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)