User talk:Adrien16

Hi all. I'm not here for the moment but you can let a message after the bip.

Obscure French bits

Hi. Very helpful having others that actually care about these places (and Oceania...I see under you inpout on the talk page for Continent.

Here's the scoop as I understand it for France:

As you may know, The World FactBook and the US State Department's List of Dependencies at http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm and the WP France and Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France articles and every other source I've seen place Metropolitan France and the five overseas departments (below) as wholly an integral part of France, roughly like Hawaii and Alaska for the US, and everything else as dependencies-territories and not an integral part of France. I think we're all "good" on that..... The US State Dept. source says: Note 5: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion are departments (first-order administrative units) of France, and are therefore not dependencies.... Call them the "big five"? Everything else is not an integral part of France (dependencies, the territory of Fr. S. & Ant. Lands.)

What you were saying, yes, is true, that the Fr. S. Ant. Lands are "administered from Reunion" but that does not mean that they're part of Reunion and thus an integral part of France. That's certainly not the case anywhere else, as "administered from" does not equal "part of" for dozens of other discrete territories...... Examples: Palmyra I. was not part of Hawaii, Clipperton Is. is not part of French Polynesia, etc.....though they were/are administered from there, they are still distinct, discrete territories/dependencies. More examples: Bouvet, Jan Mayen (Norway), Coral Sea, Ashmore-Cartier, and I think some other Australian ones are "administered from Canberra" but are still always listed as separate territories. What's your thoughts? Thanks.

**for which, it says there, From a legal and administrative standpoint, departments are very different from territories. The French constitution provides that, in general, French laws and regulations ....apply to French departments the same as in mainland France.... In French territories, the reverse is true. DLinth (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC) DLinth (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input DLinth. I have to say that I learned something new. It is actually quiet complicated but it is true that the status of the DOM-TOM were changed in 2003 in the constitution. I think your american link is quiet good. But we need to define what we want to see for a territory to be considered as integral part of a state? Each of the French collectives and territories have all very different statuses. One of the criterion is definitively about the juridic status: does the law applied fully, or does it need to be first accepted by a specific council from the Collective? Doing additional research, I realized Clipperton recently became an integral part of France, according to the law of 2007 [1], which is the more recent one. I don't know if you speak french, but it is written that the French law applies fully to that territory, exactly like in France (so there is no intermediary, like in the DROM-COM). A law of 2011 changed the way the legislation is applied to Fr. S. & Ant. Lands. The juridic concept is called legislative specificity. It means that all the laws of France applied directly to the territory when it is written explicitly in the law itself, except for every law in one of the 10 large mentioned fields, which apply fully all the time ([2]). To me, it does mean that it is integral part of France too and I bet your link will be updated soon in a different way. It is still strange to me that these other collectives are not considered integral part of France, when all their inhabitants are French (have French nationality), have many fields of law applied fully without the need of a special ratification and furthermore, some of them have actually representatives in the French Parliament and Senate...What do you think?Adrien16 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific: which reference and article are you referring to? Usually, I cite only high impact peer-reviewed scientific journals, scientific journals serving as reference in the field, or reference books of world-leading experts in the field, mostly on themes that I am an expert on myself. Thank you for the interesting links!--Adrien Chopin (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]