article gives the false impression that the U.S. was unambiguously hostile to Aristide, and that needs to be fixed.

Thanks, -- Viajero 08:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have once again removed this editorializing. -- Viajero 10:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone: in your most recent edit summary, you wrote: i've proven my case, i will not discuss this any further. What kind of childish petulance is this? You haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of your argument. -- Viajero 21:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I did make a comment, only to have it deleted by you. J. Parker Stone 21:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

First off, I skimmed a TWT article originally by Nairn, and in Guatemala he seems to have been referencing the Guatemalan business elite. You provided a quote where he claims American businessmen supported the death squads, but if this is true, surely as a superb "investigative journalist" he can give us a quote from one such executive.

Secondly, his evidence surrounding U.S. "support" of Constant is not conclusive, and contradictory to the Clinton admin. policy of restoring Aristide to power. This needs to be noted. J. Parker Stone 21:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet again you're offering original research. You might think that an action, event, or state of affairs conflicts with a certain politician's or government's stated policy, but that's not sufficient reason reason for excluding it from the article. You need to provide evidence for your views, not assumptions and appeals to what seems to you to make sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What "seems to me" to make sense makes sense to any rational person not blinded by a kneejerk distrust of U.S. foreign policy. The Clinton admin. said that the Cedras regime had subverted democracy in Haiti. It intervened in 1994 and successfully secured the resignation of Cedras through threat of military action. It's not that hard to comprehend. J. Parker Stone 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's original resarch, unbacked up by evidence. That's all there is to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

so are you saying that it's disputed that the U.S. restored Aristide to power? if so i'm gonna have a hard time taking you seriously J. Parker Stone 22:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not the fact that's underdispute, but the original-research conclusions that you draw from it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the U.S. restored Aristide to power. But this fact does not "disprove" that the U.S. also backed FRAPH. Nairn explains why in this interview: [2]. -- Viajero 23:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

paying Constant as an informant does not equate to unequivocal support of FRAPH's actions. J. Parker Stone 23:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine, back that assertion up with a citation which disputes Nairn's findings, and we'll add it to the article. -- Viajero 23:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, it's not my fault no one takes Nairn seriously enough to discuss his charges J. Parker Stone 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But it is your fault that you insist on putting unverifiable conjecture into the article against Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey, the citation you provided was worthless. It simply established that Clinton restored Artistide to power in 1994, something we have never disputed. It in no way butresses your interpretation of that support. -- Viajero | Talk 14:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

ATTN Davenbelle

The allegations are controversial, and I have fully justified my edits. Please stop this incessant reverting. J. Parker Stone 06:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Allan Nairn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040958/http://www.rfkmemorial.org/legacyinaction/1993 to http://www.rfkmemorial.org/legacyinaction/1993/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322060554/http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk/prev/prev90.html to http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk/prev/prev90.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329174330/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6960 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6960

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)