Talk:Michael Deibert

From TLP
Revision as of 13:38, 6 August 2011 by Stumax (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Re libel accusations

If there is anything defamatory on this page, please state why so we can have a discussion about it, deleting content is not acceptable. Doe 16:12, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Balance of article

This article lacks balance and will need to be edited further. Hfhfhfh 16:41, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Removing content is not an acceptable way to resolve differences. Discussion is. The article doesn't necessaryly have to be balanced.
For example there isn't a single pro-slavery argument on TLP or Bonaparte isn't exactly portrayed in the most positive of lights.
This is to be expected in any written material that is ultimately about one of the three great revolutions of the late 18th century.

--Doe | talk 18:34, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Article is an attack page/factually inaccurate

Please specify as to why this is an attack page! Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

This article is factually inaccurate on several points and as such must be amended.

No, all the points you call inaccurate are referenced. Who says that the article must be amended?

-Doe | talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

1. "Extreme right wing stance"

Deibert is in fact left-wing, and has vocally supported a multitude of progressive causes both within and without Haiti. For example

A. Deibert is a strong supporter of Haiti's peasantry

The international community's responsibility to Haiti [1]

Haiti’s peasantry key to reconstruction [2]

Deibert also is fond of the Haitian sweatshop magnate Andy Apaid. Case in point: none!
If Deibert perceives himself left-wing it is his right to do so. I am more concerned with how others perceive his journalism. See references. Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

Deibert never wrote line in favor of Apaid, this is disinfo.

You ahem Deibert interviewed this character for his book, I cannot recall any other serious author given Apaid even one line in their books given Apaid's sordid history in Haitian politics.

--Doe | talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

B. Deibert is a strong defender of the rights of Haitian immigrants in the Dominican Republic

Exhibit Reveals a Bitter Harvest

A disgraceful campaign by the government of the Dominican Republic available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

An Appeal to Decency on behalf of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent [3]

C. Deibert was a strong supporter of the election of U.S. President Barack Obama

Why I am voting for Barack Obama available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

D. Deibert was a strong supporter of health care reform in the United States

The Guns of August available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

I wrote: "[Deibert] has been criticized for what is perceived as his extreme right wing stance in regards to his reporting on Haitian politics as well as factual errors" that I can back up with references.
What Deibert thinks about Barack Obama and other topics is inconsequential in evaluating his stance on Haitian politics and his involvement in reporting on it. -Doe | talk 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

2. "Frequently criticized"

Deibert has as many defenders as critics, both within Haiti and without. For example:

"Indefensible: On Aristide, Violence, and Democracy" by Alex Dupuy available on -Doe | talk 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

""L’aventure onusienne en Haiti" by Jean-Claude Bajeux [4]

"Author gives insight into Haitian politics" by Char Miller

"The rise and fall of Haiti's 'savior'" by Don Bohning (removed link to wing Haitian website) --Doe | talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

Anna Ferdinand on Martissant available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT) l

In Defense of Michael Deibert by Gerry Hadden available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

The fact that several authors have praised Deibert for his writing on Haiti does not diminish the fact that there are also many voices from Haiti and abroad that fervently critique Deibert for his witing. -Doe | talk 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

In order to make article accurate, other views must be presented, views now are only critical ones.

Please do read the article again, first of all other views are presented and second "other views must be presented" is whose rule anyway?
Do you want to tell me that I am obliged to present Charles Victor Emmanuel Leclerc in a positive light as well?
Think again. After all Deibert as can be seen from the linked to articles, doesn't care about any such notions.
Where is Deibert's objective portrayal of say Jean-Bertrand Aristide? Right, I thought so too!

-Doe | talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

3. Patrick Elie

The statements linked to by Patrick Elie - who was imprisoned in the United States for several years for lying - are potentially libelous and open both the website and editor Dominique Esser to possible legal action. See Final notes on Patrick Elie available on Doe 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

Patrick Elie is a well respected commentator on Haitian politics and appears frequently on Al Jazeera, Democracy Now and other media outlets.
The articles by Elie about Deibert's writing are posted on many websites, none of which so far has had a libel suit brought against them.
I merely provided links for the users convenience. That does not imply by any means that I endorse everything Elie says about Deibert.Doe 08:46, 20 July 2011 (PDT)
For More on Patrick Elie see: PATRICK ELIE: CRIMINAL OR POLITICAL PRISONER? Haïti Progres. April 2 - 8, 1997 Vol. 15, No. 2 Accessed on July 20, 2011

-Doe | talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

Patrick Elie is also a convicted felon, also convicted of lying: [5]. Important to put this information before the public and let them decide about his reliability.

Ah, convicted felons can't be trusted?
First of all this was a political case and second tell that notion to prosecutors which constantly use the testimony of people convicted of crimes.
Furthermore Patrick Elie has a very long track record of political engagement and is a frequent commentator onHaiti in the international media.
Deibert/you and the rest of the media world seem to be in disagreement here.

4. Characterization of only "right-wing" opposition to Aristide is false.

Many critics were left wing. For example, the Solidarité Fanm Ayisyen (SOFA), Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (PAPDA), etc. See "A Tribute to Jacques Roche, Tireless Defender of the Poor!" [6]

Who said that only the right wing opposed Aristide? Obama for example did want to prevent his recent return to Haiti. The current POTUS is commonly not referred to as rightwing...
What I wrote, not my opinion but that of others, is that Deibert seems to espouse right wing views in his reporting on Haiti. -Doe | talk 08:44, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

5. Violation of copyright.

The photo linked to/used is a copyrighted imaged and may open the website and editor Dominique Esser to legal action.

removed many links that point to Michael Deibert's website: (please go there for the articles) Doe 18:46, 19 July 2011 (PDT)

Re: Violation of Copyright by posting a link to an image on Michael Deibert's website/blog

Not wanting to go again into the not very well argued claims of defamation, one thing about copyright: If I were to reproduce an image without its creators consent, I might be liable for copyright infringements.
Posting a link to an image that is published on the internet is by no stretch of the imagination a copyright violation.
As someone creating media I am very well aware of copyright and I would never use the pages of TLP to disseminate potentially copyrighted material and rather err on the side of caution Doe 08:47, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

Article needed cleanup

Article needed a lot of work, needed to address praise of Diebert's work as well as criticism. He is supported by some pretty well-know Haitian intellectuals and others. I added some links to add perspective. (unsigned comment)

Deletion proposal

I strongly disagree with the deletion of this page.
Michael Deibert is relevant to Haiti and its history because he is a (contemporary) writer and journalist that continues to publish articles that are concerned with the history of Haiti. As such his views and by extension that of the main-stream media for which Deibert writes, need to be analyzed in the context of +200 plus years of reporting on Haiti in the aftermath of its revolution which increasingly is viewed as one of the three revolutions that decisively shaped our modern age.
Haiti has been and continues to be misrepresented especially in the U.S. media and numerous commentators and observers have eloquently elaborated on how this has continued to shape the Haitian status quo. A speech by the great orator Frederick Douglass immediately comes to mind (Frederick Douglass lecture on Haiti (1893)). Upon reading this speech, given almost a century after Jean-Jacques Dessalines unparalleled feat of liberating Haiti, one can trace a clear line from pre-revolutionary reporting to 19th century commentary as well as to current media contributions about Haitian history. The way Haiti is (mis-) represented cannot be isolated from past attempts of journalists to both diminish and distort the achievements of Haiti and its people. While it would be of no use to compare Jean-Bertrand Aristide to Toussaint Louverture and his contemporaries, both were maliciously attacked by the press and the North American public was left with rather incomplete and often knowingly wrong reporting that resoundingly shaped the discourse and in the aftermath harmed both Haiti's interests as well as these of U.S. citizens that wished nothing more then to gain information on important world events.
The page has not been controversial. As is plainly evident from the edit history: all edits seemingly come from one person and his or her sock-puppets as all edits deleting content under different user accounts attempted to replace the article with very similar text. [7] Entries on the discussion page claims (again various user names that only edited one article with always the same tenets) libel and copyright infringements without giving any substantiated evidence as to why Mr. Deibert would be harmed in any such way or why it would be incorrect to point out the backlash Deibert's articles have generated. The discussion of contemporary media as it pertains to Haiti is much easier to follow (as current readers will have a better understanding of how media correlates to public opinion and many articles analyzing the medias impact on Haiti are in circulation. [8] Removing voices from this vital discussion is not beneficial. Haiti's past has to be viewed with an understanding of Haiti's present or much of the information presented here will be utterly meaningless.
What exactly then is the editorial mission of this site? If Haiti's history cannot be put under the light of critical scrutiny when it comes to the analysis of how the media from outside its borders has never ceased to attempt to reframe its achievements, I believe the The Louverture Project might not continue to be the valuable source of information it has been. There is content on the pages of this Wiki that I mildly and strongly disagree with, but I would never attempt to censure by deleting or rewriting passages, nor would I ever delete anything outright without intense discussion. I also included material that I personally vehemently disagree with, such as some of Deibert's rebuttals, in order to let the reader come up with her own conclusions. --Doe | talk 17:14, 1 August 2011 (PDT)

This comment has also been posted on this article's discussion page and should be deleted from that page in the near future. --Doe | talk 17:14, 1 August 2011 (PDT)

Article should be deleted

This article in no way relates to promoting knowledge, analysis, and understanding of the Haitian revolution of 1791–1804 and is just an "attack" page. Accordingly, it should be removed. Entity

Deletion Proposal - response

Doe, I think your strongest argument here is that it's interesting and relevant to this wiki to draw the connections between the Haitian Revolution and modern-day journalism. That we might still be dealing with the overtones of that event 200+ years on would make for an interesting article.

But focusing on one journalist in particular out of the many that have written on Haiti doesn't enlighten us about this particular connection.

The mission of The Louverture Project is to document Haitian revolutionary history differently and more completely than any other online resource. I think it would be relevant to write about any specific misconceptions about Haitian history that are reported as fact in modern writings. But extending the wiki's mission to modern media criticism is out of scope.

I'm not saying this content shouldn't exist. I'm not judging Mr. Deibert or his writing. I'm only saying that this particular page/topic doesn't belong on this site. Deibert is a modern writer who mainly focuses on modern Haiti. A separate wiki with a different mission (or even Wikipedia) would be a more appropriate place to delve into modern writings on Haiti. --Stuart 13:38, 6 August 2011 (PDT)