text:
HMS Conqueror (1911)

HMS Conqueror was the third of four Orion-class battleship dreadnought battleships built for the Royal Navy in the early 1910s. She spent the bulk of her career assigned to the Home and Grand Fleets. Aside from participating in the failed attempt to intercept the German ships that had bombarded Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby in late 1914, the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 and the inconclusive action of 19 August, her service during World War I generally consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea.

After the Grand Fleet was dissolved in early 1919, Conqueror was transferred back to the Home Fleet for a few months before she was assigned to the Reserve Fleet. The ship was sold for scrap in late 1922 and subsequently broken up.

Design and description
The Orion-class ships were designed in response to the beginning of the Anglo-German naval arms race and were much larger than their predecessors of the Colossus-class battleship to accommodate larger, more powerful guns and heavier armour. In recognition of these improvements, the class was sometimes called "super-dreadnoughts". The ships had an overall length of 581 ft, a beam of 88 ft and a deep draught of 31 ft. They displaced 21922 LT at normal load and 25596 LT at deep load as built; by 1918 Conqueror's deep displacement had increased to 28430 LT. Her crew numbered 752 officers and ratings.

The Orion class was powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines, each driving two shafts, using steam provided by eighteen Babcock & Wilcox boilers. The turbines were rated at 27000 shp and were intended to give the battleships a speed of 21 kn. During her sea trials on 7 June 1912, Conqueror reached a maximum speed of 22.1 kn from 33198 shp. The ships carried enough coal and fuel oil to give them a range of 6730 nmi at a cruising speed of 10 kn.

Armament and armour
The Orion class was equipped with 10 breech-loading (BL) 13.5 in Mark V guns in five hydraulically powered twin-gun turrets, all on the centreline. The turrets were designated 'A', 'B', 'Q', 'X' and 'Y', from front to rear. Their secondary armament consisted of 16 BL 4 in Mark VII guns. These guns were split evenly between the forward and aft superstructure, all in single mounts. Four 3-pounder (47 mm) saluting guns were also carried. The ships were equipped with three 21-inch (533 mm) submerged torpedo tubes, one on each broadside and another in the stern, for which 20 torpedoes were provided.

The Orions were protected by a waterline 12 in armoured belt that extended between the end barbettes. Their decks ranged in thickness between 1 in and 4 inches with the thickest portions protecting the steering gear in the stern. The main battery turret faces were 11 in thick, and the turrets were supported by 10 in barbettes.

Modifications
In 1914 the shelter-deck guns were enclosed in casemates. By October 1914, a pair of 3 in anti-aircraft (AA) guns had been added. A fire-control director was installed on a platform below the spotting top before May 1915. Additional deck armour was added after the Battle of Jutland in May 1916. Around the same time, three 4-inch guns were removed from the aft superstructure. Two flying-off platforms were fitted aboard the ship during 1917–1918; these were mounted on 'B' and 'X' turret roofs and extended onto the gun barrels. A high-angle rangefinder was fitted in the forward superstructure by 1921.

Construction and career
Conqueror, named after a French fire ship, HMS Conqueror (1745), that had been captured in 1745, was the seventh ship of her name to serve in the Royal Navy. The ship was laid down by William Beardmore and Company at their shipyard in Dalmuir on 5 April 1910 and launched on 1 May 1911. She was commissioned with a partial crew on 23 November 1912, but was not completed until March 1913, after which the remainder of her crew arrived. Including her armament, her cost is variously quoted at £1,891,164 or £1,860,648. The last of the four Orions to be completed, Conqueror and her sister ships comprised the Second Division of the 2nd Battle Squadron (BS) of the Home Fleet.

World War I
Between 17 and 20 July 1914, Conqueror took part in a test mobilisation and fleet review as part of the British response to the July Crisis. Arriving in Portland on 25 July, she was ordered to proceed with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow four days later to safeguard the fleet from a possible surprise attack by the Imperial German Navy. In August 1914, following the outbreak of World War I, the Home Fleet was reorganised as the Grand Fleet, and placed under the command of Admiral Sir John Jellicoe. Repeated reports of submarines in Scapa Flow led Jellicoe to conclude that the defences there were inadequate and he ordered that the Grand Fleet be dispersed to other bases until the defences be reinforced. On 16 October the 2nd BS was sent to Loch na Keal on the western coast of Scotland. The squadron departed for gunnery practice off the northern coast of Ireland on the morning of 27 October and the dreadnought HMS Audacious (1912) struck a mine, laid a few days earlier by the German auxiliary minelayer SS Berlin (1908). Thinking that the ship had been torpedoed by a submarine, the other dreadnoughts were ordered away from the area, while smaller ships rendered assistance. On the evening of 22 November 1914, the Grand Fleet conducted a fruitless sweep in the southern half of the North Sea; Conqueror stood with the main body in support of Vice-Admiral David Beatty's 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. The fleet was back in port in Scapa Flow by 27 November.

Bombardment of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby

The Royal Navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic containing plans for a German attack on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby in mid-December using the four battlecruisers of Konteradmiral (Rear-Admiral) Franz von Hipper's I Scouting Group. The radio messages did not mention that the High Seas Fleet with fourteen dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts would reinforce Hipper. The ships of both sides departed their bases on 15 December, with the British intending to ambush the German ships on their return voyage. They mustered the six dreadnoughts of Vice-Admiral Sir George Warrender's 2nd BS, including Conqueror and her sisters HMS Orion (1910) and Monarch, and Beatty's four battlecruisers.

The screening forces of each side blundered into each other during the early morning darkness of 16 December in heavy weather. The Germans got the better of the initial exchange of fire, severely damaging several British destroyers, but Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, commander of the High Seas Fleet, ordered his ships to turn away, concerned about the possibility of a massed attack by British destroyers in the dawn's light. A series of miscommunications and mistakes by the British allowed Hipper's ships to avoid an engagement with Beatty's forces.

1915–1916
The Grand Fleet conducted another fruitless sweep of the North Sea in late December and, while trying to enter Scapa Flow in a Force 8 gale and minimal visibility, Monarch was accidentally rammed by Conqueror on 27 December. The former had to unexpectedly manoeuvre to avoid a guardship at the entrance and Conqueror could not avoid her. The latter ship's bow was badly damaged and she received temporary repairs at Scapa and Invergordon before proceeding to Devonport for full repairs, rejoining the Grand Fleet in March 1915.

On 11 April, the Grand Fleet conducted a patrol in the central North Sea and returned to port on 14 April; another patrol in the area took place on 17–19 April, followed by gunnery drills off Shetland on 20–21 April. Jellicoe's ships swept the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June, the fleet conducted gunnery practice and battle exercises west of Shetland and more training off Shetland beginning on 11 July. The 2nd BS conducted gunnery practice in the Moray Firth on 2 August and then returned to Scapa Flow. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea and conducted gunnery drills. Throughout the rest of the month, the Grand Fleet conducted numerous training exercises. The ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, conducted another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October. Almost three weeks later, Conqueror participated in another fleet training operation west of Orkney during 2–5 November and repeated the exercise at the beginning of December.

The Grand Fleet sortied in response to an attack by German ships on British light forces near Dogger Bank on 10 February 1916, but it was recalled two days later when it became clear that no German ships larger than a destroyer were involved. The fleet departed for a cruise in the North Sea on 26 February; Jellicoe had intended to use the Harwich Force to sweep the Heligoland Bight, but bad weather prevented operations in the southern North Sea. As a result, the operation was confined to the northern end of the sea. Another sweep began on 6 March, but had to be abandoned the following day as the weather grew too severe for the escorting destroyers. On the night of 25 March, Conqueror and the rest of the fleet sailed from Scapa Flow to support Beatty's battlecruisers and other light forces raiding the German Zeppelin base at Tondern. By the time the Grand Fleet approached the area on 26 March, the British and German forces had already disengaged and a strong gale threatened the light craft, so the fleet was ordered to return to base. On 21 April, the Grand Fleet conducted a demonstration off Horns Reef to distract the Germans while the Imperial Russian Navy relaid its defensive minefields in the Baltic Sea. The fleet returned to Scapa Flow on 24 April and refuelled before proceeding south in response to intelligence reports that the Germans were about to launch a raid on Lowestoft, but only arrived in the area after the Germans had withdrawn. On 2–4 May, the fleet conducted another demonstration off Horns Reef to keep German attention focused on the North Sea.

Battle of Jutland

In an attempt to lure out and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet, the High Seas Fleet, composed of sixteen dreadnoughts, six pre-dreadnoughts and supporting ships, departed the Jade Bight early on the morning of 31 May. The fleet sailed in concert with Hipper's five battlecruisers. Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic containing plans of the operation. In response the Admiralty ordered the Grand Fleet, totalling some 28 dreadnoughts and 9 battlecruisers, to sortie the night before to cut off and destroy the High Seas Fleet.

On 31 May, Conqueror, under the command of Captain Hugh Tothill, was the seventh ship from the head of the battle line after deployment. The ship may have had engine problems during the battle because she was having trouble maintaining 20 knots as a signal from Jellicoe at 17:17 instructed Thunderer to overtake Conqueror if she could not maintain speed. During the first stage of the general engagement, the ship fired three salvos from her main guns at one battleship at 18:31 without visible effect. She then shifted her fire to the crippled light cruiser SMS Wiesbaden, although the number of hits made, if any, is unknown. At 19:12, Conqueror fired her main guns at enemy destroyers without result and then again, at different destroyers at 19:25 with her aft turrets. This was the last time that the ship fired her guns during the battle, having expended a total of 57 twelve-inch shells (41 common pointed, capped and 16 armour-piercing, capped).

Subsequent activity
The Grand Fleet sortied on 18 August to ambush the High Seas Fleet while it advanced into the southern North Sea, but a series of miscommunications and mistakes prevented Jellicoe from intercepting the German fleet before it returned to port. Two light cruisers were sunk by German U-boats during the operation, prompting Jellicoe to decide to not risk the major units of the fleet south of 55° 30' North due to the prevalence of German submarines and mines. The Admiralty concurred and stipulated that the Grand Fleet would not sortie unless the German fleet was attempting an invasion of Britain or there was a strong possibility it could be forced into an engagement under suitable conditions.

In April 1918, the High Seas Fleet again sortied, to attack British convoys to Norway. They enforced strict wireless silence during the operation, which prevented Room 40 cryptanalysts from warning the new commander of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Beatty. The British only learned of the operation after an accident aboard the battlecruiser SMS Moltke forced her to break radio silence to inform the German commander of her condition. Beatty then ordered the Grand Fleet to sea to intercept the Germans, but he was not able to reach the High Seas Fleet before it turned back for Germany. The ship was present at Rosyth, Scotland, when the High Seas Fleet surrendered there on 21 November and she remained part of the 2nd BS through 1 March 1919.

By 1 May, Conqueror had been assigned to the 3rd BS of the Home Fleet. On 1 November, the 3rd BS was disbanded and Conqueror was transferred to the Reserve Fleet at Portland, together with her sisters. The ship was still in Portland as of 18 December 1920, but was transferred to Portsmouth before June 1921 when she relieved Orion as the flagship of the Reserve Fleet there. Conqueror was listed for disposal in June 1922 in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. On 19 December the ship was sold for scrap to the Upnor Shipbreaking Co. and she arrived at Upnor on 30 January 1923 to begin demolition.

title: HMS Conqueror (1911)


text:
HMS Thunderer (1911)

HMS Thunderer was the fourth and last Orion-class battleship dreadnought battleship built for the Royal Navy in the early 1910s. She spent the bulk of her career assigned to the Home and Grand Fleets. Aside from participating in the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 and the inconclusive action of 19 August, her service during World War I generally consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea.

After the Grand Fleet was dissolved in early 1919, Thunderer was transferred back to the Home Fleet for a few months before she was assigned to the Reserve Fleet. The ship was converted into a training ship for naval cadets in 1921 and served in that role until she was sold for scrap in late 1926. While being towed to the scrapyard, Thunderer ran aground; the ship was refloated and subsequently broken up.

Design and description
The Orion-class ships were designed in response to the beginnings of the Anglo-German naval arms race and were much larger than their predecessors of the Colossus-class battleship to accommodate larger, more powerful guns and heavier armour. In recognition of these improvements, the class was sometimes called "super-dreadnoughts". The ships had an overall length of 581 ft, a beam of 88 ft and a deep draught of 31 ft. They displaced 21922 LT at normal load and 25596 LT at deep load as built; by 1918 Thunderer's deep displacement had increased to 27416 LT. Her crew numbered 738 officers and ratings when completed in 1912 and 1,107 in 1917.

The Orion class was powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines, each driving two shafts, using steam provided by 18 Babcock & Wilcox boilers. The turbines were rated at 27000 shp and were intended to give the battleships a speed of 21 kn. During her sea trials on 5 March 1912, Thunderer reached a maximum speed of 20.8 kn from 27427 shp, although hampered by a boiler malfunction. The ships carried enough coal and fuel oil to give them a range of 6730 nmi at a cruising speed of 10 kn.

Armament and armour
The Orion class was equipped with 10 breech-loading (BL) 13.5 in Mark V guns in five hydraulically powered twin-gun turrets, all on the centreline. The turrets were designated 'A', 'B', 'Q', 'X' and 'Y', from front to rear. Their secondary armament consisted of 16 BL 4 in Mark VII guns. These guns were split evenly between the forward and aft superstructure, all in single mounts. Four 3-pounder (47 mm) saluting guns were also carried. The ships were equipped with three 21-inch (533 mm) submerged torpedo tubes, one on each broadside and another in the stern, for which 20 torpedoes were provided.

The Orions were protected by a waterline 12 in armoured belt that extended between the end barbettes. Their decks ranged in thickness between 1 in and 4 inches with the thickest portions protecting the steering gear in the stern. The main battery turret faces were 11 in thick, and the turrets were supported by 10 in barbettes.

Modifications
A prototype fire-control director was installed sometime before November 1912, on a platform below the spotting top. In 1914 the shelter-deck guns were enclosed in casemates and by October 1914, a pair of 3 in anti-aircraft (AA) guns were installed aboard each ship. Additional deck armour was added after the Battle of Jutland in May 1916. Around the same time, a pair of four-inch guns were removed from the aft superstructure. Two flying-off platforms were fitted aboard the ship during 1917–1918; these were mounted on 'B' and 'X' turret roofs and extended onto the gun barrels. A high-angle rangefinder was fitted in the forward superstructure by 1921.

Construction and career
Thunderer was the sixth ship of her name to serve in the Royal Navy and was laid down by the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company at their shipyard in Poplar, London on 13 April 1910 and launched on 1 February 1911. She was commissioned on 15 June 1912 at Devonport. Including her armament, her cost is variously quoted at £1,892,823 or £1,885,145. Thunderer and her sister ships comprised the Second Division of the 2nd Battle Squadron (BS) of the Home Fleet. The ship, together with her sisters HMS Monarch (1911) and HMS Orion (1910), participated in the Parliamentary Naval Review on 9 July at Spithead. They then participated in training manoeuvres with Vice-Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg commanding the "Blue Fleet" aboard Thunderer. On 13 November, the ship participated in comparative gunnery trials with Orion to evaluate the effectiveness of the former's gunnery director. Thunderer decisively outshot the latter ship, although some of her success was because her director was above the smoke that obscured the target from Orion's guns. The test was repeated in better conditions on 4 December and Orion performed much better, apparently beating Thunderer. The three sisters were present with the 2nd BS to receive the President of France, Raymond Poincaré, at Spithead on 24 June 1913. During the annual manoeuvres in August, Thunderer was the flagship of Vice-Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, commander of the "Red Fleet". On 4 November, Thunderer, Orion, the dreadnought HMS King George V (1911) and the predreadnought HMS King Edward VII fired at and sank the target ship HMS Empress of India to give their crews experience in firing live ammunition against a real ship.

World War I
Between 17 and 20 July 1914, Thunderer took part in a test mobilisation and fleet review as part of the British response to the July Crisis. Arriving in Portland on 25 July, she was ordered to proceed with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow four days later to safeguard the fleet from a possible surprise attack by the Imperial German Navy. In August 1914, following the outbreak of World War I, the Home Fleet was reorganised as the Grand Fleet, and placed under the command of Admiral Jellicoe. Repeated reports of submarines in Scapa Flow led Jellicoe to conclude that the defences there were inadequate and he ordered that the Grand Fleet be dispersed to other bases until the defences be reinforced. On 16 October the 2nd BS was sent to Loch na Keal on the western coast of Scotland. The squadron departed for gunnery practice off the northern coast of Ireland on the morning of 27 October and the dreadnought HMS Audacious (1912) struck a mine, laid a few days earlier by the German armed merchant cruiser SS Berlin (1908). Thinking that the ship had been torpedoed by a submarine, the other dreadnoughts were ordered away from the area, while smaller ships rendered assistance. On the evening of 22 November 1914, the Grand Fleet conducted a fruitless sweep in the southern half of the North Sea; Thunderer stood with the main body in support of Vice-Admiral David Beatty's 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. The fleet was back in port in Scapa Flow by 27 November. On 8 December, she sailed to Devonport for a brief refit to fix problems with her condensers.

1915–1916
Jellicoe's ships, including Thunderer, conducted gunnery drills on 10–13 January 1915 west of Orkney and Shetland. On the evening of 23 January, the bulk of the Grand Fleet sailed in support of Beatty's battlecruisers, but Thunderer and the rest of the fleet did not participate in the ensuing Battle of Dogger Bank the following day. On 7–10 March, the Grand Fleet conducted a sweep in the northern North Sea, during which it conducted training manoeuvres. Another such cruise took place on 16–19 March. On 11 April, the Grand Fleet conducted a patrol in the central North Sea and returned to port on 14 April; another patrol in the area took place on 17–19 April, followed by gunnery drills off Shetland on 20–21 April.

The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June, the fleet conducted gunnery practice and battle exercises west of Shetland and more training off Shetland beginning on 11 July. The 2nd BS conducted gunnery practice in the Moray Firth on 2 August and then returned to Scapa Flow. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea and conducted gunnery drills. Throughout the rest of the month, the Grand Fleet conducted numerous training exercises. The ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, conducted another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October. Almost three weeks later, Thunderer participated in another fleet training operation west of Orkney during 2–5 November and repeated the exercise at the beginning of December.

The Grand Fleet sortied in response to an attack by German ships on British light forces near Dogger Bank on 10 February 1916, but it was recalled two days later when it became clear that no German ships larger than a destroyer were involved. The fleet departed for a cruise in the North Sea on 26 February; Jellicoe had intended to use the Harwich Force to sweep the Heligoland Bight, but bad weather prevented operations in the southern North Sea. As a result, the operation was confined to the northern end of the sea. Another sweep began on 6 March, but had to be abandoned the following day as the weather grew too severe for the escorting destroyers. On the night of 25 March, Thunderer and the rest of the fleet sailed from Scapa Flow to support Beatty's battlecruisers and other light forces raiding the German Zeppelin base at Tondern. By the time the Grand Fleet approached the area on 26 March, the British and German forces had already disengaged and a strong gale threatened the light craft, so the fleet was ordered to return to base. On 21 April, the Grand Fleet conducted a demonstration off Horns Reef to distract the Germans while the Imperial Russian Navy relaid its defensive minefields in the Baltic Sea. The fleet returned to Scapa Flow on 24 April and refuelled before proceeding south in response to intelligence reports that the Germans were about to launch a raid on Lowestoft, but only arrived in the area after the Germans had withdrawn. On 2–4 May, the fleet conducted another demonstration off Horns Reef to keep German attention focused on the North Sea.

Battle of Jutland

In an attempt to lure out and destroy a portion of the Grand Fleet, the High Seas Fleet, composed of sixteen dreadnoughts, six predreadnoughts and supporting ships, departed the Jade Bight early on the morning of 31 May. The fleet sailed in concert with Hipper's five battlecruisers. Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic containing plans of the operation. In response the Admiralty ordered the Grand Fleet, totalling some 28 dreadnoughts and 9 battlecruisers, to sortie the night before to cut off and destroy the High Seas Fleet.

On 31 May, Thunderer, under the command of Captain James Fergusson, was the eighth ship from the head of the battle line after deployment. At 18:27 the ship briefly fired at the crippled light cruiser SMS Wiesbaden, although the number of hits made, if any, is unknown, until her view was blocked by other British ships. Less than an hour later, Thunderer sighted two German dreadnoughts visible between HMS Royal Oak (08) and HMS Iron Duke (1912) at about 19:15. She fired three salvoes of common pointed, capped (CPC) at the leading ship, but no hits were made and the second salvo was actually fired over the top of Iron Duke, before her view was totally obscured. After sunset, the battlecruiser SMS Moltke spotted the four Orion-class ships at 22:30 and signalled a challenge to Thunderer before sheering off. Fergusson chose not to engage without an obvious threat lest he reveal the location of the battlefleet. Thunderer fired just thirty-seven 13.5-inch shells (all CPC) during the battle.

Subsequent activity
The Grand Fleet sortied on 18 August to ambush the High Seas Fleet while it advanced into the southern North Sea, but a series of miscommunications and mistakes prevented Jellicoe from intercepting the German fleet before it returned to port. Two light cruisers were sunk by German U-boats during the operation, prompting Jellicoe to decide to not risk the major units of the fleet south of 55° 30' North due to the prevalence of German submarines and mines. The Admiralty concurred and stipulated that the Grand Fleet would not sortie unless the German fleet was attempting an invasion of Britain or there was a strong possibility it could be forced into an engagement under suitable conditions.

In April 1918, the High Seas Fleet again sortied, to attack British convoys to Norway. They enforced strict wireless silence during the operation, which prevented Room 40 cryptanalysts from warning the new commander of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Beatty. The British only learned of the operation after an accident aboard the battlecruiser SMS Moltke forced her to break radio silence to inform the German commander of her condition. Beatty then ordered the Grand Fleet to sea to intercept the Germans, but he was not able to reach the High Seas Fleet before it turned back for Germany. The ship was present at Rosyth, Scotland, when the High Seas Fleet surrendered there on 21 November and she remained part of the 2nd BS through 1 March 1919.

By 1 May, Thunderer had been assigned to the 3rd BS of the Home Fleet. On 1 November, the 3rd BS was disbanded and Thunderer was transferred to the Reserve Fleet at Portland, together with her sisters. She was temporarily recommissioned during the summers of 1920 to ferry troops to the Mediterranean and back. The ship was still in Portland as of 18 December 1920, but was converted into a naval cadet training ship at Rosyth beginning in February 1921. Thunderer recommissioned on 5 May, but did not begin her first training cruise until 24 June. The ship was relieved by the monitor HMS Erebus (I02) on 31 August 1926 and paid off at Portsmouth.

On 6 November, Thunderer was sold for scrap to Messrs, Hughes, Bolckow & Co. for £66,150. She was too deep in draught to enter their scrapyard in Blyth and so was partially stripped down at Rosyth. Even so, she grounded at the Blyth harbour entrance on 24 December. After she was refloated on 30 December, she went back to Rosyth to be further lightened, as her draught was still too deep to allow her to enter Blyth. She was towed from Rosyth on 12 April 1927 and reached Blyth two days later to finish demolition.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: HMS Thunderer (1911)


text:
Jesus of Nazareth (TV series)

Jesus of Nazareth (Gesù di Nazareth) is a 1977 epic television drama serial directed by Franco Zeffirelli and co-written by Anthony Burgess and Suso Cecchi d'Amico, which dramatizes the birth, life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It stars Robert Powell as Jesus, and features an all-star ensemble cast of renowned actors, including eight who had won or would go on to win Academy Awards: Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, Laurence Olivier, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Rod Steiger, James Earl Jones and Peter Ustinov.

Some scenes were added during the writing process, with some characters (such as Zerah) added for brevity or dramatic effect. Jesus of Nazareth depicts Judas Iscariot as initially well-intentioned, but later as a dupe of Zerah's who betrays Jesus largely as a result of Zerah's false platitudes and pretexts. However, in accordance with the Gospels, the film depicts Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea as sympathetic members of the Sanhedrin. Many of the miracles of Jesus, such as the changing of water into wine at the wedding at Cana, the transfiguration, and the calming of the storm, are not shown, although Jesus's healing of Jairus's daughter, healing the centurion's servant, the blind man and the crippled woman on the Sabbath, the feeding of the multitude, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead are presented.

Jesus of Nazareth premiered on 27 March 1977, on the Italian channel Rai 1, and was first aired in the United Kingdom, on 3 April 1977, on the ITV Network. It was a huge ratings success and received acclaim, with particular praise for Powell's portrayal of Jesus.

Plot summary
The narrative of Jesus of Nazareth is a kind of cinematic Diatessaron, or Gospel harmony, blending all four New Testament accounts. It presents Jesus as both God and man. During the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan, John speaks God's words "this is my beloved son." The familiar Christian episodes are presented chronologically: the betrothal, and later marriage, of Mary and Joseph; the Annunciation; the Visitation; the circumcision of John the Baptist; the Nativity of Jesus; the visit of the Magi; the circumcision of Jesus; the Census of Quirinius; the flight into Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents; the Finding in the Temple; the Baptism of Jesus.

Gospel accounts depicted also include the woman caught in adultery; the healing of Jairus' daughter; Jesus helping Peter catch the fish; the Parable of the Prodigal Son; a dialogue between Jesus and Barabbas (non-Biblical); Matthew's dinner party; the Sermon on the Mount; debating with Joseph of Arimathea; the curing of the blind man at the pool; the Raising of Lazarus (John 11:43); the Feeding of the Five Thousand; the entry into Jerusalem; Jesus and the money changers; the Parable of the Two Sons; healing the centurion's servant; dialogue with Nicodemus; the Last Supper; the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.

At the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus, Jesus is accused of blasphemy for calling himself the son of the God of Israel. Caiaphas announces "the LORD our God, the LORD is one", denying the God of Israel has a son. Ensuing scenes include Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent repenting; the judgment of Jesus by Pilate ("Ecce Homo"); the Johannine Passion Narrative (John 18–19; including the Agony in the Garden); the Carrying of the Cross; the Crucifixion of Christ (Sir Laurence Olivier's Nicodemus recites the "Suffering Servant" passage (Isaiah 53:3-5) as he looks helplessly on the crucified Messiah); the discovery of the empty tomb; and an appearance of the Risen Christ to his Disciples. The storyline concludes with the non-Biblical character Zerah and his colleagues gazing despairingly into the empty tomb. Zerah laments, "Now it begins. It all begins".

Cast
Starring Guest stars
 * Robert Powell as Jesus

 * Anne Bancroft as Mary Magdalene
 * Ernest Borgnine as the Roman Centurion
 * Claudia Cardinale as the Adulteress
 * Valentina Cortese as Herodias
 * James Farentino as Peter
 * James Earl Jones as Balthazar
 * Stacy Keach as Barabbas
 * Tony Lo Bianco as Quintillius
 * James Mason as Joseph of Arimathea
 * Ian McShane as Judas Iscariot
 * Laurence Olivier as Nicodemus
 * Donald Pleasence as Melchior
 * Christopher Plummer as Herod Antipas
 * Anthony Quinn as Caiaphas
 * Fernando Rey as Gaspar
 * Ralph Richardson as Simeon
 * Rod Steiger as Pontius Pilate
 * Peter Ustinov as Herod the Great
 * Michael York as John the Baptist

And Also starring With Co-starring
 * Olivia Hussey as Mary
 * Cyril Cusack as Yehuda
 * Ian Holm as Zerah
 * Yorgo Voyagis as Joseph
 * Ian Bannen as Amos
 * Marina Berti as Elizabeth
 * Regina Bianchi as Anne
 * Maria Carta as Martha
 * Lee Montague as Habakkuk
 * Renato Rascel as The Blind Man
 * Oliver Tobias as Joel

 * Norman Bowler as Saturninus
 * Robert Beatty as Proculus
 * John Phillips as Naso
 * Ken Jones as Jotham
 * Nancy Nevinson as Abigail
 * Renato Terra as Abel
 * Roy Holder as Enoch
 * Jonathan Adams as Adam
 * Lorenzo Monet as Jesus aged 12 years
 * Robert Davey as Daniel
 * Oliver Smith as Saul
 * George Camiller as Hosias
 * Murray Salem as Simon the Zealot
 * Tony Vogel as Andrew
 * Michael Cronin as Eliphaz
 * Steve Gardner as Philip
 * Derek Godfrey as Elihu
 * Renato Montalbano as Jairus
 * John Duttine as John
 * Michael Haughey as Nahum
 * Keith Skinner as Possessed Boy
 * Cyril Shaps as Possessed Boy's Father
 * Jonathan Muller as James, son of Zebedee
 * John Tordoff as Malachi
 * Isabel Mestres as Salome
 * Bruce Lidington as Thomas
 * Keith Washington as Matthew
 * Mimmo Crao as Jude Thaddeus
 * John Eastham as Bartholomew
 * Sergio Nicolai as James, son of Alphaeus
 * Francis de Wolff as Simon the Pharisee
 * Antonello Campodifiori as Ircanus
 * Paul Curran as Samuel
 * Tim Pearce as Rufus
 * Mark Eden as Quartus
 * Bruno Barnabe as Ezra
 * Simon MacCorkindale as Lucius
 * Forbes Collins as Jonas
 * Lionel Guyett as Haggai
 * Martin Benson as Pharisee
 * Peter Harlowe as Valerius
 * Carl Forgione as Plotinus
 * Donald Sumpter as Aram
 * Pino Colizzi as Jobab
 * Robert Brown as Pharisee
 * Harold Bennett as Elder
 * Robert Mallard as Quazra
 * Abdelmajid Lakhal as the Farisaeum
 * Christopher Reich as Circumcision Priest and as Metellus

Previous collaborations with Zeffirelli
Several cast members had already featured in previous Zeffirelli productions. British actors Hussey, York, Holder, Lovell and Skinner had featured in Romeo and Juliet as Juliet, Tybalt, Peter, Sampson and Balthasar respectively. Additionally, Olivier did uncredited work as the narrator and dubbing voice of Lord Montague. Colizzi, who appeared as Jobab, had previously dubbed York's Tybalt in the Italian version of Romeo and Juliet.

Development
The drama was conceived when Lew Grade was received by Pope Paul VI, who congratulated him on the making of Moses the Lawgiver, a 1974 television film starring Burt Lancaster and produced by Grade's ITC Entertainment and the Italian television network RAI. At the end of the interview, the Pope told him he hoped his next project would be about the life of Jesus. Two weeks later, while dining with an RAI executive, Grade told him he intended their companies to prepare such a film. Directing duties were offered to Franco Zeffirelli – a religious Roman Catholic who knew the Pontiff from his days as the Archbishop of Milan, when he often visited Zeffirelli's school – on the Pope's initiative, who insisted that either he would make Jesus of Nazareth or no one else. The director rejected the proposal at first, but Grade finally convinced him to agree; he accepted the job shortly before Christmas 1973.

Screenwriter Anthony Burgess later recounted the launching of the project in an essay entitled "Telejesus (or Mediachrist)":"The notion of making a six-hour television film on the life of Jesus Christ was proposed by an enobled British Jew, with the golden blessing of an American automobile corporation. The project struck some as blasphemous, others as ecumenical. Lord Grade, then Sir Lew Grade, presided over a massive press conference in the Holy City, (Rome), and said all that was available to be said—namely, that there would be this film, that Zeffirelli would direct it, and that Burgess would write it. Fired by this announcement, the Romans laid on a great, as it were, First Supper, which the Chief Rabbi of Rome attended, as well as various cricket-playing British ecclesiastics. Sir Lew Grade was made a Cavaliere of the Republic. The Pope was noticeably absent."

Both Grade and Zeffirelli insisted their adaptation of Jesus's life should be "ecumenical", coherent, even to non-believers, and "acceptable to all denominations". To ensure the film's accuracy, the producers consulted experts from the Vatican, the Leo Baeck Rabbinical College of London, and the Koranic School at Meknes, Morocco. However, when Zeffirelli asked Rabbi Albert Friedlander to help him create Jesus's Bar Mitzvah scene, the latter replied that such ceremonies were practised only from the 15th century. The director, however, insisted on including it, and Friedlander tried to teach child actor Lorenzo Monet to read a short portion of the Pentateuch in Hebrew. Monet, however, mumbled it and the director was not satisfied (in the film, boy Jesus reads mostly in English).

Filming
Principal photography was carried out in Morocco and Tunisia from September 1975 to May 1976. The synagogue scenes were shot with extras from the Jewish community in the island of Djerba. The city of Monastir in Tunisia served as 1st-century Jerusalem. Ernest Borgnine, who portrayed Cornelius the Centurion, recalled that since regulations required hiring local extras—most with poor English—for many of the smaller roles, they had to be dubbed. Zeffirelli decided to avoid recording sound altogether in many parts, and simply send the principal actors to dub their own characters in the studio later. The standing sets of the film were later used by the British comedy troupe Monty Python for their religious satire Life of Brian (1979).

Reports regarding the size of the drama's budget vary: Presbyterian Survey stated it was $12 million, The Listener cited the figure of £9 million (roughly $16 million), while Third Way stated it cost £11.5 million (roughly $20 million). Other sources give the sum of $18 million. In his autobiography, Grade wrote that "in the final accounting, Jesus of Nazareth took $45 million."

Casting Powell as Jesus
The producers at first considered choosing a well-known star, who would draw a large audience, for the role of Christ. The first actor thought of was Dustin Hoffman, and Al Pacino was also a candidate. Zeffirelli decided to look for an actor whom the audience would immediately identify as Jesus. For example, Hoffman and Pacino both stand at just 5'6", and neither man's face bears a resemblance to Jesus as depicted in art, which has been based for many centuries on the image found on The Shroud of Turin. The image on the shroud is that of a man who is six feet tall. Eventually, the character's likeness was influenced by Warner Sallman's portrait painting Head of Christ: Paul Harvey and Edward J. Blum wrote the show "put Sallman's imagination in motion". The Virgin Mary was depicted by Olivia Hussey.

The idea to cast Robert Powell originated with Grade's wife, Kathie Moody, who told her husband the actor had "wonderful blue eyes" after watching his performance in a BBC television adaptation of Jude the Obscure. Powell came under criticism from religious groups for "living in sin" with his companion, dancer Barbara Lord of Pan's People, while intending to portray Jesus. The couple married shortly before production began. As of 2023, Powell and Lord have been married for 48 years.

Powell rarely blinks throughout the entire film, mimicking, in this respect, H. B. Warner in 1927's The King of Kings and Max von Sydow in 1965's The Greatest Story Ever Told. This effect was a deliberate decision by Zeffirelli. James Houlden commented that the result was "a penetrating, unrelenting eye contact with Jesus's." A dark blue eyeliner was applied on set to accentuate Powell's blue eyes. Powell's portrayal has since become an often-used image in popular devotional art, and "defined the visual image of Christ in the minds of the audience... Perhaps more than any other Jesus film."

For the crucifixion scene, Powell starved himself on a diet of only cheese for twelve days prior to shooting "in order to look worn".

Broadcasts and ratings
Jesus of Nazareth premiered on the Italian channel Rai 1 on 27 March 1977. It was broadcast in five episodes, one shown every week until 25 April. On Palm Sunday, 3 April 1977 – the date of the airing of the second episode – the Pope endorsed the programme in his public address for the holiday and recommended the faithful to view it. The series enjoyed high ratings: the German Dominican friar and film critic Ambros Eichenberger reported that according to local surveys, 84% of the television owners in the larger cities watched the series. For example, the number of viewers for the third episode, aired on 10 April, was estimated to have been 28.3 million.

In the United Kingdom and in the United States, it was broadcast in two parts, albeit in different lengths, by the ITV network in the UK and by NBC in the US. In both countries, the first part was aired on 3 April and the second on Easter, 10 April 1977. During its original showing in the UK, Jesus of Nazareth had an estimated audience of 21 million viewers.

When the first episode was broadcast in the US, it was a major success. The New York Times reported it "swamped all competing programs on Sunday night", with overnight Nielsen ratings of 53% in Los Angeles and 46% in New York City. The miniseries as a whole received a Nielsen rating of 30.8 points, with each point representing approximately 712,000 television-owning homes, and an audience share of 50% nationwide, on both nights. The company calculated that Jesus attracted about 90 million viewers.

In West Germany, it was broadcast by ZDF in four episodes on the 19th, 21st, 23rd and 24 March 1978; 40% of the audience have viewed it.

Jesus of Nazareth turned into a massive commercial success and is one of the most widely marketed, most critically acclaimed and best-known productions about Christ's life. Lew Grade stated that it made "a net profit of $30 million."

Critical reception
Famously, Pope Paul VI praised Zeffirelli’s film, both in private comment and in a public address on Palm Sunday prior to the miniseries’ Holy Week debut on Italian television.

Reviews were also notably positive. Writing for The Washington Post, Tom Shales was effusive: “One is tempted to call it a miracle… [Zeffirelli] has an eye for composition and lighting that is unprecedented in television films…There may never have been a religious film with so pervasive a sense of place and period…. The intrinsic dramatic and symbolic values of the story, which have eluded past filmmakers, come through with striking clarity”. Shales praised Olivia Hussey as Mary for being “simultaneously fragile, mystified and strong”. However, “Powell's appearance [as Jesus] is a drawback here. Though it may be commendable that he in no way resembles the fair-haired Aryan stereotype dominant in such films for years, Powell looks so wan and gaunt that one fears for his health. The work is, despite flaws, a truly impressive accomplishment.”

Robert Powell's performance as Jesus in particular has been praised by critics.

Controversy
Before its initial broadcast, Jesus of Nazareth came under ideological fire from some American Protestant fundamentalists, led by Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, and Dr. Bill Bright, because they felt the TV movie had to have the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be true to the Gospel account. Zeffirelli had told an interviewer from Modern Screen that the film would portray Jesus as "an ordinary man – gentle, fragile, simple". Jones interpreted this as meaning that the portrayal would deny Christ's divine nature. Having never seen the film, Jones denounced it as "blasphemy". Others picked up the cry and 18,000 letters were sent to General Motors, which had provided $3 million of the film's cost. Sacrificing its investment, GM backed out of its sponsorship. Procter and Gamble eventually took it over, buying the U.S. rights for a relatively low price of some $1 million. Their financial support allowed the mini-series to be screened after a simulated resurrection was added at the suggestion of Dr. Ted Baehr, a theologian and media pundit, who was friends with the producer, Vincenzo Labella, and acquainted with the protesters. The scenes showed the empty tomb, and then cuts to Jesus discussing his death and resurrection with his disciples.

Narrative deviations from the Gospels
Although the film has been received as generally faithful to the Gospel sources, and more comprehensive than previous film versions, Zeffirelli and his screenwriters found it necessary to take some liberties with the scriptures for purposes of brevity and narrative continuity. Some of these deviations have a basis in time-honoured, extra-Biblical traditions (e.g., that the infant Jesus was visited by three "kings"; the Bible calls them magi or "astrologers", yet does not state how many there were). Other deviations were invented for the script:
 * Perhaps the greatest liberties taken in the screenplay are interpretations of the motivation of Judas Iscariot in betraying Jesus to the authorities prior to his arrest and execution. In contrast to the Gospels – which vilify Judas as a thief who stole from the Disciples’ money purse (John 12:6) and betrayed his Master simply for money (Luke 22:5) – the film portrays Judas as a much-misunderstood political person who, in several scenes, conspires with the Zealots for the sake of Jewish liberation in a way that could be interpreted as honourable, albeit misguided.
 * The film introduces a number of entirely original characters. Of these, Ian Holm's Zerah, who is essentially the series "main villain", has the most screen time. Zerah is used primarily to supply Judas Iscariot with a motive for his treachery: he persuades him that an appearance before the Sanhedrin will offer Jesus an opportunity to prove himself. He is also used to create a main lead villain when Jesus personally confronts the temple priesthood, in particular during the cleansing of the Temple and the Gethsemane arrest scene. Other invented characters include Quintillius, Yehuda and Amos.
 * In the Bible, the only mention of Jesus in childhood is his trip to the temple in Jerusalem as a 12-year-old. In the film, the boy Jesus is also portrayed at his bar mitzvah, which is interrupted by a raid of Roman soldiers plundering supplies. The portrayal of a Bar Mitzvah is anachronistic as the ceremony most likely did not exist at that time. It was deliberately included by Zeffirelli because a modern non-Jewish audience might not be aware of that obscure fact and would expect to see it, and he did not want to defy audience expectation. The boy Jesus is also portrayed as climbing a ladder and looking out over the landscape of Judea after Joseph makes the analogy of a ladder reaching to heaven.
 * The prostitute and the woman who anoints Jesus's feet with ointment and her hair are combined into one person. The Bible indicates that Mary Magdalene (who is never actually said to be a prostitute) is the woman from whom seven demons were cast out, while the ointment-bearing woman is Mary of Bethany, a sister of Lazarus (John 11:2). Nevertheless, the identification of the three women is present in many Christian traditions and is not particular to the film.
 * In the film, Nicodemus visits Jesus in the late afternoon, not at night as in John 3:3.
 * The Apostle Andrew introduces Simon to Jesus as "My brother, Simon Peter." But "Peter" is the name that Jesus later gave to Simon (John 1:42, Matthew 16:18) after he was well acquainted with him, not his original given name. Later in the drama, Jesus does give Simon the name of "Peter".
 * The Apostle Thomas, prior to his calling, is depicted as a servant of Jairus, the synagogue leader whose 12-year-old daughter Jesus raises from the dead. Nowhere in the three gospel accounts of this resurrection is Thomas the Apostle described as Jairus's servant. This was done in the movie to conveniently introduce Thomas as the doubter when Jesus said Jairus's dead daughter is "only sleeping."
 * Barabbas is portrayed in the film as a Zealot (political extremist and agitator). The meeting and dialogue between Jesus and Barabbas are made up.
 * The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) is used as a plot device which simultaneously redeems the disciple Matthew and reconciles him to his bitter enemy, Simon Peter. Although not in the Bible, this has been praised as one of the film's particularly felicitous innovations. (The Gospels do not record either a conflict or a particular friendship between Matthew and Simon Peter.)
 * In the film, Pontius Pilate, having convicted Jesus of treason, sentences him to be crucified. The Gospels record that Pilate acquitted Jesus but sentenced Him under pressure from the crowd. The film implies such pressure to convict was applied prior to the trial, by the Sanhedrin, but does not explicitly state it. The film also shifts Pilate washing his hands to the scene in which he is introduced, rather than during the trial itself.
 * The Gospels and the film both relate an account of a Roman centurion who petitions Jesus to heal his sick servant. The film, but not the Gospels, presents the same officer (portrayed by Ernest Borgnine) as one of the soldiers standing at the foot of the Cross, where he sympathetically allows Mary to approach her son.
 * In the Bible Judas is paid 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Full of remorse, he later gives the silver back to the priests (Matthew 27:3–5). In the film, Judas is given silver coins as an afterthought by Zerah; he does not return them and they are shown lying on the ground under the tree from which he hangs himself.
 * The film depicts a scene that shows Joseph dying. The Gospels never mention anything about Joseph after the story of Jesus, as a boy, in the Temple. There is however a popular tradition in Roman Catholic religious art that shows Joseph dying in the presence of Jesus and Mary.
 * In the film, Jesus continues wearing the red robe of a king, with which the Roman soldiers have dressed him up in order to mock him, up until the crucifixion. In the Gospel account, he is wearing his own clothes on the way to Calvary.
 * The film depicts the Crown of Thorns being removed from Jesus's head during the crucifixion process. This removal is never mentioned in the Gospels, and goes against the usual depiction of Jesus continuing to wear it whilst on the cross.
 * The healing of the blind beggar scene, where Jesus spat on dirt and rubbed the mud in the blind man's eyes, was set in the Temple; the whole of John 9 places this episode after Jesus had left the Temple and was "walking along."

Awards and nominations
Jesus of Nazareth received an Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Special Drama. Additionally, James Farentino, who portrayed the apostle Peter, received a nomination for Outstanding Performance by a Supporting Actor in a Drama Special.

The drama was nominated for six British Academy Television Awards: Best Actor, Best Cameraman, Best Single Television Play, Best Editor, Best Costume Design and Best Sound. It won none.

Jesus of Nazareth won awards for Best Cinematography to Armando Nannuzzi, Best Costume Design to Lucia Mirisola and Best Production Design, to Mirisola again, from the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists.

Subsequent broadcasts and home media
NBC rebroadcast the series in 1979, 1980, 1984, 1987 and 1990.

It was originally released as a three-tape VHS edition in the early 1980s under the Magnetic Video label. It was released later under the mainstream video label of CBS/Fox in 1986. Another three-tape VHS edition was released by LIVE Home Video in 1992 and again on 22 February 1995. Artisan Entertainment released the DVD version on two discs in February 2000. In the UK, the original 1986 Polygram VHS (four tapes) was fully uncut and featured the full 386-minute version. The 2000 Carlton video (two tapes) featured a heavily abridged print running for 270 minutes. The Granada DVD is credited as the unedited print and runs for 374 minutes, but this is due to the PAL speed up and is the full version. The two additional scenes – a private meeting between Judas Iscariot and Zerah, and the opening betrayal sequence during the Last Supper – were actually added in the repeat UK screening 2 years later and therefore are not included as the DVD is the original 1977 cut.

The serial is broadcast every Easter and Christmas in many countries, including Greece on ANT1, and in the United States on History Channel and TBN.

In Chile, the full serial has been broadcast every Good Friday since 1982 by the public service television broadcaster Televisión Nacional de Chile.

The Region 1 DVD is the original 1977 broadcast. The Region 2 Carlton DVD released in the UK is substantially cut and runs to 270 minutes. The Dutch DVD release (also Carlton Region 2) has a running time of 365 minutes (the 399-minute running time stated on the cover is a misprint).

The drama has been released on digital download (or streaming) for both Google Play and the Apple Store. The version released is the completed original 4-part 1977 broadcast, though only in its original Standard Definition. Similar to other special interest content, the film's copyright has only been loosely enforced in more recent years, resulting in it appearing on Google's advertising-paid platform YouTube in its entirety.

For Easter 2016, and again in 2018, the UK's Sky Arts channel showed one part a day over the four days of Easter. The version they used was the extended four-part edition, totaling eight hours with advertising.

The serial ran on NBC as "The Big Event" in two three-hour installments with limited commercials on Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. Additional footage was added for a 1979 re-run and broadcast in four two-hour installments. In the 1980s and 1990, the film was re-broadcast on NBC in three installments of two- and three-hour episodes, released on VHS and DVD as one complete presentation with one set of credits.

In 2022, the full series was made available on BritBox in the UK in time for Easter.

Books
Two adaptations of Jesus of Nazareth have been published. Jesus of Nazareth (1977), by Scottish theologian William Barclay, is a novelisation of the miniseries, published as a conventionally-sized paperback novel as well as a large-format hardback with extensive colour photographs from the miniseries. Man of Nazareth (1979) is Anthony Burgess' novel based upon his original script for the Jesus of Nazareth miniseries. The novel allowed Burgess to retain and expand upon elements of his script that the miniseries altered or omitted, and as a result, Man of Nazareth contains significant differences to Jesus of Nazareth. Burgess' direct sequel to Man of Nazareth, the novel The Kingdom of the Wicked (1985), was adapted to television in 1985 as A.D. (which features some actors who had appeared in Jesus of Nazareth, albeit in different roles).

Franco Zeffirelli's account of filming Jesus of Nazareth was published in 1984 as Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus: A Spiritual Diary (1984).

title: Jesus of Nazareth (TV series)


text:
Talk:2004 Haitian coup d'état

Introduction?!
This article is in serious need of a bit of an introduction. As it is right now, there's a single sentence before it just jumps right in with the timeline, saying something like "The first city captured was . . .". We need to have a description of what the event was, the major players therein, the causes, the results, et cetera before we jump into the nitty-gritty bits of it like that. Something like "The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a conflict fought for several weeks in Haiti during February 2004 that resulted in the premature end of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's second term, and the installment of an interim government led by Gerard Latortue. Rebel groups, allegedly aided by Big Brother and friends yadda yadda yadda; opposition was blah blah blah. Unrest had been growing among x since the Aristide government refused to privatize a, b, and c." And so on. I don't know enough about the issue or about Wikipedia introduction standards to write one myself, but there's got to be someone out there who does.

Kai 06:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Kai that this article could definitely use a much better, well-developed introduction. Additionally, the article is still somewhat disorganized and in parts is poorly written, with some information being repeated unnecessarily.  Just some ideas.  Oh, and several parts should be updated to reflect later knowledge (such as "as of April 2004," which uses the present tense right after).  I think it would also be nice to mention a current state of affairs, even though the rebellion has been over for some time.  --Cromwellt|Talk 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Move (2006)
In August, this article was moved to "2004 Haiti coup" (from "2004 Haiti rebellion"), which I just noticed now. I don't believe this is correct. This article covers the full scope of events that occurred in February 2004: first a gang rebellion, then intervention by ex-soldiers into the rebellion, and ultimately an arguable coup as the final act of the drama (although that characterization of it as a coup is disputed by some and it is probably POV to directly assert that). I suggest it be moved back to the original title. Everyking 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. — A "rebellion" conducted by external forces and their allied business elites is called a coup. Robotman1974 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, you went ahead and moved the page? Where was the consensus for that? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A significant length of time had passed. Now I notice it has been moved back. I continue to strongly oppose this. "Rebellion" is a fully accurate and NPOV characterization; "coup" is arguably POV and only applies to the final stage of the events. Everyking 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brazil Haiti 2005.jpg
Image:Brazil Haiti 2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV title?
Is "coup d'état" a NPOV term for what went on in 2004? I'm not sure. 206.135.142.245 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that was inappropriate. For one thing it wasn't a technical coup - there was no military that surrounded the capital and overthrew the government. The incident began with a revolt that progressively took over the northern half of the country and then marched south. Really, more of a civil war.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsoured material moved to talk
Please add back material that have soures that verify it.Ultramarine 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Claims of rebels
The rebellion began with the capture of the country's fourth-largest city, Gonaïves, on February 5, 2004, by a rebel group calling itself the Revolutionary Artibonite Resistance Front. This group changed its name to the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haïti on February 19.

The rebels and the civilian opposition demanded the resignation of President Aristide, but he emphasized his determination to remain in office until the expiration of his term on February 7, 2006, saying that Haiti should not continue its history of moving from "coup d'état to coup d'état," but should instead move from "elected president to elected president." Aristide's opponents, while accepting in principle that Haïti should have an elected president and a constitutional process, disputed his legitimacy and accused him of ruling undemocratically.

According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of the 2000 elections by his Lavalas Family party.

The rebellion was primarily led by former soldiers of the Haitian army, who were responsible for civilian massacres during the early 1990s. Even prior to the widespread violence that engulfed the country, a low-level rebellion was waged by some ex-soldiers in the central part of the country since at least 2003, resulting in several dozen deaths. Furthermore, on February 14, 2004, a number of former soldiers (including the notorious former militia leader Louis-Jodel Chamblain) returned from exile in the Dominican Republic and announced their intention to join the rebels based in Gonaïves.

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 Haïti, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and rule.

The rebels attributed much of their rapid success to Aristide's failure to disarm the army when he disbanded it in 1995; however, they insisted that the popular support they enjoyed was an equally important reason. Haiti's police force of 5,000 proved too small and poorly armed to be effective in resisting the rebel advance, and in some places, such as Cap-Haïtien, the police seemed not have mounted any substantial resistance at all.

Another component of the rebellion were the armed gangs which have frequently been a source of violence in Haiti in recent years. The most prominent of these gangs, the "Cannibal Army," long acted as Aristide's primary support base in the city of Gonaïves before turning against him in recent years. This gang, which went on to become one of the main elements of the National Revolutionary Front, claimed the weaponry it used to fight the government during the rebellion was given to it by Aristide at a time when it still supported him; allegedly, the main purpose of this was to intimidate the opposition during the 2000 elections. The government, however, said that the rebels possessed firepower far greater than that of the Haïtian police, and that the weaponry must therefore have a foreign origin.

To a large extent, Haitian politics has been defined by such gangs for the last decade. While it was an anti-Aristide gang that initiated the rebellion in Gonaïves, pro-Aristide gangs fought back on behalf of the president. Gangs on both sides have been accused of grim atrocities, such as executing supporters of the other side and setting fire to their homes.

According to many supporters of Aristide, the country's civilian opposition acted as a fifth column in support of the rebels. The opposition denied this, but many of its members acknowledged their support for the rebel cause, and stated that they share with the rebels the common goal of Aristide's ouster: according to them, they disagreed with the rebels only on the question of employing violent rebellion to that end.

Timeline
Beginning in Gonaïves with the capture of that city's police station on February 5, the rebellion quickly spread to the nearby port city of Saint-Marc. 150 policemen unsuccessfully attempted to retake Gonaïves on February 8, losing between three and 14 officers in the battle. Saint-Marc was, however, recaptured by police and pro-Aristide militants by February 10, although sporadic fighting continued in the area. Apparently in cooperation with the rebels in these northern and central cities, the south-western city of Grand-Goave was taken by rebels at around the same time, but it too was recaptured by police shortly thereafter.

In the following days, the rebels pursued a strategy of advancing toward the country's second-largest city, Cap-Haïtien, and the town of Dondon, just south of Cap-Haïtien, changed hands several times in the fighting. Furthermore, some of the rebels reached the Dominican border, blocking the main road between the two countries and enabling the aforementioned exiled former soldiers to cross into Haïti. By February 17, the rebel forces had captured the central town of Hinche, near the Dominican Republic border.

On February 19, rebel leader Buteur Metayer declared himself president of the areas under his control, with former Cap-Haïtien police chief Guy Philippe as commander of the rebel army. On February 22, the rebels captured Cap-Haïtien with surprisingly little bloodshed; the city's police had already made clear their reluctance to fight, and the well-armed and trained rebels had little difficulty sweeping aside the resistance of the city's pro-Aristide militants. On February 24, the rebels followed this success with the capture of the northwestern city of Port-de-Paix and with the capture of Tortue Island, off the northern coast, the next day. These gains effectively ended government control in northern Haïti.

On February 26, a new band of rebels captured the country's third-largest city, Les Cayes, in the southwest. More rebel successes followed, as they captured the strategic crossroads of Mirebalais, 30 miles from the country's capital, Port-au-Prince. Many foreigners were evacuated from Haïti in anticipation of an assault on Port-au-Prince, but an estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens remained in Haïti as of the end of February.

International mediators led by the United States proposed a peace plan on February 20 which would have allowed Aristide to serve out his term but with substantially reduced powers, a prime minister from the civilian opposition, and fresh legislative elections. It was virtually the same plan Aristide had agreed to weeks earlier with Caricom. In a news conference the next day, Aristide agreed to the plan.

The plan, however, was rejected by the opposition, which continued to demand the president's resignation. France blamed Aristide for the violence and suggested that he should leave office in favor of a transitional government; however, many governments in the region were more supportive of Aristide, alarmed at the precedent that would be set by the overthrow of a democratically elected leader by armed rebels.

The United States, which intervened in Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power, publicly adopted an ambiguous stance on the issue. While condemning the rebellion and claiming that it did not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, it also pointedly blamed Aristide for contributing to the violence and has suggested that an end to the crisis might require Aristide's absence from the political scene. For its part, the Haïtian government accused the U.S. of supporting the rebels and planning Aristide's ouster.

Some American politicians strongly criticized the Bush's administration's stance on Haiti, on the grounds that it was failing to take a moral stand in defense of Haïtian democracy. On February 25, for instance, U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown called the Bush Administration's non-intervention in Haïti racist.

President Bush refused to soften U.S. policy on Haïtian refugees. During the week ending February 27, the United States Coast Guard repatriated 867 refugees.

Other evidence of coup d'état
Other potential indications of the United States, France and Canada influencing the coup d'etat include the fact that at the same time the diplomatic mission was trying to bring Aristide back to the Caribbean, U.S. officials including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave statements that indicated clearly that the U.S. did not welcome Aristide in the 'western hemisphere'[source needed]. Not only did the United States not support the elected president of Haiti back into power but USAID and CIDA had been actively funding the interim government and helping it to prepare for elections in the fall of 2005/early 2006. USAID, CIDA, and the NED also heavily funded the political opposition throughout the Aristide Administration- the same opposition who supported the embargo which starved the Haitian government of 35% of its national budget.

Lavalas
Lavalas supporters view the rebellion as an antidemocratic attempt to control the Haitian economy. Since the rebellion, Lavalas supporters have engaged in large protests demanding Aristide's return.

Lavalas says it cannot field any candidates due to political violence. It has been suggested that the U.S., France and Canada are glad to see Lavalas excluded because they want the interim government to be perceived as legitimate, but do not want Lavalas to control the Haïtian parliament — which many argue would be very likely in a free and fair election.

World Bank Interim Cooperation Framework
Aristide has said in an interview with Naomi Klein that the main motivation for the foreign support of his overthrow was privatization. Specifically, Aristide has suggested that his refusal to sell state-owned enterprises, such as phones and electricity, resulted in a decision to have him removed. There is some evidence for this assertion, as the World Bank's Interim Cooperation Framework has stated:

 * "…in key sectors of the economy such as telecommunications, energy, potable water, ports and airports… management contracts will be prepared in those cases where private sector participation is deemed appropriate…"

It is particularly relevant to the coup d'etat that one of the first actions of Aristide's second term was the disbanding of Haïtian military which ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994 on behalf of the old elite of Haiti and was extremely corrupt and authoritarian. This measure received incredible popular support from a civilian population who had suffered under several military coups. Interestingly, this measure was immediately reverted by the interim government put in power by the coup, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and rule.

Aftermath
Following the departure of Aristide, the rebels entered Port-au-Prince, declaring their intent to protect Alexandre and the people from pro-Aristide militants, popularly known in the government controlled media as "chimères". In the days since, they have sent mixed messages about their intentions: rebel leader Guy Philippe first declared himself the "chief" of a new Haïtian military and vowed to arrest the pro-Aristide prime minister, Yvon Neptune, but then promised to disarm his forces. On March 3, at least three people were killed in a battle between rebels and pro-Aristide militants. Supporters of Aristide have vowed to continue pressing their demands for his return, and on March 7, 6 people were reported killed at an anti-Aristide rally.

The death toll from the conflict is believed to have been at least 300. Prime Minister Neptune has estimated that the cost of the rebellion from fighting and looting amounts to about U.S. $300 million.

After two weeks in the Central African Republic, Aristide departed for Jamaica and arrived there on March 15. The visit was ostensibly for the purpose of enabling him to see his young daughters, but the transitional Haitian government claimed that the visit could destabilize Haiti further by encouraging Aristide's supporters and announced it was breaking off diplomatic relations with Jamaica in protest. In response, Jamaica announced that it would not recognize the new Haïtian government.

The argument is that the governments of the United States, France and Canada were interested in the removal of Aristide from power because of his populist tendencies. For example, in 2003, Canada hosted a meeting of Haïtian opposition leaders called the Ottawa Initiative which concluded that "Aristide must go". At the same time, the United States, France and Canada were funding the rebel groups, via opposition NGOs and the International Republican Institute, and provided the necessary military and logistic support for the rebellion. Rebel leader Guy Philippe has been trained by U.S. forces and had been on the CIA payroll. Other prominent rebel figures had also been previously trained by the U.S. despite their participation in previous rebellions and terrorist acts with some living in the U.S.

U.S. authorities claim that the pressure Foley placed on Aristide to resign was initially diplomatic but once that failed, the delaying of the arrival of extra bodyguards and dismissal of the current agents would have meant a death sentence to the President. Aristide and his wife along with this former security team was taken to a U.S. aircraft and not informed of their destination until several hours later. They were not allowed to look out the planes windows and were told that they  would be harbored in the country to the Central African Republic. Aristide was kept under strict military surveillance and could not communicate freely for days. The United States government denies these allegations.

more of a rebellion than a coup d etat.
The history as reported is more of a armed rebellion than coup d etat, [A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government, often through illegal means by a part of the state establishment] take from the artical on coups in wikipedia. If the west was involved it would be more accurate to call it an intervention. I believe coup is being used because it is a loaded word to make a political statement. Wikipedia should be about facts not politics.(Lproth 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Agree. If no objections I will change the title shortly.Ultramarine 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it's been changed back. A coup is a coup, plain and simple -- there were certainly additional ingredients to this, such as the sheer degree of overt foreign pressure (ultimately involving military intervention) in favor of coup forces. But at the end of the day, it is a coup and as such differs little from other coups in the past (elite/paramilitary opposition to elected government, covert foreign involvement, civilian-elected government being strongly overarmed by an unelected paramilitary/military force, etc). "Coup" is not "a loaded word to make a political statement," it is an actual term with a definition and that's why it's used in the title of countless other Wikipedia articles about similar coups. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's complete bs, this view would define any revolution and civil war in world history as a coup, which would be extremely simplicistic. A coup is done by an isolated internal force, usually from the military or intelligence service, it's done by a powerful part of the state system. A rebellion by the people or a part of the people is much more, and it is obviously much more complicated, as the article shows that: It is until today unknown and was not investigated whether the US orchastrated a coup and used a chance to get rid of Aristide, or Aristide actually sought for their help because he didn't want to die and only told that coup story afterwards because he wanted to save his political reputation or build up a political narrative for future elections, or maybe somewhere in the middle that the US pragmatically saw that France and the UN security council didn't want to send troops to save the country from the rebels, and so the only solution was to replace Aristide. This would make France the bogeyman and the US a pragmatic negotiator, only searching for a realizable solution and not hating Aristide (while the story of the boycotted 2000 election would have been a helpful reason but not a motivation to get rid of him). In fact, all of that is completely unclear, we don't know it. What we know is that there was a huge rebellion, that Aristide might have been killed if not evacuated and that no internal power of the Haitian state system removed him from power. The rebels and the inaction of the UN security council were the factors which put the pressure on him to resign, not a power factor in the Haitian state. Otherwise, the Fall of Kabul in Afghanistan would have been a coup, as well... which it wasn't. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Deterioration of article
I've reverted this article back to the way it existed in April, because a huge amount of content was removed in the meantime. The content outlining the course of the rebellion itself was written by myself, based on press reports, while the rebellion was ongoing in February 2004; at that time Wikipedia as a whole was very weak on referencing and I didn't think to add citations. I don't know if the content was removed for lack of citations or some other reason, but the content can all be verified and, while it absolutely should be referenced, that's no excuse to remove all the content. If anything in particular is disputed, feel free to remove and discuss the point here, or better yet, find the press report that the info came from in the first place and cite it. Everyking (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

More information added to first sentence
The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a regime overthrow following Haitian conflicts spanning several weeks of February 2004 and concerning the legitimacy of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's presidency.

Consensus has been expressed on the discussion page regarding all of these pieces of information. Anyone have a problem with the mention of the Aristide legitimacy conflict as such?

Bleedingcherub (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Motives
If people want to say that the Bush administration was responsible for the 2004 Haiti rebellion they owe readers a concrete explanation for it. Right now, motives are only vaguely referenced with the use of some extreme left-wing publications. Oh yeah, and if there is so much "extensive documentation" of U.S. involvement why is pretty much zero evidence presented. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen television interviews of several persons who were eyewitnesses. Persons who have credible backgrounds and most were in positions of responsibility and trust, and all had very clear memories, very much in agreement on details and their general impressions. I wish I had the time and energy available to lead anyone who is interested by the hand to videos of persons who were there talking about what happened to various interviewers, but that amount of tedious research is beyond my physical abilities now. U.S. military attacked Aristide and his family and staff in his home and kidnapped them at gunpoint and flew them into exile. Nobody has ever mentioned an witness who was there who has a different version of events, except that the Bush White House claims that our troops have a different version of events even though they cannot produce any of these troops nor statements from them. Your "zero evidence presented" is incorrect. Much was presented in this article, but was then deleted wholesale with no explanation by past wikipedia users. As for whether the Bush administration was responsible or not, either U.S. Marines and Air Force went rogue for no apparent reason and decided to fly to Haiti to kidnap its president, or the Bush White House ordered them there. It is NPOV to attack the credibility of apparently all publications who credit the Bush White House with the act by labeling any publication that disagrees with you as "left wing". The editorial policies or political beliefs of publications to the left of the original poster on the political spectrum are not the criterium for judging the reliability of the journalism they publish. Just as, for instance, the right-wing opinions (widely acknowledged) of The Wall Street Journal do not in any way detract from the very high standard of journalism and reliability they have maintained for many decades, nor do the beliefs of the publishers at The Christian Science Monitor in any way color or detract from the extremely high level of journalism practiced there, although one could make an analagous attack on their credibility as being "Christian" or "religious propaganda". NPOV, accuracy, and completeness are the standards wikipedia prizes most. Labeling someone as left wing or right wing and dismissing any information coming from them as insignificant or unreliable is simply an ad hominem attack. In further response to your implications that there is "zero evidence" of U.S. involvement, the evidence that the Bush White House committed the act of ordering the U.S. military to force Aristide onto a plane at gunpoint is speculative only in the sense that it is speculative to say it rained last night when you wake in the morning and see that it rained last night. You didn't see the rain falling yourself, so you are forced to "speculate" that it did so. (1) Every eyewitness to the event that has ever spoken up (all the occupants and guards at Aristide's house that night) are in agreement that he was forced out at gunpoint, by U.S. Marines. There have been no statements from anyone who was there that remotely contradicts this. Clearly, it happened. (2) If the Bush White House didn't order it, then the only other explanation would be that someone lower in the U.S. military chain of command ordered it, or a very large conspiracy of the uniformed U.S. military participants acted in concert and very much in violation of U.S. laws and the UCMJ by doing so. If that were the case, do you have any doubt that Bush and especially Cheney would go after anyone in the chain of command who would invade another country and kidnap its democratically elected president and thus commit a violation of various U.S. laws and U.S. treaties? To make a joke, whoever ordered such a thing would be lucky if their punishment was only being shot in the face by Cheney. Hey, shooting in the face is for his friends. I would like to add one small editorial opinion: I remain extremely proud of my service in the U.S. Marine Corps, but sometimes it is difficult to stay proud when some of us have lent themselves to being used by Presidents who abuse their own positions of authority. We are supposed to refuse all unlawful orders, not pick and choose which orders agree with our own personal political beliefs.--69.17.65.107 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

US House of Representatives record - Noriega statement on plane flight
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/farm01_.html states that "Most of Aristide’s claims, initially disputed by US officials from Noriega to Donald Rumsfeld, are now acknowledged to be true. His enemies’ claims that Aristide met with officials in Antigua – Aristide said they were not allowed to move from their seats – were undermined by reports from Antigua itself. Noriega acknowledged during a House hearing that Aristide did not know of his destination until less than an hour before landing in the Central African Republic."

If someone wants to spend some time looking through the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives, then the testimony by Roger Noriega where he states that Aristide only knew his destination less than an hour before landing in CAR should presumably be there. A direct link to the Congressional Record would be best for this. Farmer claims it was in a "House hearing", so this should be quite verifiable from the obvious online source. Boud (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

US/Aristide
Perhaps it could be clarified in the article as to why would US participate in the coup of a man that they themselves made sure came back to power for over a decade.--RossF18 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_haiti.htm
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:17, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:16:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.minustah.org/pages/Militaires
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:16:37, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.law.miami.edu/cshr/CSHR_Report_02082005_v2.pdf
 * In History of Haiti on 2011-03-29 14:29:37, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:17, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:17:05, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/2882
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:17:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.democracynow.org/static/haiti.shtml
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:18:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.flashpoints.net/archive/archive-2004-Haiti.html
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:18:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=klein
 * In History of Haiti on 2011-03-29 14:29:37, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:46, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:18:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.igloo.org/community.igloo?r0=community-download&r0_script=/scripts/document/download.script&r0_pathinfo=%2F%7B37abb2df-7c8d-4d64-b2f4-93265b5cc444%7D%2FLibrary%2Fciialibr%2Fnational%2Fyouthsym%2Fciiayo~1&r0_output=xml&s=cc
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-05-25 07:44:51, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Haitian rebellion on 2011-06-11 08:19:26, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting name change
I noticed that, despite the lack of consensus (here), someone has taken the matter into their own hands and has changed the article name to "2004 Haitian rebellion". As this name is not only the result of an undiscussed move, but also is not an accurate reflection of the content of the article (the article itself starts with the words: "(...) was a coup d'etat"), I have changed the article name back to 2004 Haitian coup d'état. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rebellion" was the original name and there was never any consensus to change it in the first place. The old title described the events more accurately and neutrally. "Coup d'état" could arguably be applied to the last act of the rebellion, when Aristide was forced out of office and into exile, but that account of events was not accepted by everyone. "Rebellion" covers the whole event quite accurately. Everyking (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Describing the coup as the climax of a rebellion is one way of looking at it; another way is to look upon the 'rebellion' as a mere lead-up to the coup. This article does the latter and has some quite good references to justify that approach. I wouldn't exactly say that naming the article 2004 Haitian rebellion would be more neutral. Such a name plays down the notion of a coup d'état and that is POV in itself. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we accepted that approach, the notion that the ouster of Aristide was a coup was very hotly contested. While I personally think it's fair to describe what happened as a coup, I don't really think it's NPOV to say so. Everyking (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning regarding the NPOV-ness — or lack thereof — of the current name, but I don't agree that "rebellion" would be more neutral. Calling this a rebellion means not calling it a coup d'état, and that is POV in itself. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Events Prior to 2004
Can someone who knows more about the context of the factors leading to the conflict add something to the "Washington, Aristide,..." section? Particularly in the first section that mentions "Washington negotiators"? It is not clear at all who these negotiators are, who they're negotiating with, or what they're negotiating for, or for what purpose, or what their other demands were. This just seems like a random fact with no context the way the article is currently composed. Dcb2124 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes -- Roger Noriega, first and foremost, was a primary "negotiator" from the US (representing the primary US government opinion in favor of removal of the elected Aristide government) with Maxine Waters playing a very different role as a US "negotiator" (in favor of keeping the elected Aristide government in place). They both traveled to Haiti, as did another US official (with Noriega) and an official from France -- I forget both of their names but can look it up. I'll add some context to this section -- I have several good books and articles on the subject that I can cite. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

division of "Belligerents" box is misleading
Why is "National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haïti" listed as a separate belligerent from "United States" et al? IRI funding records clearly demonstrate that they were on the same side. Needless to say, they worked towards the same purpose and worked together in the relentless pressure applied on the Aristide government. As is, the article confusingly implies that there were 3 primary belligerent groups -- the government of Haiti, the paramilitaries (National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haïti), and the US and related UN forces. That is confusing because it should be clear that there were only two sides to this conflict, not 3. I propose that the two latter groups be merged. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on 2004 Haitian coup d'état. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_haiti.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22828
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h34-np2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/httoc.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/haiti/2006/0407canada.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630131545/http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/octubre/vier28/45mccarry-i.html to http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/octubre/vier28/45mccarry-i.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223041247/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/16/1712217 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/16/1712217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2004 Haitian coup d'état. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22828
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h34-np2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/httoc.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=148518&archive=24%2C47%2C2005
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/haiti/2006/0407canada.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realworldradio.fm/print.php?sid=1451
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F03%2F16%2F1712217
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128053633/http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~jhsprague/Jeb_Sprague_2008_NACLA.pdf to http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~jhsprague/Jeb_Sprague_2008_NACLA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119005859/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/16/haiti_coup/print.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/16/haiti_coup/print.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/americas/29haiti.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:2004 Haitian coup d'état


text: Template:Neptune class battleship

title: Template:Neptune class battleship