Talk:Haitian crisis (2018–present)

Elimination of fuel subsidies & gangs blockading the fuel terminal

Does the elimination of fuel subsidies and gangs blockading the fuel terminal go here, or in a different article, or does it need a new article? "Haiti at breaking point as economy tanks and violence soars". Associated Press. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it it should be the first and the latter. It's defintely connected to the protests, but it is also shaping up to be it's own thing. No clue why there isn't more written on it already Genabab (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section to this article for now. If it gets big enough we can spin it into its own article. If that happens, we should probably use {{Excerpt}}, as it is not good practice to write the same thing twice in two places (double the work). –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2018–2023 Haitian crisis → Crisis in Haiti – There are no other articles (other than one apart of the overall crisis) that are called the "Haitian crisis" or "Crisis in Haiti". Even the Crisis in Venezuela has no specifying of names, despite the existence of the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903. Either "Crisis in Haiti" or "Haitian crisis" is fine- if the dates are not removed, then at least rename it to Haitian crisis (2018–present) or something similar, so that we don't need to update the years in the title constantly. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Haiti could have experienced several crises in its history. I would accept moving it to "2018-present". Maybe "Crisis in Venezuela" is badly titled. PatGallacher (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Venezuelan article is badly titled. Srnec (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  How would moving it to Haitian crisis (2018–present) be? There wouldn't be any necessity to move the page to a new title every new year, along with the fact that there would be no implication that the crisis is over Presidentofyes12 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Haiti's history is a succession of crises. The proposal seems to ignore Haitian history. The proposed name should point to a history of Haiti article -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2018–2023 Haitian crisis → Haitian crisis (2018–present) – This is typically how ongoing events are titled on WP; the way the article is currently titled would suggest that the crisis ended sometime this year. This was mentioned in an earlier RM but never gained clear support/opposition. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 22:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. In general, it's better for searching and indexing purposes to not have the dates at the beginning of article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violence directed towards women

I removed some unsourced material about a march in April 2021 because the source cited did not refer to it at all. If anyone runs across a good source on this question, please feel free to add the info back. In general, the 2021 sourcing needs to be checked (provided by a blocked/banned account).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Airport reopening to commercial traffic

I'm not sure why the airport reopening to commercial traffic prompted the move of everything to do with the airport to a section on an international force. The source provided certainly did not verify the claims made... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the previous section was way long and this is clearly a good milestone to divide text with a new section.

If that source was not enough, now there is more.

What was the reason behind removing "| AP News" from my source? In what way is this problematic? IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We'll see. For the moment there is no consensus for duplicating the story of the airport in a new section (readers are not that amnesiac). Tying the reopening solely to an extraterritorial force, based on a single ngo source (not an independent source) is just not a good idea, when there are multiple sources out there talking about the resumption of commercial flights. To be clear, your original edit did not have this NGO source making this tenuous connection. You were using the AP news source, which makes no such claim.

As for adding AP News to the title of that reference, when the source is already given in the newspaper/work field, that makes it appear twice in the reference (and puts two bits of information in one field). I see this workaround used sometimes by people who may not know about the agency field for republications appearing in a different newspaper/work. (example)-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes this explicit words were in the second source. It is in fact not uncredible ngo source, but the United Nations agency itself called The New Humanitarian.

Well this | originates when the agency name is in fact included in the title, as happens many times, though not always. I mean if someone is taking the title from the title of the page itself (shown on the tab of a browser), not from inside of an article. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are so certain that the only international airport in Haiti was opened to commercial traffic only for the multinational force and not for reasons of serving the community, you will wait for people to agree with you on the talk page instead of editwarring. You have moved this information about tearing down buildings around the airport from the insecurity section three times now. Enough. Let someone else weigh in now that you have expressed your opinion. As for your certainty that including both the publisher and the title in the title field is a smart move well, let's just say that this is a new strategy of nesting (redundant) data that is not in use on this page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is enough. You are deleting here an edit supported by a credible source for a third time just acting of your own stubborness. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see you added your preferred edit a fourth time (1, 2, 3). Now we know that the Kenyans have a stopover in Miami, Florida, before flying on to the capital. 👍 Since the text you've boldly added includes the words "by the end of the week", it will need to be removed "by the end of the week". I just thought I'd give us a head start. 😉 That said, I won't be editing this page further until it has been removed. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that this has been removed again (based on WP:NOTCRYSTAL), I'll add that the edit also distorted the timeline of the tearing down of the buildings around the airport (the destruction began well before the month of May), that the prognostication turned out to be unsurprisingly optimistic (cf. [1]), and that in the context of a six-year crisis, the brief layover of 10 top brass of the multinational mission in Miami is trivial, not WP:WEIGHTy enough to be in the article. Also: NB this reliable source (one among many) indicating that military use of the airport has been ongoing and was not affected by the shutdown to commercial traffic. (§). While I did notice that you consider my requests for accuracy in terms of content and best practices concerning referencing (one bit of information per field) to be "stubbornness", I would urge you to consider respecting WP:BRD.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And again: you have deleted the information for the fourth time (1, 2, 3).

As there are many cases on the Wikipedia of WP:NOTCRYSTAL as editors often use future tense, here there was no such mistake.

Omg if you know from some sources that tearing down building began earlier, you should first provide a reliable source and not removing and edit based on WP:NOR.

So please do not halt me conducting WP:BRD, as ok I try to take into account your comments.

In any case such editing schould have in mind the Wikipedia:Systemic bias - for example section 1.4 and 1.5 ("English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate" and "An American or European perspective may exist"). IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you not an English-speaking editor? If you read French, feel free to comment here on this article from the 17th of April by the same author as the one I added to the entry (from a Haitian source): (§) Feel free to mark it up into a template if you feel it absolutely needs to be added. (I don't think there's anything in particular that needs to be added from the article though. It's fairly obvious that over 350 buildings weren't torn down, with the owners moved out and paid for the expropriation, within 10 days...) As for Miami, Florida and The New Humanitarian, give it a rest... nobody has agreed with you that this addition is WP:DUE in 11 days now... also note that "Vigilante action" is the term used by NBC News, the UN, NYT, Reuters, AP, etc.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: Why has this editor added trivia to this page five times that they've never tried to add to the article on the 'Multinational Security Support Mission in Haiti', despite being active on that page... the logical home for such arcane details?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)