Talk:Haiti: Difference between revisions
→Clean up: curious |
|||
| Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
: Does Haiti have it's own dialect of French? If so, this needs to be mentioned in the article. [[User:Gringo300|Gringo300]] 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
: Does Haiti have it's own dialect of French? If so, this needs to be mentioned in the article. [[User:Gringo300|Gringo300]] 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Haiti is more like Louisiana than any "Latin" American nation. == |
|||
Some of the related articles and a bit of this main article attempt to make Haiti a component of the general mass of Hispanic countries south of the US border, when this is clearly untrue. The special case of dual (Royal Bourbon) colonial ownership of Haiti and Louisiana by France and Spain is what I mean, along with the typical ethnoracial heritage and French Creole (not Cajun, although the French Canadian connection is important to show the anomalous position of the French, in between Hispanic and Anglo) culture of both in common, but also different from both the Hispanophone and Anglophone countries, such as Brazil and Mexico or Jamaica and the Bahamas. The French are perhaps culturally more kin to the Spanish, but their dealings and everyday realities, as well as history are tied more to the English, when it comes to comparisons, or categorizations--in the colonial sphere at least. The French aspect makes Haiti not simply Spanish or English in disposition. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Could you be more specific as to what in which articles "attempts" to make Haiti a component of the "general mass" of Hispanic countries? Haiti is itself a Latin American nation; do you mean to say that it is more like Louisiana than any ''other'' Latin American nation? --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How could you say that? Haiti is no more "Latin" than Louisiana, Quebec, or French Guiana. In any case, the term "Latin" should be replaced with "Hispanic". Only if Louisiana, Quebec and French Guiana were to be considered "Latin", then it would make sense for Haiti to also be considered "Latin", as a comprehensive term to include "Gallic". Because it is not the standard and accepted convention for those other "Gallic" nations to be considered "Latin", then Haiti should also not be considered "Latin". Outside of Wikipedia, I have never heard anybody even mention "Latin" and Haiti in the same sentence, let alone the same discussion. In fact, the general perception of Haiti is that it has the same culture as Louisiana and Francophone Africans in general. [[Francophonie]] is entirely different from the "Hispanic"/"Latin" category and stereotypes immediately associated. Perhaps the only real reason why "Latin" is even used as a term for any type of American, is because of the Italian lands (Sicily and Naples) under the Spaniards, during the colonial era, which prompted several Italian (Genoan and Tuscan) navigators (Columbus, Vespucci, Cabot, Verrazzano) to enterprise in the New World, although for the English and French as well. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Also the '''francophone''' Wikipédia lists ''Haïti'' in its article ''[[:fr:Amérique latine|Amérique '''latine''']]''. And it is not only Wikipedia. Quotes from an online dictionary: |
|||
:*'''Latin''' ... 4. a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly '''Romance''' languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America. ... 6. denoting or pertaining to those peoples, as the Italians, '''French''', Spanish, Portuguese, etc., using languages derived from Latin, esp. the peoples of Central and South America: ''a meeting of the Latin republics.''[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Latin] |
|||
:*'''Latin America''' the part of the American continents south of the United States in which Spanish, Portuguese, '''or French''' is officially spoken.[[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Latin%20America] |
|||
:Furthermore, Haiti is a member state of the [[Latin Union|'''Latin''' Union]], as are France and Italy; see also [http://www.unilat.org/SG/Organisation/Presentation/EtatsMembres/index.es.asp here]. [[French Guiana]] is usually considered part of Latin America, but not Louisiana and Quebec, because, usually, only the part of the American continents ''south'' of the U.S. is included. And in any case, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, less than 5% of Louisianans speak French or Cajun French at home. See also [[Latin Africa]] and [[Latin Europe]]. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Popularization of media and social stereotypes can't trump academia and scholasticism. Your reply is casuist and fantastic reasoning; all these countries and cultures are only superficially "Latin" anyways. The demographic composition of "Latin" America is, by all accounts, not composed of truly Latin people. These are not Columbus, Vespucci, the Pope and nor have any of these regions ever been provinces or dioceses of Rome; they are a hodgepodge of many different types of people with a facade of unity that is called "Latin". It is not accurate, proper, or true, to call them that. Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa and the other half of formerly Greek speaking peoples to the east of the Mediterranean are the ones with a literal, historical and factual Latin heritage. If you want to remove Britain from that group, then you'd have to explain away John Cabot, [[Catherine of Aragon]], [[Mary I of England]] and the earlier unsuccessful campaigns of [[John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster]] to be made ''de facto'' King of Castile. Aside from the genetic scientists' [Stephen Oppenheimer] take on Iberian genes in the British Isles, one would have to erase their traditional histories: the British count themselves descended from Trojans of Italy, and the Irish from the Milesians of Spain. One would also have to overlook the spread of Catholic Christianity by British missionaries elsewhere, such as Saint Patrick to be Apostle of the Irish, or the Anglo-Saxon missions to convert the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe. Britain and Gaul were Catholic when Italy and Spain were overrun by Arian heretical Goths. The British government has been tied with Normandy in France, in one form or another, since 1066...before that, with Brittany also in France--since the Fall of the Roman Empire. If one makes the case for Haiti, then so too could be done for Louisiana, Quebec and all the Anglophone countries, since the [[English language]] is more than 2/3 Graeco-Roman in compositional origins. Not only is there an artificial or arbitrary separation of Haiti from Louisiana and Quebec, but also between the English and the Latin. On the face of it, "Latin" as used in the Americas, is a synonym for "Hispanic", that is to say, lands formerly under the dominion of the Spanish or Portuguese governments. |
|||
*However, with the ethnoracial character of Haitians, Jamaicans and a whole lot of Brazilians, it is safe to say that they exist as their own [[African diaspora]], rather than simply European offshoots. Considering that the Spaniards and Portuguese themselves did not have settler colonies, it stands to reason that their cultural hegemony is shallow and without substance, that means, without veritas (truth) in the sense of being "Hispanic", long after declarations of independence, or the invasions of the USA to dislodge European powers under the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. If Mexico is so "Latin", then why did they kick out the Catholic Church in the 1800s? My cousin, who is a holy man, tells me that one cannot even wear the priest collar in Mexico City. That means "Latin" is essentially a sham, especially with the revival of Indian tribal culture through academic expertise, in most of these "Latin" countries with White minorities. After all, if Quebec is not included, when Quebec City was the capital of New France--the settler colony--then there is no case to include Haiti in with the "Latin" term, because Haiti was a dependency of New France, based in Canada. (Compare Barbados and the Carolinas, or Bermuda and Virginia) This historical precedent defies the sort of establishment you are trying to put forth. Do White minority rulers in these lands account for, substitute or represent the actual demography of the "Latin" American countries in total? It is only since recently that "Latin" places such as Argentina have had substantial European immigration, while [[Anglo-America]] has had the settler convention as an institution since the first attempts in the 1500s, with the land claims begun before the Reformation to boot, in the reign of Henry VII of England, who was solidly Catholic. In addition, the [[Italian American]] population in the states surrounding New York City, is very dense and a testament that this "Latin" theory for those other nations is a falsehood. To the original point, the mass of Gallic American colonial experience was absorbed into that of the Britannic American, with Haiti the only independent form of French colonization, subsequent to French rule, having had no control by the Hispanic or Britannic governments afterwards. |
|||
*Why then, does anybody think it technically correct to include Haiti in any other scheme than the tail end of the Gallic colonies, which mostly were absorbed within the Britannic? It's not like Americans consider Florida, Texas and the Southwest USA to belong to the stereotypical "Anglo" culture, nor would any foreigner, so who is saying otherwise, against the conventions of everyday life? Who is in a cloudy ivory tower and can't see the forest for the trees? (24.255.11.149 added by [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Hi there sir or madam. Do you realize: |
|||
:# If you are trying to argue about article content, you are in the wrong place. |
|||
:# Posting long rants about categorization schemes is not an effective form of discourse, here or anywhere else. Additionally you seem to be arguing about the use of a category that pretty much everyone agrees is fuzzy, which I'm not sure is going to get anywhere. |
|||
:# You seem to be arguing against a designation that the government of the country in many ways endorses. |
|||
:# You seem also to be taking a self-consciously minority position and attempting to say that it should be represented as the only opinion, which is not really how Wikipedia works. |
|||
:Personally I have no feeling on the content issue, but you should take it up with the people who edit the [[Haiti]] pages that you seem to object to. Propose specific changes. However note that if your opinion is essentially [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], or appear to be original research, nobody will take it seriously, you will get frustrated, and nothing good will come of it. Wikipedia is not about "truth" in the philosophical sense; it attempts to obtain something near truth by feeding off of the wisdom of others, and as such does not take original claims seriously unless they are validated by established sources (e.g. a noted scholar or statesman or something like that). Whether you find this silly or not has no sway here—it is how the system works or does not work, and it will not be changed over this or any other issue. Decide whether this is worth your time or not on the basis of assuming that it will ''not'' change. --[[Special:Contributions/24.147.86.187|24.147.86.187]] ([[User talk:24.147.86.187|talk]]) 04:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*This is not original research; this is a different presentation of facts already in wide dissemination throughout the Wikipedia and the internet. Also, [[WP:BIAS]] applies here. Furthermore, the foolishness is perhaps not so obvious, but during the Roman era in which Romance languages were to have their origins, both Britain and Spain were dependencies of Gaul. It stands to reason that since all of the principal colonist nations were once part of the [[Praetorian prefecture of Gaul]], then the divisive terms such as "Latin" and "Anglo", really don't apply (except as societal vulgarisms, without legitimate scrutiny in the social sciences, but rather facilitating establishmentary bias), while the resurgent Gallicism of the French Revolutionaries and the Italian Bonapartes really speak for a centralist position, one that encompasses both the Hispanic and Britannic colonies, in the greater Latin world which had a chief tributary in Gaul. If one wished to be more Italian about the Latin, well then...the Holy Roman Emperor was King of Italy and only one had any control over the colonies (Charles V)! The Pope didn't have colonies either! How about Genoa or Venice? (obvious silence) Sicily and Naples were hardly central to the colonial effort, being the bulwarks from which to stave off the Ottoman Navy, under their royal commander Philip II of Spain. Then again, if "Latin" is used as a synonym of "Hispanic", then the Habsburg period of Spain, in which the Byzantine title was willed to the royal family, there could be seen some kind of legitimacy, although vaguely grasping at straws. The strongest point again, would be the reign of [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]]. Charles held the doubtfully legitimate title of "Holy Roman Emperor", combined with the legitimate title "Roman Emperor" to a defunct country, having been extinguished in the [[Fall of Constantinople]]. Then again, what does France have to do with this, apart from the Capetians ruling Spain, Portugal and France, while Louisiana was traded back and forth? Further muddying the water; what did American Gallomania have to do with Anglo- anything, in the War of 1812? Jefferson held the torch to Napoleon, when purchasing Louisiana. How then, is Louisiana in any way, much different from Haiti? At least Quebec remained within British rule. Louisiana was constantly shrunken by the encroachments of British colonies and pushed to the Mississippi, but the issue remains that any attempt to box in the French colonies to either this "Anglo" or "Latin" camp, will only obscure the French contribution to the Americas and prevent a clear picture of events, as well as the apparently obfuscated identity of the French in the Americas during the present day, which only makes them suffer at the expense of ideologies which suspend any further discussion of their nature, with "hush" replies like the ones above. So then, prepetuate ignorance about the French, because it pleases the "Anglo" and "Latin" camps? Why must the French suffer ignominy? What it comes down to, is that "Anglo" = "Protestant and "Latin" = "Catholic". Some of the earliest colonial efforts under France came from Huguenots, although just north of St. Augustine, Florida. [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF BUT A MATTER OF FACT |
|||
HAITI IS LATIN AMERICAN & FRANCOPHONE BUT ITS NOT HISPANIC |
|||
To the person who started this discussion: Haiti '''is''' a Latin American nation. For one...'''French & a French derived language''' is spoken in it. It has '''many influences from its Spanish-speaking neighbors''' such as Cuba & the DR. Haiti is '''geographically south of the US'''. It is '''part of the Latin Union'''. Haiti '''is not Hispanic''' (Spanish-speaking) but Brazil is not as well yet no one complains about Brazil's Latin American status. In fact...Brazil is the only Portuguese derived country in the Western Hemisphere yet ppl still put them along with the Hispanic nations. Haiti though is '''Latin American'''. Culturally...Martinique & Guadeloupe are L-A "countries" as well however they are part of France so then again they're not. It has become generally accepted that only Iberian derived countries are Latin American which is not true & thats the only reason Haiti is usually left out. The term "Latin American" was in fact made by a Frenchman. Haiti is increasingly being more talked about in the educational course of '''Latin Studies'''. Quebec for one is part of Canada & isn't its own country & Louisiana is part of the US. They're both not south of the US & they have little to no similarities culturally to Haiti besides language & maybe a few customs. French Guiana is sometimes included as part of Latin America however it is politically an overseas dept of France. Just because Haiti has a large African descended population doesn't mean its not Latin American. Haiti is therefore an Afro-Latin American country. The DR before its formation was called Spanish Haiti at one time. Spain had also occupied Jamaica at one brief period of time but Jamaica has nothing whatsoever in common with Spain/France/Portugal or their former colonies in every aspect & so Jamaica is not Latin American. [[User:goolag|goolag]] ([[User talk:goolag|talk]] 6:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
These terms are so inaccurate and flimsy. The traditional founders of [[Britain]] and [[Cornwall]] are [[Brutus of Troy]] and [[Corineus]], also being the ancestors of the [[Briton]]s and [[Cornish people]]; Brutus was from Italy and Corineus was in Spain before joining Brutus. That makes all "Anglos" everywhere hardcore Latino Hispanics. Early history and genetics attests to it. What do Guineas have to do with Latino or Hispanic identity? Were they from Spain or do they have a Roman heritage? Fake fake fake. Keep dictating falsity. It is wholly untrue that Voodoo could be seen as Latin. When was Guinea part of the Roman Empire, like Britain or Morocco (Mauretania, Moors) as a part of Spain? So what if Guinea was overtaken by the Hispanic peoples of Iberia in the colonial era? This area of Africa was controlled by the British and Gallic peoples too. Identity supremacists like yourself ought to speak the truth. [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh man, are you for real? This is very non sequitur argument you are using, but the bottom line is, no source disputes that Haiti is part of Latin America, indeed Haitian Creole can be traced directly to Latin, even if the people's genes do not come from Latium. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Blood is thicker than words. Have you no clue about the relationship between Mexicans and Californians, whether they speak Spanish or English? Language is no cultural barrier between them, because of the blood that binds them. Non sequitur my ass. [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hah! The ''Blood Theory of Mutual Intelligibility''! I love it. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I've never added anything to the article, so chill out. You cannot tolerate a diversity of viewpoints. Everything is about stereotypes with you. [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:? What has this to do with adding things to articles? One stereotype I gladly adhere to is that [[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. But if you insist in continuing to dump your rants on Wikipedia pages, perhaps you could do it in a [[WP:EQ|more friendly way]] than your usual ''You Wikipedians are a bunch of dumb-witted morons'' style. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Last laugh/word is yours, huh? [[Special:Contributions/24.255.11.149|24.255.11.149]] ([[User talk:24.255.11.149|talk]]) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Statistics in the country infobox == |
== Statistics in the country infobox == |
||
Revision as of 23:59, 13 March 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haiti article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Independence
Why do we have the year that France recognized the nation followed by the year that the United States recognized them? Isn't the idea just to list the year in which they were first recognized by another country? Zephyrprince 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
World's First Black Independent republic
Any evidence of this? Where's the citation for this claim? I was under the impression that Haiti as a whole was the world's first black independent republic, not just the southern portion ruled by Petion Stanley011 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
Jdlyall 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC) I agree here. The first declaration of independence in 1804 under Dessalines was called a republic. Dessalines later made himself emperor, which contributed to the disaffection among the other generals and ended with his assasination.
Jdlyall 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Working on cleaning up further down in the History section following the USA occupation. There is a lot of political bias in the existing text. A lot of anti-Mulatto bias as well. For instance, Dumarsais Estime is called 'first black president' by the previous author. I don't know how to flag *errors of fact* or *evidence of bias* or other things I've seen in the Pedia, but that certainly applies here. There were many black presidents before Estime. Haitians say "dark".
Coup d'Etat or uprising/rebellion
Jdlyall 04:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) I have replaced the cited 'coup d'etat' with 'uprising'. The link to "coup d'etat" demonstrated that there was no "coup d'etat" as defined within Wikipedia; that is, by an arm of the state in dissension. This "coup d'etat" is being pushed in the info sphere by a political agenda with anonymous agents.
axgoss 01:40, 20 May 2006 I disagree. I understand that there is some vagueness around the arm of the state. However, The rest definition of coup matches the situation in Haiti almost perfectly in wikipedia:
"A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply a coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment that mostly replaces just the top power figures. It may or may not be violent in nature. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system."...""A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." In this sense, use of military or other organized force is not the defining feature of a coup d'état."
-What happened in Haiti was "the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means". The 'uprising' was highly organized and was conducted by former generals of the Haitian state. This is the arm of the state in dissention. The President was removed and subsequently every other level of government was displaced. Basically wikipedia is saying that a coup is the removal of only a few key political leaders with the purpose of displacing government.
-furthermore the term 'uprising' is extremely vague in Wikipedia and refers you to the 'rebellion' page which says rebellion can be: non-violent resistance, resistance, revolution, insurgency, insurrection, revolt, mutiny, subversion OR even, get this, uprising. Of these terms the one that closest resembles the coup in Haiti is insurgency; however, all of the 'rebellion' spin-offs seem to refer to an attack against the state. This was clearly not the intent of the coup in Haiti as its sole purpose was to remove key political figures within the state apparatus and ended immediately after achieving that goal.
US 'Invasion'
Is this pulled straight from some US propaganda source, such as the CIA`s website on nations? I find the description of the appalling US invasion to be ludicrous in the extreme; even calling it simply "biased" doesn`t do it justice. This really needs to be re-written, badly. Wikipedia articles in general seem to have a habit of painting other nations` invasions accurately as imperialist expeditions, but when the US does it, suddenly evil acts become good, even though they are exactly identical in nature. This behaviour is irrational and should have no place in a supposedly non-biased encyclopedia. The paragraph talking about the US invasion of Haiti is just one bad, straightforward example among many. These weak attempts to whitewash acts of blatant imperialist aggression, murder, and theft are absolute nonsense, or at the least do not belong in an encyclopedic source. Leave that to US textbooks and "official" sources. -- Smyslov 7 June 2006
It is more than a bit lop-sided! --Lilidor 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's "appalling" about the US invasion? Haiti is, and always has been, a real swamp of dysfunction. The Americans have the sense to try to prop the place up when it gets too crazy. They know they'll never totally fix the place, but at least they can try to give it a smack on the head. 06:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a dear friend in Cap Haitian who gave me his perspective on U.S. occupation. During the last period of anarchy a few years ago, my friend and all he knew were in fear for their lives from bands of roving, politically fervent young men. The French were the first to 'invade'. Things improved somewhat but women in certain places in Haiti were in fear of the male French soldiers. When the Americans appeared or 'invaded', people could now travel, the roads were improved, badly needed supplies could be imported and even jobs were created in response to the US 'invasion. According to my friend, the presence of the Americans was greatly appreciated. Barbp 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a determination to pretend the U.S. was not intent on crushing a popularly elected government and to avoid the nightmare of 'another Cuba' in the sense of a government not open to anything U.S. businesses might inflict. As it stands this account of Haiti's recent history is misleading in all it leaves out. A disappointing effort that by implication discredits other entries. Michaelstor (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Michaelstor, Jan 26, 2008.
- Or could it be that there is a determination not to include unsourced point-of-view descriptions of historical events? The kind of thing that is acceptable if reliably sourced (unless given undue weight) are statements like "According to Chomsky, the American intervention was aimed at crushing a popularly elected government to avoid 'another Cuba'.[12345]". --Lambiam 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Caco?
Why do the search for caco redirect here?
- "Cacos" were Haitians who fought against the occupying forces during the United States occupation of Haiti - Jwillbur 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Original "Cacos" were peasants who fought against General Sylvain Salnave in 1867. They captured and executed Salnave in 1870 near the DR border Hoserjoe 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Third Republic?
Does the Republic of Vermont, 1777 to 1791, qulaify as being the second republic after the United States, making Haiti the third? 64.4.235.79 11:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
World's only successful slave revolt??
I have deleted the quote "Haiti's revolution proved to be the only successful slave revolution in history" because its wrong. Who were the Hebrews in Egypt, the hundreds of independent communities of ex-slaves who escaped slavery in the colonies of the Americas or the Mamelukes who overthrew their Ottoman lords and established their rule in Egypt, to name a few notable examples? Do some reading before you make such assertions! Kemet 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe what they mean is the overthrow of their rulers and establish their own nation. The Hebrews left Egypt, and the Mamelukes did not rule all of the Ottoman Empire, they took a section of it, which was egypt. GreatChimp 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- It should be more clear then. Right now it says "and the only nation ever having a successful slave revolt" which is wrong. If what was meant was that the slaves were the first to establish their own nation, it should say that. Shadowoftime 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't claim that the slave revolt was successful because Haiti is still a mess. It's a bigger mess now than before the revolt 06:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Second Independent Country in Americas
This is false. A more correct description would be 'second country that became independent following European colonisation'. Many countries (to use the word loosely) were independent beforehand....the Inca and Aztec civilisations are examples.--Phillip Fung 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree but in history books, they would not really call them 'Nations' Caribbean1
- Some Eurocentric textbooks might not consider them nations but it doesn't mean they aren't. Looking at Wikipedia's own Nation definition, the Incan and Aztec Empires were nations. Should we decide that we're going to make an exception for them and consider them non-nations just because there weren't white people in America yet? That doesn't sound look very good reasoning to me. In fact, I'd go further to say that the Incan and Aztec Empires had definite political structures and so are not just Nations but Nation-Sates and therefore most definitly countries. Shadowoftime 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted sentence
"Actually, the venezuelan government led by Hugo Chávez, send humanitarian aid to Haiti for help him on a time of the hurricane success, and he promise to cooperate on the economy of the country." deleted from Aristide as it is poor English and has little relevance to the section. Lucaq 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)lucaq
Least developed country in the Western hemisphere
What about Sierra Leone? Aren't they less developed?
Oui, but the term Western Hemisphere is more geopolitical term, not a geographical term.Caribbean1 17:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Caribbean1
- I suppose "least developed country in the Americas" would be more accurate. - Jwillbur 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Hate-ee or High-ee-tee?
more like Hay-tee GreatChimp 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hay-ee-tee is more it. CyberAnth 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[ha'i:,ti:]. —Nightstallion (?) 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that H's are silent in French. Ah-ee-tee. Dan Carkner 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wi, li ah-ee-tee nan kreyol ayisian. Barbp 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Heroes (TV series) has led me to look into this - the Collins Concise dictionary gives the pronunciation as either 'heiti or ha:'i:ti (hay-tee or ha-ee-tee). I'm English and I've always used the latter - can we have feedback on whether the former is US English and the latter UK English or otherwise? Wilymancunian (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposed WikiProject
There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Haiti, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Caribbean. Interested parties should add their names there so we can determine if there is enough interest to start such a project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Eyes
I noticed alot of people from Haiti have this gorgeous slanted Asian eye shape. Are Haitians a mixture of Asians?
No, I am guessing they are descendents of the taino indians.
yvpal
- Uh, lots of Africans have "this gorgeous slanted Asian eye shape". You have to get out more Hoserjoe 05:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not too many asians in haiti however they do exist. Some haitians are believed to have some taino ancestry but it remains unproven... theoretically it is highly possible. Spyder00Boi 09:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Not appropriate
Someone has edited this page and after the text line concerning HIV infection and mortality has written in "and we are all happy". Someone needs to edit this page and remove that comment now.
- Or you could come off your high horse and fix it yourself... 70.72.134.166 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Does the long peninsula to the southwest of the capital have a name?
Just wondering if anyone knows...--HisSpaceResearch 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's called the Tiburon Peninsula (le tiburon) by many sources but its usually referred to simply as the southern peninsula. Spyder00Boi 09:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
this had been vandalised, I cleaned it up
somebody had changed the heading of the section on Aristide to say "Aristide likes to eat poop". I deleted everything after his name in the heading, so it just says aristide now, somebody might want to lock this one for new accounts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buhatkj (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
It has been vandalized again. I cut and paste what was inserted, something about 'power rangers' and other nonsense. I don't know what it is about Independent African peoples that makes some folks feel so insecure.
Could someone clean up the statement by Aristide's picture?
"It presently reads like this:
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former Roman Catholic priest,Aristide fought in a brutal war against the jedi and the jellybelly monsters, his only allies were the fiercesome power rangers first became President of Haiti in 1991. He would lead for three terms until he was deposed in 2004 in a violent revolt."
Much appreciation to the administration for their help. A fair and level playing field is only right when it comes to historical truths.
- It's wikipedia... vandalism happens... 70.72.134.166 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Photos
Could someone who knows how please put some photos of haiti on this page, i couldnt help noticing there are photos of prominent people and plenty of maps but no photos of cities or countryside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
I never knew that Haitians had immigrants from northern europe. the only countries that i know have descendence from northern europe are Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chile.
The article documents numbers of Germans in Haiti 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Haitian Art
Haitians are very famous for their artistic capabilities, especially paintings,wood carvings and drum oil sculptures. Haitian paintings are collected all over the world; and they are in many museums permanent collections.
yvpal
Dominican Republic
Can this be cited? Was the DR really founded as a white-Catholic nation separate from Haiti?
"Following Christophe's death, the nation was reunited as the Republic of Haiti under Jean-Pierre Boyer, Petion's successor. Boyer liberated the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo and united the entire island under free Haitian rule, until 1844 when the Dominican Republic was formed as white-Catholic nation separate from Haiti for reasons of tax burdens(to pay the debt obtained from the independance of Haiti from France), discontent of the population after abuses of the Haitian army against the population and different language, culture and religion." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.17.73.227 (talk) 19:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Demographics
This section seems to have a lot of personal opinions towards what should be stated. I believe it is enough to simply state "West African" seeing that is the region where most Haitians descend from. Another editor has seen it fit to state specific ethnic groups from West Africa believing it compatible with the rest of the info (mulatto and arab etc.). What do you ppl think about this. Spyder00Boi 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know Haitians are descended from a number of ethnic groups from both West Africa and even elsewhere, but I think specifying a number of these would be of interest to many who want to learn about Haiti. I am surprised no mention is made on the list of the Fon group since they are the first people I would think of and this information is readily found elsewhere. Til Eulenspiegel 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I to would like to know the exact % of some of these so called diffrent races in haiti cause its funny how the cia website left those details out cause it says black 95% and white & mullatoe 5%. or maybe the person who edited the page is lying. anyways wheres the proof for the asian, arab and diffrent whites the demographic info is useless until otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.56.197 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh...the racial term "white" includes polish, french, german ancestry and etc. The racial term "mulatto" signifies "mixed". Are you not very comprehensive? And there are arabs in haiti with proof of that. Spyder00Boi 12:28, 05 January 2008 (UTC)
Lmao sweetheart i know that. where is the proof for the Asians? you know the sources? because like all other carribean countries they have sources from all over. yet you guys say haiti has asians.{not saying it isnt true} but where are the sources. see im diffrent spyderboi i like to see exact numbers instead of percentages. and it doesnt even show that.
Improper source
The source citation given for the "seven major groups" does not support the text at all: most of the groups on this list are not even mentioned in this supposed source, and vice versa. The easy solution is to remove the list plus the citation, and leave it at that – unless someone finds a reliable source with an authoritative list. --Lambiam 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding list
Is it really warranted to list all the ethnic groups of West Africa when the term really defines them all? It seems a bit excessive dont you think so. If one wants to know the different ethnic groups in West Africa they can merely look it up on the respective article. Spyder00Boi 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- As Til Eulenspiegel noted above, there may be some legitimate interest in the major groups comprising the ancestors of Haiti's present black population, and there may be some value in illustrating the large diversity. There is also a relationship between the various vodoun "sects" and ancestral tribes. But I'm very much against including haphazardly collected lists. Let's not list any tribes, unless we have a truly reliable source (which the previous one was not). Furthermore, the natural place for such elaborations are the articles Demographics of Haiti and Saint-Domingue, much more than this one. Duplicating the same information across many articles makes it unnecessarily hard to maintain. --Lambiam 23:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Haiti"/ Arcade Fire
As I understand it, Régine Chassagne is the daughter of Haitian refugees, and the band have generated a significant amount of money and publicity for Partners in Health on Haiti's behalf. I think, given how much they've done to raise the profile of Haiti, and how strongly associated with the country they've become, it might be worth mentioning them in this article. Not sure though, second opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.178 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you'd want to write. Régine Chassagne has her own article on Wikipedia (as does Arcade Fire), and she is mentioned both in Haitian Canadians and List of Haitians. Most notable Haitians on that list (several of which are, in my opinion, at least as notable as R.C.) are not mentioned in the article. --Lambiam 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
My thinking is that, independant of the actual music they make, they're strongly associated with the country itself. It's kind of their cause. They've found a lot of ways to publicise Partners In Health for their work in Haiti and make people aware of what's happening and what's happened there politically. I'd have considered them at least as worthy of mention as Wyclef Jean, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.178 (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree thoroughly with the above. With all their efforts to raise awareness and funds concerning Haiti, and the relative brevity of the page, it could only be a positive thing to mention them. William Golder (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although I'm still not sure what you'd want to write, this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (as long as you keep to the Wikipedia policies). So be bold. --Lambiam 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Haitian Media
Why isn't Haitian Media talked about? I would like to know the development of its media, TV, Radio and some statistics.
Language
This article needs more about Haiti's languages. Specifically, what are the relative positions of French and Haitian Creole in Haiti? How widespread is French? Does anyone in Haiti use it outside of government or business (i.e. speak it natively)? Is Creole used in government any? This article needs a language section, or at least a language subsection under demographics, to clear all this up.(Lexington1 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
Note: Moved what language info there is in this article from the culture section into its own subsection under Demographics and added a request for expansion. (Lexington1 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
- Does Haiti have it's own dialect of French? If so, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Gringo300 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Statistics in the country infobox
The article has an {{Infobox Country}}, with a list of data, including several statistics. The data should be verifiable, which means it must be possible to ascribe them to reliable sources, just like all other information in our articles. For some groups of data this is done in a specific way. They have a parameter whose name ends with "_rank". These parameters result in links to specific articles that give the data for that group, with a proper ascription. For example, "population_estimate_rank = 85th" results in the text "(85th)" being displayed following the population estimate. This is a link to our article List of countries by population. There we find, indeed, that Haiti ranks 85th on a list of countries by population, based on the 2007 mid-year estimate by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Population Division. The 2007 population estimate from that report is given in the article: 9,598,000. This figure can be verified in Table A.2 of the UN report, which is online: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2006). "World Population Prospects, Table A.2" (PDF): p. 37-42. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I have tried to adjust the data in the infobox to correspond with the properly sourced data from the articles serving to provide the sources for these figures. Unfortunately, other editors keep reverting to other values, such as the unsourced (and obsolete) 2005 population estimate 8,528,000.
Please don't revert again without giving an argument on these talk pages, and preferably, discuss the changes first, so that we may reach a consensus. --Lambiam 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dear editor: We value your input but Keyword = Population Prospect. It was an estimate that was formed before the year. We're about to be in 08 and the population is still not yet close to capping 9 million. The official stated population is still just about over 8 million maybe closer to 8.7 million. The 05 data isn't obsolete...the country didn't boom with a million new citizens in only 2 years. Spyder00Boi 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- All these numbers are estimates, not accurate counts. An estimate can go up by a million without the population increasing. The official estimate for the number of citizens of Turkey recently went down by several millions, while the population is growing. Please remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you have reliable sources that give the 8.5 million figure, please cite them. Do not just change the number because you happen to believe it is "more correct". --Lambiam 23:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
US Occupation
I removed one of the paragraphs dealing with the US occupation. It was heavily biased and POV. It did have one source, but as that was a US gov one, it's not really unbiased either.
As a counter to the romantic picture of marines trying to help backwards Hatians towards progress, here's an excerpt from the introduction to The Uses of Haiti (Introduction by Noam Chomsky). "Numerous U.S. interventions culminated in Woodrow's Wilson's invasion of Haiti, where his warriors... murdered and destroyed, reinstituted virtual slavery, dismantled the constitutional system because the backwards Haitians were unwilling to turn their country into a U.S. plantation, and established the National Guards that ran [the country] by violence and terror after the marines finally left." --Gyrcompass (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Haitian cuisine and "dirt cookies"
As you can read in our Geophagy article, the practice of eating "dirt cookies" is widespread and common, in particular among Africans and descendants of African slaves, and in these groups in particular among pregnant women, by way of medication or food additive (antacid) and nutritional supplement (iron, calcium), where the particular benefits depend on the type of clay (such as bentonite and kaolin). Such clay cookies are also sold in some health-food stores in the U.S. This is not at all specific to Haiti, and no more "cuisine" than the consumption of omega-3 pills among the affluent. The Haitian tradition of geophagy is a schoolbook example of the common practice as a dietary supplement. Resorting to eating these cookies not for health benefits but to fill an empty stomach is incidental and only highlights the lack of available food, in the Haitian case because of sky-rocketed food prices. Even so, this use is also not confined to Haiti; it is a common phenomenon in impoverished areas in such circumstances. --Lambiam 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Clean up
Cleaning up this article has taken me about 10 minutes. Someone should have done it a lot sooner. Adam 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Further clean up is urgently required. The article is factually incorrect in a couple of places, it uses inflammatory language, and truly terrible grammar. I am specifically referring to the history section, which I only had time to edit about a third of. I will bookmark this and return to it when I have time but I suggest that anyone who has the time, a legitimate and factual reference, and a good understanding of English grammar and encyclopedic sentence style take a look and see what they can fix. Mike Dacre (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that this is a not very good translation from the French article fr:Haïti. We also have an article History of Haiti, and it is curious that the History section in the present article contains much detail not found in the main History article. --Lambiam 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)