Talk:Antihaitianismo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Bias
---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)
Is this A Racist Movement against dominicans???Ya should make a new article named Anti-Dominicanism too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs). sockpuppet of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez
Just look at the sources were they get things from:HAITIFOREVER.COM [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.127.181 (talk • contribs).
- 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)
Alright, I tried eliminating anything that wasn't backed up by the sources listed. Just because the article is cited, doesn't mean the articles cited in "antihaitianismo" have that information!! Take for example the BBC article, thrown in there for no apparent reason. This whole article stinks of bias and POV, and yet my attempt to edit this was ruled out. The idea is not to say that anti-haitianismo doesn't exist, but to present even-handedly. The Ernesto Sagas articles DON'T DO THAT, and neither does this article, with its unnacountable SWEEPING generalizations of the Dominican people and their thinking. No article can claim to know how an entire nation thinks without **backing it up with sources**. By sources I mean either polls or election results reflectant of this "deep seeded prejudice". For one, in 1994 around 45% of the Dominican voting populace voted for Jose Francisco Pena Gomez, a very dark Dominican of Haitian descent. You have to go a LONG way to reconcile this fact with "full fledged prejudice" against Haitians by "a whole generation." | | I'm sorry, but this article is really not only guilty of broad generalization and malicious bias... It is a gross simplification of Dominican-Haitian relations.EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to rearrange the article so it at least flows logically. EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Hope this is better, any feedback?EYDrevista 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ArmyGuy's corrections were good but who the hell pluralizes with apostrophes???? Cleaned it up again EYDrevista 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot of good progress was made in this article but has now been reverted back to biased content by user CubanoDios! EYDrevista (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to say a user is biased. He simply made an edit. In fact....you removed the edit [2] that I placed in [3] right after saying that they were good [4] Armyguy11 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Read carefully, armyguy. I said the content he is inserting introduces more biased languages. Still no apostrophes in the pluralization, though. EYDrevista (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
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)
- 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)
[edit] Wow
as a jamaican i feel you dominicans and this page is just as stupid as the arab haitian page. utterly rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.56.197 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral Point of View in DISPUTE
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)
[edit] Things are much easier to explain (if probably much more difficult to stomach)
I've been to the Dominican Republic for two months, I've interacted with basically every segment of the population, and I may assert that it is arguably the most racist country in Latin America. And the one which best epitomizes the stupidity and the neurosis underlying racism. And the one whose racist trappings are most evidently a burden to its immediate future.
Here's what I've recollected by direct observation:
- Haitians not only are destined to occupy the lowest echelons of society; in fact, they are not even considered a part of society. They are used as slave labor and humiliated in every single manner possible, and their subservient character is not only continuously enforced; it is actually assumed as an axiom, even by Dominicans less educated and affluent than them.
- Blacker-than-average citizens are routinely called "Haitian", and in the best of cases this is meant as a form of verbal teasing.
- people whose phenotype immediately signals a very profuse, if not dominant, African heritage consider and classify themselves white and engage in a ludicrous caste system designed to maintain, in some or other way, such self-definition.
- in "petit comité", racist comments such as "haitiano/negro/prieto de mierda" (yes, that approximately stands for the N word) are used very often by many Dominicans, some of them of above average education and purported leftist leanings. Which means: racism is the only transversal trait in Dominican society: every citizen, regardless of ideology or social level, is prone to engage in it sometime. Not even in Spain with the gypsies, or in Italy with the Albanians, will you find this transversality.
- In connection with the previous point, we are speaking of a country where the historical leader of the (hard) Right and the historical leader of the Left have united in a "Patriotic Front" in order to prevent a Dominican of Haitian ancestry from becoming president.
All of these attitudes come, in most cases, from people who would be immediately classified as "black" in any immigration bureau of North America or Europe. That alone adds further to the incongruence. It's not that a blond blue-eyed racist should be less stupid; it is the incongruence, the utter lack of objective need for such feelings, that make the self-hatred all the more obvious. Denying those things is delving further into utter idiocy.
This country stands in a hole and won't come out of it. For instance, this page has only an English version, and yet a highly documented one -- this is no one-man crusade we're speaking about; it is the result of an amalgamation of reliable sources. Which means:
1. Dominicans still do not acknowledge their major flaw, and remember: admitting you have a disease is the first step to getting cured.
2. In Spain and in the rest of Spanish-speaking countries, no one cares about what pitiful self-identity crises the average Dominican feels. Why? Because no one cares about the average Dominican to begin with. Save for your neighbors, you folks are alone.
Well, not completely alone. You'll always have the tourists. They always come and go, albeit not always looking for the same type of interaction with the natives. If only Dominicans had a chance to look into their minds and see what "racial classification" they are given by these tourists as soon as they get their eyes laid upon... Chaugnar Faugn (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
