Talk:Haiti

Black and white as ethnic groups?

--Nils Jansen (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Link Improvements

These are all good sources according to Wikipedia guidelines and would be an improvement over the current links.

Comments?

I heard you like muskipz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.241.99 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Emergency earthquake aid

• International Committee of the Red Cross* International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: Nonprofit Disaster Relief Organization
• Haiti Solar Energy specializes in helping residential and commercial owners supply their own energy needs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.167.107 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• List of charities in the US helping Haitian earthquake victims
• American Red Cross
• Disasters Emergency Committee, umbrella organisation for 13 UK aid agencies coordinating the appeal in the UK
• Google's Haiti Relief page

Contacting friends and relatives in Haiti

• International Committee of the Red Cross Family Links webpage

69.171.160.25 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Smells racist

Claiming "the first" "the only" slave revolution in more than one occcations smells racist. First of all there are many revolutions and rebellions in both medieval ages and later. Best example is Mameluk rule in Egypt almost all the rulers were rebel slaves till Ottoman era. Is it just because Circassians are European slaves of Semitic Arabs, rather than African slaves of European French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.213.221 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dont forget Spartacus in there :)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus Although his was unsuccessful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.178.118 (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mamluks were considered to be “true lords,” with social status above freeborn Muslims in places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt." Eh? --71.93.182.252 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Motto:

---

Incredibly, a secondary country's notion of a primary country's motto doesn't actually constitute history, law, or reality. If you look closely, the motto is actually emblazoned on the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.151.137 (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Motto ?

According to the French wiki page about Haiti, which cites reference (contrary to the English page), the motto is the same as France's : "Liberte, egalite, fraternite". The one cited here ("L'union fait la force") is actually the one from Belgium.. All of this sounds quite disturbing, isn't it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.154.2 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

earthquake section

Do we really need an section on an earthquake for an article about an entire country? In five years it'll look ridiculous there and be taken out. Can we just realize now that it doesn't belong and stick it in the Calamities in Haiti page? .froth. (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For the same reason it shouldn't be in the introduction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To often Wiki User jump on the band wagon and rush to include info that will not stand the test of time. FROTH is right this does not belong at least for now. It should be given its own page with a link to this one.

Also the is no facts yet. death tolls etc. property damage at this point is just a guess and that goes against what WIKI says it stands for.24.101.172.61 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not remove the all the text under the earthquake section and replace it with this simple sentence: "More information is availabe at 2010 Haiti earthquake"? 98.247.230.41 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the significance of this event, it seems fine to me to include best "guesses" as long as they are from reliable sources and the sources are cited. Somnlaut (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's the worst earthquate in 200 years one might say it's an important part of the country's history

I agree: the occurrence and impact was significant, but perhaps it could be added to a created "geography" section, stating something to the effect of "not usually prone to earthquakes (see 2010 Haiti earthquake)".

Does the USA page talk of the many Hurricanes that have happened over the years or earthquakes??? Does the USA page include San Frans earthquake????

No because this events do not shape a country over the long haul. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really wish to compare those pages, the impact of the earthquake is comparable to the impact of 9/11 on the states and possibly far more relevant. The USA page mentions 9/11 with a link, which would be a sensible approach here as well. Certainly we should not make the article about a country into an article about an earthquake. Somnlaut (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a fair comparison. One third of the population of this very poor country is affected. This single event is very likely to affect the country for ever. Maybe 100 years from now we can remove the earthquake reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.147.109 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can include a link to it in the section belonging to the National Palace - the Haiti White House - noting it was destroyed in the earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.220.37 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Demographics section

It's quite amazing that the total population of the country is not listed anywhere! (except the aproximation from the poor-legibility graph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.147.109 (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact not true. Observe the graph at the beginning of the article, on the right, 10 facts from the bottom, under the heading "Population", where is found the estimated 2009 population, set at 10,033,000. Hopefully even those who can't read can follow these instructions!

Article says that Haiti has the highest fertility rate in the western world but if you click the link you find Guatemala is #41 while Haiti is #51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northeaster (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Poor structural design" is POV

It is point of view (and victim blaming) to say that Haiti's buildings collapsed owing to "poor structural design". Engineering is everywhere a matter of costs and trade-offs, and the racist treatment of Haiti for the past 200 years has meant that buildings have been constructed to lower standards than in the developed world.

Furthermore, Haiti has not had a major earthquake for the last 200 years, and it is not considered to be in an earthquake-prone area.

"Poor structural design" is not a POV. It is an objective statement of engineering reality. One can, of course, come up with racist explanations of why the buildings were poorly designed, but they don't change the physical reality. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Engineering reality isn't just physical reality. The engineer has to stay within financial constraints. In Haiti, these financial constraints are severe. In addition, although earthquakes can be violent in the Caribbean they are rare, and when resources are limited, this is another reason not to take earthquake over-engineering into account.

However it appears that the article has been changed.

"... with a majority of buildings collapsing due to poor structural design". Citation is needed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.14.117 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone else check this page after watching the video of Pat Roberston?

Using the awesome power of the internet, i ask you to tell me where pat roberston got the idea that Haitians made a pact with the devil to drive the french out.

video can be found here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.73.219 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC) .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.28.243 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness his comments have not been posted here!! Josué L. Barbosa (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

... Pat Robertson got the idea because it's either a fact or a common myth/belief in Haiti. My friend volunteered there and came back with stories about Voodoo and how the country made a pact with the devil to escape french colonialism. I imagine with all the volunteer work Pat Robertson does in Haiti, he knew this already.

From http://www.americandaily.com/article/95 (2004)

It is a matter of well-documented historical fact that the nation of Haiti was dedicated to Satan 200 years ago. On August 14, 1791, a group of houngans (voodoo priests), led by a former slave houngan named Boukman, made a pact with the Devil at a place called Bois-Caiman. All present vowed to exterminate all of the white Frenchmen on the island. They sacrificed a black pig in a voodoo ritual at which hundreds of slaves drank the pig’s blood. In this ritual, Boukman asked Satan for his help in liberating Haiti from the French. In exchange, the voodoo priests offered to give the country to Satan for 200 years and swore to serve him. On January 1, 1804, the nation of Haiti was born and thus began a new demonic tyranny.

See also wikipedia's article on Dutty_Boukman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.227.246.8 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HISTORY SECTION AND DEMOGRPHICS PROBLEMS

THIS IS IN THE HISTORY SECTION, BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION. IN HISTORY IT SAYS: Mixed race Haitians make up about 15–20% of the population of Haiti. BUT IN DEMOGRAPHICS IT SAYS: 90-95% are of predominantely African decent.

THIS NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IN BOTH SECTIONS. WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT ARE THE REAL CURRENT, ACCEPTED DEMOGRAPHIC CATAGORIES BEING USED? AND THEN, WHAT ARE THE ACCURATE NUMBERS?

Looks like your caps lock was on. Or are you yelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.147.109 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mixed race Haitians make up about 15–20% of the population of Haiti. They live mostly in the wealthier suburbs of the capital like Petionville or Kenscoff. Also they originate from and live in the Southwestern regions of Haiti such as: Jacmel, Les Cayes, Cavaillon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.248 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tourism

According to CNN, Haiti is the poorist country in the western hemisphere. Why don't they do more to bring in tourist dollars? They should be one of the wealthiest countries in the region, if not the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Contribution to the World" Bullshit

Totally ridiculous for an encyclopedia. It's desperate white guilt.

In view of what's been done to Haiti, I think white guilt is appropriate. "Neutrality" in the sense of basic fairness and decency is a moral category, and Haiti is regarded non-neutrally by the mainstream media. This is because reporters and talking heads of the mainstream media, superficially educated, have only a crustal knowledge of Haiti: they know it's desparately poor, but do not know that in the 1820s, Haitiennes were required to pay reparations to the French for "stealing" their property by liberating themselves from slavery, with the connivance of the United States and Britain. Nor do they know that Haiti's treasury was given to what is now Citibank in the 1910s because Haitiennes could not pay onerous and fraudulent debts to the USA, and that the United States Marines (according to Marine general Smedley Butler) were essentially privatized and used as debt collectors in the 1920s.

Wikipeda can redress this, but I won't hang by my thumbs, since what Jimbo Wales means by neutrality is that southern white yokels and convenience store clerks get to say what is real and what is not.\

Therefore a "contribution" section is quite appropriate.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" "monstrum horrendum" "hey if I'm banned how come I can post?" Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.32.221 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and write a "Contribution to the World" section for the US or UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.80.44 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you may add a "Contribution to the World" section for either the United States and or the United Kingdom. That is the idea behind the Wikipedia project. But I am going to guess the question of your actual ability to do so is what is really being asked here. No. No, *you* probably can't, but feel free to give it a try. Maybe you can try to solicit some help from your comrades at Stormfront? Enough monkeys at enough keyboards might just be able come up with something worthwhile. --71.93.182.252 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that to write good things about US and UK people have to be a white supremacist? The UK and US have contributed a damn lot to the world. Are you calling us monkeys because we say so? In future please refrain for such stupid remarks. Many many people are sick to the teeth of every white man who likes the UK or US being accused of such far-right rasicm. They are false accusations and very, very offensive. We dont compare Nelson Mandella of supporting the KKK...so dont compare ALL whites of supporting stormfront...because we dont.DarkMithras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.178.118 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just the ones who use phrases like "It's desperate white guilt." or "Bullshit" when referring to there being a section suggesting that a Black nation may have had positive contributions to the world. Not to mention that the section may have been added and worked on by anyone of any nation or ethnicity. But I do seem to have struck a nerve, yes? AWESOME. --71.93.182.252 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)--71.93.182.252 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove Opinions- Please delete the "Obama cares about black people" remark. True or not, it's not factual it's an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.97.55 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's pushing the limits of what is encyclopedic. And to cite Point du Sable and Audubon is misleading; they lived on the island when it was the French colony of Saint-Domingue, not when it was the independent Republic of Haiti. Funnyhat (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Two days ago, before the earthquake, I had already initiated a discussion of this topic (without the nasty overtones of this section)[1] but somewhere in all the recent editing of this page the entire thread was removed. The title of that section is obviously POV and needs to be changed, I've already taken a stab at making the actual content more neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes of course I'm a racist and a terrible person for thinking that a "Contribution to the World" section is unencyclopediatic (or whatever adjectival form is appropriate).

Signed, the Creator of this section.

"Contribution to the World" is too prideful and nationalistic to be considered neutral. The very act of listing "contributions to the world" is about fawning positive appraisal rather than objective treatment of facts. In addition, the things listed are hardly of a noteworthy quality to be considered "world contributions". The contributions of the Haitian Diaspora to African countries is too limited to be considered a "world" contribution. Donating money to Bolivar or Point du Sable (one man) joining the American Revolution is just not something of a "world contribution" scale. Even the Bolivar article doesn't have such a glorifying tone; shouldn't he be the one getting credit for "world contributions?" This whole section is ridiculous. Don't use the democratic nature of Wikipedia to further your nationalistic propaganda. Notice for professional articles regarding a certain country, they use language like "Scientific and Technological Achievements of X". They don't blatantly try to establish ethnocentric "credit" for things that we have.

typo-

The current President of the United States is Barack Obama, not Barrack Obama.

This is within the earthquake section:

Other support has been in effect lately though, as President Barrack H. Obama stated at a press conference that he, along with former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, will send relief and support as soon as they can after devising the plan (January 14th, 2010).[citation needed]

The contribution of any nation to the world is important. The issue of whether or not a person can cite such a contribution based on race or other contrived restrictions is foolish. Whether or not the Republic of Haiti or the colonial predecessor, people who have lived in a place during a formative time in their lives should have that connection noted if for no other reason than it provides a context of connection for those in different places. Using race as a litmus test is a straw man used by racists to interject their ideology into a conversation. White guilt should be understood by those in denial of its existence. The political upheavals of the 20th century can be traced by the interlopers' actions that caused many nations to go to war. In most cases, the wars of the 20th century where caused by white guys. The third world and its resources were merely a means to an end for many.

As for President Obama liking black people, I should hope so, as the African-American ethnic group makes up a good portion of his country, not to mention his heritage. 72.128.126.26 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

the biggest disater of this millenium An earth-quake

Lets help the earth quake victims of Haiti. because on one can understand its value better than us as we suffered the same in kutchch india . so all friends n reader plz get ready for charity of victims. over one lacks people were dies by this quake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.164.189 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one, am completely furious over the lacks that people were dies by this quake as well. We are all awaiting the charity of the victims.--Evilbred (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake in the lead

I think there should be a mention of the earthquake in the lead. I don't know a great deal about Haiti's history but I imagine 100 years from now, this is going to be considered one of the greatest tragedies and most significant events in the nations history. I don't see any discussion about this here so I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and add it. If somebody disagrees and removes it, we can discuss that here. DegenFarang (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While I personally don't disagree with your thinking that the Port-au-Prince earthquake is going to be one of the most significant events in Haiti's history, it is still a current news event, and we still know so little about the number of deaths, scope of damage, capacity of international response or internal forces to rebuild the city etc. that anything about the earthquake put in the lead is likely to undergo rapid change over the next few days & weeks. Along with rapid text change will come a temptation for expansion and addition to your succinct and well crafted paragraph, which could result in the reference to the earthquake overshadowing the rest of the lead. As devastating as this earthquake is, it is not the defining element of Haiti, the Haitian people, or Haitian society. I don't propose deleting this paragraph for the time being, but I think we need to be vigilant that the lead doesn't become the main location for a discussion of this week's earthquake. Haiti is a lot more than one tragic event, as horrific as it is. Ultimately the consensus may be to leave in a reference to the earthquake in the lead, similar to the reference to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or the earthquake/tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia both of which events are in the lead in those articles.Corlyon (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)