Talk:Dominican Republic/Archive 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Archived Again

Moved more inactive discussion from June to the talk archives.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

columbus in DR

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

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)[reply]

Resorts in DR

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

Photo copyright?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

new pics for santo domingo dominican republic its columbus park

300px|right|thumb|Parque Colón

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Another Resource

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

149.68.105.27 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

149.68.105.27 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

and

File: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

thanks for telling!EdwinCasadoBaez 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the Demographics section, people should make note that the 73% mixed race population can be either biracial or triracial. Not exclusively triracial like some have put forth to be. The mixed race section of the population can be white and Taino Indian alone, but not black. Others can be white and black, but not Taino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer08488 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

chinese immigration to DR

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

doneUnclePaco 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Haitian Stateless article of all redundancy and to merge the few remains into the Immigration article.

Llorllale (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wth both of you. Rafelito (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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):

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you look above, we're already discussing some of the issues with the Haitian Stateless section.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, we're discussing that above. Please add your comments to the ongoing discussion in that talkpage section.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed UnclePaco (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

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

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.
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.
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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section has been merged. so why are you reverting it ? UnclePaco (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Roscicrucian once again. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It has already been shortened and made a part of the racial issues section, prior to you reinserting it.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with both of you. Rafelito (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with a few points. some points i agree with. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

put back 70. it was prob removed in an edit war. UnclePaco (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Health Statistics

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good WEbsite

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can article be neutral when we got things like this...the title should be neutral. AvFnx (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 06:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

David Ortiz photo

Why does this photo keep getting placed in the "Population" section, rather than in the "Sports" section?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

I would treat the CIA world factbook as a more reliable source. By far.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's a good edit. SamEV (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It would be better to go to scholarly sources and see if there is support for that. Wikipedia is not a source - see if those statements were sourced to a reliable third party.--Parkwells (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, tainos are not alive on neither of those caribbean islands, as a matter of fact I think they're extinct. - Comment added by an anonymous dominican resident, who happens to be an historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.37.91 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I think they're extinct"? Do you have reliable sources for that opinon? - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ([[User talkuraguay people are fat |talk]] • contribs) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, the version that gets protected is always the wrong version.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. SamEV (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is it you're saying, BigGabriel555: that you won't revert that edit again? SamEV (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

um one question SAmEV how do you reply lol

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

There's a section of it marked for you to post your version of events.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Economy

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

if you are to provide sources then there is no problem on changing it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. It's fixed now. It's just one of those things I kept putting off and off... SamEV (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes that is totally true, Balaguer had it's two sides, and one of those is almost never stated. He did construct a better national infrastructure but is often forgotten.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Taino

Editors are sometimes picking out numbers from articles whose conclusions argue otherwise. I deleted one number (and cite) that was covered by the review in the following article from Archaeology, in which the author gave an overview of research through the years, but also the reasons for why people had come to a consensus on lower numbers.--Parkwells (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

Could i have a list of people that may be interested on joining the Dominican Republic Wikiproject, Everybody is welcomed, please join!EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

I think that the History section is to fragmented into sub-sections. Looking at other articles like for example United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico and others have a more generalized history section. I think that we should make a more detailed separate article about the history of the Dominican Republic but make a shorter one here because having so many sub-sections could become even confusing, besides, Sections like the Tainos, and French Rule are bearly a paragraph long while others like U.S intervention are to long for the article.

Can we reach concensus on what should be done here? EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Juan-marichal.jpg

The image Image:Juan-marichal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Rafael Leonidas Trujillo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Request

Can we request a split of the Sport Section? I may add some content, not just about baseball, but other sport we practice here in the Dominican Republic. My request is creation of Sport in the Dominican Republic and expand the content.Oscar987 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs)

Hi, Oscar. Yes, go right ahead and start that article. But I suggest you use "Sports" in the title, not the singular. Both are already linked, but the plural is much more ("Sports" vs "Sport"), because it's used in Template:Sports in North America. Thanks, and good luck. SamEV (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I still working in the article. I am trying to do some research. It will be online soon. Osplace (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Province

The province Matias Ramon Mella do NOT exist. Even with congressional aproval, the president returned the project. And Please, a blog is NOT a source. All maps and geography linked to this "New" Province have to be fixed. I will deleted the section, please help to improve the quality of the information given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section had been added and removed a few times, so when I saw your deletion earlier I finally decided I'd check out the facts. You're right, there is no such province and there may not be. So I restored the earlier map[39]. I advice whoever kept adding that section to stop. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial flags

I eliminated the provincial flags in the list of provinces because they take a lot of time to load. And I have serious doubts on being the true flags; all of them have been created by the same user mainly for the articles on Miss Universe. But that same user created an article on the "Old Province of Colón", something completely absurd, and says that there are more of 10,000 people living in Catalina Island and the same in Beata Island (and the population is divided in Urban and Rural!).--Pepemar2 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some prankster has changed some words!!!

Hopefully, the problem will be fixed by the time anyone reads this. Someone has randomly typed the words "Retard" and "Retarded" throughout the article. Just do ctrl+F. Also, the prankster typed the name "Micheal Jackson[sic]" in an area that was talking about 19th century history! Wikipedia is an excellent website and I was flabbergasted to see this! How do I report this? Is this all I need to do?NateMcGreg (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)NateMcGreg[reply]

Thank you, Nate. I replied on your talk page, as you may know by the time you read this. :) SamEV (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I restored the numbered map because the labelled one added two hours ago (Template:Dominican_Republic_Labelled_Map) has too many unnecessarily shortened names. For example: "San José de Ocoa" is composed of short words. There's no need to abbreviate to "SJO". Again, "Monseñor" (Nouel) will also fit within the province's borders. Etc. A slightly different problem is the positioning. The name of Independencia province will fit inside the borders if it is merely moved further down from its currrent position on the labelled map. SamEV (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see any reason to change the map in this article; it takes a long time to upload if your cache is clean. Maybe in another article. I will not do anything about it; I am tired. --Jmarcano (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map using the globe is not a good idea in my opinion. The Dominican Republic takes up only a portion of an island, and this map is zoomed out so much that you cannot really see this. It looks as if the entire island is the country. Debollweevil (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the map with [[40]], as it actually shows the split island. Debollweevil (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D R Economy: two pages about the same subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic contains a section about D R Economy; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Dominican_Republic is devoted only to the the description of the Dominican economy. Both pages are subject to improvement. Shouldn’t they be merged first?Jabato60 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jabato.

The following quotations explain this practice. Please visit the source, Wikipedia:Summary style, for more.

"Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place"
"Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article."

Thanks for your comment. But as you can see, there's no actual problem.

If you could help improve either or both the section and the Economy article, that would be great, though. SamEV (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It is proposed that the newly created article US attempted Annexation of the Dominican Republic be merged into the History section of the present page. Please discuss below this line. --Zlerman (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion: I agree. Another possibility is to merge it into the History of the Dominican Republic article. But there is not reason to have an article so short and so specific. --Jmarcano (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense sentence

The sentence " Tainos called out for American G.I. Joes occupying that region or specifically siempre atoll during this time lapse." appears to have been added on 14:17, 25 September 2009 [[41]]. Can anyone decipher the intended meaning? If not, it should be struck out. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been removed by an unlogged user. Thank you. if the sentence does have an intended meaning, hopefully someone can restore it. It appears to perhaps come from the Spanish version of the article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

The Constitution states that the lower ribbon in the coat of arms has its tips upward. The coat in the article is from the 60's Constitution. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.241.98 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a better map!

This is very very bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.143.16 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's zoomed out ridiculously far. You should be able to actually see that the island contains two countries. Debollweevil (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the map to a more appropriate one. Debollweevil (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Demographics

No credible source says that the Dominican Republic is 70.1% Black, 28.6% Mulatto, 1.3% White, they all say that the country is 73% mixed race, 16% white and 11% black. Can someone change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.250.114 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vandal reverted. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Demographics (2)

Dominican Republic has more than 11% black people someone should change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.72.160 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But please read about our policies WP:V and WP:RS. SamEV (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your edits have been already address. See also the thread above for more concerns. Persistently changing sourced information and removing references without explanation is not acceptable behavior. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Income distribution

"The country suffers from marked income inequality" - I cannot find that in the reference, please give a page number. Also saying it "gives a Gini index as 49.9, which is high" does not justify the use of the word "maldistribution". From the Wikipedia article Gini index: "As a mathematical measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient does not necessarily entail any value judgement, i.e. the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a particular level of equality". In other words, the distribution might be fair but unequal. Nor does it justify the word "high". From the same Wikipedia article: "The Gini index for the entire world has been estimated by various parties to be between 56 and 66". For reference purposes, the Gini index of the US is 46.6 as of 2008. PAR (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the statement "The country suffers from marked income inequality" in the CIA factbook so on that basis I would support a quote of that statement. It still does not justify the use of the word "maldistribution".

You can't use Wikipedia as a source. And yes, the US index means that there's a lot of inequality in the US, too—that's no secret.

If you look in the infobox of this article you'll see that the Gini index is ranked "high" there. I'd always assumed that the rankings are added by one of the Wikiprojects, that at the latter they know what they're doing, and that their rankings are based on reliable sources—apparently I made the same mistake of using WP as a source. OTOH, I thought I'd seen these Gini index classifications in the UN's Human Development Report. But that's not the case; at least, they're not in the 2009 report. But OK, then. Thanks very much for your help, PAR. SamEV (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I still believe that the Wikipedians who add those rankings deserve the benefit of the doubt. SamEV (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I know, Wikipedia is not a source, but those statements from the article were sourced, so we could track it back. Anyway, the Gini index for the DR is not excessively high, in the same range as the US and China. So I was wondering how the CIA source could say "The country suffers from marked income inequality; the poorest half of the population receives less than one-fifth of GNP, while the richest 10% enjoys nearly 40% of national income." Maybe the Gini index is not working? The usual way to do those kind of calculations is to use a Pareto distribution. If you do the calculations, a Gini index of 49.9% would predict that the poorest 50 pecent would get 21 percent of the income, while the upper 10 percent would get 46 percent. So the Gini index is more or less "working" giving the top 10 pecent more than they actually get. How can this be characterized as "marked income inequality" when the rest of the world is at 55 or 60? The Gini index for the US is 46 percent, which gives the lower half getting 23 percent, the top ten percent getting 43 percent, and its about the same for China. So I would say the CIA source is not correct in characterizing the income distribution as "marked inequality". Do you know of any sources which would give a more correct characterization? Or am I missing something? PAR (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to understand the issue far too well to be asking me! I can't answer those questions. Try asking the people at Talk:Gini coefficient. Sorry. SamEV (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Dominicans

Someone should do an article of Afro dominicans, since they'v already done an article of Afro Cubans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.72.160 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why you want to add Afro? I mean when these people got their independence they called their country Dominican Republic. OK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.201 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why create that article? The 71-domain IP would just add a bunch of so-called facts without sources, as he's been doing on other articles. That we can do without. - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Groups

The Dominican Republic ethnic group make up is wrong. I think this is incorrect, 73% mixed, 16% white, and 11% black. When it comes to Dominican Republic everybody knows that the Dominican Republic has alot more than 11% black, someone should change that, because the majority of Dominicans in Dominican Republic is black or predominatly black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.72.160 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite reliable sources. It's not optional. - BilCat (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i agree with that, Dominican Republic has alot more black people than 11% for crist sake the cia world factbook is not telling the truth, anyone in the world knows that the majority of dominicans are black, who in their right mind would put 73% mixed 16% white 11% black, if you ask me i think its more like this 70% black 20% mixed and 10% white and other, you guys are ganna have to look for a site with a much more realistic ethnic make up for dominican republic OK !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.140.89 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently changing sourced data is disruptive and is vandalism. Furthermore, this is a total violation of of another Wikipedia policy, no original research because one, this looks to be personal opinion/analysis and two it's unsourced. You can't just change the data without adding a reliable source or removing sourced data just because you don't like it. If you have a problem with the data, get a reliable source or discuss here and obtain a consensus by proving to us that another reliable source refutes the CIA data. It's not our job to look for a source to support your statement, that's your responsibility if you want to convince us and change the data. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, BilCat and Elockid. You said it all. SamEV (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups (2)

I agree, but why can´t you guys aleast put 84% black and multiracial, 16% white. I mean is it really that hard you just add 11% black and 73% multiracial together, i mean practically everybody knows that would be better and would make sense definatley, and also everybody knows that the 73% is just blacks basically but with very little white in them, im dominican myself, and realized that we´er all basically blacks and mulattoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.128.44 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll never get through to him because he seems to be too young to understand the policies. SamEV (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 190.166.128.44, why don't we write that 89% of Dominicans have white ancestry? It's just a case of adding 73 and 16, after all. But you know why we don't present the info that way? Because our reliable source doesn't. (And if it did, it could still be called into question on several grounds.) In the right context, it may be OK to add up all the people who have any amount of a given ancestry; I've done so at other articles myself. For example, it could be done in a paragraph that specifically discusses a particular continent's (Africa's, Europe's, or the Native Americans') contribution to the Dominican gene pool. That doesn't happen in this article: nor will it. This article will only get smaller, I promise you. (There's a small statement about the Taíno contribution to modern Dominican ancestry, but only to negate the commonly held notion that the Taíno disappeared without trace.) Worse still, you're edit warring when clearly you don't have consensus on your side.

I'm glad you've found pride in your Africanness. Really. But this article is not your soapbox. SamEV (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: the 90% figure that you tried to add last week is already in the article, and has been for years, and cites the same source you did. But notice that it's not in the infobox—because it doesn't belong there. Nor is it a replacement for the more detailed CIA World Factbook data.

I took the time to explain all this just in case you have it in you to change. The fact is you may have earned a long block already, and that may be the only way you will understand and change. But that's not for me to decide. SamEV (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC); 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"everybody knows that the 73% is just blacks basically but with very little white in them" - That would make them bi-/multi-racial, wouldn't it? (As I understand it. theres a lot of Taino in there too.) In the USA's history of racial prejudice, "one drop of African blood" made a person black. One can still see that prejudicial attitude today in the US among both blacks and whites in the US, with Obama being most often called a "black"/"Afican American", not "bi-racial" person. That does not seem to be the case in the DR, for whatever reasons, and that is reflected in the reported figures. It's one thing to assert one's "blackness", but quite another to do it at the expense of all other enthicities a person may be descended from. But that's a personal choice, whatever the choice may be. It's not something that someone should force on people by saying "just blacks basically but with very little white in them". That's my soapbox.

However, all that should be in the article are cited figures from reliable sources. If a reliable source covers the discrepancies in various sources in a neutral way, then it can be cited in the main text. - BilCat (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, BilCat.

You know, even if most Dominicans perhaps overemphasize the Taíno contribution to Dominican ancestry, D.R. is a mostly mixed-race country, African and Spanish being the chief ancestries, IMO. But the IP wants to perpetrate the same one droppist nonsense here that was against so many mixed race Americans. Mariah Carey got in all kinds of trouble among African Americans years ago when she dared try to set herself free — the woman is mostly white! Five-eigths, at least. And indeed, even Obama, the world's most powerful person, can't bring himself to fully acknowledge his very biracial origin. It's interesting listening to him try, occassionally, but he does so timidly. He's almost forced to side with his black half, or he risks alienating much of his African American base. So, "African American"/"Black" he is. He has to, you could say. But let's not get too political here, right? :) SamEV (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC);20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up President Obama simply because he's the most current notable example. I'm not trying to get too political! (Believe me, I can!) I do understand the reasons for the way he identifies himself; while that's a bit beyond the scope here, it's not too far beyond it. Anyway, race is looked at quite differntly in the US and DR, but with the migration of many Dominicans to the US, I think the US views have had an influence. That might be the root of the IP problem here. - BilCat (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my reply to your last comments. In a very ironic twist, it's not mostly White Americans who enforce the one drop rule anymore. It's actually people from minority groups. SamEV (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is really a matter of opinion. when you look at the dominican republic you'll see that the one drop rule works in reverse. [42] 134.74.178.34 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trujillo images

Showing two images of Trujillo seems excessive. Which one should we keep? SamEV (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove File:Rafael Trujillo Photo.jpg. It's tagged for deletion and looks to be a copyright infringement (no permission indicated). Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If it turns out to be kept, then which to keep can be discussed again. SamEV (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex tourism

There seems to be some disagreement over whether this article would be better with a paragraph about sex tourism. Rather than edit-war, I'll simply ask: Do we agree that this information is important to an understanding of this subject, or no? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your interest.

Since you're an admin, I'd really like to know your answers to these two questions: Should we look the other way when a user we suspect to be a sockpuppet makes an edit we think is OK? Or should we just revert a user on the grounds of sockpuppetry if we don't like their edits? SamEV (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure they're a sockpuppet, you can request a sockpuppet investigation or checkuser. If you aren't sure, just go with their edits on their merits. That's what I'm doing here, by seeking clear consensus regarding this user's desired edits, since I'm not familiar enough with his history to be sure. If it's the same person, then he'll be blocked soon enough for causing the same problems anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for declining the ANI report against me. And thank you for your response.

I see that my questions are really one. I'm indeed very sure that this user is a sockpuppet. The administrator Elockid had also adviced an SPI, and I've assembled the request and will ask him to review it before I submit it. SamEV (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section states outright this is a "huge issue", but is it really? Otherwise, this gives undue weight in an overview article. Seems a bit POV as written, as it's supposed to be about "sex tourism", but only mentions under-age victims. Also, what proportion of the 30,000 claimed are actually children, not older teanagers? I think these questions need to be answered before the information can remain. - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is in the tourism section. what is the difference if someone is a teenager or a child if they are still underage! that is the key! DR said it is illegal and so does the US! Sex tourism isn't looked upon as being good, but the bad thing is that people are coming to molest underage victims! If you have suggestions to clean it up, i'm all for it! Thanks for at least talking to me now. Before when I tried [43] you just deleted my message. CashRules (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"what is the difference if someone is a teenager or a child if they are still underage"? The difference between statutory rape (consensual but under the legal age of consent, but not a little child) of an underage teenager and molestation/rape of a young child, which are being lumped together as if they were all young children being raped. Also, do other groups dispute the number of "children" involved? How is the number of children arrived at, and has the counting method casued controversy in the DR? Before we besmirch a country's reputation, let's make sure we have all the facts available, and present all points of view. Activists do tend to exaggerate numbers, which is easy to do when you can't actually count each victim personally!

As to the term "sex tourism", I don't know if this means only underage people when used by activists. However, to the average reader, it implies prostitution in general. Is adult prostitution illegal in the DR? If so, why the tourism aspects of adult prostitution covered here too? Do we only care if the victims are underage? And yes, it is in the tourism section, but it's almost as long as the rest of the section. Is sex tourism the only attraction in the DR? Is that the image that needs to be presented? Is that fair/neutral to the many hundreds of legal tourism activities there? My main concern is that featuring this issue as a "huge problem" paints the the country in a bad light, and that's not a neutral POV if the scope of the problem is being exaggerated. - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC); BilCat (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alright, if you look at the nation of lesotho, you will see that it has an extremely high HIV rate. somewhere around 50%. is it damaging to a nations image yes, but is it true? yes it is. it is even highlighted on the page [44]. There are a number of nations where sex tourism is major as can be seen in various wiki articles including [[45]]. To me i don't differentiate between underage, such as statistics between people of 6 to 11 and 12 to 16. They are still underage and it is illegal according to DR laws. I don't see how anyone at the age of 12 can consent to have sex with a 40 year old or even a 20 year old. The age of consent in DR is 18 [46]. So when people are having sex with underage children, and even in a wiki article sex tourism DR is listed, why wouldn't we have a section of it in the DR article? The websites were US governmental websites, which isn't slanted. The CIA is a governmental website and it is used for the population statistics of black, white and mixed race as seen above. If you go to the Thailand article sex tourism is mentioned. There is even a whole article of Prostitution in Thailand. I'm not saying that DR should have a whole article, but if it exists and is a significant industry in DR we should mention it. CashRules (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole question: Is it a really a significant industry? Is it really a "huge problem"? All I am asking is what does the DR government say? Do they dispute the report? That does matter. Do others in the DR dispute it? Pleas, the US governemt reports many things that people all over the world dispute. Is this issue one of them? - BilCat (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a significant industry in DR. How can you say it's not? It is a significant industry in Thailand, Brazil, and Dominican Republic. Other nations articles contain whole sections on it, even whole articles. do you think a whole article is better? the google test shows it is significant [47]. If you think the US government is unreliable why is it used as a major reliable source for other things in the article which other places my dispute. Even Elockid [48] is fine with the use of US government webiste. Even you in the past were ok with the US of the CIA as a source when someone changed statistics! [49] CashRules (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA gets its statistics from the governments in the countries it reports on. Usually this is census data. I doubt the DR census gets really good information on illegal activity, so this info has to be collected another way, so that's comparing apples and oranges. Anyway, if it's as hig an issue as you think it is, you'll have no trouble finding more reliable sources to add tht would warrant a separate article like the one on Thailand. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: what you said above about the POV slant of the content, I'll simply say that POV is the only way user CashRules/UnclePaco/etc. edits. He turned this article into a horror story—if you want, just spend 5 five minutes skimming the last version ([50]) before I made my first edit to it. I'm very proud of my efforts in helping the good guys wrest control of the article from him. I hope you consider not arguing the merits of the content with that person anymore until the SPI results come in. In any case, I'm very grateful for your help; many thanks. SamEV (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC); 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is this good guys? bad guys pov that you present SamEV? As I said before, I've been blocked Zero Times for edit wars, while you've been blocked twice. So you might not be the good guy that you present yourself to be! Back to BilCat, I don't see anywhere it says that the CIA gets its statistics from other nations. I'd rather at this point have a small section that talks about it. If it grows even larger a separate article might be worthwhile. There are a number of strong articles, including [51], [52], and [53] . so has any consensus been reached? you say you're ok with a separate article, but what of an inclusion in this article? CashRules (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no support for a separate article. SamEV (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to BilCat there is support for a separate article if you read above. I simply think that a small inclusion in this article would be fine. Anyway, with your talk yesterday of character assassination [54], you sure seem to do that right now with me! CashRules (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the CIA World Factbook's sources, see CIA The Fact Book FAQ, particulary the clause "...estimates and projections start with the same basic data from censuses, surveys, and registration systems". Many of the population figures on the country pages, includin gthe DR, will say "(2002 census)", for example. The Fact Book isn't the highly classified data the CIA is known for, but just basic data and information, with some analysis, about each country.

And No, I wasn't recommending or supporting a separate article on DR sex tourism, but if you do create one, you'll have to deal with other issues, and perhaps even an AFD. If you do want to do a separate article, then it can be more in-depth than what can be covered here, but it will need to address other points of view to to meet the Neutrality policies. Most people don't think the sex trade is a good thing, myself included. The question is, how big of a problem is it, and do other disagree with the assesments made by the US governemt about how huge an issue it is. - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you seem to piggyback on each others replies. are you two the same person or close friends by any chance? you ask how big of a problem is it? if you look at the portion you deleted, [55] the harvard article mentions DR as a problem area for child prostitution [56], the Organization of American States has in it's countries report listed Dominican Republic as an area of Child prostitution [57]. In addition you can see that "UNICEF notes that a total of 25,455 minors are employed as prostitutes, and that of that total, 14,508 (57%) practice prostitution in the areas in which they had gone to school." In a population of 9 million, 25,000 is a lot. it is .2% of the population as a whole. If that were the United States it would be 600,000 child prostitutes! The United States has a risk of .1% of children being child prostitutes [58], so DR is double that! Now can you see why it is a problem? CashRules (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who knew, the article already exists Prostitution in the Dominican Republic. I'll link it to the main article since if it were a bad article it would have been deleted already!CashRules (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! It it is more broad than the paragraph that is being discussed here. I don't see a problem with moving that paragraph to the prostitution article, as it can help flesh out the section on child tourism. A one-sentence-summary in the tourism section with a link to Prostitution in the Dominican Republic should be sufficieant coverege here. - BilCat (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what sub-articles are for. How about this compromise? We put a small introduction about sex tourism and we keep the in depth material in Prostitution in the Dominican Republic. That article could use expanding. I admit I'm unfamiliar with prostitution in the Dominican Republic. I have to ask you guys a question then. Is it so notable to be included in the main article? Take this for example. Not a country, but this city, Bangkok which is well known for it's sex industry. It's only a sentence that they mention prostitution. A city that's well known for prostitution only have a sentence? Is the prostitution as widespread as Bangkok? I'm asking because I'm sure some other other countries also have their prostitution problems, but I haven't really seen them mention it. For a country, Thailand is the best example I can think of, it's only two sentences and is less in depth than here. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfect to me! That is a good idea. A number of nations are well known for their prostitution/sex tourism including Thailand, Brazil, Dominican Republic and the Netherlands. Child prostitution is bigger in nations like the philipines, but DR had a large enough population that articles were written about it and there is an effort to combat it. CashRules (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Both of you seem to piggyback on each others replies. are you two the same person or close friends by any chance?"

BilCat chose to disregard that, but I won't. No, BilCat and I are not the same person, nor do I think it's accurate to say that we're close friends. Your comment is out of line, user CashRules. You'd better mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

You are now the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, and I've undone your edit. Please refrain from repeating that or making any new edits here until that's resolved. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC); 20:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is what I said a personal attack? I asked a simple question and asked if you knew each other. Both you and BilCat have never assumed good faith when it comes to me. He has apologized you haven't. You can undo the edit, but it was also suggested by Elockid that it be included in the article. So what is your disagreement? CashRules (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your motives, and however it is phrased, "are you two the same person" is not an appropriate question to ask, as it is an implied accusation of sockpuppetry, as one editor is not allowed to operate two accounts as if they were two different people. Whether or not Sam is correct on his suspicions that you are indeen a sockpuppet, you are responsible for your own actions. Now you know, so please don't do it again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus here is to move the disputed text to the Prostitution in the Dominican Republic article, and leave a short (1-2 sentence) summary in its place. I am therefore doing both. However, I'm not good at writing summaries, so feel free to reword it if necessary, staying as neutral as possible. Now I'm going to take a shower! - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, I'm in no way in favor of our letting that user edit or adding any content proposed by him, on account of the serious questions regarding his eligibility to edit any Wikipedia article or talk page. Please read the case I brought up against him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco. Again: Why are you in favor of rewarding a user of such questionable eligibility to edit?

Re: your claim of consensus, we're but a small group, and I hope it's not improper to point out, for what it's worth, that I've been the principal editor in this article for two years. I dispute that there's consensus for adding that content. SamEV (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, while I understand your point, you've not proven that Cash is a sockpuppet, or he would have been blocked by now. If CR is blocked for being a sockpuppet as the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco, then you'll have a point. And yes, you've been the principle editor on this page, and have very good work. But your approval isn't required for a consensus to exist, especially if your objections are soley based on the status of the editor, not the content of the edits. You're welcome to pursue a review of the content through means such as WP:RFC to gain outside input. However, removal of the content at this point (which you have not done as I write this) would probably be seen as disruptive by the community, and dealt with accordingly. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I have had dealings with the socks of banned users before, and I kno how frustrating that can be, especially if one is the only person who believes it. In most cases, my instincts were proven right, and I suspect that yours will be too. But until it is proven, I'm going to give good faith to the user. However, if he has abused that good faith, I'll dance on his wiki-grave once he's blocked! - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you've not proven that Cash is a sockpuppet, or he would have been blocked by now"

BilCat, I filed the SPI yesterday. The decision can hardly be instant.

I don't care if that user claims that the D.R. is the greatest country on Earth! From the get-go I suspected him of being a sockpuppet of UnclePaco's, but because he largely stayed out of my way, and also (very significantly), because I'm a great procrastinator, I did nothing about it [except for leaving him a message and posting a sockpuppet template on his user page a few times]. Until [things flared up this month], due to his trying to slink his way back here. THAT is why I oppose absolutely any change he wishes to make here: because he needs to be stopped at some point.

BilCat, I'm disappointed that, in however qualified a fashion, you suggest that I would disrupt this article, and I'm disappointed that you've chosen to go to the mat for the user CashRules/UnclePaco/Armyguy11/Mykungfu/etc, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

SamEV (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC); 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you've been claiming it for a long time, not just since yesterday. That's more than time enough. You can't just remove every edit he makes while doing nothing to prove it - that is diusruptive. My earler comments were just preemptive, but this isn't. Don't get yourself blocked/banned for opposing him the wrong way! That would be a shame. Finally, I've made it quite clear I'm that I'm not "going to the mat" for UnclePace, but suporting good faith for CashRules until it's proven otherwise. If it's proven, I'll kick his wiki-butt as hard and far as I can from WP at every oppurtunity, and enjoy it! :0) - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam, you've been claiming it for a long time, not just since yesterday."

Yes, BilCat, for a year; as I just said. See also my addition to my previous reply.

"Don't get yourself blocked/banned for opposing him the wrong way!"

You did it again, warning me unnecessarily as if I were a vandal.

I suppose that in some way it's easy for you to side with him, as he's seemingly doing God's work by exposing such a horrible thing as child prostitution. But I choose to look past that and look at the long term instead, by doing my part to remove a user who's banned and is bound to do more damage than good, on balance, to the articles he edits, by his unabated, continuing tendentiousness. I choose not to be impressed by the content he chose to add. I know his Wikipedian 'editing' too well.

If you actually had read the report I put together, your judgment would be different. I know you're trying to reassure me about how you'll respond to his being blocked, after the fact. But for me the fact that you opted for letting him edit is the important thing.

SamEV (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC); 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you already have reverted CR's edits on several occasions, well past 3RR if I recall correctly, but you've not stated you wouldn't do that again until he is blocked. What am I supposed to think you'll do the next time CR edits?? Hence the firmer warning. Before making my previous set of comments, I did read your report, except for the diffs, as I didn't have the time to spend on that. I intended to do that later.

As to CR's and other editors blowing the issues out of proportion, I asked as many questions as I could think of to clarify the issue. However, the prostitution article answered the ones CR didn't (which I did notice, btw!) I tried to be as neutral as I could in writing the part I added to this article, but without direct evidence that some disagree with the assertions being made here, and why, that's all I could do. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam, you already have reverted CR's edits on several occasions, well past 3RR if I recall correctly"

I'm sorry, BilCat, but you recall incorrectly. I have indeed reverted him many times, but not past 3RR. (And the two times I did run afoul of 3RR, 3 years ago, did not involve him.) There would thus be no need for me to say I wouldn't do again what I haven't done. So you've based your decision to give him the benefit of the doubt (which you continue to do, as you haven't undone your edit) not only against the evidence that he's an ineligible editor, but on a false assumption about my actions. SamEV (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC); 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I stand corrected on 3RR - you reverted Cash rules 7 times between June 6 amd 18; no 3 were in a 24 hour period. Hoever, such reverts may still be subject to being called edit warring, if your sock suspicions prove unfounded. Also, you have evidence agaisnt him, but it's not been proven - I'm not going to risk my good standing as an editor on the opinion of one editor I've not worked with extensiveley before. Bans are made by the community, and enforced by the community; once it's been proven that UnclePaco is using CR as a sock, CR will be blocked, and if UP starts using another name, he'll be easy for me to spot now.

There is one particular user who was banned for trying to "correct" the historical record on a US submarine builder because he beleives his relative actually did the work the company credits other people with doing. He was quite easy to identify, and once I discovered the editor was banned, I revert on sight. But I also report him to the admin who did filed the case agaist the user, every time. This makes sure that someone else knows what I'm doing, and why. Then he can run interference for me if antoehr admin questions why I reverted the sock. And that's what'll do here, if it's proven to the community that UnclePaco is using CashRules as a sock. And that's my last comment on this issue, as there's not too much more I can say here. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not going to risk my good standing as an editor on the opinion of one editor I've not worked with extensiveley before."

And have you worked with him extensively? Secondly, there's the option to not advocate, let alone actually carry out, the edit he wants to do. You've done both. And you've done so against the opinion of an editor that you have worked with more than with him, one whose good faith you claim not to doubt, and one who you claim has done "very good" work at this very article over an extended period of time. You can't risk your good standing on such an editor? Yet you can risk it on user CashRules? And have gone further, by efforting yourself to paint me as the bad guy here. All that on behalf of user CashRules (no matter how you rationalize it, it does redound to his benefit), to whom an administrator said this, only three days ago ([59]: "The only dispute I see is at Dominican Republic, where you are exactly as guilty of edit-warring as SamEV is, so if I block him, I will have to also block you. In addition, your proposed edits seem to be tainted by a specific point of view, with a goal of skewing that article toward a more negative tone, and I don't see consensus on the article talk page for your desired edits. I don't know whether or not SamEV is correct that you are the same person as blocked editor UnclePaco, but I can see that your accusations are unfair, your evidence is outdated, and your motivations are murky. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

FisherQueen has also commented on this page, and I believe that her opinion at ANI should count in your computation of "consensus". SamEV (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen is welcome to comment on the specific isssue of moving the disputed addition to the other page and adding a short summary here, which I believe have addressed the specific concerns the quote mentioned. As of now, her opinions have not been on the new adition, so they have not been taken into account. In fact, any new opinion is welcome, provided its not from a proven sock, of course! - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rest of what I wrote in my last comments? SamEV (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said already: "And that's my last comment on this issue, as there's not too much more I can say here." The sock report will deal with CashRules identity, so until then, I'm done discussing it here. You had your chance to dispute the content, but chose to focus on the editor instead of the content, and the consensus was made without your direct input. You can dispute the consensus, and the way it ws made, but don't make it personal, either about CR or me. I'd advise you to focus on the merits of content, or its lack thereof, and build a consensus to support your view. But that's your decision to make. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly legitimate to focus on the editor, AFAIK.

Let's be clear: you made it very personal about me (even accused me of a 3RR vio I did not commit; thank you for retracting it), and I gave you my responses.

You really did avoid answering my points, and especially the tough statements by FisherQueen about user CashRules' motivations. But that's fine. Let's leave it there. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't avoid answering your points. I simply stopped answering them, as it wans't accomplishing anthing constructive, per WP:NAM. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If User:CashRules has broken the rules about sockpuppetry, and there is reasonable evidence of that, then he will be blocked, and I doubt that can be determined here. Whoever he is, the question of whether this information belongs in the article or not can be settled independently of the question for now, surely? As you can see, the accusations here only distract from the question at hand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FisherQueen.

So you don't recognize the right of editors who are in good standing to make the decision that a particular editor looks like a sock and reverting him/her on sight? As you can see, even Bill says he does just that ("once I discovered the editor was banned, I revert on sight."). SamEV (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion which will be less distracting elsewhere; it would be nice, separate from that, if we can figure out whether the Dominican Republic's problem with sex tourism should be mentioned in the article. That doesn't seem to be something that User:CashRules made up; I did a little googling and found corroborating sources that it is a significant issue. I don't know how or if it should be discussed in the article, but on the article talk page, that's the issue that is most important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why is my question so difficult? I'm asking simply: should a suspected blocked or banned editor's edits, especially on pages the suspect has abused, and on controversial matters, be reverted without regard to the merits of the content? I'd just like a clear answer to that, please.

"I don't know how or if it should be discussed in the article"

This means you're not necessarily advocating that edit, and should not be counted as being part of the "consensus" that Bill says exists? SamEV (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Sam, your taking things out of context again. I didn't just "revert on sight", but I follwed it up with an admin who was involved to be sure the right thing was being done. It did help that the user was a blatant single issue editor, and his comments were easy to spot. At one point, he came to me for advice on how to get his viewpoint across, and I advised that he stick to adding material from reliable sources, which he was not doing. Firther, I advised that he step back from the issue for some time, and edit other articles that interested him,a nd get a good feel for what neutral editing is about, but alas, he did not. After that, the ban was enforced. (It may have expired and been reinstated as a permanment ban, but I'm fuzzy on the details atthe moment, and don't feel like checking it out.)

Banned users are prevented from editing, but as for suspected users, one better have the proof to back it up, which in my case I did. This case is different, because you have waited 14 months to file a sock report. In the meantime, Cash has built up an edit record that, while definitely contentious and tenditious at times, is nonetheless extensive. Once I understood the timeframe involved here, I stepped back from my enforcement of your suspected block, as I had though it had actually been proven.

In Cash's defense, when I removed the first draft on sec tourism, he came back with a much better draft, whith more sources. That to me is commendable, and showed he was willing to address some points we've raised.

Finally, at no point did I say that someone "not necessarily advocating that edit, and should not be counted as being part of the "consensus" that Bill says exists". What I said in regard to Queen's earlier edits was that they had been made before the suggestion to add the material, and that she had not addressed it. Your objection to the material was solely on the grounds of the sock issue, but had that been the consensus here, it would have been left out. Consensus is not a mere majority, but one user's opposition on grounds not related to content doesn't overturn it, in my opinion. - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, Sam, your taking things out of context again." "Again"? Which are the other instances? Nevertheless, I'm sorry I didn't quote you more fully.

Re: FisherQueen, I was merely asking her to make her position clear to you, so that you do not mistakenly assume that she supports the edit, if she didn't. I still don't know where she stands in regards to your edit itself. SamEV (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for recognizing that it's not just a matter or numbers. But as for one user's opposition, on whatever reasonable basis, surely you agree that in a group of 3, a 2 to 1 split hardly constitutes consensus. I'm still hopeful that the two admins will express their clear support or opposition to the edit you made, so that I can know once and for all whether consensus is against me. SamEV (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid is OK with your edit. I'm dropping my opposition. Peace. SamEV (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Once this settles down, Sam, I hope we can edit amicably. I used to edit this article in 2007, but left becasue of all the garbage going on. So I really do understand and appreciate the work you've done here. Peace. - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SamEV (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New edit in Demographics section

I edited the "Ethnicity" sub-section to incorporate sourced material about the presence of native Taínos genes in the Dominican population. Dr. Juan Carlos Martínez Cruzado, head of the Biology Department at UPR Mayagüez published the results of his research on this matter yesterday. The study is entitled "Orígenes continentales de las primeras poblaciones de las islas del Caribe y los movimientos migratorios que los formaron. ADNmt en República Dominicana" ("Continental origins of the first populations of the Caribbean islands and the migratory movements which formed them. DNA in Dominican Republic").

The online edition of Dominican Newspaper has a more detailed account here in Spanish. According to Listin's report, a previous study carried out in 1948 by Dominican Researcher José de Jesús Alvarez Perelló found that at least 17% of Dominicans carries indigenous genes.

I'll try to see if I can get a link to Dr. Martínez Cruzado report. Should make an interesting read. Ulises (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)ujorge[reply]

And thank you, Ulises. That's a nice edit, and I hope you stick around and help more often! SamEV (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

The reason I removed a portion of the baseball in the article was because there is more to DR than just baseball. The whole sports scene previously was essentially baseball and a few sentences on other sports. Japan itself has a stronger baseball league, but does not put its sporting emphasis on baseball. One of the statements isn't NPOV. I also believe that professional wrestling should be included in the article since it is (1) of historic value and (2) to some considered to be a sport. At the very least it should be sports-entertainment. Arcadio Brito and Rafael Sanchez. CashRules (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opinions on Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour is appreciated. CashRules (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was reverted by use SamEv, I am not going to get into a revert war. [60] The fact remains though that Gabriel Mercedes is a silver medalist in Tae Kwon Do, and not Judo. Will someone please look at this. If I revert SamEV he will most likely start an edit war and warn me like has previously happened. CashRules (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic Question

The ethnicity of the Dominican Republic is 73% multiracial, 16% white, and 11% black am i correct, anyways i noticed that this is from the CIA World FactBook, but why is it that in this website [61] it says that 80% of Dominicans are black and that 20% are white or of mixed-race(multiracial) and there's another website that says the same thing (80%) black and (20%) white/mixed but i can't find the website i saw it the other day but anyways, that's my question? 190.80.225.146 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do they got to that 80% black, 20% multiracial number? It doesn’t say. A census? I spend a good 30 minutes on the Dominican Census Office Website and downloaded the results of the latest census and could not find any mention of the country racial makeup. I’m from the D.R. and I know for a fact that there’s a significant part of the population that is not mixed race or black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And im from the DR too and i know for a fact that the majority of the population is black or of mixed-race, and don't tell me that iv only been to a certain place in DR, cause i went around the whole island and all i saw was nothing but blacks and mulattoes, all you have to do is read the whole website page they put there, it tells the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.129.141 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is for Wikipedia or any other reference site your personal observations are not valid. Somebody else has to validate your observation, that’s the way it works. You’re basically claiming that you went around the whole country and all you saw was blacks and mixed race people? Not a single white, Chinese, Arab, Japanese?

Now you want me to read the whole website and I did, but the first thing that caught my attention is the paragraph that you want to use as proof that there are only blacks and mixed race people in the Dominican Republic: “The country has a population of 8,200,000, 80 per cent of whom are Black, and 20 per cent are mixed race.”

First thing first, the Website is dated February 29, 2008. According to the Dominican Republic National Statistics Office [62] (among their responsibilities is to carry out the census… you know… counting people), the population in 2008 was 9,625,207 persons. So the website you want to use as a valid source is missing 1,425,207 persons… which are probably the whites, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, etc. that you failed to see in your extensive travels around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]