Talk:History of Saint Pierre and Miquelon

miquelon st. pierre links

Here are some of the sources I use when trying to dig into this topic

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 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote two of those documents, the grandcolombier (2) was comissioned for a book that was never published, so I just posted it plain text.

The third in your list is just a very simple document for tourists. Let me know if you have any questions, I own the biggest book collection on these islands outsite of SPM. -- --Miquelon 15:19 (EST), 20 October 2006

Bon soir Miquelon. I dug up a couple of references for the WWII section, but you seem to know more, or may have more. It appears that Churchill and Roosevelt were absolutely indignant about the the Free French invasion of the islands, both for their own reasons. Roosevelt stood on the Monroe Doctrine principle which establishes US foreign policy in the Americas for the last 200 years. Churchill just didn't like de Gaulle and wanted to make sure that the French did not influence Quebecois nationalists. Apparently, the islands were big news in both Canada and the US for several weeks, because it was one of the first "wins" for the allies. Orangemarlin 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vichy France

I am particularly confused by the part of the article that says the US was nervous about the islands remaining under the Vichy government because it could be used to spy on the US, that the US recognized the Free French as the official French government in exhile and yet, in the very next paragraph, says that the US was upset by the Free French take over of the islands and threatened to use force to restore them to the Vichy. I added "citation needed." In fact, the entire article needs cites. (Sonlee 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

I am glad you noticed that. The literature seems to be a bit confused and we need to straighten that out.--Filll 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section on WWII, using some very good references on the relationships between Churchill, Roosevelt, and deGaulle, specifically during the "invasion" of the islands. The article needs a lot more cites. There is a French website that has a lot of details about the islands, but unless you're a Francophone, it's not going to help. Orangemarlin 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a couple "fact" tags

I just did a bunch of edits to correct spelling. I also removed two "fact" tags because they weren't formatted properly so they showed up in the article itself as {fact}. I didn't know what they were supposed to point to, so I just deleted them. thx1138 06:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

demotion

We need to state why SPM was demoted from department to territory. I only have vague recollections from news reports at the time that it was under external pressure related to the expansion of NAFTA or the EU. kwami (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/northamerica/saintpierre.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

In this edit [1], information that has been unsourced for 17 years was reverted in on the grounds that removing the unsourced statements removes the tags and there are other unsourced statements in the article. I accept we could remove the whole of the third paragraph as it is all unsourced, but the two paragraphs prior leave behind nothing that is unsourced. They can surely go. On the general principle: I don't see any utility in preserving a tag that has been unresolved in 17 years and applies only to a specific claim, just because the article has other unmarked unsourced claims. This can be marked, but if no one has addressed a tag in a year or more, the claim should not be in the article. And these have been this way for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No reply to this so I shall remove the two full paragraphs that were unsourced. I'll rewrite and remove more of the third one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The tag is not attached to a specific claim, it is appended to an entire paragraph.This is also an article where (at the very least) 4/5 of the first section is unsourced, 2/3 of the second section is unsourced, half the third section is unsourced, etc. Taking out just the bits with a tag for no other reason is unhelpful and removes the only visible indication of the issue. CMD (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In my edit removing the long unsourced claims, I have also marked the other unsourced claims so that they can be dealt with or else removed if sources cannot be found. As I said, I removed two entirely unsourced paragraphs, and the third removal was just a sentence, but now I removed the whole paragraph, recasting the following one with BLUESKY information (prohibition) so that it retains the sense. My original removal was conservative. A citation template applies to the preceding claim. If the claim can be interpreted as a sentence or a paragraph, my experience is that editors will complain if the whole paragraph is removed. But, as you say, a lot more of this article needed tagging, and now it is tagged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation templates should not be treated as applying to single sentences, in the same way that sources should not be. As can be seen here, the cn tags in question were simply appended to the ends of the section's unsourced paragraphs. As that also shows, the current text isn't even related to the current sources, as it was written before they were added. There's nothing in the Smithsonian article about "Les Temps de la Fraude". Now the only hint to the reader that the section isn't well supported is gone, as well as the information that the islands served as a transshipment point, something which is in the Smithsonian source. I also don't see the value of removing the information about the Entente Cordiale on the islands, even if it didn't have a source. It's certainly more helpful to a reader than the new section's first sentence about Al Capone and Bill McCoy sourced to a defunct tour sales page which doesn't even support that sentence. CMD (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The documentation of the template [2] says

The {{Citation needed}} template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided.

The extent of a "statement" is sometimes unclear, but most paragraphs hold a number of statements, and each statement may require its own citation. That is to say, yes: they may well apply to single sentences. If there are other unsupported statements that are not dealt with, these should be marked up. In this way, the article may be improved, rather than left to languish. I am happy to re-add information about an entente cordiale on the islands, if we have indication that the information is even true. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The documentation may describe optimal use, including the reason parameter, but people do not use the tag that way, as seen in the example before us. The majority of the article is unsupported, marking up an entire article with individual cn tags is usually considered disruptive. Is there a reason you feel the Entente Cordiale information is not true? It's an important part of the history of the islands and their surrounding region, and certainly easier to take on faith than allegations regarding specific mobsters. The maritime relations with Canada somewhat underly the modern history of the territory, and has resulted in a possibly uniquely funny EEZ. The whole 1904 debates were part of quite complicated negotiations dealing both with regional history and 19th/20th century colonial machinations, see for example this paper. CMD (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The entente itself is still in the article. I have added a source for it too. The fact of the entente is fine, but the paragraph removed blames the entente for the decline of the fishery, but the source is clear that the fishery was already in steep decline, and its value was low. French resistance that led to the trade of adjustments to borders in Gambia and Nigeria and a right of navigation were largely negotiated over the issue that the exclusive rights prevented exploitation of the Newfoundland shore. So while the entente is certainly notable, the paragraph that was unsourced for 17 years made a claim that is not in the sources, although the entente did hasten that decline, so perhaps some modified wording is possible. I'll take a look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the article was unsourced for 17 years, is the point. This is an overreliance on what was arbitrarily tagged in 2007, and the changes made have obscured the other issues, such as those I've pointed out above. CMD (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you just added back the challenged content. Although that is against WP:ONUS, I'll not remove it again for now as you are clearly actively looking at the page, and perhaps the citations can be found, or the content modified to something verifiable. Regarding the other unsourced claims: these are tagged now and we should also give them a chance to be addressed, but they too could go if no one has been able to find sources in a suitable time. We may differ on what makes a page better. Personally, I think ensuring a page is verifiable and doesn't contain information that may or may not be right, written out of someone's head, without sourcing, makes pages better. Usually this kind of thing leads to information that is mostly true but cannot be relied upon. But although your view may be different, it is clear that we both want a better page. Thanks. Also, I forgot to say: I loved the possibly uniquely funny EEZ. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

From the start I have equally challenged all the unsourced content. I think ensuring a page is verifiable makes things better, however I disagree that basing that process on the position of some arbitrarily placed cn tags from 2007 is sensible, and it led to a poor outcome for the page with regards to verifiability. As I've pointed out above, some of the text that from your edit appeared to be verifiable is far more likely to be written out of a head than the removed text. Removing tags but leaving poor sources increases the impression of accuracy while decreasing the actual accuracy. (I have added fv tags at some points related to this.) The cn tags I added were restorations of the tags placed here rather than new tags, but as you feel a new date may be more stimulating, I have also switched the other cn tags I restored to the current month. CMD (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)