Talk:Saint Barthélemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Saint Barthelemy work group. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments

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)

Contents

[edit] Status

Quoth the aritcle:

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?

[edit] What's carotchie?

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)

[edit] Saint-Barthélémy Flag

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

[edit] Anglicization of name

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)

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 maʁ.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 PDF (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/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.
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)

[edit] Bibliography and ISBNs

ISBN n°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 : Image:Broom icon.svg

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)

[edit] Assessment

So, let's see where we stand. Please voice support only.

Saint-Barthélemy
  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)
Saint-Barthelemy
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: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sq.html Just FYI. —Nightstallion (?) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

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)

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