Talk:Dominican Republic

Languages

Main article: Dominican Spanish

The Dominican Republic is almost entirely Spanish speaking. Schools are based on a bilingual education, 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. 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.

More on the D.R. ethnicity

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

Chinese

Japanese

Italians

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

Dominican Winter Baseball League

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

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”?

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][ http://www.agn.gov.do/departamentos-agn-dominicana/dep-hemeroteca-biblioteca/historia-dominicana/1431-recientes-ediciones-del-archivo-general-de-la-nacion.html]. 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 (talk • contribs) 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 amazon.com [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 (talk • contribs) 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
      Demoonyn:Dominican
                  

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 69.115.4.68 (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 68.204.44.224 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More on the D.R ethnicity 2

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 24.127.196.107 (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

Clarification on Beginning of French Era

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

Here is a website that may be useful http://tunein.com/radio/Radio-Cima-100-1005-s8613/ .The page contains an audio link.1archie99 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:AAL-B738.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

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

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.