Talk:Antihaitianismo

message: ---Are you kidding me, are you serious, I can't beleive this it's ridiculous this is the most bias article I've ever seen in wikipedia. this sh** should be deleted. this is so publicly racist towards dominicans.
Using words such as "Proud" to characterize a whole nation of citizens is "unfairness of tone"
From wikipedia, this article needs:
Fairness of tone
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
Let the facts speak for themselves
Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.
Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.
Attributing and substantiating biased statements
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.
There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.Adreamtonight 08:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link seems to just be a mirror of this article which is already cited elsewhere in the text. Why they used two different links to cite the same article is beyond me.--Rosicrucian 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: It was actually below Parsley Massacre initially.  Then it was placed on top.  It was relevant.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antihaitianismo&diff=176651083&oldid=176650590 .  The holocaust has a similiar box.
Armyguy11 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not belong in this article. Period. Do not make disruptive edits to prove a point, and continue the discussion on the proper article's talkpage.--RosicrucianTalk 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Neutral Point of View in DISPUTE and until neutral sources are quoted and verified.
1. The only sources used in this anti-Dominican racist article are obtained from organizations bases in historically black slave waging nations (United States).
2. Sonia Pierre, quoted as this article reference, is currently challenging Dominican Sovereignty laws in order to accommodate illegal Haitian immigration in Dominican Republic.
3. Not a single reference from a government institution from either Haiti or the Dominican Republic is cited. It's an absurd talking about a supposed "conflict" without quoting the conflicted nations in question!
4. The only "hate crime" perceived here is from the anonymous coward who posted such acts without a single verifiable reference. Circular references are NOT recognized as valid references! ("according to HRW, HRW says...")
5. Human Rights Watch resides AND depends on United States funding, a former slavist and currently racist nation. (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flurry (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View in DISPUTE 

message: I wonder if we should start an Antimexicanism article for Unitedstatesian racism against Mexicans, or an Antidominicanism article for Puerto Ricans and nationals of other countries' racism against Dominicans. The Wikipedia would then be full of articles addressing every single kind of racism based on nationality, and that is not the purpose of this place. Thus, I believe that this article is, not only biased, but unnecessary. The issue could be easily covered in a sub-section under the article "Ratial segregation." Jgrullon88 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: It appears from what I read that racism against or amongst people of different Latin American countries usually fits rather tame standards and perhaps not even qualifies as racism proper (or at least has racism as one of its least determining factors), whereas Dominican aversion towards Haitians has a strong, if not predominant, racist tinge. I therefore think it is pertinent to keep this article in place, even much to chagrin of people like you. 
According to your philosophy, other forms of bigotry, whether or not specifically racist (such as antisemitism, Islamophobia, Francophobia, anti-Italianism or anti-Asian racism in the US) shouldn't deserve a page of their own in the wikipedia -- and I believe they do. If you consider antihaitianism is as irrelevant as (you probably deem) Haiti itself, that's your problem. But please respect the choice of others to think and act otherwise.
Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an answer 

message: The NPOV and cite sources request has been posted for over a year now, and it is clear that this whole article is an unjustified smear on the Dominican People. This was perpetrated by corwards who had the nerve to auto-validate their own smearing.
On the side notes I've read to far that unsuccessfully try to justify this slander is a guy that tries to defend this invented definition by citing that, for example, anti-Semitism DOES exist and that it deserves an entry.
I concur with User:Jgrullon88 in that the baseless definition trying to singleout a whole nation as the only "hate criminal" against a specific nation is incorrect, has no precednt and is absurd.
User:Walter Sobchak0 makes a jeeve talking argument, trying to compare apples with oranges: antisemitist is attributed by definition to somebody against Semitic people. It doesnt says, for example, that antisemitism is: "Arabs hate against Semitic people" Or does it?
"Antihaitianismo", by its own absurd definition claims that hate against people of Haiti is the exclusivity of Dominicans. So nobody else in the world bt Dominicans can have (or ever had in the past) a hate disposition against Haitians. How more MORONIC can that absurd definition
be made?
This article should marked for deletion immediately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flurry (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION ADMINISTRATORS - NPOV and cite sources requests have over a year past due. 

message: Since the discussion about POV in this article appears dormant, I've removed the tag per the instructions at the template's page: 
"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." 
Let me know if there are any questions. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV tag 

message: First of all, I am neither Haitian nor Dominican. I am interested in this article being objective rather than inflammatory. 
I tried to [strike] the sections of this article that are currently off-topic or extremely one-sided (inflammatory). Those paragraphs need examination (and I shouldn't be banned for trying to help). The reason I used [strike] was to highlight the sections, rather than to move, edit, or to delete them. It's extremely inflammatory and subjective in its current state. 
1. THIS article is supposed to be specifically about racism directed at Haitians. Paragraph after paragraph about how Haitian leaders mistreated Dominicans in 1820-1822 is entirely misplaced and inappropriate. It's fine to refer to the more comprehensive, historical articles on the relationships between these two nations. The heavily subjective narrative about a short period of Haitian rule (200 years ago) is akin to explaining "nazi antisemitism" by listing all the bad things jews allegedly did... and then adding a blurb at the end about Hitler. It's disgraceful.
2. The paragraph about the Human Rights Watch report is excellent and acknowledges a very complex history. That paragraph should link to some of the other great articles which (objectively) cover the history between these two nations. There are articles that cite many, many sources pertaining a long, complex, and rich history.  
3. Even the paragraphs about Trujillo and the complex situation needs more sensitive, objective clean up.
4. A young student trying to understand these complex issues should see very short, simple, factual statements. Additionally, they should be linked to more comprehensive articles on the historical roots and historic tensions.
Can a more objective scholar take some responsibility with this article?
71.183.28.197 (talk)
: Thanks 71, looks like you had a good eye for neutrality.  See my comments below.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call To Objective Scholars? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antihaitianismo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008042155/http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/dominican/antihaiti.htm to http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/dominican/antihaiti.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: --->"Antihaitianismo can be traced back to a policy of racial segregation instituted by the Spaniards in the Captaincy General of Santo Domingo (present-day Dominican Republic)." It is strong that someone have included this and not into a more complete context, anyone with a minimal knowledge of the history of Haiti and Dominican Republic can realize that the French were much more racist than the Spaniards, and this can be seen in the rage and testimonies of abuses towards of the Haitian Blacks that many of them were mentioned during the revolts of the Haitian blacks in Saint Dominique (colonial Haiti) (read e.g.: 1804 Haiti massacre), in contrast there was no mere such thing in the Dominican Republic, I believe that this sentence in this article must be altered.
Another important thing, here was deleted the hard massacre that the Haitians did in the Dominican Republic when they invaded Haiti (that was previously included in the article and was not even modified but deleted). This is a fact that must be included in the article, it should not be ignored, simply because the objective is to name all of the truth, not what you consider politically correct.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Please modify that