Talk:Haiti

There is no government

Should me mention "None" as a de-facto government? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Even for states that have been in practical anarchy, usually the de facto government is referred to as "transitional" or "provisional." More rarely, I've seen "disputed" used in place of any government when another political body claims legitimacy (see Libya c. 2011). Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A Failed state is being talked about by academics.

Forsans, Nicolas (2024-03-13). "How Haiti became a failed state". The Conversation. Retrieved 2024-03-17. Moxy🍁 04:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the last I've heard is that no transitional or provisional government has been formed yet. At the very least we should go with the "disputed" option. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should put down the “Failed State” about now ngl -Howchecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howchecker (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision of recent overturned edits for consensus on March 18 2024

You may begin Rambling Rambler as per your WP:ONUS request on why my recent edits backed by citations need to be excluded given the fact that it is based on current events suitable for a WP:LEAD (as well as subtly addressing the spiraling “Cannibal” misinformation that is taking social-media by storm by some pretty well-known media personalities that I will not name or haven’t you noticed?). It was written in conjunction with the current political climate and organizations involved in an insurgence in Haiti and was in no way meant to be trivial. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore Rambling Rambler, WP:ONUS under the subsection “other issues”, has been open to interpretation in my 11-year experience, where it mentions that, “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” —Please keep in mind that you are all but one single editor in dispute of these recent edits. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

First off, WP:ONUS clearly states: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," (emphasis mine) so repeatedly reintroducing it along with hitting me with an edit-warring template very much doesn't look like you're wanting to actually discuss this in good faith. You are the person seeking to include the content here, not myself, and it is not open to interpretation.

Quite simply, just because something is verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion, and placing multiple paragraphs about social media rumours (true or false) about a specific Haitian individual/group related to recent unrest in the country (which has its own article) in the lead for the main Haiti article itself is very much in breach of WP:UNDUE as it is an unreasonable level of prominence. Inclusion in articles on the group it pertains to would more likely be fitting and therefore find consensus given the relevance to the article subject. But placing it so prominently here is the equivalent of say opening the article for United States and the first thing you see being two paragraphs detailing January 6th. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Article not the place for speculation. Moxy🍁 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. As I mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard, I agree with Rambling Rambler that the material added was undue for the lead.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of it seems undue for the body too, being more about American media than Haiti. The bit of information might be useful in Government and Politics, which is an entirely undeveloped section. CMD (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly about myths that have been debunked, or things that there is no evidence for. There's no point in mentioning it. Richard75 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler, on the surface, there would seem to be a conflict between WP:ONUS and WP:REMOVAL, however the latter may offer some clarity as it states, “There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal”. —-Again, you were the sole editor at the time of dispute and WP:ONUS called for “those” [editors] (which is not singular language). This is why I believed that this guideline was subjective and open for interpretation. It would seem that content removal before discussion was not proper protocol like I initially had thought.

With that being said, I am glad we had reached a consensus; though should the entirety of my edits be removed? Should I reiterate them here? cc: Richard75, Chipmunkdavis, Amakuru, Moxy. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't get why you're trying to revive this after a month of inactivity.

WP:ONUS is a policy, WP:REMOVAL is an essay of someone's view. The language used in ONUS is simply neutral language so it applies to a group of any size (there is no requirement of multiple editors having to dispute it). A single editor disputing your edits when no positive consensus has been established for the content, it's on you to take it to talk and obtain that consensus, it's not acceptable to just endlessly reinsert the content you demanded be included.

Also, just to highlight for the record, you took no part in the consensus building process despite it being expected, instead you tried to resist following policy and then made a clearly bad faith report to the edit-warring noticeboard you knew was bogus[1] so I suggest you drop it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How did I take part in no consensus when I had initially opposed the removal and initiated the discussion? A discussion which hasn’t been formally closed yet mind you; so there is no reviving being taken place here. If you have anything personal you’ll like to say to me (unrelated to this article pertaining to Haiti), we can do it on either one of our talk pages. Though, I do not respond to WP:PA under the guise of “suggestions” that I ought to keep; bear that in mind Rambling Rambler. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It's very glass houses for you to expect others to take discussions on your personal actions to personal talk pages when your reviving of this discussion is mostly personal commentary about your misunderstanding of policy and not about the content of the Haiti article.

Now, it's not a "personal attack" to bring up the factual information that almost immediately after belatedly starting this talkpage discussion (after previously just re-adding the disputed content against policy) you didn't interact with my response but instead knowingly made a false 3RR edit-warring report against me. Rather for at least myself it's relevant contextual information when considering why you've suddenly come back weeks later when combined with:

1. How you actively chose not to engage in the discussion as multiple other editors spoke against your desired changes (your contribution history shows consistent active editing elsewhere on the site during this timeframe), and
2. How you're not presenting any substantial new information at this time that would warrant a new discussion but instead are just asking people to change their minds based on the exact same information from several weeks ago.

Overall it makes it hard to understand what you're looking to get out of this, other than five people once again just making it clear to you that it's undue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30th April 2024.

The claim that there were "100,000 British Casualties" during the Haitian independence wars is surely wrong. The British army in the late eighteenth century was surprisingly small and numbered roughly 100,000 men in total, most of whom were stationed in Europe and elsewhere around the British Empire (especially North America) for obvious reasons. There are in fact very few contemporaneous accounts of Britain's involvement in Hispaniola (which, in itself, argues against the alleged scale of British involvement), but such accounts as there are suggest that there were perhaps some 20,000 "British" troops in Haiti (many of whom would have been recruited in the Americas), and that roughly 60% of them died of disease (mostly yellow fever) - i.e. 12,000 casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

In the Post-Aristide era (2004–present) subsection of the History Subsection, the last sentence of the last paragraph says "On April 25, 2024 Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti took over the Governance of Haiti and is cheduled to stay in power until 2026." I would like to make a grammatical edit in the word "cheduled" to "scheduled" B123r123e1234 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting that! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Haiti

Haiti's sovereignty on 1 January 1804, leading to the massacre of the French. The country thus became the first independent nation of Latin America and the Caribbean, the second republic in the Americas, the first country in the Americas to eliminate slavery, and the only state in history established by a successful slave revolt. Chrisdoune (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Vous avez oublier cette partie de l’histoire Chrisdoune (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Haiti

La souveraineté d'Haïti le 1er janvier 1804, conduisant au massacre des Français. Le pays est ainsi devenu la première nation indépendante d'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes, la deuxième république des Amériques, le premier pays des Amériques à éliminer l'esclavage et le seul État de l'histoire établi par une révolte d'esclaves réussie. Vous avez effacé cette histoire c’est très méchant de votre part Chrisdoune (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

Change the incumbent prime minister, as a different one is in office now. Deedr1234 (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

Second paragraph: Haiti was originally inhabited by the Taíno people.[22] In 1942, Christopher Columbus established the first European settlement in the Americas. 1492 is the correct year. 69.41.12.74 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Skynxnex (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

Add: James, C.L.R. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution to the Further reading section Charles R Arthur (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What additional information does this publication give as compared to the article, its references, and other further reading? LizardJr8 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2024

Reference link number 369 contains a broken link. The link should be updated to: https://celt.indiana.edu/portal/haitian-creole/index.html Rlmuth (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)