Talk:Dominican Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Movies

the movies section seems uncessary as it provides no other information but just a list of titles. and these titles lead no where as there are no articles for them. It is MUCH better to include a section on INFORMATION about the Dominican Film industry, dictating recent progress in box office success of Dominican movies, as well as how the Dominican Republic is often used as a set location for Hollywood big production films, due to cheaper costs such as: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-04-05-diesel-dominican_x.htm

much Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was also filmed Samana, DR : http://www.thomson.co.uk/editorial/features/filming-locations-iii.html

The pre-Revolutionary scenes of The Godfather: Part 2 were also filmed in the Dominican Republic: http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/g/godfather2.html

this would provide a MUCH more interesting section. Adreamtonight 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

I've moved more of the old discussions that weren't seeing any debate to the archive, because this page was getting honking huge.--Rosicrucian 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Electricity

I thinuse of a difference in the power grid.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.187.181.174 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Um....they are 200 Circuits presently in the Republic which do not suffer from power outages!!..This is because the majority of residents of this circuits pay electricity in a good time. Those that do not pay electricity(30% of the nation) suffer of Great Power Outages. By the way, not all business get better electric services!! The Electrical companies(EDES=EDESUR-EDENORTE) of the country are helping to fix the electric problems of the country by making new plans to help the communities!69.119.127.181 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your numbers are clearly not accurate. You are trying to tell me that only 30% of the country does not pay for electricity? That is not correct. Of all of the Dominicans that I have met (hundreds), only 2 or 3 told me that they pay for electricity. The rest laughed at me when I asked them. "Que? pero NADIE paga la luz! Por que pagaria la luz si nunca hay?? Y e' facil!" I don't know about your 200 circuits number, but even if that's accurate, that's still a very small number. There's a different circuit for every few blocks. 76.8.217.50

Where I'm from in DR you got pay light if you don't you get a fine. Don't compare "Los Barrios" as Dominican Republic whole. And it a fact that there neighborhood that get light 24/7; those that sign contract saying that they pay there bills on time. Where I'm from you always had to pay, cause not a "barrio". AvFnx 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Look....Recently their was a law established(I dont know it's name yet and i dont have the sources clearly but i will get them soon) that said that Stealing Electricity is against the Law. Now presently the Country holds 200 Circuits(In DR, a Circuit is a whole wide neighborhood because is not like the United States{the U.S.A has smaller scaled circuits})...200 circuits is not alot But that number has grown alot. Before their was not a single circuit in DR that received 24 hour electrical Service and that means that the service has progressed. A lot of people in the "Poor" Outer areas of Towns and cities do not pay electricity and in the whole nation theirs around 30% of households that do not pay electricity yet but the number has gone doww. In Small towns that percentage is much higher but in Santiago and Santo Domingo almost everyone pays the Electricity now. Arroyo Hondo(Districto Nacional), Jarabacoa(2/3), Hato Mayor, El Seibo, La Trinitaria(Santiago), and other towns get a full service of Electricity. And By the way I am sorry to tell you, 76.8.217.50, that i think you have met the poor dominicans from the Barrios because my whole family that Lives In D.N(Santo Domingo) is forced to Pay Electricity69.119.127.181 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my experience just tells me that you are incorrect. I spent over a year in Santo Domingo in three different places - Herrera, Cristo Rey and Los Alcarrizos. Each of those three places has no more than 5% of people paying for electricity, and it's in those types of places where the population density is highest. I'm sure that places like Mirador or Villa Mella have more people paying for electricity, but barely anyone lives there, and not even Mirador (Samy Sosa has a house there, so that should tell you about the wealth of that place) has electricity 24/7. Yes, the place where most of the ambassadors live doesn't have light 24/7.--76.8.217.50 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This section of the article really is pretty deceiving. I lived around the central-southwest portion of the country for a couple of years and I never had constant electricity. In fact, unless it was a holiday, I don't think I ever had electricity for an entire 24 hours! Granted, I never lived in the rich areas of the country (though I did live in a couple barrios in Santo Domingo like Bayona and near Los Ríos and Los Jardines), but then again, the rich don't really account for a very large percentage of the population. To represent figures that are true to only a portion of the population doesn't really seem to be very fair in an article about a whole country. And in fact, I never met anyone who was optimistic that the situation was going to improve in the near future, which is what the article currently leads the reader to imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.99.208 (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The electricity issue in this country is highly political and figures get twisted around a lot by the authorities. Unless you provide figures from a non governmental source showing 200 circuits that do not get blackouts and that only 30% of the country does not pay their electric bill then I'm gonna flat out disbelieve you. Mind you, I'm from La Romana and have been living in the D.N. since 2001. The sector where I live is supposedly blackout-free yet there are STILL blackouts every now and then. I'll grant you that in my sector their occurance and duration is far less than in other parts (like La Romana, which gets bombarded daily with 6-8 hour blackouts across the WHOLE town), but there are supposed to be NO blackouts in my area.

Then again, maybe we should check what dictionary the politicians are using for "blackout"?

And I, being a dominican, perceive next to no effort on behalf of authorities to correct this issue. It's simple: users need to PAY so that the service become sustainable. If the government starts cutting off electricity to homes where people don't pay (via its two state owned distribution companies) then it WILL become a major political issue for them. The middle classes, high classes and the government (via taxpayers of course) cannot continue to subsidize the cost of consumption of these free loaders because it is frankly abusive (people who don't pay for their electric bill are 10000x more likely to not conserve power, etc) and puts a [huge] strain on government finances.

Also, I remember an article long ago that stated that about 60% of people who lived in sectors where the electricity is subsidized - to the point where they have to pay like what? 100 pesos? - still don't pay their bill!!!!!!

Llorllale 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steroid Usage by Dominican Athletes

Seems to be a problem at this point.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2927670 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7871 http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2929220 I think it should be used or noted on the page. Any opinions? 199.219.144.52 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does Steroids has to be in the Dominican Republic article?!!!go put it in some other page!!!do You see steroids being mentioned in the United States Article, where atlethes use it the most? I simply think there's no need for putting that!EdwinCasadoBaez 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article says "SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- fuck you, who threw a no-hitter as a rookie with the St. Louis Cardinals in 1999, was one of two Dominican athletes removed from the Pan American Games on Saturday after they tested positive for banned substances. Jimenez, who had 41 saves for the Colorado Rockies in 2002, last pitched in the majors for the Cleveland Indians in 2004. He finished his career with 110 saves. Jimenez, who tested positive for anabolic steroids, turned 34 on Saturday. Boxer Rafael Fernandez Sosa were also banned by the Dominican Republic Olympic committee. Sosa had elevated levels of testosterone to epitestosterone in samples taken before the country's athletes traveled to Rio de Janeiro to compete in the games starting next week. "The athletes displayed an adverse result in the examinations that we made previous to the Pan American Games, [and for that reason] they are not eligible to attend," the Dominican Republic Olympic committee said a statement. " This is about Dominican athletes in Republica Dominicana 66.108.180.176 04:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that steroid use should not be mentioned in this article, as it is a problem with all of major league baseball. There is not any reason to single out Dominicans. (Jollyjeeves 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

This is like a solo shout out to dominicans i dont see that in the US article portalEdwinCasadoBaez 03:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casta

I think someone should add the Caste System that was in place in the Dominican Republic under Spanish rule.

  • Peninsulares - persons of Spanish or Portuguese descent born in Spain or Portugal They were considered so much higher than other castas that many women went back to Spain or Portugal to give birth.They held important jobs in the government, the army, and the Catholic Church, and usually did not live permanently in Latin America. This system was intended to perpetuate the ties of the governing elite to the Spanish and Portuguese crowns.
  • Criollos - People of Spanish descent but born in Latin America. Many criollos owned mines, ranches, or haciendas and were very wealthy. They occasionally had government jobs, but they were not respected by the Peninsulares. The 19th century independentists were mainly criollos rejecting European supremacy.
  • Castizos - Persons with one mestizo parent and one criollo parent. The children of a castizo and a criollo were classified as criollo.[citation needed]
  • Mestizos - Persons with one peninsular parent and one indio parent.
  • Cholos - Persons with one indio parent and one mestizo parent.
  • Mulatos - Persons of mixed spanish and negro descent. They were sometimes made into slaves.
  • Indios - Native Americans. They were sometimes slaves of Peninsulares.
  • Zambos - Persons who were mixed indian and african.
  • Negros - Blacks. They were treated the worst and often were slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.119.209 (talk • contribs)


Slight problem in that there is no native american's in the dominican republic. only the illusion of indians. they were exterminated since early 1500's by the spaniards. that is a documented fact. 66.108.180.176 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that system was used...but slightly....not to the same extent as to in South America due to the fact that the Natives in the Island of Hispaniola were not even civilized like the Mayas, or Incas!!!so i don't think inclusion for this info should be done!!!but if ya think it stills fits in the article...you could always include it!EdwinCasadoBaez 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That is racist! Just because the Arawak didn't have pyramids does not make them uncivilized! Did the chinese pyramids? Did the Germans? Please watch what you say. Reading again; include it in the article with the notation that Arawak's became extinct. 66.108.180.176 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh...no i didnt mean it as racist!!what i mean, in DR the Casta System was not used a lot because tainos died in the beginning of Spanish encounter with them.. So the system was not as largely used in DR as in the Central American Civilization or anywhere else of spanish rule...Sorry if i did some racist writing..EdwinCasadoBaez 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The native Tainos did not all die right away! The Casta system was in use for a long time (Gracias, album "Indios de Quisqueya"!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.39.100 (talk) 23:59:23, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drug's and Crime in DR

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (CNN) -- The Dominican Republic is a tourist paradise, and a drug runner's haven. More than 800 miles of stunning turquoise coastline used for snorkeling -- and smuggling. What's smuggled mostly is cocaine from South America, bound for the United States. And in recent years, it's been pouring in. The Dominican Republic's rocky coastline makes it difficult for anti-drug units to operate. [1 of 3 "The problem in the last two years is the amount of narcotics arriving in this country by air has increased exponentially," said Peter A. Reilly, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's supervisor in the Dominican Republic.] Officials say the number of flights carrying drugs onto Hispaniola, the island shared by both the Dominican Republic and Haiti, has gone up roughly four-fold in just four years and that about 10 percent of U.S.-bound cocaine is now shipped through Hispaniola. [1] 66.108.180.176 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What you forget to mention is the Dominican government efforts to combat drug trafficking. Another point is that there should be a separate tourism section in the article. (Jollyjeeves 05:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I think the Crime section should be removed because it's negative for the image of DR. The Puerto Rico article doesn't have a crime section so why should this one have one? It's not fair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward77x (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Crimes, for attention of tourists planning trip to DR:

Me and my husband were in DR recently, by departure on 04th October07 from Puerto Plata while routine security control at the airport to my highest surprice I was stolen money from my purse! At the begunning of security check all looked normal: this officer(who finally robbed me!) was checking my handbag by putting out some small items: sunglsses, book, handy, cosmetic bag etc and always asking me to do someting: either to turn on the handy or to open box with glasses etc -he was keepeing me all the time busy, at last I realized that he is keeping his hands too long in my bag(I am travelling by plane twice a month so I know how long the routine check takes!), when I received this bag back the purse which was inside was opened, I looked inside and it seemed to me all is O.K. (I still saw a note of 50USD I had there), but later, in the gate I realized that100EUR note that was stored in the side pocket of this purse was missing! It was too late to go back and to try to look for this officer, I am writting it to warn all tourist: please watch out, a fact that somebody wears an unform and represents certain authority does not mean in this country too much!

That not a Dominican Republic problem only problem that goes for any country. And that goes for people with suit and ties as well. So please let not single out one country, when can happen anywhere. AvFnx 14:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

How come I do not see any small section in the article talking about the different languages in the Dominican Republic?Angel,Isaac 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean local dialects? Or actual languages such as Spanish and Samana English? Omar 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What?! What other languages are you talking about? Spanish is the one and only official language, there is simply no other widely spoken tongue to be of any type of significance. Although if rampant Haitian illegal immigration doesn't abate we might have to consider Creole at some point.

Samaná and San Pedro are known for their local English but A) The generation (from the smaller Antilles) that brought it as their first language has mostly died and B) The nature of that English is not distinctive from a grammatical point of view to qualify as a dialect. It is mostly distinctive in local color and flavor, not in structure. Philosopher2king 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are presently NO locations or secluded groups of people, even those of islander descent, that speak English as a main language. It is possible that some of them hold knowledge of the language of their forefathers, though common use, as I said, is negligible.Cuyaya 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Again

Moved more inactive discussion from June to the talk archives.--RosicrucianTalk 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] columbus in DR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228731/


[edit] disagreement

I disagree with the inclusion of baseball being the most popular sport in the DR, and then going on to say "as it is in cuba and the US." Baseball is not the most popular sport in the US currently (Football is), and there is no need to include the quoted sentence.

I disagreed with a few things stated in the music section. 1. Elvis Crespo is noone to be considered anything in merengue. In dominican republic, he is no one just another person who got some success and then fell off. & then especially to link him with the movement of merengue into the US. Now that's outrages. This artist made one cd the was good, the 2nd was ok, and the 3rd blew. All three cd's have similar musical arragement. He's the puerto rican version of Jon Secada. I bet they're hagging out right now wondering why there career went down the drain....

2. Yes bachata has grown out to reach other countries other than dominican. But to credit the growth, sorry but i dont think so.

I feel that if you going to talk about the music of one's country. Stick to the founders and the one's whole truly push the music to where it's at today. Please removed all this garbage and replace it with what is displaced in the linked for Dominican Music. Sorry but Elvis is a small dust compare to everyone else in the industry. Malafe82 06:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resorts in DR

http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=24079 64.131.205.111 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Photo copyright?

How do I tag an image that it is something that I took? UnclePaco 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

When you upload it, you have to select the option that says that it is your own work and that you release the rights. Dominican 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new pictures

if you go to spanish instead of inglesh and you type republica dominicana thats dominican republic in english you find great pictures of D.R. can somone please incorparate these pics i dont know how lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] this is the picture of the colombus park in santo domingo can someone incorparate this pic is santo domingo dominican republic

300px|right|thumb|Parque Colón

[edit] new pics for santo domingo dominican republic its columbus park

300px|right|thumb|Parque Colón

[edit] new pics of santo domingo incorparate please

400px|left|thumb|Sector de piantini

can someone clean the part of the u.s treaty of control please —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of language regarding "first capital in the americas"

I probably don't need to state this, obviously Santo Domingo was not the first capital city in the Americas, e.g. Teotihuacan, Tenochtitlan, Cuzco, Chan Chan etc. However it was the first capital city of a European colony within the Americas. Therefore the language "first colonial capital" is more accurate regarding Santo Domingo's historical status. WaynaQhapaq 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.218.101 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the First European Permanent Settlement in the Americas EdwinCasadoBaez 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Another Resource

http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/dominican%20republic/dominicancreoles.htm

149.68.105.27 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.libertadlatina.org/Car_Haiti_Aids_Stalks_Children_04-08-2004.htm

149.68.105.27 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I added two photos to the page

One was the DR parade in ny to show the large amount of DR's outside of DR.

A photo of the Dominican Day Parade in New York City, a major location of emigration of Dominicans
A photo of the Dominican Day Parade in New York City, a major location of emigration of Dominicans

and

Image:Jfpg1.jpg
Dr. José Francisco Peña Gómez Dominican political leader

Dr. José Francisco Peña Gómez a strong Dominican leader! UnclePaco 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

was DR. Francisco Pena Gomez ever a political Leader In the Dominican Republic?I dont think he ever was a president but i heard the las Americas Airport Is in named After him!Shouldnt this picture be located there instead of here?EdwinCasadoBaez 14:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Head of the Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD) since 1962. One of the leading parties in Dominican Republic. 3 time Presidential candidate, and Mayor of Santo Domingo. [2] [3] UnclePaco 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks for telling!EdwinCasadoBaez 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Section

If You read over the Demographics section you would notice that it is the longest Section in this whole article. Half of the Dominican Republic Article focuses in problems with Haiti or interaction with Haiti. I Dont Think the Spaniard(Spain) article focuses in portugal or France or neither does the United States article focus so much in it Neighbor Problems with Mexico or others. We Should try adding more infon less based in Race, color, or what ever else that has to be with discrimination. This article simply talks about Dominican Relations with other country instead of Focusing in the Long History Of the Dominican Republic, Juand Bosch, Juaquin Balaguer, Politics, Sports Like Baseball with a Larger Section including the Caribbean Professional Baseball Series and things like Cuisine which can be expandedEdwinCasadoBaez 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Politics

Politics section should be changed to a more standard name, Government. There we can explain the Dominican Government and politics at the same timeEdwinCasadoBaez 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just make two sections. They are different enough. UnclePaco 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i rearanged the pictures and added some

i moved some pictures and i added some tell me if you dont like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Jehovah's Witness are not Protestants.

This article states adventist and JW as the largest protestants in the DR. That is wrong. There are far more Pentecostals and Baptist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.146 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] chinese immigration to DR

http://dr1.com/articles/chinese.shtml . Should be included in the article. YoSoyGuapo 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dominican Military

We don't have much information on the DR page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Dominican_Republic UnclePaco 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Steroids

A steroids portion in the sports section for Dominican Republic is very necessary. It is a huge issue in the Dominican Republic from one of it's favorite past times. I'm going to have this section placed in. I have included quite a few articles to suppor this. Some based in the United States while others are Dominican websites.

Why is it that more than half of the players test positive for steroids in Major League baseball are dominican? [4] [5]

This is a huge percentage when you consider According to statistics compiled by the commissioner's office, 23.5 percent of the 829 major league players on opening-day rosters and disabled lists were born in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Mexico or Venezuela. [6] It is also quoted that over 80% of young dominican baseball players use steroids. [7]

In the dominican republic it is illegal to fire someone for testing positive for drugs. [8] "Myra Sung, a spokeswoman for Hispanics Across America, said it believed the percentage would soar if baseball tested for diamino, a supplement given to horses and cows but used by teenagers because it is cheaper than steroids and more easily obtained in the Dominican Republic." [9] [10]

149.68.98.175 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is an article It can be built from here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid_Usage_Amongst_Domincan_Athletes CubanoDios 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It funny how people try say Dominican baseball player are the ones that use the most Steroids but the article came out and only two were name, and Tejada is allege, is he/she says thing right now. Yes there will be lot Dominican, but yet again there lot Dominican in baseball, after California (look at each state as country), most players comes Dominican Republic. AvFnx (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] can someone add an education part in the dominican republic

can someone add an education part in the dominican republic the page needs it —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


doneUnclePaco 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Salcedo' province name changed to 'Hermanas Mirabal'

President Leonel Fernandez signed law 389-07 on 11/21/2007 (Spanish link and English link) changing the name of the Salcedo Province to 'Hermanas Mirabal'. Should we leave the name untranslated or should we call it 'Mirabal sisters'?--Bequw (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haitian Stateless

Ultimately should be down with Immigration which also discusses the issue in detail. Suspect there's a fair amount of redundancy between the two sections, so I moved Haitian Stateless down below Immigration so they can be compared and reconciled.--RosicrucianTalk 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you are one step ahead of me. :) Anyway, yes, there is substantial redundancy between the two and the article will definitely have a better flow if we merge both.
1.- "There has been an ongoing situation with the immigration of Haitian nationals into the Dominican Republic." - this idea has already been conveyed in previous sections Immigration and Self ID.
2.- "Haiti, a nation with a similiar population, but 1/2 of the land size is much poorer than that of the Dominican Republic." - completely unnecessary sentence and is clearly an appeal to emotion.
3.- "Many Haitian nationals come to the Dominican Republic in search of work, but are often regulated to second class status. [18]. Due to a "right of blood" similiar to that in Italy, many Haitian nationals born into the Dominican Republic are not granted citizenship." - first idea has already been conveyed in Immigration, as well as the second one (and in much better (read: NPOV) wording).
4.- "This is due to the fact that their parents are deemed to be transient in nature." - this seems to introduce a new idea concerning DR's constitution and legal framework concerning civil status. I don't have any sources to pin this to (the source that CubanoDios provided does not mention this asaik), but it would be an interesting point to add should this be properly sourced.
5.- "As a result many Dominican born Haitians are born without a nation or citizenship." - redundant.
6.- "Competition for jobs have led to the deportation of many haitians in an effort to save native dominican rights." - it would be preferable if these "native dominican rights" are defined somewhere (it's not on the source)
7.- "Unofficially there are 800,000 Haitians living in the Dominican Republic accounting for over 10% of the population." - these figures can easily be merged with the others given in the other sections.
8.- ""Our border with Haiti has its problems, this is our reality and it must be understood. Foreign Minister Morales stated It is important not to confuse national sovereignty with indifference, and not to confuse security with xenophobia,"" - this quote can be easily merged into Immigration.


I motion that we strip away the Hatian Stateless article of all redundancy and to merge the few remains into the Immigration article.
Llorllale (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree wth both of you. Rafelito (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

merge, make haitian stateless a subsection, that's fine. UnclePaco (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Some dictator trying to remove quotes on the pretext of 'improper formatting'

--endangered sentence start-- So it's really a matter of Haitians actively refusing their own legal nationality (Jus sanguinis) in order to obtain a better living Dominican citizenship. --sentence end--

threat quoted (anonymous, obviously): <!--isn't this OR? I think it should be rephrased, at least, or else removed-->

my reply: "or else removed"? who are you? Dirty Harry??? there aren't two statements, so demanding to add a logical conjunction operator (AND, OR, IF, THEN, ELSE...) is jeeve-talking pretext just to remove this properly-formated last sentence. Reformat it yourself, and don't you dare to remove it. You don't have irrefutable proof that this last sentence is a misquote (lie). Also, in order for you to perform your medieval inquisition, you are first required to debunk every previous external quote on this paragraph (which you can't, since luckily Wikipedia is based on external quotes, not your personal passion or hypothesis).

NOTE: Also I agree that the above mentioned original merger was just an inexcusable pretext to dilute the sub-article, to strip away any traces of external quotes. Then, in short time, it will also 'legally' exclude everything, since Wikimedia rules require that the articles be substantiated with external quotes, which, I agree, are more than plenty. --Flurry (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Flurry, it was no dictator, just me. As to "OR", it stands for "original research", as in the Wikipedia:No original research policy, aka NOR. Since the 'refusal' sentence made a very strong claim, and since I was unable to verify that claim in the cite, I removed it, anchored on the NOR policy. Anyway, I harbor no hard feelings, as you did not mean to accuse me, but were instead operating on the mistaken assumption that it was some bad faith, anonymous passerby who'd made that "threat". I look forward to working further with you on improving this article. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This part should either be moved to the Haiti wiki page or trimmed to encyclopedic value to article. It extends too much into Haitian issues regarding the status of that country and obligues too much into a pane based on the POV of contributors. Trimming must be done so that the related data can become of encyclopedic value to article sooner rather than later...Reynaldopichardo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynaldopichardo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CubanoDios

Please make sure to accurately describe what you are doing when you make that significant a revision. You did not "move section over" so much as revert ten revisions to continue your edit war with Avfnx. As a result, you managed to remove a number of accurate good-faith edits that had improved the article. I do not think your latest edit served the article very well, and though you have accused others of working without consensus, your edits have been rather disruptive and without consensus themselves.--RosicrucianTalk 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it now. My apologies. I did move a section over if you do look. It was the haitian stateless. You're limited to how much you can describe in your edit summary. CubanoDios (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look above, we're already discussing some of the issues with the Haitian Stateless section.--RosicrucianTalk 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There were many groups of immigrants to DR including chinese and japanese. The Haitian stateless is broad enough to be it's own section. CubanoDios (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, we're discussing that above. Please add your comments to the ongoing discussion in that talkpage section.--RosicrucianTalk 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Racial Identity Issue and Self Identification Has been moved. Please Continue discussion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic/RacialSelfIdentification_debate UnclePaco (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this helps much of anything. All you've done is merge all those together into a big mess. You didn't even order them by date.--RosicrucianTalk 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
fixed UnclePaco (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Rather than deal with the big mess that is that conglomerate debate, here are the points I would like to make.

  1. We do not need both a Racial Identity Issues and a Self-Identification section. They are both addressing the same subject. I can accept that there is debate over what the article section should be called, and what facts it includes. I cannot accept that we need to somehow have our cake and eat it by having two sections about the same thing.
  2. Antihaitianismo is already adequately discussed in the Immigration section. We do not need to add it to the identification section too. I realize that it is a hot topic, but there's no sense in peppering section after section with it.
  3. The Haitian Stateless section contains virtually no new info that was not already in the Immigration section. The majority of the Immigration section is already dedicated to the significant issues involved in the Haitian population within the Dominican Republic.

I think that until these three things are addressed, the article doesn't hang together nearly as well.--RosicrucianTalk 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
section has been merged. so why are you reverting it ? UnclePaco (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caste System

Im adding the castesystm back on the article, it was a big part of latin america and yes DR did have the same caste system and the ral fact is that the Tainos didnt become extinct until the late-mid 1800s so dont be supriesed if some are still alive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs)

The section you added is entirely unreferenced. Please add some cites if you expect it to be kept in the article.--RosicrucianTalk 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm UnclePaco 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Taino's died out in hispanola. [[11]] They existed in PR! UnclePaco 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this section should be completely eliminated of this article; if you want, you could make another article dealing with this subject. The classification shown is racist and old, even is not included in the only reference of the section. And that reference is from a comercial website and very old, in Internet terms, and uploaded by Roland Soong (who is he?). Many terms are unknown in the DR and that system was not used in Haiti, for example, part of the Hispaniola and Latin America (yes, Haiti is part of Latin America).

If anybody want to write something about the "caste system" in the Dominican Republic, then use Dominican sources, and not Mexican or South American. And better, use the information of Population Genetics and not racist and obsolete terms.

I am sorry that I do not modify (or eliminate) that section but I prefer to work in the Spanish Wikipedia, where I am the user Jmarcano. Will somebody dare to eliminate, to modify this section or create a new article that could be used in all Latin American with updated information? --66.98.78.51 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to add a tag to say that the section needs to be better sourced. However, BigGabriel555 removed it without comment. I've put the tag back on, as it really does need some improvement. I don't know why he snipped the tag.--RosicrucianTalk 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Caste System section was blanked without comment. However, it was blanked by the original editor that added it. Also, the section still hasn't tied its relevance back to the article at large. The sources indicate that this was a phenomenon in all Spanish colonies at the time. So why is the Dominican Republic article the only one that has a section on it? If it was so widespread, shouldn't it just get its own article and be linked to from this one?--RosicrucianTalk 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I Agree with Roscicrucian once again. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be shortened, but it is still very important to the culture in the Dominican Republic as can be seen as a basis of Antihaitianismpo. so how about we shorten it but not completly remove it UnclePaco (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It has already been shortened and made a part of the racial issues section, prior to you reinserting it.--RosicrucianTalk 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many misinformations; the article becoming useless

In the History section, there are too many informations that are not completely true, and even false. I have seen that, for a blocked article, some people keep writing and nobody is correcting. I do not want to become a user, for now; I am already a user (Jmarcano) in the Spanish Wikipedia.

I am going to mention some points:

The first paragraph of the section says: "of which Haiti occupies the western third". Why not transfer that sentence to the Haiti article? In the Dominican Republic article, it should say: "of which the Dominican Republic occupies the eastern two thirds". In the same paragraph, it says "founding the settlement of La Navidad". Why settlement? It was only a small fortress (most likely a house) for those men that could not return to Spain because there was not room for them on the 2 remaining ships. A fortres (or a house) has never been a settlement. By the way, the La Navidad article has a lot of hearsay and misinformations, too.

Second paragraph: why Queen Anacaona? Why queen? She became a "cacique" after the death of her husband, Cacique Anacaona; queen (or king) was not an Arawak concept. I have hear that now in Voudou they say Queen Anacaona but I am not completely sure. And, as far as I know, se did not fight agains the Spaniards; it was the excuse of Nicolás de Ovando. If we say that she fought against the Spaniardas, then we are saying that Ovando, as conqueror, had reasons to hang her.

In the same second paragraph, why Cacique "Henry"? Why not his name "Enriquillo", or his Taino name, Guarocuya? It is very confusing to say Henry. And is completely false that the town associated with the fight of Enriquillo is Anse a Pitres, a small town that I love and where I have many friends. In any case, put the reference. Oviedo wrote about the "Sierra de Pedernales" but that mountain range is called now "Sierra Martin Garcia", between the Barahona and Azua provinces, too far away from the modern city of Pedernales, across the border from Anse a Pitres.

The word "zambo" appears in this paragraph (see above for muy comments on this racist classification); in the Dominican Republic, zambo meas "with curved legs (knock-kneed)". An about 17% of the genes in the general Dominican population (I don't know in Haiti) comes from the Taino (Alvarez Perello, Jose. La mezcla de razas en Santo Domingo y los factores sanguineos. Eme-Eme, vol II, No. 8, Sept.-Oct. 1973. UCMM. Santiago).

The next paragraph, "For much of the twentieth century..." is in a wrong place. --66.98.79.207 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The first (and new) paragraph of the subsection "Creation of the Republic" seems to be part of the history of Haiti and not of the Dominican Republic. Even so, it is full of errors. It was not Toussaint Louverture who gave the name of Haiti; it was Dessalines. It is true that Louverture took Santo Domingo but it was on the name of France; when the Haitians tried to keep the eastern part, the French had to fight. Santo Domingo reverted to Spanish rule in 1809, when the French left the island. I have not checked the Enciclopedia Britannica but if it says in 1810, it is wrong, and there are too many documents and books to testify that it was in 1809.

Then comes the subsection Caste System. I do not see any valid reason to have it here; I have checked all other Latin American countries and there is not anything like this. And it is racist system developed by the conquerors in South America and not in the Hispaniola. Regarding Marabou, it is word completely unknown in the Dominican Republic; and worst, it says that about half of the populatin in modern day Dominican Republic is marabou! Is it a fact or a dream? So we are marabou without knowing what is that! Please use a non-racist, modern, system to classify popuplations and develop a new article that could be used for all countries.

The first paragraph of the next subsection says that the War of Restoration was led by generals: Ulises Heureaux and Gregorio Luperón. It was written by somebody that does not anything of Dominican history. Luperón was very young when the war began and distinguished himself just at the end of that war, in the east front. Heureaux was completely unknown at that time, he was too young. But students of elementary schools know that the leaders of the war were Santiago Rodríguez, Benito Monción, Pepillo Salcedo, José Cabrera, Pimentel and others. We even have a province named after Santiago Rodríguez.

And it says "The Restoration was proclaimed on August 16, 1865". That is completely wrong. The initial "cry" for the Restorarion was in August 16, but in the year 1863!

About Heureaux, it only says that he "was of Haitian origin"; it says nothing about his methods and his governments. He was a dictator who killed many people. Later, in the subsection 1930 to 1980, it says that Trujillo "was himself a quarter Haitian". I do not see why to put those phrases in this article; they would be ok in their biographies, not here. But it is very dangerous because we might think: Heureaux and Trujillo were criminal dictators, both were of Haitian origin, then people with Haitian ancestors are...

Well, I do not want to extend more these observations but, in my opinion, if things like the mentioned above are not corrected and if more people without knowledge of Dominican history are left to write in this article (a blocked article!), then it will be a useless article, and harmful even for Wikipedia in general. And, please, when you unblock the article so a person could write, check if there are the needed references. --66.98.78.83 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have to agree with you about the misinformation. It looks like someone is deliberately trying to ruin this article. I don't know if that if the case, but the GDP information in wrong. I looked over the information on the IMF site and posted it, only to be replaced shortly after by the incorrect amount. What's going on..? What is being won by spreading false data..?
Ulises (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
disagree with a few points. some points i agree with. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

I updated the population and the population density. The DR now has more than 9.7 million people and 201 people per sq km.

[edit] Gross Domestic Product

After further research I have also updated the GDP PPP. It is now US$100.6 billion and US$10,300 per capita.

Where did you get the new number? The previous number was about US$70 billion (the CIA World Factbook has $77.09 billion for 2006).
Ulises (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I did some research at the IMF web site and they have a different number [[12]]. It seems that the correct amount is $89.87 billion.
Ulises (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


I see somebody put bat the $100.6 billion number. Can that somebody at least tell us where those numbers came from...?
Ulises (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
put back 70. it was prob removed in an edit war. UnclePaco (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone add more to the Dominican Military and Population

Can someone add more to the Dominican Military and Population it needs more information on those topics so can someone please do that thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix Caste system or its comming of

please can someone fix the caste system theres many things wrong with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you've decided it's "fixed" and removed the tag again. I don't really understand this, as it's not very different at all from when you said there were "many things wrong with it."
As well, nobody yet has really managed to link this section to how the Caste System applied in the Dominican Republic. As this is an article on the Dominican Republic, I really must insist we do this somehow if we're to keep the section. Otherwise it should be deleted as it's not germane to the article.--RosicrucianTalk 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

you'll be ABLE TO FIND more information about hispanola the island than dominican republic concerning the caste system but i did add some references. UnclePaco (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm seeing is that this section is apparently very redundant as it repeats much of what is in the Casta article.--RosicrucianTalk 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i am in the process of making this more unique to DR thanks (Edit Summary by UnclePaco)

When were you planning on making this revision? Because as it stands the section is still an utter rehash of the Casta article.--RosicrucianTalk 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


here is another article . http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200404/ai_n9399394 UnclePaco (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

more... http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/domrep/domrep0402-02.htm http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:UWzF4Xj3dLAJ:www.afrigeneas.com/forum-world/index.cgi%3Fnoframes%3Bread%3D95+dominican+republic+color+caste&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

UnclePaco (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring List

I've noticed a huge amount of edit warring and use of personal attacks on this particular article. I'd like to create a listing of those blocked as a result of edit warring and use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. [[13]] I think this will be important in future cases due to the large amounts of vandalism on this article.UnclePaco (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Luciano555 [14] sockpuppet blocked due [15] to personal attacks on myself. UnclePaco (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
BigGabriel555 [16] Edit Warring. UnclePaco (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable EdwinCasadoBaez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EdwinCasadoBaez UnclePaco (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that you like point out some many people I block by mistake, even the one that block me admit it...basically I got set up some how...Doesn't anyone find it weird, that anyone with a Neutral or even Pro-Dominican ideas get checks left and right, while those with there Pro-Haiti agenda keep making this article more about Haiti everyday. AvFnx (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Statistics

Is there a reason this section was removed? There was no edit summary to explain why, and no discussion on removing it.--RosicrucianTalk 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article too long with a lot of useless and wrong informations

This article is too long and still it is incomplete. Many informations have to be eliminated because they are wrong or they could be better in another article. And who is BigGrabriel555? He is making difficult to edit the page because he keep adding more wrong information; when I go to his User page, nothing! But in his (or her) Talk page you could see that he has been blocked many times; but still he can edit (in a blocked article). Why? --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

biggabrial555 is a user who tries to be positive but has run into a lot of edit wars with other users. UnclePaco (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GOODINFORMATION ABOUT TAIONOS AND ARAWAKS FOR THIS ARTICLE

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm THE ABORIGINES OF THE ANCIENT ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html UnclePaco (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Taina Mirabel possible disputed section

Very disputed information but there but information about it can be found in quite a few sources. It could go into a disputed section of history. saw a few of these discussed earlier

in english

UnclePaco (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


This again, no there no place for this...it been talk about already, no one see the point of this...so if i write a book the world is flat, then i should be given it all section huh! AvFnx (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


here is another article which shows a similiar point of view. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200404/ai_n9399394 UnclePaco (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That got nothing do w/ one other, the first saying we inspire the KKK, the other saying we don't call ourself mulatto...by the way i do. It seem people then to talk w/ out knowing my country history and culture. AvFnx (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaicans in DR And Taino Survival...

Can someone please add that there are jamaicans in DR there are 29,000 Jamaicans in the Dominican Republic acordding to this site http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php (To see the data go to were it says "View:select data prespective" then go to where it says people by country, when you get there go to Dominican Republic on where it says country and then go to the peoples that you want see it will tell you how many of those people are living in DR), the same site say there are 1,200 British, 87,000 Spaniards and 800 Germens and MUCH MORE info about peoples In Dominican Republic that SHOULD be ADDED! also can you not write "some" taino blood in dominican republic and haiti because on wikepedias article of "Indians" they show a factual graph by the world factbook that shows that in DR between 40-61% of the population have Native American(Taino) blood and 1% is full Native American as well it says that between 20-35% of Haitians have Native American(Taino) blood. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THIS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs)

i don't think DR wants to include transient workers if so you would have to include the one million haitians that live in the dominican republic and then you would have to change population of blacks in the dominican republic percentage wise this would make it move from 11% to almost 26% which might be original research.
stating that some wikipedia's say that DR and haiti have 1% of taino blood (which may not be based on fact) goes against the dozen of sources that show the facts the taino's were exterminated in under 100 years on the island of hispanola. There is no Taino blood in DR it is simply propoganda to help unite Dominicans. UnclePaco (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold On...It doesnt matter wether DR would want to include transit wokers this is a fact and should be added this is an article that has to include what oes on in the nation and the people that are in it, which includes Jamaicans! also if you think that it would be as high as 26% which is a bit too high is you ask me then it shoulb stated that even though the percentage of blacks in DR is 11% there are higher numbers of both legal and ilegal imigrants and workers in DR ( Jamaicans & Haitians )...Also again the Taino part HAS to be fixed they survived and so did their desendents look at this article http://www.kacike.org/GuitarEnglish.html again I ask can someone please add these facts: Arab/lebanese: 3,100 American: 73,000 (this likely includes dominicans born in the US) British: 1,100 French: 1,800 German: 700 Chinese (two groups-Mandarine & Cantonese): 11,400 Jamaicans: 27,000 German Jew: 100 Korean: 400 Haitian: 366,000 ( May mean just legal Haitians ) Spaniard: 81,000 (this looks like it includes all other hispanic non-dominicans; if you see the site, you'll see what I mean) South Koreans: 500 Japanese: 1,800 The info again is on this site: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php

that seems nice. I guess the alleged 11% pure blacks (which should really be like) 80% blacks but due to everyone claiming they are spaniard or mulatto it takes away from that very claim. You should read this article http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm which are based on documented fact not on a recreation of what happenned in history on the site you wrote down. UnclePaco (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This point only says that there are a lot of websites with useless information, without any confirmation. It is a surprised to see Jamaicans in the Dominican Republic; that is not correct. They were persons that came at the end of 19th century and during the first decades of the 20th century from the British West Indies (from the Leeward Islands); they are called cocolos. In Puerto Plata and other northern cities, they came from the Turks and Caicos Islands and they were called turkimanes. Very few came from Jamaica; they prefered to go to Cuba. Sammy Sosa and many others would be surprised to learn that they are "Jamaicans", according to that site! And I don't know where they got those figures; certainly, not from official sources.

And the site says "Hispanics", not Spaniards. It is a extremely strange term in the Dominican Republic. Does it mean Spanish people or descendants from Spanish people? Because most Dominicans descend in a way or another from Spanish. Does it mean that they came from other Spanish-speaking countries?. I do not see any use of the informations on that website, at least regarding the Dominican Republic, because of the errors and the lack of sources. --Pepemar2 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that the numbers were official as well. Cocolos are a derogatory word similiar to nigger in english. Sammy Sosa, Tito Ortiz are obviously blacks and most likely of Haitian origin. Most Spaniards did not go to the new world. A lot did but not over 50% of the spanaird population. So how would you account for the population of Latin America being over 2-3x that of Spain? The population was imported. Most Dominican's are not descended from Spain..they are descended from Africa. Even if people claim that it is 11% black it is most likely 84% since 73% claim they are mulatto (black/white mix). How is it that if you go to Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, Bermuda, St Vincent, etc everyone looks black but if you go to DR everyone looks black but claims they are white or mulatto or even Indio!? People are no different than African American's in terms of their looks and are mixed due to slavery (which is what happened in America). UnclePaco (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok first of all "Spaniards" it is refering to desendents of spaniards that only mixed with other spaniards and are still livingin DR over the centuries and at the same time also refering to imigrants from spain. It also reffers to any spanish desendent that only has spaniard annsestory from any latin american country that live in DR...Second when they say black on thcenus they mean pure black not black as in black with some white or black with some "indio" its just pure black...as it says in the article 90% of Dominicas have african ansestry thats why in the cenus it says mixed(white/black or white/black/indian). The Taino's anscestors still live on it is a fact that indian women got pregnant by european men in DR and Haiti and to be rightfull to the other wikipedia article about Indians you should add that they show a factual graph by the world factbook that shows that in DR between 40-61% of the population have Native American(Taino) blood and 1% is full Native American as well it says that between 20-35% of Haitians have Native American(Taino) blood. So i go back to my original plea, please add the Taino info aswell as:This site is an OFFICIAL and I repeat for those who cant read an OFFICIAL sourse!!! this info is vital to both Imigration, history, culture and future of DR PLEASE ADD THIS INFO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs)

first all start signing what you say. it's talking to a kid. wikipedia is about references. secondly people dont leave a first world nation to live in a 3rd world nation that is filled with crime. it's like leaving the suburbs to live in the ghetto. it makes no sense. i dont know why people are stuck on the propoganda that there is Taino blood in DR when all reputable sources (and if you want some scroll up) say that Taino's (and you really mean Arawak because that is what they really were) died out in DR before 1600. Taino's survived in Puerto Rico! Secondly the pure black statement is funny. I guess you should realy read this article and you can see how Dominican's routinely deny that they are black such as Felipe Lopez [24] "Here, as in much of Latin America -- the "one drop rule works in reverse: One drop of white blood allows even very dark-skinned people to be considered white." Lastly, you spelled ancestry wrong. UnclePaco (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to give you a history lesson and a bit of manners as I can see your trying to be rude...Taino, sorry Arawak people as you prefer survived in both DR and puerto rico...Its a fact plus people of africa and european ancestry look nothing like most Dominicans better yet people that are west african and west european look nothing like most dominicans. About the one drop rule? ok? so then who are the ones actually saying that they are black on the cenus? also how is it that DR is over twice the size of puerto Rico yet "no Taino survived" it sounds almost rediculous. unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 December 2007


Use the four tilde's to sign what you are saying. Taino is a language, Arawak are the people. [25] So you aren't aware of history. Taino/Arawak continued to live in Puerto Rico not in the Dominican Republic or Hispanola. They still exist in Puerto Rico [26]. People of Africa look nothing like Dominican's? hmm.. so Tito Ortiz doesn't look African? Most Dominican's don't look African American? So Halle Berry doesn't look Dominican? Does Will Smith? They are both black! DR always compares itself to Puerto Rico but never to Cuba? why is that? The Taino's didn't survive in Hispanola because they were killed off in the island. Point blank. In Puerto Rico it was a more controlled colony so they survived easier. You spelled ridiculous wrong as well. UnclePaco (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I said people that are half white and african dont look like MOST dominicanans are you able to read? Dominicans do look African i didnt say they didnt...The spanish colonist didnt exterminate all the Tainos they didnt get to the high mountin ranges especially in San Fransico de Macoris where the spanish colonists couldnt reach as they werent used to climbing them like the Tainos can have you gave it a thought that they have formed communities up there?...also you cant deny that Dominicans do have Arawak blood.By the way this I didnt come here to learn English so dont correct me as long as I got my point across we are all good as I can tell your reading skills go beyond horibble and looks like you have NEVER been to DR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you scroll up and read what you wrote of " people of africa and european ancestry look nothing like most Dominicans" then talk! UnclePaco (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY...Like I said...are you even Dominican? you really need to go get educated the Dominican Republic o at least step foot in DR!

I'm not European but I know European history and culture. You made an ignorant statement. Yes I have been to Dominican Republic. So again you don't know what you're talking about you apparently can barely read or understand what you wrote UnclePaco (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I stil cant beleive that you've been to DR as you are obviously not Dominican...I also know European history! and your the one who cant read which I can tell as you havent read enough info about the DR...Come on lets be mature here...I cant beleive you dont agree with any info that I have to offer to the article. Souljanyn3 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulja nyn3 (talk • contribs)

Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say that an editor has to be from the country they edit about? If I wanted to edit the article about the Moon or the Sun, I would have to be resident there or at least have visited, according to your logic. Whether or not an editor is from the DR should not be held against them. Wikipedia demands reliable and accurate sources for all the information added, not firsthand experience. Green Giant (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to finish this exchange of ideas with: 1) Taino is a culture and the people associated with that culture (including the language, part of the culture). Arawak is a linguistic family. But it is right to use the term Taino for both the language and the people. It is similar to Spanish (or Español, if you want): it is the language and the people living in Spain. 2) Cocolo is a sub-culture in the Dominican Republic, just like Cibaeño or Samanés. The word was initially used for Haitians in the South but now it is not as derogatory as Nigger in USA. You could say Cocolo cooking, for example, but there is not a Nigger cooking. I have been studying that sub-culture for years and it would be a shame that it dissappears. But what I wanted to say that it is not right to use Jamaicans because you think that Cocolo is a "bad" word. And it is right, David Ortiz has Haitian ancestors; I am not so sure about Sammy Sosa; I should have used other examples: George Bell, Alfredo Griffith, or the poets Norberto James and Mateo Morrison. 3) As a geneticists, I am not interested in classifying people by their skin colors (or what they believe what they are); I prefer to talk in terms of population genetics and I can assure you that in this country there are not pure Tainos but their genes are present. In the study of Alvarez Perello that I mentioned above (in Caste System), he found that the Dominican population has, on average, the following percentages of "genes": 43% African, 40% European, 17% Indian. From there, you could make all the combinations that you want. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good WEbsite

http://www.paho.org/english/sha/prfldor.htm UnclePaco (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food for thought

In the Haitian article Dominican is use less then 20 times...in the Dominican article Haiti is use over 50 times...I haven't found one country article that talk more about it neighbor then it self other then Dominican article. I really think we should change it name to Dominican/Haiti or Hispaniola. I feel that title will be more better then the one we have now. AvFnx (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be rediculous. They are individual and seperate countries. Apparantly, this article has been heavily modefied by people who are un-neutral in their views towards these issues. Kcuello (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racial identity/self identification

Alright, since you're reverting without discussion again, can you explain to me why we need two sections discussing the exact same thing? Can you explain to me why we need a whole section reprinting nearly all of Casta, when the new combined section was working on discussing that? Can you explain why you keep reverting the progress we make and referring us to the talkpage, when you're making edits without consensus yourself?--RosicrucianTalk 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than go in a circle. how about you look over this and ask any questions you may have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic/RacialSelfIdentification_debate the debate never stopped. i'm not making an edit without consenus. i'm placing things in that were deleted haphazardly and offering discussion UnclePaco (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The debate hasn't had any new comments in nearly a month, and you're asking users to look through several months of inconclusive debate. I've raised my concerns several times on this talkpage as well as in the edit summaries I've made, and all you've done is refer people back to the talk archive where no consensus was reached for your version or my version rather than offering any new debate. I really don't approve of using that massive talk archive as a stumbling block to new debate and moving this article forward.--RosicrucianTalk 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Rosicrucian one more time. It looks like UnclePaco is making unilateral edits without consensus. He is also using many dubious sources and making disruptive edits. I support the Rosicrucian version. I will revert UnclePaco's latest changes. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can simply reinsert all of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic/RacialSelfIdentification_debate and that will make this discussion go on for a while. how about dispute resolution since we are simply not agreeing? also placing in non neutral point of view edits about Ulysis Herriaux is vandalism and so are personal attacks. UnclePaco (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not agree with using that big mass of old debate as a way to stall new debate. This is verging on you trying to WP:OWN an article. You accuse us of not having consensus, but who is in support of your version? One person cannot and should not hold up an article's development. Beyond that, I really think this passage you added is very POV.
As a result of the treaty of Ryswick a number of Dominican's above all else view to be Dominican is to not be a Haitian. [27] . When a person whose race is thought at no doubt to be of African origin a concept of "indianness" comes into play. [28]. This would serve as a method to answer the question of whether someone of someones race that is between mulatto and black. [29]. Many studies which have been said to be of dubious nature would serve to prove the indian blood in Dominicans. [30]. It is said to be dubious because native indians were killed off within 50 years of the arrival of Europeans to the island. [31] stigma of these social strata persisted for many years, reaching its culmination in the Trujillo regime, where the dictator used racial persecution and nationalistic fervor against haitians. [32]
It only has a single source, repeated six times, and the claims it makes are highly contentious, as well as repeating several sentences that were already in the intro paragraph thus rendering the section hard to read. What are you trying to accomplish here?--RosicrucianTalk 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
how can article be neutral when we got things like this...the title should be neutral. AvFnx (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference list.

I realize that debate and editing have gotten heated, but you folks need to be more careful. There have been several occasions today when in a rush to add new material, existing cites were broken causing the reference list to start spewing code all over the page. We don't need that.--RosicrucianTalk 06:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds good UnclePaco (talk)36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
General Dominican History http://www.hispaniola.com/dominican_republic/info/history.php


[edit] Spanish Haiti

I am having difficulty understanding as to why the name of Spanish Haiti keeps getting reverted to Empereridial (spelling). The initial nation of the former colony of Santo Domingo was in fact Spanish Haiti. [33] [34] [35] [36]. I am wondering if someone could at least give me a basic understanding as to why it shouldn't be included in the article. UnclePaco (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The page could use considerable cleanup. I think if you're worried about it getting speedy deleted or redirected to another article, you might want to develop it as a sandbox article first, perhaps at User:UnclePaco/Spanish Haiti. If you can get a bit more meat on it there and then copy/paste the text over, it will probably be less likely to be reverted/redirected/deleted. You also will want to be careful to make sure the new article is not redundant with such articles as Hispaniola, History of the Dominican Republic, and of course this article.--RosicrucianTalk 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism

The section Symbolism have a lot of errors and informations out of place. About the flag, it is better to include that information (that I do not think is important) in the Flag article. The information about the Lighthouse is completely wrong, and it is not a symbol. The Columbus Lighthouse was approved on December 22, 1936 in Buenos Aires by a Panamerican Conference. The first stone was put on place on March 1, 1944 by the Vice-president of the Panamerican Union. On February 7, 1948, the French architect Gleave delivered the final sketch of the monument and on April 7 of that same year started the building of the monument. Balaguer is the last link of that chain. The only thing that would remain is about the national tree and the national bird and that could be written somewhere else and eliminate this section. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My modifications

I don't understand why to eliminate all my changes when I have explained above the reasons for them. I eliminated some external links because they are commercial websites or they don't mean anything to the article. I have several websites and I have not put them here (and I could because it seems that nobody checks).

The section Symbolism is completely wrong. The only laws are on the national flower (Mahogany - Swietenia mahagoni, not any mahogany) and the national bird, and I kept those. There is not law declaring merengue as the national dance; the same for baseball. The Columbus Lighthouse is not a national symbol and the history is completely false (read previous discussion). And in the contents Climate and Environment problems are subsections of Symbolism!

Sánchez was not a Mestizo, he was a Mulatto and is incorrect to cite Moya Pons with a false information.

But I see that I will not be able to make changes to improve this article (a extremely long and misleading article with a lot of false information as I have said before) so I quit. --Pepemar2 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Ortiz photo

Why does this photo keep getting placed in the "Population" section, rather than in the "Sports" section?--RosicrucianTalk 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S.-Dominican Convention

Paco, do you have a source for "U.S.-Dominican Convention for Assistance in Governing"? (or "U.S.-Dominican Treaty for Assistance in Governing") SamEV (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


The souce is the first one. It is an NPOV name. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dominican-republic-1916.htm is good also. UnclePaco (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. You won't find that phrase there. In fact, most of the words in the phrase don't even appear by themselves: no "convention", "treaty", "assistance", or "governing" on that page. Please provide a different source.
That very link at Global Security is for a page titled "Dominican Republic Occupation". The occupation is a distinct event, treated as such is Dominican histories and having whole books devoted to it.
Also, I now see that that whole section in the article was just cut and pasted from Global Security, and it could be called plagiarism. Extensive re-writing will have to be done. I will restore the section heading, but I'll wait for you to reply to this, with a good reason why there shouldn't be an Occupation section and instead we should keep that oversized section. SamEV (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No you won't find the name, but who is to say that we should copy a name from another website. You will find the treaty and the title and is a summary of what it was about. There may be whole dominican history books devoted to it, but different nations have different perspectives on what happened. Ask Turkey about the armenian genocide and they'll tell one story, if you ask armenia you'll be told another story. We are aiming for a neutral point of view, and US occupation isn't a neutral point of view, assistance in governing is. I can find a ton of sources that say that DR couldn't effectively govern but that would be a pro US POV. If you see extensive copy and pasting then either do some serious editing or remove it. UnclePaco (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the copy/pasted material from various sources. But:
1. The occupation was a different thing from the 50-year customs receivership agreement.
2. You're terribly misinformed as to the word "occupation". It was officially just that: an occupation. It's the term the US itself used to refer to its rule in the D.R. - as in Haiti at the time, and in Iraq from 2003-2004, etc, etc. It's a standard term used in international law. Here's the term in the US Library of Congress' own D.R. article. Here it is in Encyclopedia Britannica. If you wonder whether Wikipedia thinks "occupation" is POV, here's Wikipedia's own article about this, which is titled United States occupation of the Dominican Republic. It's a matter of calling it what it was legally and officially. Here, have a look at the formal declaration by the US military commander: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(191704)11%3A2%3C94%3APOTMOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M. SamEV (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Would Intervention be better? http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-217437/Dominican-Republic ? UnclePaco (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the pre-occupation period (~1904-~1916), yes. But we need a second section for the period 1916-24, which is the period of occupation and should properly be named so. But ... how about, as you suggest, we go with "US intervention" for the current section, and "US military rule" for the 1916-24 period? SamEV (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


I simply can't agree. The second section could be US assistance in maintaining Dominican Political Stability might be better and neutral as well . UnclePaco (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the US formally occupied the Dominican Republic in 1916 is undisputed. That "occupation" was the term employed for that period is undisputed and I can source it. Still, I did try to compromise, though I didn't have to, since I can prove my position. So I will ask you again: please present sources that say what you claim. If you can't, I'll go ahead with my edit. SamEV (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have presented sources that state US INTERVENTION. I'm maintaining npov so lets simply keep it there. There is a lot that I had placed in before that was properly sourced and was removed by you. Like here [37] If you choose to go ahead with your edit there is going to be an edit war. So don't make aggressive actions and lets make a consensus. UnclePaco (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you threatening to disrupt this article if I make my edit, in which I'll present sources, using the term "occupation" in a section, which is an NPOV term that Wikipedia already uses in its own articles?
2. There was nothing in your version of the article that was worth keeping and wasn't, with better writing and sourcing to boot, not to mention FAR less POV. SamEV (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


i've presented sources. US INTERVENTION is fair for a second section. US Occupation isn't NPOV at all! Point blank. If you like we can simply go for dispute resolution and that'll solve the problem. Simply because you aren't satisfied with a source doesnt' make it non worthwhile.

secondly on the second version the lives of the Arawak Indians and Caribs during the Spanish Colonial period is extremely important and was sourced. All you simply did was change a ton of things and included those. YOU are teh one who stated taht you'll make aggressive actions and stated you'll ignore consensus here. [38] UnclePaco (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for all that biased stuff you wanted, painting the Spaniards as genocidal maniacs. It was highly POV and from extremist sources, as Rafelito kept telling you, and much of it from forums. Neither are good sources. I rewrote it and sourced it correctly.
On the early 20th century, this being the holiday season, I'll try for a compromise again: we rename the current section to "US interventions" - in the plural, as they were several separate ones by TR, Taft, and Wilson - and drop the occupation business, to be continued later, at dispute resolution if need be. What say you?
I'll resume editing, but I won't touch that section till I hear from you. SamEV (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with SamEV here. The 1916-1924 period is widely acknowledged as a military occupation. Rafelito (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's what it is called by mainstream historians. That is its formal name, and it's what that type of regime is called in international law. Paco is under the impression that "occupation" is some sort of accusation. Though I wonder why he's adopted that stance, considering he has a big red picture of Che Guevara on his userpage, and Guevara hated the US with all his being. SamEV (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Che was about the truth and being fair. Thus my rationale for the npov. I am perfectly fine with it staying the way it is, i made a compromise for the split of the section to be called US intervention. So if you want to separate and call the first us assistance and the other us intervention then go for it.

Secondly it wasn't the spaniards who were genocidal manaics it was some of the conquistodors. Much of it was not from forums. Most of them were articles. They were not extermist sources, simply historical sources and accounts. It's like grouping all Germans with Nazi's. The Arawaks were killed at a much higher percentage than the jews were in Europe but for some reason you don't deem it necessary to the article. Can you explain why? Did I not have enough sources? UnclePaco (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Paco, the problem is the sources. These are not reliable sources: neither http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html, nor http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm, nor http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm. Please visit WP:V and WP:RS. This odious sentence in your version cites Encarta; problem is, it's not in Encarta: "By the mid-1500s the majority of Taíno people had died out as a result of smallpox and brutal treatment by the religioiusly-motivated Spanish self-styled "explorers" who mercilessly tried to enslave the Taíno under the guise of a Christian religious mission."
Now, you do realize I kept almost everything in your edit, right? I actually improved on it by improving the sources, which increases the chances that that info will stay. (You're welcome).
Btw, Guevara was a totalitarian. What's so fair about that ideology?
I'll go ahead and accept your offer for now. But it's something we should return to another day. SamEV (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreighn Relations

Can Someone please add a Foreign Relations section please i seen it in the other Countries in Latin America so i think the Dominican Republic needs one thank you to who ever does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gman555 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] These are the decendents of the Carib Indians

So for all of those people who think that Dominicans are decendents of indians; and that indians weren't killed off. How similiar do they look? http://thorup.com/cuna.html UnclePaco (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dominican Immigration

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ET1qY8Tch_kJ:www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects/lm/history.html+dominican+day+parade+violence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us UnclePaco (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a tourism section

can someone please add a tourism section because allot of Latin American countries have a Tourism section so i think we need one please and thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing ever got done on a wiki by asking someone else to do it. Put a little work into starting one with some good sources, and other folks will pick up the slack and flesh it out.--RosicrucianTalk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Geography section

I have redone the Geography section trying to eliminate duplicate informations and the subtitles (they are not needed). If more information is needed, it could be added in the article Geography of the Dominican Republic. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I liked your changes. SamEV (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the area of the country, in this article the figure is 48,921 and it says that its rank is 130 but when you go to the page List of countries and outlying territories by total area the area is 48,671. I have never seen the figure 48,921 and that is why I am asking for a cite. It seems that it something of BigGabriel555 because it has appeared (and considered as vandalism not by me) in other articles. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree on something. BigGrabriel555 has put a cite to support his figure; it is a commercial website. Could it be more accurate than the CIA - World Factsheet, the Dominican Statistics Office, and other organizations with a different figure? If you accept that the figure given en www.hispaniola.net is the correct one, then I will acept that and Wikipedia will be giving a false information. --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to give some reported figures to see if we can reach a consensus:

  1. 48,195 - SIGPASS (a GIS German program with the Dominican Republic)
  2. 48,442 - ONE-Statistics Portal of the Dominican Republic
  3. 48,671 - Encyclopedia Britannica Online
  4. 48,730 - Infoplease
  5. 48,730 - CIA: The World Factbook
  6. 48,921 - Hispaniola.com (figure use by BigGabriel555)

--Pepemar2 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would treat the CIA world factbook as a more reliable source. By far.--RosicrucianTalk 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily the more "exact" value, but I have been using the CIA world factbook in most cases. --Pepemar2 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked many Wikipedias and most of them states that the area is 48,730 which is normal because they are using the World Factbook data. So I think that we could use that value, too. --Pepemar2 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paco, if you need time to read, why do you need to revert to do it?

Why don't you just take your time reading it? SamEV (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be objecting to it all being done in one edit. I for one have no problem with economy of edits (as I've often gotten buried under a mountain of "minor" Gabe edits on this very article) as long as consensus supports the changes. In this case, I agree that there is no net loss of material, just a trimming of redundancy.--RosicrucianTalk 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It's a good edit. SamEV (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tainos still Alive in DR?

acording to wikipedia they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas and not only in Dominican Republic but in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti and Jamaica...If true than it should be added to the article as well as some info from this site: http://www.kacike.org/GuitarEnglish.html & this discussion should be taken in thought/note: http://www.dr1.com/forums/archive/t-25211.html --Soulja nyn3 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this article belong to BigGabriell555?

It is impossible to edit this article because BigGabriel555 thinks that it belongs to him; there is not way of talking with him or to reach a consensus. He has been asked to answer some accusations in a RfC and he does not answer. I know that he doesn't read the discussions but, just in case, answer the RfC before keeping working in this page. --Pepemar2 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just restored your edit. But I also put in Gabriel's area figure. SamEV (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i do not believe this page belongs to me

i dont think it belongs to me but its better to leave the geography like that because it goes into more detail —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are any details at all missing from your preferred version, then put those specific details back in. But note that the current version is copyedited by Pepemar and me. In reverting, you're going against both his and my work. You need to get down to details and be specific. Your wholesale reversions are not warranted and are getting really tired. SamEV (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Gabriel I'm not sure if you are aware but you have already broken the 3RR, I should be issuing a block for that, you must stop acting so pocessive, if you see that your edits are being controversial and include the work of several users at least try to discuss it on the talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OMG. (I should either: check my Watchlist more, or clear my browser cache more often; because I did miss this message.) Thanks for the warning! Nice to know someone's helping keep us all honest. SamEV (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National symbols

I want to explain why I have deleted what was recently written on national symbols because it is the second time that I do so. A national symbol is something that has been proclaimed by a law or decree to represent the country (the Constitution does that for the flag and coat of arms). In the Dominican Republic, the national flower (mahogany) was proclaimed by the Decree 2944 of August 21, 1957, and the national bird (palm chat) was proclaimed by the Decree 31 of January 14, 1987. There is nothing in relation to a national dance (and it would be very strange to have a national dance) and there is not a national stone. The amber is fossilized resin, not a stone, so it cannot be the national stone (national gem?). I erase also the part on Larimar because it repeated what was written in its own article (Larimar), including the same errors. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "It never goes into detail."

What details are missing? Work with us here, Gabriel. You've already been reported for violating the 3RR yesterday, and you're still reverting. Why?--RosicrucianTalk 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BigGabriel555, I too ask you to please (pretty please), tell us what on earth it is you want in that section. But we need to know more than what you've said so far. What are those details? SamEV (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can this be?

B, I completely oppose your decision. There's no need to be Solomonic here, as there's a clear right and wrong. Please take a look at BigGabriel555's talkpage. It's riddled with warnings of all species. He's promised humbly to mend his ways, recognizing, in one of his messages after a block, that he's not the only editor and should talk and compromise. Only he gets right back at it, as if nothing had happened. He's probably beyond salvage. SamEV (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SamEV; it has been a very drastic measure. I know that BigGabriel555 has been a big problem and everybody has wasted time trying to undo BigGabriel55 (an impossible mission, it seems!) and that he didn't answer the different requests, this article has a lot to clean and modify. Let's hope that we will not have the same problem later. --Pepemar2 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would say he's just an inexperienced editor and needs a hand to learn the ins and outs of this. However he's not very responsive to criticism and just doesn't discuss things. I think (and I don't mean this as a dig) that English is probably not his first language either, so he may be reluctant to engage in discussion out of feeling a bit awkward.
That said, these problems add up to more or less a dealbreaker. It's very difficult to work with him, and working around him is becoming increasingly frustrating. As a result, I've tried to file a Request For Comment to pursue a more formal dispute resolution, but he still hasn't responded to that either.--RosicrucianTalk 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} who ever reads this message can you please undo the edit of SamEV to the geography of the Dominican Republic because the older edit goes into more detail about the geography than SamEV's edit so please if you can can you undo please and thank you from BigGabriel555

Are you serious? that edit is the reason behind the edit war and the page's protection, no way Jose, not until a consensus is reached. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the version that gets protected is always the wrong version.--RosicrucianTalk 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Caribbean, one question: when the protection is lifted, without BigGabriel555's having engaged us in any discussion, as is very likely to happen, what then? Does he get to resume editing anyway? SamEV (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't responded to the RFC and doesn't show any intention to do it, so if he continues edit warring without discussion the next step is a thread at WP:AN/I concerning persistent ownership disruption. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. SamEV (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the interests of resolving the dispute - The Geography Section

BigGabriel555- The reason the Geography section doesn't have to go into exhaustive detail is because the Geography of the Dominican Republic article was split off. Thus, the section in the country article is an overview, and the "Main Article" link at the top of it is for people who want more detail. This helps keep the Dominican Republic article a manageable size and improves readability.--RosicrucianTalk 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I apologiza

i want to apologize for every thing i have done i thought i was helping the page but i was actually hurting it from now own i want cooperate with all the people of wikipedia i am sorry lets make this page great


from BigGabriel555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Appologies are all well and good, but do you see the above attempts to resolve this dispute? Could you respond to them and to the RfC against you so we can move on?--RosicrucianTalk 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what is it you're saying, BigGabriel555: that you won't revert that edit again? SamEV (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

yes thats what i am saying we shouldn't be fighting we all just want make this page great so im sorry BigGabriel555 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. You should also reply to the RFC. SamEV (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


um one question SAmEV how do you reply lol

BigGabriel555 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a section of it marked for you to post your version of events.--RosicrucianTalk 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What Rosicrucian said. SamEV (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

alright i did it i hope we can make this page greatBigGabriel555 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dominican Cuisine

I have a very big issue with the below sentence under the cusine section:

" Breakfast usually consists of eggs and mangú (a boiled cassava or some other root vegetable). "

Mangu is in escence boiled plantains that are smashed into a consistency identical to mashed potatoes. Cassava (called Yuca or Yuca Root) is one of the main breakfast items, however it has nothing to do with mangu. Please edit accordingly since the page is locked for edits Kcuello (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fixed now. SamEV (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can someone help

i have bin trying to find a good site about tourism in the D.R. but i coudn't can someone help find a site so we can fill the tourism section of the D.R.BigGabriel555 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols, cultural institutions and monuments

Should we keep the info on the museums? I only added that in order to balance the paragraph about the Lighthouse. SamEV (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More, then less

All right. I said the article size should be reduced. So why did I add more content? There's a method to the madness. I think it helps to have all the key information in the article before taking out the scalpel. That way we'll have a better idea of where and what to cut. SamEV (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

The article says DR is a lower-middle income country, but according to the IMF it's really an upper middle income country.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:National Palace of the D.R..jpg

Image:National Palace of the D.R..jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trujillo Era

The section titled US Intervention does not segue into the Trujillo Era section. There is a huge disconnect between the end of the former and the beginning of the latter; no explanation is given of how Trujillo came to power or through which means. ***philosopher2king 4/13/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balaguer Era

I didn't want to flag this article but the Balaguer section needed to be a bit more balanced. I don't think there is a Dominican alive without strong political sympathies, and Balaguer leaves no one apathetic. However, he did more than just "cut back on civil liberties and grow a disparity between rich and poor"; he built an incredible infrastructure and provided relatively sound social services. I edited for balance. philosopher2king 4/13/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)