Talk:Haitian Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recovering slavery by Napoléon, Haitian independance, and selling of Louisiana

I think the article is misleading the sense of the french-haïtian history. There is a cause effect link with consequently the recovering slavery (caused by Joséphine de Beauharnais the martinican Napoleon's wife), rebellion by haïtian generals of French Revolution leading to the independance of Haïti, and the sale of Louisiana which the french-haïtian army couldn't deffend anymore. People of the colonies, free People of colours or ancient slaves, were highly patriot and faithful to the French Revolution, and the French Republic. The National Commissaire, like Santhonax were harsch with the big slave owners. His equivalent in Guadeloupe, Victor Hugues, took a lot of them to the guillotine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 22:51, September 11, 2012‎ (UTC)

Could it be because of France that Haiti is the poorest in the Western Hemisphere?

I'm kindak curious because they hade to pay millions for hundreds of years and now the people of Haiti are living in less than $1 a day.

Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me either. Haiti won its war against France, yet were expected to pay reparations? Just how did France expect to claim this money? If I were L'Ouverture, I would have invited the French back to Haiti for another thorough ass-kicking. - M.Neko

The United States also had to pay reparations to Britain for seized Loyalist estates after the American Revolution. Like most treaties, this had as much to do with the relative power of the two sides as the absolute justice. It was worth it to Haiti to agree to the treaty; it's a little late to complain now. Septentrionalis 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The reparations paid by Haiti to France were clearly unjust. Haiti was forced under pressure to agree to the reparations. But there are many reasons why Haiti is so poor now. The reparations are only one of them. The legacy of slavery and the greed and incompetence of most Haitian rulers since independence are others. In 1980 Haiti's per capita income was low, but twice as high as today. The neighboring Dominican Republic was almost as poor as Haiti then, but has developed well over the last 25 years. The reparations are only one of the many reasons, and perhaps not the most important one, why Haiti is in such a poor shape today. (By the way: Reparations were imposed in 1825, 22 years after the death of L'Ouverture in a French prison in 1803. And reparations were apparently paid over almost 100 years, not over "hundreds of years"). Former Haitian President Aristide asked for France to pay back those reparations. While this may sound "a little late" it is not a completely unfounded request, in my view. If the Haitian rulers have the ability to use that money to the benefit of the poor is another issue. Mschiffler 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

President Aristede had every right to ask for them; and if he had had the leverage to get them it would probably have been just as well. My post should not be read otherwise. (And shouldn't all this go in some article?) Septentrionalis 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move done. Non-controvertial move and there was no move obstacle.--Will74205 10:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)}}

Haïtian_Revolution → Haitian Revolution – Apparently pretentious use of diacritic when the article "Haiti" doesn't use it and it is mostly called "Haitian" by English speakers. Peter O. (Talk) 05:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per nom. --MCB 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Use English. Septentrionalis 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. jgp ^T_C 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Duja 09:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom.Mschiffler 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Baristarim 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Racist terminology used. Can't figure out how to edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.142.197.76 (talk) 14:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The entry should be fact not opinion

The success of these attacks established a black Haitian tradition of violence and brutality to effect political ends.

This would be an example of opinion, one that doesn't seem to be supported by the rest of the article. Blakdogg 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could be better worded and needs a reference. Haiti does not have a tradition of nonviolent leadership changes. Beginning in the period before the Haitian Revolution when independent militant gangs formed, political change has always been attempted (whether it has succeeded or not) through violence. There were few leaders that were able to unify these violent gangs to act under one head. Haiti does not have a tradition of a neutral military that avoids loyalty to one particular leader. This tendency continues to the present day when violent gangs are essentially running parts of Haiti despite UN intervention. These gangs attack each other as well as UN peace keepers and the current Haitian police. See Cité Soleil and United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti for some assessment of the present day situation. Recently, democratically elected President Aristide was thrown out by a military coup. (See 2004 Haitian coup d'état.) A hypothesis is that Haiti is so violent in the present day because of its history of violence and its lack of a history of nonviolent change of leadership. There are probably other reasons also. I don't know. Do you have any references that explain why Haiti has such a history of violence that continues to the present day? It is an interesting question since Haiti was the first country to become a free black republic in 1801, directly after the French Revolution but almost all of its leaders since then have been dictators. Mattisse 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Amount of "reparations"

In french version, the reduced amount of "reparations" were 90 million francs. Probably, it seems that it is a total with the bond of 30 million francs, but it seems to be left out of the source with the English version.[1][2][3]Johncapistrano 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Slave Ratio

Okay, we've got an inconsistancy here- under "Precursors" it says A third group, outnumbering the others by a ratio of 10-to-1, was made up of mostly African-born slaves, but later, under "1789" it says At the lowest level of society were the slaves although they outnumbered whites and coloreds eight to one. So is it 10:1 or 8:1, and can we at least be consistantly wrong? - Eric (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the Amount of francs paid to French in 1838

This article says, "Haiti agreed to make reparations to French slaveholders in 1825 in the amount of 150 million francs, reduced in 1838 to 60 million francs,".

The article on Haiti says, "To maintain independence, President Boyer agreed to a treaty by which France recognized the independence of the country in exchange for an allowance of 150 million francs (the sum was reduced in 1838 to 90 million francs)." Pkmilitia (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Free people of color

People of color were (and have been) a distinct group in Haiti. I think the article should use their traditional name translated from French, rather than mulatto.--Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

it's 'gens de couleur' en français(in french). Domsta333 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon's logic is circular!

In the section resistance to slavery, Napoleon is mentioned as having already sold the Louisiana territory, justifying his decision not to send support for the French in Haiti, yet in Impacts it says that Napoleon sold the territory because Haiti got its independence and he had no revenue? Thats circular logic where I come from folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.36.160 (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I would agree... --76.97.216.12 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen, brother! --76.97.216.12 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more on the impact of the French Revolution on Haiti?

Great article! Would like to know more about the French Revolutions impact on Haiti and the otgher French possions In the Americas.Wondering if the French Slave owners ere to a person oppossed to tghe Frenc Reolution or Pro Royal at the time? Thank You(WedAfternoonPMAug26200921stcentDatedbyDr.EdsonAndre'JohnsonDDULC"X")ANDREMOI (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"..was the only successful slave rebellion in history"

Really? REALLY? what about the amistad. Haitians need to crack open a book before making such claims. The French may have left Haiti but French arrogance and pride have not. It was cite tagged already, I was just sick of seeing it so I changed it to something true and verifiable. I'll check back and watch this edit to see if it's reverted but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.221.61 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a fairly uncontroversial statement. I'm replacing it, with a citation. The point is that it is the only revolution to have been successful in abolishing slavery, rather than enabling a (more or less) temporary escape. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an uncontroversial statement. I have never seen another mentioned as the first successful slave rebellion that resulted in freedom for a country. As far as I know, this is the only successful slave rebellion that resulted in the formation of a country. —mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

A copy of the Haitian Declaration of Independence has recently been discovered in The National Archives of the United Kingdom by American PhD student Julia Gaffield. A scanned copy is available from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/haiti.asp along with a letter sent at the same time to the Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica, Sir George Nugent, 1st Baronet. David Underdown (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson blames 2010 Haiti Earthquake on 18th Century Slave Rebellion and "Satanism"

Televangelist Pat Robertson referenced the Haitian Revolution's vodou origins as the explanation for the 2010 Haiti earthquake, when he told viewers of his Christian Broadcasting Network, "[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor."Salon.com - 'Robertson: Haiti had "pact with devil"' MisterJayEm (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother repeating his wild claims here; it's unfortunate that he gets any notice.--Parkwells (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Important Aspects not mentioned with adequate detail

After reading this article's summary of the Haitian Revolt, somethings I noticed that weren't readily addressed/mentioned (and should have been) were:

The mistreatment of the slaves: I think that the article has certain sentences that detract from the heavy amount of violence that took place, and as a result, the tone is lightened when it shouldn't be. Sentences such as : " A high rate of mortality among them meant that planters continually had to import new slaves." " The death rate in the Caribbean exceeded the birth rate, so imports of enslaved Africans continued." "The slave population declined at an annual rate of two to five percent, due to overwork; inadequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care; and an imbalance between the sexes, with more men than women."

Take away from the violence and grueling labor experienced by the slaves. I think that by choosing to be more descriptive (just a little) with the actual whippings, beatings, sexual abuse, difficult field labor, and murdering going on within the slave population can better communicate the situation that slaves living on Saint Domingue experienced. Simply mentioning the death rates decreased & the population declined because of overwork and inadequate medical care misleads readers. Slaves didn't get healthcare, it wasn't inadequate, it was nonexistent. That along with abuse and other injustices on Saint Domingue is what led to the revolt.

Also (which I noticed was mentioned earlier) the issue of the NEGATIVE impacts involved with the creation of Haiti & the first black republic. This page only mentions the positive results & then detours to mention the abolition of slavery with Britain and France. It is more important to note the fear and anger that other nations (US, Great Britain, and France) had when Haiti was created. These nations were afraid that other slaves would be inspired by Haiti and thus more attempts to rebel would occur. As a result slaveowners were much more severe and were more violent towards possible insurgents to send a message to the entire slave community that a rebellion was impossible (they killed any slave who questioned their authority). This is an important aspect that should be mentioned as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.149.68 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Is it just me, or does this also strike others as a rather bloodless article on such a mutually bloody war? - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

-In regards to the use of titles for each distinct group, I think that the constant switching is confusing and doesn't make it clear to the reader who each group is. French titles, then translated French titles, then whites, blacks, etc. all these titles are interchanged to the point that it really can deter someone from properly recognizing a particular group (especially because there were so many). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.149.68 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New Comment; Regarding people of "colour"

It must never be forgotten that all colonialism was directly responsible for the deaths, enslavement and deportation of millions of people worldwide. As the famous Jamaican saying goes, "If you are black, step back, if you are brown, stick aroun', but if you are white, you are right". This seems to be a very apt statement regarding European colonialism worldwide and this insightful saying into the status quo of that particular system of governance must never be forgotten in order to preserve and honour the memory of all those who fell victim to this very discriminating holocaust. Those terms which have 'served' us up to now however should be consigned to the dustbin of history as if I am not much mistaken are not all people on Earth describable as people of "colour" or rather some kind of skin tone. In the context of this article it is clear that we are discussing individuals whose parents' genetic heritage originate from different continents. Unfortunately here it helps no-one, and only adds to the confusion when trying to understand the subtleties of social interaction when cultures meet. I would say that I am not alone in finding such non-descript terms as 'black', 'white' and indeed 'coloured' as scientifically redundant and and as such offensive. Life is never as simple as a game of chess. I would like to hope that this notion would become the socially accepted norm and people would stop using these out-dated terms. Hopefully a fully contemporary understanding of the way we as a species are all related will lead to a cultural and spiritual rennaissance of ourselves and global sister/brotherhood and the banishment of ignorance from our collective consciousness such as racism, nationalism and any other ism or divide and rule tactic that has spilt the blood of our species. Please do not attempt to read any kind of ideology into this comment other than to take it at face value and understand that using terms such as 'black', 'white', 'coloured', 'yellow', 'red', 'orange' or 'green' does no favours for anybody and only serves the purposes of hate-mongering. These afore mentioned words should be retained and used in a historical context only so as to show future generations of people the folly of the sins of their fathers and the great pain, waste and suffering these imaginations of difference actually wrought.

PS The motivation for this comment is the continual cringeing I am forced to endure when reading articles by contemporary writers who classify people with origins from different geographical areas with sweeping meaningless terms such as 'black' and 'white' Some might argue that these are tones rather than colours but that is another debate :O ... and here I was foolishly thinking that a new century brought new ideas! PPS This is not motivated by political correctness but a desire for scientific accuracy.

K F Ziolkowski 82.31.133.60 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Few successful rebellions?

The second sentence of the article asserts that there were only two successful rebellions in the new world. What about the Latin American revolutions?!? - I would just go ahead and make the edit, but I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotvinSux (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I believe that sentence was originally aimed at saying that there was 1 successful slave rebellion in known history and has been editted by someone with a limited knowledge of history to include the American Revolution. I would highly recommend it be editted to its original. If you include all of the South American revolutions that were also successful you'd have a pretty long list and you would take away from the esssence of the article. Good spot though. Good luck, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Western Reaction

There should be some information on this page about the reaction of Europe and the United States to the Haitian Revolution. Both Europe nations and the United States viewed the newly independent Haiti as a threat and in fact refused to recognize Haitis independence. The United States thoughout most of its history has been fairly hostile towards Haiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.103.66 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that despite the fact that considerable aid has come from the westtern world particularly USA the Haitians have done nothing but squander it, and enslave their own children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The two comments above make it pretty clear that there is much disagreement on this topic. Though I tend to agree with the first commenter. US hostility towards Haiti has been unrelenting and portraying us as humanitarian saviors in the area is such a bald-faced lie that only the most blind servants of empire would repeat it. The aid the US has provided has been pure blackmail, we have always sent aid directly to military dictatorships (Duvalier family, Cedras, etc), and when there wasn't a dictatorship and instead a democratically elected government (Aristide, Preval) we instead sent aid to sweatshop owners and ex-military politicians to shore up their drive to reinstate the military and present good PR for their sweatshops. And then we turn around and act like we are such a humanitarian force due to our millions of "aid." Pure blackmail. It's true Haitians have squandered our aid -- when the Haitians receiving that aid were military dictators and we didn't care about them squandering it. Of course when democracy comes in to replace such dictatorships, we institute an aid embargo against the government and instead fund the antidemocratic opposition organizations of rich sweatshop owners such as the CD and G184. They're filthy rich, they don't need our money, but hey that's where our money goes. That's who the NGOs are always tight with, always allowing them to siphon off aid money to renovate their mansions in Petionville. Anyways, in the long term, aid itself wouldn't have been necessary if Haiti was allowed to keep the billions that were extorted from the country by the French after this war -- a multi-billion dollar "decolonization fee," unheard of elsewhere in the history of decolonization. Haiti needs to be repaid what the global north owes her, and it needs to be paid apologetically without being cast as some kind of generosity or "aid." 68.193.173.240 (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Impact" section needs to detail the "decolinization fee" extorted by the french

we must mention the "decolonization fee" extorted by the french gunboats from the newly freed republic of haiti immediately after the war. it's a huge consequence of the war and independence. the haitians not only had to fight to win their freedom, they then had to buy it too. even the french embassy in haiti has mentioned that it was unjust although they refused any kind of repayment (preferring to let history rest in peace). perhaps we should also mention of the decades-later and centuries-later implications (debt payment leads to partial diplomatic recognition from france, which was withheld by the US for decades; the debt serves as the primary cause of haiti's poverty over the next century; aristide asks for the fee to be refunded in 2004, prompting the french in worry to support a tremendously violent and antidemocratic coup against aristide and the other lavalas politicians; the unelected post-aristide government closes the matter and makes nice with france; etc). 68.193.173.240 (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources about it, then feel free to add it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Duncan McIntosh

From what I have read, there was a man named Duncan McIntosh who saved the lives of more than 2,000 French colonists in the Haitian Revolution. Yet, there is no mentioning of his heroics in this article. I will try to add him to the Haitian Revolution article and possibly to this one.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

A great-great-great uncle of mine, Enoch Robins, a trader from New York, apparently died in the Haitian revolution. In a unpublished article about him that my uncle, Bruce Howe (Ph.D Harvard University, Archaeology) wrote in the late 1950s mentions Duncan McIntosh in reference to a last letter from Enoch in which he (Enoch) is evidently at "Jacmel" and in grave danger: “The last terrible letter was also helped on its journey by passing through the hands of Duncan McIntosh, the Scots-born American merchant who stayed through the massacres, rescuing and redeeming with money the lives of those condemned to death and crucifixion by the negroes. Sometimes they killed two and three hundred a day, but hundreds of the untold lots of French who came to the State owe their lives to McIntosh; and when he visited this country in 1810 he was received like a kind in Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York.” Although Bruce Howe was a trained scholar and not likely to fabricate anything or even get his facts wrong, I have not personally confirmed any of that description and do not know his source(s). Suggest anyone researching this consult 1810 Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York papers for more info. about him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhowe (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Duncan McIntosh is mentioned in Wim Klooster's 2009 book, Revolutions in the Atlantic World, on page 111. The footnote isn't very specific and the source used appears to be francophone. --GregRog (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Only proof needed of wikipedia racism but whats more...

in just 500 edits this article spans almost 3 years. in case you don't get it; that's a ABYSMAL amount of edits. not to mention the insulting intro. this was a S L A V E R E V O L T. not a period of "violent conflict". just pathetic.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No information about actual battles

The whole article just glosses over the fighting. Isn't there information about the actual battles that were conducted? ScienceApe (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the possages to going hard it is so hard you may not understand. going on with the world and the different trys of the life most peole dont unserstanmd the procces in the fucnstion to care or even see the light inj the day. goi8ng into the love and care no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.93.78.40 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Haitian Revolution was the only slave revolt which led to the founding of a state

Oh really? Who are the Mameluks? As a matter of fact Eurasia is full of slave revolts which ended as a state (another example is Islam itself, also Tiele tribe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.204.241 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Impact of French Enlightenment Thought

We would like to add a subheading under the Impact of the French Revolution that explains the role of Enlightenment thought in Saint-Dominque and the actors that contributed to the thoughts and actions within the colony. Dufrenchrev (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Haiti as a belligerent

Is it correct to speak of "Haiti" as a belligerent when it was not formally declared independent until after the conflict was over? Should we not more properly speak of this force as "Saint-Domingue rebels" or something along those lines? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Should info box be split up?

This really wasn't a single conflict spanning 13 years. Nor did it always pit the ex-slaves against the French government - from 1794-1801, they were on the same side (against the British). The current box is a gross oversimplification. 71.205.30.16 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just seconding this. If Louverture fought with the French against the British, it's just impossible to put them on either side. Aozyk (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways we can go about his. Either split the infobox into three combatants, or have them implemented by dates of when combatants fought who, when and until. That way it will break up the confusion and look more valid. Shire Lord (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The latter method was done. Shire Lord (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, Great Britain fought against the rebels/french as it tried to reimpose slavery on the island, what made it at least a 3-way conflict. Aozyk (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Shows what a very complicated period it was. Shire Lord (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Slave Rebellion Discrepancies

I would like to point out the discrepancy that the article calls this slave revolt was the most successful slave revolt in history and identifies a particular vodou service as a catalyst but fails to mention the service in the "1791 Slave Rebellion" section. The section seemed lacking historical content for such an important event. Any thoughts? Teparatres (talk) 9:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Louverture or L'Ouverture?

The main article uses "Louverture", and my understanding that "Louverture" is the most common form for him these days. Anyone have a reasoned objection to changing the spelling in this article? Rks13 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rks13:, you are correct. Toussaint's last name is, in fact, Louverture. Anonymous editors have tried to change it back to the old and unauthorized spelling. Historiador (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Change in the redirect's caption: No Single leader

I changed the redirect's caption to reflect historical fact. It read: The "revolution led by Toussaint Louverture." But we all know (the literature is clear) that the series of wars, conflicts and profound changes we now call the Haitian Revolution cannot claim a single leader. Though Louverture is the best known, he followed others who began the movement, and proceeded those who concluded it. So, I changed it to say: "This article is about the 1791–1804 revolution in the French colony of Saint-Domingue hat led to the creation of Haiti." In this sentence, I embedded a link to the US office of the historian, and two wikilinks: one to the article of Saint Domingue and the other to Haiti. Your thoughts are welcome. Historiador (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"A world-historical process"

User Caballero1967 insists that this quote be used in the opening sentence. I removed it, arguing that it is abstract and plucked from obscurity—the only references I can find to it on Google are copies of this article. Originally it read that the Haitian Revolution was "referred often as 'a world historical process in its own right,'", which, ignoring the poor grammar, is obviously not the case. Caballero1967 then amended it to read that "scholars recognize" the revolution as "a world-historical process," which seems to still imply that the term is widely used, but it's not. Emphasising the quote in this way amounts to WP:OR. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the term seems like meaningless jargon, and I would vote for removing it completely. If the it stays in the article at all, it should be limited to one of the sections of the body of the article, and the discussion needs to include discussion of what the term means. Rks13 (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm dumb but I don't know what that means, if it went into the body of the article with the appropriate explanation it would be better.

• @HappyWaldo:, @Rks13:, @Textidor: and everybody else interested, you do not limit your historical research to a few hits in Google Books, and you do not jump into a complex article to make changes that you have yet to understand. There are better ways to contribute. A careful reading of the article’s edits’ summaries and the Talk Page shows that I have begun a long-term process of rebuilding it and have eagerly asked others to collaborate. Despite the impulsiveness, your intervention presents us with a long-awaited chance to discuss the nature of this article’s subject. I had limited interest in the phrase “World-historical process” until you brought it up. After delving into its usage and history, I now aim to demonstrate its centrality to the current scholarship. Far from being an original research, this is the classic case of a historiographical study. You should not find it odd that some readers are unacquainted with the phrase. An encyclopedia is meant to educate.

• My involvement assumes both “good faith” and a commitment to follow “good practices.” Rather than diverting into a whirlpool of reverts (individual or by teams), we should discuss issues here and work for consensus. The reason I rejected your reverts were 1) you had neither asked nor had seen the arguments for the quotation, and 2) based on a spurious argument, you were deleting an excerpt that was well-sourced. The way to go about it is to seek consensus on the direction of the article, deliberate over the issues, and present persuasive arguments and sources for each change to the article’s the content. You showed us an example of the opposite approach. Above you explained that you disagreed with the quotation that set the Haitian Revolution as a world-historical event because in your opinion, “is obviously not the case.” However, you failed to show sources in support of your argument; you just deleted it. If you had followed the source, you would have noticed that it was, in fact, the latest field review on the topic. If you had asked, you would have learned that a Ph.D. student who had been working under the tutelage of a renowned scholar of the Haitian Revolution wrote the piece. If you had read the WP:HISTRS well, you would see that field reviews are the ideal source in Wikipedia. After your first intervention, I presented you with further sources that elucidated the reasons why had Taber chosen this phrase to lead his article. You dismissed them by arguing that a lead should not have so many citations, and I agree. But this is a temporary condition until we could get the article to explain the quotation on its own. I had begun working on the introduction to set the tone for the rest of the article and plan to complete the project with a slimmer and tighter lead.

• In the literature about the Haitian Revolution, the phrase “a world-historical process” is a meeting between the phrases “world event/history” and “historical process” (I provide some sources in this link). The most recent uses, from where Taber “plucked it,” are Chris Bongie, Barnor Hesse, Raphael Hörmann, John Patrick Walsh, Stephan Palmie´and Francisco A. Scarano, Popkin, Jeremy D., Robert Stam and Ella Shohat. Though others were using it already, Sibylle Fischer’s 2004 book was a major catalyst in bringing the phrase “historical process” into a field of study that had for many years been using “world event/history” to describe the Haitian Revolution. Considering the extent of the field, these people represent a sizable number. But the issue is not with the term, but with its meaning. It means that the Haitian Revolution was an event that resulted from more than local events and had an impact on the world that superseded its historiography. It means that the forces that helped provoked the HR as well as its repercussions could be traced all around the world. It says that the Louisiana Purchase is not the only event to have come as a direct effect of the Black struggle for freedom in former Saint-Domingue, but also the Napoleonic race laws, the British turn against the slave trade, and the thousands of rebellions staged by enslaved Blacks. Now, this concept is at the center of current scholarship, irrespective if scholars use the term “a world-historical process” or not. The meaning is embraced even by the minority whose position now is to question, not the HR’s global reach, but the type of impact it had (i.e. pro or anti-slavery). The scholarship on this topic is vast enough to deserve an extended article of its own. So, the meaning of the term “a world-historical process” is incontrovertible in the literature today.

• If you want to know a bit more about the origins of the phrase in the English language, you should follow it back to the German term “Welthistorische,” which according to Google began spiking around the end of the Haitian Revolution. In fact, it were the Germans who in 1919 were the first to make a direct connection with the phrase and the Haitian Revolution (Allgemeine deutsche Real Encyclopädie. v. 3; see also 1834, Allgemeine geschichte vom Anfang der historischen kenntniss ... Rotteck) Hegel had picked it up in the context of his preoccupation with the events in Haiti (see Susan Buck-Morss). It made its way to the English language through the translation of Philip Schaff’s translation of The principle of Protestantism as related to the present state ... (see also, Anglo-Germanism, or, The significance of the German) and was the first in the US to make extensive use of it, given his theological roots in the German works. Today scholars like J Comaroff and JL Comaroff use it to explain globalization, capitalism, and postcolonialism. To account for its use in the literature, we would require more space than what is rightfully available here.

• Here is a link to two lists of select works to which I referred above. I have chosen them from a much longer list, which I can make available per request. Keep in mind the time and energy required to compile and interpret these sources. Do not just skim through, but read them in context before drawing conclusions. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 22:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, if you don't want to scare away the majority of people from joining this discussion, then keep your replies simple and concise. After reading everything, I still think "world-historical process", in this context, is utterly pointless. It's like writing that a bucket is "an object that exists somewhere". The opening sentence should get right to the point in as few words as possible. The Haitian Revolution was a slave revolt. From that, people will infer that it as an historical process/event. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As explained above, this was the short version. If you want to explain and understand rather than to pull and tug, you need information. In your very first post you say that the phrase is not accurate. Have you stopped making that point? You made no reference to it now. Now you say it fails to convey meaning. The above was to answer the first. The second, I can address more fully here and in subsequent posts. Yet, it is also related with the above. If the concept of a World Historical Event is at the center of the current historiography, then it is just proper to have the quote there. To write differently from what the scholarship is currently writing is to engage in Original Research. Yet, I do not mind changing the phrase as long as the idea is always present. Your suggestion, however, misses the mark completely (The Haitian Revolution was a slave revolt), which shows the need for studying. The scholarship has long moved away from the idea of a "revolt." The only writers who have used the term in this way in the last two decades are non-specialists. So, again, the purpose of sharing the data above. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TECHNICAL "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience." Wikipedia is not just for scholars and specialists. I'm certain that "a world-historical process" is not understandable or useful to most people, and so it should be removed from the opening sentence. I'm going to leave it at that. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Waldo, you made two points in your first post. Stick to them or make clear your change. You said that the term's meaning "is obviously not true" (that this is an event with global repercussions) and that the term was not much in use ("still imply that the term is widely used, but it's not"). I addressed those two issues, given you enough sample that the term is widely in use (I still have more that can show you), and have also explained that its meaning is amply accepted in scholarship. Where do you now stand? If we finished with these two concerns, we can move to the next issue. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 00:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This specific post is meant for after you have answered the previous one: What is about the term that makes it unwikipedian for you? The “historical process” part? Or the “World Historical”? I showed you an overview of the history of these terms, and how they coalesced in the scholarship about the HR. You said it is not for Wikipedia, according to whom? Explain this, then:

• "world historical" 351 hits in Wikipedia (about a third not related)

• "historical process" 225 hits

• "historical processes" 138 hits

• "world historical figures" 6 hits

• "world historical systems" 3 hits

• "world historical process" 3 hits deducting this article

• "world historical processes" 3 hits

As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is meant to educate. By quoting the phrase, this article is doing its job of informing readers about the language and state of scholarship. As long, as the rest of the article continues in a clear prose with no other scholarly vernacular, your charge of WP:TECHNICAL does not hold. However, as I also mentioned above, I do not mind to rephrase the quotation as long as the consensus chooses it for preference in style, and not for the reasons you stated in your first post, which I showed to be incorrect. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 00:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I said that "a world-historical process" lacked any meaning worth stating (see bucket example), not that it was "an event [without] global repercussions". I don't think anyone would doubt that the Haitian Revolution was a significant event in the world history. The facts (should be allowed to) speak for themselves. "What is about the term that makes it unwikipedian for you?" Notice the huge drop off in hits for "world historical process". It's just an oblique form of WP:PUFF, and if it needs to be thoroughly explained for the general reader (it does) then it doesn't belong in the lead. It will be removed once a consensus is reached, and until then many readers will be scratching their heads. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The posts were separated intentionally. You need to settle your initial claims before diverting to your bucket analogy, and charges of puffery and technicality. Apparently, you are now in agreement with the world-historical significance of the event (you had written "is obviously not the case"). What about your claim, to which you arrived after a rushed inquiry into a single database? You were the one who engaged in WP:DRIVEBY deleting and dismissing the work of others. You claimed that the term had no significant use and meaning in scholarship: "it simply isn't. only three hits on google books." Where is the proof? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've changed the quote for clarity's sake. I still think it's pointless to spell out the event's significance in the opening sentence. Per WP:REDUNDANCY "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." The "global consequences" of the revolution should be mentioned elsewhere in the lead. Here's an example of how it's done. HappyWaldo (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not much can be done without acknowledging what others have already done. Do, please, reply to the concerns I presented to you. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 23:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The opening sentence has been changed again, and in its current incarnation fails to acknowledge what is most notable and unique about the Haitian Revolution—that it was a rebellion against slavery orchestrated and carried out by slaves. What is wrong with "slave revolt" or "slave rebellion"? Does it offend PC sensibilities? I understand the difficulty in summarising a multifaceted subject like the Haitian Revolution in a single sentence, but again, you're making this more complicated than it has to be. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• @HappyWaldo: Since you engaged in hostile editing and failed to address the issues we were discussing here, I am going to ask you to be patient and allow me to work with the article in a favorable environment. You should not speculate about my work until you have seen it done. So, please, allow me two weeks to work with this article before you fall into malicious reverts. I would greatly appreciate, however, that you continue offering your suggestions, questions and comments here, but in a rather friendly attitude. I am committed to scholarship and try to avoid the type of "PC sensibilities" that you appear to have made reference above.

• Though it has its place, there are many problems with replacing or reducing the Revolution to the term "slave revolt." Yes, it was a revolt of formerly enslaved Blacks, but it was more than that. In short: technically, the "slave revolt" lasted a bit more than a year: from 1791 to 1793, when they forced the emancipation proclamation, first in the colony and then confirmed by the Assembly in Paris. After that, there was no slavery, so there was no slave revolt. The term slave revolt gives the impression that for 13 years the Black armies were fighting against an enslaving France, when for the majority of the time it was the opposite (the infobox is very misleading). They fought for France against the British and the Spanish to keep their freedom. After the Napoleonic invasion of 1802-1803, however, France became again the aggressor. Secondly, Mulattos ("ancient free") and Blacks (formerly enslaved) were also engaged in battle, and using the term alone would keep the Mulattos away from the struggle. And most importantly, the term "slave revolt" on its own, misses the fact that this was an ideological revolution led by what CRL James called "Black Jacobins," who envisioned radically new worlds and sought to create them (there is a minority view here, but divert little). So, I readily admit the need to acknowledge that this was a revolution led by former enslaved Blacks, who broke the chains on their own, and who achieved more than the killing of their enemies. This, in essence, is what the scholarly consensus is all about. And if you let me work (while offering me your thoughts), I would do my best to capture these ideas in writing while also listening and even reaching compromises with those interested in this article. Should we find the space for collaboration? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 00:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS

The Manual of Style says articles should be at the most common name. "Haïtian Revolution" gets 50 hits[4], many of which are other Wikipedia articles, while "Haitian Revolution" gets over 75,000[5]--seems like it should be moved back to the more common English language name. 24.18.215.132 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Manuals of Style aside: In French the country is: Haïti, but that makes the Haitian Revolution: La Révolution Haïtienne and not Révolution Haïtian. In English the country is: Haiti and the revolution is the Haitian Revolution - for what reason should there be an accent on the i, while the rest of the title follows the English spelling?
By the way: to the majority of Haitians it's not Haïti either - in Haiti's main language (Kreyòl) the country's name is spelled Ayiti. 4.236.225.82 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the majority do not have the means to education either. Dessalines spelled it Haïti; Henri Christophe, Hayti (a known alternate archaic version); Alexandre Pétion, Haïti and Toussaint Louverture most likely would have spelled it Haïti. Just because Haitian Creole may be the main language per say, the "Ayiti" spelling was an arbitrary recent product. Both ways are pronounced the "exact" same way, except for "Hayti," which in my opinion was a variant derivative perhaps created but used by Henri Christophe in his Anglophile-based ideology. He displayed his name as "Henry I." The brief Republic of Spanish Haiti (spelled Haití); the Polish Legion who stayed in Haiti after helping them gain independence, while some returned to Poland where they still call the island "Haiti", and the earliest historians were all aware of this spelling as well. A few recent years does not change 500 years of history. (See: List of country names in various languages (D–I)#H) Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on terminology

This is a call for those interested in this article to achieve a consensus about the terminology (particularly on racial terms) we prefer to use here. The current practice (for several decades, now) among Haitianists is to simplify the use of labels, not because the past was simple, but because once we understood their historical meaning the historian can engage readers in a simpler language. In other words, though Saint Domingue sported a bewildering nomenclature of racial and social distinctions, most historians today refer to the former enslaved person as Black, those with African ancestry but descendants from free parents, Mulattos. Keep in mind, that the application of these terms are very much contextual and they should change according to the need (not that different than the usage of the term Natives and Indians). As David Nicholls explained, those terms, more than anything, reflected distinctive and sometimes even opposite ways of life.

So, in trying to keep a balance between historical accuracy and clear communication, I suggest that we do away with terms like "Subsaharan" to refer to the Haitian rebels in general (there are many cases that it should be used for specific people, though). Mulattos often fought at their side, and a good number of the former enslaved appeared to have been creoles (born in the Americas). So, this term is particularly very limiting, and in addition, is out of synch with the emerging discourse on Haitian Studies. Hope to hear your voices. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Mulatto suggests miscegenation, was that the case? Cause otherwise can't see why free blacks or ex-slaves shouldn't be more appropriated. Laidita (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree here. It was indeed a melange of slaves both African, and Creole (yes, denoting being born in the Americas of "any" race in the French colonies) up until slavery was "abolished" in France (but Toussaint soon learned that this did not apply to the French colonies); freed slaves, and mulattos (also known as "people of color"). I think "freed slave" may also be a better term usage than "ex-slave" IMO, unless there is reason for this. Also, I may be wrong (doubtful that I am quite honestly) but generally people of color were not slaves, which contrasts with slavery in the United States. The trouble that they had with France was the lack of rights in regards to participation in politics and government; they already had the wealth. There was a saying in France at the time in regards to settling in Saint-Domingue; "live rich like a Creole." The beginning of the revolution started with a wealthy person of color, named Vincent Ogé (who actually had a quarter black ancestry like notable French author, Alexandre Dumas), who ended up being executed in public as an example for future revolutionaries. So initially, it was not a slave revolt. Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeking Collaborators

Fellow editors, I propose a collaboration (WP:CO) project that would focus on rewriting this article. I can dedicate the following two weeks to it (after, it would be slower for me), but others can continue working on it at their pace. Perhaps, we should offer three levels of collaboration: research, rewriting and suggestions. If we feel it necessary, we may ask for a special protection (WP:PCPP) that might help us in maintaining the pace and avoid (WP:TE) without keeping other editors away. A reading list and discussion forum should be part of it, and most importantly, a willingness to collaborate (WP:CIV) and to follow good practices (WP:EQ). After we feel it has reached a satisfactory level, we could request a review (WP:RG) and if successful, then submit it for Good Articles (WP:WIAGA) or for Feature Articles (WP:FA). Would appreciate your responses. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 01:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

After a thorough analyzation of arguments and outside information brought to surface, it is absolutely dissatisfactory to pass the Haitian Revolution off as a mere "slave revolt." A WP:LEAD should mention key points and being WP:TECHNICAL is not synonymous with "dumbing things down" for the general audience. We expect the reader to have a certain level of competence to understand those three words. It should not take a reader more than a few minutes to realize the position of this event in history. It also adds an intriguing fact that would continue interest. It is also not an example of WP:PUFF (@HappyWaldo). An example of this would be an unneeded emphasis and exaggeration of notability, for example, "it was a legendary, highly influential". I've added a brief comparison to the event of Spartacus, in that it was the greatest slave revolt since, to give it some needed distinction used as a sort of measuring stick to describe its caliber in the modern world.

Let's be clear. The ongoing revolution defeated "three superpowers" (Britain, Spain and France), and most importantly Napoleon who is seen as a political juggernaut in this era. It is arguable, that 50 U.S. states may not have ever been possible the way that we know it today. A quarter of the country (or more) may be speaking French. In regards to the return of French control of Louisiana, Jefferson stated in the event of that "...we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation." ([6]) It also left the general broke, while in preparation for war with Britian. His reign never recovered from the revolution. In addition to what Caballero1967, said above, the event also inspired other Latin American nations to gain independence starting with Simon Bolivar seeking aid in Haiti, with President Alexandre Pétion complying with the contingency of formerly "eliminating" slavery in his "to-be" revolutionary states. The aftermath did not just free the chains of Haiti. Conversely, its revolution is also what embargoed them. Southern Americans and Jefferson himself were worried that their own slaves may rebel which led to them to become the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. Consequently, the rest of Latin America were strong-armed not to do trade with Haiti and was thus excluded from the first pan-American meeting of nations in the hemisphere, which made them completely reliant on France (which forced an indemnity, threatening to reinstate slavery, and charged exorbitant interest rates). This threat would have reenslaved the entire Hispaniola island, that was at the time administered by Jean-Pierre Boyer. In short, this event led to a domino effect of other events as well, and yes a separate article may end up being necessary to satisfy it.

It is indeed apparent that the event had a definitive impact in world history, which led to both positive and negative results. Nonetheless, as you can see, it is not farfetched to describe it as "world historical process."

Oxford defines "process" as "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end." (This revolution was just that. As mentioned above, it was a series of events not just by slaves, but by switching allegiances, by freed men and mulattos etc. in the end unifying to achieve the common goal; removing French rule).

"World" and "historical" are not synonymous with each other and therefore cannot be WP:PUFF as it does not add unnecessary emphasis to the other. Again, this argument is a fallacy. There are also many resources that are still being found about Haiti and related countries in this region. Google hits are not a justified measure of notability in all cases and is not conditional outlined in a rubric. Its inclusiion in a argument remains arbitrary. It merely helps but it is not a catch all, end all solution. "World historical" has 351 hits, with only a few of them needing to be reputable sources. Perhaps, the word "scholars" should be substituted with "historian" or not used at all. There would have to be a count on how many of them actually agree with this specific phrase if it is to be used in a quotation. Perhaps "process" should be replaced with a familiar word, "event" as in world historical event. @Rks13, @Textidor. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23:, thanks for taking the time to read and for an eloquent post. You nailed it in various places, for example, “being WP:TECHNICAL is not synonymous with ‘dumbing things down’ for the general audience” and “Oxford defines ‘process’ as ‘a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.’ (This revolution was just that.’” The current count of the phrase “World Historical Process” in WP is obviously changing, and (in the singular and plural combined) at this instant is in 10 hits. The count will continue to change, but it shows that the phrase in itself is not a problem for the WP readership. It is used to reduce the number of words in what would otherwise have been a much longer sentence. Yet, none of us appear married to it. The intention is to settle for a wording that explains matters plainly without being simplistic. If there is consensus, we may include the phrase you suggest, “World-Historical event” (at the moment, it has 2 hits in WP) to summarize a series of frequently haphazard events that had deep impacts in both 1) around world and 2) in multiple histories.

It is ironic to note that Taber, the author I quoted, is a product of the Geggus Cautious School of Thought (older than Popkin or Girard) that links the HR more closely to the French archives, and somewhat distance itself from the majority (e.g., Ferrer, Dubois, Nesbitt) that sees the HR as a momentous event with roots also in the more intractable soils of culture, and African and creole histories. The line I quoted is, in fact, an admission that even this school is yielding to the pressures of the mounting research from cultural historians and literary scholars (e.g., Garraway, Jenson, Bongie). It is, of course, a temporary development. Perhaps the future will welcome a wave of empiricists and econometricians who would take the field in another direction. At present, the field is open for new discoveries driven by the idea that we are still to find much of the ways in which the HR influenced history and the world. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let us invite suggestions about what to do with the article, what areas are the most needed, and re-invite collaborators. A decent number of questions, thoughtful comments and practical suggestions would show a genuine interest in making this article either a Good Article (WP:WIAGA) or a Featured Article (WP:FA). Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A passing suggestion that you should also post to WT:MILHIST, and WT:WikiProject France in addition to your post(s) to WikiProject Haiti to find more collaborators. Also, another professional historian comes to mind that I don't see in the article history...Rjensen, who I think would be a valuable asset when it comes to rewriting this article if this subject falls within his purview. I believe he would be invaluable to your efforts to strive for GA (FA?) status.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are excellent ideas. Thanks Berean Hunter. Do you know the proper way to go about and spread the news and invitation? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the rec--yes I can help out. Historians have recently given this rev a lot of attention. their historiographical disputes tend to be small ones and mild in tone, I think. Questia has 1000 books and articles that touch on the topic and can be read free by Wiki editors who apply at wp:Questia. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I am glad you are on board. What is your take? We could continue in another section if you think this one is growing too large? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I reworked the lede. It was too grandiose. The episiode for example had little or no impact on Asia or Africa. Rjensen (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Auto-Archiving Talk Page?

Guidelines suggest we archive article's Talk Page when they reach 75 KB (WP:ARCHIVE). This one is way above that number. Soon, it will slow everybody down. The guidelines also suggest we reach a consensus about the way to set it up. I suggest an automated setting, and I will ask an administrator with more experience for help. Please, let me know your thoughts, but if there is no objection, I will take it as a tacit consensus (WP:SILENCE). Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I archived one thread for which there is no attribution (although it may be found in the history). The bot should archive this page the next time it runs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I went back and found the attribution for the archived thread and made note of it in the archive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thanks so much!. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sections, regardless of length, should not be archived if there are editors still involved with it. Bots typically will archive a section if there has been no additions made in 14 days, and rightly so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I configured it here at 90 days. If things get very active during the reworking of the article then decreasing to fewer days should help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I have made reference to this issue before (for others, see here): I believe we should split this article in the same manner as with the American Revolution, which has its own article for the armed conflicts: American Revolutionary War. I just performed a change in the infobox, attempting to improve on an edit from user Bored1995, but there is no way to actually making it right. Not only there is no hard numbers for the casualties covering the entire 12 + years of the Revolution, but the HR was not a single military encounter. And as I have argued above, the HR should not be reduced to a military encounter nor a series of them. It is more than armed conflicts, even more so (some would argue) than the American Revolution, which has an article that has made this point clear. You don't see, for example, in the French Revolution article an infobox about casualties. To keep such an infobox (about a military encounter) is to diminish the HR to a simple revolt. So, I propose we start revamping this article by following a similar path to that of the American Revolution, with a separate article for the armed conflicts. This one would not change that much in matters of content; it would cover, in essence, the same areas. But the other one would focus on the series of military encounters that are part of the HR. Some of these are already articles in themselves, for example, the War of Knives. Some of these encounters are also part of the French Revolutionary Wars, but others are not (which explains why I took this title off from the HR article-- it covers only part of it-- keep in mind that the FR lasted until 1799 and the HR until 1804). The new article on the Haitian Revolutionary War(s) would put all of these military encounters in a single context, while also allowing for overlapping contexts (e.g., French Revolutionary War). So, again, the proposal is to create a new article with a tentative title of "Haitian Revolutionary War(s)" and move there the war infobox, and present the Haitian Revolution the way historians are now presenting it, as a Revolution in its own right. What say you?

Following procedures (WP:PROSPLIT), I am leaving a message in Haiti's Wikiproject. I would appreciate if you could also contact other editors who have shown interest on this topic. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to keep all the info/thoughts in one place, I am sharing a relevant diff: I have given further explanations here. Would love to hear your thoughts. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: Thanks for the concern, but this article is well under the guidelines for page length, so its best to keep everything on one page, as the general reader is reluctant to break away from the main page to look for things on another. Besides, the topics in question greatly overlap and go hand in hand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers: Thanks for pitching in. I do appreciate it. But the argument for the split is not about size. The size will change because the current article fails to consider the state of the scholarship and the events lack of cohesion (the article also lacks cohesion). So, as we rework it, the shape and breadth will adjust, and will necessarily expand. Again, the argument of size is not relevant in my call for a new article (for now), temporarily called, Haitian Revolutionary Wars. As the writers of the French and American Revolutions articles realized, the wars, battles and armed conflicts of the Revolutions require an independent article-- so much more for the Haitian case. In separating the articles, or better said, in creating articles for the armed conflicts (see for example, here and here, and notice the difference in plural and singular) the editors in the AR and FR articles were able to avoid reducing the revolutions to battles/wars and in this way explain how people like Jefferson and Voltaire were as central to the revolutions as were Washington and Napoleon. Please, review the arguments above. So, it is not an ameba-like split, which I am suggesting, but more like the delivery of a new article to where we would transfer the "Military Conflict" infobox. On the meantime, the Haitian Revolution article would receive the "Historical Event" infobox.
• Even more than the AR or the FR, the Haitian Revolution, needs this new article. By creating an article for armed conflicts, the writers of the FR and AR were able to explain the logic behind these wars and avoid simplifying the Revolutions to armed conflicts-- more the result of the political and social revolutionary events-- and how the wars interacted back with the other aspects of the Revolutions. Visualize these articles (FR & AR) in the HR current format. Quite confusing. Similarly, keeping the Military Conflict infobox central in the HR confuses one with the other; more so because while the military conflicts in the FR and AR can be clearly delineated into foes and enemies, the Haitian wars are characterized by a constant transfer of national loyalties. For a while, the Black forces were loyal to Spain, then to Revolutionary France, then to the "idea" of Revolutionary France (since it did not exist anymore), and then to itself. If there is a constant, it would be the emancipation from slavery (1791-93), and then its preservation (1894-1804) (and still, some scholar would challenge this). In other words, the haphazard timeline of military conflicts that related to the Haitian Revolution does not define (on its own) the HR and requires an article by itself to better explain its incoherence and the theories that attempt to put them together as a single set of events. The new article would make it easier for us to explain how and why Popkins, Garrigus and Girard emphasize the incongruity, while Dubois, and many others tend to see more integration in them. The split/birth of a new article would still keep this one (Haitian Revolution) as the parent article, with a summary of the military conflicts, of course. But would open the necessary space for the military conflicts and would help avoid the current state of utter confusion that exists in this (parent) article. In this endeavor, we would benefit greatly (as Berean Hunter suggested) from the military history editors. Please, let me know. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand any "confusion" that may occur, esp if the Table of contents is well structured. In the event that content covering the battles, etc, begins to get sizable I would then entertain the idea of a split, but not until. Let's not put the cart before the horse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the confusion I am referring to (as explained above in multiple posts) is the one created by equalizing the Haitian Revolution with the armed conflicts normally associated with the HR, which we could call, the Haitian Revolutionary Wars. The military conflict infobox exacerbates that impression. I will produce a tentative outline for the new article.

Meanwhile, in order to grasp my proposal, we should step out of WP’s traditional rivalries between mergerists (WP:PM) and splitters (or variations of them) and, also move away from the idea that this article represents the current state of the scholarship (is not even close). In essence, the military confrontations in Saint Domingue (and those elsewhere), which we normally relate to the HR, cannot be neatly placed in this article, and the way it is currently formatted appears to say they are the same, particularly that misleading infobox; it oddly gives prominence to the military conflicts over the other aspects of the Revolution while also reducing the battles' importance and links to other events. So, I am not putting the cart ahead of the horses. That would imply that I am thinking in terms of size: (WP:SIZESPLIT) and should wait until the article grows large enough to merit the split. Rather, I am making a distinction between the Revolution and the Wars, which were not always clearly part of the Revolution (similarly, but not exactly as the editors of the HR and AR articles). In other words, these two topics had lives of their own, sometimes closely but at other times loosely related to each other (WP:CONSPLIT). Keeping it as is, does justice to neither topic. Hope to hear from you. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've no strong feelings about the split in the first place, and given your explanation regarding current scholarship (which from my experience can take editors all over the map) perhaps a split is in order. I'm hoping that there is content ready to be added once a split should occur. Best of luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I share your concerns (1- having material ready by the time of the split, 2- interpreting the "current state of scholarship"). But we need to have consensus before we start putting things together: producing content that I hope we could create together (rather than leaving it to a single or a couple of editors). And we should also seek consensus about the "state of the scholarship," which we can only achieve if a core of editors is willing to review the literature. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think splitting is a good idea. the two parts are very closely related. Rjensen (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Caballero1967: You don't really need a consensus to add content, so long as the material is on topic, violates no copyrigthts, etc. and of course is covered by reliable sources. Opinions on the other hand (e.g.what is scholarly, etc) will require a broad consensus if such opinion is submitted with the aim of deleting content. If there is a marginal consensus (typically a 2 to 1 consensus) then a compromise must be reached. From my experience, it's best to work with only one or two knowledgeable editors, rather than with a whole bunch, who too often only have a passing knowledge of the subject and tend to approach the article in a robotic fashion, esp where guidelines are concerned. It's always a good practice to write the narrative with the reader in mind. (i.e.Will the reader appreciate this statement, along with these details?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• As I said, I think it's best to have content ready to go, in which case you will find it easier to convince other editors that a split should occur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Caballero1967:, I want to say yes, because it makes a lot of sense, however, under this guise I am having trouble finding sources that mention it as such ("Haitian revolutionary wars"), making it more challenging move in comparison to the American and French who have both like you are suggesting. I have been thinking about it ever since you have suggested it. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok I have found that it may be suggested in French as "Guerres de la Revolution." [7] I found this inEnglish as well. [8] It looks like there is a gap in the window to make this move happen. I would support such a move, but would like to know how and what pieces would move and stay. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First I think the article should be moved/renamed to Haitian Revolutionary Wars, then split accordingly. Shire Lord (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting the article. There was never a Haitian Revolutionary Wars in the sense that the externals conflicts of 1793 are connected to the 1803 ones. They are reflects of what were happening in Europe and Haiti had very little influence in those.

But yes, I agree with moving the military bits into the appropriate battles/campaigns articles, and principally removing this horrible infobox that that is totally misleading. Frangars (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frangars: Thanks for joining in the discussion. You may disagree on the meaning of war and on the significance of the Haitian Revolution, but the fact is that groups of scholars recognize it as a war. Some call it "Revolutionary War," others "independence war," or "emancipation wars" (or even "war with France"): Republics at War, The World of the Haitian Revolution, Beyond the Slave Narrative. I understand that for years people have seen the Haitian Revolution as an aftermath of other "more proper" conflicts, but the scholarship is not there anymore. One thing is true, however, there is a current that still see the HR as interdependent to the French Revolution. And as Popkin said, the Haitian Revolution is not a tidy event as the American Revolution was. But the term War was even used by contemporaries to describe the many military conflicts involved in what today we call the Haitian Revolution (e.g. War of the Knives). The semantic here is important because it relates to how we read the sources and as it may decide the weight of significance historian place on the events. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the Saint-Domingue expedition (a one-sided title it's true). I don't object of what you said, just the correlation between 1791 and 1803 and specially this terrible infobox. This article should focus on the Haitian Revolution itself. Frangars (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, do you oppose changing the conflict infobox into the Template:Infobox historical event? Frangars (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did the abolition of slavery not persuade L’Ouverture to stop working with the Spanish?

Anybody know? It doesn't make sense that he stayed allied to the same side that the rich white slave owners were allied to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.140.140 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@80.111.140.140: Nobody knows for sure, but scholars like Popkins suggest several reasons: an ingrained distrust of the colonizers and of the French revolution at first, and affinity with the Spanish on matters of religion and politics (monarchy seemed a more stable government), among others. I for one, would have doubt the commissioners' intentions and like Toussaint would have given them a few days to test their motives before joining them back. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Importance of the Haitian Constitution of 1805

The importance of the Haitian Constitution of 1805 cannot be underestimated, for it is through this document that one of the most significant aspects of the Haitian Revolution came to fruition: the ending of slavery in the colony of Saint-Domingue. As stated in Haiti's newly established constitution, slavery would forever be abolished within this nation, and no longer would the African inhabitants of this island be subject to demands made by European colonists. While there were other documents that were legislated prior to the passing of the Haitian Constitution of 1805 that preached of liberty and freedom (the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, etc.),the Haitian Constitution of 1805 was unique because it granted freedom to all of its citizens, not just those who were of a particular skin color or ethnic background. It is for this reason that the Haitian Constitution of 1805 should be better respected and more well-regarded in terms of its advancements in human rights, especially during a time when slavery and the subjugation of Africans and non-Europeans was the norm. This document, along with the events that transpired during the revolution that preceded it, are among the most profound events to occur not only in colonial history, but in the history of mankind and civil rights as a whole. Never before had a slave colony successfully freed itself from it's colonial oppressors to go on and establish it's own set of rules and laws, and the Haitian Constitution of 1805 is living proof that such things truly did transpire. It is unfortunate, then, that this constitution is overshadowed by other documents rooted in human rights and personal liberty and freedom, for the Haitian Constitution of 1805 ushered in a new era for African peoples who had been taken captive by European slaveholders, as it could inspire and bring hope to those who were forced to do inhumane works against their wills. If this constitution were more closely studied and put into a more accurate historical context, then the opinion of this document would change for the better. The passing Haitian Constitution of 1805 was something truly special in the history of human rights, and it is crucial that this document be mentioned in discussions concerning the history of political revolutions that occurred during the nineteenth centuries.Shepardswift1 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Shepardswift1: I am glad you came over to share your thoughts about the Haitian Constitution. I welcome you to continue reading and trying your hand in the article's text with the aim of improving it. Take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:PG) and let us know how to help (on this page or the editors' talk pages). WP is a community project.

Corbett has done a great job in promoting Haiti's history way before it became a popular subject in Atlantic World graduate programs. The peer-review sources and references on his site are all reliable sources that could be used here, but the site itself should not. Perhaps you are familiar with the recent works of Ferrer, Gaffield, and Dubois . They relate directly to your interest.

I am encouraged by your visit. Please, come again and help with the project. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Slavery was already abolished in 1794. Bertdrunk (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bertdrunk: Thanks for your comment. Could you explain it? Despite its significance, this abolition of slavery did not last a decade and all throughout the revolution, Haitians had to fight to guaranteed their freedom against royalists and foreigns alike. The 1802 Saint Domingue's expedition, Toussaint's arrest, followed by the Leclerc and Rochambeau genocide attempt confirmed their fears. Only their arms would secure their freedom.

While the 1793 resolution in Saint Domingue and the 1794 ratification by the Paris general assembly officially abolished slavery in all French dominions during the revolutions, slavery actually continued uninterrupted on colonies under British control. In fact, slavery there remained even after their return to French control.

In 1802, then, Napoleon removed all impediments to slavery, effectively defeating the 1793-4 decisions. In fact, in 1804, when Haitians declared themselves independent, Haiti was the only place in the Western Hemisphere where slavery did not exist. Haitians lived under a constant threat of kidnappers, re-invasion, and re-enslavement. The 1805 Haitian Constitution, then, was the legal document ratifying the Haitian success over slavery, ironically, in an archipelago where slavery continued to flourish. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Polish legions

Haitian revolution had some impact on Polish history, as the use of Polish legions (Napoleonic period) by Napoleon became a symbol of Poles being used as "cannon fodder" for foreign wars (4000 of Poles out of 5280-strong contingent died, with tropical diseases taking heavy toll on legionnaires). Descendants of Poles (those who switched side and helped the rebels) who stayed in Haiti supposedly live there to this day. I ceased contributing to wikipedia some ten years ago, but maybe someone else could write something about this. --- szopen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.75.114 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

Please replace: 'At the Bay of Le Cap, Rochambeau had so blacks drowned that no one would eat fish from the bay' With: 'At the Bay of Le Cap, Rochambeau had blacks drowned so that no one would eat fish from the bay' Iridomyrmex (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also replace: 'The Blockade of Saint-Domingue not cut the French forces out from reinforcements and supplies from France, but also' With: 'The Blockade of Saint-Domingue not only cut the French forces out from reinforcements and supplies from France, but also' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridomyrmex (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why the need for a semi edit protect? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Iridomyrmex (talk · contribs) is not autoconfirmed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Iridomyrmex. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please replace "stagnate" with "stagnant".

With March, the rainy season came to St. Domingue, and as stagnate water collected, the mosquitoes began to breed, leading to yet another outbreak of yellow fever.[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogoodkris (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haitian Revolution. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://scholar.library.miami.edu/slaves/san_domingo_revolution/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202094802/http://www.haitianite.com/ to http://www.haitianite.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204181607/http://s2.medicina.uady.mx/observatorio/docs/er/ac/RE2013_Ac_Marr.pdf to http://s2.medicina.uady.mx/observatorio/docs/er/ac/RE2013_Ac_Marr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103001454/http://www.thelouvertureproject.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page to http://thelouvertureproject.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD missing

Reading this lead you might forget names like Toussaint Louverture I mean just reading the article on him he is definitive in the Haitian revolution. Yet no one is mentioned in the lead. And these personalities were central to the entire Haitian revolution. I also suggest the word black (vague) be replaced by African. Because that is a race of people. It is clear and specific to the people who were targets of racism. --169.0.4.153 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

169.0.4.153, "African" may be inappropriate because that doesn't factor in the 'colony-born', hence American. African is also not a race, it is a continent. Negroid is a race, as is Caucasoid and Mongoloid. White and black have always been used to describe Caucasoids and Negroids, whether one is a dark-white (olive) or a light-black (golden brown). Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition and Streamlining

Hello everybody,

I have been assigned an article to improve on Wikipedia for one of my university courses this semester. I chose this one because I believe that, although there is a good amount of information on the Wiki page for the Haitian Revolution, some aspects of it could be explained in greater detail; other parts of the article are also in need of streamlining. (For instance, there are two separate topics for "impact.")

I wish to expound on the conflicts between white plantation owners in Saint-Domingue and the free black population, which demanded equality for itself, not freedom for the slaves. I can also talk about how the radical Jacobin ideology influenced the liberation movements in the colony.

I'd love to speak witha nybody who has more ideas on making this article better. Feel free to ping me!

Here are some of the books I plan on using: You Are All Free: The Haitian Revolution and the Abolition of Slavery by Jeremy Popkin, Confronting Black Jacobins : the U.S., the Haitian Revolution, and the origins of the Dominican Republic by Gerald Horne, The Black Jacobins; : Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution by James, CLR, Universal Emancipation: The Haitian Revolution and the Radical Enlightenment by Nick Nesbitt. Chrisgonz321 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to help but the subject is beyond my capacity. Good luck! Bertdrunk (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you don't have to repeat the full citation everytime, add it to the bibliography and use only Perry, the year and the page. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Haiti is often touted as a great and unencumbered victory for slaves. But frankly the payments to France after unquestioned military victory make the Haitian founders seem stupid. I do not think they were. Problems came due to later developments. So some more discussion is probably warranted.

Such as the likelihood that the war situation was seen as a stalemate by Haitian leaders of the time. France can't root us out of the back country but... France could keep dumping armed forces on the island, thus forcing the Haitian population to continue in guerrilla warfare mode much of the time and preventing a return to civilized life. Also Haitian leaders at the time probably thought that the existing population (70K?) could live mostly off the land forever and thus they would not really need to pay off the debt. Thus any stupidity issues lay with descendants who rapidly expanded the population beyond subsistence capabilities of the island and thus created a need for import-export were most the trade profits for 125 years went to pay of a debt that might have otherwise eventually been ignored (slow payments for 20 years until the the issue lost backers).

So wherever the materials, someone should add the process where clever strategic timing and presumed military victory turned into crushing economic defeat on the world stage. I suspect that in fact the military victory was not so clear due to disparity in national resource. In fact it was probably politically disguised future military defeat. A defeat that nevertheless ended in independence primarily because French plantation owners were projecting economic insolvency due to plantation soil depletion within 20-30 years (track that down if you can from older history books). A factor that trustee slaves and leaders probably factored into the timing of their revolt, but may have proven less influential than French national pride.

70.114.136.69 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haitian Revolution. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://haitianrevolutionfblock.weebly.com/causes-of-the-haitian-revolution.html./
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402133248/http://haitianrevolutionfblock.weebly.com/causes-of-the-haitian-revolution.html to http://haitianrevolutionfblock.weebly.com/causes-of-the-haitian-revolution.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.236.119 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution This article on Haiti contains the following sentence. These scholars show that if the agency of the enslaved blacks becomes the focus of studies, the Revolution's opening and closing dates are certain. The word "agency" as used is non-standard. It is sociological jargon, and, making it even more inaccessible, it is Critical Theory sociological jargon. It has the plain English definition: "Agency" is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Barker, Chris. 2005. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-4156-8 p448 cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_agency

Why not plain (and standard) English so that the literate, rather than the initiated, can understand the sentence? For example: These scholars show that if the "autonomous action" of the enslaved blacks becomes the focus of studies, the Revolution's opening and closing dates are certain. or: ..."autonomy"... or: ..."independent action"...

Alyoshaz (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Al Shelly alyosha@spruceknob.net 5 April 2018

Go for it, Alyoshaz! Aingotno (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Hi all,

A suggestion for some extra information as yet lacking in text.

Under 'The Revolution' is written:

'To prevent military disaster, and secure the colony for republican France as opposed to Britain, Spain, and French royalists, separately or in combination, the French commissioners Léger-Félicité Sonthonax and Étienne Polverel freed the slaves in St. Domingue.'

I suggest adding in the date of this declaration:

'To prevent military disaster, and secure the colony for republican France as opposed to Britain, Spain, and French royalists, separately or in combination, the French commissioners Léger-Félicité Sonthonax and Étienne Polverel freed the slaves in St. Domingue in their declaration of abolition on August 29th, 1793.'

SOURCE: The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution - C.L.R. James, (1989), p 129

DStringle (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Remove the entire section on Historiographical debates. It is inconsistent, unsourced, confusing and does not do justice to the topic. While many historians have written on the subject, this is not a good summary of the thought on the issue and does not add anything to the conversation or help to understand the issue at all. It does not use sources, and simply makes unsubstantiated claims with the preface that "some people" think this thing. 199.111.226.223 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

The Haitian Revolution is one of the largest and most successful slave rebellions in the Western Hemisphere. Slaves started the rebellion in 1791 and by 1804 they had succeed in ending slavery in Saint Domingue. They spent years fighting for their rights and when France realized they were going to lose against the spanish if they kept trying to keep the slaves, so they freed all of them. Then the people of Saint Domingue joined with the French to help them fight their battles. However, years later after many of the Haitians were successful and free. Napoleon tried to bring slavery back to Saint Domingue, however in 1804 Dessalines declared the nation independent and renamed it Haiti. Olivianbaker (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

One of the French columns was commanded by General Donatien de Rochambeau, a proud white supremacist and a supporter of slavery who detested the Haitians for wanting to be free. Toussaint tried to stop Rochambueau at Ravin-a-Couleuvre, a very narrow gully up in the mountains that the Haitians had filled with chopped down trees.

Nowhere in the source material does the author claim Rochambeau to be a "white supremacist" Stop letting SJW's write your articles with biased unsubstantiated emotional opinions. GeneralKayoss (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 16:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Reasons that remain obscure"

From "The Spanish depart Saint Domingue":

At this point, Toussaint, for reasons that remain obscure, suddenly joined the French and turned against the Spanish, ambushing his allies

Are these reasons really obscure? The Convention had just abolished slavery while Spain remained a pro-slavery state. Funnyhat (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

President Thomas Jefferson refused to recognize Haiti because of their successful Slave Revolt and imposed an Economic Embargo

MODERATOR: There needs to be a link for Thomas Jefferson... "The American President Thomas Jefferson - who as a slaveholder himself—refused to establish diplomatic relations with Haiti (the United States did not recognize Haiti until 1862) and imposed an economic embargo on trade with Haiti that also lasted until 1862 in an attempt to ensure the economic failure of the new republic as Jefferson wanted Haiti to fail, regarding a successful slave revolt in the West Indies as a dangerous example for American slaves.[126]" 73.85.203.114 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I think that there should be a section on the influence of Haitian vodou on the revolution, as I've found multiple sources that underscore the importance of this. Would it be worth writing a sub-section for vodou on this page?

Tnair1 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory dates?

I was puzzled by the following: "On 1 January 1804, Dessalines, the new leader under the dictatorial 1805 constitution, declared Haiti a free republic in the name of the Haitian people" How could he become the leader under the 1805 constitution in 1804? --ElizabethBL (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) ElizabethBL Mar. 7, 2020

Dessalines and Pétion join Haitian forces: 15,000 attack dogs likely incorrect

I note that the page says that 15,000 attack dogs were imported from Jamaica. I am looking at the paper (full text online) https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtz020 specifically about the use of bloodhounds in slavery. It says the British had only themselves imported 100 slave hunting dogs from Cuba in 1795. By 1796 the use of dogs to hunt slaves was attracting criticism back in England. It seems unlikely to have been possible to breed 15,000 dogs to export in this time, with the associated training that was needed. Further, the same source says "In 1803, during the final independence struggle of the Haitian Revolution, Cuban breeders again sold hundreds of hounds to the French to aid their fight against the black revolutionaries." So a) the dogs probably came from Cuba not Jamaica b) there were more likely hundreds than 15,000. But maybe someone with access to the original source (Perry) would like to check whether the number is incorrect in the source or whether the mistake was made on Wikipedia?DrThneed (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Haiti a Latin American country?

"Haiti was the first independent nation in Latin America". Is Haiti really classed as a Latin country? Could this be clarified - perhaps Caribbean? dh74g3y (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Kats987124

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

the heiti rebellion was led by a man named as François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture who was bornMay 20, 1743 and died April 7, 1803) Hotshotjjdeva (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He is already mentioned in this article – Thjarkur (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Change the URL for Elizabeth McAlister's "Slave Revolt to Blood Pact with Satan" to this more accurate URL: https://digitalcollections.wesleyan.edu/object/relifp-11 Cambria.weaver (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

To add a link to the wikipedia page "Saint-Domingue expedition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Domingue_expedition) as further reading in the section "Napoleon invades Haiti". I think it would help with understanding the timeline of when the Leclerc expedition set off and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF2E:100:68E6:20DA:37AF:63E (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Toussaint / Toussaint Louverture

Sometimes he is referred to as Toussaint (his first name?) sometimes as Louverture (surname?). It is very confusing to someone with no prior knowledge of the subject, especially the transition between the end of section 4 (which refers repeatedly to Toussaint with no mention of Louverture) and the beginning of 5 ('The Leadership of Louveture'). I had to go back and re-read parts to figure out if it was two different people being spoken of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDavies (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Swiss Confederation listed as belligerent?

The infobox lists the Swiss Confederation as a belligerent (1802-1804), but the article doesn’t provide any further details on this. While I found references to two Swiss officers (Gustav von der Ried, David-Philippe Treytorrens) who served in the French Army in Haiti, I could not find any information on how the Swiss Confederation was involved in this conflict. What’s the source for this claim? AcrophobicEagle (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

AcrophobicEagle this was a vandalism added on 10 March 2018 by Bernapt, the sockpuppet of a banned user. I removed it about two weeks ago. Excommunicato (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

Please don't use word SLAVE. Use word enslaved instead or captured people. 2A02:C7D:A1A5:7300:D:9CD8:A194:43BA (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The word "slave" complies with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously?

"The French had been expecting the Haïtians to happily go back to being their slaves"

"Donatien de Rochambeau, a proud white supremacist"

Who wrote this? LaHire07 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the source is James Perry from 2005. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Start date

The introduction states that the revolution began on 22 August, and the cited source (Hochschild, 2005) definitely has that date, but the infobox has 21 August, and that date appears again in the "Onset of the revolution" section, cited to Perry (2005), which is an offline source. Can someone please reconcile the dates? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 07:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

British invasion

The reference to Dundas giving orders to Williamson to restore slavery is well-sourced, in history books written by renowned historians such as CLR James and David Geggus. Please do not delete Dundas's name from this article Quadrilla1. This contribution has the necessary citations.Mikesiva (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation 4 is confusing and unreliable

I can’t understand any information from this citation. It’s a strange website with one picture of a document up with no evidence for its incredibly strange description. It makes the too strong claim that forced labor was a part of the revolutionary Haitian society without actually providing the necessary documentary evidence. 5.56.148.195 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

Can someone check the casualties for the British forces? 45,000 seems incredibly high considering that almost all of the other pages I have visited show minimal casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.198.74 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I should probably just ignore the casualty entries for wikipedia. They are invariably prey to anyone with an agenda because they know that it is what most people will look at and make judgements from. 45,000 is indeed very dubious, and the reference given even more so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.55.233 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct the number of British and French casualties

The 100k dead or wounded for the British is clearly POV. In total the British sent 40k for the whole reconquest of the West Indies. The 10k number that was mentioned was if anything, more accurate. This was a small conflict in terms of numbers the Europeans sent 173.2.123.188 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Change almost 1900 years ago to almost 1800 years ago Thisisfixible (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Haitian Revolution in Literature

Lydia Bailey (1947), a novel by Kenneth Roberts provides a fictionalized depiction of the French invasion by LeClerc and the battle at Crete a Pierrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.99.247.23 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jean-Jacques-Dessalines.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)