Talk:History of the Dominican Republic
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the Dominican Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Caribbean / Dominican Republic||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 6, 2004, November 6, 2005, November 6, 2006, February 27, 2007, November 6, 2007, February 27, 2008, November 6, 2008, November 6, 2009, and November 6, 2010.|
This page appears to be identical to the History section of the US State Department, Bureau of the Western Hemisphere "Background Note: Dominican Republic", found at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35639.htm
- Yeah, this artcile needs some big improvements, the country's page has more about the US intervention than this one! It's the most incomplete country history page I've seen thus far. And don't tell me to improve it myself, I'm no expert on Dom. Rep. history. Red Star
- It's me again, I just read the link the first user provided, and I gotta say it's outrageous! The article needs to be completely rewritten, as it stands it has to be one of the most POV pages on Wikipedia! Is there a "rewriting" tag or something like that we could apply it?
- In particular, the discussion of the 1965 US invasion is muddled at best; I'm no DR expert either, but I'm pretty sure that the invasion wasn't just about "restoring order" - it was about supporting a specific side in the civil war that would protect US interests there. That whole section needs to be rewritten from scratch; the US State Department is an utterly non-neutral source for information about those events, even as a starting point for editing. CDC (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the following to external links. I was not intending on vandalizing, so at best uninintential vandalism.
- The Price of Sugar - Documentary directed and produced by Bill Haney
- I posted this link which I believe is pertinant to the History of the Dominican Republic. Where would you suggest that this should be added. ::This documentary discusses the direct impact of the sugar trade on the Dominican Republic. I have no assoication with this documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldiaz22 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
i would like to know about local transportation in the dominican republic
- an article on the Dominican Republic's history won't help you!
Can sb write more about the Santo Domingo Rebellion (1802-1803), linked from List of Polish wars? I found a brief mention on .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Independence from Haiti
I've deleted the paragraph about the Haitian ocupation being a liberation of the dominican people from spanish domination. The paragraph was based solely on an emotional and particular opinion without any historical backing. The Wikipedia shouldnt be a forum for particular and emotional interpretations of history. 126.96.36.199 09:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reverted to previous page before vandalism. Elhombre72 14:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I changed President Fernandez' image to a clearer one I located on his website. Elhombre72 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I modified the passage that was copywritten. Please do not delete!
Wikipedia, please, look at this page and see if it still is a copywrite infringement!
I hate to say this
As a Dominican I hate to say this but the word Quisqueya make actually be anachronistic.
The whole section about the III Spanish period is a bias. First of all, it doesn't say that it was actually Santana the one who invited Spain to retake the colony. Instead, the section simply talks about "renewed Spanish imperialism". Of course, there is no mention also that Santana was the real administrator of the island during the whole perios, and that he appointed his friends to be the majors and other civil authorities, operating like a maffia; in the end the whole "return" was a trick made by Santana in order to receive the far big Spanish salaries which were impossible to achieve in the bankrupted Santo Domingo. Look at the accounts of the Spanish colonial uthorities in this period and how they encouraged the Queen to abandone again the island, because it was a nonsensical waste of men and money. Later, the text mentions "discrimination against the mulattos and fears of reimposition of slavery", as well as activities made by the newly apointed Spanish Archbishop. It's true that he was disliked by the population, but the main reason was because he actively persecuted the adultery and extra-marital affairs, which were largely performed in the island after decades of abandonment by the Church. On the other hand, the possibility of restoring slavery never existed (thing that isn't mentioned again), the whole idea was actually a lie spreaded by Buenaventura Báez in order to turn the mostly mulatto and black population against Santana and his Spanish backers, and then seize the government (as he did). It is a nonsense to think that Spain was planning to restore slavery in the Dominican Republic when around this time it was abolished in Puerto Rico and was largely debated in Cuba, where it remained 20 years more due to the pressure of the plantation owners. Finally, there is no mention that the annexation was also offered to the United States and the II French Empire, whose governments declined because they already knew what type of tricksters were behind it. I recommend the book Batallas decisivas de la Historia de España of Juan Carlos Losada for further exploration of this subject.--Menah the Great 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Post-Trujillo Era and 1980—present
There are portions of these 2 sections overlapping one over the other. And in the second one there's a big leap between 1980 and 1996.
Those sections need some work and I'll start making some research to improve them. There's a lot of things that can be included here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvargas78 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Smth wrong with the section. It says from 400K the population was reduced to 500K, and then it was suddenly 60K. Probably, the middle number is wrong (and it is not referenced).--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)