Talk:Dominican War of Independence

I have created a temporary page at Dominican War of Independence/Temp. NatusRoma 4 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Abrupt ending

So what happened next...?!
The article ends extremely abruptly. Someone needs to say in a few words how and why Santana returned SD to Spain (perhaps even have a separate article for that period?), and then make a logical link to the following period of SD's history. There is no info that I've found on the period 1844–63. BigSteve (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unification of Hispaniola (1822-1844) - Paragraph with no citations

"A group of Dominican politicians and military officers[who?] had expressed interest in uniting the entire island, while they sought for political stability and support under Haiti, which at the time was still seen as having a great deal of wealth and power.[citation needed] Haiti had been by far the richest colony in the western hemisphere and was known as the Pearl of the Antilles."

Why is this paragraph allowed to be there if it doesn't have any citations? Shouldn't it be taken down until it can be proven to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiaguero95 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

Please change the date from the 24 of February to the 27th. The 24th isn't the day of independence, it is the 27th. Please remove all mention of terms that suggest that the DR had a desire to merge with Haiti. The DR was unwillingly invaded by Haiti and was wrongly given control to the island by José Nuñez de Cáceres. 67.81.251.92 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"unwillingly invaded" hmm...that sounds not so strange.

Soldier Losses

"however, Haiti is estimated to have lost three times more troops than Dominican Republic[1] Dominican Republic had no casualties, 3 wounded"

But it also says that 600 soldiers died when Domicans had only 3 wounded?

But if they had 3 times more troops...should not they have had 9 fallen soldiers, or 9 wounded?

And at the battle of Santiago were 1000 deaths...

It should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This article appears to be a target for nationalistic disinformation

I just had to correct some pretty flagrant errors in the infobox after consulting the cited source: [1]. Vigilance is warranted here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpere039 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kpere039 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed content

Judging by the extensive edit warring over recent weeks, there appears to be a difference of opinion about how much detail is WP:DUE and what constitutes an encyclopedic WP:TONE for this article. I would argue that much of what has recently been added comes across as nationalistic hagiography that heavily favors the POV of Dominican independence leaders rather than mainstream secondary sources.

Part of the issue here may be that there seems to be a number of sources that veer into nationalistic hagiography, so this discussion may need to look at which sources should be considered most reliable.

I ask the recent contributors, especially the 76.98.... IP, to discuss their preferred additions here after they've been reverted, rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello good afternoon @Generalrelative, thanks for inviting me to discuss this matter. So in regards to the reverted content, I want to clarify that while I do admit that it may come off as nationalistic due to its direct nature, I want to assure you that the purpose was more to give clarification surrounding the controversy of the topic. And in the reverted content, which in the second revision I did remove some of the content to soften the material, I presented two sides to the topic to give a balance perspective. For example, One source details a historians who agree with the argument of the real independence being in 1865, in which they provide valid argumemts while other sources details historians who provide a historical context to present the reason why the 1844 should remain relevant. So with these sources, they provide two different but solid perspectives into the discussion. 76.98.79.57 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging here. And I want to clarify that your good intentions were never in question. On second look the first paragraph of your proposed "Historiography" section strikes me as solid, so I restored that one for now. I apologize for reverting too broadly in this case!

My objections to the rest of the material are twofold:

1) They may go into far more depth on a relatively minor point than is WP:DUE. I would suggest looking at a few more academic voices to get a sense of contemporary historiography, e.g. the review article "Not a Cockfight: Rethinking Haitian-Dominican Relations" by Samuel Martínez [2], and especially We Dream Together: Dominican Independence, Haiti, and the Fight for Caribbean Freedom by Yale historian Anne Eller: [3].

And 2), I think the WP:TONE in many places could be construed as unencyclopedic, e.g.

In developing this metaphor of a transatlantic Hispanic family, Luperón highlighted the independence struggles of the Dominican Republic to end its 22-year union with Haiti, become necessary acts to maintain the Hispanic heritage and therefore the moral fiber of the country.

We cannot imply in Wikipedia's voice that Hispanic heritage = moral fiber. And we should be careful to evaluate whether even mentioning someone saying this is truly DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I hope this makes sense. Happy to discuss further. Generalrelative (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I will look into those two sources that you suggested to me. 76.98.78.123 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Just out of curiosity, aside from the first paragraph, was there any other part of the removed content that could also be solid enough to be reverted? 76.98.79.194 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give this another look when I have a moment. I appreciate your engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, judging from the fact that those edits have been suppressed, it appears there may have been WP:COPYVIO present. In any case, I can no longer access them. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Hello good afternoon, thanks for responding back to me. Yes I see that its no longer accessible. But I do see that the first two edits that I made on May 4 is still accessible. If you could perhaps check those two out and tell me if you think it's suitable for this page, I would appreciate it. 76.98.77.98 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha, you're right! You're asking about this edit then? In that case, I'm going to have to stick by my view from the other day that the first paragraph looks encyclopedic (though you did improve it in subsequent edits) but the rest goes into unnecessary detail on minor points and over-relies on quotations which often use rather overwrought language. Sometimes less is more.

Btw, did you get a chance to look at Anne Eller's book? It's very well researched and written. I would love to see more content based on her work. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I'm still trying to get my hands on that reference. But once I do, I'll be adding some addition content with it. 76.98.79.73 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

I have added more information regarding the Historiography section of this article. Below is my extended version with some rearrangements along with references and sources. If its possible to look over it and see if this can added or if I should go back and make other changes to this version so it can meet the criteria.

Flag Square, is a monument dedicated to the Dominican flag, located in the Dominican capital, Santo Domingo.

The creation of the Dominican Republic was an event that had a great impact on the Caribbean. At that time, it was not considered that we had the capacity or the conditions to achieve the emancipatory fact. Dominique Georges de Pradt, in his work The Colonies and the Current Revolution of America, which was a model of political orientation for the fighters for the Independence of their countries in Latin America, states that for a country to achieve its emancipation, it needed to bring together three conditions: increase in population, increase in wealth and increase in education. Santo Domingo did not meet these three conditions. They were poor, small in population. John Hogan, an American diplomat who came the year after the proclamation of Dominican independence, in 1845, reported that the population was 250,000. Navy Lieutenant David Dixon Porter, instructed to carry out an investigation with the purpose of seeing if the Dominican Republic could be recognized as an independent nation, he reported that the number of its inhabitants was 175,000 individuals.

This quote is more precise than Hogan's, since unlike him, Porter investigated the parish archives. However, in the many years after its independence, the country was still small in population. Mariano Torrente, a Spanish visitor in 1852, estimated the number of inhabitants at 150,000, and in 1860, the Spanish consul in Santo Domingo, Mariano Deal, considered the population to be 186,700 people. The new nation was, in essence,  poor in an economic sense. Despite the impressive natural resources, they had not been exploited and energized to generate wealth. Teodoro Stanley Heneken, an Englishman, informed Henry John Temple, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, that the Dominican Republic was born without a shilling in its coffers.

When studying the process of Dominican independence, which began to take shape by the 1820s, the influences of Pradt's work, and the pactist ideas of John Locke, in his Essays on Civil Government, and the Declaration of Independence of the United States become apparent. These struggles intertwined into the emancipation process of the Americas that began with the independence of the United States in 1776, continued with that of Haiti in 1804 and concluded with that of Panama in 1903.^ The project of the Independent State of Spanish Haiti barely lasted nine weeks. By the same time, eastern Hispaniola would join Gran Colombia, in accordance with the thought of the Liberator Simón Bolívar of emancipating and uniting the Latin American countries and also the tendency towards union in Central America, as shown in the days preceding December 1, 1821, when the old Central American Provinces were linked into a confederation, except Guatemala, which was integrated, until 1823, into the Mexican Empire of Iturbide, and El Salvador, which wanted to march alone outside the Hispano-American framework, This trend is perceived in the thirteen colonies of North America and in Haiti itself, when Northern Haiti integrated with the South under the aegis of Boyer.

Despite the significance that the war has played in leading to the successfully establishment of the Dominican Republic, this topic became a subject of controversy. One particular subject of scrutiny pointed out by critics is the fact that this event, which is celebrated as a national holiday, celebrates the Dominican Republic's emancipation not from a European power, but from another former colony, Haiti. In fact, Dominican Republic is the only nation in the Caribbean that gained its independence from another Caribbean nation. (Although, in the Latin American basin, nations such as Uraguay and Panama attained their independences from Brazil and Colombia, respectively). Because of this, this event is often mentioned unfavorably by critics, in comparison to the Dominican Restoration War, it's successor conflict. One of the questions in permanent debate among Dominican social science researchers is whether the Restoration war against Spain, which waged between 1863 and 1865, was actually the "true" Dominican independence.

Puerto Rican independence advocate, Eugenio María de Hostos, (who himself had Dominican ancestry), influenced by positivism, valued August 16, 1863 more than February 27, 1844, since on that date the country showed the highest degree of patriotic consciousness. “Military, politically, socially, August 16" – he said – "corresponds in the life of this nation to efforts, materials, purpose, national and national evolution that February 27 did not require.” Pedro Henríquez Ureña, for his part, speaks of “our process of moral independence,” which began with that of Núñez de Cáceres in 1821, “not clearly conceived, perhaps, but independence nonetheless,” continued in 1844, growing and defined by its founders, but not for the entire people (...) and concluded in 1873 (November 25), when the people overthrew Báez and with it not only their purpose of annexing us to the United States, but the entire idea of annexation. On that date the process of national understanding reached its climax.

After these three stages of national historical development, the Dominican people have always been present every time it has been necessary to defend national sovereignty, as occurred in the Restoration War (1863-1865), in the Six Years' War (1868-1874), in the nationalist resistance during the first North American military occupation (1916-1924) and finally during the Dominican Revolution of 1965.

•  Note: I suggest you make multiple small edit requests that are easier to digest. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If I instead did it paragraph by paragraph would it be a little easier to digest? BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@BlkGeneral2000: I left a comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dominican_Republic that will hopefully attract some input regarding your edit request. M.Bitton (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This needs to be broken down into (at most) single paragraph requests. Also, the text needs copy-editing, it is somewhat florid (eg "it was not considered that we had the capacity or the conditions to achieve the emancipatory fact.") and contains grammatical errors. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

I revised my edit. So for the "Historiagraphy" section, I prefer for the content below to be the first paragraph of the section, in place of the current content.

Flag Square, is a monument dedicated to the Dominican flag, located in the Dominican capital, Santo Domingo.

The creation of the Dominican Republic was an event that had a great impact on the Caribbean. At that time, it was not considered if the new nation had the sufficent capacity to attain its emancipation. According to French clergyman Dominique Georges de Pradt, in his work The Colonies and the Current Revolution of America, (which was a model of political orientation for the independende fighters throughout Latin America in the 19th century), he states that for a country to achieve its emancipation, it needed to bring together three conditions: increase in population, increase in wealth and increase in education. The Dominican Republic, however, did not meet these conditions. It emerged as an unstable and impoverished nation with such a small population. John Hogan, an American diplomat who arrived in the country in 1845, reported that the population was 250,000. David Dixon Porter, another American diplomat, was also instructed to carry out an investigation with the purpose of seeing if the Dominican Republic could be recognized as an independent nation; he reported that the number of its inhabitants was 175,000 individuals. BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024 (2)

For the "Historiagraphy" section, I would like the content below to be added as the second paragraph.

This quote is more precise than Hogan's, since unlike him, Porter investigated the parish archives. However, in the many years after its independence, the country was still small in population. Mariano Torrente, a Spanish visitor in 1852, estimated the number of inhabitants at 150,000, and in 1860, the Spanish consul in Santo Domingo, Mariano Deal, considered the population to be 186,700 people. The new nation was, in essence, poor in an economic sense. Despite the impressive natural resources, they had not been exploited and energized to generate wealth. Teodoro Stanley Heneken, an Englishman, informed Henry John Temple, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, that the Dominican Republic was born without a shilling in its coffers. BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024 (3)

For the "Historiagraphy" section, I would liks the content below to be added in as the third paragraph.

When studying the process of Dominican independence, which began to take shape by the 1820s, the influences of Pradt's work, and the pactist ideas of John Locke, in his Essays on Civil Government, and the Declaration of Independence of the United States become apparent. These struggles intertwined into the emancipation process of the Americas that began with the independence of the United States in 1776, continued with that of Haiti in 1804 and concluded with that of Panama in 1903. The project of the Independent State of Spanish Haiti barely lasted nine weeks. By the same time, eastern Hispaniola would join Gran Colombia, in accordance with the thought of the Liberator Simón Bolívar of emancipating and uniting the Latin American countries and also the tendency towards union in Central America, as shown in the days preceding December 1, 1821, when the old Central American Provinces were linked into a confederation, except Guatemala, which was integrated, (until 1823), into the First Mexican Empire under Agustín de Iturbide, and El Salvador, which wanted to march alone outside the Hispano-American framework. This trend was perceived in the former Thirteen Colonies and in Haiti itself, when Northern Haiti integrated with the South under the aegis of Jean-Pierre Boyer. BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024 (4)

For the "Historiagraphy" section, I would like for the content below to be added in as the fourth paragraph.

Despite the significance that the war has played in leading to the successfully establishment of the Dominican Republic, this topic became a subject of controversy. One particular matter of scrutiny pointed out by critics is the fact that this event, which is celebrated as a national holiday, celebrates the Dominican Republic's emancipation not from a European power, but from another former colony, Haiti. In fact, Dominican Republic is the only nation in the Caribbean that gained its independence from another Caribbean nation. (Although, in the Latin American basin, other nations such as Uruguay and Panama attained their independences from Brazil and Colombia, respectively). Because of this, this event is often mentioned unfavorably by critics, especially in comparison to the Dominican Restoration War, it's successor conflict. One of the questions in permanent debate among Dominican social science researchers is whether the Restoration war against Spain, which waged between 1863 and 1865, was actually the "true" Dominican independence. BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024 (5)

For the "Historiagraphy" section, I would like for the content below to be added in as the fifth paragraph.

Puerto Rican independence advocate, Eugenio María de Hostos, (who himself had Dominican ancestry), influenced by positivism, valued August 16, 1863 more than February 27, 1844, since on that date the country showed the highest degree of patriotic consciousness. “Military, politically, socially, August 16" – he said – "corresponds in the life of this nation to efforts, materials, purpose, national and national evolution that February 27 did not require.” Dominican author Pedro Henríquez Ureña, for his part, spoke of “our process of moral independence,” which began with that of José Núñez de Cáceres in 1821, “not clearly conceived, perhaps, but independence nonetheless,” continued in 1844, growing and defined by its founders, but not for the entire people (...) and concluded in 1873 (November 25), when the Dominicans overthrew Buenaventura Báez and with it, not only the annexation project to the United States, but the entire idea of annexation overall. On that date, the process of national understanding reached its climax. BlkGeneral2000 (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@BlkGeneral200: Regarding your last two edit requests, they have now sat on the pile long enough that you have become extended confirmed and can edit the article yourself, so I'll mark them closed. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

References