Talk:Saint Pierre and Miquelon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Pierre and Miquelon is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Geography

Can someone take a look at the geography section?

From a geographic point of view I would say that Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are south of Newfoundland as a whole. However, the closest distance is to the Burin peninsula, which is east of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. I have edited the geography section a bit so that one does not get the impression that the islands are west of Newfoundland. Does it make sense in its present form? Perhaps the section can be further clarified?

90.184.242.141 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Title and move

Shouldn't it be "Saint-Pierre et Miquelon"? RickK 05:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, not in the English wikipedia :) Adam Bishop 05:17, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Mm. I suppose you're right. :) RickK 05:21, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re: "Saint Pierre and Miquelon History: 22:13, Aug 3, 2003 . . Wik (moved to "Saint-Pierre_and_Miquelon")"

To be totally Anglicized (as it can be and should), it should be "Saint Pierre and __" and not "Saint-Pierre and __". English doesn't hyphenate Saint's name. French does. --Menchi 05:21, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

The et is commonly translated, but the name of the island isn't (otherwise it would be "Saint Peter").
The Factbook did translate this punctuation out. --Menchi 05:25, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, they're ignorant like that.
Only 9 of the first 100 Googles hits hyphenated. This is the inverse of what most humans call "common". --Menchi 05:33, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
If you check the first 100 Google hits for São Tomé and Príncipe, you'll also find that most omit the diacritics (including the CIA Factbook). Doesn't mean that's correct, it's just ignorant. What I said was the name Saint-Pierre is not commonly translated. That would be Saint Peter and no one calls the island that. Just editing the hyphen out makes no sense.
By that logic, there would be nobody in the English-speaking world with the given name Pierre. - Hephaestos 05:50, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's not named for some modern Pierre but for Saint Peter.
Doesn't matter. In English, we tend to accept French names for things. The island of St. Croix, for instance, isn't called "Holy Cross" even though it's now English-speaking. Similarly, we always accept the name "Luxembourg" over "Luxemberg," even though both are legally correct in the country.

Encyclopedia.com, Bartleby and The American Heritage Dictionary all appear to be as "ignorant" as the Factbook. - Hephaestos 06:04, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary as well. --Menchi 06:07, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's not surprising. Britannica at least gets it right.
Britannica is no saint. It may not be wrong here, but see m:Making fun of Britannica. --Menchi 06:21, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
Sure isn't. But it's still much better than encyclopedia.com and the likes.
The Scott catalog for stamps uses "St. Pierre & Miquelon", and "St. Thomas and Prince Islands" these days. The "&" does finesse the and/et question... It's not always straightforward to know at what point the foreign term becomes so familiar it is considered part of English. Pierre is definitely an "English" term now, if for no other reason than Pierre, South Dakota :-), but while "Sao Paulo" is familiar to some English speakers, "et" and "Sao Tome" are very much "foreign" terms. Stan 06:18, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, they're about the only ones to use "St. Thomas and Prince Islands." You really have to wonder what they're thinking. They might as well say "Equator" for Ecuador and "The Saviour" instead of El Salvador.
The point is they're obviously not the only ones using "Saint Pierre and Miquelon." - Hephaestos 14:52, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. By using "St. Thomas and Prince Islands," the Scott catalog has already disqualified itself, and your other sources are not much more authoritative either. The point is that one can't always decide such questions by doing a Google test and see what's used more. One also has to remember the principle of lectio difficilior potior. I just wrote the article about this principle today, and soon afterwards could apply it once again, in connection with the name of the Earl of Snowdon. A Google test showed:

"Anthony Armstrong-Jones" - 838 hits
"Antony Armstrong-Jones" - 597 hits

Guess what's the correct spelling! --Wik 19:46, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

If you think you have a solid authority to quote, then please enlighten us, instead of bashing everybody else's authorities. For present-day names, you can even go directly to the governments of the countries in question and get a dozen different answers as to how it should be translated, you can go to specialists in that country and get another dozen answers. That's why we use Google as a sort of poll to see what is most often used by English speakers; our own personal preference may just be an idiosyncrasy of our education. The question of the original spelling of a personal name is (usually) much easier to answer definitively, so that's a strawman in this argument. Stan 21:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is no "authority" either way here other than common sense. The French original is Saint-Pierre, and the removal of the hyphen is sheer sloppiness in the same way that people ignore the diacritics in São Tomé and Príncipe. Using the "Google poll" we would have to adopt the spelling "Sao Tome and Principe". And the personal name issue is not a strawman, because it precisely shows how the majority is not always right. Typically, people who don't recognize that the word "Saint" in Saint-Pierre is French, remove the hyphen thinking "there's no hyphen after Saint in English". But saying "Saint [pronounced in English] Pierre" makes no sense here as the saint in question is not some Frenchman named Pierre but Saint Peter. It is exactly as if you would say Saint Tomé for São Tomé. "São" is Portuguese for "Saint" and "Saint-" is French for "Saint". In both cases, you can either leave the original as it is (São Tomé, Saint-Pierre), or you can translate the whole thing (Saint Thomas, Saint Peter), but everything else is a solecism. --Wik 22:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
But we do pronounce it "Saint (English pronunciation) Pierre (French)." At least, I do, as do many other Canadians (but I don't know about the others here). Adam Bishop 22:40, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Again, this is not surprising, for obvious reasons, but still not making particular sense.
It's not so much a strawman as a hasty generalization. São Tomé is not a good corollary either; this probably comes from the difficulty of using diacritics on English keyboards. There is no such problem with a hyphen.
That explains some of it, but it is usually a poor excuse, especially for sources like the CIA Factbook. Ultimately people think the diacritics are expendable, just like the hyphen - for different reasons maybe, but with the same (incorrect) result.
If on the other hand we either leave the original as-is or translate the whole thing, we need to have this article at Saint-Pierre et Miquelon.
No, there is nothing wrong with Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. The names of the islands are left intact as proper names, but the name of the territory is translated. Just like São Tomé and Príncipe.
Virtually all the authorities agree that the capital city is spelled Saint-Pierre. These same authorities spell the country with Saint Pierre. Why this discrepancy? Probably the definitive answer lies in the answer to the question, "how does one pronounce it?"
Hephaestos 22:43, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From what I can see most American sources seem to use St. Pierre, most British Sources seem to use St-Pierre, and pretty much all Canadian sources use St-Pierre. Perhaps we should just treat this as a difference between different dialects of English and thus leave it alone. - SimonP 22:24, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
It's not a British/American difference though. Google on "saint-pierre and miquelon" site:.uk. (Google ignores hyphens). - Hephaestos 22:43, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree we should give the matter a rest, since there is nothing more to discover fact-wise. Of course everyone is entitled to prefer to use whatever the most common de facto usage is, though that is not my preference. If anyone wants to have a vote on the issue, that may settle it. --Wik 23:25, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Collectivity"

What is a collectivity? RickK 05:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A special status of French territories (collectivité territoriale), as opposed to départements d'outre-mer and territoires d'outre-mer. --Wik 19:46, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

What is B.P.E. ? Rmhermen 15:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Must be a typo for BCE. --Wik 19:46, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

B.P.E - Before present era.

Moved from article page: Links below are from the CIA World Factbook 2000. Not Wikified. olivier 05:55, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Cloke

The islands enjoyed notoriety in 2004 when visited by British foreign dignitary Graham Cloke, who deported the local population in his BMW.

Is this vandalism? SDC 15:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Zone

Does Saint-Pierre and Miquelon adhere to the NST time zone or to AST. HJKeats 12:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neither. It is one hour ahead of AST,half-hour ahead of NST though I'm not sure exactly what that is called. I'm sure Wikipedia must have an article on it somewhere. <grin> --Larry G 17:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official Tourism Office

  • www2.st-pierre-et-miquelon.info Official Travel & Tourist Guide 2005
  • www2.st-pierre-et-miquelon.info St-Pierre et Miquelon Tourist Office Official Website

This office is no longer operating. For more information : http://www.capsurlavenir-expression.net/ds_news/news23.html


update: back in operation

[edit] Citations Needed.

The Culture section is claiming the folks are very proud that their soil is "French" because it (according to the line) is actually FROM France. This seems very strange--please cite sources!

This snippet can be found in a number of books, probably Jean-Pierre Andrieux or Rannie. I do know that this is true as ships that would come from France each spring and often used soil from St Malo, Boulogne etc as ballast. Once in St Pierre, they would dump the soil. An abandoned property, on the northern part of the Route du Cap is a likely candidate.

- - Miquelon

This is not at all strange. There is a point of land off Coronado Island in San Diego that is composed of ballast stones from all over the world from the holds of ships arriving in the port for centuries. I am sure some documentation for this can be found, but it is not at all strange or unexpected.--Filll 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Should the detailed history section be moved to a separate page?--Filll 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Although the history is fascinating, it is the largest part of the page and there is precedent in many other country articles. I'm impressed that you have so much to write about such a small place. Foobaz·o< 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok how do we make a separate page for the Detailed history? I still think the short history is fine to leave on this page. I just do not know how to do it. --Filll 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have managed to do it. I am not sure.--Filll 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. I removed the detailed history from the main page so it's back to a reasonable length. I hope you don't mind. Foobaz·o< 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information

Here are some of the sites I used when working on this:


http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/restoration_france.html

http://grandcolombier.com/english/history.html

http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/histoire.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Island

http://www.historyguy.com/anglo_french.html

http://flagspot.net/flags/pm.html

Some of them are contradictory or confusing--Filll 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

I know that the Canadian dollar is commonly accepted on the islands (as well as the American dollar), but is it really an official currency?--Filll 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the CIA world factbook, the only official currency is the Euro. Foobaz·o< 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The CDN currency is only accepted locally in the tourism industry much like the USD is accepted in the hospitality industry in Canada. To add the CDN as a quasi official currency in SPM is not accurate. --Miquelon - 10:46 - October 31st (EST)

[edit] Vichy France

I am a bit confused. I thought Vichy France was basically a puppet government of the German Nazi Party Government. This is claimed to be incorrect? If I remember some of my reading, when the Free French Forces arrived to take over the Islands, there were actually some Germans on the island, including an SS Colonel and his wife, if I remember correctly. I had been lazily looking for their names to put them in the article but became distracted. In the literature I saw some ambivalence and ambiguous statements about the American intentions towards the Islands at that time, so I did not state too much because it was not easy to figure out the truth without spending a huge amount of time. Can anyone else help iron out this bit of history?--Filll 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Vichy France was a government headed by Marshall Pétain after an armistice was signed with Hitler in 1940. The basic idea was : Germany had total control over North and Western France, and Vichy had control over South Eastern France. Of course in reality, and specifically through the politics of Collaboration, Vichy demonstrated pro-German tendancies. Despite this, the Americans thought they could influence Vichy through diplomatic channels (Admiral Leahy), but those efforts where in vain. ? --Miquelon 20 December 2006
Now about St Pierre, when the Free French "liberated" the islands, it was the Pro-Vichy governor and his alsacian wife (that many suspected of Pro-Nazi ideals, but this was never proven and may have just been slander). Governor Gilbert de Bournat was an avowed and staunch supporter of the Vichy Regime, which made perfect sense to him as he was a devout catholic and refused to recognize any other government but the "legal" government of France, which at the time was - alas - Vichy. So lets not romance this into SS and Goose Stepping Nazis in Saint-Pierre. There have never been any documented germans in the islands during this period, even if there is anecdotal evidence of Uboat personnel going ashore on the deserted islands of Langlade for water. ? --Miquelon 20 December 2006

Another comment: That was a historical summary. The real history is much more detailed. So a bunch of material was thrown out and the world war II story was greatly expanded in the summary, which we were trying to keep short to not overwhelm the main article with detail. A lot of this I think is more appropriate for the page on the history of the islands. I am not sure how to reconcile all the differing accounts as well, so I am somewhat cautious about it. The material we have now was synthesized from several sources.--Filll 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colour of the flag

Is there orange on the flag? See Talk:Flag of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Jimp 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

All the other articles on French overseas territories show the official flag; so should this one. The article on the flag of the overseas territory can then proceed to explain in detail all the possible inofficial flags there might be. Okay? —Nightstallion (?) 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The flag shown should be the flag used. And as a matter of fact, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon does not have an official flag. It is part of France, and France has an official flag, but that does not really mean that when Saint-Pierre and Miquelon is represented vexillologically, that it should show the French flag. That's like saying that if a city doesn't have a flag, then its official flag is that of the country (or province or state) that it is a part of. Either show the flag that's used (unofficially in this case), or show no flag. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I could, as a compromise, live with having it like for the other overseas territory: *CLEARLY* stating that it's only an inofficial flag, and using the flag of France in the three-letter templates. Would that be acceptable? —Nightstallion (?) 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mh. Except for the fact that this does not work with country infoboxes. Look, all the other dependencies of France show the French flag (except French Polynesia, which has its own official flag). Couldn't we simply agree to do it the same way here, too, and feature the inofficial flag prominently in the top part of the article? —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Our articles on California and Ontario both prominently feature their flags, not the flags of the country they belong to. Why should Saint-Pierre and Miquelon be any different? Foobaz·o< 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Because their state flags are official. Of the overseas territories of France, only French Polynesia has an official flag. That's the difference. —Nightstallion (?) 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag straw poll

We are not making any progress toward an agreement regarding the flag shown in the article. Let's vote and see how much support each flag receives. Foobaz·o< 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the custom for overseas departments and territories of France has been to place a flag in the infobox only if it is official for the territory (e.g. French Polynesia), or official for the local assembly (e.g. French Guiana), or unofficial but widely used in the territory (e.g. Martinique). When the flag is both unofficial and not widely used, or used only by some people but not others, such as is the case with the independence movemements' flag of New Caledonia or the autonomist movements's flag of Réunion, we don't use it. In the case of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, the question we should ask ourselves is whether the flag is official or not. If it's not official, then whether it's widely used or not. The problem is that the website of the General Council of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon (renamed Territorial Council of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon last month) is down, so we can't check with them. If it appears that the flag is unofficial (i.e. not used by the Territorial Council), then we'll have to check whether the flag is widely used or not. The "bible" for French flags use is emblemes.free.fr. These guys, for example, tracked the use of the unofficial flag of Martinique, and had people sent to the island to check whether local authorities used it (they do, some of them at least). They even put photos on their website showing the unofficial flag of Martinique flying next to the French flag at the entrance of an official building. This website, unfortunately, seems not to be working at the moment (not on my computer at least). So I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the moment. Wait until both websites are up and working again. Godefroy 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick search I found this income tax form displaying Saint-Pierre and Miquelon's coat of arms: [1]. And on this document explaining how to fill in the tax form, you can see the flag of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon: [2]. So the flag seems to be used officially after all. Note that the colors are much better than the ugly coat of arms and flag that were on top of the infobox. Godefroy 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Fair enough; I believe under this circumstances, we can compromise, as long as it's made clear that it's not the de iure flag of the territory. —Nightstallion (?) 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, the way the article currently looks is fine with me. —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I like very much Godefroy's reasoning (which shows that the flag is used enough to be shown--it's on official TAX documents, for heaven's sake). I will be adding the flag and coat of arms back at the top again. If someone can eventually create a new infobox that says "Unofficial flag" underneath instead of "Flag", then that should be enough to placate the "officialists". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough for now. The other overseas territories should be scrutinised for the same issues, though, then. —Nightstallion (?) 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Highlights"

Do we really need a "Highlights" section for the history of the islands? It seems rather silly, especially when the Summary section below it is not all that long anyway. Funnyhat 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU Status

"Although the islands are part of the European Union, EU nationals are not allowed to exercise their Amsterdam Treaty rights to free movement and business establishment in the archipelago."

I've deleted the above paragraph from the introduction of this article. While it cites a webpage on Saint Pierre and Miquelon it is still incorrect. Firstly there are no such things as Amsterdam Treaty rights. EU nationals cannot exercise their rights under EU law on the islands because the islands, despite being part of France, are NOT part of the EU. A better source on this can be found in:

Council Decision 1999/95/EC of 31 December 1998 concerning the monetary arrangements in the French territorial communities of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Mayotte (OJ L 30, 4.2.1999, p. 29-30) [3]

which reads:

"Whereas the French territorial communities (collectivités territoriales) Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Mayotte are an integral part of France; whereas they do not form part of the Community;" (my emphasis)

Caveat lector 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That does not say they are not part of the European Union, it says they are not part of the European Community. The European Community is a part of the European Union, but it is not the same thing as the European Union. Lexicon (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the distinction. The European Union was founded on the European (Economic) Community. I do not believe it is possible to say that a certain territory is part of one and not the other. The distinction rests on inter-governmental and supra-governmental policy areas and not on territorial application. Otherwise the Maastricht Treaty would have included a article on its territorial application, like that which exists in the Treaty of Rome. The now defunct Constitutional Treaty - which intended to merge the EC and the EU into a new EU - did not intend to change the relationship between the overseas territories and countries (of which Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Mayotte is one) and the EU (old or new). It nonetheless would have given Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Mayotte and similar status vis-à-vis the new EU as it has with the EC. In other words a special relationship, but outside the EU. Caveat lector 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many regions of member state territory outside of the EU. The Isle of Mann and Faero, for example. Also the Falklands. However, in some cases, residents are EU citizens, and in other cases they are not. The Manx get a special stamp in their British passports which excludes them from free movement agreement. The Manx need a visa to work in France. ... Seabhcan 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the special non-EU designation with regards to British Crown dependencies, as well as the Faroe Islands, but I was not aware of such a designation with regards to Saint Pierre and Miquelon. I believe the non-EU status of these areas is explicitly stated in treaties, which is not the case with Saint Pierre and Miquelon. European Union states that Saint Pierre and Miquelon is in the EU. My reading of the direction that you (Caveat lector) linked is that Saint Pierre and Miquelon is in the European Union because it is a part of France, but it is recognized that it does not form part of the European Community (it is not of Europe). If this is not a correct reading, then I think something more explicit than the wording in the direction is needed as evidence, and the article on the EU should be updated with this information. However, from what I've read so far, I'm not convinced of your argument. Lexicon (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The special designation that relates to Saint Pierre is that it is listed as an overseas territory or country in annex II of the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community (the Treaty of Rome). If Saint Pierre could nonetheless be considered part of the EU so would Greenland, French Polynesia, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Falkland Islands and Pitcairn; all of which are also listed in the annex and therefore have a similar status to Saint Pierre under EU law. Unfortunately the section dealing with this on the European Union article is neither well written, consistent nor accurate. However it does follow more or less along the lines of considering that a place that is not part of the EC is not part of the EU. All of the places listed in the Geography section are either included or excluded from the operation the Treaty of Rome, by its own provisions. The Maastrict Treaty is silent on whether or not it applies to the Faroe islands, in much the same way as it is silent on whether it applies to Saint Pierre. Caveat lector 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If an entity cannot be considered to be part of the EC but not the EU, as you have previously stated, then Greenland, which used to be in the EC clearly could be part of the EU, so that would go against your argument for Saint Pierre and Miquelon. As I said, we need something clearer to prove it either way. Lexicon (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You are of course entirely right, Greenland could be part of the EU, but it isn't normally considered as such. I'll have a go at flagging this discussion elsewhere. Caveat lector 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't be part of the EU without the EC, the EC is the core of the EU and it is illogical that there would be a difference in juristiction. An OCT is outside the EU/EC, just being invovled in some areas with a close relationship. - J Logan t: 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have in any case removed the phrase "EU nationals who are not French citizens are not allowed to exercise free movement and business establishment in the archipelago". Free movement of people and establishment are parts of the European Community pilar of the EU. Since we are agreed that Saint Pierre and Miquelon are certainly not part of the Community these right could not apply. (Unless, like the euro, they were extented to the islands; this is clearly not the case) You must first have a right before you can be denied it. Caveat lector 14:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Faultless logic that "You must first have a right before you can be denied it."
However, that's not what the passage you excised said.
Since we're saying that the archipelago is a part of France, I think it only fair to point out to the casual reader that, despite what they might otherwise conclude, "EU nationals who are not French citizens are not allowed to exercise free movement and business establishment in the archipelago". Note that the restored phrase does not now say "EU nationals who are not French citizens are not allowed to exercise their rights to free movement and business establishment in the archipelago"...Gaimhreadhan • 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Saying that they EU nationals are "not allowed to exercise free movement and business establishment" implies denial of rights! The sentence is even badly phrased! It should be "freedom of movement of people" and "freedom of establishment". The phrase used to begin by saying: "Despite being part of the EU, ...", which at least made sense, even if it was wrong. You might as well add a paragraph to the United States article saying that: "EU nationals who are not American citizens are not allowed to exercise free movement and business establishment in the United States." It would make about as much sense! Caveat lector 12:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the current lede sentence that I wrote balances your concerns: "The islands are part of France and form the Territorial Collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (French: Collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon), an overseas collectivity of France exterior to the EU and, as such, EU nationals who are not French citizens are not allowed to exercise free movement and business establishment in the archipelago."
By the way, edit summaries are just that. I would encourage you to observe WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I was not trying to hide anything, my edit was not marked as minor and was accurate: I corrected spelling mistakes, preserved material which had been excised (for reasoning you outlined above) but where a consensus had not yet been reached on this talk page (I thought I was being diplomatic by not belabouring or reverting). I know it can be tiresome trying to co-operate with ignoramuses like me but that's the way that WP works. Thank you for helping to build a better encyclopaedia and for listening...Gaimhreadhan • 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on re-reading your comments, I see that that sentence is badly phrased and might be taken to imply that non-french visitors could not freely roam the territory. I shall replace it with the following:
The islands are an integral part of France and form the Territorial Collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (French: Collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon), an overseas collectivity of France exterior to the EU and, as such, EU nationals who are not French citizens are not allowed to exercise EU rights to the freedom of movement of peoples and business establishment in the archipelago....Gaimhreadhan • 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION. I never heard such a thing: European Community was simply the former name of European Union, not a part of it as somebody wrote. St Pierre and Miquelon are not part of it, though they use Euro (such as Mayotte) because they previously used French Franc, so France was authoriezed by EU to introduce Euro. You can easily find news about on Wikipedia: European Union and on the official site of EU. Shortly, EU includes Spain's Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla and some small inhabitated islands in Morocco (as part of Spain), Portugal's Azores and Madeira Islands (as part of Portugal), France's Corsica, Reunion Island, French Islands of Carribean Sea and French Guyana (as part of France), Britain's Gibraltar (because joined EU together UK), Finland's Aoland Islands (as part of Finland), Greece's Authonomous Republic of Mount Athos (as part of Greece). Other dependencies (France's overseas collectivities and territory, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, British dependencies outside Europe, Faer Oer Islands, Greenland) are outside the Union. Northern Cyprus is officially in the Union (because fictionally considered part of Cyprus republic), but really outside because it is a sovereign state, not recognized by EU. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are outside EU, too. Val from Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.135.239 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 November 2007

MORE. I can add something: I'm from EU and work for the Italian Ministry of Economy, so I well know the situation of EU, according to its political territory, euro territory, custom territory, VAT territory and citizenship , which are not the same. Membership is limited to lands which are juridically part of the states, with the one exception of Gibraltar, which joined together UK. Dependencies are NOT part of European Union. EURO is the currency of EU, but it is not used in UK, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. It will be introduced in Malta and South Cyprus next 1st jan 2008. OUTSIDE EU it is used in Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City (which signed an agreement with EU), St.Pierre and Miquelon and Mayotte (where it was introduced by France, authorized by EU), Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo (which use it without EU authorization). (By the way, it is official in San Marino but not used in daily life, according to the Intranet site of my Ministry). CUSTOM TERRITORY of EU doesn't include French overseas regions, Gibraltar, Aland Islands, Germany's Helgoland Island and Municipality of Busingen (an exclave in Switzerland), Italian municipalities of Campione d'Italia (an exclave in Switzerland) and Livigno (on the other side of the Alps) and the Italian waters of Lugano Lake, while it includes lands outside EU, which are the Principality of Monaco (part of France's custom territory), the Isle of Man (part of British custom territory) and the Republic of San Marino (part of Italian custom territory). The V.A.T. territory of EU doesn't include Spanish territories in Africa, French overseas regions, Germany's Helgoland and Busingen, Finnish Aland Islands, Italian municipalitis of Campione d'Italia and Livigno, the Italian waters of Lugano Lake, Greece's Authonomous Republic of Mount Athos. All citizens of state members are EUROPEAN CITIZENS, intitled to vote for European Parliament. French citizens of dependencies, Dutch citizens of Carribean Islands, British Citizens of dependencies, Danish Citizens of Faer Oer Islands and Greenland don't vote if they reside in their lands, but can vote if they reside in European Union. St Barthelemy Island and North St. Martin Island left Guadeloupe overseas region during this year and became Collectivities: it was not established if they left also EU, which would be normal for Territorial Collectivities outside Europe. The Russian island and the Russian channel (whose names I don't remember) leased to Finland are under Russian sovereignity and outside EU, but it's not clear if some EU law can be applied to them. Val from Europe

Seems to me that according to the french government, you do indeed have long term stay privelidges as a EU, EEA, Switzerland, Monaco, or Andorra. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/article-imprim.php3?id_article=1559 (unless this website is not from the french government in which case i'd be wrong)75.8.40.72 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] highways

Does it really has 114 km (70.8 miles) of highways or are they paved road? -- AnyFile 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daylight Saving Time/Summer Time

Does StP/M use North American or European dates for the beginning and end of the observance of Daylight Saving Time? I didn't see reference on Daylight saving time around the world. They tend to be several weeks apart, so scheduling phone conversations, etc. during the period of the discrepancy can be difficult. samwaltz 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=730 , DST was from 11 March 2007, 02:00 local standard time to 4 november 2007, 02:00 local daylight time in Saint Pierre and Miquelon -- BIL 13:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miquelon name

The previous text read: "The term 'Miquelon' is Basque for "Michael"."

A couple of times, someone has wanted to change this to "The term 'Miquelon' is spanish "big" "Michael" (Miguelón - Miguel).", the last time with the edit summary, "Maybe, I didn´t clarify it good enough. Miquelón is "only" Spanish, though they were Basque (that is not Basque), the Spanish was speaked as mother language since many centuries in Euskadi". What should be done here?--Filll 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There are written two referens of Basque roots:

http://www.buber.net/Basque/Features/GuestColumns/mc060430.php The Basques of Saint Pierre and Miquelon --> http://www.buber.net/Basque/Features/GuestColumns/mc060430.php%20The%20Basques%20of%20Saint%20Pierre%20and%20Miquelon The file you requested does not exist on Buber's site. Eskerrik asko eta ondo izan. (Euskera - Basque) Eskerrik asko! (Euskera - Basque)

http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/quefaire.php Saint-Pierre & Miquelon --> http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/404.html 404 Error: this document does not exist on this website anymore. It may be located on GrandColombier.com

Redirect http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/histoire.php A bit of History The islands of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon were baptized the Eleven Thousand Virgins by Joao Alvarez Faguendes of Portugal in 1520, the Green Islands by the Corte Real brothers and the Island of Saint-Pierre by Jacques Cartier in 1536. By 1579, the island of Miquelon was given its name by Basque fishermen. (Basque fisherman, but no Basque language, no Euskera)

Even more, There is no name "Miguel" or "Miguelón" in Basque roots, you can find Mikel as (Miguel) or Patxi (as Francisco), even more, the "Euskera" (Basque language) in no an Indo-European languages, it's before the Neolithic invasion. And there is no Miguelón in the Euskera, Miguelón is "only" Spanish (the "desinencia -ón", is a Spansih root to say big (colcha-colchón, puerta-portón,...), and the contrary with -ito (gato-gatito, perro-perrito, casa-casita,...)).

.

Example Euskera: .--. Euskara Europako hizkuntza zaharrenetako bat delako ez dugu harro egon nahi. Harro egon nahi dugu euskara Europako hizkuntza modernoenetako...

Mikel Elortzaren hitzak Eskerrak, nola ez, Foru Aldundiari, sariagatik. Eta eskerrak gure alde egin dute epaimahaikoei. Bereziki eskertu behar dugu hala Diputazioko bozeramaileek sariaren berri eman zutenean nola batez ere epaimahaikoen erabakiak, oraintxe irakurri duten horrek, esaten duena esan izana. Izan ere, guk orain arte formulatu gabe geneukan deklarazio programatikoa egina dago hor, eta beraz jakin dezatela saria bezala, horixe ere aurrerantzean erabiliko dugula gure burua aurkezteko. «Zer zarete» eta «zein da zuen lana» eta holakoak galdetzen dizkigutenean, horixe erantzungo dugu. .--.

.

The simple fact is that before 1975 there were less than 2000 Euskera speakers, and needed a rejuvenate programm with words from Spanish (like preso-ak, caso-ak, moderno-enetako, programa-tikoa, declaración/deklarazio,...). Nationalism with the power of school education system and public TV (all in Euskera) did the change. In XIX century, The creator of the Basque symbols (hymn, flag,...),Sabino Arana, he created the PNV and the Basque Nationalismo, he rename the province to Euskadi (he created the name too) to forget the last "Vascongadas", now "País Vasco" in the Democratic system (Basqueland). This man who is recognize by ruler party, the PNV, as the founder and the "father of the land" didn´t know Euskera. This man who wrote in 1898 the "Bizcal Buru Batzar" (where he spoke about the superiority of the Basque, and the inferiority of the immigrant, as how they came with all the problems and they destroy the perfect race with his corrupt blood,...), this man had to write in Spanish because he didn't speak "Euskera" and he was worried about the disappear of the Euskera, regrettably his mother language was Spanish. And even more the Spanish was used by Basques since many centuries, and that can be the reason to this group of fisherman to rename the island with the french version of "Miguelón" (as it´s imposible to be a Basque word).

.

Political note, The "Bizkal Buru Batzar" is now the political base of the ruler party in "Euskadi" (the PNV- Partido Nacionalista Vasco).


--SPQRes 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

.

I wish I understood your reasoning. For this, you reverted a sentence with two citations?--Filll 14:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

.

Are names inflected (declined) in Euskara? For example, like the Latin Iacobus, Iacobi, Iacobo, Iabobus, Iacobo, Iacobe (nom, gen, dat, acc, abl, voc). •Jim62sch• 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Basque language - "A Basque noun-phrase is inflected in 17 different ways for case, multiplied by 4 ways for its definiteness and number. These first 68 forms are further modified based on other parts of the sentence, which in turn are inflected for the noun again. It's been estimated that at two levels of recursion, a Basque noun may have 458,683 inflected forms." Perhaps when you know what you're doing, it's not so bad as it sounds. Xn4 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nouns is not the same thing as personal proper nouns. See Latin. •Jim62sch• 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Basque, but in Latin personal names are inflected just like nouns... Opera omnia Quintii Horatii Flacci. Xn4 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I`m not speaking about the usefullness of the actual Basque or the complexity grade, I speak about the roots of the Miquelón - Miguelón name, and, if there is no Basque root for these name, the number of declinations of a Basque word is irrelevant.
The state of the Basque 40 years age is a historical fact, and that is the same with the new words needed to put it into the actual world (that it's no bad, but really important), and I used that only to show how in the old times, the Spanish was a common language that give full communication means in the "Vascongadas" (now Euskadi-País Vasco-Basqueland), and even it was really extended as mother language in Euskadi. This last point is the reason to this group of Basque to use the French deformation of the Spanish word -"Miguelón"- (Spanish was (and maybe is) a language of Euskadi too).
The reference to the PNV is related to the fact of the "Sabino Arana" founder to show how the most radical (and maybe fanatical to actual standard) Basque nationalist (he invented the Basque nationalism) need the Spanish as language, because he didn't knew Basque, and this fact was common in past Basque history.
About my remark of the PNV political text (the "Bizkal Buru Batzar") is political too, and I must apologize for it. But the people didn`t have to apologize to say that the "Mein Kampf" is a first point of "the problem" and the nazism, and this other book it's not only nearly 30 years before, but it's in the same line that the next full racism text. The worst with this case, it`s that the ruler party in Euskadi is the PNV, with the revere Sabino Arana founder and his too venerate text. In my opinion, if they want to be together with Spain, me too, and if they didn't want to be with Spain, me neither, go away, but they must "put to end with the always want more money", and if they want to be -> all right. And I am sure that the nationalistic movement didn't have to find a recognition in the "Miquelon" lexical discussion (I suppose that this is no necessary, as I suppose that no nationalist is contribute to this article, but a references are clearly from this circle, and it's not a scientific or serious work (no uni, only political Basque web-group)).

Thanks and greetings

--SPQRes 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise

I have edited the disputed passage to read as below. I think this is a fair compromise. If other users can improve the text, may I please ask them not to remove the references from the article? In any event, the references will remain here on the Talk page. Xn4 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The present name of Miquelon was first noted in the form of 'Micquelle' in the Basque sailor Martin de Hoyarçabal's navigational pilot for Newfoundland[1]. It has been claimed that the name 'Miquelon' is a Basque form of Michael[2][3], but it appears that this is not a usual form in that language. Many Basques speak Spanish, and Miquelon may have been influenced by the Spanish name Miguelón, a form of Miguel meaning 'big Michael'.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Hoyarçabal, Martin de: Les voyages aventureux du Capitaine Martin de Hoyarsal, habitant du çubiburu (Bordeaux, France, 1579)
  2. ^ The Basques of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Buber's Basque Page dated April 30, 2006 (accessed 27 September 2007).
  3. ^ Saint-Pierre & Miquelon Tourism Agencies in Saint Pierre et Miquelon, Miquelon Consulting, 2006 (accessed 27 September 2007)

Thank you. I really appreciate your input on this matter. --Filll 17:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

.-----------. Reference from private web page [4] (web from nationalistic circle, the reference is not corrovorated)

BUBER'S BASQUE PAGE: (...) What is most fascinating about this island is the strong presence of the Basque spirit. In fact the name MIQUELON is of Basque origin and was first noted in Martin de Hoyarçabal's famous navigational pilot for Newfoundland. Printed in Bordeaux, France, this work was later translated into Labourdin Basque by Pierre Detcheverry. It is in this document that the island of MIQUELON is first named. Meaning "Michael" in Basque, Miquelon was a fishing station for several "Michaels" including Miquelon de Aramburu. Saint-Pierre was also used as a seasonal base for a Basque captain: Juanes de Liçaurdi -- who fished for Adam de Chibau of Saint-Jean de Luz -- established a fishing station on the southern coast between 1602 and 1611. (...)

Is it from reliable sources?

The Basque nationalistic movement say "it has Basque origin" (where is Mikel or Patxi, you find Miguelón - Spanish). And the pilot was a good pilot, but is that a reason???, He wrote the Baske name and said it`s Basque???, this famous sailor, they spoke about the "first time the island to be named", but even we know that the Island had first a Portuguese name (Portuguese were the first european to find it). It´s the famous sailor of the nationalist webpage with a "Mikel" name, or with a "Miguelón".

Even now (with a full Basquization of the society, the Spanish speakers as only language are 49.6% of the population, 18.2 % understand "a little" Basque, 32.2% can use the two languages (more less, people that learn it after 1980)) Lenguas- Pais Vasco- Wiki

SPQRes, I can see your objections, but the reference to Hoyarçabal is important, and deleting it does not help us. Rather, it would be helpful if you could please provide further citations, which I have now requested on the Saint Pierre and Miquelon‎ page. regards, Xn4 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the "Basque theory"

Hello all. I am the person who has been putting forth the proposition that Miquelon is a name of basque origin. The reasoning is based on three essential elements.

1) The evolution of the name over time and its first written refernce in Martin de Hoyarçabal's Routier and subsequent translation into Labourdin by Pierre Detcheverry edo Dorrect as Miquetong, Micquelu in 1677. As well the name was anglicized and gallicized on a number of maps.

  • Micquetõ, Micquelle, 1579, Martin de Hoyarçabal
  • Micklon, 1625, Mason[20]
  • Miclon, 1662, assemblée générale des armateurs malouins[21]
  • île anglois miclon, 1675, De Courcelles[22]
  • H. d. mich, 1674, Denis de Rotis[23]
  • Miquel', 1675, 1685, Thornton
  • Miquetong, Micquelu,1677, Detcheverry[24]
  • Miquellon, 1688, lettre de Parat[25]
  • Miquelon, Milchon, 1689, Pierre Detcheverry[26]
  • Maquelon, 1693, AugustineFitzhugh[27]
  • Miclon, 1694, Belleorme[28]
  • Miguelon, 1698, Chaviteau[29]
  • Miquele Portu, 1697, Martin de Sapiain
  • Maquelon, 1700, Hubert Jaillot[30]
  • Maquelon, 1700, N.J. Vissher III[31]
  • Miquelon, 1713, Joanis de Hiribarren[32]
  • Maquelon, 1719, 1721,Senex[33]
  • Micklon I, 1755, John Huske[34]
  • Miquelon, 1763, Fortin, Bellin[35]
  • Miquelon, 1770, Thomas Kitchin[36]

Ref : http://www.marccormier.com/ichc2003/topono.html Ref : http://www.grandcolombier.com/culture/euzkadi/detch.php

2) I also have somewhere - alas where? - a passage from a canadian historian who wrote about the Basques in St Laurence who inventoried the early inhabitants of the island Miquelon, and three of them had first names 'Miquelon' such as Miquelon de Aramburu.

3) In 1697, Basque capitain, Martin de Sapiain enumerated the ports of Newfoundland frequented by fishermen from Guipuzkoa, the text is in Spanish but the names are Basque and French : "Que en el tiempo de su memoria, que la tiene de cuarenta y ocho aqos esta parte, habia visto que los naturales de esta provincia han ido las islas y costas de Terra Nova hacer pesca de bacallao eu cualquier puerto, como son Traspas, Santa Maria, Cunillas, Placencia, Petit Placencia, Petit Paradis, Martiris, BuriaChumea, Buria Andia, San Lorenz Chumea, San Laurenz Andia, San Pierre, Fortuna, Miquele Portu, Chasco Portu, Seqoria, Opot Portu, Tres Islas, Portuchoa y Echaide Portu que este ultimo lo descubrio Juan de Echaide." Miquelon 14:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

.---.

Miguelón de (Spanish) Aramburu (Family name- Basque), typical, Jorge Fonseca Aramburu (Jorge-name, father`s family name-Fonseca, origin-Spanish (Province???), Aramburu mother`s family name, origin Basque). Traspas, Santa Maria, Cunillas, Placencia, Fortuna, portu (porto, old Spanish, or Portuguese), Seqoria (near Segovia), Tres Islas, are Spanish names, Portu-choa Basquization of Portu-porto (the contact between this language is too old). --SPQRes 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


The way wikipedia works, is that you need a WP:RS for what you claim. If you want to change this, you need some publication that we deem reliable to make your case.--Filll 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


I think there are some semantic issues here. When I claim the name is of basque origin, I go back to the fact Basques where the first to be present on the island and the island was named after them and by them. Not that the word is of basque etymology (like Barachois).
Anyway, for a reliable publication, may I refer you to : Cormier, Marc Albert: Toponymie ancienne et origine des noms Saint-Pierre, Miquelon et Langlade. The Northern Mariner Vol. 7, Ottawa, 1997. pp 1:29-44

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miquelon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 October 2007

I added that reference in what I thought was the best place. Please see if you agree and edit as you see fit. Thank you.--Filll 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved reference

ref Saint-Pierre & Miquelon Tourism Agencies in Saint Pierre et Miquelon, Miquelon Consulting, 2006 (accessed 27 September 2007).

I move the reference to the correct place - The reference of the Tourist Agencies is about the Basque fisherman who were there, not about the name language root. --SPQRes 10:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also had difficulty seeing the relevance of this page at first, but then I found the passage referred to in the 'Did you know?' column at the bottom left of the page. I see an editor has moved this reference back to where it was. Xn4 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)