Jump to content

Talk:Dominican Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.167.140.89 (talk) at 02:03, 15 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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]

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?--RosicrucianTalk 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.--RosicrucianTalk 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.--RosicrucianTalk 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.--RosicrucianTalk 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?--RosicrucianTalk 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.--RosicrucianTalk 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]

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:

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[1]. 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 [[2]], 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 [[3]]. 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]

Ethnic Groups (2)

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 !!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Republic&oldid=344131314"