![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Quoth the article:
Is there any movement on this. Was this referendum sanctioned by the govt. of France and/or Guadelupe, or was it a nonbinding expression of popular sentiment? -- Jfruh 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You should explain what COM status and DOM status means. I know what a DOM ist, but what is a COM. Is this the English term for TOM?
ISBN 91-7684-096-4 is correct for book "kungliga svenska slaveriet" from Göran Skytte, Askelin & Hägglund, Stockholm, 1986...what are the reason for this message then :
91-7684-096-4 may have books without ISBNs. Listing ISBNs makes it easier to conduct research.improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Doulcy 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So, let's see where we stand. Please voice support only.
Of course this is not a poll per se, I'd just like to see what the general opinion is around here; see above for arguments for either option. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook uses Saint Barthelemy, as well: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sq.html Just FYI. — Nightst a llion (?) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Listed under sports. Is it a joke? -- Awiseman 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am dubious about the bobsled comment under Sports and will investigate. Kapanka 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist, Godefroy, I'll wait until the ISO code is officially out; if it turns out that ISO considers "Saint Barthelemy" the English name (as is likely, compare Saint Pierre and Miquelon without the dash), however, you won't revert a move then, I trust? — Nightstallion 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The ISO document is out, see http://www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_vi-1.pdf -- the official name in English thus is Saint Barthélemy, period. — Nightstallion 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I note that this letter in English from the mayor's office refers to "Saint Barthelemy"--both omitting the hyphen [customary for compound nouns in French] and dropping the accent from the é. Considering that this letter comes in a reasonably formal context and came from a source that wouldn't have seen the act of sticking in the accented-é as an imposition (ie coming from a French-language government office), should we consider that this island should in fact be validly rendered in English as "Saint Barthelemy"? English-language content sources indigenous to the island seem to back this up, although the commonality of "St. Barths" and so on makes things kinda confusing, and there seem to be no shortage of sources that kinda mix and match the grammatical rules in a delightful franglais, which given the island's population is to be expected, I guess. Note that Saint Barthélemy is a third option, with the aigu but without the hyphen.
Bart-eh-leh-ME would be a more accurate transcription, there is almost no difference in French and English prononciation of this word, other than the gutteral R in the French: JimD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.52.52 ( talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess part of the question is whether an anglicized pronounciation of "Barthelemy" is correct or not. If it's correct to say "Barth-uh-lemy" in English but "Barth-ay-lem'ee" in French, that would suggest that differentiating the accents for its English representation (akin to how Kwuh-bec : KAY-bec :: Quebec : Québec ) would also be appropriate. If the word should be pronounced in English as in French, though, then the accent aigu should stay. Thoughts? The Tom 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)here (
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/pdf/central_america.pdf), despite the fact they expressly leave hyphens intact for Port-au-Prince and Marie-Galant, and keep the ç in Curaçao and the é in San José.I still say we should have Saint Barthelemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, based on all the evidence presented. — Nightst a llion (?) 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If diacritics are kept with São Tomé and Príncipe, then I see no logical reason to drop the diacritics with Saint-Barthélemy, especially given that Encyclopaedia Britanica and the Columbia Encyclopedia use the diacritics (references above). As for changing the name of the article single-handedly, this is a definite no no. Consensus ought to be reached first. Godefroy 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Confused on the term Collectivity What that that mean? Merc' Thanks you(dated by Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC AMMornSept.11,2009,Fri. 21stcent."X") ANDREMOI ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand that wikipedia policy is to name pages without diacritical marks. So this page should be moved to Saint Barthelemy, without accent. Any view on that? Voui ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Since names using such characters are not searchable to Wikipedia users (i.e., they cannot be typed in the search bar without using advanced technical knowledge or additional aids such as keyboard mapping software), most such titles should be transliterated into the common English representation per Wikipedia:Romanization and moved to that name. Voui ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A sentence referring to the "Saint Barths Bucket Regatta" was vandalized last October by the insertion of "Fart". Later the vandalism was fixed by deleting the entire sentence (along with a call for citation). I don't restore the sentence because I don't have a proper citation, but the Bucket Regatta is real. [6] JamesPaulWhite ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
it is worth asking what value these references on which the article now appears entirely based ?
- Lynne M. Sullivan (2003). Adventure Guide to St. Martin & St. Barts. Hunter Publishing, Inc. ISBN 9781588433480.
- Sarah Cameron (2007). Footprint Caribbean Islands. Footprint Travel Guides. ISBN 9781904777977.
- Nash, KC (2008). St Barts Travel Adventures. Hunter Publishing, Inc. ISBN 9781588437044.
looks like the article became mainly a copy/paste from these 3 sources which are basicly tourism guides with a lot of non sense
please make sure these sources are themselves sourced : it is not worth using references which are not telling where they got their information from !
are these 3 tourism guides mentioning where they took their information from ? any foot notes ? any bibliography at the end of book or whatever ?
Doulcy ( talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
as an example : "There are approximately 400 privately owned villas available for rent on the island (ref 8)"
ref 8 refers to http://www.st-barths.com/en/saint-barthelemy-guide/saint-barthelemy-history.html
but actually this information is not to be find there !
the whole article looks full of this kind of unfitted references and thus would need to be checked in that regards
Doulcy ( talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
many information not sourced in that reference, thus erased (was it spam from this website ?)
Doulcy ( talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
first references to pages 1-3 book Lynne M. Sullivan (2003). Adventure Guide to St. Martin & St. Barts. Hunter Publishing, Inc.
ISBN
9781588433480 are not fitting neither ! would need again to be checked entirely
Doulcy ( talk) 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article "Saint-Barthélemy" in the Swedish National Encyclopedia states that King Gustav III got the island as part of a "diplomatic deal" during his visit to Paris in 1784. In this Wikipedia article, the Swedish period is claimed to start the following year. In the Wikipedia Swedish slave trade article, the Swedish king is said to have bought the island in 1783. Can someone clarify this? Alarm 13:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
date 1783 was wrong and it looks that it has been corrected in the Wikipedia Swedish slave trade article Doulcy ( talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article should avoid useless publicity; as an example watch this (in Cuisine) :
St. Barts is popular with wine connoisseurs and contains La Cave de Saint-Barthélemy in Marigot which is reportedly one of the largest in Caribbean at around 6,000 square feet (560 m2).[55] The cellar stocks some 250,000 bottles including 300 varieties of French wine.[55] A notable wine store Vinissimo is located on the Rue de Bord de Mer in Gustavia and stocks around 400,000 bottles of wine.[55] Also of note is Le Gout du Vin on the Rue du Roi Oscar II in Gustavia which stocks Laurent Perrier champagnes and Bouchard Pere et Fils Burgundy wine, as well as a range of other wines including Italian, Spanish, Australian and Chilean.[55]
ref 55 (Lynne M. Sullivan's book) is mentioned 4 times, at each sentence actually ! this is not really serious work and furthermore strictly publicity (La Cave de Saint-Barthélemy - Vinissimo - Le Gout du Vin - Laurent Perrier - Bouchard Pere et Fils) with not much interest in regards to such a wikipedia project
Doulcy ( talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
the article is a real mess and would diserves serious work
rich and famous twice yet here at the beginning :
(...). The island is extremely popular with the rich and famous during the winter holiday season. The island provides peaceful ambiance with its many beaches, luxury hotels and restaurants and chic boutiques frequented by the rich and famous from North America.
lot of similar cases would need to be corrected
Doulcy ( talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I will hardly have enough time to fix this article and suggest the following: the above comments by Doulcy raise justified concerns about the validity of some references. I suggest to wait for the editors who expanded the article to address those concerns. The article does need a copyedit, and the lead might not adequately summarize the article content. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If I have removed references it was only because I went to each reference first (which took some time) but did not find what was actually stated, thus reference was not justified (please read 'References do not fit' above).
If I removed some information it was because it was useless publicity as stated above (please read 'Sources - References'), or the information was wrong, or the information was no more up to date.
Regarding overlinking some names (only one actually but for all its occurrences in the text : linking the wikipedia page for Gustavia), if it is a problem I can correct this.
I do not think I have changed for the worse any reference while changing the reference formatting ?
Repeating that I have deleted only what I have first verified as unjustified, which is actually as well a constructive work, I do suggest that you check the same references from closer; then you should revert your two reversion that I can correct the overlinking problem and also eventually the 'reference formatting' problem. Waiting for the editors who expanded some of the information I have modified to address those concerns might take a lot of time...
I am not moving anymore on this page waiting for your decision.
regards,
Doulcy ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great, I take note that 'you share many of my concerns (the article is unshaped and does need much work)' User talk:Materialscientist let's see then what the three experienced editors whom have expanded this article recently are going to do... I guess/hope they are going to check point by point the various modification I have done on the article (I tried to do actually, because reverted) after reading first this discussion, that we can move forward best, Doulcy ( talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting intervention from Rosiestep today, focusing on structuring the article (avoiding redundancies etc). Looking forward for the two others experienced editors whom have expanded this article recently, regarding the 3 other issues quoted above : Sources-References (3 tourism guides not appropriate to use as reference), References which do not fit (references need to be check, such as St. Barths Online webpage which is used abusively), and useless publicity (the article should avoid mentioning sucht references); best, Doulcy ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made some changes in the references to text taken from the Sullivan book. There have also been some disturbances in some references due to reformatting (I am trying to rectify them). However, I used mostly the reference book of Suliivan, which deals with St Barts in the initial about 30 pages and again later from 157 pages on wards till the end.
I have used book references and not travel sites operated by tour operators. Normally, when we use some sites of tour operators a spam warning is definitely given by wiki and it does not allow the reference to the saved.
The three book references we have used are not listed in the spam list of wiki. We have been using book references of Lonely Planet, Frommers and other reputed travel agencies and many others who bring out travel related documents. Hence, using the three book references, highlighted by Dulce was done in good faith and was not a deliberate effort to fill text. Hence, Dulce’s remark with using words “used abusively” is rather unwelcome. There is absolutely no deliberate effort to twist what is contained in books. Many times for many countries which are a tourist based economy like Saint Barthélemy, I have found travel books are the only source of any information. We searched and we could not find any other books dealing with this Caribbean Island. If Dulce could suggest some authentic book sources we could use them since he sounds confident about the history and the present status of the island. I agree there may be some over referencing or sometimes wrong referencing but nothing is done deliberately. Of course to err is human and to accept it and make corrections is the done thing.
This whole thing now leads to a basic policy issue which needs to be addressed by Wiki Admin. Wiki should clearly state that travel books of any kind should not be used in articles or travel books published by particular agencies are not acceptable (and if such books are used, warning signal should automatically come into effect while saving the text with that reference. Otherwise, we would be wasting time on such references to be later told that they are unreliable.
The other issue I wish to point out is that of referencing. Earlier, for books the citation tool prescribed in WP was being used. Now, Google has come out with this referencing tool {T} Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books [7] (and New York Ties also) only. We have used this tool for book referencing. As regards internal links, I linked (blue link) for the articles found in wiki, only once as the rule says so.
As regards the Sullivan book, the fist 29 pages which have been used in the text in various sections of the article are briefly explained.
Sullivan text
Page 1 (referenced at 5). St Barts and St Martin most popular islands in the Caribbean are located 20 miles apart –150 miles east of Puerto Rico at the top of an achipellago known as Little Antilles. .. covers 8 sqmile... overseas region of France St. Martin is easily reached from US and is quick inter-island hop by ferry or plane.
Page 3
On St Martin The Environmental Commission heads up an ongoing campaign to maintain the islands reputation as a clean safe – results of these environmental efforts are visible through the island.
Page 4 deals with weather and rainfall 40 inches
Pages 7-10 deals with plant life, which have been referenced with page numbers as appropriate in relevant sections
Page 7 -10 deals with plant life, which have been referenced with page numbers as appropriate
Pages 14-15 deals with people and language, official language French
Pages 15-18 deals with cuisine
Page 18 Music People in the Caribbean music as their true voice. Most original rhythms are based on African beats and make extensive use of drums. The region has given birth to calypso, merengue, soca, zouk, and reggae, which have become popular world wide.
Page 18 ...Carnival is celebrated before Lent, annual music festival each year in January …and the annual ‘bobou festival’ each August The 12 night St. Barks Music festival ...mid to late January balle one evening jazz the next and perhaps a classical symphony the next. Perfromers come from Internationally acclaimed orchestras, quartetes, opera companies, and ballet troupes. Frances De Broff founded the festival.
Page 19 Boubou festival
History 19-23 and again in pages 157-159 and further
Page 19 ...original inhabitant most likely Ciboney …Around 800 AD Arawak Indians
Page 20 when Columbus spotted St Barts he named it after his brother Bartholome
Page 21 ...1651 sold it along with…to the Knights of Malta... Finally the irate Indians raided the Eurpoean settlement, killed all the colonists, and displayed their victims heads on poles on Lorient beach (last part starting with "displayed..."has been deleted by Dulcee as he mentions it as untrue)
Page 22 ...“Montbars the Exterminator”
Page 25-29 Celebrations, Events and Holidays month wise
Dulce is most welcome to correct whatever he can reference to books, if we are incorrect. Nvvchar. 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Some references being reviewed today (Nvvchar), but surprisingly more reference to Sullivan are added while it was expected to be reduced or even cancelled !
as an example of non sense confirmed today :
St. Barts, a volcanic island fully encircled by shallow-water reefs, has an area of 8 square miles (21 km2) and a population of 8,823 (census 2008). Its capital is Gustavia, which is also its main harbour. The island is a popular tourist destination during the winter holiday season.(ref Sullivan pp. 1–3)
what this 'Sullivan, pp. 1–3' refering to ??? page 2 is a map while page 3 'Geography, Topography & Ecology' is out of concerns. Looking then to page 1, 'introduction', there is no mention of a volcanic island, population, Gustavia, or a 'popular tourist destination during the winter holiday season', so what ???
one more example :
reference added today to 'The island came into prominence amongst Europeans when Columbus found the island in 1493.' : (Sullivan, p. 20)
this is not explicit at all, see by yourself at source p20 : http://books.google.com/books?id=VhLQcvVnoJgC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
Doulcy ( talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Words “reference used abusively” were mostly refering to St. Barths Online webpage (read at the end of paragraph Redundancies above) and which references, I have now corrected in article
Doulcy (
talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The main issue is to make sure whether these books are themselves correctly sourced : books which are not correctly sourced should be avoided. The question is then : are these 3 tourism guides mentioning where they took their information from ? any foot notes ? any bibliography at the end of book or whatever ?
Doulcy (
talk) 20:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
42 of the 108 references are presently heading to Sullivan's book--
Doulcy (
talk) 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "This whole thing now leads to a basic policy issue which needs to be addressed by Wiki Admin" but not that "Wiki should clearly state that travel books of any kind should not be used in articles etc." but travel book which are not mentioning any of their sources.--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
from User talk:Nvvchar : I want to expand Saint Barthélemy x5. It has 15 kilobytes of prose so would need to be 90 kilobytes, pretty normal for an article on an entity. Only though if there are plenty of sources to do so. Please let me known what you think. The article should really be much more comprehensive. This source should take us half the way there... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) User:Nvvchar/Saint Barthélemy - I'm starting on it. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
the original comment here having been removed as considered as personal attack while nothing but facts, the short excerpt above is put back anyway (but without original comment to avoid useless conflict) just to explain how the article has been expanded using Sullivan's book-- Doulcy ( talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
from User talk:Rosiestep :
Oh dear I just discovered what happened with the Saint Barts article. Now we have somebody with "issues" frantically editing it. Who would have thought a small Caribbean island would bring a skeleton out of the closet... He's ranting on as if he owns the article and hasn't edited since 2007.I will look at it shortly. It surely can't be as bad as is claimed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doulcy ( talk • contribs)
some more from
User talk:Nvvchar, but unfortunately nothing to respond here clearly to the questions above, no constructive remarks having been posted in present discussion except by Nvvchar :
I recently saw the Douche editor kicking up a fuss over the Saint Barts article. His existence we could never have known. he's been inactive since 2007, obviously has some personal grievances related to its history which would account for his rant. I've given it a copyedit, but when you return can you please check to see that the information given is flly verifiable in the sources and that the Sullivan sources have the correct actual book page numbers. Most of the Saint Barts info should be like on page 170 etc not 22 at the beginning of the book. It should be fine then. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
false, useless and provocative statements : "the
Douche (...) His existence we could never have known. he's been inactive since 2007 etc.";
looking honestly the "view history" for this article reveals regular editing from Doulcy every year since 5 March 2007 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy&limit=500&action=history & http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history; while very first editing of this article from Dr. Blofeld is dated 4 January 2011
-- Doulcy ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
again some more words from User talk:Doulcy :
I'm wondering why you're being so awkward? I've looked at your editing history and find it quite bizarre at the way you are conducting yourself given your extreme lack of editing. You are acting as if you own this article. Obviously you have issues with the island and its Swedish history. Nothing else would explain why you would suddenly appear after a three year absence and throw your toys out of the pram in some rant. Yes it needs a copyedit and referenc checking. But it certainly isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. Oh and read WP:OWN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've given it a copyedit and read through and it is absolutely nowhere near as bad as you are claiming. Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly. The article is much better than it was previously and I do not appreciate people like you who do nothing to build wikipedia and have a meagre editing history (less than I've contributed in two hours on here) and then suddenly come along ranting on as if you own the place and belittling the efforts to develop it. Yes it had some issues but you have completely exaggerated them. Naturally we want to avoid historical inadequacies but we can only use what sources are available to us and can't help it if they are wrong. As you are clearly a smart ass on Saint Barts you are welcome to correct any errors providing you do not have an agenda politicially/historically and refrain from removing sources whand content which would otherwise seem verifiable and reliable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
no additional comments needed I guess, but if "Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly" then no reason to have removed the tag yet, tag to be removed asa work done.
--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The question here is whether this decision to "expand
Saint Barthélemy x5", strictly focusing on weight, turning 15 kilobytes to 90 kilobytes by any mean and as quickly as possible, using so few sources, and moreover sources which are discutable, was a a wise and healthy decision ?--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Look here. Every single bit of information does not have to have a citation. If you are so keen to improve this find citations/improve the article yourself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not actually the issue here, tag by Materialscientist dated 00:20, 11 January 2011 has been removed twice without having been responded here or references improved in article : "the tourist guides do not fit to some strong historical and political facts"--
Doulcy (
talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User wrote that "Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly" but have not done it yet then no reason to have removed the tag yet, tag should have been removed once work done. -- Doulcy ( talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"rv invalid tags", how "invalid" ? nothing has been fixed yet. "This has over 50 other sources" : what is this "This" standing for ? this unclear-- Doulcy ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
please remind that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."-- Doulcy ( talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Again from
User talk:Rosiestep :
Oh well, we always get extremists like that every now and again. But he seems to think that every single sentence needs sourcing and can't be bothered to find citations himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Doulcy's completely shat all over the article. He removed the section about its restaurants and wineries too. It looks dreadful thanks to him. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
User came few days ago and, as very first contribution to this article, added lot of text, just because user decided that article must be expanding X 5, by any means necessary; but without any verification of sources and many mistakes in doing the job (spelling, ref pages etc), and now ask for others to be bothered to find citations themselves ! This is sloppy work, and it is not worth dwelling on constant insults posted on other users talk pages while did not even discussed the issues on this page-- Doulcy ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
a revision consisting in a copy/paste back to a version dated earlier than 14 January has been made two days ago, on 24 January 2011
in so doing, more than a hundred revisions have been totally ignored and denied
while it is still expected the editors who expanded this article in a sloppy way between 4 January 2011 and 10 January 2011 to address the concerns in sections 12 to 17 above
-- Doulcy ( talk) 22:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your version unneccesarily degrades the article with excess cite tags. There is not a single article on wikipedia which needs that many citations. Either add citations yourself with reliable sources or remove info which you can't verify, improve its wording and stop ranting on at the work of fellow in edit summaries or accept the current version. Leaving it in the diabolical state you did is unacceptable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
removing of tags do not request removing of more than a hundred revisions
if it is a removal of tags you aim to do, then remove tags but just tags, no slapdash work
you are obviously not able to respect your own commitments, 'Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly' (Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)), but this should not be a reason for such vandalism
-- Doulcy ( talk) 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Poorly written and even more poorly sourced. One of the worst of the worst. 75.73.65.239 ( talk) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(I was going to post this on the talk page of the image itself, but the banner at the top told me to go here instead.)
I believe the territory of St. Pierre et Miquelon (up in the north, just south of Newfoundland) is marked red on this map. It's almost impossible to see because of the borders, but when I clicked the map to get a larger version I saw it as it was loading. If it is indeed marked, I believe that is a mistake, but I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it.
83.233.121.203 ( talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (I'm under a dynamic IP, so if I reply to this later on, It might be from a different address)
The article repeatedly refers to the island as "St. Bart's". I know that this is a common nickname for it, but is it proper to use it in an encyclopedia? 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 05:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"However, some monuments are still intact such as the residence of the then Swedish governor known as Mairie, which is now the town hall."
It sounded like that building was christened 'Mairie'. Whereas 'mairie' is just the French word for 'town hall'. I think it should be rephrased.
71.202.111.191 ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article158919900 Use or not, just dumping info in here jayoval ( talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Much of this article contained out-of-date, poorly worded or unreferenced material, which I have done my best to edit as appropriate. Very little good quality sources on St Barts online (in English anyway). The list of celebrities who've visited could be much longer but I really can't be bothered hunting down references for such things. Sdrawkcab ( talk) 21:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)sdrawkcab
In the final sentence of the first paragraph under '21st Century' in the 'History' section, it says the collectivity became an "OCT", however there's no other mention of that acronym on the page, it doesn't link to anything, and it's not clear exactly what it's supposed to stand for. CrisH7 ( talk) 09:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time or skills to do this, but someone should try to make a local Saint-Barthélémy flag for this page. A picture of one is on this web site: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gp-sb.html Thank you!
I will do so shortly. I have access to a high-rez copy
~kapanka
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Am12058 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Am12058 ( talk) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Quoth the article:
Is there any movement on this. Was this referendum sanctioned by the govt. of France and/or Guadelupe, or was it a nonbinding expression of popular sentiment? -- Jfruh 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You should explain what COM status and DOM status means. I know what a DOM ist, but what is a COM. Is this the English term for TOM?
ISBN 91-7684-096-4 is correct for book "kungliga svenska slaveriet" from Göran Skytte, Askelin & Hägglund, Stockholm, 1986...what are the reason for this message then :
91-7684-096-4 may have books without ISBNs. Listing ISBNs makes it easier to conduct research.improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Doulcy 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So, let's see where we stand. Please voice support only.
Of course this is not a poll per se, I'd just like to see what the general opinion is around here; see above for arguments for either option. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook uses Saint Barthelemy, as well: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sq.html Just FYI. — Nightst a llion (?) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Listed under sports. Is it a joke? -- Awiseman 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am dubious about the bobsled comment under Sports and will investigate. Kapanka 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you insist, Godefroy, I'll wait until the ISO code is officially out; if it turns out that ISO considers "Saint Barthelemy" the English name (as is likely, compare Saint Pierre and Miquelon without the dash), however, you won't revert a move then, I trust? — Nightstallion 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The ISO document is out, see http://www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_vi-1.pdf -- the official name in English thus is Saint Barthélemy, period. — Nightstallion 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I note that this letter in English from the mayor's office refers to "Saint Barthelemy"--both omitting the hyphen [customary for compound nouns in French] and dropping the accent from the é. Considering that this letter comes in a reasonably formal context and came from a source that wouldn't have seen the act of sticking in the accented-é as an imposition (ie coming from a French-language government office), should we consider that this island should in fact be validly rendered in English as "Saint Barthelemy"? English-language content sources indigenous to the island seem to back this up, although the commonality of "St. Barths" and so on makes things kinda confusing, and there seem to be no shortage of sources that kinda mix and match the grammatical rules in a delightful franglais, which given the island's population is to be expected, I guess. Note that Saint Barthélemy is a third option, with the aigu but without the hyphen.
Bart-eh-leh-ME would be a more accurate transcription, there is almost no difference in French and English prononciation of this word, other than the gutteral R in the French: JimD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.52.52 ( talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess part of the question is whether an anglicized pronounciation of "Barthelemy" is correct or not. If it's correct to say "Barth-uh-lemy" in English but "Barth-ay-lem'ee" in French, that would suggest that differentiating the accents for its English representation (akin to how Kwuh-bec : KAY-bec :: Quebec : Québec ) would also be appropriate. If the word should be pronounced in English as in French, though, then the accent aigu should stay. Thoughts? The Tom 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)here (
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/pdf/central_america.pdf), despite the fact they expressly leave hyphens intact for Port-au-Prince and Marie-Galant, and keep the ç in Curaçao and the é in San José.I still say we should have Saint Barthelemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, based on all the evidence presented. — Nightst a llion (?) 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If diacritics are kept with São Tomé and Príncipe, then I see no logical reason to drop the diacritics with Saint-Barthélemy, especially given that Encyclopaedia Britanica and the Columbia Encyclopedia use the diacritics (references above). As for changing the name of the article single-handedly, this is a definite no no. Consensus ought to be reached first. Godefroy 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Confused on the term Collectivity What that that mean? Merc' Thanks you(dated by Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC AMMornSept.11,2009,Fri. 21stcent."X") ANDREMOI ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand that wikipedia policy is to name pages without diacritical marks. So this page should be moved to Saint Barthelemy, without accent. Any view on that? Voui ( talk) 20:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Since names using such characters are not searchable to Wikipedia users (i.e., they cannot be typed in the search bar without using advanced technical knowledge or additional aids such as keyboard mapping software), most such titles should be transliterated into the common English representation per Wikipedia:Romanization and moved to that name. Voui ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A sentence referring to the "Saint Barths Bucket Regatta" was vandalized last October by the insertion of "Fart". Later the vandalism was fixed by deleting the entire sentence (along with a call for citation). I don't restore the sentence because I don't have a proper citation, but the Bucket Regatta is real. [6] JamesPaulWhite ( talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
it is worth asking what value these references on which the article now appears entirely based ?
- Lynne M. Sullivan (2003). Adventure Guide to St. Martin & St. Barts. Hunter Publishing, Inc. ISBN 9781588433480.
- Sarah Cameron (2007). Footprint Caribbean Islands. Footprint Travel Guides. ISBN 9781904777977.
- Nash, KC (2008). St Barts Travel Adventures. Hunter Publishing, Inc. ISBN 9781588437044.
looks like the article became mainly a copy/paste from these 3 sources which are basicly tourism guides with a lot of non sense
please make sure these sources are themselves sourced : it is not worth using references which are not telling where they got their information from !
are these 3 tourism guides mentioning where they took their information from ? any foot notes ? any bibliography at the end of book or whatever ?
Doulcy ( talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
as an example : "There are approximately 400 privately owned villas available for rent on the island (ref 8)"
ref 8 refers to http://www.st-barths.com/en/saint-barthelemy-guide/saint-barthelemy-history.html
but actually this information is not to be find there !
the whole article looks full of this kind of unfitted references and thus would need to be checked in that regards
Doulcy ( talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
many information not sourced in that reference, thus erased (was it spam from this website ?)
Doulcy ( talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
first references to pages 1-3 book Lynne M. Sullivan (2003). Adventure Guide to St. Martin & St. Barts. Hunter Publishing, Inc.
ISBN
9781588433480 are not fitting neither ! would need again to be checked entirely
Doulcy ( talk) 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article "Saint-Barthélemy" in the Swedish National Encyclopedia states that King Gustav III got the island as part of a "diplomatic deal" during his visit to Paris in 1784. In this Wikipedia article, the Swedish period is claimed to start the following year. In the Wikipedia Swedish slave trade article, the Swedish king is said to have bought the island in 1783. Can someone clarify this? Alarm 13:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
date 1783 was wrong and it looks that it has been corrected in the Wikipedia Swedish slave trade article Doulcy ( talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article should avoid useless publicity; as an example watch this (in Cuisine) :
St. Barts is popular with wine connoisseurs and contains La Cave de Saint-Barthélemy in Marigot which is reportedly one of the largest in Caribbean at around 6,000 square feet (560 m2).[55] The cellar stocks some 250,000 bottles including 300 varieties of French wine.[55] A notable wine store Vinissimo is located on the Rue de Bord de Mer in Gustavia and stocks around 400,000 bottles of wine.[55] Also of note is Le Gout du Vin on the Rue du Roi Oscar II in Gustavia which stocks Laurent Perrier champagnes and Bouchard Pere et Fils Burgundy wine, as well as a range of other wines including Italian, Spanish, Australian and Chilean.[55]
ref 55 (Lynne M. Sullivan's book) is mentioned 4 times, at each sentence actually ! this is not really serious work and furthermore strictly publicity (La Cave de Saint-Barthélemy - Vinissimo - Le Gout du Vin - Laurent Perrier - Bouchard Pere et Fils) with not much interest in regards to such a wikipedia project
Doulcy ( talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
the article is a real mess and would diserves serious work
rich and famous twice yet here at the beginning :
(...). The island is extremely popular with the rich and famous during the winter holiday season. The island provides peaceful ambiance with its many beaches, luxury hotels and restaurants and chic boutiques frequented by the rich and famous from North America.
lot of similar cases would need to be corrected
Doulcy ( talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I will hardly have enough time to fix this article and suggest the following: the above comments by Doulcy raise justified concerns about the validity of some references. I suggest to wait for the editors who expanded the article to address those concerns. The article does need a copyedit, and the lead might not adequately summarize the article content. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If I have removed references it was only because I went to each reference first (which took some time) but did not find what was actually stated, thus reference was not justified (please read 'References do not fit' above).
If I removed some information it was because it was useless publicity as stated above (please read 'Sources - References'), or the information was wrong, or the information was no more up to date.
Regarding overlinking some names (only one actually but for all its occurrences in the text : linking the wikipedia page for Gustavia), if it is a problem I can correct this.
I do not think I have changed for the worse any reference while changing the reference formatting ?
Repeating that I have deleted only what I have first verified as unjustified, which is actually as well a constructive work, I do suggest that you check the same references from closer; then you should revert your two reversion that I can correct the overlinking problem and also eventually the 'reference formatting' problem. Waiting for the editors who expanded some of the information I have modified to address those concerns might take a lot of time...
I am not moving anymore on this page waiting for your decision.
regards,
Doulcy ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great, I take note that 'you share many of my concerns (the article is unshaped and does need much work)' User talk:Materialscientist let's see then what the three experienced editors whom have expanded this article recently are going to do... I guess/hope they are going to check point by point the various modification I have done on the article (I tried to do actually, because reverted) after reading first this discussion, that we can move forward best, Doulcy ( talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting intervention from Rosiestep today, focusing on structuring the article (avoiding redundancies etc). Looking forward for the two others experienced editors whom have expanded this article recently, regarding the 3 other issues quoted above : Sources-References (3 tourism guides not appropriate to use as reference), References which do not fit (references need to be check, such as St. Barths Online webpage which is used abusively), and useless publicity (the article should avoid mentioning sucht references); best, Doulcy ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made some changes in the references to text taken from the Sullivan book. There have also been some disturbances in some references due to reformatting (I am trying to rectify them). However, I used mostly the reference book of Suliivan, which deals with St Barts in the initial about 30 pages and again later from 157 pages on wards till the end.
I have used book references and not travel sites operated by tour operators. Normally, when we use some sites of tour operators a spam warning is definitely given by wiki and it does not allow the reference to the saved.
The three book references we have used are not listed in the spam list of wiki. We have been using book references of Lonely Planet, Frommers and other reputed travel agencies and many others who bring out travel related documents. Hence, using the three book references, highlighted by Dulce was done in good faith and was not a deliberate effort to fill text. Hence, Dulce’s remark with using words “used abusively” is rather unwelcome. There is absolutely no deliberate effort to twist what is contained in books. Many times for many countries which are a tourist based economy like Saint Barthélemy, I have found travel books are the only source of any information. We searched and we could not find any other books dealing with this Caribbean Island. If Dulce could suggest some authentic book sources we could use them since he sounds confident about the history and the present status of the island. I agree there may be some over referencing or sometimes wrong referencing but nothing is done deliberately. Of course to err is human and to accept it and make corrections is the done thing.
This whole thing now leads to a basic policy issue which needs to be addressed by Wiki Admin. Wiki should clearly state that travel books of any kind should not be used in articles or travel books published by particular agencies are not acceptable (and if such books are used, warning signal should automatically come into effect while saving the text with that reference. Otherwise, we would be wasting time on such references to be later told that they are unreliable.
The other issue I wish to point out is that of referencing. Earlier, for books the citation tool prescribed in WP was being used. Now, Google has come out with this referencing tool {T} Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books [7] (and New York Ties also) only. We have used this tool for book referencing. As regards internal links, I linked (blue link) for the articles found in wiki, only once as the rule says so.
As regards the Sullivan book, the fist 29 pages which have been used in the text in various sections of the article are briefly explained.
Sullivan text
Page 1 (referenced at 5). St Barts and St Martin most popular islands in the Caribbean are located 20 miles apart –150 miles east of Puerto Rico at the top of an achipellago known as Little Antilles. .. covers 8 sqmile... overseas region of France St. Martin is easily reached from US and is quick inter-island hop by ferry or plane.
Page 3
On St Martin The Environmental Commission heads up an ongoing campaign to maintain the islands reputation as a clean safe – results of these environmental efforts are visible through the island.
Page 4 deals with weather and rainfall 40 inches
Pages 7-10 deals with plant life, which have been referenced with page numbers as appropriate in relevant sections
Page 7 -10 deals with plant life, which have been referenced with page numbers as appropriate
Pages 14-15 deals with people and language, official language French
Pages 15-18 deals with cuisine
Page 18 Music People in the Caribbean music as their true voice. Most original rhythms are based on African beats and make extensive use of drums. The region has given birth to calypso, merengue, soca, zouk, and reggae, which have become popular world wide.
Page 18 ...Carnival is celebrated before Lent, annual music festival each year in January …and the annual ‘bobou festival’ each August The 12 night St. Barks Music festival ...mid to late January balle one evening jazz the next and perhaps a classical symphony the next. Perfromers come from Internationally acclaimed orchestras, quartetes, opera companies, and ballet troupes. Frances De Broff founded the festival.
Page 19 Boubou festival
History 19-23 and again in pages 157-159 and further
Page 19 ...original inhabitant most likely Ciboney …Around 800 AD Arawak Indians
Page 20 when Columbus spotted St Barts he named it after his brother Bartholome
Page 21 ...1651 sold it along with…to the Knights of Malta... Finally the irate Indians raided the Eurpoean settlement, killed all the colonists, and displayed their victims heads on poles on Lorient beach (last part starting with "displayed..."has been deleted by Dulcee as he mentions it as untrue)
Page 22 ...“Montbars the Exterminator”
Page 25-29 Celebrations, Events and Holidays month wise
Dulce is most welcome to correct whatever he can reference to books, if we are incorrect. Nvvchar. 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Some references being reviewed today (Nvvchar), but surprisingly more reference to Sullivan are added while it was expected to be reduced or even cancelled !
as an example of non sense confirmed today :
St. Barts, a volcanic island fully encircled by shallow-water reefs, has an area of 8 square miles (21 km2) and a population of 8,823 (census 2008). Its capital is Gustavia, which is also its main harbour. The island is a popular tourist destination during the winter holiday season.(ref Sullivan pp. 1–3)
what this 'Sullivan, pp. 1–3' refering to ??? page 2 is a map while page 3 'Geography, Topography & Ecology' is out of concerns. Looking then to page 1, 'introduction', there is no mention of a volcanic island, population, Gustavia, or a 'popular tourist destination during the winter holiday season', so what ???
one more example :
reference added today to 'The island came into prominence amongst Europeans when Columbus found the island in 1493.' : (Sullivan, p. 20)
this is not explicit at all, see by yourself at source p20 : http://books.google.com/books?id=VhLQcvVnoJgC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
Doulcy ( talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Words “reference used abusively” were mostly refering to St. Barths Online webpage (read at the end of paragraph Redundancies above) and which references, I have now corrected in article
Doulcy (
talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The main issue is to make sure whether these books are themselves correctly sourced : books which are not correctly sourced should be avoided. The question is then : are these 3 tourism guides mentioning where they took their information from ? any foot notes ? any bibliography at the end of book or whatever ?
Doulcy (
talk) 20:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
42 of the 108 references are presently heading to Sullivan's book--
Doulcy (
talk) 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "This whole thing now leads to a basic policy issue which needs to be addressed by Wiki Admin" but not that "Wiki should clearly state that travel books of any kind should not be used in articles etc." but travel book which are not mentioning any of their sources.--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
from User talk:Nvvchar : I want to expand Saint Barthélemy x5. It has 15 kilobytes of prose so would need to be 90 kilobytes, pretty normal for an article on an entity. Only though if there are plenty of sources to do so. Please let me known what you think. The article should really be much more comprehensive. This source should take us half the way there... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) User:Nvvchar/Saint Barthélemy - I'm starting on it. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
the original comment here having been removed as considered as personal attack while nothing but facts, the short excerpt above is put back anyway (but without original comment to avoid useless conflict) just to explain how the article has been expanded using Sullivan's book-- Doulcy ( talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
from User talk:Rosiestep :
Oh dear I just discovered what happened with the Saint Barts article. Now we have somebody with "issues" frantically editing it. Who would have thought a small Caribbean island would bring a skeleton out of the closet... He's ranting on as if he owns the article and hasn't edited since 2007.I will look at it shortly. It surely can't be as bad as is claimed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doulcy ( talk • contribs)
some more from
User talk:Nvvchar, but unfortunately nothing to respond here clearly to the questions above, no constructive remarks having been posted in present discussion except by Nvvchar :
I recently saw the Douche editor kicking up a fuss over the Saint Barts article. His existence we could never have known. he's been inactive since 2007, obviously has some personal grievances related to its history which would account for his rant. I've given it a copyedit, but when you return can you please check to see that the information given is flly verifiable in the sources and that the Sullivan sources have the correct actual book page numbers. Most of the Saint Barts info should be like on page 170 etc not 22 at the beginning of the book. It should be fine then. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
false, useless and provocative statements : "the
Douche (...) His existence we could never have known. he's been inactive since 2007 etc.";
looking honestly the "view history" for this article reveals regular editing from Doulcy every year since 5 March 2007 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy&limit=500&action=history & http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history; while very first editing of this article from Dr. Blofeld is dated 4 January 2011
-- Doulcy ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
again some more words from User talk:Doulcy :
I'm wondering why you're being so awkward? I've looked at your editing history and find it quite bizarre at the way you are conducting yourself given your extreme lack of editing. You are acting as if you own this article. Obviously you have issues with the island and its Swedish history. Nothing else would explain why you would suddenly appear after a three year absence and throw your toys out of the pram in some rant. Yes it needs a copyedit and referenc checking. But it certainly isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. Oh and read WP:OWN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've given it a copyedit and read through and it is absolutely nowhere near as bad as you are claiming. Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly. The article is much better than it was previously and I do not appreciate people like you who do nothing to build wikipedia and have a meagre editing history (less than I've contributed in two hours on here) and then suddenly come along ranting on as if you own the place and belittling the efforts to develop it. Yes it had some issues but you have completely exaggerated them. Naturally we want to avoid historical inadequacies but we can only use what sources are available to us and can't help it if they are wrong. As you are clearly a smart ass on Saint Barts you are welcome to correct any errors providing you do not have an agenda politicially/historically and refrain from removing sources whand content which would otherwise seem verifiable and reliable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
no additional comments needed I guess, but if "Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly" then no reason to have removed the tag yet, tag to be removed asa work done.
--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The question here is whether this decision to "expand
Saint Barthélemy x5", strictly focusing on weight, turning 15 kilobytes to 90 kilobytes by any mean and as quickly as possible, using so few sources, and moreover sources which are discutable, was a a wise and healthy decision ?--
Doulcy (
talk) 02:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Look here. Every single bit of information does not have to have a citation. If you are so keen to improve this find citations/improve the article yourself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not actually the issue here, tag by Materialscientist dated 00:20, 11 January 2011 has been removed twice without having been responded here or references improved in article : "the tourist guides do not fit to some strong historical and political facts"--
Doulcy (
talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User wrote that "Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly" but have not done it yet then no reason to have removed the tag yet, tag should have been removed once work done. -- Doulcy ( talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"rv invalid tags", how "invalid" ? nothing has been fixed yet. "This has over 50 other sources" : what is this "This" standing for ? this unclear-- Doulcy ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
please remind that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."-- Doulcy ( talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Again from
User talk:Rosiestep :
Oh well, we always get extremists like that every now and again. But he seems to think that every single sentence needs sourcing and can't be bothered to find citations himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Doulcy's completely shat all over the article. He removed the section about its restaurants and wineries too. It looks dreadful thanks to him. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
User came few days ago and, as very first contribution to this article, added lot of text, just because user decided that article must be expanding X 5, by any means necessary; but without any verification of sources and many mistakes in doing the job (spelling, ref pages etc), and now ask for others to be bothered to find citations themselves ! This is sloppy work, and it is not worth dwelling on constant insults posted on other users talk pages while did not even discussed the issues on this page-- Doulcy ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
a revision consisting in a copy/paste back to a version dated earlier than 14 January has been made two days ago, on 24 January 2011
in so doing, more than a hundred revisions have been totally ignored and denied
while it is still expected the editors who expanded this article in a sloppy way between 4 January 2011 and 10 January 2011 to address the concerns in sections 12 to 17 above
-- Doulcy ( talk) 22:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your version unneccesarily degrades the article with excess cite tags. There is not a single article on wikipedia which needs that many citations. Either add citations yourself with reliable sources or remove info which you can't verify, improve its wording and stop ranting on at the work of fellow in edit summaries or accept the current version. Leaving it in the diabolical state you did is unacceptable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
removing of tags do not request removing of more than a hundred revisions
if it is a removal of tags you aim to do, then remove tags but just tags, no slapdash work
you are obviously not able to respect your own commitments, 'Sources and pages numbers will be fixed shortly' (Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)), but this should not be a reason for such vandalism
-- Doulcy ( talk) 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Poorly written and even more poorly sourced. One of the worst of the worst. 75.73.65.239 ( talk) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(I was going to post this on the talk page of the image itself, but the banner at the top told me to go here instead.)
I believe the territory of St. Pierre et Miquelon (up in the north, just south of Newfoundland) is marked red on this map. It's almost impossible to see because of the borders, but when I clicked the map to get a larger version I saw it as it was loading. If it is indeed marked, I believe that is a mistake, but I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it.
83.233.121.203 ( talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (I'm under a dynamic IP, so if I reply to this later on, It might be from a different address)
The article repeatedly refers to the island as "St. Bart's". I know that this is a common nickname for it, but is it proper to use it in an encyclopedia? 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 05:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"However, some monuments are still intact such as the residence of the then Swedish governor known as Mairie, which is now the town hall."
It sounded like that building was christened 'Mairie'. Whereas 'mairie' is just the French word for 'town hall'. I think it should be rephrased.
71.202.111.191 ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article158919900 Use or not, just dumping info in here jayoval ( talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Much of this article contained out-of-date, poorly worded or unreferenced material, which I have done my best to edit as appropriate. Very little good quality sources on St Barts online (in English anyway). The list of celebrities who've visited could be much longer but I really can't be bothered hunting down references for such things. Sdrawkcab ( talk) 21:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)sdrawkcab
In the final sentence of the first paragraph under '21st Century' in the 'History' section, it says the collectivity became an "OCT", however there's no other mention of that acronym on the page, it doesn't link to anything, and it's not clear exactly what it's supposed to stand for. CrisH7 ( talk) 09:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time or skills to do this, but someone should try to make a local Saint-Barthélémy flag for this page. A picture of one is on this web site: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gp-sb.html Thank you!
I will do so shortly. I have access to a high-rez copy
~kapanka
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Am12058 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Am12058 ( talk) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)