Talk:Antihaitianismo

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)

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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Just a thought

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)

Just an answer

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)

---

"It appears from what I read". Precisely! Where is your support material? Per Wikipedia's rules, you're RECQUIRED to provide quoted material from reputable sources. It's not "optional" nor subjective/gut feeling I-want-this-to-be-true valid. Also, you can't pretend to use the Wikipedia entry in question as reference/validation to itself!

Either provide the proof, or face deletion. Since this article defines "antihaitianismo" as an State Issue, you must at least provide official quotes from BOTH goverments that are supposedly 'involved' in this racialized subject. Period. 200.88.217.98 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION ADMINISTRATORS - NPOV and cite sources requests have over a year past due.

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)

"Antihaitianismo can be traced back to a policy of racial segregation instituted by the Spaniards in the colony of Captaincy General of Santo Domingo (present day Dominican Republic).[1]"

Surely it doesn't stem from the fact Haiti invaded, forbade the Spanish language, discriminated the local Church and confiscated every land in the country during 20 years in the 19th century, something of which there were still living witnesses when people like Trujillo took over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

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)

Neutrality

This is literally one of the most disgraceful articles I've seen on wikipedia. I do not know the "proper" way to edit it, but i've been threatened with bans and told I am "vandalizing" for pointing out how most of the top half of the article is a rationalization for massacre and ethnic cleansing, having nothing to do with the topic. It's absolutely disgraceful to allow this article to suggest that contemporary racism against dark skinned Dominicans and Haitians is somehow due to events in 1822. It's disgraceful and this will soon be noticed by academics and journalists. Those <strikes> were NOT "vandalism." Get it right, Cmckain. 71.183.28.197 (talk) ((~~Jan 16th 2014))

Call To Objective Scholars?

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)

Recent additions that probably violate WP:UNDUE

These are pretty strong, including e.g. unsourced allegations that named persons gave genocidal orders in the early 1800s. Probably not a WP:BLPTALK violation methinks, given that this is historical material from many generations ago, but pretty clearly not ready for mainspace, either. More to the point, these paragraphs hardly seem to belong in *this* article, in their present verbose form. I agree with 71's strikethru edits, in other words. I'll be removing these from mainspace in a jiffy. If anyone objects, please bring your objections here to the talkpage, rather than revert me... 91 and 98 were already WP:BOLD, but I'm about to revert them, and then next stage is discussion.  ;-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some unsourced insertions by 91.64.131.132 as of 2013-10-29 [5]

((1st/2nd/3rd para of 'description' section... all new material))... The twenty-two years of Haitian occupation witnessed a steady economic decline and a growing resentment of Haiti among Dominicans. The agricultural pattern in the former Spanish colony came to resemble the one prevailing in all of Haiti at the time-- that is, mainly subsistence cultivation with little or no production of export crops. Boyer attempted to enforce in the new territory the Rural Code (Code Rural) he had decreed in an effort to improve productivity among the Haitian yeomanry, but the Dominicans proved no more willing to adhere to its provisions than the Haitians had been (see Boyer: Expansion and Decline , ch. 6). Increasing numbers of Dominican landowners chose to flee the island rather than to live under Haitian rule; in many cases, Haitian administrators encouraged such emigration, confiscated the holdings of the émigrés, and redistributed them to Haitian officials. Aside from such bureaucratic machinations, most of the Dominicans' resentment of Haitian rule developed because Boyer, the ruler of an impoverished country, did not (or could not) provision his army. The occupying Haitian forces lived off the land in Santo Domingo, commandeering or confiscating what they needed to perform their duties or to fill their stomachs. Dominicans saw this as tribute demanded by petty conquerors, or as simple theft. Racial animosities also affected attitudes on both sides; black Haitian troops reacted with reflexive resentment against lighter-skinned Dominicans, while Dominicans came to associate the Haitians' dark skin with the oppression and the abuses of occupation.

  Religious and cultural life also suffered under the Haitian occupation. The Haitians, who associated the Roman Catholic Church with the French colonists who had so cruelly exploited and abused them before independence, confiscated all church property in the east, deported all foreign clergy, and severed the ties of the remaining clergy to the Vatican. For Dominicans, who were much more strongly Roman Catholic and less oriented toward folk religion than the Haitians, such actions seemed insulting and nihilistic. In addition, upper-class Haitians considered French culture superior to Spanish culture, while Haitian soldiers and others from the lower class simply disregarded Hispanic mores and customs.

  The emigration of upper-class Dominicans served to forestall rebellion and to prolong the period of Haitian occupation because most Dominicans reflexively looked to the upper class for leadership. Scattered unrest and isolated confrontations between Haitians and Dominicans undoubtedly occurred; it was not until 1838, however, that any significant organized movement against Haitian domination began. Crucial to these stirrings was a twenty-year-old Dominican, of a prominent Santo Domingo family, who had returned home five years earlier after seven years of study in Europe. The young student's name was Juan Pablo Duarte.

Some unsourced insertions by 98.254.219.130 as of 2014-01-04 [6]

((1st para of 'description' section))...and the abuses of occupation. Such abuses started many years before the invasion of 1822, In April 28th of 1805, The Haitian army under orders of Jean Jacques Dessalines conducted many acts of genocide in the Spanish or Dominican side of the Island, creating the base for today relationships between Dominicans and Haitians, In April of 1805, the Haitian army entered the Dominican town of Moca and murdered 40 children inside the town church, the children were killed by cutting their throats or were decapitated, by the same army that killed thousand of White Haitians and Europeans in Haiti, These acts of extreme violence against women and children never seen in Dominican culture help create the view of the racist and criminal Haitians in The Dominican Republic , at the same time the same army under the command of Henri Christopher tortured and killed thousand of Dominicans in Santiago, Monte Plata, La vega and other towns and cities using their favorite method, decapitation, Acts of Genocide stayed in the Dominicans minds for decades and created the racial tension between the much darker Haitians with different culture and language and the Spanish speaking mixed Dominicans. Religious and cultural life also suffered...

((5th para of 'description' section))...Dominican dislike of Haitians also has roots in the neighbors' rather fraught political history. After the eastern half of Hispaniola had won its independence from Spain as the Republic of Spanish Haiti in 1821, Haiti occupied the territory from 1822 to 1844. in December of 1821 thanks to Jose Nunez de Caceres . The Haitian government took advantage of the fact that the Dominican independence from Spain was peaceful and the Dominicans did not have an army and decided to invade the Dominican territory in 1822 when the last Spanish ship left port, the invasion was for Natural resources to help pay the debt to France which was billions in today economy. Although the occupation was favored by some Dominicans, particularly those in the northern region of Cibao, and ended slavery on the island, dispossession of the Dominican ruling class and policies affecting the Dominican economy (such as land redistribution) and culture (such as encouragement of the French language and suppression of Spanish chafed, and were particularly ill-taken in Santo Domingo. , since Haitians prohibited the Spanish language and closed all churches, The haitians also continued to take advantage of their military power over the whole island , acts of racial violence of Haitians against Mulatos or white Dominicans were common, which were unacceptable to black Dominicans who did not feel hate against the white Dominicans or Mulatos the same way Haitians felt against whites, for many Black Dominicans, whites and Mulatos Dominicans were one people..Dominicans!!!, Many white Dominicans were married to mulatos and black Dominicans , which made it clear to blacks Dominicans that they were very different to Haitians in ideas , cultures and religion, so all these rapes, murders were common from Haitians to Dominicans without any punishment to the criminals , must of the times members of the Haitian army who wanted an all BLACK ISLAND and exiled many light skin Dominicans from the Island, something that Dominicans were not going to take peacefully. During the invasion that lasted more than 20 years the Dominican nation suffered many atrocities under Haitian control, which created the modern day relationship between Haitians and Dominican, Both groups struggling for independence since the 1700s, once both go it in the 1800s, the strongest one ( Haiti) decided to steal their neighbor's independence of December 1821. After the Dominicans fought a war of independence against Haiti ...

((7th para of 'description' section))...This educational policy became conjoined under Trujillo with a "Dominicanization" of the Dominican-Haitian border region, since border provinces continued to be occupied by illegal Haitians crossing to the Dominican republic , many to illegally cut trees in land owned by the state and other came to steal farm animals from Dominicans farmers in the area, causing problems between both communities , All these problems culminated with the massacre of 17,000-35,000 Haitians in October 1937, an ethnic cleansing event subsequently named the Parsley Massacre For which trujillo agreeded to pay US$700,000 dollars and at the end the Haitians Government accepted about US$250,000 for the Haitians killed , money that never went to the families of the victims , instead was divided among the Haitian president and other politicians.

End of the new material; I doubt it belongs in this article, but probably (if it is can be WP:V by somebody with knowledge about the relevant history) it belongs in *some* article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That was horrific. I've cleaned out the worst of it but haven't had a chance to check the sourced material carefully yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

NOTE: Much of the newly removed material was incoherently plagiarized after being stripped of context from the Sagas source. Even if it were not an egregious violation of NPOV, it would have had to go as a copyright violation. As I said, please, no one reinsert any of that stuff without discussing it piece by piece.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, nice work. Thanks!  :-) Any stuff that is COPYVIO, please delete from the talkpage here... WP:COPYVIO applies on all pages, as you prolly know, and I won't complain if you zap the infringing stuff out, you won't even hear a little bit of whining.  ;-)   I'd do it myself, but I've not read Sagas... and it looks like there are more than one Sagas cite, so since you've seen where the plagiarism stems from, I'd appreciate if you whipped out the deletion wand, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of it seems to be from here here. I didn't look at it in detail, just enough to see that there were problems.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've skimmed a bit, and used the cool duplicate-detector-wiki-tool[7] on the stuff. It found some triplets, but nothing horrendously bad; there might still be too-close-to-the-original paraphrasing, which is still technically copyvio, but there isn't any *blatant* copyvio, so I'm gonna conditionally leave the stuff, for the moment. [8] [9] Also, see below for my background-paragraph, which tries to summarize the historical troubles that set the scene for modern machinations. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Corruption

"Trujillo agreeded to pay US$700,000 dollars in reparations. Finally the Haitian Government accepted about US$250,000 for the Haitians killed."

These sentences were inserted in the mass above... interposing between some existing sentences and a source. The source did have a dollar-figure, of 750k. The article on Trujillo says that only 535k was actually paied, and gives sources, if somebody would like to fix up this difficulty. Also, if the year the payment was actually delivered is known, we can calculate the value in 2014 dollars... inflation will have made that number dramatically higher. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You're doing good work there. I think calculating the value in current dollars would violate WP:OR and isn't that important. This isn't a big area of interest to me and I'm not going to do much more work on it, but I think you should keep it up if you want to now that we seem to have gotten the objectionable material out of there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can always do simple arithmetic, like counting and datemath and such, see WP:CALC. Agree that doing realdollar calculations is borderline original research, for previous centuries, or for non-western-currencies, but since the source was in USD, and the year was in the 1940s, methinks it is would be reasonable. I'm always careful to put the conversion in parens, and say 'roughly'/'approximately'/somesuch. Reading the main article about Trujillo, it sounds like not as much as originally agreed was actually paid (and furthermore that the money which did get paid was mostly wasted). Sigh!

  In other news, I've added a background-paragraph, which gives the flavor of the centuries of sturm und drang which the island has undergone, but without giving undue weight to the 1820s. Without the background section, though, I think that Trujillo and his followers were getting undue weight. They used existing ethnolinguistic tensions, taking advantage of them for political purposes... but antihaitianismo was not created in the 1900s, it has a long history. Please give it a quick eyeball, if you have a moment, thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Antihaitianismo → Anti-Haitianism – Per WP:ENGLISH. There's a perfectly acceptable English name for this, there's no reason not to use it. Appah Rao (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I note that English speaking books on the Dominican Republic use both terms frequently and almost equally so WP:ENGLISH doesn't apply: This makes it then not a numbers game but a question about what serves readers better. At the moment I would tend to think the Spanish serves better because it makes clear that we are talking about Spanish speakers not for example anti-Haitian feeling in random other countries. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per the Wikipedia policy that says to use English. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a sock of blocked user Bobby Martnen In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose For clarity. This article is specifically about discrimination towards Haitian people in the Dominican Republic, not elsewhere (e.g. the U.S.) "Antihaitianismo" is widely used in English-language sources. AusLondonder (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AusLondoner, and since its origin is as a Spanish term. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please modify that

--->"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)