Jump to content

Talk:White Dominicans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totalitarian regime?

[edit]

The paragraph referring to the period of the Haitian domination is unhistorical. The concept of the totalitarian rule is a 20th-century development. The period of the Haitian domination was from 1822 to 1844, during the first half of the 19th-century. In a time when regionalism was the rule, lack of functional roads impeded effective communication, and plagued with a chronic insolvency after 1824, the Haitian government could hardly exercise total power over either Haitian or Dominican societies. See Totalitarianism. I would appreciate a response to this issue. Historian (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the country?

[edit]

What do you mean when you say 'the country'. Do you mean the US? If so we don't all live in the US and this makes the article hard to understand. Falkirks 02:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 06:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


White Dominican (Dominican Republic) → White (Dominican Republic) – Redundancy ★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 23:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work re Dominica GregKaye 05:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does work, re: did you know that there are over 100 times as many people living in the Dominican Republic as in Dominica? Over 100. I think we have a primary topic. Red Slash 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, this is completely ridiculously IMO. White what? A Dominican Republic is not a "White," but the country may have white "people." (For example: Let's say "White" was the name of a town someplace, you can create White (town), or a band whose name is White; White (band)). The brackets also simply specify the difference between the Dominican Republic and Dominica, which doesn't make it "redundant" because you do not read the words in the brackets as a part of the name itself. Also, why propose "White Dominicans"? It does not matter where you move the page because it will end up always being bracketed as (Dominican Republic) because the word "Dominican" is also used by Dominica thus not being truly original as mentioned above with all of its different usages. When these articles get a cleanup, it will either stay with an "s" on the end or the "s" being eliminated in an editor's effort to generate a certain amount of "consistency" among Wikipedia articles, which heavily reflect our credibility. Also, it isn't about search results, as the rationale is simply because it is a bigger country than the other and generates more of a "buzz," would be completely biased. We are talking about countries, NOT football clubs, please express neutrality when proposing. Also, White Dominican is a term for the Dominican people who are white. "White Dominicans" diminishes its use as a term. Can someone be a White Dominicans or a White Dominican? As the term is established (what it is etc.) you can elaborate on its demographics. Therefore, the article does not need moving. When in doubt see well-established articles such as White American, White Latin American, White Brazilian which is the most common form (without the "s") for a reason. Just to make a move on the sake of not sharing the name "Dominican" and the dislike for distinguishing itself by the usage of brackets is strongly not advised. It is sort of unfortunate, but as Dominica's articles grow, it will be even more familiar. As you can see: Dominican Carnival (Dominican Republic), List of Dominican Americans (Dominican Republic) etc. Imagine even if Haiti, stayed as Saint-Domingue, then that would be "three" countries with "Dominican." At least it is only two. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the proposed title does not make it clear that the article is about an ethnic group, or even about people at all. Also oppose counter-proposal. Dominicans is a disambiguation page, as "Dominicans" are also monks or people from Dominica. If "Dominicans" is unclear, "White Dominicans" would also be unclear. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A better article?

[edit]

I appreciate the effort that a small group of editors has put on this article, and I respect the work of volunteer editors in Wikipedia. However, I also worry about the lack of scholarly competency WP:CIR and dim racial agendas behind an article like this one, particularly in the context of the worse anti-Haitian waves since the 1930s, a time that was not only of the Parsley Massacre, but also of the highest period of facism, Nazism, and White Supremacy all over the world (in other words, the massacre took place in a relevant world context). As a Dominican and a scholar, I worry that WP is being used as a trampoline for discredited ideas that undermine peace and equality. The fundamental tenet about any approach to race should be that the concept is nothing else but a nightmare that resulted from the long history of colonization and slavery: it is the social and historical construction of social divisions based on seeming physical marks that separate people in categories of privilege (and lack thereof). Such a central principle is not present here. Moreover, what distinguish the Dominican concept of Whiteness from others is also but fragmented here. In a country where a "rubio" with blue eyes and white skin would normally share the same genes with Mulattos, Blacks and others (in other words, his/her grandfather is Black, etc.), the idea of Whiteness should be different from what appears in this article.

The article, as it is today, shows a series of disjointed ideas, and a severe lack of cohesiveness. In fact, it has no clear purpose: is its purpose to talk about a racial category that is not used anymore, or is it to describe how Dominicans see themselves? The first is a mockery, and the second is not yet central to this article. In parts, it seems more like a battleground of ideas, contradicting itself, for example, regarding the meaning of Whiteness in Dominicana. Who chose to align this article with the European Wikiproject? Whites in the Americas, unless recent immigrants, are simply creoles. Is this another evidence of pro-colonialism? And what is with the numbers? Why are they presented as reality? Surveys (which is what the 2006 source is; a source that its conceptual discussion has been ignored in this article) are but that, surveys, and not a scientific count. How that differs from what the world thinks Whites are? In fact, a foreigner might give credit to this article and after a few days of visiting our soil he or she would wonder where did the 1.6 millions of Whites go?

IMHO, however, the article's primary problem is its utter misunderstanding of Dominican History. This is not only evident by the limited use of relevant sources, but also by its implicit sanction of the discredited nationalist history that present Haitians as the "Other" and Whites as a quantifiable number in the population. There is reference only to three Dominican scholars of race, but out of context and far from considering their ideas in full. No reference to current studies of Whiteness: Silvio Torres-Saillant's seminal article on the Dominican notions of race nor Yadira Perez Hazel's article on race and national identity, nor Katie Saunders' article on race and "bad hair" nor Ginetta Candelario's book Black Behind the Ear. These are sources that should be read as a preamble to writing an article about Dominican Whiteness and none are cited here.

About six months ago, I posted a question in this Talk Page, urging editors interested in this article to discuss the definition and use in this article of the term totalitarianism. No response ever came forward. Now, I am asking for concerns you may have and ideas about how to make this article better. What are your thoughts of where it should go? What sources should we include? One thing I am sure of, it should reflect a commitment to scholarship and clarity. But how to go about doing this? Who would pitch in? I hope some of you will respond. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re- lack of response, I am beginning to take this article off from Europe's Wikiproject. As implied above, there is nothing about the Wikiproject directly related to the Dominican people. If there would be any, then, it would be applicable to the entire world. If you disagree, I would ask for your opinions here. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 19:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the attempts to move this article on the right direction and to those who would like to participate in improving it, I would like to point out a conversation that would hopefully add to the preparations. The diff is here. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures, galleries, etc.

[edit]

Anons have been placing pictures of individuals back in lieu of the gallery taken down after the decision here. Lately, they have been commenting in their edit summaries that the decision was only regarding galleries, and that including pictures is not part of the agreement. They are correct on this. However, there are many types of pictures you can include in this article which is not of people. Moreover, if you read the debate that led to the decision carefully, the issue behind the problem is not the gallery, but the unencyclopedic categorization of people, especially without their consent. The last picture placed here (see here) is a perfect example. Who said these young players are White? Is there a sports team in the DR that only admits White players? Placing pictures like this one will start to divide families, brothers and sisters who are yet shades of color apart. Would a distant look at them tell you for sure they are Whites? Did they sign a consent saying they are Whites? Is there a way for you to prove that? It is misleading to think that with a glance you can determine such a racial category, particularly when race does not exist and is merely socially constructed (a dangerous one, but socially constructed, nevertheless). Look at Wikipedia's definitions here. We can write an article about the idea of White Dominicans, and, if pressed against the wall we can even include a picture of someone who publicly claims to be White, but the moment you indiscriminately start placing peoples' pictures in the article, you reify the concept, you re-create an abstract idea into a real and functional one. As a scholarly endeavor, Wikipedia is to treat these ideas as they are, social constructions, solely in the realm of ideas, and not to reify them by allowing indiscriminate use of pictures of people. But at the root of my rejection of pictures here is, foremost, a procedural case: you cannot tell for sure these people are White Dominicans. There is no reliable source to include them here. Additionally, a recurrent issue in the discussion about picture galleries (here) was "necessity." Are pictures of people necessary? The consensus was that in most cases they were not. I concur, and in this article, which is about a nation with a high level of phenotype blending, it is not only unnecessary but also probably inaccurate (in other words, requiring strong verifiable sources). If you believe differently, I invite you to bring your arguments here. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 20:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tags and the status of this article

[edit]

Anons have been adding unsourced info to this article and have been trying to remove the tags that request improvement. If you have comments or have different ideas about the direction of this article, here is the place to discuss them, rather than reverting and war editing. Please, make your voice heard here. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on White Dominican (Dominican Republic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130729060352/http://www.one.gob.do/index.php?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=3876

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140814171736/http://www.hoy.com.do/serve/listfile_download.aspx?id=5461&num=1

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed correct x 1. Only 404 captures for found x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE content being added

[edit]

IP 148.0.101.3, would you please stop reintroducing this content again and again. You've been reverted 3 times as it is WP:UNDUE, out of context, and not even a quote but a redundant, re-jigged piece of irrelevance from a general essay. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The name white is a discrimination of the people by the color. the platform like Wikipedia should not entertain such discrimination. I feel European Dominicans is a better name Jadan.r.jaleel (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Immigration

[edit]

Hello, I reverted back the Lebanese section. The user who had deleted that section had done so citing that Lebanon is part of Western Asia. However, this does not take into account what is considered "whiteness" in Dominican society and the importance of socialization. In Dominican society the lighter skinned Arabs (in comparison to the majority mulatto and black Dominican populace) are considered white and there has never been an Arab racial category. Also, some Lebanese are of partial French ancestry and a lot of these Lebanese immigrants married into wealthy European Dominican families. For an example see the current President of the Dominican Republic, Luis Abinader. 74.88.77.40 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a separate article called Spanish Dominicans.

[edit]

Spanish Dominicans need their own article. There is a large Spanish population in the Dominican Republic and Spanish people are a important aspect of Dominican history. 5.182.37.93 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources to show the notability ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Dominicans&oldid=1204500371"