Talk:Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged (c. 2010) --KarlB (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

It definitely seems like this article should be merged with both Republic of Spanish Haiti and Haitian invasion of the Dominican Republic. LegalSkeptic 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalskeptic (talk • contribs)

• Support. To be sure, no two of them refer to exactly the same thing. One article refers to the short-lived country, another refers to the invasion of that country, and this one refers to the occupation that ensued. But each article is very small, and their subjects closely related enough that their contents should be placed in one article, for the benefit of readers. Should that article grow to the point where subarticles become necessary, then these should be recreated. SamEV (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Re: Support Exactly. Unless someone comes along with much more information, it would be better to have one pretty good article than three tiny ones. I'll allow a few more days to see if anyone objects, and then I'll proceed. LegalSkeptic 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalskeptic (talk • contribs)

  Very well. SamEV (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Good job, Legalskeptic!

  That's unusual, though: two infoboxes in the same article? Did you mean to do that? SamEV (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • For now I just copied the other infobox. I'm going to work on merging their contents next. Thanks for your help! LegalSkeptic 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalskeptic (talk • contribs)

    Not a problem. SamEV (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

you have merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. You are making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title you placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there people unwillingly. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Unmerge

Fwiw, there's no problem merging the [second] Haitian invasion here since it is in fact the same topic. The Republic of Spanish Haiti, on the other hand, should be restored as a separate article, even as a stub, for numerous reasons. It is not a service to the readers to hide discussions of sovereign states in the middle of historical articles about provinces in other countries. It's not a paper encyclopedia and you can freely link there from here: there's no reason to be so stingy about namespace. It also mucks with linking from various projects like former states in the Americas. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm averse to the restoration of the Spanish Haiti article because it was the work of a terribly anti-Dominican editor who was editing as a sockpuppet. Shouldn't it be enough that the short-lived country is covered in the Dominican Republic and "History of the Dominican Republic" articles? SamEV (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. You are making light to massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title you placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there people unwillingly. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Haitian occupation didn't begin in 1822

Article needs some sourcing and discussion about the first occupation during the Napoleonic Wars & the fairly messy way it fell out of Haiti's dominion the first time. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about sourcing. But this article is about the second invasion because that's by far the more important one; AFAIK, it's the default when there's mention of Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo or the Dominican Republic. But a disambiguator could be added to the title, so it becomes "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo (1822–1844)". SamEV (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

it was the HATIAN INVASION AND MURDERS OF THE PEOPLE OF SANTO DOMINGO! please unmerge the two articles there is a reason why our history books and our main article had the hatian invasion listed as the title! someone is trying to make light of thousands of murders of Dominican kids men and women by the hands of hatians! UNMERGE THE ARTICLES PLEASE AND PLACE IT BACK ON THE MAIN ARTICLE AS IT WAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See also links

An editor keeps adding irrelevant links, specifically "Parsley Massacre - Trujillo's Massacre of Haitians", United States occupation of Haiti, and United States occupation of the Dominican Republic.

How are they immediately relevant to this invasion and occupation, any more than to the entire Haitian-Dominican relationship ever since? I.e. the point is not that there's no connection whatsoever, but rather: how is there a special one linking to these events and not to others? It is especially puzzling that the US occupation of Haiti is included. SamEV (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparent POV

The first paragraph of the Invasion section appears very much at odds with the rest of the article.

Before this paragraph it says how much Haiti was afraid that France would invade it, after which it immediately jumps into how much Santo Domingo was afraid that Haiti would invade it (?!), with the para after THAT then going on to say how happy most people were that Haiti occupied SD.

Here is the out-of-place para –

^{The Dominicans were at serious disadvantage if they were to prevent the Haitian invasion. Mainly, they had no military forces whatsoever, their population was eight to ten times less than Haiti's, and the economy was stalled. Haiti, on the other hand, had formidable armed forces, both in skill and sheer size, which had been hardened in nearly ten years of repelling French soldiers, local colonialists, and military insurgents. The racial massacres perpetrated in the later days of the French-Haitian conflict only added to the determination of Haitians to never lose a battle.}

Either further explanation is needed as to WHY there was so much fear in SD, or else it feels like there may be some antihaitianismo POV pushing going on? BigSteve (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Two years too late but, the Haitians performed the racial massacres to whites on the Spanish speaking side. The fear is the reasoning for the massacres (genocide?). According to The Dominican Republic: A National History by Frank Moya Pons, an expert on Dominican history, the Haitians believed that it was in the white man's nature to subjugate and enslave black people, therefore the island must be rid of them to ensure their liberty and sovereignty. Obviously I'm paraphrasing but that is the gist of it. The French also perpetrated atrocities against the Haitians, in the form of institutionalized slavery and their attempts to smother the revolution by the Haitians. The Dominican side (eastern side, Santo Domingo) was and has always been more racially heterogeneous and eurocentric than Haiti. So that explains the why Santo Domingo didn't want to be occupied. The Haitian side was wholly against European influences for fear of subjugation. The Haitian history is inseparable from fear of returning to slavery, the Pearl as it was referred to, was a death camp for African slaves that were exploited to make sugar and as a result the French Empire wealthy.

--El Mayimbe (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

can you please unmerge the two articles that were merged by someone making fun of Dominican history . The Hatian invasion in Dominican republic is a seperate a legit article that was originally on the countrys main article page someone merged it and changed the title to make fun of a very dark time and massacres of thousands of men women and children just for being white hispanics in a time where there was no more slavery. the person who made these huge changes was anti Dominican and abusing there power please unmerge the two articles and place the correct one.148.101.133.119 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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 moved. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti → Unification of Hispaniola – The current title is awkward, the proposed title is simpler. This is the only period in Hispaniolan history when the island was politically united. The article should not be about one half of the island or the other, or about one people/state or the other, but about the unification/occupation specifically. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose (strongly) Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving away from the present name (strongly), although see below for some caveats and alternate names. — LlywelynII 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Umm, seems alright. Tentative support. I assume it's a complicated situation to describe, but that's what the article is for. Red Slash 03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving away from the present name per WP:UE, i.e. getting rid of "unification into". While the proposed title is technically accurate, other suggestions below seem to present a clearer summary of what happened. Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo is how it is described in much of the article. What do sources call it? (The article is poorly sourced and seems mute on this topic.) —  AjaxSmack  18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The proposed title is descriptive, but there are at least three sourcse on Google Books that use the exact phrase "unification of Hispaniola" to refer to the same event (Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cultures of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, An Intellectual History of the Caribbean and Routes of Passage: Rethinking the African Diaspora). Srnec (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Even though the whole island was in fact unified between this period for the first time since Spain's occupation whom called it Hispaniola, the truth is we can no longer name it as such because the people of Saint-Domingue renamed their portion of the island as well as claim it whole for themselves under the name of their constitution (Haiti). The expulsion of the French and the abandonment of Spain's eastern portion of the island led to Spain's foreign influence and the name of "Hispaniola" to leave with them. Spain later attempted to claim the part of the island later on that they left behind (modern day Dominican Republic) but failed at the hands of the Haitian government in combat for the reason being that the Haitians wanted no part of European influence to touch the island's soil for the fear that it would attract other European foreign influence, especially from France. To call this article "Unification of Hispaniola" might make some people happy, but having it changed to this would in fact turn history the wrong way. The article name "Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti" is far more accurate. Thank you for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I honestly can't follow some of your English, but the flight of the Spanish had no effect whatsoever on the English name of the island. Your argumentum ab Francogallica also doesn't seem to make any sense, given your support of the present name which also uses "Hispaniola". (Further, per WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME, that's not going to change.) — LlywelynII 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to user Srnec, for simplicity purposes, this new name wouldn't make it easier at all. There already was a time when this island was unified under Spain (hence the term Hispaniola). The new name is not for simplicity. History can sometimes be difficult to grasp at times, and as Scholars we should all know that. We only have to look at European, Middle Eastern, Mayan, Ancient Egypt, Israel and the Israelites' history to realize this fact. We are only talking about an island just over 200 years old. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The new name obviously would be briefer and "easier"; the question is whether it would be too inaccurate. The present name is overlong and badly phrased: Unification of Hispaniola under Haiti or Unification of Hispaniola as Haiti would both be preferable. The point about the earlier unification under Spanish rule is well-taken, though. What about Reunification of Hispaniola or, what is probably most accurate, a return to Haitian invasion of the Dominican Republic?

This is aside the present topic, but I personally also oppose the prior merge and think that the information on the government of Spanish Haiti / the Departments of Ozama and the Cibao should be split from this namespace and treated separately from the invasion itself. — LlywelynII 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If anything to be 100% correct it should be called "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo" (the name of the western part of the island before the Dominican constitution renamed their part of the island to the "Dominican Republic." We have to also agree that the republic was not yet formed. In essence they continued to be in a colonial state. Furthermore, I would also have to disagree with the current name of Hispaniola. It was be far too inaccurate as well. It is only unity if the other side wanted unity. This was an occupation. Ironically enough, before Hispaniola, the whole island to the native Tainos was "Ayiti," (Haiti in English) and even though not many of them survived the people of Haiti retained its original name. Thoughts? Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the "History of the Dominican Republic" page, under "Haitian occupation 1821–44" it has a main page link redirecting Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo to this current page of "Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti." Somebody had it right. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Back on 30 November 2013, "CrazyAces489 moved page Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo to Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti: It wasn't Santo Domingo at that time. It was the independent nation of Spanish Haiti". That's what happened. I'd have moved the article myself just to correct the bad English if it weren't protected. That's why we're here. I have no problem with simply reverting the November move. Srnec (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right Srnec, the colonial name of "Santo Dominigo" ceased to exist between the time of the occupation (from February 9, 1822 to February 27, 1844). So in that case if it was the "Republic of Spanish Haiti" I have to agree with the current name. It is not a fallacy. "Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti or Hispaniola into Haiti" would deem itself correct. The stress I wish to point out here is that the eastern side of the island was occupied and haven't received independence from Haiti yet. So in whichever way it would work in that context, I would have to agree with. The suggested "Unification of Hispaniola" as mentioned before would just be too inaccurate in that time period; rewinding back to a time that has already elapsed. This is a good discussion with compelling arguments from all sides but just hope we can all agree on something soon that is accurately suitable for the reader to have less questions and confusion coming out from the article than in. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. You are making light to massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title you placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there people unwillingly. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Modern-day"

IslandMan89 modern-day slavery is controversial in itself (see: Restaveks; these children are not forced to work and is usually out of obligation and necessity for their poor families. They can quit at any time, hence not truly "slavery" per se.) Sweat shops (work for extremely low wages), also would not qualify as slavery either; nevermind the fact that neither belong in the lead during this time period as per Lubiesque. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Very Good

Quite some time ago I tried improving this article and perhaps due to my own stubborn views and that of some what I perceived to be antagonists just gave up on it. But I must say that the current condition of the article is very good and well referenced. It's no secret from my edits that I am Dominican, so I support a lot of what is written, in addition I was vehemently opposed to naming this article "Unification," it should've been Occupation of Dominican Republic. None the less, it is well written and unbiased.

To make it more objective, perhaps we should discuss the motivation of the occupation. Specifically we could give a bit more details about the views of Boyer. Sure there were economic reasons, but also the fear of being re-enslaved should be addressed. But I could be wrong. Either way great works guys and gals.--El Mayimbe (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Official name

Was the official name of this country really "Unification of Hispaniola"? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC))

"Unification of Hispaniola"

The island was never willingly united politically, many people like to believe that Haitians helped free Dominicans from Spain but thats false. Santo Domingo was already independent from Spain months before Haiti invaded and occupied for personal imperial gain, not to actually help and unify the people like many believe, Haiti just wanted more control over more land and so they militarily invaded by force and without Dominican agreement, it was a military takeover not a friendly unification. Secondly, the 2 were never same culturally, and people from Santo Domingo never seen themselves as the same as Haitians. People like to use the geography factor that the 2 are on the same island, to pin 2 entirely different cultures together. So this name is misleading, it should be called "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.199.165 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

i agree someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. You are making light to massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title you placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there people unwillingly. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Unmerge the Hatian invasion of Dominican Republic article and place it back with the original main article page!

someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time and the two articles were made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC! the eprson who merged these two articles was anti DOMINICAN and ruining historical facts that were already placed on the original article! which was THE HATIAN INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC NOT THE UNIFICATION OF HISPANOLA that was never a historical fact please unmerge the articles and place the hatian invasion back where it was in the main article of the country.190.166.157.141 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, and personally, I think that "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo" is a better name for the whole article, as it takes into account the fact that the unification was obviously not voluntary for Dominicans. However, this article should only be moved/renamed with consensus. The merger was discussed and approved by consensus at the time - see Merge discussion above. The problem with the old "Haitian invasion of the Dominican Republic" article was that it was very short and covered a topic that was covered more extensively here, so I think there may be a stronger case for renaming this article than recreating one that contained a great deal less information. The title of this page was extensively discussed above, although I don't see anything wrong with reopening the discussion. Perhaps editors from WikiProject Haiti and WikiProject Dominican Republic could chime in. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for responding trust me i looked at everything and read just about every lie that this so call ¨Unification¨ article has here and alot of it is lies and meant to distract the readers who go to the Dominican republics article page and end up here reading this would be highly confused and also misinformed. The correct title is the actual historic fact and that would still be the Hatian invasion of DOMINICAN REPUBLIC simply do to the fact it was an on going battle for 21 years that the already establish country of DR faced. Although you say ¨the Hatian occupation of Dominican Republic is a better title the fact is that its NOT the MAIN title placed in this article and this article speaks more lies of saving Dominicans and helping the country then what actually happened. That is called spreading false narratives and information that are based off of fictional books written by hatians. I see alot of Hatian editors have there hands on Dominican articles i dont see this being resolved unless someone else outside of both countries take a look at this disrespectful and injustice acts towards the Dominican side. The historic fact is there was never any unifications on both countries it was simply Haiti decided to invade Dominican republic for PERSONAL GAIN. So why is the ¨unification of hispanola¨ the main title? This entire article is misleading and FALSE and if anyone can unmerge the articles i would gladly place more backed up information on the matter that is NO EXCUSE TO MERGE THEM together of the Hatian invasion original page. If unmerged i will back up my info but i will not edit this unification lie of a page anymore. Im surprised you have this ¨unification¨ article and no one has reported or deleted it do to the amount of lies in regards to history of Dominican people just from fictional books written by non Dominicans how convenient is that for Dominicans?148.101.133.119 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This whole article is full of lies about unity within hatians and Dominicans. that is a LIE!

this whole article is based on lies and fiction please remove this unification page from the country of Dominican republics main article and unmerge it with the hatian invasion article that was stolen and taken to be merged with this lie of an article u have here. Unmerge the 2 articles and put back the correct article which is ≈THE HATIAN INVASION of Dominican Republic≈ article historical FACT.148.101.133.119 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Someone please Unmerge the articles please.

can someone unmerge the two articles and place back the ´Haitian invasion of Dominican republic´ . this article has alot of fabrications and lies based on nonsense and fictional books not history books. PLEASE UNMERGE THE ARTICLES.190.166.137.45 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Bias

I noticed this page has a substantial amount of Dominican bias and it is structured in a way to villainize Haiti as much as possible. They continue to insist that Haiti invaded Dominican Republic despite the fact DR had not existed by then and remove any sources that point to the fact that the unification was largely consensual. A lot of sources come from Right Wing Nationalist or Pro-Trujillo media sites. I would protect this page if I had the ability to.

Separating two distinct topics

It has taken me a little while to figure out the exact topic of this article. The article's name and majority of the text is largely about the occupation of and integration of Santo Domingo (Spanish Haiti) with the Republic of Haiti. The article is regarding an event and period of history, and the article name accurately reflects this. The narrative is then confused by being framed with an infobox which seems to indicate that the article is about a political entity that existed between 1822 and 1844. There is, however, no information about this political entity (the "Republic of Haiti) within the article beyond how it impacted the Dominican side of the island. In reality, a political entity called the Republic of Haiti did exist, but it was actually between 1820 and 1849 (as reflected in the french article Republic of Haiti (1820-1849)). In the interest of clarity, I am separating this article into two distinct articles:
1) Unification of Hispaniola that will keep the vast majority of its content. I will keep this article linked with the Wikidata item "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo" (Q3128939). I understand that the current name is controversial and I expect there will be interest in migrating the article name to "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo", but I don't plan on addressing this myself, at least not until the below-mentioned article is separated.
2) Republic of Haiti (1820-1849) that will take the infobox from the current article but will otherwise be largely written new. I hope to translate largely from the French article. I will create a new Wikidata item for this article as the French article is also conflated with "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo".
-NoGhost (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED to Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is clear that the article should be moved, and consensus for "Haitian (something) of Santo Domingo" as a title. Consensus is less clear on what "(something)" should be. The votes favor Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo, but "annexation" and "conquest" both also had support; no prejudice against a speedy follow-up move proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Unification of Hispaniola → Haitian conquest of the Dominican Republic – POV title, Haiti invaded and annexed the Dominican Republic, there was no voluntary or put to vote unification, it was forced. I propose the title Haitian conquest of the Dominican Republic, although there can be many other variants, such as Haitian conquest of Hispaniola, Haitian invasion of the Dominican Republic or Haitian annexation of the Dominican Republic. I would opt for either the first proposal or the second one. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Good proposal, and based on the content, I would agree that a move is needed, but what is the WP:COMMONNAME in the academic literature? Is it "Haitian conquest of the Dominican Republic"? Just to make sure we get the move right first time. Morgengave (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure, I am not an expert in this topic, but "Unification of Hispaniola" has 37 results in Google Scholar [1], some referring to proposed unifications of the island unrelated to this specific event and some referring to it as the "Haitian unification of Hispaniola". Some also use "unification of Hispaniola" because that's practically what happened but don't seem to indicate that that's the name of the event (I don't know if I am making myself understood, I am not a native speaker, I am talking about this extract from an article: "The unification of Hispaniola became a reality in 1822 when the second president of the Republic of Haiti, Jean-Pierre Boyer, took over Santo Domingo with little to no opposition from the diminished Dominican military.") The exact words of "Haitian conquest of the Dominican Republic" don't have results. In Spanish, the term "Unificación de la Española" is not used; in Haitian Creole, jugding from the Wikipedia page of this article, is something like "Haitian Hispaniola"; and in French, "Unification d'Hispaniola" only gets 3 Google Scholar results. Apparently there's not really an academic consensus, I imagine Haitian and Dominican history hasn't been extensively researched in English. Super Ψ Dro 19:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to investigate a bit further or ask an expert on the topic. In any case, I do think that name "The Dominican Republic" shouldn't be used, as (as far as I know) that name didn't really come into existence until after the War of Independence. Morgengave (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess we can wait until some editor from one of these countries sees this RM and participates on it. And we can use Haitian conquest of Hispaniola if using "Dominican Republic" is problematic. Super Ψ Dro 20:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Commment While "unification" is certainly euphemistic, "Dominican Republic" shouldn't be used. "Hispaniola" would also be inadequate (Haiti is on Hispaniola). "Santo Domingo" would be the appropriate name, so something along the lines of "Haitian annexation of Santo Domingo". Walrasiad (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Using Santo Domingo could be confusing for readers not knowing that it refers to the Dominican Republic (like me 1 minute ago). I think we should either use Hispaniola or Dominican Republic, even if it wasn't a name used back then. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We should use the accurate terminology, even if less known. The linking and the lede will clarify the topic. Morgengave (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

My own preference would be "Haitian conquest of Hispaniola" - the conquest took place wholly on the island, and finished once Haiti took control over the whole of the island. Therefore, even though Haiti is also on Hispaniola, I feel that it'd still be an accurate title. My concern with using "Santo Domingo" is principally that people might assume it refers simply to the city of Santo Domingo, rather than the entire Spanish colony. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I also feel like it. If we use Santo Domingo on the title, we should add a note. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo. It has more results in google scholar than current title (see [2]). Vpab15 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo per Vpab15. "Annexation" would also be acceptable since it was a fairly long-term "occupation". Note that, if we wanted to be super-precise, "Haitian occupation of Spanish Haiti" would also be technically correct, but very confusing, and the Republic of Spanish Haiti existed for less than a year compared to the long reign of Spanish Santo Domingo. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo per Vpab15. Morgengave (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose the verb "occupation". That's implies it is purely military situation, boots on the ground temporarily, with no attempt to claim sovereignty or implement it in law. Walrasiad (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I was about to comment opposing "occupation" too but I remembered we already have an article on the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. It was indeed an occupation but it lasted decades and the Baltics basically were part of the USSR, yet we still refer to it as an occupation. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And it's also wrong (as their talk page notes). That said, Eastern European articles tend to run into nationalist swamps on Wikipedia, so I have given up on them. I still oppose it. Haiti was not merely occupying, it was annexing, they made claims of sovereignty, Haiti even drafted constitutions for the whole. "Occupation" is definitely wrong. I'd prefer "annexation", I'd even accept "conquest" but definitely not "occupation". It is a huge difference. If that is what is being proposed, than I'd rather retain the current "unification" title, or rather "Haitian unification of Hispaniola".Walrasiad (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo per Vpab15. Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• My preference would be Haitian annexation of Santo Domingo (similar to Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China) as annexation seems more neutral than occupation, but I would also support the proposed move to Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo over the current title. NoGhost (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Pierre Boyer enters The Republic of Spanish Haiti.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent page move

@NoGhost, Super Dromaeosaurus, Walrasiad, SnowFire, Vpab15, ModernDayTrilobite, Morgengave.

Why was this page moved to “occupation” when at the very least especially for WP:NEUTRALITY-sake it should have been “Annexation”? This is a topic spoken about differently from both the “annexer” and by the “occupied”. In the Peace of Basel of 1795, the eastern portion of the island (Santo Domingo), a Spanish holding, was brokered off to France and Toussiant Louverture, an officer from Saint-Domingue and a French General at the time, exercised the agreement in 1801 by leading an army over into the territory and becoming its Governor and added its territory in Saint-Domingue’s declaration from France but an independent French state was not seen and Louverture died in a French prison though the territory still belonged to France as Saint-Domingue. As a result of the Haitian victory against not only France but the Spanish and English as well, on January 1, 1804 Haiti became independent for the entire island and the rights to the east were transferred to the Haitian State as its Constitution stated and forbad any European strongholds on the island. These attempts at France and Spain going back and forth with the eastern portion of the island were illegal attempts at recolonization for it was already Haiti’s. However, due to Haiti’s own internal affairs (North Kingdom vs. Southern Republic) between 1805-1820, the eastern portion of the island was neglected and they were forced to settle their own reinvasions by France and Spain respectfully until 1822 after the Republic of Haiti was unified and stable for about 2 years. They then enacted on their claim dating back to the 1795 treaty as they were then in a position to refocus their attention on the eastern portion. The Haitians marched into Santo Domingo with 10,000 troops strong and without a gunshot or war, the keys to the seat of Santo Domingo was given to President Boyer of Haiti. It was only after 1825 and France threatening to invade that affairs turned for the worst which started to feel more like an occupation than a unification for the easterners as Haiti levied taxes and restrictions in order to pay back the French indemnity and attempts were made to more or less “Haitianify” the easterners with the French language superseding Spanish in all important areas of one’s daily life.

A lot of modern Dominican History, post Trujillo I have found to be entirely unreliable and bias; severing all ties of a Haitian connection whether positive or negative. From matters of less importance (ie food, music) to matters of most importance.

I’ll provide an example of modern Dominican records that are at odds with who is regarded as a cultural pioneer and Father of Dominican history (Jose Gabriel Garcia), and why much of which is recorded thence makes the Dominican Republic in many cases an unreliable witness.

For context, Jose Gabriel García was born in eastern Haiti, the part now known as Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic in 1834. He would have been about 12 years of age at the time of independence from Haiti. His book was published in 1893 as Compendio de la historia de Santo Domingo, vol 1, pg 233.

I will translate his words from Spanish to English first and add the original Spanish language text after it.

He said and I quote: As a result, of the erection of the already mentioned former Spanish part, in a sovereign and independent state, under the name of the Dominican Republic, the Haitian flag divided into squares by a white cross being adopted as the emblem of the new nationality, and as distinctive motto the sacramental words of God, Homeland and Freedom, contained in the oath of the Trinitarians, all the work of the wise foresight of Juan Pablo Duarte.

Por resulta, do la ereccion de la ya espresada antigua parte española, en es tado soberano é independiente, bajo la denominacion de República Dominicana, quedando adoptado como enseña de la nue va nacionalidad el pabellon haitiano dividido en cuadros por una cruz blanca, y como lema distintivo las palabras sacramentales de Dios, Patria y Libertad, contenidas en el juramento de los Trinitarios, obra todo de la sabia prevision de Juan Pablo Duarte.

However, modern sources of its flag creation will not state this fact by an eye-witness, which would have mentioned some French army flag that was discontinued at the end of the 18th century. This was one of the few sources that escaped the Trujillo-propaganda brigade because who can erase the works by who is considered “The Father of Dominican History” right? —Not even Trujillo could change what he had written.

Back to the premise. As a result of this page move, you lot have sided with a term (‘occupation’) that is entirely bias and breaks neutrality by what historians should perceive as an unreliable witness and there are plenty more. Dominican sources ought to have more scrutiny because I have found that all things Haitians are severed distorting history. However, historians, like myself are waking up to it.

I challenge any editor to include this source and quote from Jose Gabriel Garcia to the Flag of the Dominican Republic and watch the pushback by modern Dominican scholars in displeasure while only providing theories for its creation by historians who weren’t even eye-witnesses who wrote these accounts over a century later. Even though the flag and the plastering of a white flag onto the Haitian one was merely out of rebellion and displeasure (as was the case with the Haitian flag and the ripping out of the white portion and banding both the red and blue together), there is a case to leave Haiti absent when it suits their narrative. This is a textbook definition of untrustworthy record-keeping by a disgruntled group which was amplified by the Trujillo regime and also rooted in the American occupation by a country who still enforced segregation at home, who set arbitrary borders for both countries and even officiated the term “Hispaniola” when the island was still known as “Haiti,” the native name known worldwide. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The move was more than two years ago, so not so recent. Please feel free to raise a new move request by following the steps at WP:PCM. You need to explain why your proposed new title better meets the criteria at WP:AT. I would suggest you make a shorter summary of your arguments, the above text you wrote is too long in my opinion. Vpab15 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)