Talk:Saint Barthélemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)


Quoth the article:

In 2003 the population voted in favour of secession from Guadeloupe in order to form a separate overseas collectivity of France. However, as of the end of 2005 Saint-Barthélémy is still part of the région and département of Guadeloupe.

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)

This is for real. From an article I read in the St. Barth's Weekly, the 2003 vote was held by the French as part of a reform process for the Caribbean DOMs which would place them under rules simliar to a COM, while still being a DOM in status. Guadeloupe proper and Martinique voted against this status. From what I read in the article, the new status for St.-Barths ans St.-Martin should take effect in December. - Thanks, Hoshie | 04:16, 7 April 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?

What's carotchie?[edit]

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)

Saint-Barthélémy Flag[edit]

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: Thank you!

I will do so shortly. I have access to a high-rez copy ~kapanka

Anglicization of name[edit]

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 (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)

Quite to the contrary, I would consider moving Saint Martin (France) to Saint-Martin instead -- we've also got Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, not Saint Pierre and Miquelon... —Nightstallion (?) 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As a bit of a copy-editing stickler, St. Pierre and Miquelon's current placement has actually been bothering me. This is all really, really hairsplitty, so it might take a few attempts to try and get this across reasonably clearly.
Saint-Martin would only be valid in English if it was used as a straight-up loanword, pronounced (roughly) Sayn Mahr-TAN ( [sɛ̃ m.tɛ̃], although I'm pretty hopeless with IPA). In English, though, we say Saynt MAR-tin ([seɪnt ˈmɑrtən]). Now, obviously there's room for slight tonal shifts when a word is being pronounced in a foreign language—that's normal, and even expected (I once had a pompous history professor who insisted on saying French words in a really, really, irritating forced Parisian accent, and we wanted to strangle him for not just spitting them out in the same tone of voice). This, however is a pretty clear-cut case of the word actually being different. And while the orthological difference between Saint Martin and Saint-Martin is comparatively minor (just an itty-bitty hyphen), unlike, say, London/Londres or Germany/Allemande, the principle is the same.
Quebec/Québec and Montreal/Montréal are similar examples fairly commonly understood by anyone who's copyedited in a Canadian English setting. When you're used to seeing accents left off of loanwords on account of laziness (cliche vs. cliché, Jean Chretien vs. Jean Chrétien), it can be tempting to overcorrect and stick them in everywhere. But it's just plain wrong to write "Québec" in a conventional English-language context. There is a word for the province in English—Quebec, which is pronounced [kʰwəˈbɛk]. There is a separate word for the province in French—Québec, which is pronounced [kebɛk]. If the Québec spelling appears in properly-edited English text, it should be spelt that way for the expressed reason of conveying the French form or the French pronounciation for some sort of broader purpose.
In the case of those two French islands of the coast of Newfoundland, I think that there's pretty broad agreement that the "and Miquelon" part is fine in English. The question is whether people speaking English treat the first island as a straight-up verbatim French placename (like, say, Saint-Eustache, Quebec or Île-de-France, where there are no English-specific terms) or one with where the is a uniquely English-influence form. Saint-Pierre, like Saint-Martin, would, in order to be valid in an English encyclopedia, have to be used in English with the French pronounciation (largely) intact. I don't think that's generallly the case—the "T" in Saint Pierre is usually pronounced by English speakers, where to francophones it would not be. The closest I've come to tracking down an authoritative source on this sort of thing is the official Jounals of the Parliament of Canada. Obviously, very nitpicky people work there with excellent understandings of both English and French grammatical quirks, everything is translated backwards and forwards in accordance with pretty-rigidly enforced protocols (especially for proper nouns), and names of the islands in question come up with reasonable frequency, owing to their relevance in fisheries matters. My searches show that "St. Pierre" is always rendered without a hyphen in English contexts, while in French contexts the islands are always Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon.
Saint(-)Barth(e/é)lemy is uniquely tricky because it's hard to nail down what the "right" name in English is—so often it's just turned to St. Barts and so on. The CIA, for their part, render it on their reference maps as St. Barthelemy ("here". Missing or empty |url= (help)here (, 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.
Sorry for the essay. Am I at least making a shred of sense? The Tom 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are making perfect sense and I'm quite happy I'm not the only stickler for punctuation and such around. I believe you've convinced me; let's make it Saint Barthelemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. —Nightstallion (?) 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I am not convinced, and it shouldn't be two users only who decide on this matter. Whenever there's a common name in usage in English, this common name should be favored over the native name, so we have "Munich" and not "München", but when there is no common name, such as is the case for small or far away places, we should stick to the native name. Inventing English names, or anglicizing native names, is taking the readers for dumb people, and distancing them from the original source. It creates barriers. Wikipedia shouldn't be about creating barriers and hindering understanding across languages. The reasoning above from Tom is also a bit spurious. Why is it then that pretty much everybody and even the New York Times write Guantánamo with the accent, and yet when it comes to Montréal or Québec the same New York Times write them without the accent. It seems there's no consistency here, and it's no wonder that Quebecers feel often offended by the attitude of English speakers towards their place names. Omitting the accent on Montréal or Québec is a bit like denying the existence of a distinct French speaking society in Québec mind you, especially when Latin American place names get their accents all right. Anyway, here the subject is French overseas territories, and I think we should stick to official French spelling whenever there exist no widely spread usage in English. Godefroy 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, we have Midi-Pyrénées and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, with hyphens and accents, so having Saint Barthelemy without hyphens or accents would be inconsistent. Godefroy 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nightstallion, that is the usual English form, I think. --AW 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, I am unsure if I get what you're saying, Godefroy. I think we'd all agree that
a)Some places have a specific English-language name, and some don't. Mostly, it's big, known-from-far-away places that have the English-specific name, while lesser-known places don't.
aa)Sometimes both the English name and the native name are known and used in English contexts, such as the great Torino/Turin debacle as well as the ongoing pissing match on Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast and Timor-Leste/East Timor. These are contentious and nasty matters. Thankfully, these are also comparatively isolated cases.
b)Often, the English-specific name is a bastardization of the original. The English word "Quebec," for instance, presumably exists because English speakers back in the 1600s couldn't be arsed to put in accents and pronounce it the French way. But for better or for worse, now expressing the name of that place in "correct English" and in "correct French" means punching slightly different keys on your keyboard. This could be construed as disrespectful, I suppose, but I can't say I go apoplectic when I see Kanada spelt with a "K."
c)Some foreign-language names can be literally backtranslated, but that doesn't mean they should be. For example, you could render Trois-Rivières, Quebec as Three Rivers, Quebec, except that name isn't ever used. You can turn Île-de-France into "Island of France" (or potentially less literally but more accurately "Bailiwick of France"). "Beijing" is "Northern capital" IIRC. São Tomé and Príncipe could be "Saint Thomas and Prince." Nobody's advocating this. It's worth noting, though, that this approach is considerably more common in some other languages—Polish, I think, is keen on the backtranslation in general.
d)Sometime the English-language name and the foreign-language name differ by only the tiniest smidgen, so it can tempting to use the foreign spelling for pompousness' sake knowing full-well that the meaning will be grasped. However, that shouldn't override the guiding principle that if there is an English-language name, it should be used in English-language contexts.
dd)Though words may have tiny spelling difference (like the hyphen in Saint-Martin or the aigu in Québec), they can have substantively larger shifts in pronounciation. There can be a utility in specifying the word in its non-English form in an English context. This should underscore the need to keep the two different spellings from getting muddled.
e)In the event of the location not having an English-language name, it should be transliterated as closely as possible to the original and then used verbatim in English-language contexts. In the event of the name coming from another latin-alphabet language, this can mean importing accents and other non-indigineous orthographical marks. So, the correct English term for Trois-Rivières, Quebec, is "Trois-Rivières, Quebec," even though standard English doesn't include hyphenation of compound nouns or the character "è." There's a little commune in Aquitaine called Saint-Barthélemy, Landes. It does not have an English name, so the correct term in an English language encyclopedia is "Saint-Barthélemy, Landes."
What I'm trying to figure out is whether there is an actual heritage in English of people using "St. Barthelemy" to refer to this island. If it's rare, and spelling and pronouncing the word in the French fashion is more common in English contexts, then fine, we should leave this article at Saint-Barthélemy. But if it isn't, then we owe it to our readership to stop perpetuating the practice of spelling the word in a manner that suggests it is. The Tom 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
And based on the evidence you've found, I believe the use without the hyphen and the accent is, in fact, a widely used anglicised name of the regions. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What evidence? Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the accent and the hyphen: [1], the Columbia Encyclopedia also uses the accent and hyphen: [2]. Godefroy 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian Parliament should know about the intricacies of dealing with French and English, I believe. —Nightstallion (?) 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
English usage in Canada is English usage in Canada. It is not world English usage. If both Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia use Saint-Barthélemy, and if French authorities also use Saint-Barthélemy, then why should we use something else? Godefroy 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that English usage in Canada isn't particularly relevant for this territory, but it is very much relevant for St. Pierre and Miquelon. And the French authorities, or at least in the one English-language example I can find, use "Saint Barthelemy." The Tom 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article should be called St. Bart's? That's what I hear most people say actually, not Saint- or Saint Barthelemy (with or without accents). --AW 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Most people also say the "US", yet the article is called United States, not "US". Godefroy 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." I feel like St. Bart's is a widely accepted English name. If you google either St Bart's or Saint Barthelemy, most results have this "St. Barts, St Barts, St Barths, St. Barth, Saint Barthelemy ..." somewhere in them. --AW 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still say we should have Saint Barthelemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, based on all the evidence presented. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about São Tomé and Príncipe? Should it be just Sao Tome and Principe? Chanheigeorge 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Different situation. It's imported into English as a verbatim loanword. "Sao Tome and Principe" is just sloppy diacritic-dropping, not a different word per se. The Tom 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Although even the government itself is "sloppy", as they joined the UN as just "Sao Tome and Principe" [3] (contrast this with "Côte d'Ivoire"). Also see this UN document [4], where the country name is "anglicized" while the capital is spelled with diacritics. Chanheigeorge 23:08, 22 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)

Bibliography and ISBNs[edit]

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 :

Please add ISBNs for the books listed.

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.

  1. Godefroy 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Saint Barthelemy
  1. Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. AW 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet another option, namely...
  1. I'd like to see more evidence, from both an official standpoint (e.g. if they're given an ISO code, what's the English name?) and usage standpoint (what's the most common way to refer to the territory in English?) Chanheigeorge 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm absolutely certain that they will be given an ISO 3166-1 code, it will just take a few months, since ISO is agonisingly slow in such decisions. The most common way to refer to it is clearly "St Barth's" or something like that, which is too informal to be used as the Wikipedia article title, so that's where the dilemma comes from. I'll post here the second I become aware of the ISO code. —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook uses Saint Barthelemy, as well: Just FYI. —Nightstallion (?) 18:45, 15 May 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 -- the official name in English thus is Saint Barthélemy, period. —Nightstallion 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So they've kept the accent after all. Godefroy 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused on what a Collectivity is As is St. Barthle`my[edit]

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)

Name of the page[edit]

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)

For a reference to wikipedia policy, look at: [5].

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)

I believe you misunderstand the policy. So long as there are not technical limitations, it is normal practice for the actual article to be located at the namespace that includes the relevant diacritical marks (c.f. Gerhard Schröder , Jean Chrétien and François Mitterrand walk into a bar...). The policy merely states that there needs to be a redirect created without the diacritics to facilitate easy searches. The Tom (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
ok thanks.Voui (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bucket[edit]

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)

Sources - References[edit]

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)

Useless publicity[edit]

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)

References do not fit[edit]

as an example : "There are approximately 400 privately owned villas available for rent on the island (ref 8)"

ref 8 refers to

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 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 have reverted this edit because it went too far removing references and information and overlinking some names. I believe it would be better to work constructively and try to improve the article by providing references/(page numbers of references) rather than deleting outright. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And this revert restored reference formatting. We have noted your constructive comments and will work on addressing them. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 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.


Doulcy (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some references do not fit to the information or/and are not reliable, but, three experienced editors have expanded this article recently, and I would kindly ask them to fix what they have expanded. Otherwise, we could (sometimes should) remove some parts without understanding why they have been added in the first place. Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 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)

Policy issue[edit]

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 :

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)

Expanding x5[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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 : &; 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)

Vandalism ?[edit]

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)

Awful, awful, awful[edit]

Poorly written and even more poorly sourced. One of the worst of the worst. (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Very minor mistake in the first map in the sidebar (Saint Barthelemy in France.svg)[edit]

(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. (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)

Calling it St. Bart's[edit]

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? (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

These naming conventions can be complicated in the Caribbean sometimes, St. Kitts/St. Christopher being the most obvious one, others include Statia for St. Eustatius or TCI for the Turk & Caicos islands. They tend to be interchangeable or sometimes more common as is the case here. Karst 19:21, 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. (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed this  Liam987(talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

History - Sweden giving away the island[edit] 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)