Talk:Dominican Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Latin America (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Caribbean / Dominican Republic (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Dominican Republic (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Dominican Republic is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Dominican Republic at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.


Main article: Dominican Spanish

The Dominican Republic is almost entirely Spanish speaking. Schools are based on a bilingual education,[citation needed] with English being taught as a secondary language in most schools. Haitian Creole is spoken by much of the population of Haitian descent. There is a community of about 8,000 speakers of Samaná English in the Samaná Peninsula. They are the descendants of formerly enslaved African Americans who arrived in the nineteenth century.[1] Tourism, American pop culture, the influence of Dominican Americans, and the country's economic ties with the United States motivate other Dominicans to learn English.

This part of the wiki page on the DR is false and misleading!

First of all I'm Dominican, went to private schools there, have a well based knowledge of the public education system since I volunteered in many programs with them via our schools. Was born and raised in the Dominican Republic where 100% of the people speak Dominican Spanish!

The fact that the DR has a large influx of undocumented Haitians does not equates into a partly not 100% Spanish speaking nation!! Or are we kids here? If a person from another country reads this up, he/she would think they could just waltz about in the DR and talk their idiom and not Spanish with little to no problem which is not the case!

Haitians from Haiti speak Haitian Kreyole, not so Dominicans! Even the kids born to Haitians living undocumented in the DR can't speak Haitian Kreyole, save for a few words to the their own parents which can't grasp Dominican Spanish fully in some instances!

The following article in education wrongly states that the DR education model is bilingual! Far from that lie, the DR public schools are NOT! Only private schools offer ESL in some very restricting subjects. __________________ BORN AND RAISED DOMINICAN HERE. just wanted to say that all schools n the Dominican Republic teach French as well as English from third grade of elementary school upward. That being said The Dominican educational Model is not Bilingual or multilingual because classes are conducted in Spanish exclusively with the exception of the English as well as french class BUT both French and English are mandatory and required for ALL schools to be taught in the country. It is ILLEGAL for a school that offers any grade from third of elementary and upward to NOT teach both English and French. I lot of people that are over 30 something years old don't know that because back then it was not compulsory. SO maybe the above poster is from that age category. So the statement that only private schools offer ESL classes is completely FALSE and ABSURD and I seriously doubt that you are a real Dominican For that Matter. I think you might be Puerto Rican based on the way to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

- The only official language of the Dominican Republic is Spanish, so there is no reason to put in Wikipedia, in the decryption of the official name of this nation, a french translation. French is not official language in Dominican Republic, so it is not right to appear the Country name in the initial description in french language. French language is speaking in neighboring nation called Haiti, do not confuse Haiti (speak Creole and French) and Dominican Republic - "República Dominicana" (speak only Spanish). These two different countries share the island of Hispaniola, Haiti is located on the left side of the island occupying 1/3 of the territory and the Dominican Republic is located on the right side of the island and occupies 2/3 of the territory, being the largest country of the Hispaniola island.Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

More on the D.R. ethnicity[edit]

I’ve been reading with interest the various conversations regarding racial demographics in the Dominican Republic and have been trying for a few weeks now to find an actual source that could finally put this question to rest. My first stop was the country National Statistics Office [1], who are in charge or running the census.

I can’t say I looked at every document on their Website, but among those I read I could not find a single reference to the country actual racial composition in term of percentages. Although I was born and raised in the D.R., I never got to participate in a census and I don’t even know if they tabulate racial information. I know that for my personal I.D. (what they call the “cedula”) they used to ask for skin color, but I don’t know if they do that anymore and probably that type of self-identification is not valid to establish the actual racial makeup of the general population.

As much as everyone else I would like to find another source besides the C.I.A., but the numbers they use (73% multiracial, 16% white and 11% black) appears to be the consensus. I remember seeing similar numbers in the “Almanaque Mundial” [2], which I used to buy every year before the advent of the World Wide Web.

But I did find this Webpage entitled “Origen de la población dominicana” or “Origin of the Dominican people” [3] that put mulattos at 65% of the population and also mentions the different ethnics groups:

Spanish colonizers
African slaves
Canarians introduced during colonial times in the 18th century
Black slaves from the French colony that was to become Haiti
Free blacks brought in from the U.S.
Cubans and Puertorricans (that to complicates matters further, can be of any race)
Blacks from other Caribbean islands
Haitian agricultural workers
Arabs and Turks
Sephardic Jews from Curazao
Spanish Republicans that came in after the civil war
German Jews (the book “Tropical Zion” [4] provides more information about them, but I believe they were only about 700 and most went to the U.S. and Israel at the end of World War II)
Spanish farmers brought in between 1945-1957
Hungarians… but it says is the quoted page that most were deported because they “misbehaved”

What’s interesting about this page is that it contains a source that can be verified, a book by Bolivar M. Troncoso Morales “Dominicana: Manual de Geografía Turística”. I kept searching and found a .pdf copy of that book [5] (that unfortunately for my neck, was scanned in landscape mode) that put the country racial makeup at 80% mulattos, 10-11% blacks and 9-10% whites.

I found this information on pages 45-48, including what appears to be the original source of quoted above about the origin of the different people who populated the country; but whoever copied the book and uploaded it left out page 47 out and again, there are no numbers attached to all these groups of people.

There is also the fact that this document left out the contribution of the native Taino population, which is not surprising given the widely held belief that they disappeared without a trace and that was debunked a few weeks ago by Dr. Juan Carlos Martínez Cruzado [6] of the University of Puerto Rico.

So if not hard after to understand why it is so hard to come up with real numbers about the actual racial makeup of the country; I’ll keep looking and if I found a good source I’ll post it here for consideration…but don’t hold your breath. Ulises (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Ulises

I can agree on this last figures except that the 80% would be straight up black, 11% mixed and MAYBE 10% white or whiter looking. Haitians and Dominicans are the SAME people. If Haitians are not regarded as mixed, then neither are Dominicans. If anything, it is wishful thinking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominican and haitians ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE, they dont have neither the same origins nor the same cultural/ethnic background. As Jamaicans are not the same people as haitians and dominicans, they all have african roots somehow, but it doesnt mean they are the same (ethnically and/or culturally).

Dominican Winter Baseball League[edit]

In the sports section there should be mention of LIDOM. Just because the MLB is in the U.S., it doesn't validate it more that the Dominican Winter Baseball League. As such there should be mention of our teams; Tigres, Aguilas, Leones, Toros, Estrellas, & Gigantes or at the very least the Dominican Winter Baseball League (LIDOM).

El Mayimbe (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)El Mayimbe

So mention them. Be sure it's cited from reliable sources, or that the articles linked are so cited. - BilCat (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags - how old is old[edit]

Typically in articles I follow the norm is one to two months to remove items dated by a fact tag. Not all editors are on Wikipedia daily, weekly or even monthly. One month is a good grace period to get citations; two is much better. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The norm is one to two weeks, not months. It's been challenged and removed. TO keep it, you need to add reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Show the policy where it says two weeks. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Show me where it says two months. I know it used to say one-two weeks, but things do get changed alot on WP without any notice! - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's unstated because articles can have fact tags going back a number of years. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you said two months, above. I went 'wow! Among the thousands of articles I've seen, it's very common for fact tags to last for many months and even years.' Of course I wish I could satisfy every fact tag, especially in this article, the very day it's placed. But then, I wish I had more time to do a lot more things at WP; and the fact is that there are relatively few of us doing any sourcing, at Wikipedia generally. BTW, I'm pretty sure I didn't add the content BilCat wants to remove, though I've certainly edited it. SamEV (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I used to be a little more tolerant and let six months be my guide. However, I soon came across articles with Fact date=2007, 2008, etc. Two months is plenty to get the citations in order. Yes, I would love to see a fact tag filled tomorrow but Wikipedia is editted by volunteers. And, I did notice that you had editted the article. There is no reason for rapid removal even if it is one month. In fact, it's not like the edit is dragging the article down or it's up for an AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
One month is not "rapid". Per WP:V, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I've challenged it, and attempted to remove it. You want to keep it, then find some reliable sources for it. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You will note WP:V has no time limit. And, I challenged your challenge. And, if you want policy, see WP:IAR which is one of the five pillars. BTW, based upon SamEV's post, you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for removal either. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso, there's probably no tougher task than sourcing content added by others. Man, what a pain that is. The curious thing is that just days ago I began a drive to improve this article, which is going to include improved sourcing, so it's kind of unhelpful for someone to get so pushy while you're in the midst of that.
Well, have a nice weekend MO. SamEV (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand how hard it is to source an article. On one of mine that was up for an AfD, one day made a difference as the citation became available just prior to its conclusion. That's what the five pillars and Wikipedia are all about: improvement. If Wikipedia was run like a tightly wound propeller plane, it would soon crash to the ground. Two months is plenty of time to find or get citations. After that, my button would be pushed too. But, again it goes back to WP:AGF. I really believe that you're trying to improve the article and might let a June fact tag go into September. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the rasons I edit/watch this page is because I'm intersted in the DR. I used to have a girlfriend from there, and since then I've watched the article. But this is too much. Sam, did you ever think to tell anyone you were on an "improvement drive"? Or to ask for collaboration? Apparently not. Anyway, Sam, this isn't the first time you've reverted me two or three times when yo've disagree with my edits. What do I have to do to earn your respect enough that youll talk to me first? I know I'm an inexprienced user with only 4 years on WP and 57,000+ edits. WHat will be enough for you? It's fine that you disagree, but ganging up on me and forcing your will is not building a true consensus. Seriously, you're continuing to assert article ownership here, and I've had enough. I leave the article to you. Have fun! - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
To suggest editors ganged-up on you is extreme non-good faith. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Stated for the record: By "ganged-up on", I mean the effect, not necessarily the motive, as I can't know that. Reverting me 4 times (yes, I reverted 3 - I'm stubborn!) instead of having a civil discussion first? Yes, I feel like I was "ganged-up on". - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record: you were advised this was viewed as a WP:NPA in an informal manner on your talkpage. You chose to revert with another inappropriate non-civil edit summary. Feelings or accusations have no point of basis on this talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made no personal attacks or uncivil comments here or in my edit summaries. Please retract your false statements. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Any editor can see your reverts and edit summaries. Come on, please be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are inferring into my comments something that I never said. Please assume good faith. Thanks - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that one of your reverts too? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't asked you to AGF in a revert before. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Check your first talkpage revert. You were asked to retract your accusations here. Come, be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── They were not "accusations", so there's nothing to retract. Now that that is settled, can I go now? - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Do you see your post with the words, "ganging up" in it? Come on, please be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not an accusation of collusion, just a statement of the effect of 4 reverts in a row, and they way you two achived your "consensus". So again, there's nothing to retract here. I'm moving on. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to jump in, there are no specific deadlines in which tagged material needs to be cited for non-BLP topics. While most long-term editors have their own rules of thumb (mine is one month) this differs from editor to editor and article to article. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
To jump in further, this section of the 1998 book Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook looks like it could be used to cite the topic in question and appears, at first glance, to back up most of the disputed content (let me know if the page in question won't display - Google books content seems to differ from country to country). The content is a bit dated now, but should be OK if there's nothing better. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This 2001 book also looks useful and this 2004 journal article touches on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Nick. The list of groups was removed in mid-January because some of the groups had non-reliable sources. I left out Howard's book (the second link; the third is to a review of it) because the groups he list are given by the first source, and because he's mostly concerned with calling Dominicans racist and anti-Haitian. I retrieved the reliable sources from January, but used the first link you gave to source most of the groups. SamEV (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Tainos called the island of Hispaniola “Kiskeya or Quisqueya”?[edit]

This is posted without reference on the “Tainos” section of the article. Today I came across an analysis by University of Puerto Rico’s Pedro L. San Miguel [7], writing in the Spanish newspaper El País. San Miguel in turn quotes 19th century Dominican intellectual César Nicolás Penson that “Quisqueya” is a deformation of “Guisay, Quinsay or Quisay, great cities of the East seek by Columbus on his voyages”.

San Miguel writes that the term Quisqueya “lacks a solid historical foundation for it to be accepted as the name used by the original inhabitants of La Española”. I searched for the original quote by Nicolás Penson and found it in this opinion piece [8] in Dominican Newspaper “El Caribe”. San Miguel affirms that “Quisqueya” usage as the “original” name of the island came as an attempt to distance the country from “Haiti”, which was the preferred term used up to the 18th century, when Dominicans called themselves “Hayti Creoles”.

I believe that San Miguel argument is supported by the fact that in 1821, when José Nuñez de Caceres declared the country independence from Spain in December 1821, he named the new republic “Estado Independiente del Haití Español” [9][]. Based on that, I think it is accurate to remove The Taínos called the island Kiskeya or Quisqueya ("mother of the earth")’’from this article. San Miguel affirms that the Tainos called the island “Haiti”, which I think is accurate but I would search for more sources before adding that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talkcontribs) 15:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In Hispaniola it reads, in some sourced statements, that Haití wasn't the natives's name for the whole island, but only for a part of it. It says that las Casas was the one who applied Haití to the island. SamEV (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
SamEV, that's a great catch. It appears them that there was not a single name for the whole island that we know about. I found the text by Las Casas on sale in [10] for $589.00. That would be an interesting read... but I think I'll better keep looking for other, less pricey sources... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talkcontribs) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That's perfectly sensible!
According to this source, [11], the island was called "Civao", which is the origin of "Cibao", I imagine.
Per this other source, [12], the name "Hayti" was first documented by Oviedo y Valdez in 1535. SamEV (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
mmmm... this is even more confusing. That source also said that "the island was first named by its inhabitants Quizqueia.." Ulises (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be a fair bit of confusion among the experts. But I think it's still possible to find out the facts. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                    Dominican Republic

      Capital:Santo Domingo and the largest city
      Offical Language:Spanish
      Ethnic Groups:73% mixed,16% white,11% black

I am doing a report on Dominican Republic.Why did i got this state is because i would like to do some reseach.I am doing this because i would think the D.R is going to be a great place.Even do i'm not Dominican i would like to see how is there culture is like.Would youi know i would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. I hope this article helps you, but ask your teacher if it's OK to cite Wikipedia. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts are simple and the arguments pro or con are clear!

Kiskeya or Quisqueya (any of the two are the same but with minor letter changes) was what best described the Tainos in their sense as the "Mother of all Lands", one must recall that other than the main island, Hispaniola owns several smaller islands all around the coasts!

Haiti or Ayiti, was the name used by the same Tainos in reference to the high terrain and mountains on the west of the island. That's how a relative sloped and hilly section of the present Dominican Republic is called Los Haitises, or plural for Ayiti.

The use of the word Quisqueya was not often mentioned in writings for the same identity given by the conquistadores: La Espanola!

One must also understand that other than to speak about Quisqueya by the Tainos from the confines of the island was rare, given that one would not use it unless outside of it or leaving it as well!

Cibao is just a name used by the Tainos to indicate a great Valley or flat lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More on the D.R ethnicity 2[edit]

I have found a website that could be put here for consideration, where it puts the ethnic makeup at 15% Taino origin, 15% Euro-Asian origin, and 70% African origin, this should be put in the article, what do you think ? [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I did that already when that report came out (see "New edit in Demographics section" above). RegardsUlises (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Ulises


Because that is inaccurate information 70%african NOT LIKELY. FALSE INFORMATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelynn123 (talkcontribs) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on Beginning of French Era[edit]

I'm A bit confused on exactly when the french Era started and I'm sure other people are to because it says "After her conquest of the Aztecs and Incas, Spain neglected her Caribbean holdings. French buccaneers settled in western Hispaniola, and by the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain ceded the area to France." But in the next paraggrph it says "France came to own the island in 1795, when by the Peace of Basel Spain ceded Santo Domingo as a consequence of the French Revolutionary Wars." And I know absolutly nothing on the subject so I don't think I'm the correct person to clarify it.MDeBusk (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The French and others began to establish themselves in the western part of the island (the future Republic of Haiti) gradually. I doubt there's any kind of firm date. Anyway, in 1697, France received the future territory of Haiti, officially. A century later (1795) France received the east, the future Dominican Republic, the subject of this article. SamEV (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could use a media section[edit]

Here is a website that may be useful .The page contains an audio link.1archie99 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:AAL-B738.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:AAL-B738.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New Flag upgrades[edit]

hello i just wanted to let everyone know that someone on the Spanish wikipedia has upgraded the flag and the coat of arms of D.R. to a more accurate version and i was hoping someone could transfer the new flag and coat of arms to the English wikipeida, please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Duartepico.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Duartepico.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AALB738STI.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:AALB738STI.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Error on the 1844-1849 flag[edit]

Hi, I'm a Dominican student, I grow up, and in every school book the flag here tagged as "Flag of the Trinitaria from 1844 to 1849" is not the Trinitaria flag, it's the Dominican Republic flag from 1844 to 1849, later it was changed by Pedro Santana, when it got a pale red, almost pink, instead of the red on the 1844-1849 flag.

I would appreciate if that is changed, or at least if someone say what it's the source.


Tenreyro (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012[edit]

about the hdi of the Dominican Republic; the united nations in the report for 2011 estimate that the hdi is 679 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012[edit]

The first university in the Americas is the UASD in Santo Domingo. Created by a papal bule in 1538 (Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo) besides this(the oldest being Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco [1] in Mexico) information should be deleted because is no related to the Dominican Republic, is no a verificable information and is meant to change the original one.

Some sources to verify the UASD as the first university in the Americas "El 28 de octubre recién pasado, se celebró aquí el 465 aniversario de la fundación del establecimiento de educación superior más antiguo de América."

Leonte Read (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Well, sort of. The lede is not a good place for bringing up details unrelated to the article, so I removed the link and the extraneous detail. The fact about UASD being the oldest seems to be a matter of disagreement, so I also removed that from the list of firsts of which it was a part. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Martin[edit]

The article mentions that there is another divided island but doesn't mention it. I think a parenthetical mentioning the island of Saint Martin should be put there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012[edit]

Please lets not forget to add in the Sports section the name of our Dominican MVP and Golden Glove award winner for baseball: Plácido Polanco.

Arreglalo1 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Seems reasonable, given the long list of MLB players in the section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

begin request wikipedia give us a source for the GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal), is the intenational monetary fund, and this source say that this figures are more high in that organization than in the article about the Dominican Republic,please make an actualization end the request

about the HDI of the Dominican Republic, the United Nactions programme for develotment, say that the HDI in november 2011 is 0.689 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talkcontribs) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please provide a source for these numbers (links to the url). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012[edit]

In the last report of the International Monetary Fund, the GDP(PPP)of the DR is 98.835 billions and the GDP(NOMINAL) is 59.429 billions, about the HDI, the United Nations development programme, estimate for 2011: 0.689, the GINI Coeficient is 48 for 2007 if is used the World Bank and 48.4 if use the CIA for source for 2007. (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please provide links to these numbers so we can verify them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edite Request[edit]

I found a reliable source for the ethnicity and the demographics for the Dominican republic in these websites:

  • [14] (Most of the other Latin American country articles have been used from this site, very recommended).
  • [15] (not as reliable, but fair).
  • [16] (This one might not be of help, but check it out).
  • [17] (Very relaible, includes other countries as well, very recommended). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Light treatment of criminals[edit]

I have no idea what the situation is in Dominican Republic, but I think the "teenagers example" is not a good one. In mosr, if not all, countries teenage criminals are treated milder than adult ones. And what else do you expect? Behead those kids at the city square? Victims' families always demand more punishment. They are always not satisfied with the severity of the sentence. I think, that part should be either removed or replaced with another example. Nomad (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourism section[edit]

"the contribution of travel and tourism to employment is expected to rise from 550,000 jobs in 2008—14.4% of total employment or 1 in every 7 jobs—to 743,000 jobs—14.2% of total employment or 1 in every 7.1 jobs by 2018."

Something's wrong with those figures. Going from 1 in 7 to 1 in 7.1 is a FALL, not rise. And the percentage is wrong as well. Could the editor check that? Nomad (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a rise in the numbers, but a drop in the proportion, presumably because the total population is expected to rise. Given that the info is four years out of date and the source has disappeared, I suggest just removing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Beats me how that was figured out, so I'm in. Want to do the honors? :-) BadaBoom (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

I see the dates have all been changed to month-day-year. I'm not an expert on this but it seems wrong to me. As far as I can tell DR uses day-month-year, see for example Date format by country and [18]. WP:DATESNO suggests retaining the existing format unless there is a good reason to change it. The edit history doesn't say why the format was changed. So why was it? And should it have been? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

these are the sources of the new information about the GDP, HDI and the GINI of the Dominican Republic[edit]

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] this is the source for the human development index of the dominican republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] this is the sourse for the GINI coeficient of the dominican republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talkcontribs)

Spaniard rule and Spaniard designer[edit]

Gabby Merger (talk|contribs) and I appear to have a difference of opinion on the terms "Spaniard rule" and "Spaniard designer" (diff). I would not disagree that "Spaniard" is clear and neutral. I would not say it's ungrammatical – I guess in this context it's a noun adjunct. All I'm saying is that "Spaniard rule" and "Spaniard designer" do not sound natural to me, a native speaker of English. Also, "that IP address who changed it got reverted on other unexplained things too" is not relevant. – Wdchk (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It may not sound as "natural" to you in a sense, but it is technically accurate, and technically "clearer". Saying "Spanish" when referring to Spaniard Spanish is not very clear, and can be ambiguous in readers' minds, when given the fact that (what's called) "Latin America" has the term "Spanish" referred to them as well. But when we say "the Spaniards came over" rather than the more vague "the Spanish came over" (as an example), we know right away for sure clearly what exactly is being referred to. Also, the term "Spanish" (referring to Spaniards) is already sometimes in the article anyway, leaving for variety.
But as far as the "designer", that Oscar studied under, sorry, but to say "Spanish designer" is too vague, and not clear enough. It was a European designer that Oscar worked with, NOT some general "Spanish" person. (The term "Spanish" HAS many times been applied to non-Spaniard "Latin Americans", and therein can lie the problem.) As far as that IP address, yes it's relevant in that that troll did not leave ANY explanation on either this article or on the other article (see his history) that he removed whole sentences from, and where he got rightly reverted (by another editor) for. But as far as the actual subject matter itself here, "Spaniard designer" is simply better and clearer. "Spanish designer" is not technically wrong...and I will not revert back again a million times over this petty nonsense. I'm just saying that "Spaniard" (in general even) should be used a wee bit more, when referring to people from SPAIN. IMHO. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
"Spanish" always means someone or something from Spain. People from Latin American countries might be described as "Hispanic", but never as "Spanish".
Please do not refer to the IP editor (contribs) as a "troll". The three edits they have made so far do not justify that description. I agree with you that edit summaries are desirable, but we don't revert all edits that lack an edit summary. – Wdchk (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not really true. Many people (rightly or wrongly) have used the term "Spanish" to sometimes refer to non-Spaniard people. Latin American people MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS have been referred to with the generic term "Spanish". Not sure how you don't know that or never heard of that. That you would wrongly say "described as 'Hispanic', but never as 'Spanish'." "Never"? Simply not true. Also, that IP address was at least kind of troll-ish in what he did, especially in that other article (if you bother checking out his history and his other edit), by wholesale removing of whole sentences willy nilly and weirdly, with no explanation or cause. Again, sir, "Spaniard" (especially with the "Spaniard designer" thing) is simply clearer and more accurate. And yes, people have used "Spanish" when referring to non-Spaniard "Hispanics". Rightly or wrongly, some people have used that, in a broad sense for Colombians, Dominicans, Cubans, etc. "Hispanic" MEANS "Spanish" anyway, ultimately. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I did check the IP's edit history and I'm familiar with their edit to the other article. It was me who reverted it. It's still not relevant to this discussion.
Coming back to the discussion topic: I have my opinion, based on my experience, and you have yours. I'm happy to let consensus run its course. – Wdchk (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's totally relevant to the specifics here necessarily, but just that I was justified in reverting his unexplained removals in this article too. That IP address was out of line, in other words. 1) For changing stuff that didn't really need changing, and 2) doing it with no explanation. But never mind that. As far as "experience", well ok, I guess you never heard "Latin American" people being called with the word "Spanish", in some generic broad sense. But it has happened, and still happens sometimes. And for the casual or maybe not-as-informed reader, wanting to read up on Dominican Republic, seeing things like "Spanish designer", the reader MAY OR MAY NOT know that that's referring specifically to a European Spaniard designer. Most probably will, I guess, but not necessarily all. Same thing with "Spanish rule" versus "Spaniard rule". One is simply clearer wording than the other. That's my only point. It's not that big a deal, but even so. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Racial makeup[edit]

We need a more realistic or a more reliable source of census but that's not offensive or old. Im Dominican myself and I know that we tend to believe or describe ourselves from something that we'er not or exagerate. I think that we should find and change the racial makeup to a new and a more reliable census or atleast a genome studies chart. But I have read some books that generally are not found online that have studies around every providences in the Dominican Republic but not every town but which is still pretty impressive and have taken genome samples from 50-330 people i think it was from every place they went. They also did a background checks on the towns history as well as ask people what they describe themselves and the results between the self-choice census and genome studies were strikingly different to About 40%. In the self-choice census in the country was 62% mixed, 27% white, 10% black, and 1% other mainly arabs/lebanese. Now the genome studies they gathered all the samples from all the providences and the results were 46% Mulatto and Griffe=(1/4 white and 3/4 black), 41% Black African (nearly pure to pure) and Griffe, and 13% White European and Quadroon.

But I will do some more research on this, what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote:«In the self-choice census in the country was 62% mixed, 27% white, 10% black, and 1% other mainly arabs/lebanese.»
About what census are you "writing" about? The Dominican Census does not ask about race neither collect racial data since 1960. Nacho Mailbox ★ 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes they do they did one, the one that you just requoted was on the Spanish wikipedia from the Dominican Republic which was also part of the etnografia de la republica dominicana in the Spanish wikipedia.
The other one done by the genome studies was done from foeringnors who independently go to many countries to findout their genetic make up theyv also done one in Jamaica by the same people and it was 60% mulatto, 20% black, and 20% whites, east indians, and chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Please provide references to reliable sources. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Name in French[edit]

The only official language of the Dominican Republic is the SPANISH, i do not understand that the description of the name of the nation put indicated also in French, and why not also put Chinese or German language..... I sincerely believe that English-language publishers in Wikipedia feel hispanophobia again hispanic Nations, or just they are an ignorant.Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Personally, I don't have a strong feeling either way about whether it's appropriate to include the French-language version of the country's name. I have always assumed it was because the DR shares an island with a country where French is spoken (Haiti). (2) You are welcome to discuss article content here. Please do so politely, and avoid comments about other contributors. Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Enciclopediaeanlinea
That's not the only reason why the French pronunciation is appropriate, relevant, or there. Not just because of simply sharing the Island with French African But also because French people ruled actual Dominican Republic itself or a while, and inter-mingled there as well. Not just Haiti. (The article itself mentions this fact. French rule over DR, and the influence and the mixing etc.)
It doesn't matter that "Spanish" is the only official language of DR. That wasn't the point of the French pronunciation. But simply that French were also involved in certain ways in the development of the country to begin with. The point is that the French pronunciation for the country is not some total non-sequitur like you're thinking or saying. Other languages can have pertinence depending. (It's done in articles sometimes. For example, Corsica is part of France, yet other language pronunciations are given for it, like: Corsica (/ˈkɔːsɪkə/; French: Corse, IPA: [kɔʁs]; Corsican: Corsica; Italian: Corsica; Ligurian: Corsega))
So in this matter, it's just a simple fact, mentioned in the article itself, that France was involved with DR from the beginning etc. To compare the French thing in this with "German" and "Chinese" shows ignorance, and to be frank, is silly. French ruled over DR for a while, and were actually there. Hence the relevance. No valid reason to remove the pronunciation matter. It has obvious relevance, when it's understood and remembered that French rulership and influence were there in DR also, not just Spaniard (though Spain was the main one). France was involved too. It has some significance and pertinence. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Enciclopediaenlinea. It makes no sense to keep the French name in the lede only because they ruled DR for a few years. The Spanish crown ruled over the Netherlands for centuries, does it mean that the article Netherlands should also include the Spanish pronunciation in your opinion?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't read or grasp everything. Or maybe I wasn't totally clear in everything. It went beyond also just "ruling" over DR, but the fact that the French were also involved in the actual early DEVELOPMENT of DR in the first place. Was Spain involved in Netherlands' actual formation? Nay. So your comparison is FAIL. Try grasping the (full) point of what I wrote. French were in the early development of the country...from early on. I hope it's clearer now. The actual point is that there's no valid reason to remove that (even in the lede), given the deep involvement of France with DR from the very beginning, as well as its rulership over it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You say they were involved in the early development in the country, so what? How is this relevant to the decision of including the French name in the lede? It's normally included if the language is official or commonly spoken, not because a third country played a minor role in its history. Try to make an actual argument for its inclusion instead of spitting venom at me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Just being frank, sir. Don't exaggerate it though. If you think THAT was "spitting venom", then you don't know what real venom is, and you have a very thin skin. I was simply being blunt in pointing out that your comparison to the "Netherlands" was very weak, and that it forgot the fact that French did not simply just "rule" over DR, but were involved in its very FORMATION!!! That's not something to fluff off as of no account, or to go "so what" about. I already made "an actual argument for its inclusion", that you're rudely ignoring or not caring about for some reason. What do you think all I wrote above in general was about? The French pronunciation is pertinent for historical interest, and to make the point that French (not just Spaniards) were involved (importantly involved) in DR's formation and development. Meaning that it's NOT totally out of left field like you're wrongly implying or saying. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about the history of the Dominican Republic (though there is one), this is about the modern country, therefore the French name of the country should not appear in such a prominent position (if at all). Besides, during the period in which you claim the French had such an impact (which could be true but is irrelevant to this discussion) the country was not even known as 'République Dominicaine', so the historical relevance of your insertion is nil. PS: I don't know if this is how you habitually deal with other editors, but the random gratuitous bold text AND ALLCAPS is something that is nearly universally frowned upon. 'FAIL' and other similar comments are best reserved for users you're already acquainted with.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

my mistake...I didn't realize you were the same person as Underlying lk. I saw what you wrote. And that the article is not specifically about the "history" of DR. But the problem with that argument is that most readers (casual and otherwise), if they wanted to look up stuff on DR (past and present, meaning current stuff as well as its history) would generally go to the main Dominican Republic article first...and check for historical things and points there. Not sure why this is such a big deal. I'm pro-Spain...but it's a forgotten fact (even by WP users and editors) that FRANCE ALSO reigned and participated in DR's very early formation also. Not only Spain...though Spain mainly. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't address one point: the country was never known as 'République Dominicaine' under French rule, for obvious reasons. If a casual reader interested in the history of the DR came across such an anachronism, he would just be more confused. If reminding this 'forgotten fact' is the objective, isn't it much simpler and effective to just write "the country was under French rule between year X and year Y"?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that point of yours. And the fact is, frankly, though it may be true, your argument in that is flawed. And it's a wrong assumption. Because while the country may not have been known as République Dominicaine WHILE FRANCE RULED over it...that's the name it definitely was known by in French not much later. It's not the main point necessarily that it wasn't known in French while French ruled there. But as a general point about French connections with it. Again, it's the point about French involvement in DRs early development and formation. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I opened a dispute resolution request here about this matter.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The dispute was resolved "against inclusion of French rendering unless a reliable source can be provided which shows that it was used as a significant historical name actually used for the nation".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

no decision was actually made. The discussion was simply closed arbitrarily, with my last comment never responded to you by you. Just because you and that other editor (not many people if you notice) want to dogmatically say "French pronunciation should not be mentioned", and just because you want to water down the French involvement in DR's formation, etc, does not mean the discussion was completely over.

You never answered my last thing...which was:

^^^^^^Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article?^^^^^

You never answered that. So I'll ask it again.... French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As TransporterMan's big issue and hang-up was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and discussion was closed prematurely... it's whatever though.
I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture.
But even so, instead of dodging my last point and question, why not address it? The last thing I wrote was in RESPONSE to what YOU wrote just before that, about "French rule and involvement" supposedly coming much later, etc. If that's the case, why is the whole "French rule" matter brought up so early in the article? Instead of evading that point (which really refutes your claim that it was so much later etc) why not address it? That's all I was saying.
You still can't deal with the fact that French involvement is mentioned so early in the article...which goes against your contention that it was some late trivial occurrence. You brought it up in that discussion page, I merely addressed and answered it, and you keep evading the point. If the French rule was so "late" as you imply or say, then why does the article have it as an early-on matter? Gabby Merger (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to insert video about Dominican Republic[edit]

I would like to recommend embedding a video with the stunning sights of Dominican Republic. Here it is: Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in the Dominican Republic[edit]

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in the Dominican Republic!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil. :) Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

George Bush[edit]

Why is there a George Bush II image on a page about the Dominican Republic?
People visiting here to see images of the Dominican Republic are confronted by the features of a previous president of a remote country.
His image also resides on pages for Bahrain, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Nigeria and Romania.
George Bush Jnr admirers, please place his image on his page only. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Foreign private debt[edit]

What does it mean "The Dominican Republic is current on foreign private debt"?It is nessecary to provide this info to the readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Erfolg (talkcontribs) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ethnologue, Languages of Dominican Republic