Talk:People of the Dominican Republic

Please
Solicitate to translate the article to Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigoleal (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to People of the Dominican Republic. Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dominican people (Dominican Republic) → Dominicans (Dominican Republic) – The demonym describing a person or thing from the Dominican Republic is Dominican and the plural form is used to describe its natives (nothing meant by word choice, its just less nationalistic than nationals.

Note: following other moves I should have put this through manually but had originally thought to RM move to Dominicans which currently acts as a redirect to the Dominican Order.

Also propose that Dominicans turned into a (dare I use the terminology in Wikipedia) navigation page which I guess is the biggest issue in the RM.

This request follows the recent request for: – And many similar articles ..." Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 19:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Azerbaijani people → Azerbaijanis
 * Bahamian people → Bahamians
 * Bangladeshi people → Bangladeshis
 * Barbadian people → Barbadians
 * Bolivian people → Bolivians
 * Chilean people → Chileans
 * Colombian people → Colombians


 * Comment Dominicans should redirect to the disambiguation page Dominican, per uses for Dominican Order and Dominica and Dominican Republic -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed I support this redirect. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, and this article should be moved to Dominicans as there are over 100 times as many Dominicans from the DR as from Dominica. Weak support another move to Dominican people. "Oh my gosh but there are people from Dominica, and what about if someone wants that article??" Well, there's this awesome thing called a hatnote... Red Slash 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This needs further discussion concerning many articles, see for example Talk:List of people from Dominica. Is there a relevant naming convention for the terms Dominican and Dominicans? Maybe not quite that detailed, but if not then we may need to develop one. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. I wouldn't oppose a move to Dominicans.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the proposed title can be used to indicate members of the Dominican Order in the Dominican Republic, so is a bad name to use -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

*Propose move to People of the Dominican Republic. The parenthetical disambiguation is rubbish, and we all know it. This proposed title stands in line with WP:NATURAL, and removes all ambiguity. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the move as proposed but could the proposed title mean members of the Dominican Order in the state formerly known as Santo Domingo? Oppose a move to Dominicans which should redirect to the disambiguation page Dominican.  —  AjaxSmack   21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the alternate proposal of "People of the Dominican Republic" as the choice of clarity -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this is a new way of doing things GregKaye 21:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * support: The only reason it should have "people" on the end is when the demonym can be used for the spoken language. Example: "French people," "English people," etc. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, preferring Dominicans still per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UCN. But I do recognize that this would still be an improvement from the dismal current situation. Red Slash 05:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to People of the Dominican Republic. I note that in a different but comparable situation, Congolese and Congolese people are both disambiguation pages. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM2

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

People of the Dominican Republic → Dominicans – Okay, so there are two issues that we're going to tackle at once in the discussion. First off, the issue with WP:PLURALizing titles. This is now common practice for peoples. We always prefer Bangladeshis to Bangladeshi people for titles.

But second is the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

There are three different meanings for "Dominicans" at the Dominican page, which is a disambiguation page where Dominicans currently redirects. (There are thirteen pages listed, but ten of them are titles like Culture of the Dominican Republic which you would never search for by using the term Dominicans. See WP:PLURALPT.) One is the people of the Dominican Order of the Catholic Church. One is the people of Dominica. One is the people of the Dominican Republic.

There are 6,058 Dominican friars.

There are 72,301 people on the island of Dominica.

But there are more than 9.5 million people who claim the Dominican Republic as their place of ancestry.

I know that "Dominicans" can mean more than one thing. But Java means more than one thing, too, and we gave that island primary topic. Manchester means more than one thing, too, but we give the British city primary topic. We let Boston take you to an American city instead of an English one or a disambiguation page because the Boston in New England is far, far more noteworthy. I would say that a roughly 9,760,000-strong people group has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than two groups totaling 78,000 people. This is a clear primary topic by the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thank you for your time. Red Slash 00:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsure – I want to support this proposal, for various reasons expressed above, but I'm still slightly concerned about tossing a country aside, however small, and pretending that it does not have possession of its own demonym or people. The difference between the two Bostons is readily apparent, and is simply a matter of navigation. However, in this case, we are dealing with ethnic/national affiliation, which is a touchy subject that requires more carefulness. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, of course it has its own demonym - but the problem is that there are over a hundred times as many Dominicans from the DR as the much smaller Dominica. What's the ratio that determines primary topic? Isn't 100:1 enough? Would there have to be 90 million people in the DR? 900 million? Please understand, it's not like Dominica and its people are unimportant. But they also aren't each 100 times as important as a Dominican from the DR. Red Slash 04:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that, when it comes to national/ethnic groups, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may not be the best policy to lean on, given the sensitive nature of such matters. In this case, I feel that WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE are more important. In WP:CONCISE, we are told that the title should be short enough to identify the subject, but only that short. "Dominicans" does not necessarily identify the subject in an unambiguous or WP:PRECISE way, and therefore it isn't really a useful title, whether for Dominica people or Santo Domingo people or even for the religious order. The present title is not the best title, but it is the only one that eliminates these problems out of hand. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed. ★ Nacho ★    (Talk page) ★ 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose there's the Dominican Republic, Dominica and the Dominican Order. Population statistics per country do not show primary topicness. Multiple countries can use this term, and in historic context, the Dominican Order is older. Further, the Dominican Order has been involved in various developments of Western Civilization, so is not simply the current count of members of the order, since this is not WikiNews. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dominica / Dominican Republic / Dominican Order
 * , would you please explain to me how 9.7 million people don't have primary topic over 78,000. Red Slash 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose denoting any of the three as primary topics, per ip67. Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Elizium23, would you please explain to me how 9.7 million people don't have primary topic over 78,000. Red Slash 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the primary topic for "Dominicans", page view statistics show that Dominican Order is a more popular topic and Dominicans was a redirect to that article until recently. Peter James (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And what would pageviews tell you for Apple? Enduring educational value is strongly in favor of the large people group. If the Dominican Republic were a majority-white country in Europe, we wouldn't even have this discussion and you'd be mocked for suggesting that the group of 9 million isn't the primary topic. But because they're in a Caribbean island and they're mostly mixed-race or black, their article is seen as less relevant. You would never see something of this nature for Basques, and there's over three times as many Dominicans from the DR. Red Slash</b> 01:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is tiresome and offensive for you to play the race card here. It is a clear failure of WP:AGF. Stop it. Elizium23 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also find it hypocritical of Red Slash to insist on retargeting the Dominicans redirect before this process has finished while accusing others of doing similar things out-of-process and calling that behavior "Low!" Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That redirect was in place before this discussion. And I cannot conceive of any reason why a people of over 9.7 million human beings somehow don't have primary topic over a group of 78,000. If it's not racism, what is it? Please, I'm open to suggestions. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The race argument doesn't fly in this case anyway. The People of Dominica are even more melanin endowed than those of the DR (only 0.8% are of European imperialist extraction) and the Dominican Order has members from all over the world. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, "Dominicans" should probably direct to the Domincan DAB page.  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AjaxSmack, would you please explain to me how 9.7 million people don't have primary topic over 78,000. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't base my argument on counting people. Articles are titled based on encyclopedic importance, not on population ranks.  (Otherwise, we'd need to move Troy and Carthage since Troy, New York and Carthage, Missouri have larger populations).  I'm more concerned with the relative importance of the Dominican Order than of the inhabitants of Dominica.  67.70.32.190 provides a more detailed argument above on the importance of the order that I concur with. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on People of the Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019014426/http://www.aca.ch/amabroad.pdf to http://www.aca.ch/amabroad.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091017060008/http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/dominican-republic to http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/dominican-republic
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070605034355/http://www.sdhoc.com:80/main/articles/sportsatlunch/Sportsatlunch2007/Sanchezcastillo to http://www.sdhoc.com/main/articles/sportsatlunch/Sportsatlunch2007/Sanchezcastillo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and sources
Why do you want that sourced content and sources removed? I don't see why it should be. Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in People of the Dominican Republic
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of People of the Dominican Republic's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNHCR":<ul> <li>From Afro-Dominicans: </li> <li>From France: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Population ethnicity statistics
I've reverted this edit of :, which changed the ethnicity statistics to increase the "white" population and decrease the "black" population. The numbers given by worldatlas.com are clearly taken from the 1960 Dominican Republic Census. Although this was the last official census to collect data on ethnicity, it is 60 years out of date and no longer relevant. The same numbers were quoted as recently as 2017 in the CIA World Fact Book (archive: ), but were superceded by more recent estimates. The article has been reverted to the existing 2014 estimate according to the CIA World Fact Book. I've added another citation of Encylopedia Britannica which gives these same figures. --IamNotU (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of sourced content in "Genetics and ethnicities" section
I have restored sourced content that was deleted by in these edits:, with the edit summary: "Stop discriminating against mixed race Dominicans. We are not a race and very diverse. We are not only mulatto." The same deletion was made by IP 2601:587:300:7310:1CC:C6A2:F520:FE98 from Florida:.

Nothing in the removed text or references claims that mixed-race Dominicans are only "mulatto" (an ambiguous and problematic term that could be better explained in the article). It does however suggest that, in the aggregate, African heritage is more significant among Dominicans than indigenous American heritage, despite self-identified terms such as "mestizo" or "indio" that might suggest otherwise. I do not see how this is "discrimination".

The first part that was removed is a genetic study by Francesco Montinaro et al., that was published in Nature Communications, one of the most highly respected scientific journals in the world. It has been present in this article since September 2015, when it replaced an older study that gave very similar results:. I don't see any valid reason to remove it.

The next part that was blanked regarding the definition of the term "indio" is a direct quote from the cited source, the CIA World Factbook, which is generally considered a very reliable source in Wikipedia. The citation, as well as another one confirming the survey results from another very reliable source, Encycopedia Britannica, was also deleted. There is again no apparent reason according to Wikipedia policy for this deletion.

Several other sets of statistics and material from reliable sources including the National Office of Statistics (Oficina Nacional de Estadística) of the Dominican Republic, and books by notable author Frank Moya Pons, published by the Spanish National Research Council, were deleted. Unless valid reasons can be given, I would consider the repeated removal of the material and references, and similar blanking of sourced content by SaraThen and other Florida IPs in the range 2601:587:300:7310::/64, to be disruptive to the article. --IamNotU (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed edits
, could you explain please what your objection to the edits of are? At least some parts of the edits seem to be constructive, as far as I can tell without looking into it too deeply. --IamNotU (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401
— Assignment last updated by Gabrooh (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable interpretation of source for the Genetic History of the Dominican People
In the section of Genetics and Ethnicities it is stated: "The average DNA of the Dominican founder population is estimated to be 73% European, 10% Native, and 17% African. After the Haitian and Afro-Caribbean migrations the overall percentage changed to 57% European, 8% Native and 35% African." Basing it on the study https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003925and on the timeline https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Evolution_of_the_Dominican_Republic%27s_genetic_make-up.jpg

This is a misread of the study, as if one reads the timeline in the graph represents ancestry tracts also known as segments, the shorter they are, the older the mix, this is not an admixture graph. The interpretation of it is meant to show when the majority of these admixture events happened, based on a sample of 39 Dominicans from South florida: https://storage.googleapis.com/plos-corpus-prod/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003925/1/pgen.1003925.s017.pdf?X-Goog-Algorithm=GOOG4-RSA-SHA256&X-Goog-Credential=wombat-sa%40plos-prod.iam.gserviceaccount.com%2F20231005%2Fauto%2Fstorage%2Fgoog4_request&X-Goog-Date=20231005T171944Z&X-Goog-Expires=86400&X-Goog-SignedHeaders=host&X-Goog-Signature=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

Not only is the sample size small, and not up to par for statistics, but also the graph mentioned never verbally mentions the 73%, 10% native and 17% african noted, the study does not mention this. The graph is a good guide to get a grasp of which where the earlier and which where the later mixes for these 39 south-florida Dominicans. Also this statement goes against all the census data done in the colony of Santo Domingo from the 1500s to 1810, which marks the end of racialized census data in the colony. SiprianoSantana (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication
— Assignment last updated by Halleparker (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)