Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Haiti. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've been editing the Geography section and noticed that some of the French-named features are italicised, others not. Is there a Wikipedia standard that is used for this? Sdrawkcab (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Not in citation given. There are no Jews in Haiti. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.0.19 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi - the Jewish Haitians are discussed further at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Haiti#Judaism & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Haiti . They seem to be an extremely small community nowadays but still worth a mention given their interesting history. WisDom-UK (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 | This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Charles Leclerc" link to redirect to "Charles Leclerc (general)" in section 2.2.3 72.10.156.157 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Done Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 04:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence is poorly worded:
Change "Genetic studies show that some of these groups, some were related to the Yanomami of the Amazon Basin."
to
"Genetic studies show that some of these groups were related to the Yanomami of the Amazon Basin." Sregorj (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Done ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Us Haitians are ARAWAKS pronounced AHUUUUAK Indians NOT "Taino. Taino was a languange. There is a lot of bullshit and misinformation in this article as it was obviously written by people who are not "Haitian" and have no idea what they are talking about. It's offensive to those of us who know our true "his" story. This is why Wikipedia is not respected as a reliable source for information. 162.192.199.243 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Much of this is rotted in Haitian Vodou tradition" to "Much of this is rooted in Haitian Vodou tradition" because the word "rooted" was spelled wrong. 96.37.34.153 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thank you! Dawnseeker2000 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- In the Duvalier dynasty (1957–1986) section: Change "He largely continue his father's policies" to "He largely continued his father's policies"
- In the Duvalier dynasty (1957–1986) section: Change "Massive corruption and the brain-drain of skilled Haitians retarded the country's development" to "Massive corruption and the brain-drain of skilled Haitians reversed the country's development" The Meta Boi (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Fixed the typo but did not change "retarded" to "reversed". That statement is currently not supported with any citation and we should have some source to tell us if the economic growth slowed or stopped before choosing between these terms. The text above implies that there was some growth during Baby Doc's reign, so a source is needed to decide which statement is accurate. I placed a citation needed tag instead. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the status of the current prime minister:
Jean-Henry Céant
to
Jean-Michel Lapin
with a link to the page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Lapin Sczyz (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m new and I’m still learning. Why is this semi-protected? I don’t see an explanation. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In 1920, FDR was the VP running mate of James M. Cox. In that capacity he stumped the country, including giving a Farmer's Day speech in Deer Lodge, Montana (my home town). In that speech he claimed to have written the Haitian constitution, as this article asserts. My previous research indicated that he never made such a bold assertion before, or after since the reaction forced him to walk back his claim. So, although in his 1915 capacity as assistant secretary of the Navy he no doubt had a good deal to do with that document, it is at best arguable that he actually wrote it.Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the link for Elizabeth McAlister's "Madonna of 15th Street" to this more accurate link: https://digitalcollections.wesleyan.edu/object/relifp-46 Cambria.weaver (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrstout (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The article claims Haiti is the only nation in history established by a successful slave revolt. This is incorrect, as the original nation of Israel was established by a successful slave revolt of the Hebrew people who were slaves in Egypt. this is historically correct whether or not one believes the biblical accounts of miracles leading to their freedom.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First appearance of the word CARICOM in the article should be the active link for/directing to the article on CARICOM itself rather than the word's second appearance (CARICOM is mentioned twice in the article) PJayCaribe (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Under the economy section "poverty" is listed as one of the principal reasons that Haiti is such a poor country. That would seem to obvious to mention to me. "Poverty" should be deleted, because an effect cannot have itself as a cause. 107.77.221.22 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Should the section on religion in Haiti include reference to the saying "Haiti is 70& Catholic, 30% Protestant and 100% Vodou? Rollo August (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In the government and politics part of the page, it says "Haiti has suffered 32 coups" but now with the president assassinated the number should go up to 33. Now the assassination of the president is not a coup per se but still the people of Haiti have once again got rid of a leader before he could finish his term properly. BrianLyons314 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aquillion: What's the problem with citing multiple sources, as long as they are different?
Are there any more than the usual questions of reliability of the two sources cited for the NYPD training Haitian police?
- "NYPD officers train Haitian police". USA Today. Associated Press. 17 November 2014. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
- Weiss, Murray, ed. (21 January 2011). "NYPD to help train Haitian police". New York Post. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
I think it's useful to have multiple references like this. Sometimes a link goes dead. And in most cases, the details reported will be different.
On the other hand, I don't think we need separate notes. Rather than delete the reference to the New York Post, I added it after the reference to USA Today in the same note.
If you disagree, please explain why. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:RSP, the New York Post is not a reliable source. We should replace it with higher-quality sources whenever possible. If you want multiple sources I'll just find an additional one, but I'm generally opposed to citing the Post (or other generally-unreliable sources) in any situation where we can avoid it; citing a weak or unreliable source weakens the credibility of the article as a whole, even if we do it alongside better sources. Note the RSP entry:
There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department.
This is definitely a situation where we should avoid citing it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's helpful. I looked for something like that before replying to you and didn't find it.
- However, I think that analysis is a reason we should cite such an article, while also citing that analysis:
- If someone wants to cite the New York Post (or any other questionable source) for anything, I think the best policy would be to have a discussion about how that source compares with others on the particular issue at hand, while citing not just that summary but also something that documents that concern in more detail.
- I could use suggestions on the best approach to try to reopen a discussion on this Wikipedia policy.
- I'm a US citizen, and I have some tragic personal history driving my concerns: I spent 6 years in the US Air Force during the Vietnam War. I went into the military believing it was my patriotic duty. I had been on active duty roughly 3 months, when it came to me that the South Vietnamese should have a "home team" advantage. Why did they need foreign troops, when their enemies, the Viet Cong, did not? Whether or not this is an accurate characterization of that conflict, it was my perception at the time, and I was not happy with what I was being ordered to do: I could either obey orders or go to prison -- or maybe Canada.
- Around 1995 it came to me that there should be something to be learned from the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Bloc almost without firing a shot that I was not hearing. After a decade of study, I self-published a summary of my research on this as Spencer Graves (26 February 2005), The Impact of Violent and Nonviolent Action on Constructed Realities and Conflict (PDF), prodsyse.com, Wikidata Q58635572.
- In 2005 I finally got a copy of Dwight D. Eisenhower (1963), Mandate for Change: The White House Years 1953-1956: A Personal Account, Doubleday, Wikidata Q61945939. On p. 372, Eisenhower, who had been president of the US in 1954, wrote, "I have never talked or corresponded with any person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs [including Vietnam], who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting [leading to the defeat of the French in 1954], possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh". This was the universal expert consensus that was not even mentionable in the mainstream media in the US in that day. This suggests to me that Eisenhower, President of the US in 1954, understood that he might not be reelected in November 1956 if Ho Chi Minh had won an election there six months earlier. So he made sure that no honest elections were held there. The three presents who succeeded Eisenhower (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) all, I think, felt similarly constrained.
- For a similar analysis of the War on Terror, see Wikiversity:Winning the War on Terror.
- A couple of months ago, I made a presentation at this year's Military Operations Research Society Symposium, proposing an "Wikiversity:International Conflict Observatory", where I discuss how we need to build bridges to common understanding. Wikipedia is known to be a place where people with very different perspectives collaborate to produce descriptions of issues that all sides can more or less live with. When we refuse to cite sources that other people find credible, we cut off communications. That becomes an obstacle to understanding, amplifying conflict and political polarization. That's the exact opposite of what we need, and the opposite of what the Wikimedia system is otherwise capable of achieving.
- Adam Grant (2 February 2021), Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know, OL 34167132M, Wikidata Q107693279 is a brand new book that summarizes research in how to build understanding. This includes asking questions and being more tentative in our analyses. Deleting references that other people may find credible can have the opposite effect.
- In sum, I think we need to engage people who support questionable sources like the New York Post in a respectful dialogue to the maximum extent feasible. I think this means having civil, respectful discussions about what we can say and what we can't on Talk pages, and summarizing the disagreements in notes to references.
- In particular, I think it is unwise and contrary to the mission of Wikipedia to delete references, because some group of editors have decided the said source in not reliable.
- Suggestions? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The last name of Jean-Baptiste Point de Sable is Point de Sable (sand point), and should not be shortened to "de Sable" anymore than McDonald should be shortened to Donald. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
| This edit request to Haiti has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section 'personal income' there is a mistake in the writing. The sentence right now is "In 2004, 80% or ore of college graduates from Haiti were living abroad." This should be changed to "In 2004, 80% or more of college graduates from Haiti were living abroad." Der BigChungus (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done Girth Summit (blether) 13:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
−== Changing "richest" to "most profitable" ==
The second paragraph of this article ends with:
"French colonists established lucrative sugarcane plantations, worked by vast numbers of slaves brought from Africa, which made the colony one of the richest in the world." (Own emphasis)
I urge that someone with permission to edit this article replace "richest" with "most profitable" wherever it is used to describe colonial Haiti - this avoids possible confusion about the status of the wealth; namely that it was exported abroad to Europe. The conditions of the colony for the vast majority of the people there was of horrific destitution, it wasn't "rich" at all, as is clearly stated elsewhere in this article.
I urge this revision be made elsewhere where "richest" is used to refer to the wealth generated in colonial Haiti.
e.g. "The French set about creating sugar and coffee plantations, worked by vast numbers of slaves imported from Africa, and Saint-Domingue grew to become their """richest""" colonial possession." (Own emphasis)
If anyone disagrees I am more than willing to listen, but I think this small semantic change better reflects the truth of the matter.
- You're damn right. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
